4.7 Article

Identification and organization of chloroplastic and cytosolic l-myo-inositol 1-phosphate synthase coding gene(s) in Oryza sativa: comparison with the wild halophytic rice, Porteresia coarctata

期刊

PLANTA
卷 231, 期 5, 页码 1211-1227

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-010-1127-8

关键词

Chloroplastic L-myo-inositol-1-phosphate synthase; MALDI-TOF MS; Transit peptide; GFP fluorescence; Genomewalking; Porteresia coarctata

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gene coding for rice chloroplastic l-myo-inositol-1-phosphate synthase (MIPS; EC 5.5.1.4) has been identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis of the purified and immunologically cross-reactive similar to 60 kDa chloroplastic protein following two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, which exhibited sequence identity with the cytosolic MIPS coded by OsINO1-1 gene. A possible chloroplastic transit peptide sequence was identified upstream of the OsINO1-1 gene upon analysis of rice genome. RT-PCR and confocal microscope studies confirmed transcription, effective translation and its functioning as a chloroplast transit peptide. Bioinformatic analysis mapped the chloroplastic MIPS (OsINO1-1) gene on chromosome 3, and a second MIPS gene (OsINO1-2) on chromosome 10 which lacks conventional chloroplast transit peptide sequence as in OsINO1-1. Two new PcINO1 genes, with characteristic promoter activity and upstream cis-elements were identified and cloned, but whether these proteins can be translocated to the chloroplast or not is yet to be ascertained. Electrophoretic mobility shift assay carried out with nuclear extract of Porteresia coarctata leaves grown under both control and stressed condition shows binding of nuclear proteins with the upstream elements. Nucleotide divergence among the different Oryza and Porteresia INO1 genes were calculated and compared.

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