The cell wall and secretory proteome of a tobacco cell line synthesising secondary wall

School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Proteomics (Impact Factor: 3.97). 05/2009; 9(9):2355-72. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200800721
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The utility of plant secondary cell wall biomass for industrial and biofuel purposes depends upon improving cellulose amount, availability and extractability. The possibility of engineering such biomass requires much more knowledge of the genes and proteins involved in the synthesis, modification and assembly of cellulose, lignin and xylans. Proteomic data are essential to aid gene annotation and understanding of polymer biosynthesis. Comparative proteomes were determined for secondary walls of stem xylem and transgenic xylogenic cells of tobacco and detected peroxidase, cellulase, chitinase, pectinesterase and a number of defence/cell death related proteins, but not marker proteins of primary walls such as xyloglucan endotransglycosidase and expansins. Only the corresponding detergent soluble proteome of secretory microsomes from the xylogenic cultured cells, subjected to ion-exchange chromatography, could be determined accurately since, xylem-specific membrane yields were of poor quality from stem tissue. Among the 109 proteins analysed, many of the protein markers of the ER such as BiP, HSP70, calreticulin and calnexin were identified, together with some of the biosynthetic enzymes and associated polypeptides involved in polymer synthesis. However 53% of these endomembrane proteins failed identification despite the use of two different MS methods, leaving considerable possibilities for future identification of novel proteins involved in secondary wall polymer synthesis once full genomic data are available.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lignocellulosic biomass is an important feedstock for the pulp and paper industry as well as emerging biofuels and biomaterials industries. However, recalcitrance of the secondary cell wall to chemical or enzymatic degradation remains a major hurdle for efficient extraction of economically important biopolymers such as cellulose. It has been estimated that approximately 10-15% of ~27,000 protein-coding genes in the Arabidopsis genome are dedicated to cell wall development, however only ~130 Arabidopsis genes thus far have experimental evidence validating cell wall function. While many genes have been implicated through co-expression analysis with known genes, a large number are broadly classified as proteins of unknown function (PUFs). Recently the functionality of some of these unknown proteins in cell wall development has been revealed using reverse genetic approaches. Given the large number of cell wall-related PUFs, how do we approach and subsequently prioritize the investigation of such unknown genes that may be essential to or influence plant cell wall development and structure? Here, we address the aforementioned question in two parts; we first identify the different kinds of PUFs based on known and predicted features such as protein domains. Knowledge of inherent features of PUFs may allow for functional inference and a concomitant link to biological context. Second, we discuss omics-based technologies and approaches that are helping identify and prioritize cell wall-related PUFs by functional association. In this way, hypothesis-driven experiments can be designed for functional elucidation of many proteins that remain missing links in our understanding of plant cell wall biosynthesis.
    Plant and Cell Physiology 03/2014; DOI:10.1093/pcp/pcu050 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The topic of plant proteomics is reviewed based on related papers published in the journal "Proteomics" since publication of the first issue in 2001. In total, around 300 original papers and 41 reviews published in "Proteomics" between 2000 and 2014 have been surveyed. Our main objective for this review is to help bridge the gap between plant biologists and proteomics technologists, two often very separate groups. Over the past years a number of reviews on plant proteomics have been published [1-7]. To avoid repetition we have focused on more recent literature published after 2010, and have chosen to rather make continuous reference to older publications. The use of the latest proteomics techniques, its integration with other approaches in the Systems Biology direction are discussed more in detail. Finally we comment on the recent history, state of the art, and future directions of plant proteomics, using publications in "Proteomics" to illustrate the progress in the field. The review is organized into two major blocks, the first devoted to provide an overview of experimental systems (plants, plant organs, biological processes) and the second one to the methodology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Proteomics 03/2015; 15(5-6). DOI:10.1002/pmic.201400349 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Xyloglucan plays an important structural role in primary cell walls, possibly tethering adjacent microfibrils and restraining cell expansion. There is therefore considerable interest in understanding the role of xyloglucan endotransglucosylase/hydrolases (XTHs), which are encoded in Arabidopsis by a 33-member gene family. We compared the key catalytic properties of two very different Arabidopsis XTHs (heterologously produced in Pichia), both of which are aluminium-repressed. Reductively tritiated oligosaccharides of xyloglucan were used as model acceptor substrates. Untransformed Pichia produced no xyloglucan-acting enzymes; therefore purification of the XTHs was unnecessary. XTH15, a classical group-I/II XTH, had high XET and undetectable XEH activity in vitro; its XET Km values were 31 μM XXXGol (acceptor substrate) and 2.9 mg/ml xyloglucan (donor substrate). In contrast, XTH31, a group-III-A XTH, showed predominant XEH activity and only slight XET activity in vitro; its XET Km was 86 μM XXXGol (acceptor), indicating a low affinity of this predominantly hydrolytic protein for a transglycosylation acceptor substrate. The Km of XTH31’s XEH activity was 1.6 mg/ml xyloglucan. For both proteins, the preferred XET acceptor substrate, among five cellotetraitol-based oligosaccharides tested, was XXXGol. XTH31’s XET activity was strongly compromised when the second Xyl residue was galactosylated. XTH15’s XET activity, in contrast, tolerated substitution at the second Xyl residue. The two enzymes also showed different pH preferences, XTH31 exhibiting an unusually low pH optimum and XTH15 an unusually broad optimum. XTH31’s hydrolase activity increased almost linearly with decreasing pH in the apoplastic range, 6.2-4.5, consistent with a possible role in ‘acid growth’. In conclusion, these two Al3+-repressed XTHs differ, in several important enzymic features, from other members of the Arabidopsis XTH family.
    Phytochemistry 10/2014; 112. DOI:10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.09.020 · 3.35 Impact Factor