Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this study, we explore the evolution and function of two closely related RNase A ribonucleases from the chicken, Gallus gallus. Separated by approximately 10 kb on chromosome 6, the coding sequences of RNases A-1 and A-2 are diverging under positive selection pressure (dN > dS) but remain similar to one another (81% amino acid identity) and to the mammalian angiogenins. Immunoreactive RNases A-1 and A-2 (both approximately 16 kDa) were detected in peripheral blood granulocytes and bone marrow. Recombinant proteins are ribonucleolytically active (kcat = 2.6 and 0.056 s(-1), respectively), and surprisingly, both interact with human placental ribonuclease inhibitor. RNase A-2, the more cationic (pI 11.0), is both angiogenic and bactericidal; RNase A-1 (pI 10.2) has neither activity. We demonstrated via point mutation of the catalytic His110 that ablation of ribonuclease activity has no impact on the bactericidal activity of RNase A-2. We determined that the divergent domains II (amino acids 71-76) and III (amino acids 89-104) of RNase A-2 are both important for bactericidal activity. Furthermore, we demonstrated that these cationic domains can function as independent bactericidal peptides without the tertiary structure imposed by the RNase A backbone. These results suggest that ribonucleolytic activity may not be a crucial constraint limiting the ongoing evolution of this gene family and that the ribonuclease backbone may be merely serving as a scaffold to support the evolution of novel, nonribonucleolytic proteins.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nitto et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: