4.8 Article

Two rhodopsins mediate phototaxis to low- and high-intensity light in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.122243399

关键词

retinal protein; photoreceptor; receptor currents; signal transduction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate that two rhodopsins, identified from cDNA sequences, function as low- and high-light-intensity phototaxis receptors in the eukaryotic alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Each of the receptors consists of an approximate to300-residue seven-transmembrane helix domain with a retinal-binding pocket homologous to that of archaeal rhodopsins, followed by approximate to400 residues of additional membrane-associated portion. The function of the two rhodopsins, Chlamydomonas sensory rhodopsins A and B (CSRA and CSRB), as phototaxis receptors is demonstrated by in vivo analysis of photoreceptor electrical currents and motility responses in transformants with RNA interference (RNAi) directed against each of the rhodopsin genes. The kinetics, fluence dependencies, and action spectra of the photoreceptor currents differ greatly in transformants in accord with the relative amounts of photoreceptor pigments expressed. The data show that CSRA has an absorption maximum near 510 nm and mediates a fast photoreceptor current that saturates at high light intensity. In contrast, CSRB absorbs maximally at 470 nm and generates a slow photoreceptor current saturating at low light intensity. The relative wavelength dependence of CSRA and CSRB activity in producing phototaxis responses matches precisely the wavelength dependence of the CSRA- and CSRB-generated currents, demonstrating that each receptor mediates phototaxis. The saturation of the two photoreceptor currents at different light fluence levels extends the range of light intensity to which the organism can respond. Further, at intensities where both operate, their light signals are integrated at the level of membrane depolarization caused by the two photoreceptor currents.

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