4.7 Article

Two maize Kip-related proteins differentially interact with, inhibit and are phosphorylated by cyclin D-cyclin-dependent kinase complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 68, 期 7, 页码 1585-1597

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erx054

关键词

CDKs; cyclins D; ICK/KRPs; kinase inhibition; KRP phosphorylation; Zea mays

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia [CB220661]
  2. Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigacion e Innovacion Tecnologica (PAPIIT) [IN215316]
  3. SNI-level III
  4. MSc grants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The family of maize Kip-related proteins (KRPs) has been studied and a nomenclature based on the relationship to rice KRP genes is proposed. Expression studies of KRP genes indicate that all are expressed at 24 h of seed germination but expression is differential in the different tissues of maize plantlets. Recombinant KRP1;1 and KRP4;2 proteins, members of different KRP classes, were used to study association to and inhibitory activity on different maize cyclin D (CycD)-cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) complexes. Kinase activity in CycD2;2-CDK, CycD4;2-CDK, and CycD5;3-CDK complexes was inhibited by both KRPs; however, only KRP1;1 inhibited activity in the CycD6;1-CDK complex, not KRP4;2. Whereas KRP1;1 associated with either CycD2;2 or CycD6;1, and to cyclin-dependent kinase A (CDKA) recombinant proteins, forming ternary complexes, KRP4;2 bound CDKA and CycD2;2 but did not bind CycD6; 1, establishing a differential association capacity. All CycD-CDK complexes included here phosphorylated both the retinoblastoma-related (RBR) protein and the two KRPs; interestingly, while KRP4;2 phosphorylated by the CycD2;2-CDK complex increased its inhibitory capacity, when phosphorylated by the CycD6;1-CDK complex the inhibitory capacity was reduced or eliminated. Evidence suggests that the phosphorylated residues in KRP4;2 may be different for every kinase, and this would influence its performance as a cyclin-CDK inhibitor.

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