4.8 Article

Between-species analysis of short-repeat modules in cell wall and sex-related hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins of Chlamydomonas1[W][OA]

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 144, 期 4, 页码 1813-1826

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.107.100891

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-26150] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein diversification is commonly driven by single amino acid changes at random positions followed by selection, but, in some cases, the structure of the gene itself favors the occurrence of particular kinds of mutations. Genes encoding hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins (HRGPs) in green organisms, key protein constituents of the cell wall, carry short-repeat modules that are posited to specify proline hydroxylation and/or glycosylation events. We show here, in a comparison of two closely related Chlamydomonas species-Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (CC-621) and Chlamydomonas incerta (CC-1870/3871)-that these modules are prone to misalignment and hence to both insertion/deletion and endoduplication events, and that the dynamics of the rearrangements are constrained by purifying selection on the repeat patterns themselves, considered either as helical or as longitudinal face modules. We suggest that such dynamics may contribute to evolutionary diversification in cell wall architecture and physiology. Two of the HRGP genes analyzed (SAG1 and SAD1) encode the mating-type plus and minus sexual agglutinins, displayed only by gametes, and we document that these have undergone far more extensive divergence than two HRGP genes (GP1 and VSP3) that encode cell wall components-an example of the rapid evolution that characterizes sex-related proteins in numerous lineages. Strikingly, the central regions of the agglutinins of both mating types have diverged completely, by selective endoduplication of repeated motifs, since the two species last shared a common ancestor, suggesting that these events may have participated in the speciation process.

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