4.7 Article

Comparative studies on Ureide Permeases in Arabidopsis thaliana and analysis of two alternative splice variants of AtUPS5

期刊

PLANTA
卷 224, 期 6, 页码 1329-1340

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-006-0315-z

关键词

allantoin; alternative splicing; nucleobases; plant transporter; uracil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recovery of free purine and pyrimidine bases and their degradation products represent alternative pathways in plant cells either to synthesize nucleotides (salvage pathways) by low energy consumption or to reuse organic nitrogen. Such recycling of metabolites often requires their uptake into the cell by specialized transport systems residing in the plasma membrane. In plants, it has been suggested that several protein families are involved in this process, but only a few transporters have so far been characterized. In this work, gene expression, substrate specificities, and transport mechanisms of members of the Ureide Permease family in Arabidopsis (AtUPS) were analyzed and compared. Promoter-GUS studies indicated that the members of the family have distinct and partially overlapping expression patterns with regard to developmental stages or tissue specific localization. In addition, two alternative splice variants of AtUPS5, a novel member of the transporter family, were identified and investigated. The abundance of both alternative mRNAs varied in different organs, while the relative amounts were comparable. AtUPS51 (longer isoform) shares similar structural prediction with AtUPS1 and AtUPS2. In contrast, AtUPS5s (shorter isoform) lacks two transmembrane domains as structural consequence of the additional splice event. When expressed in yeast, AtUPS51 mediates cellular import of cyclic purine degradation products and pyrimidines similarly to AtUPS1 and AtUPS2, but differences in transport efficiencies were observed. AtUPS5s, however, could not be shown to mediate uptake of these compounds into yeast cells and might therefore be defective or have a different function.

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