New Tricks for “Old” Domains: How Novel Architectures and Promiscuous Hubs Contributed to the Organization and Evolution of the ECM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a defining characteristic of metazoans and consists of a meshwork of self-assembling, fibrous proteins, and their functionally related neighbours. Previous studies, focusing on a limited number of gene families, suggest that vertebrate complexity predominantly arose through the duplication and subsequent modification of retained, preexisting ECM genes. These genes provided the structural underpinnings to support a variety of specialized tissues, as well as a platform for the organization of spatio-temporal signaling and cell migration. However, the relative contributions of ancient versus novel domains to ECM evolution have not been quantified across the full range of ECM proteins. Here, utilizing a high quality list comprising 324 ECM genes, we reveal general and clade-specific domain combinations, identifying domains of eukaryotic and metazoan origin recruited into new roles in approximately two-third of the ECM proteins in humans representing novel vertebrate proteins. We show that, rather than acquiring new domains, sampling of new domain combinations has been key to the innovation of paralogous ECM genes during vertebrate evolution. Applying a novel framework for identifying potentially important, noncontiguous, conserved arrangements of domains, we find that the distinct biological characteristics of the ECM have arisen through unique evolutionary processes. These include the preferential recruitment of novel domains to existing architectures and the utilization of high promiscuity domains in organizing the ECM network around a connected array of structural hubs. Our focus on ECM proteins reveals that distinct types of proteins and/or the biological systems in which they operate have influenced the types of evolutionary forces that drive protein innovation. This emphasizes the need for rigorously defined systems to address questions of evolution that focus on specific systems of interacting proteins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".