4.6 Article

Two SCA (stigma/style cysteine-rich adhesin) Isoforms show structural differences that correlate with their levels of in vitro pollen tube adhesion activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 46, 页码 33845-33858

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M703997200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lily pollen tubes grow adhering to an extracellular matrix produced by the transmitting tract epidermis in a hollow style. SCA, a small (similar to 9.4 kDa), basic protein plus low esterified pectin from this extracellular matrix are involved in the pollen tube adhesion event. The mode of action for this adhesion event is unknown. We partially separated three SCA iso-forms from the lily stigma in serial size exclusion column fractions (SCA1, 9370 Da; SCA2, 9384 Da; SCA3, 9484 Da). Peptide sequencing analysis allowed us to determine two amino acid variations in SCA3, compared with SCA1. For SCA2, however, there are more sequence variations yet to be identified. Our structural homology and molecular dynamics modeling results show that SCA isoforms have the plant nonspecific lipid transfer protein-like structure: a globular shape of the orthogonal 4-helix bundle architecture, four disulfide bonds, an internal hydrophobic and solvent-inaccessible cavity, and a long C-terminal tail. The Ala(71) in SCA3, replacing the Gly(71) in SCA1, has no predictable effect on structure. The Arg(26) in SCA3, replacing the Gly(26) in SCA1, is predicted to cause structural changes that result in a significantly reduced volume for the internal hydrophobic cavity in SCA3. The volume of the internal cavity fluctuates slightly during the molecular dynamics simulation, but overall, SCA1 displays a larger cavity than SCA3. SCA1 displays higher activity than SCA3 in the in vitro pollen tube adhesion assay. No differences were found between the two SCAs in a binding assay with pectin. The larger size of the hydrophobic cavity in SCA1 correlates with its higher adhesion activity.

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

4.6
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