4.6 Review

Structural cuticular proteins from arthropods: Annotation, nomenclature, and sequence characteristics in the genomics era

期刊

INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 189-204

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2010.02.001

关键词

R&R Consensus; Whole genome sequences; Anopheles gambiae; Bombyx mori; Cuticle

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI55624]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI055624] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The availability of whole genome sequences of several arthropods has provided new insights into structural cuticular proteins (CPs), in particular the distribution of different families, the recognition that these proteins may comprise almost 2% of the protein coding genes of some species, and the identification of features that should aid in the annotation of new genomes and EST libraries as they become available. Twelve CP families are described: CPR (named after the Rebers and Riddiford Consensus); CPF (named because it has a highly conserved region consisting of about forty-four amino acids); CPFL (like the CPFs in a conserved C-terminal region); the TWDL family, named after a picturesque phenotype of one mutant member; four families in addition to TWDL with a preponderance of low complexity sequence that are not member of the families listed above. These were named after particular diagnostic features as CPLCA, CPLCG, CPLCW, CPLCP. There are also CPG, a lepidopteran family with an abundance of glycines, the apidermin family, named after three proteins in Apis mellifera, and CPAP1 and CPAP3, named because they have features analogous to peritrophins, namely one or three chitin-binding domains. Also described are common motifs and features. Four unusual CPs are discussed in detail. Data that facilitated the analysis of sequence variation of single CP genes in natural populations are analyzed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据