4.7 Article

Control of starch branching in barley defined through differential RNAi suppression of starch branching enzyme IIa and IIb

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 1469-1482

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq011

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The roles of starch branching enzyme (SBE, EC 2.4.1.18) IIa and SBE IIb in defining the structure of amylose and amylopectin in barley (Hordeum vulgare) endosperm were examined. Barley lines with low expression of SBE IIa or SBE IIb, and with the low expression of both isoforms were generated through RNA-mediated silencing technology. These lines enabled the study of the role of each of these isoforms in determining the amylose content, the distribution of chain lengths, and the frequency of branching in both amylose and amylopectin. In lines where both SBE IIa and SBE IIb expression were reduced by > 80%, a high amylose phenotype (> 70%) was observed, while a reduction in the expression of either of these isoforms alone had minor impact on amylose content. The structure and properties of the high amylose starch resulting from the concomitant reduction in the expression of both isoforms of SBE II in barley were found to approximate changes seen in amylose extender mutants of maize, which result from lesions eliminating expression of the SBE IIb gene. Amylopectin chain length distribution analysis indicated that both SBE IIa and SBE IIb isoforms play distinct roles in determining the fine structure of amylopectin. A significant reduction in the frequency of branches in amylopectin was noticed only when both SBE IIa and SBE IIb were reduced, whereas there was a significant increase in the branching frequency of amylose when SBE IIb alone was reduced. Functional interactions between SBE isoforms are suggested, and a possible inhibitory role of SBE IIb on other SBE isoforms is discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available