4.6 Article

Global Analysis of Ankyrin Repeat Domain C3HC4-Type RING Finger Gene Family in Plants

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [31110103917, 31170233]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB100706]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ankyrin repeat (ANK) C3HC4-type RING finger (RF) genes comprise a large family in plants and play important roles in various physiological processes of plant life. In this study, we identified 187 ANK C3HC4-type RF proteins from 29 species with complete genomes and named the ANK C3HC4-type RF proteins the XB3-like proteins because they are structurally related to the rice (Oryza sativa) XB3. A phylogenetic relationship analysis suggested that the XB3-like genes originated from ferns, and the encoded proteins fell into 3 major groups. Among these groups, we found that the spacing between the metal ligand position 6 and 7, and the conserved residues, which was in addition to the metal ligand amino acids, in the C3HC4-type RF were different. Using a wide range of protein structural analyses, protein models were established, and all XB3-like proteins were found to contain two to seven ANKs and a C3HC4-type RF. The microarray data for the XB3-like genes of Arabidopsis, Oryza sative, Zea mays and Glycine max revealed that the expression of XB3-like genes was in different tissues and during different life stages. The preferential expression of XB3-like genes in specified tissues and the response to phytohormone and abiotic stress treatments of Arabidopsis and Zea mays not only confirmed the microarray analysis data but also demonstrated that the XB3-like proteins play roles in plant growth and development as well as in stress responses. Our data provide a very useful reference for the identification and functional analysis of members of this gene family and also provide a new method for the genome-wide analysis of gene families.

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