Hubbry Logo
Protein superfamilyProtein superfamilyMain
Open search
Protein superfamily
Community hub
Protein superfamily
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Protein superfamily
Protein superfamily
Protein superfamily
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A protein superfamily is the largest grouping (clade) of proteins for which common ancestry can be inferred (see homology). Usually this common ancestry is inferred from structural alignment[1] and mechanistic similarity, even if no sequence similarity is evident.[2] Sequence homology can then be deduced even if not apparent (due to low sequence similarity). Superfamilies typically contain several protein families which show sequence similarity within each family. The term protein clan is commonly used for protease and glycosyl hydrolases superfamilies based on the MEROPS and CAZy classification systems.[2][3]

Identification

[edit]
Above, secondary structural conservation of 80 members of the PA protease clan (superfamily). H indicates α-helix, E indicates β-sheet, L indicates loop. Below, sequence conservation for the same alignment. Arrows indicate catalytic triad residues. Aligned on the basis of structure by DALI

Superfamilies of proteins are identified using a number of methods. Closely related members can be identified by different methods to those needed to group the most evolutionarily divergent members.

Sequence similarity

[edit]
A sequence alignment of mammalian histone proteins. The similarity of the sequences implies that they evolved by gene duplication. Residues that are conserved across all sequences are highlighted in grey. Below the protein sequences is a key denoting:[4]
Main article: Sequence homology

Historically, the similarity of different amino acid sequences has been the most common method of inferring homology.[5] Sequence similarity is considered a good predictor of relatedness, since similar sequences are more likely the result of gene duplication and divergent evolution, rather than the result of convergent evolution. Amino acid sequence is typically more conserved than DNA sequence (due to the degenerate genetic code), so it is a more sensitive detection method. Since some of the amino acids have similar properties (e.g., charge, hydrophobicity, size), conservative mutations that interchange them are often neutral to function. The most conserved sequence regions of a protein often correspond to functionally important regions like catalytic sites and binding sites, since these regions are less tolerant to sequence changes.

Using sequence similarity to infer homology has several limitations. There is no minimum level of sequence similarity guaranteed to produce identical structures. Over long periods of evolution, related proteins may show no detectable sequence similarity to one another. Sequences with many insertions and deletions can also sometimes be difficult to align and so identify the homologous sequence regions. In the PA clan of proteases, for example, not a single residue is conserved through the superfamily, not even those in the catalytic triad. Conversely, the individual families that make up a superfamily are defined on the basis of their sequence alignment, for example the C04 protease family within the PA clan.

Nevertheless, sequence similarity is the most commonly used form of evidence to infer relatedness, since the number of known sequences vastly outnumbers the number of known tertiary structures.[6] In the absence of structural information, sequence similarity constrains the limits of which proteins can be assigned to a superfamily.[6]

Structural similarity

[edit]
Structural homology in the PA superfamily (PA clan). The double β-barrel that characterises the superfamily is highlighted in red. Shown are representative structures from several families within the PA superfamily. Note that some proteins show partially modified structural. Chymotrypsin (1gg6), tobacco etch virus protease (1lvm), calicivirin (1wqs), west nile virus protease (1fp7), exfoliatin toxin (1exf), HtrA protease (1l1j), snake venom plasminogen activator (1bqy), chloroplast protease (4fln) and equine arteritis virus protease (1mbm).
Main article: Structural alignment

Structure is much more evolutionarily conserved than sequence, such that proteins with highly similar structures can have entirely different sequences.[7] Over very long evolutionary timescales, very few residues show detectable amino acid sequence conservation, however secondary structural elements and tertiary structural motifs are highly conserved. Some protein dynamics[8] and conformational changes of the protein structure may also be conserved, as is seen in the serpin superfamily.[9] Consequently, protein tertiary structure can be used to detect homology between proteins even when no evidence of relatedness remains in their sequences. Structural alignment programs, such as DALI, use the 3D structure of a protein of interest to find proteins with similar folds.[10] However, on rare occasions, related proteins may evolve to be structurally dissimilar[11] and relatedness can only be inferred by other methods.[12][13][14]

Mechanistic similarity

[edit]
Main article: Enzyme mechanism

The catalytic mechanism of enzymes within a superfamily is commonly conserved, although substrate specificity may be significantly different.[15] Catalytic residues also tend to occur in the same order in the protein sequence.[16] For the families within the PA clan of proteases, although there has been divergent evolution of the catalytic triad residues used to perform catalysis, all members use a similar mechanism to perform covalent, nucleophilic catalysis on proteins, peptides or amino acids.[17] However, mechanism alone is not sufficient to infer relatedness. Some catalytic mechanisms have been convergently evolved multiple times independently, and so form separate superfamilies,[18][19][20] and in some superfamilies display a range of different (though often chemically similar) mechanisms.[15][21]

Evolutionary significance

[edit]

Protein superfamilies represent the current limits of our ability to identify common ancestry.[22] They are the largest evolutionary grouping based on direct evidence that is currently possible. They are therefore amongst the most ancient evolutionary events currently studied. Some superfamilies have members present in all kingdoms of life, indicating that the last common ancestor of that superfamily was in the last universal common ancestor of all life (LUCA).[23]

Superfamily members may be in different species, with the ancestral protein being the form of the protein that existed in the ancestral species (orthology). Conversely, the proteins may be in the same species, but evolved from a single protein whose gene was duplicated in the genome (paralogy).

Diversification

[edit]

A majority of proteins contain multiple domains. Between 66 and 80% of eukaryotic proteins have multiple domains while about 40-60% of prokaryotic proteins have multiple domains.[5] Over time, many of the superfamilies of domains have mixed together. In fact, it is very rare to find "consistently isolated superfamilies".[5][1] When domains do combine, the N- to C-terminal domain order (the "domain architecture") is typically well conserved. Additionally, the number of domain combinations seen in nature is small compared to the number of possibilities, suggesting that selection acts on all combinations.[5]

Examples

[edit]
α/β hydrolase superfamily
Members share an α/β sheet, containing 8 strands connected by helices, with catalytic triad residues in the same order,[24] activities include proteases, lipases, peroxidases, esterases, epoxide hydrolases and dehalogenases.[25]
Alkaline phosphatase superfamily
Members share an αβα sandwich structure[26] as well as performing common promiscuous reactions by a common mechanism.[27]
Globin superfamily
Members share an 8-alpha helix globular globin fold.[28][29]
Immunoglobulin superfamily
Members share a sandwich-like structure of two sheets of antiparallel β strands (Ig-fold), and are involved in recognition, binding, and adhesion.[30][31]
LYRM superfamily
Members share a conserved LYR motif (leucine–tyrosine–arginine) embedded within a three α‑helix structure and function as adaptor proteins essential for mitochondrial Fe–S cluster assembly and oxidative phosphorylation complex assembly.[32][33]
PA clan
Members share a chymotrypsin-like double β-barrel fold and similar proteolysis mechanisms but sequence identity of <10%. The clan contains both cysteine and serine proteases (different nucleophiles).[2][34]
Ras superfamily
Members share a common catalytic G domain of a 6-strand β sheet surrounded by 5 α-helices.[35]
RSH superfamily
Members share capability to hydrolyze and/or synthesize ppGpp alarmones in the stringent response.[36]
Serpin superfamily
Members share a high-energy, stressed fold which can undergo a large conformational change, which is typically used to inhibit serine and cysteine proteases by disrupting their structure.[9]
TIM barrel superfamily
Members share a large α8β8 barrel structure. It is one of the most common protein folds and the monophylicity of this superfamily is still contested.[37][38]

Protein superfamily resources

[edit]

Several biological databases document protein superfamilies and protein folds, for example:

  • Pfam - Protein families database of alignments and HMMs
  • PROSITE - Database of protein domains, families and functional sites
  • PIRSF - SuperFamily Classification System
  • PASS2 - Protein Alignment as Structural Superfamilies v2
  • SUPERFAMILY - Library of HMMs representing superfamilies and database of (superfamily and family) annotations for all completely sequenced organisms
  • SCOP and CATH - Classifications of protein structures into superfamilies, families and domains

Similarly there are algorithms that search the PDB for proteins with structural homology to a target structure, for example:

  • DALI - Structural alignment based on a distance alignment matrix method

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Protein superfamily

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A protein superfamily is a large group of proteins or protein domains that share a common evolutionary ancestor, typically exhibiting low sequence similarity but significant similarities in three-dimensional structure, function, and biochemical properties. These groupings represent the most distantly related proteins within a broader evolutionary lineage, distinguished from more closely related protein families by their deeper divergence over evolutionary time. Superfamilies are identified primarily through structural comparisons, often using databases like (Structural Classification of Proteins) or CATH (Class, Architecture, Topology, Homologous superfamily), which rely on evidence from , NMR , and computational modeling to infer homology despite sequence divergence below 25-30%. Recent advances, such as , have provided predicted structures for hundreds of millions of proteins, enhancing the ability to infer superfamily memberships through computational modeling. In classification hierarchies, superfamilies occupy an intermediate level between protein folds (defined by without implying ancestry) and families (grouped by higher identity and recent ), enabling the organization of the vast protein universe into evolutionarily meaningful units. For instance, the protein kinase-like superfamily encompasses diverse enzymes such as protein kinases, lipid kinases, and sugar kinases, all sharing a conserved bilobal for ATP binding and phosphotransfer, yet adapted to phosphorylate varied substrates like proteins, lipids, or small molecules. Evolutionary divergence within superfamilies often arises through mechanisms like , domain shuffling, insertions/deletions, and point mutations, leading to functional diversification while preserving core catalytic or binding sites. Approximately 93% of known superfamilies maintain high structural and functional conservation, but a subset (~7%, or about 200 superfamilies as of ) displays remarkable diversity, accounting for roughly 50% of annotated protein domains at that time and frequently involving enzymatic activities with altered substrate specificity. Protein superfamilies play a crucial role in understanding biological complexity, genome annotation, and , as they facilitate the of protein function from and aid in structural initiatives. Databases such as SUPERFAMILY use hidden Markov models (HMMs) derived from known structures to assign superfamily memberships to sequences from complete genomes, which, as of the early 2000s, covered up to 50% of soluble domains in sequenced organisms, with coverage now exceeding 60% and further enhanced by tools like . This framework reveals how ancient gene duplications and horizontal transfer have expanded superfamily repertoires, contributing to metabolic versatility and adaptation across species, from bacteria to humans. Notable examples include the Rossmann-fold superfamily for NAD(P)-binding enzymes and the superfamily of small regulatory proteins, both illustrating how structural conservation underpins diverse physiological roles.

Overview and Definition

Definition

A protein superfamily represents the highest level of evolutionary for proteins or protein domains, grouping those with inferred common ancestry despite low similarity, typically below 25%, while sharing high structural, functional, and mechanistic relatedness. This relies on evidence from structural homology, conserved functional residues, and evolutionary divergence, distinguishing superfamilies as clades of distant homologs united by a shared ancestral origin. Key characteristics of protein superfamilies include the preservation of core three-dimensional folds and catalytic mechanisms across diverse sequences, enabling functional conservation even in proteins from different biological kingdoms such as , , and eukaryotes. These groupings often encompass distant homologs that perform analogous roles, like binding or enzymatic , reflecting ancient evolutionary events. Unlike smaller groupings, protein families are defined by higher sequence identity (often 30-50%) and closer evolutionary relationships, while protein domains serve as modular, independently folding units that can be classified into superfamilies based on their structural and evolutionary ties. Superfamilies thus provide a broader scope, frequently including multiple families; for instance, the PA clan of proteases in the MEROPS database unites superfamilies of serine and peptidases, which share a common ancestral fold despite varying nucleophilic residues.

Historical Development

The recognition of protein superfamilies emerged from early efforts in the mid-20th century, when the crystallographic structures of (determined in 1959 by ) and (determined in 1960 by ) revealed highly similar three-dimensional folds despite only about 18% sequence identity between myoglobin and the alpha subunit of hemoglobin. This observation highlighted how proteins could maintain conserved architectures across divergent sequences, laying the groundwork for understanding evolutionary relationships beyond detectable . In the 1970s and 1980s, advances in determination and visualization further formalized the concept of common folds underlying superfamilies. Jane Richardson introduced ribbon diagrams in 1981 as a standardized method to depict protein backbones and compare folding patterns across structures, enabling the identification of recurring motifs like the Greek key beta-sheet topology, first described in 1977. Concurrently, Cyrus Chothia and Arthur Lesk analyzed structures in 1980, demonstrating that rigid-body shifts and side-chain repacking allow structural conservation even as sequences diverge significantly, with homology persisting at identities as low as 16%. Their 1986 work quantified the relationship between sequence divergence and structural change, establishing principles for inferring evolutionary relatedness in the "twilight zone" of low sequence similarity (typically below 25%). The 1990s marked the establishment of protein superfamilies through dedicated databases that systematically classified structures based on shared folds and inferred common ancestry. The Structural Classification of Proteins () database, initiated in 1994 by Alexey Murzin, Steven Brenner, Tim Hubbard, and Cyrus Chothia, was first detailed in 1995 and organized domains into hierarchical levels, with superfamilies grouping proteins exhibiting structural and functional similarities despite sequence identities often under 20%. Similarly, the Class, Architecture, , and Homologous superfamily (CATH) database, developed in 1997 by Christine Orengo and colleagues, provided a semi-automated emphasizing evolutionary links via topology and homology, complementing and solidifying superfamilies as key units for studying protein evolution.

Classification Hierarchy

Relation to Other Protein Groupings

Protein superfamilies represent an intermediate level in the of protein domains, positioned between closely related families and broader structural groupings. Protein domains serve as the fundamental modular units, encapsulating compact, independently folding regions with specific functions. These domains are clustered into families based on high sequence similarity, generally above 30-40% identity, which strongly indicates shared evolutionary origins and often similar biochemical roles. Superfamilies extend this grouping to include families with more distant relationships, typically exhibiting 10-20% sequence identity, where structural conservation and functional analogies provide evidence of common ancestry despite sequence divergence. At the higher end of the , folds encompass superfamilies sharing similar three-dimensional topologies, focusing purely on structural motifs without requiring evolutionary relatedness. This hierarchical structure is exemplified in major classification systems like and CATH, where superfamilies act as key connectors in understanding protein evolution and diversity. In , the progression from class to , superfamily, and family emphasizes both structural and phylogenetic criteria, with superfamilies defined by probable homology detected through structural alignments or weak signals. Similarly, CATH's levels—from class and to () and homologous superfamily—rely on identity thresholds to delineate boundaries, ensuring superfamilies capture divergent yet related domain sets. These thresholds are statistically grounded, as identities below 20-30% enter the "twilight zone" where structural comparisons become essential for reliable classification. In the context of multi-domain proteins, which constitute a significant portion of eukaryotic proteomes, superfamilies function as versatile building blocks for assembling intricate architectures. Individual domains from various superfamilies can combine in novel ways, facilitating functional and innovation, such as in signaling pathways or enzymatic complexes where one superfamily's catalytic domain pairs with another's regulatory module. This underscores superfamilies' role in evolutionary tinkering, allowing proteins to evolve new capabilities through domain shuffling without disrupting core folds. Superfamilies frequently integrate multiple paralogous families, which arise from events followed by divergence, thereby illustrating interconnections within the . Paralogous families within a superfamily retain detectable structural and functional similarities, reflecting ancient duplications that enable functional specialization while preserving ancestral scaffolds. This grouping highlights how superfamilies delineate evolutionary branches, grouping sequences that have diverged beyond family-level detectability but remain linked through shared ancestry.

Superfamily vs. Clan and Fold

In protein classification systems such as and CATH, a superfamily represents a group of protein domains that share low similarity but exhibit structural and functional similarities indicative of common evolutionary ancestry, often including conserved catalytic mechanisms. For instance, the superfamily encompasses enzymes like triose-phosphate and various glycosidases that retain a conserved (βα)₈ barrel and mechanistic features despite sequence divergence, supporting their inferred shared origin. In contrast, a protein describes a topological arrangement of secondary structural elements, such as alpha helices and beta strands, without necessarily implying evolutionary relatedness; folds can arise through where unrelated proteins adopt similar architectures for functional reasons. The Rossmann , for example, consists of alternating β-α-β motifs forming a nucleotide-binding domain found in dehydrogenases and other enzymes, but its presence across diverse superfamilies highlights structural convergence rather than direct ancestry. Unlike superfamilies, which require evidence of mechanistic conservation—such as shared geometries—folds prioritize purely geometric criteria, allowing inclusion of both homologous and analogous proteins. A , as defined in specialized databases like MEROPS for peptidases, groups multiple superfamilies or families that display distant structural and mechanistic similarities suggestive of a remote common ancestor, but with greater divergence than within a single superfamily. For example, the PA clan in MEROPS unites serine peptidase families (e.g., family S1) and cysteine peptidase families (e.g., picornain family C3) based on a shared two-β-barrel fold with a Greek key motif and order (His-Asp-Ser/Cys), likely stemming from an ancient event, though the type has diverged. Clans thus bridge superfamilies by emphasizing broader mechanistic parallels without the stricter sequence or functional constraints of superfamilies, facilitating of highly diverged enzymes.

Methods of Identification

Sequence-Based Methods

Sequence-based methods for identifying protein superfamilies rely on analyzing sequences to detect homology, particularly among distantly related proteins that share a common evolutionary ancestor but exhibit low sequence similarity. These approaches are foundational in bioinformatics, enabling the classification of proteins into superfamilies by inferring relationships through statistical models of sequence conservation. A primary tool is the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), which performs rapid sequence comparisons using heuristic algorithms to identify local similarities between query and database sequences. While effective for close homologs with >30% identity, BLAST struggles with distant relationships typical of superfamilies, where sequence divergence obscures direct matches. To address this, Position-Specific Iterated BLAST (PSI-BLAST) extends BLAST by iteratively building position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs) from initial alignments, refining searches to detect more remote homologs at the superfamily level. PSI-BLAST has been instrumental in expanding superfamily annotations, such as identifying members of the Rossmann fold superfamily across diverse organisms. Recent AI-driven sequence methods, such as protein language models like Evolutionary Scale Modeling (ESM, 2022), further improve remote homology detection by learning evolutionary patterns from vast sequence datasets, achieving sensitivities over 80% for superfamily-level relationships in benchmarks as of 2024. Challenges arise in the "twilight zone" of sequence identity, typically below 20-30%, where random similarities mimic true homology, leading to unreliable detections by simple alignment tools. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) mitigate this by modeling sequence motifs as probabilistic automata that account for insertions, deletions, and substitutions, capturing conserved patterns across superfamilies more robustly than PSSMs. The software suite implements profile HMMs for sensitive homology searches, outperforming PSI-BLAST in twilight zone scenarios by incorporating gap penalties and secondary structure predictions implicitly through evolutionary alignments. For instance, has successfully classified proteins into superfamilies like the P-loop containing hydrolases, where sequence identity drops below 15%. Despite these advances, sequence-based methods have limitations, including high false negative rates due to extensive insertions/deletions (indels) that disrupt alignments in divergent superfamilies. Benchmarks on structural classifications like indicate varying success rates, with PSI-BLAST achieving around 20% and HMM-based methods up to 50% sensitivity in detecting true superfamily relationships at controlled false positive rates (e.g., 10% FPR), depending on the dataset and tool. These gaps highlight the need for complementary approaches, though sequence methods remain computationally efficient for large-scale genomic analyses. Integration with evolutionary analysis further enhances these methods, as patterns of sequence conservation—such as invariant catalytic residues or domain cores—signal ancient divergences within superfamilies. For example, in the superfamily, conserved motifs like the ATP-binding GxGxxG reveal billions-of-years-old ancestry despite overall sequence divergence, allowing phylogenetic reconstruction from alignment profiles. Such conservation underscores how sequence-based tools not only classify but also trace adaptive evolution in protein superfamilies.

Structure-Based Methods

Structure-based methods for identifying protein superfamilies rely on comparing three-dimensional (3D) atomic coordinates to detect shared folds, even when identity falls below 20-30%, where evolutionary relationships become undetectable by alone. These approaches leverage geometric and topological similarities in protein backbones, focusing on the spatial arrangement of secondary structure elements rather than linear . By aligning structures, researchers can infer common ancestry within superfamilies, as conserved core architectures often persist across divergent members despite functional adaptations. A cornerstone of these methods is , which superimposes protein structures to quantify similarity through metrics like root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of aligned Cα atoms. Algorithms such as DALI (Distance matrix ALIgnment) decompose structures into intra-molecular , identify similar hexapeptide patterns, and iteratively optimize alignments to maximize structural similarity while minimizing gaps. Developed in 1993, DALI excels at detecting remote homologs by prioritizing global fold conservation over local distortions, achieving alignments with RMSD values under 3 Å for core regions in many superfamily pairs. Similarly, TM-align, introduced in 2005, uses a derived from the Template Modeling (TM)-score—a scale-independent metric that emphasizes full-length coverage—to generate optimal superpositions, outperforming earlier tools in aligning proteins with low sequence similarity but shared topologies. Both methods highlight conserved secondary structure elements, such as α-helices and β-strands, as hallmarks of superfamily membership, where deviations in loop regions accommodate functional diversity without altering the overall fold. For proteins with unknown structures, fold recognition techniques assign query sequences to known superfamily templates by threading the sequence onto structural models, evaluating compatibility through energy potentials or probabilistic profiles. HHpred, a widely adopted server since 2005, performs this via (HMM)-HMM comparisons, incorporating secondary structure predictions to align sequences against structure-based profile databases, thereby identifying superfamily affiliations with high sensitivity for targets below 10% sequence identity. Success in these methods often hinges on RMSD thresholds below 3 Å for core superpositions and the presence of at least 70-80% conserved secondary elements, ensuring that detected similarities reflect evolutionary relatedness rather than convergence. Recent advances in AI-based structure prediction, such as AlphaFold3 (2024), have dramatically expanded this capability by providing accurate 3D models for nearly all proteins, enabling structure-based superfamily assignment even without experimental structures and improving detection rates in databases like as of 2025. Recent advances in (cryo-EM) have revolutionized structure-based superfamily analysis by enabling high-resolution determinations (often <3 Å) of challenging targets, particularly membrane protein superfamilies previously intractable to X-ray crystallography. For instance, cryo-EM has elucidated diverse conformations within the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily, revealing conserved transmembrane helix bundles across ligand-bound states and facilitating alignments that confirm evolutionary links to distant members. This technology's ability to image native-like complexes in lipid environments has expanded superfamily classifications, uncovering structural motifs in ion channels and transporters that underpin functional divergence.

Functional and Mechanistic Methods

Functional and mechanistic methods identify protein superfamilies by detecting conserved biochemical activities and reaction mechanisms that persist despite significant sequence divergence, providing evidence of common evolutionary origins through shared catalytic strategies. These approaches focus on active site residues and reaction pathways that enable specific transformations, such as hydrolysis or oxidation, allowing classification of proteins that perform analogous functions. By analyzing enzymatic kinetics, substrate specificity, and inhibitor sensitivities, researchers can infer homology when proteins catalyze the same reaction via identical mechanistic steps, even in the absence of strong sequence or structural signals. However, such similarities must be validated against convergence, where unrelated proteins evolve analogous mechanisms independently. A prominent example of mechanistic conservation within a superfamily is the catalytic triad in the α/β hydrolase fold superfamily, where a serine (or cysteine), histidine, and aspartate (or glutamate) residue triad facilitates nucleophilic attack on substrates like esters or peptides. This arrangement is preserved across diverse members, such as lipases, esterases, and dehalogenases, enabling efficient proton transfer and acylation during catalysis due to shared ancestry. Site-directed mutagenesis experiments replacing these residues with alanine in representatives like acetylcholinesterase result in a 10,000-fold or greater reduction in catalytic efficiency, underscoring the triad's essential role in mechanistic homology and confirming its conservation as a hallmark of superfamily membership. Enzyme classification using the Enzyme Commission (EC) system further links mechanisms to superfamily identification by assigning numerical codes based on reaction type and specificity. For instance, proteins in the α/β hydrolase superfamily predominantly fall under EC 3 (hydrolases), particularly EC 3.1 for esterases and EC 3.4 for peptidases, reflecting their shared nucleophilic mechanism involving a serine or cysteine residue attacking carbonyl groups. This classification highlights how conserved reaction chemistries, such as acyl-enzyme intermediate formation, unite superfamily members despite functional diversification into lipases, esterases, and dehalogenases. While convergent evolution can produce similar mechanisms in unrelated superfamilies (e.g., the Ser-His-Asp triad in chymotrypsin-like vs. subtilisin-like enzymes, which have distinct folds), true homology requires corroboration from sequence or structure. Experimental validation through mutagenesis studies reinforces these mechanistic links by testing the functional consequences of altering conserved residues. In ribonuclease A superfamily members, mutating the catalytic histidine in the His-Lys-His triad abolishes ribonucleolytic activity, mirroring effects in distantly related homologs and establishing shared proton relay mechanisms. Such targeted alterations, combined with kinetic assays, distinguish true homology from superficial similarities. Despite their utility, functional and mechanistic methods are limited by convergent evolution, where unrelated proteins independently evolve analogous mechanisms to solve similar biochemical challenges, such as acid-base catalysis in unrelated hydrolases. This mimicry can lead to false positives in superfamily assignment, as seen in cases where distinct folds achieve the same EC-classified reaction without common ancestry. Structural motifs, like the α/β hydrolase fold, often underpin these mechanisms but require integration with other methods for robust validation.

Evolutionary Aspects

Origins and Common Ancestry

Protein superfamilies often trace their origins to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), a hypothetical progenitor of all cellular life that possessed a diverse repertoire of protein domains essential for basic metabolism and cellular functions. Analysis of ubiquitous domain superfamilies across modern genomes indicates that LUCA's proteome included hundreds of such folds, many involved in core processes like nucleotide binding and energy transfer. For instance, the Rossmann fold superfamily, characterized by its β-α-β motif for cofactor binding, is one of the most ancient and widespread, with structural and functional conservation suggesting its presence in LUCA to support primordial metabolic pathways. Phylogenetic evidence for shared ancestry is provided by the distribution of orthologous proteins belonging to these superfamilies across the three domains of life—Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya—indicating vertical inheritance rather than independent evolution. Orthologs of Rossmann fold enzymes, such as those utilizing NAD or FAD cofactors, exhibit sequence and structural similarities that form monophyletic clades in trees reconstructed from multiple sequence alignments, spanning all domains and underscoring a single ancestral origin. This pan-domain presence, combined with conserved functional motifs like the β2-Asp/Glu residue for ribose binding, supports common descent from LUCA without evidence of horizontal transfer dominating the pattern. The primary mechanism initiating superfamily formation is gene duplication, where an ancestral gene encoding a single-domain protein undergoes replication, followed by divergence that generates sequence and functional diversity while retaining structural similarity. In the case of Rossmann-like enzymes, duplication of a primordial β-α-β fragment likely produced variants adapted to different cofactors, expanding the superfamily's role in metabolism from a common progenitor. Such events, repeated over evolutionary time, account for the proliferation of superfamily members from a limited set of ancient genes. Estimates of superfamily ages, derived from fossil-calibrated phylogenies and molecular clock analyses, place many— including P-loop NTPases and Rossmann folds—at over 3.5 billion years old, predating the diversification of bacterial phyla and aligning with LUCA's emergence around 4 billion years ago. These timelines are supported by the stability of fold structures in deep-branching orthologs and genomic reconstructions that map superfamily expansions to the Archean eon.

Diversification and Adaptation

Protein superfamilies diversify through mechanisms such as domain shuffling and gene duplication, which enable the evolution of novel multi-domain architectures and functional variants while preserving core structural folds. Domain shuffling, often facilitated by exon shuffling via intronic recombination, allows exons encoding entire protein domains to be rearranged, creating chimeric proteins with combined functionalities from ancestral modules. This process has been instrumental in generating modular multidomain proteins, particularly in eukaryotes, where it contributes to the complexity of signaling and regulatory networks.00228-0) For instance, exon shuffling promotes the assembly of diverse domain combinations, expanding the functional repertoire without altering the fundamental chemistry of individual domains. Within superfamilies, gene duplication events lead to paralogous proteins, distinguished from orthologs by their origin through duplication within a lineage rather than speciation. In-paralogs, arising from duplications after the divergence of species, often retain structural similarity but diverge in function through mutations, neofunctionalization, or subfunctionalization. This paralogous expansion within superfamilies drives diversification, as duplicated copies can evolve specialized roles while the ancestral function is maintained by the original gene. Such duplications are prevalent in eukaryotic genomes, contributing to the proliferation of superfamily members and the adaptation of proteins to lineage-specific demands. Adaptation in protein superfamilies frequently involves functional shifts that repurpose conserved structures for new physiological roles, exemplified by the globin superfamily. Originally evolved for oxygen transport and storage, as seen in hemoglobins and myoglobins, globins have diversified to include roles in oxygen sensing, nitric oxide scavenging, and detoxification under hypoxic conditions. In vertebrates, and cytoglobins exhibit altered ligand affinities and heme environments that enable signaling functions, such as modulating hypoxic responses, illustrating how subtle structural changes can lead to significant functional innovation. These adaptations highlight the superfamily's versatility in responding to environmental pressures like varying oxygen levels. Diversification within superfamilies accounts for a major portion of proteome complexity, with the most diverse superfamilies—those encompassing over 100 functional families—representing approximately 50% of all domain occurrences across genomes. In eukaryotic proteomes, assignments to superfamilies cover 56-67% of proteins, underscoring the role of superfamily expansion in generating biological diversity. Notably, certain domain combinations from these superfamilies are highly conserved in signaling pathways, such as kinase and adaptor domain architectures, which maintain modular interactions essential for signal transduction across species.

Notable Examples

Key Superfamilies

Protein superfamilies represent groups of proteins that share a common evolutionary origin, often characterized by conserved structural folds and functional motifs, despite significant sequence divergence. The classifies protein domains into approximately 6,500 superfamilies. Of these, 3,253 superfamilies account for 92% of ~370,000 high-quality predicted domains from of proteins in 21 model organisms. These superfamilies encompass a wide range of biological roles, from metabolism to signaling, and several stand out due to their prevalence, ancient origins, and functional versatility. The TIM barrel superfamily, one of the most ancient and widespread, consists of metabolic enzymes that adopt a conserved (β/α)8 fold, forming a cylindrical barrel structure that supports diverse catalytic activities across all domains of life. This fold's robustness and adaptability have made it a in early , appearing in enzymes involved in , biosynthesis, and metabolism. The globin superfamily includes heme-binding proteins specialized in oxygen transport, storage, and sensing, with members found from to humans, such as and . These proteins feature a characteristic fold that cradles the heme , enabling reversible oxygen binding and protection against through interactions. The superfamily comprises regulatory enzymes that phosphorylate target proteins to control cellular signaling pathways, unified by a conserved bilobal with an ATP-binding domain in the N-terminal lobe. This domain's glycine-rich loop and catalytic loop motifs facilitate precise phosphate transfer, influencing processes like cell growth, differentiation, and response to environmental cues in eukaryotes. The superfamily functions as ligand-activated transcription factors primarily in eukaryotes, modulating in response to hormones, vitamins, and xenobiotics to regulate development, , and . Members share a modular with a and a ligand-binding domain, allowing allosteric activation that recruits co-regulators to alter structure and transcriptional output.

Case Studies in Evolution and Function

The PA clan represents a paradigmatic example of evolutionary unification among proteases, encompassing families with diverse catalytic nucleophiles—serine, , and —despite sharing a common chymotrypsin-like fold and ancestral origin. In the MEROPS classification system, this clan groups over 70 families, including serine peptidases like the S1 family (e.g., ) and homologous peptidases such as C3 (e.g., picornain), unified by structural homology and a conserved catalytic mechanism involving a nucleophilic attack on the . The evolutionary divergence within the PA clan illustrates convergence in fold and mechanism alongside divergence in nucleophile specificity, where ancient gene duplications and mutations adapted the catalytic triad—typically His-Asp-Ser or His-Asp-—to environmental pressures, enabling functional specialization in , , and immune responses across , , and eukaryotes. This unification highlights how shared ancestry constrains structural evolution while permitting mechanistic flexibility, as evidenced by the consistent α/β core that positions the nucleophile for elastase-like . The P-loop NTPase superfamily exemplifies diversification through modular insertions, evolving from a primordial nucleotide-binding core into a vast array of enzymes involved in cellular processes like , signaling, and . Originating in the (LUCA), this superfamily features a conserved P-loop motif (GxxxxGK[S/T]) that binds the phosphate groups of NTPs, with early members functioning as for GTP in assembly and . Over evolutionary time, insertion events—such as the addition of helical domains or accessory modules—drove functional divergence; for instance, the insertion of a RecA-like domain in helicases (e.g., and F1-ATPase) enabled ATP-dependent nucleic acid unwinding, while insertions in myosins and kinesins adapted the core for activity in cytoskeletal dynamics. This pattern of diversification, documented through phylogenetic analyses, underscores how domain insertions enhance substrate specificity and regulatory control, transforming a simple NTPase scaffold into over 20 distinct families, including ABC transporters and . Functional plasticity within the immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily demonstrates how a single domain architecture can underpin divergent roles in immunity and cell adhesion, reflecting adaptive evolution from invertebrate ancestors to complex vertebrate systems. The Ig domain, characterized by a β-sandwich fold stabilized by a conserved disulfide bond, originated in early metazoans for basic cell-cell recognition, as seen in choanoflagellate proteins. In immunity, IgSF members like antibodies and T-cell receptors evolved variable domains for antigen binding, enabling adaptive responses through somatic hypermutation and V(D)J recombination, while in cell adhesion, proteins such as NCAM and cadherins use constant Ig-like domains to mediate homophilic interactions critical for tissue morphogenesis and neural connectivity. This plasticity arises from domain shuffling and alternative splicing, allowing IgSF proteins—numbering over 700 in humans—to toggle between signaling and structural functions, as illustrated by the dual roles of L1CAM in neuronal adhesion and tumor metastasis. Post-2020 advancements in AI-driven structure prediction, particularly AlphaFold2, have significantly expanded the known membership and evolutionary insights into protein superfamilies by generating high-confidence models for previously uncharacterized sequences. Released in , AlphaFold2 predicted structures for nearly all proteins in the human proteome and beyond, assigning ~92% of ~370,000 models to existing superfamilies like Rossmann folds while identifying novel domain combinations that bridge distant family relationships. Subsequent advancements, such as AlphaFold3 in 2024, extend predictions to biomolecular complexes, enhancing superfamily functional and evolutionary analyses by modeling interactions with small molecules and nucleic acids. These predictions have uncovered new protein folds, such as the β-flower fold, and identified 290 putative new families, expanding insights into the protein universe, including in underrepresented organisms, facilitating phylogenetic reconstructions that trace diversification events obscured by sequence divergence alone.

Databases and Resources

Major Classification Databases

The major classification databases for protein superfamilies provide structured repositories that organize proteins based on , , or functional similarities, enabling researchers to infer evolutionary relationships and annotate unknown proteins. These resources employ hierarchical schemes to group proteins into superfamilies, often integrating experimental and predicted data to enhance coverage and accuracy. Key databases include SCOPe, CATH, , and , each emphasizing different aspects of classification while contributing to a comprehensive view of protein diversity. SCOPe (Structural Classification of Proteins—extended) offers a manually curated, hierarchical structure-based classification of protein domains derived from the (PDB). It organizes proteins into seven levels: class, fold, superfamily, family, protein, species, and domain, with superfamilies defined by shared structural folds and evidence of common evolutionary ancestry. As of release 2.08 (updated January 2023), SCOPe encompasses over 100,000 domains across 1,485 folds in 12 classes, facilitating the study of structural evolution without direct reliance on sequence similarity. CATH (Class, Architecture, Topology, Homologous superfamily) is a domain-centric database that classifies protein structures hierarchically into four main levels: class (based on secondary structure composition), (overall shape), (connectivity of secondary elements), and homologous superfamily (groups sharing fold and functional similarity with common ancestry). Superfamilies in CATH, numbering over 6,500 in version 4.4, are further subdivided into functional families (FunFams) to capture shared biochemical roles within structurally similar domains. Recent expansions integrate predicted structures from , increasing domain annotations to over 150 million and supporting evolutionary analysis across model organisms. Pfam employs a sequence-based approach to define protein families and clans, where clans represent superfamilies grouped by hidden Markov models (HMMs) derived from multiple sequence alignments, capturing distant homologs beyond pairwise similarity. It classifies domains into over 25,000 families (25,545 in version 38.0, as of 2024), with clans encompassing related superfamilies like the Rossmann fold, enabling detection of functional motifs in diverse sequences. Pfam annotations cover approximately 86% of sequences in UniProtKB (85.7% with Pfam-N, as of 2024), aiding in genome-wide predictions and functional inference. Recent releases like Pfam 38.0 incorporate via Pfam-N to expand coverage by 8.8%. InterPro integrates signatures from multiple databases, including , CATH, and , to provide comprehensive superfamily annotations through a unified hierarchical system of homologous superfamilies, families, domains, repeats, and sites. It supports over 48,000 entries, with recent releases like version 107.0 (October 2025) enhancing coverage via AI-driven predictions and adding annotations for emerging superfamilies, such as those in viral proteins like components. This integration ensures broad applicability in annotating proteomes and identifying novel superfamily members.

Computational Tools and Software

Computational tools and software play a crucial role in identifying, analyzing, and predicting protein superfamilies by leveraging similarities, structural alignments, and embeddings. Prediction tools such as AlphaFold3 enable high-accuracy structure prediction for proteins and their complexes, facilitating superfamily assignment through comparison of predicted 3D models to known structural databases. Released in 2024, AlphaFold3 achieves median LDDT scores of 83.0 for protein monomers and outperforms prior methods in interface predictions (DockQ > 0.23), allowing researchers to infer superfamily membership based on structural homology even for uncharacterized s. Similarly, ESMFold provides rapid -based structure prediction using large language models trained on evolutionary-scale data, enabling superfamily detection via structural clustering without multiple alignments. ESMFold generates structures in seconds per protein, matching AlphaFold2 accuracy on CASP14 targets while being 60 times faster, thus supporting large-scale superfamily screening from genomic s. Analysis suites further enhance superfamily studies through specialized comparisons. The Dali server performs structural alignments by comparing distance matrices derived from protein backbones, identifying remote homologs and assigning proteins to superfamilies based on Z-scores above 2.0, which indicate significant similarity. Widely used for fold recognition, Dali has mapped conservation across superfamilies like the , revealing evolutionary relationships not evident from sequences alone. Complementing this, the HH-suite employs (HMM) pairwise alignments for remote homology detection, with HH-suite3 providing improved sensitivity in benchmarks against . HH-suite3, an updated version, accelerates searches 10-fold via GPU support, making it suitable for annotating superfamilies in metagenomic datasets. Emerging AI methods as of 2025 integrate protein models for superfamily clustering directly from embeddings. ProtT5, a transformer-based model pretrained on UniRef50, generates 1024-dimensional embeddings that capture evolutionary signals. These embeddings outperform traditional profiles in remote homology tasks, boosting superfamily by 15-20% when fine-tuned for tasks like . By projecting sequences into embedding space, ProtT5 facilitates scalable analysis of superfamily diversification, as demonstrated in studies clustering proteins into novel functional groups. Integrated pipelines combine sequence and structure data for accessible superfamily detection. ColabFold streamlines this by coupling MMseqs2 for fast generation with AlphaFold2-based prediction, reducing runtime to minutes per protein and improving MSA diversity for superfamily inference. This open-source tool, runnable on consumer hardware, has enabled proteome-wide superfamily assignments, such as identifying remote homologs in viral glycoproteins with 92.4% GDT_TS accuracy on benchmarks. Such integrations democratize superfamily , bridging gaps between raw sequences and structural databases for evolutionary and functional insights.

Applications and Significance

In Evolutionary Research

Protein superfamilies play a pivotal in phylogenomics by enabling the reconstruction of deep evolutionary trees through the identification of orthologous domains that trace back to the (LUCA). Researchers utilize superfamily orthologs from databases like and CATH to align highly diverged sequences and structures, facilitating the inference of ancient relationships that single-gene phylogenies often obscure. For instance, analyses of 57 marker genes encoding superfamily members, reconciled with orthology groups, have reconstructed LUCA as possessing approximately 2,600 proteins in a 2.5 Mb , highlighting its prokaryote-like with pathways for carbon fixation and . Such approaches root the by modeling non-reversible genome evolution, positioning eukaryotes and akaryotes as sister clades descending from LUCA, with empirical models confirming that three-quarters of extant domain-superfamilies originated at or before this ancestor. Superfamilies serve as robust markers for detecting (HGT) across the domains of life, owing to their conserved structural cores that persist despite sequence divergence. Advanced homology detection, combining sequence profiles with structural comparisons, identifies anomalous taxonomic distributions within superfamilies, signaling transfers between , , and eukaryotes. In the PD-(D/E)XK superfamily, for example, domain architecture analyses revealed multiple HGT events, including from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, contributing to functional diversity in processes like and restriction. Similarly, in antiviral immune proteins, HGT from has generated distinct superfamilies such as the Mab-21 (including cGAS) and eSMODS groups, with events traceable to clade D , underscoring how transfers drive innovation in eukaryotic defenses. In studies of , superfamily expansions illuminate major transitions like , where gains peak to support cellular complexity. Phylogenetic profiling across hundreds of eukaryotic genomes shows that the origin of eukaryotes (phylostratum 6) enriched for 12,000–22,000 families, particularly those involved in nucleus organization and assembly, reflecting innovations predating the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA). The Cdc48 AAA+ ATPase superfamily exemplifies this, diversifying from a single prokaryotic form into eight paralogs in LECA through duplications and domain acquisitions, enabling vesicle trafficking and compartmentalization essential to eukaryotic architecture. Quantitative models of superfamily rates provide critical for molecular clocks, quantifying substitution accumulation in conserved cores to date evolutionary events. Structural metrics like contact demonstrate near-constant rates for functionally conserved superfamily members, supporting clock-like at low levels, with rates accelerating upon functional shifts. For ancient superfamilies, such as those in , proceeds at approximately 10^{-9} substitutions per site per year. These models integrate rate heterogeneity across superfamilies to refine timelines, revealing slower in informational proteins compared to operational ones.

In Biotechnology and Medicine

Protein superfamilies play a pivotal role in and by providing conserved structural scaffolds that enable targeted therapeutic interventions. In , conserved sites within superfamilies are exploited to develop inhibitors with broad efficacy across related proteins. The superfamily, comprising over 500 members, exemplifies this approach, as it is the second most frequently targeted protein class in after G-protein-coupled receptors. As of October 2025, 94 FDA-approved small-molecule drugs target protein kinases, with a substantial portion addressing oncogenic signaling in cancer therapies such as for chronic myeloid leukemia and for non-small cell . These inhibitors bind to the conserved ATP-binding pocket, achieving selectivity through subtle variations in the superfamily's active sites, which has revolutionized precision by modulating dysregulated kinase pathways. Protein engineering leverages superfamily scaffolds to create novel enzymes with enhanced properties for industrial and therapeutic applications. Directed evolution techniques, involving iterative mutagenesis and selection, have been particularly effective in repurposing members of the α/β-hydrolase fold superfamily, which includes diverse lipases, esterases, and proteases. For instance, directed evolution of the Pseudomonas fluorescens esterase from this superfamily has yielded variants with improved thermostability and substrate specificity for biodiesel production and pharmaceutical synthesis. Similarly, engineering the amidase signature family hydrolase, mandelamide hydrolase, through directed evolution has altered its substrate preferences, enabling efficient production of chiral intermediates for drug manufacturing. These methods capitalize on the superfamily's modular catalytic triad, allowing rapid optimization without redesigning core folds, thus accelerating biocatalyst development for sustainable processes. In diagnostics, protein superfamilies serve as sources of biomarkers for early detection and monitoring of diseases, particularly . The , encompassing antibodies and molecules, provides key autoantibody targets that reflect immune dysregulation. For example, anti-nuclear antibodies (ANAs) and anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, derived from immunoglobulin structures, are established biomarkers for systemic (SLE), aiding in diagnosis with sensitivities up to 95% in active disease. In IgG4-related diseases, elevated serum IgG4 levels from this superfamily correlate with disease activity in and sclerosing cholangitis, guiding therapeutic decisions like dosing. Additionally, N-glycan alterations on IgG molecules within the superfamily have emerged as prognostic biomarkers for and other autoimmune conditions, offering insights into inflammation severity through glycomic profiling. As of 2025, (AI) has advanced the modeling of protein superfamilies, enhancing by predicting the impacts of genetic variants on therapeutic responses. AI-driven tools, such as deep learning-based structure predictors like AlphaFold3, facilitate the analysis of superfamily structures to forecast variant effects in conditions like cancer and metabolic disorders. For example, these models have been applied to simulate mutation impacts in variants, informing tailored inhibitor designs and improving efficacy predictions in precision . These approaches, building on computational tools for superfamily identification, reduce trial-and-error in variant assessment and support precision interventions across pharmacogenomic profiles.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC99153/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4686048/
  3. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4805
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1261164/
  5. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/D1/D490/5184710
  6. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/30/1/268/1332828
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139981/
  8. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/scop/about
  9. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010049
  10. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/protein-classification-intro-ebi-resources/protein-classification/what-are-protein-families/
  11. https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-5-256
  12. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1962/kendrew/lecture/
  13. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1962/perutz/lecture/
  14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(86)80175-4
  15. https://doi.org/10.1038/268495a0
  16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(81)90154-6
  17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04260.x
  18. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1995.0159
  19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00260-8
  20. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/48/D1/D376/5625529
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212699801774
  22. https://bioc.polytechnique.fr/biocomputing/papers/scop.pdf
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212697002608
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90498-8
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1665636/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC102479/
  27. https://www.cathdb.info/
  28. https://bmcstructbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6807-9-73
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12369578/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/rossmann-fold
  31. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/27/1/325/1239678
  32. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/merops/cgi-bin/clansum?clan=PA
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216699120
  34. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/21/7/951/268976
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0704422105
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283683714890
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701551/
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17021929/
  39. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2021.668184/full
  40. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002396
  41. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/12/2444/973701
  42. https://elifesciences.org/articles/64415
  43. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0503922102
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6324026/
  45. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04488-9
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8250049/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4410677/
  48. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2003-4-5-111
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6201731/
  50. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/merops/about/classification.shtml
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7117030/
  52. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2004-5-5-r30
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11916378/
  54. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/49/2/187/639876
  55. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0553
  56. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00378/full
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9908985/
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06622-3
  60. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/
  61. https://scop.berkeley.edu/
  62. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/53/D1/D348/7905304
  63. https://pfam.xfam.org/
  64. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/53/D1/D523/7900195
  65. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.20.500902v1
  66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3019-7
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40550-0
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-022-01488-1
  69. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28478110/
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22638584/
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37425898/
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47017-w
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27756227/
  75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19830831/
  76. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.71.7.2848
  77. https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-018-0804-2
  78. https://brimr.org/protein-kinase-inhibitors/
  79. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/febs.16442
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21506229/
  81. https://academic.oup.com/peds/article/22/2/103/1543194
  82. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cb500809f
  83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12016-021-08865-2
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8130041/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9100869/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.