Literature DB >> 29084977

Shaping the evolutionary tree of green plants: evidence from the GST family.

Francesco Monticolo1, Chiara Colantuono1, Maria Luisa Chiusano2,3.   

Abstract

Glutathione-S-transferases (GSTs) are encoded by genes belonging to a wide ubiquitous family in aerobic species and catalyze the conjugation of electrophilic substrates to glutathione (GSH). GSTs are divided in different classes, both in plants and animals. In plants, GSTs function in several pathways, including those related to secondary metabolites biosynthesis, hormone homeostasis, defense from pathogens and allow the prevention and detoxification of damage from heavy metals and herbicides. 1107 GST protein sequences from 20 different plant species with sequenced genomes were analyzed. Our analysis assigns 666 unclassified GSTs proteins to specific classes, remarking the wide heterogeneity of this gene family. Moreover, we highlighted the presence of further subclasses within each class. Regarding the class GST-Tau, one possible subclass appears to be present in all the Tau members of ancestor plant species. Moreover, the results highlight the presence of members of the Tau class in Marchantiophytes and confirm previous observations on the absence of GST-Tau in Bryophytes and green algae. These results support the hypothesis regarding the paraphyletic origin of Bryophytes, but also suggest that Marchantiophytes may be on the same branch leading to superior plants, depicting an alternative model for green plants evolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29084977      PMCID: PMC5662610          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14316-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


Introduction

Glutathione-S-transferases (GSTs) are enzymes encoded by a ubiquitous gene family in aerobic species, able to conjugate electrophilic xenobiotics and endogenous cell components with glutathione (GSH)[1]. GSTs in plants are composed of two subunits with a molecular mass of around 25–29 kD[2]. Initially, plant GSTs were identified in Zea mays for their involvement in defense mechanisms against damage by herbicide[3]. The importance of GSTs in herbicide tolerance has been demonstrated expressing maize GSTs in tobacco plants. The treated plants were revealed to have a greater herbicide tolerance compared to untreated tobacco plants[4]. GSTs can also act as detoxifying agents from endogenous cell components. For example, Bronze 2 in maize has been demonstrated to be involved in anthocyanin transport into cytoplasmic vacuoles[5]. A similar behavior has been highlighted for An9 in Petunia hybrida [6], TT19 in Arabidopsis thaliana [7], PGSC0003DMG400016722 in Solanum tuberosum [8] and DQ198153 in Citrus sinensis, cultivar Moro nucellare[9], suggesting that, probably, GSTs act in the last step of the anthocyanin biosynthetic pathway[10], when these molecules are transported to the vacuole. GSTs are also important for the prevention of heavy metals damage, facilitating their storage in the vacuole. In particular, a truncated isoform of the protein encoded by Bronze 2 in maize has a high affinity for heavy metals[11]. Moreover, GSTs may take part in the hydrogen peroxide detoxification[12]. GSTs have a high affinity for auxins and cytokinins and this suggests that GSTs are important for hormone homeostasis and in plant defense against pathogens[2,13]. In fact, in Solanum tuberosum, the plants infected with the pathogen fungus Phytophthora infestans revealed a fast increase in the prp 1-1 GST content, accompanied by the increase of intracellular auxin levels, suggesting the association of the phenomena to infection defense[13]. Initially, plant GSTs were classified into four categories, type I, II, III and IV, based on amino acids sequence identity and on the conservation of the gene structure[14,15]. This classification was modified into 7 GST classes: 6 cytoplasmic classes (Tau, Phi, Zeta, Theta, Lambda and Dhar) and a further microsomal class (Mapeg)[2,16]. Tau and Phi classes are considered plant specific classes, being the most representative in terms of the number of sequences[16]. In 2016, Munyampundu et al. demonstrated that the Phi class is also present in bacteria, fungi and protists. Tau and Phi classes link a wide range of xenobiotics[16], or endogenous cell components[17]. These components function as glutathione peroxidases (GPOXs), as flavonoid-binding proteins[6-9], and as stress-signaling proteins[18]. Moreover, the Tau class expansion appears to be associated with plant adaptation to land living[19]. The Zeta class is linked to tyrosine degradation, catalyzing the GSH-dependent conversion of malelyacetoacetate to fumarylacetoacetate. The Theta class is similar to the corresponding mammalian class[9] and it is present in bacteria, insects, plants, fish, and mammals[20]. Lambda and Dhar classes were identified comparing the human Omega GSTs versus the Arabidopsis genome[17]. Finally, the Mapeg class includes the microsomal GSTs, with transferase and peroxidase activities[21]. Recently more 6 GST classes have been identified in plants: TCHQD, EF1Bγ, URE2p, Omega-like, Iota and Hemerythrin[19]. Members of the URE2p class were found in Physcomitrella patens, in Selaginella moellendorffii and in bacteria, probably because of horizontal gene transfer events in bacteria, while the Iota GST class was found only in Physcomitrella patens and in Selaginella moellendorffii [19]. Hemerythrin GSTs are non-heme iron binding proteins found in metazoans, prokaryotes, protozoans, and fungi[22], which acts in detoxification from heavy metals by catalyzing the conjugation of GSH with metal ions[19]. A phylogenetic analysis made both in monocots (maize and rice) and in dicots (soya and Arabidopsis) demonstrated that Zeta and Theta classes are monophyletic groups in monocots, dicots and mammals, suggesting that their origin might be anterior to the division between plants and animals[23]. Zeta and Theta classes have undergone one or two duplication events, presenting at maximum three paralogs in maize, rice, soya and Arabidopsis. Phi and Tau classes show differences between monocots and dicots due to the extensive gene duplication events that monocots and dicots underwent after their divergence. Extensive duplications also resulted in genic clusters sharing high similarity in small genome regions. The reasons of these retained extensive gene duplications are still unknown[23]. 1107 GSTs from 20 different plant species with sequenced genomes were analyzed (Table 1) to reveal the organization of this relevant family in plants. Two green algae genomes, two Bryophytes, one Marchantiophyta, one Lycopodiophyta, one Gymnosperm, three monocots, ten dicots, including the reference plant species Arabidopsis thaliana (family Brassicaceae), were examined.
Table 1

List of plants considered for this study. Scientific name (name) of the organisms considered, their classification (A (CHL): Algae Chlorophyta, A (CHA): Algae Charophyta, B: Bryophyta, L: Lycophyta, MA: Marchantiophyta, G: Gymnosperms, M: Monocots, D: Dicots), number of chromosomes (Chr), genome size estimation in Mb (Genome), total number of genes currently estimated (Gene), genomics resource, bibliographical reference (Source + Reference) and publication year (Year).

NameTypeChr (n)Genome (Mb)Gene (n)Source + ReferenceYear
Vitis vinifera D1947530434Cribi (v2) Jaillon et al.2007
Solanum tuberosum D1284439031Spud db (PGSC_DM_v_3.4) The Potato Genome Sequencing Consortium2011
Solanum lycopersicum D1290034727SGN (iTAG2.4) The Tomato Genome Consortium2012
Populus trichocarpa D19422.945778Phytozome 11 (v3.0) Tuskan et al.2006
Glycine max D20111546430Gramene Schmuz et al.2010
Coffee canephora D1171025574Coffee genome Hub Denoeud et al.2014
Citrus sinensis D936729445Licciardello et al. Xu et al.2012
Capsicum annum D12334935336SGN (v1.55) Qin et al.2014
Arabidopsis thaliana D512525498TAIR10 The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative2000
Amborella trichopoda D1387014000Phytozome 11 (v1.0) Amborella Genome Project2013
Zea mays M10230032540Phytozome 11 (Ensembl-18) Schnable et al.2009
Spirodela polyrhiza M2015819623Phytozome 11 (v2) Wang et al.2013
Oryza sativa M1242029961TIGR Goff et al.2005
Picea abies G121960028354Congenie (v1) Nystedt et al.2013
Selaginella moellendorffii L27212.522285Phytozome 11 (v1.0)
Banks et al.2011
Marchantia polymorpha MA/225.819287Phytozome 11 (v3.1) https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov 2016
Sphagnum fallax B/39526939Phytozome 11 (v0.5) https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov 2015
Physcomitrella patens B2751035938Liu et al. Rensing et al.2008
Klebsormidium flaccidum A (CHA)22–26117.1 ± 21.816215CGA Hori et al.2014
Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545 A (CHL)1721.9510575Phytozome 11 (v3.0) Worden et al.2009
List of plants considered for this study. Scientific name (name) of the organisms considered, their classification (A (CHL): Algae Chlorophyta, A (CHA): Algae Charophyta, B: Bryophyta, L: Lycophyta, MA: Marchantiophyta, G: Gymnosperms, M: Monocots, D: Dicots), number of chromosomes (Chr), genome size estimation in Mb (Genome), total number of genes currently estimated (Gene), genomics resource, bibliographical reference (Source + Reference) and publication year (Year).

Results

Class assignment of unclassified GSTs

The collection of 1107 GST protein sequences from the 20 species consisted of 214 Tau, 53 Phi, 41 Theta, 7 Lambda, 23 Dhar, 28 Zeta, 21 Mapeg, 10 Hemerythrin, 15 EF-gamma, 4 URE2p, 9 TCHQD, 2 Iota and 16 Omega-like GSTs. In addition, 666 unclassified GSTs were also included (Table 2, numbers in brackets).
Table 2

Number of GSTs per species and per class. Type classes as in Table 1.

TypeTotTAUPHITHETALAMBDADHARZETAMAPEGHEMERY-THRINEl-F2 gammaURE2pTCHQDIOTAOmega-likeNot classified before the analysis
Vitis vinifera D13288 (96)13 (11)2 (2)2 (/)2 (3)16 (10)3 (/)/ (/)2 (/)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)3 (/)9
Solanum tuberosum D8858 (/)5 (/)3 (/)6 (1)2 (5)8 (2)1 (1)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)2 (/)78
Solanum lycopersicum D8668 (4)5 (1)/ (10)2 (/)3 (/)3 (/)1 (1)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)2 (/)69
Populus trichocarpa D7966 (/)6 (/)2 (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (1)1 (2)/ (/)2 (2)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)74
Glycine max D1512 (12)1 (1)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)2 (2)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/
Coffee canephora D5434 (12)3 (2)7 (7)/ (/)2 (2)4 (4)2 (2)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)/ (/)34
Citrus sinensis D2512 (12)10 (10)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)1 (1)1 (1)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/
Capsicum annum D3930 (3)4 (/)1 (5)2 (1)/ (/)1 (/)1 (1)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)/ (1)/ (/)/ (/)28
Arabidopsis thaliana D7028 (28)15 (15)3 (3)3 (3)3 (3)4 (4)3 (3)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)2 (2)/ (/)9 (9)/
Amborella trichopoda D5236 (/)5 (/)1 (1)3 (/)1 (1)2 (/)/ (/)/ (/)2 (2)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)2 (/)48
Zea mays M5530 (1)7 (1)1 (1)/ (/)4 (3)5 (/)1 (1)/ (/)2 (2)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)5 (/)46
Spirodela polyrhiza M2911 (/)6 (/)1 (/)/ (/)2 (/)4 (1)1 (1)/ (/)1 (1)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)2 (/)26
Oryza sativa M8052 (5)18 (1)1 (/)/ (/)2 (/)5 (/)1 (1)/ (/)/ (/)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)/ (/)73
Picea abies G10473 (/)9 (/)1 (/)4 (/)2 (/)9 (/)/ (/)1 (/)4 (/)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (/)104
Selaginella moellendorffii L6039 (40)1 (1)3 (3)/ (/)3 (2)1 (1)2 (2)1 (1)1 (1)3 (3)/ (/)1 (1)5 (5)/
Marchantia polymorpha MA342 (1)15 (/)3 (/)/ (/)1 (/)3 (/)2 (1)1 (1)1 (1)1 (/)2 (1)1 (/)2 (1)28
Sphagnum fallax B38/1 (/)6 (6)7 (/)1 (1)2 (1)4 (3)5 (/)2 (1)7 (/)/ (/)/ (/)3 (/)26
Physcomitrella patens B37/10 (10)3 (3)1 (1)3 (3)1 (1)/ (/)8 (8)4 (4)1 (1)5 (5)1 (1)/ (/)/
Klebsormidium flaccidum A (CHA)161 (/)3 (/)5 (/)/ (/)/ (/)1 (/)1 (/)/ (/)/ (/)2 (/)1 (/)1 (/)1 (/)16
Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545 A (CHL)142 (/)1 (/)/ (/)1 (/)/ (/)4 (/)/ (1)/ (/)2 (1)/ (/)/ (/)2 (/)2 (1)10
Total1107643138433331772516261417639666

In brackets the number of GSTs per class before the assignment resulting from the reported analyses.

Number of GSTs per species and per class. Type classes as in Table 1. In brackets the number of GSTs per class before the assignment resulting from the reported analyses. In order to associate the unclassified GSTs with specific classes, the collection was analyzed by a multiple protein sequence alignment using Muscle[24] and an associated phylogenetic tree based on the maximum likelihood method[25] (Fig. 1). The analysis defined the class association of the 666 unclassified GSTs (Table 2, numbers non in brackets), highlighting the presence of GST-Tau in Chlorophytes, Marchantiophytes and in Klebsormidiales, and confirming results from Liu et al., 2013, concerning their absence in Bryophytes.
Figure 1

Phylogenetic tree of all the 1107 GSTs. Colors of the leaves indicate the species, while those of the branches indicate the GST class, as reported in the corresponding legends.

Phylogenetic tree of all the 1107 GSTs. Colors of the leaves indicate the species, while those of the branches indicate the GST class, as reported in the corresponding legends.

Plant phylogeny depicted by GSTs

It can be noted (Fig. 1) that one GST (kfl00659_0030) from Klebsormidium flaccidum (Klebsormidiales) and two GSTs (213211, 49816) from Micromonas pusilla (Chlorophyta) resulted in the Tau class, as also summarized in Table 2. In Liu et al., 2013, the authors suggested that GST-Tau genes were absent in algae and Bryophytes and served in Tracheophytes to colonize lands. Interestingly, our preliminary results show also that two GSTs (Mapoly0031s0032.1, Mapoly0118s0009.1) of Marchantia polymorpha (Marchantiophyta) belong to the Tau class. In Table 3 the results of further analyses on the assignment of these 5 sequences to a specific GST class are shown. A BLASTp analysis[26], versus all the other GST protein sequences here collected and versus the UNIPROTkb[27] database, highlighted that the two Marchantia polymorpha (Mapoly0031s0032.1, Mapoly0118s0009.1) GST-Tau sequences are actually significantly similar to other members of the Tau class. This result is also valid for one of the two Micromonas pusilla (213211) sequences, although with lower significance (low score and identity values).
Table 3

Summary of the two BLASTp results.

GST CollectionUniProt
Best hitsGST ClassOrganismScoreE-valueBest hitsGST ClassOrganismScoreE-value
Mapoly0031s0032.1 M. polymorpha Mapoly0031s0032.1 M. polymorpha
MA_944351p0010Tau P.abies 1442.00E-44A0A176VUP3uncharacterized GST M.polymorpha 12951.00E-178
MA_8564957p0010Tau P.abies 1442.00E-44A0A0C9RTV3Transcribed RNA W.nobilis 3572.30E-37
MA_213889p0010Tau P.abies 1385.00E-42L7S1R3Tau P.tabuliformis 3284.60E-33
Mapoly0118s0009.1 M. polymorpha Mapoly0118s0009.1 M. polymorpha
MA_34977p0010Tau P.abies 1623.00E-51A0A176WNU4uncharacterized GST M.polymorpha 11407.40E-155
MA_213889p0010Tau P.abies 1573.00E-49A0A0C9RTV3Transcribed RNA W.nobilis 4148.30E-46
MA_160708p0010Tau P.abies 1573.00E-49L7S309Tau P.tabuliformis 3956.30E-43
kfl00659_0030 K. flaccidum kfl00659_0030 K. flaccidum
Sphfalx0108s0054.1MAPEG S.fallax 36.64.00E-05K9TE82putative MAPEG O.acuminata 2037.20E-17
Sphfalx0011s0245.1MAPEG S.fallax 32.30.001L8N7J9MAPEG P.biceps 1941.30E-15
Sphfalx0077s0049.1MAPEG S.fallax 30.40.005A0A0M1JQ19putative MAPEG Planktothricoides 1852.50E-14
213211 M. pusilla 213211 M. pusilla
AT1G78370.1Tau A.thaliana 794.00E-19C1MVD9putative OMEGA-like M.pusilla 15820
AT1G78380.1Tau A.thaliana 78.27.00E-19C1EG60putative OMEGA-like M.commoda 11825.80E-160
Cc01_g15350Tau C.canephora 78.28.00E-19A4SB04putative OMEGA-like O.lucimarinus 9793.00E-129
49816 M. pusilla 49816 M. pusilla
PGSC0003DMP400034285MAPEG S.tuberosum 84.34.00E-23C1MGH6MAPEG M.pusilla 8367.30E-112
LOC_Os03g50130.1MAPEG O.sativa 83.29.00E-23C1EIA6putative MAPEG M.commoda 3737.20E-42
Solyc02g081430.2.1MAPEG S.lycopersicum 82.81.00E-22T1P743MAPEG P.minimum 3171.50E-33

Two sequences from Marchantia polymorpha, one sequence from Klebsormidium flaccidum and two sequences from Micromonas pusilla were compared versus the GST protein sequences here collected and the UniProtkb database.

Summary of the two BLASTp results. Two sequences from Marchantia polymorpha, one sequence from Klebsormidium flaccidum and two sequences from Micromonas pusilla were compared versus the GST protein sequences here collected and the UniProtkb database. On the other hand, the sequence from Klebsormidium flaccidum (kfl00659_0030) and the remaining one from Micromonas pusilla (49816) showed a significant alignment with members of the Mapeg class (Table 3). A domain search using the Interpro tool[28] (Figure S1) showed that a GST-Tau from both the phylogenetic tree and the BLASTp analysis in Micromonas pusilla (213211) is actually an Omega-like GST (Figure S1). The presence of the GST-Tau class in plants from Lycophytae to higher plants in Liu et al., 2013, suggested that this class of proteins served the plants to colonize lands. The absence of Tau GSTs in all Bryophytes by a multiple sequence alignment and an associated phylogenetic tree of all the available GSTs from this division and the 1107 proteins from our collection (data not shown) was confirmed. This study highlighted the presence of two Tau GSTs in the Marchantiophytes division. This evidence supports the hypothesis of a paraphyletic origin for Bryophytes [29-31] (Fig. 2), in contrast with the general assumption that Bryophytes and Marchantiophytes are a separated clade from the one that gave rise to higher plants, and it also suggests that Marchantiophytes could indeed belong to the branching bringing to higher plants.
Figure 2

(A) Phylogenetic tree currently proposed for green plants evolution. (B) Green plants evolutionary tree resulting from Cooper 2014. (C) Green plants evolutionary tree proposed herein.

(A) Phylogenetic tree currently proposed for green plants evolution. (B) Green plants evolutionary tree resulting from Cooper 2014. (C) Green plants evolutionary tree proposed herein.

Tau subclasses

Data collected in this research clearly highlights the amplification of the GST-Tau class when compared to other GST classes[8] (Fig. 1). In the work of Wagner[32], the authors suggested that GST-Tau in Arabidopsis could be divided into three subclasses. In order to further investigate the expansion of the Tau class, a pairwise similarity of these proteins in Arabidopsis thaliana (Fig. 3) and in Solanum lycopersicum (Table S2), respectively, was carried out. The results highlight the presence of four subclasses in Arabidopsis (Fig. 3), one more than what Wagner[32] described. Whereas five subclasses were identified in tomato (Table S2).
Figure 3

Arabidopsis thaliana GST-Tau similarity matrix. Minimum and maximum values per column are indicated. The last columns indicate annotation of the gene in terms of chromosome (Chr), gene start (Start) and gene end (End), number of exons per gene (N. of exons) and the assignment to the identified subclass (Subclass number).

Arabidopsis thaliana GST-Tau similarity matrix. Minimum and maximum values per column are indicated. The last columns indicate annotation of the gene in terms of chromosome (Chr), gene start (Start) and gene end (End), number of exons per gene (N. of exons) and the assignment to the identified subclass (Subclass number). For further confirmation, two independent phylogenetic trees, one for Arabidopsis and one for tomato (Fig. 4), respectively, were drawn. The trees support our results from the pairwise similarity matrices. Successively, a phylogenetic tree (Fig. 5) with a reduced number of species, when compared to the one in Fig. 1, and including only Arabidopsis, S. lycopersicum, V. vinifera, three monocots (maize, rice and greater duckweed), S. moellendorffii and M. polymorpha was built. The latter two species are considered plants ancestors[33]. The figure shows the specific grouping into five subclasses, which are indicated from subclass 1 to 5, already detected in the species-specific analysis of tomato Tau GSTs. Subclass 5 does not include GSTs from Arabidopsis.
Figure 4

Phylogenetic tree of GSTs from the class Tau in tomato (red) and Arabidopsis (yellow). The branches indicate the possible different subclasses, according to their color reported in the legend. Bootstrap values are also indicated.

Figure 5

Phylogenetic tree of GSTs from class Tau of nine different species (as reported in the leaves legend). The branches indicate the possible different subclasses, according to the color reported in the corresponding legend. Bootstrap values are also indicated.

Phylogenetic tree of GSTs from the class Tau in tomato (red) and Arabidopsis (yellow). The branches indicate the possible different subclasses, according to their color reported in the legend. Bootstrap values are also indicated. Phylogenetic tree of GSTs from class Tau of nine different species (as reported in the leaves legend). The branches indicate the possible different subclasses, according to the color reported in the corresponding legend. Bootstrap values are also indicated. In the work of Dixon and Edwards[34], all Arabidopsis GSTs were assigned with a specific role. Considering these functional assignments, subclass 1 includes nine Arabidopsis GSTs (AT3G43800.1, AT1G78370.1, AT1G78340.1, AT1G78380.1, AT1G78320.1, AT1G78360.1, AT1G17180.1, AT1G17190.1 and AT1G53680.1) that are reported to be expressed under abiotic and biotic stresses, since they bind herbicides (AT1G17190.1), 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (AT1G78380.1, AT1G17180.1, AT1G53680.1), and salicylic (AT3G43800.1) or jasmonic acid (AT1G78370.1). Subclass 2 includes eight Arabidopsis GSTs (AT1G59700.1, AT1G59670.1, AT1G69930.1, AT1G69920.1, AT1G27130.1, AT1G27140.1, AT1G10370.1 and AT1G10360.1) all reported to have a low capability of binding glutathione. These GSTs result to be abundant in the nucleus and also bind RNA. Arabidopsis Tau GSTs preferentially expressed in root (AT3G09270.1, AT2G29480.1, AT2G29470.1, AT2G29490.1, AT2G29460.1, AT2G29440.1, AT2G29450.1 and AT2G29420.1) when the concentration of auxin and/or abscisic acid increase are all located in the subclass 3. Finally, the three GSTs (AT1G74590.1, AT5G62480.1 and AT5G62480.2), which result to be highly expressed in seed under stress condition, are all included in subclass 4. Subclass 5 includes S. lycopersicum, V. vinifera and O. sativa members while Arabidopsis GSTs are all absent. This aspect was further investigated also considering Tau GSTs from B. oleracea, another Brassicaceae in which 28 Tau GSTs were also characterized[35]. The phylogenetic tree, including Tau GSTs from B. oleracea, V. vinifera, S. lycopersicum and A. thaliana (Figure S2), shows that GSTs from B. oleracea are not included in the subclass 5, and suggests that the absence of members of subclass 5 could be a common feature in Brassicaceae. 47 GSTs are included in subclass 5 (Fig. 5). LOC_Os12g02960.1, from O. sativa [36], and Solyc01g081250.2.1 and Solyc09g063150.2.1, from S. lycopersicum [37] result to be expressed under abiotic stress. Moreover, six V. vinifera GSTs in the subclass were characterized as each one is able to bind and transport flavonoids in the berry’s skin (VIT_201s0026g01340.1, VIT_207s0005g04890.1, VIT_215s0024g01630.1, VIT_215s0024g01650.1 and VIT_215s0107g00150.1, in the work of Costantini[38], and VIT_215s0024g01540.1 in the work of Malacarne[39]). Interestingly, four V. vinifera GSTs (VIT_205s0051g00240.1, VIT_207s0005g04880.1, VIT_205s0049g01090.1, VIT_205s0049g01120.1)[40] and one S. lycopersicum GST (Solyc01g081270.2.1)[41] result to be expressed during the abscission. This could suggest a functional divergence of members of subclass 5 and a possible association with abscission mechanisms thus explain its absence in Brassicaceae in contrast with their presence in grapevine and tomato[42]. GST-Tau from M. polymorpha (Marchantiophyta) and S. moellendorffii (Lycopodium) are all grouped in subclass 1. This may suggest that this Tau subclass could be the group of ancestral GSTs sequences.

Discussion

This analysis of 1107 GSTs from plants with sequenced genomes results in a wide phylogenetic tree providing insights on the organization of the different GST classes and highlights the presence of subclasses in the major classes currently described. Beyond the assignment to specific GST classes for 666 unclassified proteins, the main aspect presented in this study is the possible confirmation of the paraphyletic origin of Bryophytes in contrast with the general assumption that Bryophytes and Marchantiophytes are a separated clade from the one that gave rise to higher plants. Moreover, the results indicate that Marchantiophytes could indeed belong to the branching bringing to higher plants. The study includes the analysis of GST-Tau class, resulting in the discovery of the presence of at least 5 subclasses. The study tried to define the function of these subclasses. The results highlight the presence of a GST-Tau subclass including all the GST sequences from ancestor species, suggesting a primordial functionality for the members of this subclass. Finally a possible subclass, including genes associated with abscission, appears to be absent in Brassicaceae.

Materials and Methods

Genomic resources

GST protein sequences were searched by keyword. For Amborella trichopoda (v1.0), Selaginella moellendorffii (v1.0), Sphagnum fallax (v0.5), Spirodela polyrhiza (v2), Zea mays (Ensembl-18), Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545 (v3.0), Marchantia polymorpha (v3.1) and Populus trichocarpa (v3.0) the sequences were downloaded from Phytozome 11[43] (https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/pz/portal.html); GSTs from Picea abies (v1.0) were downloaded from Congenie (http://congenie.org/); GSTs Klebsormidium flaccidum were downloaded from CGA (http://genome.microbedb.jp/Klebsormidium) while the ones from Oryza sativa were downloaded from TIGR[44] (http://rice.plantbiology.msu.edu/); GST sequences from Coffea canephora were obtained searching in the Coffee genome Hub database[45] (http://coffee-genome.org/coffeacanephora); Glicine max’s GSTs protein sequence were downloaded from Gramene[46] (http://www.gramene.org/); GST sequences of Solanum lycopersicum (iTAG2.4) and Capsicum annuum (v1.55) were downloaded from SGN[47] (https://solgenomics.net/), while the ones of Solanum tuberosum (PGSC_DM_v_3.4) were obtained from Spud db[48] (http://solanaceae.plantbiology.msu.edu/); GST sequences of Arabidopsis thaliana were downloaded from TAIR10 (https://www.arabidopsis.org/). Vitis vinifera GST sequences (v2) were obtained from Cribi (http://genomes.cribi.unipd.it/grape/). GST sequences of Physcomitrella patens were obtained from[19] and the ones from Citrus sinensis were obtained from[9].

Phylogenetic Analysis

Multiple alignments were obtained using Muscle[24] with default parameter (gap open penalty -2,9, gap extension penalty 0). The Phylogenetic tree was built with RaxML[25], using the maximum likelihood method, considering PROTCATBLOSUM62 as similarity matrix with the Bootstrap option. Finally the editing tool iTOL v3[49] was used. In order to obtain the pairwise distances of GST-Tau protein sequences we used “protdist” from PHYLIP, using the JTT matrix[50]. All the alignments, trees and matrices were built using shorter identifiers to indicate each gene. The conversion table between the original gene IDs and the code here used is reported in the supplemental Table 1.

Class assignation for ambiguous cases

In order to understand the class of the three putative GST-Tau of the two algae and the class of the two putative Tau GSTs of the Marchantiophyta we performed a BLASTp[26] with default parameters versus the entire GSTs collection here considered. A Uniprot BLASTp was also performed using default parameters versus UNIPROTkb[27]. The M. pusilla putative GST-Tau was further investigated by an InterProScan[28] analysis with default parameters. Supplementary Figures Supplementary Tables
  45 in total

1.  Probing the diversity of the Arabidopsis glutathione S-transferase gene family.

Authors:  Ulrich Wagner; Robert Edwards; David P Dixon; Felix Mauch
Journal:  Plant Mol Biol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.076

2.  Glutathione transferases.

Authors:  David P Dixon; Robert Edwards
Journal:  Arabidopsis Book       Date:  2010-05-08

3.  Gramene: a resource for comparative grass genomics.

Authors:  Doreen Ware; Pankaj Jaiswal; Junjian Ni; Xiaokang Pan; Kuan Chang; Kenneth Clark; Leonid Teytelman; Steve Schmidt; Wei Zhao; Samuel Cartinhour; Susan McCouch; Lincoln Stein
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Overly simplistic substitution models obscure green plant phylogeny.

Authors:  Endymion D Cooper
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 18.313

5.  Pathogen-defence gene prp1-1 from potato encodes an auxin-responsive glutathione S-transferase.

Authors:  K Hahn; G Strittmatter
Journal:  Eur J Biochem       Date:  1994-12-01

Review 6.  Plant glutathione S-transferases: enzymes with multiple functions in sickness and in health.

Authors:  R Edwards; D P Dixon; V Walbot
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 18.313

7.  Organisation and structural evolution of the rice glutathione S-transferase gene family.

Authors:  N Soranzo; M Sari Gorla; L Mizzi; G De Toma; C Frova
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 3.291

8.  Functional divergence of the glutathione S-transferase supergene family in Physcomitrella patens reveals complex patterns of large gene family evolution in land plants.

Authors:  Yan-Jing Liu; Xue-Min Han; Lin-Ling Ren; Hai-Ling Yang; Qing-Yin Zeng
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 8.340

9.  Functional divergence in the glutathione transferase superfamily in plants. Identification of two classes with putative functions in redox homeostasis in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Authors:  David P Dixon; Benjamin G Davis; Robert Edwards
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2002-06-19       Impact factor: 5.157

10.  A phylogenomic profile of hemerythrins, the nonheme diiron binding respiratory proteins.

Authors:  Xavier Bailly; Stefano Vanin; Christine Chabasse; Kenji Mizuguchi; Serge N Vinogradov
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 3.260

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Bioinformatics Resources for Plant Abiotic Stress Responses: State of the Art and Opportunities in the Fast Evolving -Omics Era.

Authors:  Luca Ambrosino; Chiara Colantuono; Gianfranco Diretto; Alessia Fiore; Maria Luisa Chiusano
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-06

Review 2.  Functional, Structural and Biochemical Features of Plant Serinyl-Glutathione Transferases.

Authors:  Elodie Sylvestre-Gonon; Simon R Law; Mathieu Schwartz; Kevin Robe; Olivier Keech; Claude Didierjean; Christian Dubos; Nicolas Rouhier; Arnaud Hecker
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 5.753

3.  Detoxification of Reactive Carbonyl Species by Glutathione Transferase Tau Isozymes.

Authors:  Jun'ichi Mano; Sayaka Kanameda; Rika Kuramitsu; Nagisa Matsuura; Yasuo Yamauchi
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 5.753

4.  Contraction of the ROS Scavenging Enzyme Glutathione S-Transferase Gene Family in Cetaceans.

Authors:  Ran Tian; Inge Seim; Wenhua Ren; Shixia Xu; Guang Yang
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 3.154

Review 5.  Reactive Carbonyl Species: A Missing Link in ROS Signaling.

Authors:  Jun'ichi Mano; Md Sanaullah Biswas; Koichi Sugimoto
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-30

6.  Glutathione S-transferase: a candidate gene for berry color in muscadine grapes (Vitis rotundifolia).

Authors:  Aruna Varanasi; Margaret Worthington; Lacy Nelson; Autumn Brown; Thomas Mason Chizk; Renee Threlfall; Luke Howard; Patrick Conner; Rosa Figueroa-Balderas; Mélanie Massonnet; Dario Cantu; John R Clark
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.542

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.