4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Proteomic analysis of common bean seed with storage protein deficiency reveals up-regulation of sulfur-rich proteins and starch and raffinose metabolic enzymes, and down-regulation of the secretory pathway

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 73, 期 8, 页码 1587-1600

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2010.03.013

关键词

Storage protein deficiency; Common bean; Sulfur-rich protein; Quantitative proteomics; Spectral counting; Seed biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A deficiency in major seed storage proteins is associated with a nearly two-fold increase in sulfur amino acid content in genetically related lines of common bean (Phaseolus vulgar's). Their mature seed proteome was compared by an approach combining label-free quantification by spectral counting, 2-DE, and analysis of selective extracts. Lack of phaseolin, phytohemagglutinin and arcelin was mainly compensated by increases in legumin, alpha-amylase inhibitors and mannose lectin FAIL. Along with legumin, albumin-2, defensin and albumin-1 were major contributors to the elevated sulfur amino acid content. Coordinate induction of granule-bound starch synthase I, starch synthase II-2 and starch branching enzyme were associated with minor alteration of starch composition, whereas increased levels of UDP-glucose 4-epimerase were correlated with a 30% increase in raffinose content. Induction of cell division cycle protein 48 and ubiquitin suggested enhanced ER-associated degradation. This was not associated with a classical unfolded protein response as the levels of ER HSC70-cognate binding protein were actually reduced in the mutant. Repression of rab1 GTPase was consistent with decreased traffic through the secretory pathway. Collectively, these results have implications for the nutritional quality of common bean, and provide information on the pleiotropic phenotype associated with storage protein deficiency in a dicotyledonous seed. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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