Departments View all
Publication History View all
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed CentralFrontiers in Plant Science 05/2015; 6. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2015.00375
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Genetically modified, (GM) crops with potential allergens must be evaluated for safety and endogenous IgE binding pattern compared to native variety, prior to market release. To compare endogenous IgE binding proteins of three GM maize seeds containing Cry 1Ab,1Ac,1C transgenic proteins with non GM maize. An integrated approach of in silico & in vitro methods was employed. Cry proteins were tested for presence of allergen sequence by FASTA in allergen databases. Biochemical assays for maize extracts were performed. Specific IgE (sIgE) and Immunoblot using food sensitized patients sera (n = 39) to non GM and GM maize antigens was performed. In silico approaches, confirmed for non sequence similarity of stated transgenic proteins in allergen databases. An insignificant (p> 0.05) variation in protein content between GM and non GM maize was observed. Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF) revealed reduced number of stable protein fractions in GM then non GM maize which might be due to shift of constituent protein expression. Specific IgE values from patients showed insignificant difference in non GM and GM maize extracts. Five maize sensitized cases, recognized same 7 protein fractions of 88-28 kD as IgE bindng in both GM and non-GM maize, signifying absence of variation. Four of the reported IgE binding proteins were also found to be stable by SGF. Cry proteins did not indicate any significant similarity of >35% in allergen databases. Immunoassays also did not identify appreciable differences in endogenous IgE binding in GM and non GM maize.PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0117340. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117340
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Understanding developmental processes, especially in non-model crop plants, is extremely important in order to unravel unique mechanisms regulating development. Chickpea (C. arietinum L.) seeds are especially valued for their high carbohydrate and protein content. Therefore, in order to elucidate the mechanisms underlying seed development in chickpea, deep sequencing of transcriptomes from four developmental stages was undertaken. In this study, next generation sequencing platform was utilized to sequence the transcriptome of four distinct stages of seed development in chickpea. About 1.3 million reads were generated which were assembled into 51,099 unigenes by merging the de novo and reference assemblies. Functional annotation of the unigenes was carried out using the Uniprot, COG and KEGG databases. RPKM based digital expression analysis revealed specific gene activities at different stages of development which was validated using Real time PCR analysis. More than 90% of the unigenes were found to be expressed in at least one of the four seed tissues. DEGseq was used to determine differentially expressing genes which revealed that only 6.75% of the unigenes were differentially expressed at various stages. Homology based comparison revealed 17.5% of the unigenes to be putatively seed specific. Transcription factors were predicted based on HMM profiles built using TF sequences from five legume plants and analyzed for their differential expression during progression of seed development. Expression analysis of genes involved in biosynthesis of important secondary metabolites suggested that chickpea seeds can serve as a good source of antioxidants. Since transcriptomes are a valuable source of molecular markers like simple sequence repeats (SSRs), about 12,000 SSRs were mined in chickpea seed transcriptome and few of them were validated. In conclusion, this study will serve as a valuable resource for improved chickpea breeding.Frontiers in Plant Science 12/2014; 5. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2014.00698
- Head of Institution
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.
Rg score distribution
No data available.