The difficulty of aligning intrinsically disordered protein sequences as assessed by conservation and phylogeny

18Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are proteins that lack a stable 3D structure but maintain a biological function. It has been frequently suggested that IDPs are difficult to align because they tend to have fewer conserved residues compared to ordered proteins, but to our knowledge this has never been directly tested. To compare the alignments of ordered proteins to IDPs, their multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) were assessed using two different methods. The first compared the similarity between MSAs produced using the same sequences but created with Clustal Omega, MAFFT, and MUSCLE. The second assessed MSAs based on how well they recapitulated the species tree. These two methods measure the “correctness” of an MSA with two different approaches; the first method measures consistency while the second measures the underlying phylogenetic signal. Proteins that contained both regions of disorder and order were analyzed along with proteins that were fully disordered and fully ordered, using nucleotide, codon and peptide sequence alignments. We observed that IDPs had less similar MSAs than ordered proteins, which is most likely linked to the lower sequence conservation in IDPs. However, comparisons of tree distances found that trees from the ordered sequence MSAs were not significantly closer to the species tree than those inferred from disordered sequence MSAs. Our results show that it is correct to say that IDPs are difficult to align on the basis of MSA consistency, but that this does not equate with alignments being of poor quality when assessed by their ability to correctly infer a species tree.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Riley, A. C., Ashlock, D. A., & Graether, S. P. (2023). The difficulty of aligning intrinsically disordered protein sequences as assessed by conservation and phylogeny. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288388

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free