Back

Evolutionary divergence of LRRK2 interaction domains contributes to human- and mouse-specific protein interaction networks

Ballotto, L.; Miglionico, P.; Zhao, Y.; Bubacco, L.; Raimondi, F.; Greggio, E.; Manzoni, C.

2026-07-21 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.07.17.738869 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) is a complex multidomain protein whose catalytic and protein-protein interaction domains regulate a wide range of cellular processes. To investigate whether evolutionary divergence of these domains contributes to species-specific differences in LRRK2 biology, we combined phylogenetic, sequence, interactome and structural analyses of human and mouse LRRK2. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the catalytic core predates the acquisition of the N-terminal and C-terminal protein-protein interaction domains during LRRK2 evolution. Accordingly, despite the high overall sequence similarity between human and mouse LRRK2, sequence divergence was not uniformly distributed across the protein but was concentrated within protein-protein interaction domains, whereas the catalytic ROC-COR- kinase core displayed markedly higher conservation. Consistent with this pattern, comparison of curated human and mouse interactomes revealed substantial differences in protein interaction networks and associated biological pathways. Structural modelling of a subset of interactors further showed that predicted interaction interfaces are enriched for residues that differ between the two species, providing a structural rationale for altered interaction specificity. Together, these findings support the view that evolutionary divergence of LRRK2 protein-protein interaction domains contributes to species-specific interactome organization. These results provide an evolutionary framework for interpreting differences between human and mouse LRRK2 and highlight the importance of considering species-specific interaction networks when translating findings from experimental models.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.