Abstract

Evolution as we know from the time of Darwin C and Wallace AR moves in the direction of the survival of the fittest. With progressively greater understanding of biological systems and the microenvironment inside a cell, biological fitness at the molecular level has come to the fore. Evolution of metabolic regulation in parasites, as an adaptation to their respective environmental challenges is a case in point [1]. Kinetoplastida’s intracellular organelle the glycosome that sequesters over a thousand proteins, is thought to have assisted in the metabolic adaptability and acquisition of parasitism [2].

Keywords: Glycosome; Leishmania mexicana

References

1. Fernandes PM., et al. “Kinetic and structural studies of Trypanosoma and Leishmania phosphofructokinases show evolutionary divergence and identify AMP as a switch regulating glycolysis versus gluconeogenesis”. FEBS Journal13 (2020): 2847-2861.
2. Gualdron-Lopez M., et al. International Journal for Parasitology 42 (2012): 1-20.
3. Eldeeb MA., et al. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 3 (2019): 181-183.
4. Rorick MM and Wagner GP. Genome Biology and Evolution 3 (2011): 456-475
5. Goldstein RA., et al. Molecular Biology and Evolution 6 (2015): 1373-1381.
6. Tokuriki N and Tawfik DS. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 19 (2009): 596-604.
7. Sanchiz A., et al. “The Experimental Proteome of Leishmania infantum Promastigote and Its Usefulness for Improving Gene Annotations”. Genes 11 (2020): 1036.
8. Santiago M., et al. “Discovery, Molecular Mechanisms, and Industrial Applications of Cold-Active Enzymes”. Frontiers in Microbiology 7 (2016): 1408.
9. Gupta A and Adami C. PLOS Genetics 12 (2016): e1005960.
10. Biswas S., et al. “Regulation of Leishmania major PAS domain-containing phosphoglycerate kinase by cofactor Mg2+ ion at neutral pH”. FEBS Journal (2020).
11. Ebbinghaus S., et al. Nature Mathematics 7 (2010): 319-323.
12. Kaushik S., et al. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 185 (2012): 27-35.
13. Srinivasan S., et al. Allergy, Drugs and Clinical Immunology ADCI1 (2018): 44-55.
14. Sabelko J., et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America11 (1999): 6031-6036.
15. Osvath S., et al. Journal of Molecular Biology 333 (2003): 187-199.
16. Jamdhade MD., et al. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 3 (2015): 157-170.
17. Senes A., et al. Journal of Molecular Biology 296 (2000): 921-936.
18. Tokuriki N., et al. Science 324 (2009): 203-207.
19. Saitou N and Nei M. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1 (1986): 57-74.
20. G Thomas. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10 (2002): 753-766.
21. Coutard B., et al. Antiviral Research 176 (2020): 104742.
22. Papa G., et al. Plos Pathogens1 (2021): e1009246.
23. Feller G. “Psychrophilic Enzymes: From Folding to Function and Biotechnology”. Scientifica (Cairo) (2013).
24. Rawson PD and Burton RS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (2002): 12955-12958.
25. Adami C. Physics of Life Reviews 1 (2004): 3-22.

Citation

Citation: Vidya Raghunathan. “How Common is Gain of Function”. Acta Scientific Microbiology 4.11 (2021): 30-34.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Vidya Raghunathan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.