4.8 Article

Gene expression studies in isolated mitochondria: Solanum tuberosum rps10 is recognized by cognate potato but not by the transcription, splicing and editing machinery of wheat mitochondria

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 22, 页码 7058-7065

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gki1017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The complex gene expression mechanisms that occur in plant mitochondria, such as RNA editing and splicing, are not yet well understood. RNA editing in higher plant mitochondria is a highly specific process which modifies mRNA sequences by C-to-U conversions. It has been suggested that in some cases this process is required for splicing. Here, we use an experimental model based on the introduction of DNA into isolated mitochondria by electroporation to study organellar gene expression events. Our aim was to compare processing and editing of potato small ribosomal protein 10 gene (rps10) transcripts in heterologous (wheat mitochondria) and homologous (potato mitochondria) contexts. rps10 is a suitable model because it contains a group II intron, is absent in wheat mitochondria but is actively expressed in potato mitochondria, where transcripts are spliced and undergo five C-to-U editing events. For this purpose, conditions for electroporating isolated potato mitochondria were established. rps10 was placed under the control of either potato or wheat cox2 promoters. We found that rps10 was only transcribed under the control of a cognate promoter. In wheat mitochondria, rps10 transcripts were neither spliced nor edited while they are correctly processed in potato mitochondria. Interestingly, a wheat editing site grafted into rps10 was not recognized by wheat mitochondria but was correctly edited in potato mitochondria. Taken together, these results suggest that editing might occur only when the transcripts are engaged in processing and that they would not be available to editing factors outside of a putative RNA maturation machinery complex.

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