4.7 Article

Evolutionary relationship between defensins in the Poaceae family strengthened by the characterization of new sugarcane defensins

期刊

PLANT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 4-5, 页码 321-335

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11103-008-9372-y

关键词

Defensins; Sugarcane; Poaceae; Andropogoneae tribe; NMR; Phylogenetic studies

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. MCT
  3. FINEP
  4. FAPERJ
  5. Instituto Milenio de Biologia Estrutural em Biomedicia e Biotecnologia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant defensins are small (45-54 amino acids), highly basic, cysteine-rich peptides structurally related to defensins of other organisms, including insects and mammals. Small putative proteins (MW < 10 kDa) containing eight cysteines were screened based on the sugarcane expressed sequence tag (EST) database. We selected ORFs that exhibited 25-100% similarity in primary sequence with other defensins in the NCBI database and that contained eight cysteines. This similarity is sufficient for folding prediction, but not enough for biological activity inference. Six putative defensins (Sd1-6) were selected, and activity assays showed that recombinant Sd1, Sd3 and Sd5 are active against fungi, but not against bacteria. Structural characterization, based on circular dichroism (CD) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy showed that the structures of these Sds were compatible with alpha/beta proteins, a feature expected for plant defensins. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that sugarcane defensins could clearly be grouped within defensins from Poaceae family and Andropogoneae tribe. Our work demonstrates that defensins show strong conservation in the Poaceae family and may indicate that the same conservation occurs in other families. We suggest that evolutionary relationships within plant families can be used as a procedure to predict and annotate new defensins in genomes and group them in evolutionary classes to help in the investigation of their biological function.

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