4.5 Article

COMPARATIVE GENOMIC ANALYSES OF TRANSPORT PROTEINS ENCODED WITHIN THE RED ALGAE CHONDRUS CRISPUS, GALDIERIA SULPHURARIA, AND CYANIDIOSCHYZON MEROLAE

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 503-521

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12534

关键词

genomes; metabolic potential; proteomes; red algae; transmembrane transport systems

资金

  1. NIH [GM077402]
  2. NSF [IOS5-1444435]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae are thermo-acidophilic unicellular red algal cousins capable of living in volcanic environments, although the former can additionally thrive in the presence of toxic heavy metals. Bioinformatic analyses of transport systems were carried out on their genomes, as well as that of the mesophilic multicellular red alga Chondrus crispus (Irish moss). We identified transport proteins related to the metabolic capabilities, physiological properties, and environmental adaptations of these organisms. Of note is the vast array of transporters encoded in G.sulphuraria capable of importing a variety of carbon sources, particularly sugars and amino acids, while C.merolae and C.crispus have relatively few such proteins. Chondruscrispus may prefer short chain acids to sugars and amino acids. In addition, the number of encoded proteins pertaining to heavy metal ion transport is highest in G.sulphuraria and lowest in C.crispus. All three organisms preferentially utilize secondary carriers over primary active transporters, suggesting that their primary source of energy derives from electron flow rather than substrate-level phosphorylation. Surprisingly, the percentage of inorganic ion transporters encoded in C.merolae more closely resembles that of C.crispus than G.sulphuraria, but only C.crispus appears to signal via voltage-gated cation channels and possess a Na+/K+-ATPase and a Na+ exporting pyrophosphatase. The results presented in this report further our understanding of the metabolic potential and toxic compound resistances of these three organisms.

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

4.5
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