| Literature DB >> 31853511 |
Deepti Somayajula1, Neetin Desai1.
Abstract
Apomicts have been studied at their genetic levels, but there are no any direct evidence of its mechanism. In order to understand the mechanism involved, a close relative of Pennisetum, Cenchrus polystachion, an apomictic species was explored for more insights into protein expression in reproductive structures. Optimization of protein extraction was studied with the leaf tissue and optimized protocol was extrapolated to other five tissues. The phenol-based protein extraction emerged as the best method for plant leaf tissue providing a better protein yield, separation of bands, removal of non-protein components like polyphenolic compounds and nucleic acids. The proteome analysis of leaf, stigma, immature ovary, seed, anther sac and pollen tissues of Cenchrus polystachion were carried out identifying a total of 135407 proteins against the Poaceae database from UNIPROT/TrEMBL. The target candidate proteins found in all the tissues were identified and mainly comprised of Actin Protein, PIP, Starch Synthase, ATP Synthase, Glutathione S Transferase, Dehydroascorbate reductase, Ascorbate peroxidase and heat shock proteins. Visualization and descriptive statistics conveyed all the necessary information to understand the differential expression of proteins in Cenchrus polystachion. This study forms a base to understand the role of tissue specific expressed proteins in an apomictic plant.Entities:
Keywords: Apomicts; Apomixis; Cell biology; Cenchrus polystachion; Developmental biology; Differential expression; Omics; Plant biology; Proteins; Proteome; Systems biology
Year: 2019 PMID: 31853511 PMCID: PMC6911988 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Effect of different pH and TCA concentration on total protein recovery (mg/gm of fresh tissue). Three concentrations of TCA was used 10%, 50% and 100% was studied at five different range.
Protein Yield (mg/gm of fresh weight) by different TCA concentrations with five pH range.
| TCA Conc. | pH | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH 7 (mean ± SD) | pH 7.5 (mean ± SD) | pH 8 (mean ± SD) | pH 8.5 (mean ± SD) | pH 9 (mean ± SD) | |
| (mg/gm) | (mg/gm) | (mg/gm) | (mg/gm) | (mg/gm) | |
| TCA 50% | 0.6533 ± 0.1 | 1.0167 ± 0.01 | 1.9467 + 0.07 | 1.1967 ± 0.01 | 1.4967 ± 0.1 |
| TCA 100% | 0.7467 ± 0.09 | 0.4001 ± 0.1 | 0.2003 ± 0.07 | 1.1567 ± 0.01 | 0.8833 ± 0.05 |
| TCA 10%B | 1.2133 ± 0.05 | 1.4466 ± 0.09 | 0.7 ± 0.07 | 1.2033 ± 0.03 | 1.0433 ± 0.01 |
Nomenclature used for different methods.
| Sl. No. | Method Name | Nomenclature for the method |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | P2 (pH 8.5) | M1 |
| 2. | TCA 10%B (pH 7.5) | M2 |
| 3. | P6 (pH 7) | M3 |
| 4. | TCA 50% (pH 8) | M4 |
| 5. | TCA 50% (pH9) | M5 |
Figure 2Effect of different extraction methods on Protein Yield. The data clearly indicates M1 as the suitable method for plant tissue protein extraction, also due to its compatibility with Mass Spectrometry.
Protein Yield (mg/gm of fresh weight) by TCA and Phenol methods.
| Sl.NO. | Extraction Methods | pH |
|---|---|---|
| Protein Yield (mean ± SD) | ||
| (mg/gm) | ||
| M1 | 2.3622 ± 0.01 | |
| M2 | 1.4466 ± 0.09 | |
| M3 | 0.82 ± 0.05 | |
| M4 | 1.9467 + 0.07 | |
| M5 | 1.4967 ± 0.1 |
Protein Yield (mg/gm of fresh tissue) of six tissue of Cenchrus polystachion.
| Sl.No. | Plant Tissue | Protein Yield (mg/gm of fresh tissue) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leaf | 1.946 ± 0.03 |
| 2 | Stigma | 39.428 ± 0.2 |
| 3 | Immature Ovary | 20.429 ± 0.2 |
| 4 | Seed | 84.453 ± 0.1 |
| 5 | Anther Sac | 53.299 ± 0.2 |
| 6 | Pollen | 32.149 ± 0.3 |
Figure 3Electrophoretic profile of the different tissue of Cenchrus polystachion. The molecular weight marker of the range 250–10 kDa was used as a reference for studying the protein band pattern of the proteome of all the tissues and described the relative changes in band intensities between the six tissues.
Figure 4Densitometry Analysis of the SDS Profile of the tissue specific proteins of Cenchrus polystachion. 1. Lane 01 Protein Molecular Marker, 2. Lane 2 Immature Ovary, 3. Lane 3 Stigma 4. Lane 4 Anther Sac, 5. Lane 5 Seed, 6. Lane 6 Pollen, 7. Lane 7 Leaf (For Details Ref Table 5).
Densitometry analysis of Lane 1–7 of SDS Profile of tissue specific proteins.
| Lane 01 | Lane 02 | Lane 03 | Lane 04 | Lane 05 | Lane 06 | Lane 07 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) | Band No. | Molecular Weight (KDa) |
| 1 | 250 | 1 | 113.3 | 1 | 109.1 | 1 | 97.8 | 1 | 109.1 | 1 | 113.3 | 1 | 157.3 |
| 2 | 130 | 2 | 95.6 | 2 | 95.6 | 2 | 59.7 | 2 | 91.5 | 2 | 93.5 | 2 | 11.9 |
| 3 | 100 | 3 | 73.2 | 3 | 76.5 | 3 | 49.2 | 3 | 71.6 | 3 | 67.4 | ||
| 4 | 70 | 4 | 67.4 | 4 | 60.5 | 4 | 11.3 | 4 | 64.9 | 4 | 59.4 | ||
| 5 | 55 | 5 | 59.7 | 5 | 44.4 | 5 | 58.2 | 5 | 56.1 | ||||
| 6 | 35 | 6 | 56.8 | 6 | 32.5 | 6 | 43.3 | 6 | 43.3 | ||||
| 7 | 25 | 7 | 49.2 | 7 | 11.3 | 7 | 39.8 | 7 | 39.4 | ||||
| 8 | 15 | 8 | 44.1 | 8 | 36.8 | 8 | 18.9 | ||||||
| 9 | 10 | 9 | 39.8 | 9 | 24.8 | 9 | 10.4 | ||||||
| 10 | 21.0 | 10 | 22.2 | ||||||||||
| 11 | 10.0 | 11 | 18.4 | ||||||||||
| 12 | 14.1 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | 13.1 | ||||||||||||
| 14 | 10.0 | ||||||||||||
Figure 5Principal component analysis. The strong variance is seen on PC1 and PC2 and correlates with tissue specific proteome functionality. Plot of the statistically significant proteins of all the tissues of Cenchrus polystachion.
Figure 6Principal Component Analysis loading plot for all the tissues of Cenchrus polysatachion.
Abundance Ratios of Differentially expressed Target Proteins of Cenchrus polystachion. For the calculation of abundance ratio, values of leaf tissue are taken as source (control) and all other tissues act as sink (samples).
| Sl.No. | Accession | Description | Abundance Ratio: (Anther, Sample)/(Leaf, Control) | Abundance Ratio: (Ovary, Sample)/(Leaf, Control) | Abundance Ratio: (Pollen, Sample)/(Leaf, Control) | Abundance Ratio: (Seed, Sample)/(Leaf, Control) | Abundance Ratio: (Stigma, Sample)/(Leaf, Control) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E5FQ64 | Heat shock protein 90 OS = | 0.405 | 0.767 | 3.229 | 2.209 | 0.832 |
| 2 | A0A2D3HJP1 | ATP synthase subunit beta, chloroplastic OS = | 0.259 | 0.045 | 0.988 | 2.891 | 2.083 |
| 3 | U5XRX7 | Small heat shock protein sHsp17.0D OS = | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 4 | A0A1B1SJW5 | PIP11 OS = | 0.174 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.293 |
| 5 | E0ZQA4 | Actin (Fragment) OS = | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 6 | Q5NKR6 | Starch synthase, chloroplastic/amyloplastic OS = | 0.01 | 3.541 | 3.104 | 1.721 | 0.678 |
| 7 | U5XYA0 | Dehydroascorbate reductase OS = | 0.01 | 1.444 | 31.788 | 0.01 | 9.105 |
| 8 | A4ZYP9 | Asorbate peroxidase OS = | 8.111 | 1.375 | 6.934 | 5.29 | 12.276 |
| 9 | F1DI22 | Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase OS = | 0.076 | 0.114 | 0.084 | 0.099 | 0.191 |
| 10 | A0A1B1SJW5 | PIP11 OS = | 0.174 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.293 |
| 11 | Q5MJ30 | Glutathione S-transferase OS = | 1.084 | 1.54 | 0.456 | 2.211 | 0.154 |
| 12 | A0A2I4JE72 | Delta-1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthase OS = | 12.841 | 100 | 0.01 | 100 | 16.446 |
| 13 | A0A0K1DBU0 | Glutathione S-transferase (Fragment) OS = | 0.01 | 0.446 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| 14 | A0A0E3H7D1 | Putative xylanase inhibitor protein (Fragment) OS = | 1.168 | 0.547 | 0.01 | 0.48 | 2.026 |
| 15 | E0ZQA4 | Actin (Fragment) OS = | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 16 | C0JW71 | Carbonic anhydrase OS = | 0.072 | 0.01 | 0.057 | 0.021 | 0.065 |
| 17 | A0A2D3HJP1 | ATP synthase subunit beta, chloroplastic OS = | 0.259 | 0.045 | 0.988 | 2.891 | 2.083 |
| 18 | A0A088MTG2 | Caffeoyl-CoA-3-O-methyl transferase OS = | 0.547 | 1.236 | 4.823 | 0.332 | 0.239 |
| 19 | A0A1W6C2J7 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large chain OS = | 1.221 | 0.027 | 0.247 | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| 20 | Q9ATP4 | Uncharacterized protein OS = | 0.01 | 6.158 | 0.01 | 0.099 | 0.642 |