4.6 Article

Functional characterization of NRAMP3 and NRAMP4 from the metal hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 181, Issue 3, Pages 637-650

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02694.x

Keywords

cadmium (Cd); hyperaccumulator; metal transport; NRAMP; Thlaspi caerulescens; zinc (Zn)

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union (Research Training Network METALHOME) [HPRN-CT-2002-00243]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability of metal hyperaccumulating plants to tolerate and accumulate heavy metals results from adaptations of metal homeostasis. NRAMP metal transporters were found to be highly expressed in some hyperaccumulating plant species. Here, we identified TcNRAMP3 and TcNRAMP4, the closest homologues to AtNRAMP3 and AtNRAMP4 in Thlaspi caerulescens and characterized them by expression analysis, confocal imaging and heterologous expression in yeast and Arabidopsis thaliana. TcNRAMP3 and TcNRAMP4 are expressed at higher levels than their A. thaliana homologues. When expressed in yeast TcNRAMP3 and TcNRAMP4 transport the same metals as their respective A. thaliana orthologues: iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and cadmium (Cd) but not zinc (Zn) for NRAMP3; Fe, Mn, Cd and Zn for NRAMP4. They also localize at the vacuolar membrane in A. thaliana protoplasts. Inactivation of AtNRAMP3 and AtNRAMP4 in A. thaliana results in strong Cd and Zn hypersensitivity, which is fully rescued by TcNRAMP3 or TcNRAMP4 expression. However, metal tolerance conferred by TcNRAMP expression in nramp3nramp4 mutant does not exceed that of wild-type A. thaliana. Our data indicate that the difference between TcNRAMP3 and TcNRAMP4 and their A. thaliana orthologues does not lie in a different protein function, but probably resides in a different expression level or expression pattern. New Phytologist (2009) 181: 637-650 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02694.x.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available