2011
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-011-1474-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular cloning and biochemical characterization of three Concord grape (Vitis labrusca) flavonol 7-O-glucosyltransferases

Abstract: Grapes berries produce and accumulate many reactive secondary metabolites, and encounter a wide range of pathogen- and human-derived xenobiotic compounds. The enzymatic glucosylation of these metabolites changes their reactivity, stability and subcellular location. Two ESTs with more than 90% nucleotide sequence identity to three full-length glucosyltransferases are expressed in several grape tissues. The full-length clones have more than 60% amino acid sequence similarity to previously characterized flavonoid… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of the enzymes in this cluster, C12RT1 and Cs1,6Rhat showed in vitro rhamnosyl transferring activities toward flavonoid-7- O -glucoside ( Frydman et al, 2004 , 2013 ; Ohashi et al, 2016 ), UGT78G1 catalyzes the glucosylation of flavonoids at the 3- O - hydroxyl site ( Modolo et al, 2007 , 2009 ), and BpUGAT may function as an anthocyanin glucuronosyltransferase to transfer glucuronate onto cyanidin 3- O -glucoside ( Sawada et al, 2005 ; Osmani et al, 2008 ). Such incongruence between the phylogenetic position and substrate specificities has been found in other UGTs, including grape VLOGT2 and onion UGT73G1 and onion UGT73J1 ( Kramer et al, 2003 ; Hall et al, 2011 ). These results support the proposition that the functions and specificities of UGTs is perhaps not accurately determined based on their protein sequences alone ( Dhaubhadel et al, 2008 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Of the enzymes in this cluster, C12RT1 and Cs1,6Rhat showed in vitro rhamnosyl transferring activities toward flavonoid-7- O -glucoside ( Frydman et al, 2004 , 2013 ; Ohashi et al, 2016 ), UGT78G1 catalyzes the glucosylation of flavonoids at the 3- O - hydroxyl site ( Modolo et al, 2007 , 2009 ), and BpUGAT may function as an anthocyanin glucuronosyltransferase to transfer glucuronate onto cyanidin 3- O -glucoside ( Sawada et al, 2005 ; Osmani et al, 2008 ). Such incongruence between the phylogenetic position and substrate specificities has been found in other UGTs, including grape VLOGT2 and onion UGT73G1 and onion UGT73J1 ( Kramer et al, 2003 ; Hall et al, 2011 ). These results support the proposition that the functions and specificities of UGTs is perhaps not accurately determined based on their protein sequences alone ( Dhaubhadel et al, 2008 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…For example, Fh3GT1 showed highest activity toward quercetin, whereas IhAn3GT used malvidin as its best substrate ( Yoshihara et al, 2005 ). The lack of congruence between substrate specificities and phylogenetic position has been observed in other UFGTs like VLOGT2 from grape ( Vitis labrusca ) and two UFGTs from onion ( Kramer et al, 2003 ; Hall et al, 2011 ). These results are in agreement with the past suggestions that function and specificity of UFGT can not predict based on the primary sequence alone ( Dhaubhadel et al, 2008 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…A neighbor-joining (NJ) tree was constructed using a Poisson model with 1,000 bootstrap replicates. The protein sequences included CCD1, CCD4a, NCED1, NCED2, ALDH12, ALDH14, UGT60, UGT67, UGT86, and UGT89 from this study; AtCCD1, AtCCD4, AtNCED3, AtNCED5, AtNCED6, AtCCD7, AtCCD8, AtALDH2C4, AtALDH2B7 UGT73C6, and UGT73B2 from A. thaliana (Skibbe et al, 2002; Jones et al, 2003; Nair et al, 2004; Auldridge et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2006; Alder et al, 2012; Frey et al, 2012; Gonzalez-Jorge et al, 2013); CsCCD2, CsGT45, and UGTCs2 from C. sativus (Moraga et al, 2004; Frusciante et al, 2014); MtCCD1 and UGT73K1 from Medicago truncatula (Achnine et al, 2005; Floss et al, 2008; Moraga et al, 2009); CmCCD1 from Cucumis melo (Ibdah et al, 2006); CmCCD4a from C. morifolium (Ohmiya et al, 2006); CitCCD4 from C. unshiu (Ma et al, 2013; Rodrigo et al, 2013); CaALDH1 from C. annuum (Kim and Hwang, 2015); AaALDH1 from A. annua (Teoh et al, 2009); BoBADH from B. orellana (Bouvier et al, 2003); REF1 from B. napus (Mittasch et al, 2013); Zmrf2 (ALDH2B2) from Z. mays (Cui et al, 1996); BALDH from A. majus (Long et al, 2009); UGT75L6 and UGT94E5 from G. jasminoides (Nagatoshi et al, 2012); VLOGT1, VLOGT2, and VLOGT3 from Vitis labrusca (Hall et al, 2011); Gt5GT7 from Gentiana triflora (Nakatsuka et al, 2008); UGT1, UGTPg29, and UGTPg45 from P. ginseng (Yan et al, 2014; Wang et al, 2015); CrUGT8 from Catharanthus roseus (Asada et al, 2013); AdGT4 from Actinidia deliciosa (Yauk et al, 2014); GAME2 from Solanum lycopersicum (Itkin et al, 2013); ZOG1 from Phaseolus lunatus (Martin et al, 1999b); and ZOX1 from Phaseolus vulgaris (Martin et al, 1999a). Conserved motifs in CCDs, ALDHs and UGTs were detected using motif based sequence analysis tool MEME (Suite version 4.11.2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%