The Screening Hypothesis - an evolutionary model to explain the chemical diversity of Natural Products

firn0202

Richard Firn

This is a summary page of the key ideas behind the Hypothesis. Readers can see how the ideas developed over the years by looking at the abstracts given on the pages that can be accessed by clicking on the buttons on the left. PDF copies of the full articles can be downloaded in many cases. A new book published by OUP is based on the Hypothesis.

Clive_Jones0202

Clive Jones

 

Oct 09 cover1

The hypothesis

The hypothesis is composed of two parts.

1. The identification of a fundamental constraint in the evolution of metabolic processes leading to the synthesis of Natural Products - potent, specific biological activity is a rare property for a molecule to possess.

    The reason why pharmaceutical companies invest in large screening programmes to find useful biological activity is because most molecules tested do not possess any potent biological activity against any one target. The low frequency of potent, specific biological activity is a consequence of the specificity of ligand/binding site interactions. Any form of biological activity is based on the more fundamental biomolecular activity - the ability of any chemical structure to bind reversibly to a specific protein.

    Organisms that gain increased fitness by making and exploiting molecules with biomolecular activity must face the same constraint. Any mutation that results in the organism making a new chemical has a very low probability of increasing the fitness of the mutant because the very great majority of new chemicals will possess no potent biomolecular activity of any kind. The low frequency of evolving new molecules with potent, beneficial biomolecular activity places very severe constraints on the evolution of the biochemical pathways leading to such products.

2. A proposal as to how secondary metabolism might have evolved with such a constraint - including a prediction as to the metabolic traits that would expected to minimize the effects of these constraints

    How do organisms generate sufficient chemical diversity to enhance their chances of finding the rare beneficial chemical? How do organisms retain the capacity to generate new chemical diversity when individual compounds or pathways become redundant? The Screening Hypothesis proposes that certain metabolic traits (matrix pathways, non-enzymic transformations, branched pathways, shared pathways and enzymes with a broad substrate tolerance) would all help increase generation and retention of chemical diversity.

    Some consequences of the hypothesis

    • One should not expect all naturally made chemicals to have a role in the organisms that make them. Many will have no role and will never have had any role in the organisms in which they are found. Many chemicals will simply have been made because the metabolic machinery capable of their production has a benefit for the producer. If only one product that those pathways can produce has a beneficial biological activity, the pathways will be sustained if the costs of possessing that capacity is sustainable. This is akin to the immune system in animals where most antibodies possess no beneficial properties but the ability to make a great diversity of antibodies at low cost is highly beneficial.
    • One should not assume that some biological activity found in a screening trial conducted by humans has any significance to the role of the chemical in the organism that produces it. If organisms are producing chemical diversity they must inevitably produce chemicals with structures that will possess fortuitous biological activity in non-target organisms.
    • The metabolic traits predicted by the screening hypothesis will sometimes make it hard to precisely genetically manipulate the “secondary product” pathways leading to Natural Products. For example, it is proposed that in order to enhance the production and retention of chemical diversity, many enzymes involved in secondary product biosynthesis will have low substrate specificity. Consequently, if a new enzyme is introduced into an organism to cause the production of a new secondary product, there is high probability that existing enzymes in the transformed organism will further elaborate the new product to produce more novel chemical diversity.
    • Some of the metabolic traits predicted (for example low substrate specificity) might be usefully exploited in biotransformation and bioremediation studies.
    • The flux of carbon through secondary metabolite pathways must have been very large throughout the period of life on earth. The metabolic traits predicted by the Screening Hypothesis may have played a part in encouraging the microbial catabolism of this huge amount of chemical diversity. The world has never been a clean place chemically hence organisms must have the capacity to survive and thrive in the presence of chemical diversity. Most synthetic chemicals released into the environment will be substrates for enzymes that can transform them and maybe many NPs.
    • Organisms with a varied diet must ingest many Natural Products hence they must possess mechanisms to keep the concentration of many varied chemicals at low enough concentration to reduce their effect. These mechanisms will be available to reduce the concentration of synthetic chemicals in the body.

When these ideas were first advanced they were regarded as verging on heresy. However in the last decade a very large amount of evidence has been published which is consistent with the predictions of the model. But the hypothesis is there to argued about. Please engage us in debate. We cannot think of any simple experiment that could disprove the hypothesis - the model is based on a metabolic flexibility that makes it robust to some challenges. However, we really do enjoy thinking about the model’s strengths and weaknesses. We would welcome being made aware of evidence which supports or contradicts the predictions. We would also welcome evidence as to the frequency of biological activity/biomolecular activity in collections of chemicals. There must be masses of data in the files of screening companies which would be valuable - we don't need to know the identity of the compounds, or even the exact screen being used, but we could usefully use information about the frequency of activity, especially if the screen was conducted at different concentrations.

Want to know more? Try reading the FAQs or indeed the papers listed. Thanks.

Richard D Firn

BuiltWithNOF
[Home] [Jones & Firn 1991] [Firn & Jones 1996] [Firn & Jones 1998] [Firn & Jones 1999] [Firn & Jones 2000] [Firn 2003] [Firn & Jones 2003] [Firn & Jones 2004] [Firn 2006] [Firn & Jones 2006] [Firn & Jones 2006b] [Firn & Jones 2009] [New Book] [FAQs]