|
Resolution: standard / high Figure 6.
The RSC protein complex (right) together with the related SWI/SNF complex (left) exhibit
intricate homologous relationships between complexes' components. SWI/SNF and RSC complexes share 3 common proteins (ARP7, ARP9, RTT102). Additional
three genes from each complex are paralogs (dashed lines), suggesting series of duplications
(this includes a WGD pair RSC6-SNF12). For these bi-complex paralogs, it is very likely
that the pre-duplication/ancestral forms of these genes were participating in both
complexes, and the duplication event allowed paralogs to assume more specific roles
in either complex. Zinc-cluster domain containing RSC3 and RSC30 are paralogs found
in RSC complexes in equal proportions [43] and are known to interact physically, forming a stable heteromeric complex [21]. Despite operating as a heterodimer (possibly within the RSC complex as well), the
two genes have different functions, with only RSC3 being an essential gene. The intra-complex
paralog pair originated at the WGD event. At a given time, both proteins can be found
in the complex, hence increase the subunit count by one above the initial complex,
given that the ancestral interaction was probably a homomeric one. RSC1 and RSC2 (WGD
paralogs), associate with the complex in a mutually exclusive manner [47] (confirmed by a low spoke value of 2.1 compared to average 5.0 for other subunits).
Strains deficient in either RSC1 or RSC2 do not display significant growth deficiency,
while synthetic lethality of paralogs suggests a certain degree of function redundancy
[47]. A similar, but non-identical function of the two paralogs is revealed by differences
in phenotypes of yeast strains with RSC1 (growth deficiency in hydroxyurea) or RSC2
deletions (temperature sensitive, [47]). Both complexes are required for certain functions such as proper expression of
mid-late sporulation specific genes (e.g. spore wall formation), yet distinctly required,
and specialized, for other operations [48]. The two module variants can be seen as a remarkable example of subfunctionalization.
Szklarczyk et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008 8:337 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-337 |