4.5 Article

Nitric oxide synthase sequences in the marine fish Stenotomus chrysops and the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata, and phylogenetic analysis of nitric oxide synthase calmodulin-binding domains

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1096-4959(01)00446-8

关键词

calmodulin-binding site; echinodermata; nitric oxide (NO); nitric oxide synthase (NOS); non-mammalian; phylogenetic analysis; scup (Stenotomus chrysops); sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata); teleost

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32HL07501] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES 06897, ES 05022, ES 03647] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The phylogenetic distribution and structural diversity of the nitric oxide synthases (NOS) remain important and issues that are little understood. We present sequence information, as well as phylogenetic analysis, for three NOS cDNAs identified in two non-mammalian species: the vertebrate marine teleost fish Stenotomus chrysops (scup) and the invertebrate echinoderm Arbacia punctulata (sea urchin). Partial gene sequences containing the well-conserved calmodulin (CaM-binding domain were amplified by RT-PCR. Identical 375-bp cDNAs were amplified from scup brain, heart, liver and spleen; this sequence shares 82% nucleic acid and 91% predicted amino acid identity with the corresponding region of human neuronal NOS. A 387-bp cDNA was amplified from sea urchin ovary and testes; this sequence shares 72% nucleic acid identity and 65% deduced amino acid identity with human neuronal NOS. A second cDNA of 381 bp was amplified from sea urchin ovary and it shares 66% nucleic acid and 57% deduced amino acid identity with the first sea urchin sequence. Together with earlier reports of neuronal and inducible NOS sequences in fish, these data indicate that multiple NOS isoforms exist in non-mammalian species. Phylogenetic analysis of these sequences confirms the conserved nature of NOS, particularly of the calmodulin-binding domains. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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