4.7 Article

Comparative phyloproteomics identifies conserved plasmodesmal proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 1821-1835

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erad022

关键词

Arabidopsis; cell to cell communication; phyloproteomics; Physcomitrium patens; plasmodesmata; proteomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By comparing plasmodesmal proteomes from different plants, we identified conserved plasmodesmal elements that are crucial for plant growth, development, and responses.
Plasmodesmata enable cell to cell communication for growth, development, and responses in plants. We used comparative analysis of plasmodesmal proteomes from divergent plants to identify conserved plasmodesmal elements. Plasmodesmata are cytosolic bridges, lined by the plasma membrane and traversed by endoplasmic reticulum; plasmodesmata connect cells and tissues, and are critical for many aspects of plant biology. While plasmodesmata are notoriously difficult to extract, tissue fractionation and proteomic analyses can yield valuable knowledge of their composition. Here we have generated two novel proteomes to expand tissue and taxonomic representation of plasmodesmata: one from mature Arabidopsis leaves and one from the moss Physcomitrium patens, and leveraged these and existing data to perform a comparative analysis to identify evolutionarily conserved protein families that are associated with plasmodesmata. Thus, we identified beta-1,3-glucanases, C2 lipid-binding proteins, and tetraspanins as core plasmodesmal components that probably serve as essential structural or functional components. Our approach has not only identified elements of a conserved plasmodesmal proteome, but also demonstrated the added power offered by comparative analysis for recalcitrant samples. Conserved plasmodesmal proteins establish a basis upon which ancient plasmodesmal function can be further investigated to determine the essential roles these structures play in multicellular organism physiology in the green lineages.

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