4.7 Article

PalI domain proteins of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans

期刊

MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 167, 期 7, 页码 422-432

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2011.12.005

关键词

PalI domain; Candida albicans; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Environmental stress response

资金

  1. CIHR [MOP42516]
  2. China NSFC [30825041, 30630071, 31000079]
  3. China National 973 Program [2005CB523105]
  4. China National 863 Program [2008AA02Z187]
  5. Shanghai Key Scientific and Technological Program [10JC1417500]
  6. CHIR Systems Biology Scholarship
  7. China Scholarship Council on MOE-NRC Research and Post-doctoral Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Rim9/PalI groups of proteins are members of the Sur7 family, all of which contain a signal sequence and a block of three potential trans-membrane helices. Multi-protein sequence comparisons among fungi suggest that there are two classes of Rim9/PalI proteins; longer proteins like Pall that contain a Sur7 domain and a C-terminal extension, and shorter proteins like Rim9 that contain essentially only the Sur7 domain. We have examined possible roles of the longer, PalI-like proteins of both Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Yol019w) and Candida albicans(Orf19.1510/Srd1), two species that also contain short Rim9 proteins required for alkaline-associated stress responses. Deletions of the long form genes did not create any significant stress response phenotype in either S. cerevisiae or C. albicans, nor did the deletions enhance any of the rim9 deletion effects when combined in a double mutant. Furthermore, challenges in C. albicans show RIM9 but not SRD1 is important for proper response and hyphal formation. It appears that in fungal species such as Aspergillus nidulans containing only a long-form PalI-like protein, this element functions in the process of stress response, while in fungi with both versions the response to stress function is limited to the short-form protein. (C) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. 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

4.7
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