Identification and differential expression dynamics of peach small GTPases encoding genes during fruit development and ripening

The function of monomeric GTPases of the RAS superfamily in fruit development and ripening has been partially characterized. Here the identification of peach (Prunus persica) small GTPases of the RAS superfamily expressed in fruit and the characterization of their expression profiles during fruit development are described. Extensive searches on expressed sequence tag (EST) databases led to the selection of a total of 24 genes from peach encoding proteins with significant similarity to Arabidopsis small GTPases. Sequence similarity analyses and identification of conserved motifs, diagnostic of specific RAS families and subfamilies, enabled bona fide assignment of fourteen PpRAB, seven PpARF/ARL/SAR, two PpROP and one PpRAN GTPases. Transcriptional expression profiles of peach monomeric GTPases, analysed by real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, were obtained for mesocarp samples, collected in two consecutive years. Reproducible patterns of expression could be identified for five peach RAB-encoding genes (PpRABA1-1, PpRABA2, PpRABD2-1, PpRABD2-2, and PpRABC2), two ARFs (PpARFA1-1 and PpARLB1), and two ROPs (PpROP3 and PpROP4). Interestingly, the transient transcriptional up-regulation of PpARF genes and of PpRAB genes of the A and D clades, putatively controlling the exocytic delivery of cell wall components and modifying enzymes, appeared to coincide with peaks of growth speed and sugar accumulation and with the final phases of ripening. To our knowledge, this is the first description of the co-ordinated differential expression of a set of genes encoding small GTPases of the ARF and RAB families which takes place during key moments of fruit development and maturation

Salt Stress Induced Variation in DNA Methylation Pattern and Its Influence on Gene Expression in Contrasting Rice Genotypes

BACKGROUND: Salinity is a major environmental factor limiting productivity of crop plants including rice in which wide range of natural variability exists. Although recent evidences implicate epigenetic mechanisms for modulating the gene expression in plants under environmental stresses, epigenetic changes and their functional consequences under salinity stress in rice are underexplored. DNA methylation is one of the epigenetic mechanisms regulating gene expression in plant's responses to environmental stresses. Better understanding of epigenetic regulation of plant growth and response to environmental stresses may create novel heritable variation for crop improvement. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Methylation sensitive amplification polymorphism (MSAP) technique was used to assess the effect of salt stress on extent and patterns of DNA methylation in four genotypes of rice differing in the degree of salinity tolerance. Overall, the amount of DNA methylation was more in shoot compared to root and the contribution of fully methylated loci was always more than hemi-methylated loci. Sequencing of ten randomly selected MSAP fragments indicated gene-body specific DNA methylation of retrotransposons, stress responsive genes, and chromatin modification genes, distributed on different rice chromosomes. Bisulphite sequencing and quantitative RT-PCR analysis of selected MSAP loci showed that cytosine methylation changes under salinity as well as gene expression varied with genotypes and tissue types irrespective of the level of salinity tolerance of rice genotypes. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The gene body methylation may have an important role in regulating gene expression in organ and genotype specific manner under salinity stress. Association between salt tolerance and methylation changes observed in some cases suggested that many methylation changes are not "directed". The natural genetic variation for salt tolerance observed in rice germplasm may be independent of the extent and pattern of DNA methylation which may have been induced by abiotic stress followed by accumulation through the natural selection process

Cross-Species Analyses Identify the BNIP-2 and Cdc42GAP Homology (BCH) Domain as a Distinct Functional Subclass of the CRAL_TRIO/Sec14 Superfamily

The CRAL_TRIO protein domain, which is unique to the Sec14 protein superfamily, binds to a diverse set of small lipophilic ligands. Similar domains are found in a range of different proteins including neurofibromatosis type-1, a Ras GTPase-activating Protein (RasGAP) and Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factors (RhoGEFs). Proteins containing this structural protein domain exhibit a low sequence similarity and ligand specificity while maintaining an overall characteristic three-dimensional structure. We have previously demonstrated that the BNIP-2 and Cdc42GAP Homology (BCH) protein domain, which shares a low sequence homology with the CRAL_TRIO domain, can serve as a regulatory scaffold that binds to Rho, RhoGEFs and RhoGAPs to control various cell signalling processes. In this work, we investigate 175 BCH domain-containing proteins from a wide range of different organisms. A phylogenetic analysis with ∼100 CRAL_TRIO and similar domains from eight representative species indicates a clear distinction of BCH-containing proteins as a novel subclass within the CRAL_TRIO/Sec14 superfamily. BCH-containing proteins contain a hallmark sequence motif R(R/K)h(R/K)(R/K)NL(R/K)xhhhhHPs (‘h’ is large and hydrophobic residue and ‘s’ is small and weekly polar residue) and can be further subdivided into three unique subtypes associated with BNIP-2-N, macro- and RhoGAP-type protein domains. A previously unknown group of genes encoding ‘BCH-only’ domains is also identified in plants and arthropod species. Based on an analysis of their gene-structure and their protein domain context we hypothesize that BCH domain-containing genes evolved through gene duplication, intron insertions and domain swapping events. Furthermore, we explore the point of divergence between BCH and CRAL-TRIO proteins in relation to their ability to bind small GTPases, GAPs and GEFs and lipid ligands. Our study suggests a need for a more extensive analysis of previously uncharacterized BCH, ‘BCH-like’ and CRAL_TRIO-containing proteins and their significance in regulating signaling events involving small GTPases

Are Small GTPases Signal Hubs in Sugar-Mediated Induction of Fructan Biosynthesis?

External sugar initiates biosynthesis of the reserve carbohydrate fructan, but the molecular processes mediating this response remain obscure. Previously it was shown that a phosphatase and a general kinase inhibitor hamper fructan accumulation. We use various phosphorylation inhibitors both in barley and in Arabidopsis and show that the expression of fructan biosynthetic genes is dependent on PP2A and different kinases such as Tyr-kinases and PI3-kinases. To further characterize the phosphorylation events involved, comprehensive analysis of kinase activities in the cell was performed using a PepChip, an array of >1000 kinase consensus substrate peptide substrates spotted on a chip. Comparison of kinase activities in sugar-stimulated and mock(sorbitol)-treated Arabidopsis demonstrates the altered phosphorylation of many consensus substrates and documents the differences in plant kinase activity upon sucrose feeding. The different phosphorylation profiles obtained are consistent with sugar-mediated alterations in Tyr phosphorylation, cell cycling, and phosphoinositide signaling, and indicate cytoskeletal rearrangements. The results lead us to infer a central role for small GTPases in sugar signaling

Brain Responses to Violet, Blue, and Green Monochromatic Light Exposures in Humans: Prominent Role of Blue Light and the Brainstem

BACKGROUND: Relatively long duration retinal light exposure elicits nonvisual responses in humans, including modulation of alertness and cognition. These responses are thought to be mediated in part by melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells which are more sensitive to blue light than violet or green light. The contribution of the melanopsin system and the brain mechanisms involved in the establishment of such responses to light remain to be established. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We exposed 15 participants to short duration (50 s) monochromatic violet (430 nm), blue (473 nm), and green (527 nm) light exposures of equal photon flux (10(13)ph/cm(2)/s) while they were performing a working memory task in fMRI. At light onset, blue light, as compared to green light, increased activity in the left hippocampus, left thalamus, and right amygdala. During the task, blue light, as compared to violet light, increased activity in the left middle frontal gyrus, left thalamus and a bilateral area of the brainstem consistent with activation of the locus coeruleus. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: These results support a prominent contribution of melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells to brain responses to light within the very first seconds of an exposure. The results also demonstrate the implication of the brainstem in mediating these responses in humans and speak for a broad involvement of light in the regulation of brain function

Effects of selected opioid agonists and antagonists on DMT-and LSD-25-induced disruption of food-rewarded bar pressing behavior in the rat

Several opioid agonists and antagonists interact with N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and lysergic acid diethylamide-25 (LSD) in adult male Holtzman rats trained on a positive reinforcement, fixed ratio 4 (FR 4 ) behavioral schedule, i.e., a reward of 0.01 ml sugar-sweetened milk was earned on every fourth bar press. DMT (3.2 and 10.0 mg/kg) and LSD (0.1 mg/kg) given IP with 0.9% NaCl pretreatment, disrupted food-rewarded FR4 bar pressing. Animals were pretreated IP (10–15 min) with predetermined, behaviorally noneffective doses of morphine, methadone, naltrexone, and the (+)-and (-)-enantiomers of naloxone prior to receiving DMT or LSD. Dose-dependent effects were shown with opioid agonist pretreatment. Morphine (0.32–1.0 mg/kg) and methadone (0.32 mg/kg) significantly antagonized the bar pressing disruption induced by DMT and LSD. Larger doses of morphine (3.2 mg/kg) and methadone (1.0–3.2 mg/kg) potentiated only LSD-induced effects, with no effect on DMT-treated groups. The opioid antagonists (-)-naloxone and naltrexone potentiated the disruption of bar pressing induced by DMT and LSD. Failure of (+)-naloxone to potentiate the DMT effects was attributed to a stereospecific opioid antagonist effect of (-)-naloxone.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46425/1/213_2004_Article_BF00432428.pd