4.7 Review

The tale of caspase homologues and their evolutionary outlook: deciphering programmed cell death in cyanobacteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 71, 期 16, 页码 4639-4657

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eraa213

关键词

Altruistic adaptation; caspase homologues; horizontal gene transfer; orthocaspases; PCD morphotypes; programmed cell death

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Programmed cell death (PCD), a genetically orchestrated mechanism of cellular demise, is paradoxically required to support life. As in lower eukaryotes and bacteria, PCD in cyanobacteria is poorly appreciated, despite recent biochemical and molecular evidence that supports its existence. Cyanobacterial PCD is an altruistic reaction to stressful conditions that significantly enhances genetic diversity and inclusive fitness of the population. Recent bioinformatic analysis has revealed an abundance of death-related proteases, i.e. orthocaspases (OCAs) and their mutated variants, in cyanobacteria, with the larger genomes of morphologically complex strains harbouring most of them. Sequence analysis has depicted crucial accessory domains along with the proteolytic p20-like sub-domain in OCAs, predicting their functional versatility. However, the cascades involved in sensing death signals, their transduction, and the downstream expression and activation of OCAs remain to be elucidated. Here, we provide a comprehensive description of the attempts to identify mechanisms of PCD and the existence and importance of OCAs based on in silico approaches. We also review the evolutionary and ecological significance of PCD in cyanobacteria. In the future, the analysis of cyanobacterial PCD will identify novel proteins that have varied functional roles in signalling cascades and also help in understanding the incipient mechanism of PCD morphotype(s) from where eukaryotic PCD might have originated.

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