4.5 Article

Exploiting the reference genome sequence of hexaploid wheat: a proteomic study of flour proteins from the cultivar Chinese Spring

期刊

FUNCTIONAL & INTEGRATIVE GENOMICS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 1-16

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10142-019-00694-z

关键词

Gluten proteins; Gliadins; Low-molecular weight glutenin subunits; 2-DE; MS; MS; Immunogenic potential; Flour quality

资金

  1. USDA Agricultural Research Service Research CRIS [2030-21430-014-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the economic value of wheat flour is determined by the complement of gluten proteins, these proteins have been challenging to study because of the complexity of the major protein groups and the tremendous sequence diversity among wheat cultivars. The completion of a high-quality wheat genome sequence from the reference wheat Chinese Spring recently facilitated the assembly and annotation of a complete set of gluten protein genes from a single cultivar, making it possible to link individual proteins in the flour to specific gene sequences. In a proteomic analysis of total wheat flour protein from Chinese Spring using quantitative two-dimensional gel electrophoresis combined with tandem mass spectrometry, gliadins or low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits were identified as the predominant proteins in 72 protein spots. Individual spots were associated with 40 of 56 Chinese Spring gene sequences, including 16 of 26 alpha gliadins, 10 of 11 gamma gliadins, six of seven omega gliadins, one of two delta gliadins, and nine of ten LMW-GS. Most genes that were not associated with protein spots were either expressed at low levels in endosperm or encoded proteins with high similarity to other proteins. A wide range of protein accumulation levels were observed and discrepancies between transcript levels and protein levels were noted. This work together with similar studies using other commercial cultivars should provide new insight into the molecular basis of wheat flour quality and allergenic potential.

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

4.5
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