4.7 Article

Can cyanobacteria serve as a model of plant photorespiration? - a comparative meta-analysis of metabolite profiles

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 67, Issue 10, Pages 2941-2952

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw068

Keywords

Arabidopsis; meta-analysis; CO2 adaptation; metabolomics; photorespiration; Synechocystis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cross-species meta-analysis of metabolite profiling data suggests that cyanobacteria may serve as prokaryotic models to study mechanisms and function of photorespiration.Photorespiration is a process that is crucial for the survival of oxygenic phototrophs in environments that favour the oxygenation reaction of Rubisco. While photorespiration is conserved among cyanobacteria, algae, and embryophytes, it evolved to different levels of complexity in these phyla. The highest complexity is found in embryophytes, where the pathway involves four cellular compartments and respective transport processes. The complexity of photorespiration in embryophytes raises the question whether a simpler system, such as cyanobacteria, may serve as a model to facilitate our understanding of the common key aspects of photorespiration. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of publicly available metabolite profiles from the embryophyte Arabidopsis thaliana and the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 grown under conditions that either activate or suppress photorespiration. The comparative meta-analysis evaluated the similarity of metabolite profiles, the variability of metabolite pools, and the patterns of metabolite ratios. Our results show that the metabolic signature of photorespiration is in part conserved between the compared model organisms under conditions that favour the oxygenation reaction. Therefore, our findings support the claim that cyanobacteria can serve as prokaryotic models of photorespiration in embryophytes.

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