Molecular Cloning and Expression Analysis of the Gene Encoding Proline Dehydrogenase from Jatropha curcas L

Genome-wide identification, phylogenetic analysis, and expression profiles of trihelix transcription factor family genes in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under abiotic stress conditions

Background

The trihelix family of transcription factors plays essential roles in the growth, development, and abiotic stress response of plants. Although several studies have been performed on the trihelix gene family in several dicots and monocots, this gene family is yet to be studied in Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa).

Results

In this study, 47 C. quinoa trihelix (CqTH) genes were in the quinoa genome. Phylogenetic analysis of the CqTH and trihelix genes from Arabidopsis thaliana and Beta vulgaris revealed that the genes were clustered into five subfamilies: SIP1, GTγ, GT1, GT2, and SH4. Additionally, synteny analysis revealed that the CqTH genes were located on 17 chromosomes, with the exception of chromosomes 8 and 11, and 23 pairs of segmental duplication genes were detected. Furthermore, expression patterns of 10 CqTH genes in different plant tissues and at different developmental stages under abiotic stress and phytohormone treatment were examined. Among the 10 genes, CqTH02, CqTH25, CqTH18, CqTH19, CqTH25, CqTH31, and CqTH36, were highly expressed in unripe achenes 21 d after flowering and in mature achenes compared with other plant tissues. Notably, the 10 CqTH genes were upregulated in UV-treated leaves, whereas CqTH36 was consistently upregulated in the leaves under all abiotic stress conditions.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that gene duplication could be a major driver of trihelix gene evolution in quinoa. These findings could serve as a basis for future studies on the roles of CqTH transcription factors and present potential genetic markers for breeding stress-resistant and high-yielding quinoa varieties.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-022-08726-y.

Genome-wide identification and expression profile analysis of trihelix transcription factor family genes in response to abiotic stress in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]

Background

Transcription factors, including trihelix transcription factors, play vital roles in various growth and developmental processes and in abiotic stress responses in plants. The trihelix gene has been systematically studied in some dicots and monocots, including Arabidopsis, tomato, chrysanthemum, soybean, wheat, corn, rice, and buckwheat. However, there are no related studies on sorghum.

Results

In this study, a total of 40 sorghum trihelix (SbTH) genes were identified based on the sorghum genome, among which 34 were located in the nucleus, 5 in the chloroplast, 1 (SbTH38) in the cytoplasm, and 1 (SbTH23) in the extracellular membrane. Phylogenetic analysis of the SbTH genes and Arabidopsis and rice trihelix genes indicated that the genes were clustered into seven subfamilies: SIP1, GTγ, GT1, GT2, SH4, GTSb8, and orphan genes. The SbTH genes were located in nine chromosomes and none on chromosome 10. One pair of tandem duplication gene and seven pairs of segmental duplication genes were identified in the SbTH gene family. By qPCR, the expression of 14 SbTH members in different plant tissues and in plants exposed to six abiotic stresses at the seedling stage were quantified. Except for the leaves in which the genes were upregulated after only 2 h exposure to high temperature, the 12 SbTH genes were significantly upregulated in the stems of sorghum seedlings after 24 h under the other abiotic stress conditions. Among the selected genes, SbTH10/37/39 were significantly upregulated, whereas SbTH32 was significantly downregulated under different stress conditions.

Conclusions

In this study, we identified 40 trihelix genes in sorghum and found that gene duplication was the main force driving trihelix gene evolution in sorghum. The findings of our study serve as a basis for further investigation of the functions of SbTH genes and providing candidate genes for stress-resistant sorghum breeding programmes and increasing sorghum yield.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-021-08000-7.

The N-terminal domain of Arabidopsis proline dehydrogenase affects enzymatic activity and protein oligomerization

Proline dehydrogenase (ProDH) is a flavoenzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of proline (Pro) into Δ1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate (P5C). In eukaryotes, ProDH coordinates with different Pro metabolism enzymes to control energy supply or stress responses signaling. Heterologous expression and crystallization of prokaryotic enzymes provided key data on their active center, folding capacity and oligomerization status. In contrast, eukaryotic ProDHs have not been crystallized so far, and their study as recombinant proteins remains limited. Plants contain two isoforms of ProDH with non-redundant functions. To contribute to the study of these enzymes, we describe the modeling, expression in E. coli, purification, and characterization of the Arabidopsis isoenzymes, AtProDH1 and AtProDH2. The 3D model suggested that both proteins adopt a distorted barrel structure (βα) with a cap formed by N-terminal α helices. The expression of two types of N-terminal deletion proteins indicated that this domain affected enzyme activity. Full-length enzymes had Km values similar to those of native proteins, whereas truncated proteins were inactive. Moreover, the first α helix proved to be necessary for AtProDH1 and AtProDH2 activities. Interestingly, both isoenzymes were able to oligomerize and this also required the first N-terminal α helix. Thus, we report the first insights into structure-function relationship of plant ProDHs demonstrating that the N-terminus, although not directly involved in catalysis, controls enzyme arrangement and activity. The resources generated here could be useful to analyze other plant ProDH features, such as its coordination with other enzymes, and differences between ProDH1 and ProDH2, providing new information on its effects on stress tolerance.