4.7 Article

Starch Synthesis-Related Genes (SSRG) Evolution in the Genus Oryza

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10061057

关键词

Leersia perrieri; phylogeny; starch synthesis; cooking quality

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cooking quality of Common/Asian rice varieties is highly dependent on grain starch composition, which is influenced by genetic factors. Analyzing grain quality genes in wild rice relatives can provide insights into the evolution and potential use of genetic resources. Deletion/mutation of amino acids in active sites may negatively affect specific steps of starch biosynthesis, while complete deletion of certain genes in wild species may not impact amylose content.
Cooking quality is an important attribute in Common/Asian rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties, being highly dependent on grain starch composition. This composition is known to be highly dependent on a cultivar's genetics, but the way in which their genes express different phenotypes is not well understood. Further analysis of variation of grain quality genes using new information obtained from the wild relatives of rice should provide important insights into the evolution and potential use of these genetic resources. All analyses were conducted using bioinformatics approaches. The analysis of the protein sequences of grain quality genes across the Oryza suggest that the deletion/mutation of amino acids in active sites result in variations that can negatively affect specific steps of starch biosynthesis in the endosperm. On the other hand, the complete deletion of some genes in the wild species may not affect the amylose content. Here we present new insights for Starch Synthesis-Related Genes (SSRGs) evolution from starch-specific rice phenotypes.

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