4.6 Article

Rapidly diverging evolution of an atypical alkaline phosphatase (PhoAaty) in marine phytoplankton: insights from dinoflagellate alkaline phosphatases

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00868

关键词

dinoflagellate; alkaline phosphatase; gene duplication; evolution; ecological strategy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC41176091, NSFC41330959]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M531546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alkaline phosphatase (AP) is a key enzyme that enables marine phytoplankton to scavenge phosphorus (P) from dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP) when inorganic phosphate is scarce in the ocean. Yet how the AP gene has evolved in phytoplankton, particularly dinoflagellates, is poorly understood. We sequenced full-length AP genes and corresponding complementary DNA (cDNA) from 15 strains (10 species), representing four classes of the core dinoflagellate lineage, Gymnodiniales, Prorocentrales, Suessiales, and Gonyaulacales. Dinoflagellate AP gene sequences exhibited high variability, containing variable introns, pseudogenes, single nucleotide polymorphisms and consequent variations in amino acid sequence, indicative of gene duplication events and consistent with the birth-and-death model of gene evolution. Further sequence comparison showed that dinoflagellate APs likely belong to an atypical type AP (PhoAatY), which shares conserved motifs with counterparts in marine bacteria, cyanobacteria, green algae, haptophytes, and stramenopiles. Phylogenetic analysis suggested that PhoAatY probably originated from an ancestral gene in bacteria and evolved divergently in marine phytoplankton. Because variations in AP amino acid sequences may lead to differential subcellular localization and potentially different metal ion requirements, the multiple types of APs in algae may have resulted from selection for diversifying strategies to utilize DOP in the P variable marine environment.

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