4.8 Article

Phylogenomic analysis of UDP-dependent glycosyltransferases provides insights into the evolutionary landscape of glycosylation in plant metabolism

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 100, 期 6, 页码 1273-1288

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tpj.14514

关键词

UDP-glycosyltransferase; UDP-dependent glycosyltransferases; phylogenomic; evolution; positive selection; plant metabolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycosylated metabolites generated by UDP-dependent glycosyltransferases (UGTs) play critical roles in plant interactions with the environment as well as human and animal nutrition. The evolution of plant UGTs has previously been explored, but with a limited taxon sampling. In this study, 65 fully sequenced plant genomes were analyzed, and stringent criteria for selection of candidate UGTs were applied to ensure a more comprehensive taxon sampling and reliable sequence inclusion. In addition to revealing the overall evolutionary landscape of plant UGTs, the phylogenomic analysis also resolved the phylogenetic association of UGTs from free-sporing plants and gymnosperms, and identified an additional UGT group (group R) in seed plants. Furthermore, lineage-specific expansions and contractions of UGT groups were detected in angiosperms, with the total number of UGTs per genome remaining constant generally. The loss of group Q UGTs in Poales and Brassicales, rather than functional convergence in the group Q containing species, was supported by a gene tree of group Q UGTs sampled from many species, and further corroborated by the absence of group Q homologs on the syntenic chromosomal regions inArabidopsis thaliana(Brassicales). Branch-site analyses of the group Q UGT gene tree allowed for identification of branches and amino acid sites that experienced episodic positive selection. The positively selected sites are located on the surface of a representative group Q UGT (PgUGT95B2), away from the active site, suggesting their role in protein folding/stability or protein-protein interactions.

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

4.8
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