Zobrazení zdroje stránky Robbinsburnham4485

Early fruit development is critical for determining crop yield. Cell wall invertase (CWIN) and sugar transporters both play important roles in carbon allocation and plant development. However, there is little information about the relationship between CWIN and those functionally related sugar transporters during fruit development. By using transgenic tomato with an elevated CWIN activity, we investigated how an increase in CWIN activity may regulate the expression of sugar transporter genes during fruit development. Our analyses indicate that CWIN activity may be under tight regulation by multiple regulators, including two invertase inhibitors (INVINHs) and one defective CWIN (deCWIN) in tomato ovaries prior to anthesis. Among the sugar transporters, expression of SlSWEET12c for sucrose efflux and SlHT2 for hexose uptake was enhanced by the elevated CWIN activity at 10 and 15 days after anthesis of tomato fruit development, respectively. The findings show that some specific sugars will eventually be exported transporters (SWEETs) and hexose transporters (HTs) respond to elevate CWIN activity probably to promote rapid fruit expansion when sucrose efflux from phloem and hexose uptake by parenchyma cell are in high demand. The analyses provide new leads for improving crop yield by manipulating CWIN-responsive sugar transporters, together with CWIN itself, to enhance fruit development and sugar accumulation.Melatonin plays key roles in development and confers stress tolerance to plants. Serotonin N-acetyltransferase (SNAT) is either the enzyme involved in the last step or the penultimate enzyme of phytomelatonin biosynthesis. To date, SNAT genes have not been characterized in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), an economically important plant species. The sequence of the Acetyltransf_7 conserved domain was used as a query sequence, and 12 NtSNAT candidate genes were in turn identified in the genome of tobacco. These NtSNATs could be divided into two groups based on the phylogenetic tree. NtSNAT1 and NtSNAT2 clustered together with the other typical SNATs, but the other 10 NtSNATs separately clustered outside of the typical SNATs. These 10 NtSNATs have only motif 1, whereas representative SNATs, such as NtSNAT1 and NtSNAT2 or a SNAT from cyanobacteria, have five motifs. In addition, NtSNAT1 and NtSNAT2 are highly homologous to the characterized OsSNAT1, 62.95 and 71.36%, respectively; however, the homology between the oantly increase under any of the tested stress treatments. These results provide valuable information for elucidating the evolutionary relationship of SNAT genes in tobacco and genetic resources for improving tobacco production in the future.Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common lethal malignancy in men. RNA binding proteins (RBPs) have been proven to regulate the biological processes of various tumors, but their roles in PCa remain less defined. In the present study, we used bioinformatics analysis to identify RBP genes with prognostic and diagnostic values. A total of 59 differentially expressed RBPs in PCa were obtained, comprising 28 upregulated and 31 downregulated RBP genes, which may play important roles in PCa. Functional enrichment analyses showed that these RBPs were mainly involved in mRNA processing, RNA splicing, and regulation of RNA splicing. Additionally, we identified nine RBP genes (EXO1, PABPC1L, REXO2, MBNL2, MSI1, CTU1, MAEL, YBX2, and ESRP2) and their prognostic values by a protein-protein interaction network and Cox regression analyses. The expression of these nine RBPs was validated using immunohistochemical staining between the tumor and normal samples. Further, the associations between the expression of these nine RBPs and pathological T staging, Gleason score, and lymph node metastasis were evaluated. Moreover, these nine RBP genes showed good diagnostic values and could categorize the PCa patients into two clusters with different malignant phenotypes. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/mepazine-hydrochloride.html Mepazine mw] Finally, we constructed a prognostic model based on these nine RBP genes and validated them using three external datasets. The model showed good efficiency in predicting patient survival and was independent of other clinical factors. Therefore, our model could be used as a supplement for clinical factors to predict patient prognosis and thereby improve patient survival.The domestication and improvement of many plant species have frequently involved modulation of transcriptional outputs and continue to offer much promise for targeted trait engineering. The cis-regulatory elements (CREs) controlling these trait-associated transcriptional variants however reside within non-coding regions that are currently poorly annotated in most plant species. This is particularly true in large crop genomes where regulatory regions constitute only a small fraction of the total genomic space. Furthermore, relatively little is known about how CREs function to modulate transcription in plants. Therefore understanding where regulatory regions are located within a genome, what genes they control, and how they are structured are important factors that could be used to guide both traditional and synthetic plant breeding efforts. Here, we describe classic examples of regulatory instances as well as recent advances in plant regulatory genomics. We highlight valuable molecular tools that are enabling large-scale identification of CREs and offering unprecedented insight into how genes are regulated in diverse plant species. We focus on chromatin environment, transcription factor (TF) binding, the role of transposable elements, and the association between regulatory regions and target genes.Growth factor independence 1 (GFI1) and the closely related protein GFI1B are small nuclear proteins that act as DNA binding transcriptional repressors. Both recognize the same consensus DNA binding motif via their C-terminal zinc finger domains and regulate the expression of their target genes by recruiting chromatin modifiers such as histone deacetylases (HDACs) and demethylases (LSD1) by using an N-terminal SNAG domain that comprises only 20 amino acids. The only region that is different between both proteins is the region that separates the zinc finger domains and the SNAG domain. Both proteins are co-expressed in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) and, to some extent, in multipotent progenitors (MPPs), but expression is specified as soon as early progenitors and show signs of lineage bias. While expression of GFI1 is maintained in lymphoid primed multipotent progenitors (LMPPs) that have the potential to differentiate into both myeloid and lymphoid cells, GFI1B expression is no longer detectable in these cells.