4.8 Article

EXTRA-LARGE G PROTEINs Interact with E3 Ligases PUB4 and PUB2 and Function in Cytokinin and Developmental Processes

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 2, 页码 1235-1246

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.16.00816

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong [HKBU262111, HKBU262212, HKBU262213, HKBU12159916]
  2. AoE Grant [HKBU/CU/AOE/1314/01]
  3. Hong Kong Baptist University's Strategic Development Fund [SDF 15-1012-P04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterotrimeric GTP-binding proteins (G proteins) composed of G alpha, G beta, and G gamma subunits are conserved signal transduction molecules in animals and plants. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), there are three G alpha-like proteins named EXTRA-LARGE G PROTEINs (XLGs) in addition to the canonical Ga protein GPA1. XLGs have been reported to be implicated in multiple pathways, although the underlying mechanisms of their action remain elusive. Here, we report that all three XLGs interact with two closely related plant U-box (PUB) E3 ligases, PUB2 and PUB4. Three XLGs are predominantly localized at the plasma membrane, whereas XLG2 and XLG3 also show nuclear localization. The interactions between PUB2/4 and XLGs suggest that they might function in the same pathways. Indeed, we found that a newly obtained xlg1/2/3 triple knockout mutant, the pub4 mutant, and the pub2/4 double mutant all exhibited defects in cytokinin responses, stamen development, tapetum development, and male fertility. However, the xlg single mutants and the pub2 mutant did not exhibit an obvious defect in these processes, which suggests functional redundancy among the three XLGs and between PUB2 and PUB4. Overexpressing ARR10 to enhance the cytokinin response in pub4 or in the xlg1/2/3 triple mutant partially restored several phenotypes caused by the pub4 and xlg1/2/3 mutations. Our findings reveal that the XLGs and PUB2/4 are components in the complex cytokinin signaling networks regulating many developmental and physiological processes.

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