4.7 Article

Genomewide comparative phylogenetic and molecular evolutionary analysis of tubby-like protein family in Arabidopsis, rice, and poplar

期刊

GENOMICS
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 246-253

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.06.001

关键词

tubby-like protein gene family; species-specific expansion; segmental duplication; co-evolution

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2006CB101700]
  2. National High-Tech R and D Program [2006AA10Z165]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET2005-05-0502]
  4. Program for Innovative Research of Graduate Students in Jiangsu Province [Grant CX0713-186z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tubby-like proteins, which are characterized by a highly conserved tubby domain, play an important role in the maintenance and function of neuronal cells during postdifferentiation and development in mammals. In additional to the tubby domain, most tubby-like proteins in plants also possess an F-box domain. Plants also appear to harbor a large number of TLP genes. To gain insight into how TLP genes evolved in plants, we conducted a comparative phylogenetic and molecular evolutionary analysis of the tubby-like protein gene family in Arabidopsis, rice, and poplar. Genomewide screening identified 11 TLP genes in Arabidopsis, 14 in rice, and 11 in poplar. Phylogenetic trees, domain organizations, and intron/exon structures classified this family into three subfamilies and indicated that species-specific expansion contributed to the evolution of this family in plants. We determined that in rice and poplar, the tubby-like protein family had expanded mainly through segmental duplication events. Tissue-specific expression analysis indicated that functional diversification of the duplicated TLP genes was a major feature of long-term evolution. Our results also demonstrated that the tubby and F-box domains had co-evolved during the evolution of proteins containing both domains. (C) 2008 Elsevier 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

4.7
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