quote:
As I say, the argument is convincing but is it a documented frameshift mutation? Is there a plasmid or a gene identified in the wild corresponding to the alternative long ORF?
From the Ohno paper that you reference:
{abstract} . . .Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein
The difference between the wild type and the nylC gene is the insertion of one nucleotide that caused a reading frame shift. Before the mutation, there was a 472 amino acid protein that had no acitivity. The insertion of one nucleotide resulted in a new reading frame, a different amino acid sequence, and an active enzyme. We already know that random insertions of nucleotides occurs naturally in bacteria. Therefore, assuming that this mutation occured randomly and naturally is supported by the data. Also, when they claim that "the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein" they had to have the original sequence available, otherwise they could not make such a statement.
™ Version 4.2
