4.7 Article

Comparative Genomic Study of the Thioredoxin Family in Photosynthetic Organisms with Emphasis on Populus trichocarpa

Journal

MOLECULAR PLANT
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 308-322

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mp/ssn076

Keywords

Genomic; oxidoreductase; poplar; redox regulation; thioredoxins

Funding

  1. Swedish KEMPE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent genome sequencing of Populus trichocarpa and Vitis vinifera, two models of woody plants, of Sorghum bicolor, a model of monocot using C4 metabolism, and of the moss Physcomitrella patens, together with the availability of photosynthetic organism genomes allows performance of a comparative genomic study with organisms having different ways of life, reproduction modes, biological traits, and physiologies. Thioredoxins (Trxs) are small ubiquitous proteins involved in the reduction of disulfide bridges in a variety of target enzymes present in all sub-cellular compartments and involved in many biochemical reactions. The genes coding for these enzymes have been identified in these newly sequenced genomes and annotated. The gene content, organization and distribution were compared to other photosynthetic organisms, leading to a refined classification. This analysis revealed that higher plants and bryophytes have a more complex family compared to algae and cyanobacteria and to non-photosynthetic organisms, since poplar exhibits 49 genes coding for typical and atypical thioredoxins and thioredoxin reductases, namely one-third more than monocots such as Oryza sativa and S. bicolor. The higher number of Trxs in poplar is partially explained by gene duplication in the Trx m, h, and nucleoredoxin classes. Particular attention was paid to poplar genes with emphasis on Trx-like classes called Clot, thioredoxin-like, thioredoxins of the lilium type and nucleoredoxins, which were not described in depth in previous genomic studies.

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