Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24980909›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2014

Experimental and bioinformatic characterization of a recombinant polygalacturonase-inhibitor protein from pearl millet and its interaction with fungal polygalacturonases.

S Ashok Prabhu, Ratna Singh, Stephan Kolkenbrock, Neerakkal Sujeeth, Nour Eddine El Gueddari, Bruno M Moerschbacher, Ramachandra K Kini, Martin Wagenknecht

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

S Ashok PrabhuDepartment of Studies in Biotechnology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore-570 006, Karnataka, India Institut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
Ratna SinghInstitut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
Stephan KolkenbrockInstitut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
Neerakkal SujeethMolecular Biology of Plants, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, Centre for Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands.
Nour Eddine El GueddariInstitut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
Bruno M MoerschbacherInstitut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
Ramachandra K KiniDepartment of Studies in Biotechnology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore-570 006, Karnataka, India krk@appbot.uni-mysore.ac.in.
Martin WagenknechtInstitut für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Pflanzen, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Schlossplatz 8, D-48143 Münster, Germany.
University of Münster · DEUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity of Mysore · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygalacturonases (PGs) are hydrolytic enzymes employed by several phytopathogens to weaken the plant cell wall by degrading homopolygalacturonan, a major constituent of pectin. Plants fight back by employing polygalacturonase-inhibitor proteins (PGIPs). The present study compared the inhibition potential of pearl millet PGIP (Pennisetum glaucum; PglPGIP1) with the known inhibition of Phaseolus vulgaris PGIP (PvPGIP2) against two PGs, the PG-II isoform from Aspergillus niger (AnPGII) and the PG-III isoform from Fusarium moniliforme (FmPGIII). The key rationale was to elucidate the relationship between the extent of sequence similarity of the PGIPs and the corresponding PG inhibition potential. First, a pearl millet pgip gene (Pglpgip1) was isolated and phylogenetically placed among monocot PGIPs alongside foxtail millet (Setaria italica). Upstream sequence analysis of Pglpgip1 identified important cis-elements responsive to light, plant stress hormones, and anoxic stress. PglPGIP1, heterologously produced in Escherichia coli, partially inhibited AnPGII non-competitively with a pH optimum between 4.0 and 4.5, and showed no inhibition against FmPGIII. Docking analysis showed that the concave surface of PglPGIP1 interacted strongly with the N-terminal region of AnPGII away from the active site, whereas it weakly interacted with the C-terminus of FmPGIII. Interestingly, PglPGIP1 and PvPGIP2 employed similar motif regions with few identical amino acids for interaction with AnPGII at non-substrate-binding sites; however, they engaged different regions of AnPGII. Computational mutagenesis predicted D126 (PglPGIP1)-K39 (AnPGII) to be the most significant binding contact in the PglPGIP1-AnPGII complex. Such protein-protein interaction studies are crucial in the future generation of designer host proteins for improved resistance against ever-evolving pathogen virulence factors.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceAspergillus nigerBase SequenceFungal ProteinsFusariumMolecular Sequence DataPennisetumPlant ProteinsPolygalacturonaseRecombinant ProteinsSequence AlignmentFungal ProteinsPGIP protein, plantPlant ProteinsPolygalacturonaseRecombinant ProteinsComputational mutagenesiselectrostatic surface potentialinhibition studiespearl milletPGIPsPGsPhaseolus vulgarisprotein modelling and docking.

Identifiers

PMID24980909
PMCPMC4144779
OpenAlexW2101324764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.