The molecular evolution of signal peptides.

Signal peptides direct mature peptides to their appropriate cellular location, after which they are cleaved off. Very many random alternatives can serve the same function. Of all coding sequences, therefore, signal peptides might come closest to being neutrally evolving. Here we consider this issue by examining the molecular evolution of 76 mouse-rat orthologues, each with defined signal peptides. Although they do evolve rapidly, they evolve about half as fast as neutral sequences. This indicates that a substantial proportion of mutations must be under stabilizing selection. A few putative signal sequences lack a hydrophobic core and these tend to be more slowly evolving than others, indicating even stronger stabilizing selection. However, closer scrutiny suggests that some of these represent mis-annotations in GenBank. It is also likely that some of the substitutions are not neutral. We find, for example, that the rate of protein evolution correlates with that of the mature peptide. This may be a result of compensatory evolution. We also find that signal peptides of immune genes tend to be faster evolving than the average, which suggests an association with antagonistic co-evolution. Previous reports also indicated that the signal peptide of the imprinted gene, Igf2r, is also unusually fast evolving. This, it was hypothesized, might also be indicative of antagonistic co-evolution. Comparison of Igf2r's signal peptide evolution shows that, although it is not an outlier, its rate of evolution is comparable to that of many of the faster evolving immune system signal sequences and 5/6 of the amino acid changes do not conserve hydrophobicity. This is at least suggestive that there is something unusual about Igf2r's signal sequence.

[1]  Istvan Ladunga,et al.  PHYSEAN: PHYsical SEquence ANalysis for the identification of protein domains on the basis of physical and chemical properties of amino acids , 1999, Bioinform..

[2]  C. Wu,et al.  Positive selection and the molecular evolution of a gene of male reproduction, Acp26Aa of Drosophila. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[3]  S. J. Freeland,et al.  Load minimization of the genetic code: history does not explain the pattern , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  S. Brunak,et al.  SHORT COMMUNICATION Identification of prokaryotic and eukaryotic signal peptides and prediction of their cleavage sites , 1997 .

[5]  L. Hurst,et al.  The causes of synonymous rate variation in the rodent genome. Can substitution rates be used to estimate the sex bias in mutation rate? , 1999, Genetics.

[6]  L. Hurst,et al.  Molecular evolution of an imprinted gene: repeatability of patterns of evolution within the mammalian insulin-like growth factor type II receptor. , 1998, Genetics.

[7]  K. Kuma,et al.  Functional constraints against variations on molecules from the tissue level: slowly evolving brain-specific genes demonstrated by protein kinase and immunoglobulin supergene families. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  L. Hurst,et al.  Do we understand the evolution of genomic imprinting? , 1998, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[9]  A. Hughes Positive selection and interallelic recombination at the merozoite surface antigen-1 (MSA-1) locus of Plasmodium falciparum. , 1992, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  M. Nei,et al.  Pseudogenes as a paradigm of neutral evolution , 1981, Nature.

[11]  L. Hurst,et al.  Molecular evolution of imprinted genes: no evidence for antagonistic coevolution , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Do essential genes evolve slowly? , 1999, Current Biology.

[13]  A. Hughes,et al.  Circumsporozoite protein genes of malaria parasites (Plasmodium spp.): evidence for positive selection on immunogenic regions. , 1991, Genetics.

[14]  C. Luo,et al.  A new method for estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous rates of nucleotide substitution considering the relative likelihood of nucleotide and codon changes. , 1985, Molecular biology and evolution.

[15]  D Botstein,et al.  Many random sequences functionally replace the secretion signal sequence of yeast invertase. , 1987, Science.

[16]  M. Boguski,et al.  Evolutionary parameters of the transcribed mammalian genome: an analysis of 2,820 orthologous rodent and human sequences. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  D. Kendall,et al.  Signal peptides: exquisitely designed transport promoters , 1994, Molecular microbiology.

[18]  M. Aguadé,et al.  Polymorphism and divergence in the Mst26A male accessory gland gene region in Drosophila. , 1992, Genetics.

[19]  M. Nei,et al.  Positive Darwinian selection promotes charge profile diversity in the antigen-binding cleft of class I major-histocompatibility-complex molecules. , 1990, Molecular biology and evolution.

[20]  D. Haig Parental antagonism, relatedness asymmetries, and genomic imprinting , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  M. Gouy,et al.  HOVERGEN: a database of homologous vertebrate genes. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[22]  M. Riley,et al.  Positive selection and recombination: major molecular mechanisms in colicin diversification. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  N. Bianchi,et al.  Evolution of the Zfx and Zfy genes: rates and interdependence between the genes. , 1993, Molecular biology and evolution.

[24]  Nicholas W. Gillham,et al.  Organelle Genes and Genomes , 1994 .

[25]  T. Moore,et al.  Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. , 1991, Trends in genetics : TIG.