Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Plant Biology

Open Access

Protease gene families in Populus and Arabidopsis

  • Maribel García-Lorenzo1,
  • Andreas Sjödin2,
  • Stefan Jansson2Email author and
  • Christiane Funk1
BMC Plant Biology20066:30

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-6-30

Received: 14 June 2006

Accepted: 20 December 2006

Published: 20 December 2006

Abstract

Background

Proteases play key roles in plants, maintaining strict protein quality control and degrading specific sets of proteins in response to diverse environmental and developmental stimuli. Similarities and differences between the proteases expressed in different species may give valuable insights into their physiological roles and evolution.

Results

We have performed a comparative analysis of protease genes in the two sequenced dicot genomes, Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa by using genes coding for proteases in the MEROPS database [1] for Arabidopsis to identify homologous sequences in Populus. A multigene-based phylogenetic analysis was performed. Most protease families were found to be larger in Populus than in Arabidopsis, reflecting recent genome duplication. Detailed studies on e.g. the DegP, Clp, FtsH, Lon, rhomboid and papain-Like protease families showed the pattern of gene family expansion and gene loss was complex. We finally show that different Populus tissues express unique suites of protease genes and that the mRNA levels of different classes of proteases change along a developmental gradient.

Conclusion

Recent gene family expansion and contractions have made the Arabidopsis and Populus complements of proteases different and this, together with expression patterns, gives indications about the roles of the individual gene products or groups of proteases.

Background

Proteolysis is a poorly understood aspect of plant molecular biology. Although proteases play crucial roles in many important processes in plant cells, e.g. responses to changes in environmental conditions, senescence and cell death, very little information is available on the substrate specificity and physiological roles of the various plant proteases. Even for the most abundant plant protein, ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), neither the proteases involved in its degradation nor the cellular location of the process are known. In the Arabidopsis thaliana (hereafter Arabidopsis) genome, many genes with sequence similarities to known proteases have been identified; the MEROPS database (release 7.30) of Arabidopsis proteases contains 676 entries, corresponding to almost 3 % of the proteome. However, protease activity has only been demonstrated for a few of the entries. Most of these putative proteases are found in extended gene families and are likely to have overlapping functions, complicating attempts to dissect the roles of the different proteases in plant metabolism and development.

One scenario in which proteases play a very important role is senescence, although it still is discussed if they actually cause senescence or purely are involved in resource mobilization.

Senescence is the final stage of plant development and can be induced by a number of both external and internal factors such as age, prolonged darkness, plant hormones, biotic or abiotic stress and seasonal responses. An important function of senescence is to reallocate nutrients, nitrogen in particular, to other parts of the plant before the specific structure is degraded. The understanding of senescence is very important for biomass production. In order to understand more about the role of proteases during senescence in this study we compare the nuclear genome of Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa. The close relationship of these two species in the plant kingdom [2] allows a direct comparison of an annual plant with a tree that has to cope with highly variable adaptations during its long life span. Recent research has shown that leaf senescence affects the chloroplast much earlier than the mitochondria or other compartments of the cell [3], we therefore chose to focus on protease families that express members in this plastid as well as on the papain protease family which consists of proteases that are well-known to be involved in senescence.

In the chloroplast at least 11 different protease families are represented, however, several of them work as processing peptidases. Only 6 families posses members that are known to be involved in degradation, four of these families belong to the class of serine proteases, two are metalloproteases. The Deg proteases form one family (S1, chymotrypsin family) inside the serine clade and the ATP-dependent Clp proteases are grouped in the S14 family. The S16 family contains the so-called Lon proteases. Metalloproteases (MPs) are proteases with a divalent cation cofactor that binds to the active site; most commonly Zn2+ is ligated to two Histidines in the sequence HEXXH. However, Zn2+ can be replaced by Co2+, Mn2+ or even Mg2+. The M41 family is the group of FtsH proteases and the EGY (ethylene-dependent gravitropism-deficient and yellow-green) proteases belong to the family of S2P proteases (M50).

Comparative genomics analyses could provide valuable insights into the conservation, evolution, abundance and roles of the various plant protease families. For instance, such analyses should facilitate the detection of protein sequences that are conserved in different species, and thus are likely to have common functions in them, and recent expansions of gene families, which should help elucidate issues concerning non-functionalization, neofunctionalization and subfunctionalization. Thus, as reported here, we undertook a comparative analysis of protease gene families in the two sequenced dicot genomes, those of the annual plant Arabidopsis and the tree Populus trichocarpa (hereafter Populus), with special emphasis on proteases which may play a role in senescence. The results should help to provide a framework for further elucidation of the nature and roles of these complex gene families.

Results

Most protease gene families are larger in Populus than in Arabidopsis

We made an analysis of all protease genes of Arabidopsis and Populus. As noted above, conservation of a protein sequence in these two species indicates that it is likely to have a common function in them. Recent expansions of gene families, on the other hand, could provide indications of different adaptive requirements (and, possibly, of more general differences between annual plants and trees).

The results of the genome comparison between Arabidopsis and Populus are compiled in Table 1. In total, we identified 723 genes coding for putative proteases in Arabidopsis and 955 in Populus. Forty-five previously unidentified Arabidopsis genes were detected that were not present in the MEROPS database at the time. Like most of the genes in the MEROPS database, we do not know whether or not these genes code for active proteases, but due to their sequence similarity they could have protease activity and were included in the comparison. Figure 1 shows a graphic representation of this comparison. Generally the protease gene numbers in each family do not vary greatly between the two species, although Populus has more members in most subfamilies, a consequence of its genome history. Both lineages have undergone rather recent genome duplications [4, 5] but the evolutionary clock seems to tick almost six-fold slower in the Populus as compared to the Arabidopsis lineage and loss of duplicated genes have been much retarded [4, 5]. However, some families were more expanded than others, especially the A11 subfamily of aspartic proteases (the copia transposon endopeptidase family), which has 20 members in Arabidopsis and 123 members in Populus. Since the characteristic sequence of these proteases is part of the copia-transposable element, which is abundant in Populus [5, 6], this expansion is likely to have been simply a consequence of the multiplication of the transposon, rather than selection pressure to increase the copy number of the protease per se. Therefore, this family will not be mentioned further. Some subfamilies (the aspartic-type A22, cysteine-type C56, serine-types S49 and S28, and metallo-types M1, M14 and M38) have twice as many members in Populus compared to Arabidopsis, but in Arabidopsis these numbers are low, thus duplication could have readily occurred. An interesting case is the subfamily C48, the Ulp1 (ubiquitin-like protease) endopeptidase family, cystein-type, which contains SUMO (small ubiquitin-like modifier) deconjugating enzymes, with 77 members in Arabidopsis, but only 13 in Populus. This protein family has been shown to cleave not only the SUMO precursor, but also SUMO ligated to its target proteins; SUMO-ligation probably being involved in many cellular processes, including nuclear export and stress responses [7] and flowering [8]. This family appears to have greatly expanded in Arabidopsis recently.
Table 1

Comparison of numbers of protease genes in Arabidopsis and Populus. Families highlighted in bold are those that have been examined in most depth in this study.

PROTEASE CLASS

MEROPS FAMILY

FAMILY DESCRIPTION

Number of Genes in Arabidopsis

Number of Genes in Populus

Threonine

T1

Proteasome family

25

32

 

T2

Peptidase family T2

4

5

 

T3

gamma-glutamyltransferase family

4

3

Cysteine

C1

Papain-like

38

44

 

C12

ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase family

3

3

 

C13

VPE

5

7

 

C14

Metacaspases

10

16

 

C15

pyroglutamyl peptidase I family

1

3

 

C19

ubiquitin-specific protease family

32

49

 

C26

gamma-glutamyl hydrolase family

5

4

 

C44

Peptidase family C44

8

10

 

C48

Ulp1endopeptidase family

77

13

 

C54

Aut2 peptidase family

3

3

 

C56

PfpI endopeptidase family

5

7

 

C65

Peptidase family C65

1

2

Serine

S1

Chymotrypsin family (Deg)

16

18

 

S8

Subtilisin family

65

72

 

S9

Prolyl oligopeptidase family

45

68

 

S10

Peptidase family S10

57

51

 

S12

D-Ala-D-Ala carboxypeptidase B family

1

1

 

S14

ClpP endopeptidase family

26

53

 

S16

Lon protease family

11

17

 

S26

Signal peptidase I family

20

24

 

S28

Peptidase family S28

7

18

 

S33

Peptidase family S33

51

68

 

S41

C-terminal processing peptidase family

3

4

 

S49

protease IV family (SppA)

1

3

 

S54

Rhomboid family

15

16

 

S59

Peptidase family S59

3

3

Metallo

M1

Peptidase family M1

3

8

 

M3

Peptidase family M3

4

5

 

M8

leishmanolysin family

1

1

 

M10

Peptidase family M10

5

6

 

M14

carboxypeptidase A family

2

4

 

M16

pitrilysin family

13

11

 

M17

leucyl aminopeptidase family

3

3

 

M18

Aminopeptidase I

2

3

 

M20

Peptidase family M20

13

18

 

M22

Peptidase family M22

2

4

 

M24

Peptidase family M24

12

16

 

M28

Aminopeptidase Y family

5

4

 

M38

Beta-aspartyl dipeptidase family

1

3

 

M41

FtsH endopeptidase family

12

18

 

M48

Ste24 endopeptidase family

3

5

 

M50

S2P protease family

4

5

 

M67

Peptidase family M67

9

13

Aspartic

A1

Pepsin-like proteases

59

74

 

A11

Copia transposon endopeptidase family

20

123

 

A22

presenilin family

8

14

TOTAL

  

723

955

Figure 1

Classification and comparison of proteases in Arabidopsis and Populus. The different colors indicate the different protease classes: threonine proteases (T), cysteine proteases (C), serine proteases (S), metalloproteases (M) and aspartic proteases (A). Each class can be divided into different families according to MEROPS, the family number is indicated between the Arabidopsis and Populus charts.

To confirm the findings described above, case studies were performed in more detail, focusing on proteases that are known to be present in the plant plastids and mitochondria, partly because we have a special interest in organellar biology and partly because these proteases generally belong to the best characterized plant protease families. The "organellar protease subfamilies" chosen for detailed comparisons were: the Deg/HtrA family (chymotrypsin family, S1), Lon protease family (S16), rhomboid protease family (S54) and the Clp endopeptidase family (S14), all belonging to the serine-type class, and the metallo-type FtsH endopeptidase family (M41). In addition, we examined the papain-like cysteine protease family (C1) as certain members are known to play an important role in leaf development, being the necessary machinery that the leaf needs to respond to different kind of stresses or to undergo senescence.

The FtsH protease family

FtsHs are ATP-dependent proteases that based on the X-ray crystallographic analysis form a homo-oligomeric hexameric ring [9]. E. coli FtsH has two transmembrane domains towards the N-terminus that anchor it in the plasma membrane, while the protease domain and the C-terminus face the cytoplasm [10]. Four isomers of FtsH have been identified in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, 12 in Arabidopsis [11]. Of the nine FtsH that reside in the chloroplast, five have been shown to be involved in the degradation of photosynthetic proteins during light acclimation [12, 13] or after high light damage [1417].

In Arabidopsis the FtsH family is encoded by 16 homologous sequences [11]. Four of these sequences lack the Zn-binding motif and are therefore thought to have lost proteolytic activity. However, they might be involved in chaperone functions instead [18]. In this work we focused on these presumably active proteases. FtsH proteases are thought to be membrane integral, as has been shown experimentally for FtsH1. This protease is inserted into the thylakoid membrane with the Zn-binding and ATPase motifs facing the stroma [14]. Gene comparison studies showed that of the 12 ftsH genes potentially coding for fully functional proteases 10 are found in highly homologous pairs. While the pairs AtFtsH1/5, AtFtsH2/8 and AtFtsH 7/9 are targeted to the chloroplast, AtFtsH3/10 and AtFtsH4 have been identified in mitochondria [18, 19]. AtFtsH11, which contains only one transmembrane domain was recently suggested to be located in both chloroplasts and mitochondria [19, 20]. AtFtsH12 and AtFtsH6, both localized in the chloroplast [12, 21] have no pair-partners. The proteins in a pair very likely work in concert, and have overlapping functions as shown for FtsH1/5 and FtsH2/8 [22]. These pairs of proteases are the most strongly expressed FtsHs in plants. Deletion mutants of these genes lead to a variegated leaf type, therefore the names Var1 and Var2 were given to them (reviewed by Sakamoto et al. [21]). The only FtsH protein for which a function has been established, apart from these four proteases, is FtsH6 [13].

Figure 2 shows the phylogenetic tree of the Populus and Arabidopsis FtsH proteases obtained by Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA), while their names and accession numbers are given in Table 2. In Populus, 16 ftsH genes were identified, and in the UPGMA tree, together with the Arabidopsis sequences, we differentiated seven groups, which cluster according to the Arabidopsis FtsH-pairs. When naming the Populus genes we tried to follow the Arabidopsis nomenclature. However, in many cases, recent duplications seem to have occurred after the separation of the Populus and Arabidopsis lineages and, thus, there are not always clear orthological relationships between the Arabidopsis and Populus genes. In such cases, we named the Populus genes according to the lowest numbered of the corresponding Arabidopsis pair, e.g. the Populus sequences most similar to the AtFtsH3/10 pair were named PtFtsH3.1 and PtFtsH3.2.
Table 2

Arabidopsis (At) and Populus (Pt) FtsH protease gene models (M41 family in MEROPS) corresponding to the names given in the FtsH phylogenetic tree.

Group

At name

At number

Populus Gene model

Pt number

Pt name

Var1

AtFtsH5

At5g42270

gw1.II.2305.1

Pt421671

PtFtsH5.1

 

AtFtsH1

At1g50250

gw1.V.2026.1

Pt206625

PtFtsH5.2

   

gw1.16150.2.1

Pt273866

PtFtsH5.3

Var2

AtFtsH8

At1g06430

gw1.XIV.2894.1

Pt246151

PtFtsH8.1

 

AtFtsH2

At2g30950

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_3210002

Pt828819

PtFtsH8.2

   

eugene3.17410001

Pt585288

PtFtsH8.3

   

eugene3.00001972

Pt552657

PtFtsH8.4

   

gw1.321.23.1

Pt284497

PtFtsH8.5

H3

AtFtsH3

At2g29080

fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_IX000602

Pt804555

PtFtsH3.1

 

AtFtsH10

At1g07510

fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_XVI000360

Pt808632

PtFtsH3.2

H4

AtFtsH4

At2g26140

gw1.VI.123.1

Pt426451

PtFtsH4

H6

AtFtsH6

At5g15250

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XVII000398

Pt778519

PtFtsH6

H7

AtFtsH7

At3g47060

gw1.IX.3866.1

Pt203401

PtFtsH7.1

 

AtFtsH9

At5g58870

gw1.I.994.1

Pt172394

PtFtsH7.2

H11

AtFtsH11

At5g53170

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XII0132

Pt823192

PtFtsH11.1

   

gw1.XV.551.1

Pt251115

PtFtsH11.2

H12

AtFtsH12

At1g79560

eugene3.00101628

Pt567070

PtFtsH12.1

   

eugene3.00080778

Pt564183

PtFtsH12.2

Figure 2

UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) tree of the FtsH protease family (M41 family in MEROPS). The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 2.

The Var2 group, represented by AtFtsH2 and AtFtsH8 in Arabidopsis, has the most Populus representatives (PtFtsH2.1, PtFtsH2.2 PtFtsH2.3, PtFtsH2.4 and PtFtsH2.5); all of which are very closely related and appear to have originated from a recent gene family expansion. The Var1 group comprises AtFtsH1, AtFtsH5, PtFtsH1.1 and PtFtsH1.2. A more distant relative of this group is PtFtsH1.3, which has no close Arabidopsis homologue. AtFtsH6 and its Populus ortholog, PtFtsH6, are closely related to the Var1/Var2 groups, and clearly separated from the FtsH4/11, FtsH3/10, FtsH7/9 and FtsH12 groups. Interestingly, while in the pairs FtsH1 and 5, FtsH2 and 8, FtsH3 and 10 and FtsH7 and 9 the duplication of the genes seem to have occurred after the separation of Populus and Arabidopsis, in the pair FtsH4 and FtsH11 the Arabidopsis proteases have at least one distinct orthologue in Populus. Here subfunctionalization seems to have occurred, evident by the fact that AtFtsH4 is found in mitochondria, while AtFtsH11 also can be located in the chloroplast [19, 20].

Some Deg subfamilies are more expanded in Arabidopsis

The Deg proteases form the first family (S1, chymotrypsin family) inside the serine clade. DegP (or HtrA for high temperature requirement) was the first Deg protease identified in E. coli [23]. As determined from its crystal structure it functions as homotrimeric oligomer [24], the catalytic center consisting of the residues His-Asp-Ser typical for most serine proteases (SPs). HtrA also functions as a chaperone at low temperature [25]. While cyanobacteria – like E. coli – posses 3 members of this family, in the Arabidopsis genome 16 homologues were found. Deg1, 2, 5 and 8 have been identified in the chloroplast [26, 27]. In plants and cyanobacteria the Deg proteases are thought to be involved in cell growth, stress responses, PCD and senescence [28, 29].

The Deg protease family in Arabidopsis consists of 16 proteins that are localized in different cellular compartments and in many cases have unknown functions. AtDeg1, AtDeg2, AtDeg5 and AtDeg8 are the plastidic members of the AtDeg group. AtDeg1, AtDeg5 and AtDeg8 have been localized in the thylakoid lumen of the plant chloroplast [26, 30, 31]. AtDeg2 has been identified at the stromal side of the thylakoid membrane and seems, at least in higher plants, to be responsible for the degradation of the reaction center D1 protein of Photosystem II (PSII) [27].

Figure 3 provides an overview of the Deg protease family in Arabidopsis and Populus, while Table 3 lists their accession numbers and names. We have identified 20 Deg sequences in Populus. In this family some of the Arabidopsis Deg proteases seem to have Populus orthologs (Deg1, Deg5, Deg8, Deg14) and often additional, more distantly related Populus homologs (Deg5.2, Deg7.2 and Deg7.3, Deg14.2) can be found. In other cases (Deg2, Deg9) two Populus sequences are more similar to each other than to the corresponding Arabidopsis protease, indicating a recent gene duplication in Populus. The luminal proteases [26] Deg1, 5, and 8 form a clade (Figure 3), indicating a similar function in Populus and also the predicted mitochondrial proteases AtDeg3, AtDeg4, AtDeg6, AtDeg10, AtDeg11, AtDeg12, AtDeg13 and AtDeg16 are more closely related. Interestingly only two Populus homologs were detected in this group, both of which were most similar to AtDeg10. AtDeg16 (At5g54745) is annotated as a Deg protease in the TAIR database, but has not previously been included in the overview of Arabidopsis proteases [11]. The same is true for AtDeg15 (At1g28320), which has recently been predicted to be localized in peroxisomes [32].
Table 3

Arabidopsis (At) and Populus (Pt) Deg protease gene models (S1 family in MEROPS) corresponding to the names given in the Deg phylogenetic tree.

Group

At name

At number

Populus Gene model

Pt number

Pt name

Deg1

AtDeg1

At3g27925

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_I2430

Pt706718

PtDeg1

Deg2

AtDeg2

At2g47940

eugene3.00140795

Pt572750

PtDeg2.1

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XIV001476

Pt775566

PtDeg2.2

Deg5

AtDeg5

At4g18370

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XI000444

Pt771291

PtDeg5.1

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_3341000001

Pt792125

PtDeg5.2

Deg7

AtDeg7

At3g03380

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_II2234

Pt816849

PtDeg7.1

   

eugene3.00040664

Pt555951

PtDeg7.2

   

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_IV3539

Pt714140

PtDeg7.3

Deg8

AtDeg8

At5g39830

gw1.IV.4356.1

Pt199267

PtDeg8

Deg9

AtDeg9

At5g40200

gw1.XV.1425.1

Pt251989

PtDeg9.1

   

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_XII1032

Pt728836

PtDeg9.2

Deg10

AtDeg3

At1g65630

   
 

AtDeg4

At1g65640

   
 

AtDeg6

At1g51150

   
 

AtDeg13

At5g40560

   
 

AtDeg12

At3g16550

   
 

AtDeg11

At3g16540

   
 

AtDeg10

At5g36950

gw1.VIII.1400.1

Pt430673

PtDeg10.1

   

eugene3.00101698

Pt567140

PtDeg10.2

 

AtDeg16

At5g54745

   

Deg14

AtDeg14

At5g27660

grail3.0016016001

Pt662713

PtDeg14.1

   

grail3.0016016101

Pt662714

PtDeg14.2

Deg15

AtDeg15

At1g28320

eugene3.00040486

Pt555773

PtDeg15.1

   

gw1.124.194.1

Pt266544

PtDeg15.2

Deg17

  

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_193000050

Pt787034

PtDeg17.1

   

eugene3.01930055

Pt586371

PtDeg17.2

   

eugene3.00180012

Pt577788

PtDeg17.3

Figure 3

UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) tree of the Deg protease family (S1 family in MEROPS). The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 3.

The Deg17 group consists exclusively of Populus sequences. These genes code for three proteases that are not closely related to any Arabidopsis protein, but clearly belong to the chymotrypsin family and have a Deg structure, perhaps representing a subfamily that was lost during Arabidopsis evolution (Figure 3).

The Clp family

Clp proteases are multi-subunit enzymes in which the catalytic domain and the ATPase domain are split in different subunits. Structurally they are very similar to the proteasome 26S in eukaryotes [33]; suggesting that these ATP-dependent proteases are evolutionary related. Proteins in the plant Clp family, consisting of chaperones and proteases involved in the degradation of misfolded proteins [34], have been grouped in two different subclasses [35]. The proteolytically active protease is designated ClpP, but there are also many genes coding for similar proteins lacking the Ser and His amino acid residues of the catalytic triad, and thus representing an inactive form, named ClpR, with unknown function. The regulating subunits work as chaperones that unfold the targeted proteins for degradation, but may also be involved in protein folding independent of proteolysis. Class I chaperones contain two ATP-binding sites like the ClpCs and ClpBs, while the class II chaperones contain only one ATP binding site, like ClpD, ClpF and ClpXs [11, 36]. Crystallisation studies [37] have shown that the protease unit, ClpP, forms a tetradecameric barrel-like structure. On one or both ends complexes of ATPase subunits, in E. coli either ClpA or ClpX, form homo-hexameric rings. In the absence of ClpP these units can act as chaperones. In chloroplasts, homologues of ClpB and ClpC, but not ClpA form a complex with ClpP [38]. Chloroplast genomes of alga and higher plants contain a gene potentially encoding ClpP and only recently ClpP was also discovered in the nuclear genome [39].

We analyzed the homology between Clp proteases in Arabidopsis and Populus (Figure 4 and Table 4). In the Maximum Parsimony Phylogenetic Tree (MPT), not surprisingly, a clear separation between the catalytic subunits (ClpP/ClpR) and the regulatory ones can be seen. In the ClpP/ClpR clade, the inactive forms ClpR1, R3 and R4 are more closely related to each other than to the ClpP proteins and the ClpR2. Arabidopsis ClpR1 has three Populus homologs, ClpR3 has two and ClpR4 one apparent ortholog.
Table 4

Arabidopsis (At) and Populus (Pt) Clp protease gene models (S14 family in MEROPS) corresponding to the names given in the Clp phylogenetic tree.

Group

At name

At number

Populus Gene model

Pt number

Pt name

ClpB

AtClpB1

At1g74310

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_820051

Pt742398

PtClpB1

 

AtClpB2

At2g25140

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_VI2692

Pt717883

PtClpB2

 

AtClpB3

At5g15450

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_3401000001

Pt792165

PtClpB3.1

   

eugene3.00041061

Pt556348

PtClpB3.2

 

AtClpB4

At4g14670

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XVII000457

Pt778578

PtClpB4

 

AtClpB5

At1g07200

gw1.I.864.1

Pt172264

PtClpB5.1

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_IX0543

Pt833234

PtClpB5.2

   

grail3.0022012901

Pt659508

PtClpB5.3

   

grail3.0020020101

Pt669488

PtClpB5.4

   

grail3.0010001601

Pt656256

PtClpB5.5

ClpC

AtClpC1

At5g50920

eugene3.00120993

Pt570340

PtClpC1

 

AtClpC2

At3g48870

eugene3.00150843

Pt575448

PtClpC2

 

AtClpC3

At3g53270

gw1.278.9.1

Pt281354

PtClpC3.1

   

gw1.VI.1596.1

Pt427924

PtClpC3.2

ClpD

AtClpD

At5g51070

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XII001082

Pt773307

PtClpD1

   

eugene3.00150893

Pt575498

PtClpD2

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XII001084

Pt773309

PtClpD3

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_232000029

Pt787878

PtClpD4

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_15088000001

Pt794999

PtClpD5

ClpF

AtClpF

At3g45450

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_14521000001

Pt794891

PtClpF1

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_V001142

Pt761090

PtClpF2

 

AtClpN57710

At5g57710

grail3.0030025301

Pt653660

PtClpN57710.1

   

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_X002263

Pt770773

PtClpN57710.2

   

eugene3.00080144

Pt563549

PtClpN57710.3

ClpP

AtClpP2

At5g23140

grail3.0026027701

Pt650895

PtClpP2.1

   

eugene3.00070756

Pt562818

PtClpP2.2

   

eugene3.33100002

Pt590732

PtClpP2.3

   

grail3.4268000201

Pt678327

PtClpP2.4

 

AtClpP3

At1g66670

gw1.IV.3459.1

Pt198370

PtClpP3

 

AtClpP4

At5g45390

eugene3.00030757

Pt554124

PtClpP4.1

   

gw1.29.348.1

Pt434537

PtClpP4.2

 

AtClpP5

At1g02560

estExt_fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_II0893

Pt830458

PtClpP5.1

   

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_XIV2274

Pt731676

PtClpP5.2

 

AtClpP6

At1g11750

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_IV0459

Pt712936

PtClpP6.1

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_IX0507

Pt821196

PtClpP6.2

ClpR

AtClpR1

At1g49970

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_IX0730

Pt821289

PtClpR1.1

   

gw1.I.4091.1

Pt175491

PtClpR1.2

   

eugene3.16840002

Pt584851

PtClpR1.3

 

AtClpR2

At1g12410

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_1270005

Pt827867

PtClpR2

 

AtClpR3

At1g09130

gw1.XIII.856.1

Pt240607

PtClpR3.1

   

eugene3.01330032

Pt581876

PtClpR3.2

 

AtClpR4

At4g17040

eugene3.01180098

Pt580163

PtClpR4

ClpS

AtClpS1

At4g25370

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XV001031

Pt776603

PtClpS1

 

AtClpS2

At4g12060

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XII001246

Pt773471

PtClpS2

   

gw1.127.5.1

Pt266999

PtClpS3

   

gw1.I.9317.1

Pt180717

PtClpS4

ClpT

AtClpT

At1g68660

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_X1165

Pt822150

PtClpT1

   

grail3.0010047002

Pt656784

PtClpT2

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_VIII1289

Pt820724

PtClpT3

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_X0879

Pt822021

PtClpT4

ClpX

AtClpX1

At5g53350

gw1.XV.374.1

Pt250938

PtClpX1

 

AtClpX2

At5g49840

gw1.XII.172.1

Pt432413

PtClpX2

 

AtClpX3

At1g33360

gw1.86.193.1

Pt297302

PtClpX3

Figure 4

Maximum Parsimony Tree of the Clp protease family (S14 family in MEROPS). The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 4.

The ClpR2 sequences from Arabidopis and Populus are most similar to the ClpP1 proteins, probably representing a successful case of horizontal gene transfer from the chloroplast to the nucleus that happened before the split of the lineages leading to Arabidopsis and Populus. AtClpP1 is encoded in the chloroplast. We found five homologous sequences in the Populus nuclear genome, illustrating the flux of genetic material from the chloroplast to the nuclear genome. However, we did not find signs of expression (i.e. associated ESTs) for any of these putative genes, and some of them also appeared not to code for full-length proteins, suggesting that they represent non-functional DNA inserted into the nuclear genome, therefore they will not be further considered here. AtClpP2 has four Populus homologs, most of the remaining catalytic AtClp proteins have two or more orthologs in Populus, but ClpP3, ClpR2 and ClpR4 each have only one.

The lower part of the MPT in Fig. 4 shows the relationships of the regulatory subunits. Ten well-supported subgroups can be identified: the ClpC3, ClpS, ClpD, ClpC1/C2, ClpF, ClpT, ClpX groups, two ClpB groups, and the ClpN57710 group, containing one Arabidopsis and three Populus genes. The separation of the ClpB1-4, ClpC, ClpD and ClpF branches is well supported, with ClpC and ClpF being more closely related to each other than to the other members. The main difference between the ClpD and ClpC groups is that they have specific signature sequences, but they have also been shown to have different expression profiles, ClpDs being specifically expressed in dehydration and senescence [40, 41]. The presence of two different ClpB groups is an interesting feature, which can be explained by the fact that At1g07200 (AtClpB5) is grouped by TAIR as a ClpB-related protein. As the nomenclature for ClpB1-4 has already been established, we decided to name this Arabidopsis/Populus class ClpB5.

AtClpT is a homolog to the bacterial ClpS, a subunit that in E. coli might regulate the activity of the whole Clp complex [4244]. In Populus we find 4 homologs.

Similar to the situation in the other protease families, many Arabidopsis Clp genes have two close homologs in Populus, but the ClpD and ClpB5 families are more heavily extended in Populus, both having five Populus genes compared to a single Arabidopsis gene. There are two ClpC members in each organism. However, both of the Populus ClpCs seem to be more closely related to AtClpC1 than to AtClpC2. The ClpX group is predicted to be localized in the mitochondrial matrix in Arabidopsis [11] and it is formed by three proteases in each organism. AtClpX2 seems to have a clear ortholog in Populus, while the other two Populus Cl/pX proteases are more closely related to AtClpX1.

Lon proteases

Lon proteases (S16 family) are responsible for the degradation of abnormal, damaged and unstable proteins. They have no membrane-spanning domain and contain the AAA (ATPases associated with various cellular activities) and protease domains in one polypeptide. Instead of the Ser-His-Asp of "classical" serine proteases, in Lon proteases the catalytic site is suggested to be formed by a Ser-Lys dyad [4547]. A crystal structure of Lon in E. coli was determined recently and shown to form a hexameric ring [46]. Lon proteases have been described as mitochondrial proteases. However, recent studies have predicted their presence in chloroplasts and peroxisomes [41, 48] and Lon4 was shown to be targeted to both chloroplasts and mitochondria [44].

Figure 5 and Table 5 show a phylogenetic comparison of the Lon protease families in Arabidopsis and Populus. Except for AtLon1, 3, 4 no subclasses could be detected. However, as for the other families, most Arabidopsis Lon proteases have several orthologs in Populus: AtLon1, AtLon2, AtLon5 and AtLon11 are each closely related to a pair of Populus orthologs, an apparent result of a recent gene duplication in the tree species. For both AtLon6 and AtLon10 one Populus ortholog was found, and the only Arabidopsis Lon proteases that appear to have no Populus orthologs are AtLon3 and AtLon4, which are very closely related to each other. One Populus sequence, most strongly related to Lon5, did not have a close homolog, and was therefore assigned a name of its own (PtLon12). We have included the Lon9 and Lon10 groups in the Lon family, even though they do not have the ATPase Lon domain. They still belong to the AAA protein family and have some typical Lon protease domains that we considered relevant for the study of this family.
Table 5

Arabidopsis (At) and Populus (Pt) Lon protease gene models (S16 family in MEROPS) corresponding to the names given in the Lon phylogenetic tree.

Group

At Name

At number

Populus Gene model

Pt number

Pt Name

Lon1

AtLon1

At5g26860

gw1.XIII.616.1

Pt240367

PtLon1.1

   

gw1.133.222.1

Pt268780

PtLon1.2

Lon2

AtLon2

At5g47040

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_1180067

Pt827676

PtLon2.1

   

gw1.12936.1.1

Pt267629

PtLon2.2

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pm.C_290060

Pt836320

PtLon2.3

 

AtLon3

At3g05780

   
 

AtLon4

At3g05790

   

Lon5

AtLon5

At2g25740

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XVIII0237

Pt825668

PtLon5.1

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_VI1620

Pt819532

PtLon5.2

Lon6

AtLon6

At1g18660

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XII000664

Pt772889

PtLon6

Lon7

AtLon7

At1g19740

gw1.V.1534.1

Pt206133

PtLon7

 

AtLon8

At1g75460

fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_II000142

Pt798453

PtLon8

Lon9

AtLon9

At2g03670

fgenesh4_pm.C_scaffold_29000155

Pt813379

PtLon9.1

   

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XV0552

Pt824692

PtLon9.2

Lon10

AtLon10

At1g73170

gw1.I.4975.1

Pt176375

PtLon10

Lon11

AtLon11

At1g35340

Eugene3.00410149

Pt592306

PtLon11.1

   

Eugene3.00190704

Pt574230

PtLon11.2

Lon12

  

fgenesh4_pg.C_scaffold_3310000001

Pt792107

PtLon12

Figure 5

UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) tree of the Lon protease family (S16 family in MEROPS). The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 5.

Rhomboid proteases

The rhomboid family (S54) is a relatively poorly investigated family. It has been widely detected in bacteria, archaea and, recently, eukaryotic organisms – initially in Drosophila melangolaster [49, 50], then plants [51]. Rhomboid proteases are membrane proteins with six or seven transmembrane domains that cleave their substrates within the substrate's transmembrane domain. This so-called regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP) has been shown to be very important for signal transduction. In recent studies of Arabidopsis rhomboids a catalytic dyad has been suggested to be the active site, formed by Ser-His residues [51, 52]. The overall structure and sequence of the rhomboid proteases, widely conserved throughout all kingdoms, is very different from that of the other serine proteases, suggesting that they have become serine proteases by convergent evolution [53]. Today, 15 members are annotated in Arabidopsis. Another Arabidopsis gene (At5g25640) has high sequence homology to this family, but it is predicted to code for a protein with only two membrane-spanning helices and therefore was not considered in this study. Two rhomboids (AtRbl1 and 2) have been shown to be localized in the Golgi apparatus [52], the subcellular localization of most of the others is predicted to be in mitochondria. Only AtRbl9 and 10 were predicted to be located in the chloroplast using the programs TargetP and Predator. However, the Meta Analysis of the Arabidopsis rhomboid genes in Genevestigator [54] suggests that some of them may play important roles in leaf development and senescence.

Figure 6 shows the comparative UPGMA tree of the rhomboid proteases of Arabidopsis and Populus, gene names are explained in Table 6. AtRbl 1–3 are most homologous to rho-1 of Drosophila melangolaster and they have 2–3 homologs in Populus, as has AtRbl13. The hypothetical plastidic rhomboids AtRbl9 and 10, as well as AtRbl11, AtRbl12, AtRbl14 and AtRbl15 and AtKOM (for kompeitio), each have one clear ortholog in Populus. However, AtRbl4 – 7 could not be detected in Populus, and these sequences may have evolved after the Arabidopsis-Populus divergence.
Table 6

Arabidopsis (At) and Populus (Pt) rhomboid protease gene models (S54 family in MEROPS) corresponding to the names given in the Lon phylogenetic tree.

At name

At number

Populus Gene model

Pt number

Pt name

AtRbl1

At2g29050

gw1.VI.164.1

Pt426492

PtRbl1.1

  

estExt_Genewise1_v1.C_LG_I1244

Pt706133

PtRbl1.2

  

gw1.IX.4200.1

Pt203735

PtRbl1.3

AtRbl2

At1g63120

estExt_fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_III0384

Pt830825

PtRbl2.1

  

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_I0956

Pt815105

PtRbl2.2

AtRbl3

At5g07250

gw1.XII.335.1

Pt432576

PtRbl3.1

  

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_XV1114

Pt824920

PtRbl3.2

AtRbl4

At3g53780

   

AtRbl5

At1g52580

   

AtRbl6

At1g12750

   

AtRbl7

At4g23070

   

AtKOM

At1g77860

fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_II000834

Pt754654

PtKOM

AtRbl9

At5g38510

eugene3.01230069

Pt580779

PtRbl9

AtRbl10

At1g25290

estExt_fgenesh4_pg.C_LG_III0079

Pt817004

PtRbl10

AtRbl11

At5g25752

gw1.XVIII.1336.1

Pt260795

PtRbl11

AtRbl12

At1g18600

gw1.VI.85.1

Pt426413

PrRbl12

AtRbl13

At3g59520

grail3.0064008701

Pt679599

PtRbl13.1

  

eugene3.00070158

Pt562220

PtRbl13.2

AtRbl14

At3g17611

grail3.0102004101

Pt657794

PtRbl14

AtRbl15

At3g58460

estExt_fgenesh4_pm.C_LG_VI0468

Pt831984

PtRbl15

Figure 6

UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) tree of the rhomboid protease family (S54 family in MEROPS). The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 6.

The EGY proteases belong to the family of S2P proteases (M50), which are ATP-independent metallo-proteases. EGY1 has been recently characterized [55] as a required protease for chloroplast development. With 8 putative transmembrane domains and the intramembrane Zn2+-binding domain, these proteases might have a similar structure and function as the rhomboids [44], even though they belong to the class of metalloproteases. The Arabidopsis genome possesses 3 EGYs, EGY1, having been identified in the chloroplast, has one possible orthologue in Populus, EGY2 shows homology to one closer and one more distant relative in Populus. EGY3 possesses less homology to the other two Arabidopsis proteases and also has one orthologue in Populus (not shown).

Cysteine proteases

In animals, the most representative family of this group is the group of caspases (Cys-Asp-specific proteases, family C14), which play an important role in programmed cell death (PCD) and hypersensitive response (HR) controlling the so-called apoptosis cascade. Closely related proteases in plants are the metacaspases (C14), which have been found to be involved in HR and to act through a caspase-like mechanism [56].

The most abundant and thoroughly studied CP family is the papain-like (C1) protease family, which has been related leaf senescence [5761]. SAG12 (senescence associated gene), the senescence-specific protease [62], is the only protease to be expressed solely during leaf senescence [61] in Arabidopsis and Brassica napus [63]. This large family of cysteine proteases also plays diverse roles in defense against pathogens [64]. Thirty-eight papain-like cysteine proteases were identified in Arabidopsis and 44 in Populus (Fig. 7, Table 7). The xylem-related cysteine proteases are separated into two different branches, one consisting of the XCPs (xylem cysteine proteases) with two Arabidopsis genes and three Populus genes, and the other consisting of the XBCP (xylem and bark cysteine protease) from Arabidopsis with four homologs in Populus. The two clades of senescence-related cysteine proteases, including the well-known SAG12 genes, consist of many more genes in Populus than in Arabidopsis (21 vs. 5). Seven Populus proteases have higher homology to the Arabidopsis SAG12 than to any other Arabidopsis proteases, making it difficult to predict if any of these proteases is a functional homolog in Populus that plays an essential role during leaf senescence. The second clade consists of 10 Populus proteases without any Arabidopsis homologue, indicating the necessity of these proteases in a tree versus an annual plant. However, the RD21 proteases (where RD stands for response to dehydration), that also are known to be involved in senescence, form a separate group, which has more members in Arabidopsis than in Populus (nine and five genes, respectively). Also the group containing homologs to SPCP1 (where SCP stands for sweet potato-like cysteine protease) includes seven Arabidopsis genes, but lacks Populus representatives.
Table 7

Populus gene models whose ESTs are specific to a unique library and comparative numbers of the corresponding genes in Arabidopsis. Libraries: (I) senescing leaves, (F) flower buds, (T) shoot meristem, (V) male catkins, (AB) cambial zone, (UB) active cambium, (G) tension wood, (X) wood cell death.

ProteinNr

Unique library

Annotation

Number of Genes in family of Arabidopsis

Number of Genes in family of Populus

Pt816035

I

PtVFCYSPRO.1

1

2

Pt814139

F

Proteasome subunit beta type 2-2

1

3

Pt781583

I

RD21 Papain-Like cysteine protease

9

5

Pt678915

T

Proteasome subunit beta type 2-2

1

3

Pt666563

V

PtCYSP2.1

4

4

Pt722254

I

RD21 Papain-Like cysteine protease

9

5

Pt721246

F

aminoacylase

1

2

Pt830360

F

20S proteasome alpha subunit F

1

2

Pt717215

AB

Proteasome subunit alpha type 6-1

1

2

Pt417380

UB

aminopeptidase M

1

5

Pt419163

F

20S proteasome beta subunit.

1

2

Pt713305

V

Proteasome subunit

1

3

Pt747519

I

similar to SAG12

1

7

Pt819223

G

Metallopeptidase M24 family protein

1

3

Pt706718

I

PtDeg1

1

1

Pt410970

I

PtFtsH5.1

1

3

Pt585288

I

PtFtsH8.3

1

3

Pt709916

X

subtilase family protein

1

3

Pt559264

AB

Proteasome subunit beta type 3-2

2

2

Figure 7

Maximum Parsimony Tree of the papain-like protease family (C1 family in MEROPS). RD, Response to Dehydration; GPC, Germination-specific Cysteine protease; XCP, Xylem Cysteine Protease; XBCP, Xylem and Bark Cysteine Protease; SAG, Senescence-Associated Gene; SPCP, Sweet Potato-like Cysteine Protease; (VFCYSPRO) Vicia faba CYStein PROtease; ELSA, Early Leaf-Senescence Abundant cysteine protease; AALP, Arabidopsis Aleurine-Like Protease. The names and the accession numbers for the different proteins are given in Table 7.

Different Populustissues express unique repertoires of proteases

The extensive Populus EST resource compiled in PopulusDB [65] allows indications of the expression patterns of Populus genes to be rapidly obtained. Of the 951 genes classified above as putative proteases 382 had associated ESTs in PopulusDB, suggesting that these genes, at least, are expressed. Since there are correlations, albeit imperfect, between the abundance of ESTs and the levels of corresponding mRNAs and proteins in particular tissues we wanted to identify the tissues/treatments in which the mRNAs of different types of proteases are most strongly represented. To see if other proteases show similar specificity we examined their digital expression profiles, applying two criteria to reduce the numbers of false positives due to limited information (i.e. the presence of low numbers of ESTs) (table 7). These criteria were (i) more than four ESTs had to be associated with the candidate gene and (ii) more than twice as many ESTs had to be detected in one library than in any other. Only nineteen genes fulfilled these criteria for specific expression. Interestingly, members of the Deg-, FtsH- and papain-like proteases were all highly expressed in senescing leaf tissue. In addition to proteases with particularly high EST frequencies in the senescing leaf and wood cell death libraries, we identified proteases that appeared to be highly expressed in flower buds (four), male catkins (two), the cambial zone (two) and the shoot apical meristem, tension wood, roots and dormant cambium (one in each case). Tissue-specific expression may be the result of a subfunctionalization process, stabilizing both copies of a duplicated gene. To assess the likelihood that such a process has occurred in Populus, we sought evidence indicating that unusually high numbers of these genes have undergone recent duplications. We found that the overwhelming majority of the gene families appear to have expanded recently, from one copy in Arabidopsis to two or three copies in Populus. This is consistent with the hypothesis that subfunctionalization is one of the forces that has maintained the high proportion of duplicated genes in Populus.

We also constructed a clustered correlation map [66] for all protease genes for which we had EST data. This map (Fig. 8) showed that the different tissues/treatments were associated with quite specific protease expression patterns. Three main clusters could be identified. The senescing leaf library seemed to express a specific set of proteases similar to the wood cell death and the cold-stress leaves libraries, quite distinct from those found in other libraries. But there were also distinct similarities in the patterns of several other libraries, especially the shoot apical meristem, cambial zone, tension wood, flower bud and female flower libraries. Although libraries from similar source material sometimes clustered together (like the cambial zone, tension wood and active cambium libraries), there were also remarkable differences in the repertoire of proteases expressed in similar tissues in some cases, e.g. between active and dormant cambium, and between male and female catkins, which clustered far away from each other. Taken together, this shows that different Populus tissues express unique suites of proteases. Most strongly expressed were 8 proteases in the senescing leave library (Fig. 8). The three most strongly transcribed proteases belonged to the papain-like family (RD21, SAG12), followed by proteases with highest similarity to Arabidopsis ClpC, DegP, FtsH8 and FtsH5. The same proteases also had very specific expression in their tissues (table 7).
Figure 8

Clustered correlation map of protease EST frequencies across 19 Populus cDNA libraries. R: roots, P: petiols, K: apical shoot, T: shoot meristem, N: bark, S: imbibed seeds, C: young leaves, Q: dormant buds, M: female catkins, L: cold-stressed leaves, I: senescing leaves, X: wood cell death, F: floral buds, V: male catkins, UB: active cambium, AB: cambial zone, G: tension wood, UA: dormant cambium, Y: virus/fungal infected leaves. For descriptions of the different libraries, see [65], or [77].

Patterns of protease gene expression during Populus leaf development

Since we have a particular interest in leaf proteases, we examined the expression of these proteases during Populus leaf development in more detail. Over a developmental gradient, it is easy to imagine a number of plausible expression patterns. The simplest may be that some proteases, with functions during leaf expansion, may be expressed in young leaves and their expression levels may gradually decrease, whereas opposite patterns would be expected for others, involved in leaf senescence. Yet others may have different, more complex, patterns. For this analysis, we used two DNA microarray datasets from a mature aspen (Populus tremula) grown in the field in Umeå, Sweden [67] (Sjödin et al., submitted). Mature aspens are particularly useful since they only have one flush in the spring, so every leaf at a given date is of the same age, facilitating transcript profiling over a developmental gradient. Bud burst occurs at the end of May and June, and progresses through several phases, during which cell elongation and primary cell wall formation occur, then secondary cell formation peaks. During July and August, no strong trends in gene expression occur and in September, leaf senescence starts [67, 68]. We extracted expression profiles for all microarray elements, showing reasonable expression levels some time during leaf development, and performed a hierarchical clustering on the expression profiles (see Additional file 1). As expected, many different patterns were found, but based on the clustering results twelve major patterns were detected. All but three array elements coding for a putative protease exhibited one of these twelve common expression patterns. The expression profiles shown in Figure 9 are representations of these twelve patterns. The two array datasets do not have a common reference, therefore the two expression profiles are separated by a gap in the line. The sampling dates for the first experiment were August 17, August 24, September 3, September 7, September 14, September 17 and September 21, 1999 and the sampling dates for the second series were May 25, June 1, June 9, June 15, June 22, June 29, July 6, July 18, July 27, August 3, August 11, August 18, August 29 and September 12, 2000. Despite these limitations, these data can be used to classify the expression patterns of the leaf proteases.
Figure 9

The twelve most common protease expression patterns during Populus leaf development. Populus DNA microarray data were processed in UPSC-BASE (Sjödin et al. 2006). Samples for microarray analysis were taken from free-growing aspen in Umeå on the following dates; May 25, June 1, June 9, June 15, June 29, July 6, July 18, July 27, August 3, August 11, August 18, August 29 and September 12 2000, and Aug 17, Aug 24, Sept 03, Sept 07, Sept 14 and Sept 17 1999. The two sample series are identified by separate lines in the profiles.

The genes in cluster 1 are the truly senescence-associated genes. Their mRNA levels did not notably increase until September, but their expression then continued to increase in successive samples, including the last sample from which RNA could be prepared, collected on September 21. This expression pattern was exhibited by genes encoding protease classes C1 (2 genes), C13, C19, M41, M48, S14, S33 (three genes each) and T2 (two genes), i.e. a number of the classes with previously indicated roles during leaf senescence (such as papain-like proteases and FtsH). Cluster 2 had a similar pattern, but the changes were less pronounced, so these genes were only moderately induced during leaf senescence. This cluster contained genes from classes C1, M16, M50, S1, S9 and S14. Cluster 3 consisted of genes that had a fairly stable expression throughout the growing season, but with low mRNA levels during both bud burst and leaf senescence. Pattern 4 was only represented by a S8 (subtilisin) protease gene, which had a pronounced peak during the cell wall biosynthesis phase in the leaf and decreased to low levels in older leaves. Cluster 5 genes were mainly expressed during the first two weeks of leaf development (during the phases mainly characterized by cell division and cell expansion) whereas cluster 6 genes showed the opposite pattern, i.e. they were much more strongly expressed after, rather than during the first two weeks. Cluster 6 was a major cluster, including four genes in the C1 class, seven in the S14 (Clp) class, two in the M1 class, and four other classes. Almost half of the genes coding for proteins in the Clp family appeared to be specifically down regulated when the leaf expanded, suggesting that they have no important function in this stage of leaf development. Clusters 7, 8 and 9 all contain proteases of many different classes, and all showed essentially constitutive expression patterns, except that cluster 7 had lower mRNA levels in the middle of the summer. Clusters 10 and 11, containing mainly serine proteases, both showed high mRNA levels in the first week of leaf development, but cluster 10 seemed to be induced later in the season. Almost all proteasome subunits exhibited expression pattern 11, indicating that the proteasome is most important at the very first stages of aspen leaf development from winter buds. Finally, cluster 12 showed high expression levels only in very young leaves and during late stages of senescence. Taken together, these data indicate that there are several "waves" of protease gene expression during leaf development; consistent with the idea that proteases are important during all stages of the lifecycle of the leaf.

Discussion

We here present a comparative analysis of the gene families coding for putative proteases of Arabidopsis and Populus. The patterns for the copy numbers of most families and subfamilies were quite consistent – the Populus families were generally larger, as an apparent result of the fairly recent genome duplication [4, 5]. Some families were considerably more heavily represented in Populus, but a few were more abundant in Arabidopsis. It seems reasonable to expect, for example, a tree like Populus to show relatively strong retention of families like RD21 and SAG12, which are involved in the response to dehydration and leaf senescence, respectively – traits that would intuitively require more elaborate regulation in a tree than in an annual plant, but surprisingly the RD21 family was one of the few gene families that was larger in Arabidopsis than in Populus. This supports the view that a considerable element of chance has influenced the size of the gene families in Populus, and that stochastic events as well as subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization are important determinants of whether genes are lost or retained in a duplicated genome. Therefore, in most cases, the presence of higher numbers of genes in one plant species than in another cannot be explained simply by their adaptive "needs". However, subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization should not be neglected – in fact, we have shown that they have affected the evolution of the Populus genome [69], and our analysis of genes with tissue-specific expression patterns supports this notion.

Unfortunately, of the 723 and 955 proteases identified in Arabidopsis and Populus, respectively, the function(s), localization and substrate(s) of most of the proteases remain enigmatic. The Var1/Var2/FtsH6 proteases comprise one of the few protease groups for which mutant phenotypes in Arabidopsis have been carefully examined, and placed in a phylogenetic perspective [13]. Their function in photoprotection seems to have evolved at a very early stage, in the cyanobacterial progenitors of modern cyanobacteria, algae and plants [70]. Later, the Var1 and Var2 functions appear to have separated, and there seems to be an overlap in the substrate specificity of the proteases and the phenotypes of the mutants. Var1 and var2 are more sensitive than wild type to PSII photoinhibition [15, 16]. This duplication of the genes appears to have happened after the separation of Arabidopsis and Populus (see Fig. 2). However, in the lineage leading to higher plants, within this group the FtsH6 evolved through neo-functionalization; this protease degrades the antenna rather than reaction center proteins. A clear ortholog of AtFtsH6 can also be found in Populus. Based on this very limited information we raise the following hypothesis. If there is a one-to-one relationship between the Populus and Arabidopsis sequences, we assume that these genes are functional orthologs, i.e. they degrade the same substrate(s) under the same conditions. However, if the gene duplication happened after the split between Arabidopsis and Populus lineages, no neofunctionalization has probably occurred yet, so the functions of these proteases are overlapping. Experiments to verify this hypothesis are in progress.

Conclusion

Our analysis shows that different tissues express fairly unique sets of genes putatively coding for proteases. Furthermore, in the developmental gradient from bud burst to leaf senescence different waves of protease gene expression occur. However, expression analysis does not always give clear evidence of function. For example, AtFtsH6 has been shown to degrade LHCII only during high light acclimation and senescence [13]; although this protease is essentially constitutively expressed in leaves, its proteolytic activity is regulated by the availability of the substrate. Forward or reverse genetics will be needed to obtain clear information on the involvement of various proteases in different biological processes. However, in order to make reverse genetics efficient, comparative genomics data, such as those presented in this paper, facilitate selection of the best candidates. A simple comparative analysis can provide explanations for experimental data. Since the AtFtsH1/FtsH5 and AtFtsH2/FtsH8 pairs have separated after the split of lineages leading to Populus and Arabidopsis, it is not surprising that the pairs will have overlapping and partially redundant functions [71]. This means that mutant analysis, either by forward or reverse genetics, will not always provide clear answers; in many cases, biochemical analysis of protease substrate specificities will probably be needed to assign functions to the individual members of the large protease gene families.

In summary, we have identified 951 genes in the Populus genome potentially coding for proteases and comparatively analyzed the protease composition of Populus and Arabidopsis.

Methods

Database search

The databases searched for annotated proteases were TAIR (The Arabidopsis Information Resource) and TrEMBL (a Computer-annotated supplement to Swiss-Prot). The data were grouped according to the MEROPS protease database families.

Using the TIGR At locus for annotated proteases an ortholog search was performed in the Populus trichocarpa database [5, 72].

In addition, a blastp search was used to collect the Populus gene models that were not clustered with any of the Arabidopsis genes. To confirm that these new gene models from Populus corresponded to protease genes, a protease-motif search was made in SMART 4.0 [73] and InterProScan [74]. Protein sequences that did not have a typically protease family motif were discarded.

Protein alignment and Phylogenetic trees

Protein alignment was performed with ClustalX 1.81 [75]. Phylogenetic and molecular evolutionary analyses were conducted using MEGA version 2.1 [76]. The FtsH, Deg, Lon and rhomboid trees were derived using an Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA) method with 1000 bootstraps. The trees for the Clp and papain-like proteases are Maximum parsimony trees (MPT) with 1000 bootstraps.

All families were analysed with both algorithms, and with several different gap penalties. The choice of trees to display was driven by a desire to keep known or suspected orthologous gene clusters in the same branch of the tree, and to produce figures with size and shape suitable for printing. Trees produced with other algorithms and settings are available on request.

The Arabidopsis nomenclature used in this article follows that proposed by Adam et.al. [41] and further developed by Sokolenko et.al. [11]. As in this nomenclature, protein names were given for Populus proteases according to their clustering or proximity in the tree, allowing an intuitive association between the Populus proteins and the closest Arabidopsis proteins. We have organized the proteins into groups based on their sequence homology in order to facilitate the new nomenclature proposed for Populus proteases.

For the rhomboid proteases in Arabidopsis, we followed the nomenclature initiated by Kanaoka et.al. [52], naming the closest to DmRho-1 (the first rhomboid protease described from Drosophila melanogaster) AtRbl1. Since the previously named AtKOM is the 8th member of the family in Kanaoka's article we continued at AtRbl9; higher numbers indicate increasingly distant relationships to DmRho-1.

Expression analysis

Digital expression profiles were obtained from PopulusDB [77], and analysed in UPSC-BASE [78] . The similarity between gene models (rows) or cDNA library (columns) expression profiles was estimated according to Ewing et.al. [66] with some modifications. Briefly, similarity between gene models or cDNA library expression profiles was estimated by Pearson's coefficient. From the gene model correlations a pairwise Manhattan distance matrix was calculated and the dendrogram was created with the average agglomeration method. The order of gene models and libraries in their respective dendrograms were used to reorder the original data table. All calculations and plotting were done in the programme language R . [79]

DNA microarray data from Andersson et.al. [67] and Sjödin et al. (submitted) were merged and processed in UPSC-BASE according to the default analysis pipeline [78] . The normalised data were hierarchical clustered with Euclidean distance and average linkage in the TIGR MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV) [80] . The dataset were divided into 12 clusters (see Additional file 1) and the average log ratio for each cluster was plotted.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Financial sources: The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Swedish Research Council and the Carl Tryggers Foundation

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Biochemistry, Umeå University
(2)
Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University

References

  1. Rawlings ND, Morton FR, Barrett AJ: MEROPS: the peptidase database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: D270-2. 10.1093/nar/gkj089.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunner AM, Busov VB, Strauss SH: Poplar genome sequence: functional genomics in an ecologically dominant plant species. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9: 49-56. 10.1016/j.tplants.2003.11.006.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hortensteiner S, Feller U: Nitrogen metabolism and remobilization during senescence. J Exp Bot J Exp Bot. 2002, 53: 927-937. 10.1093/jexbot/53.370.927.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sterck L, Rombauts S, Jansson S, Sterky F, Rouze P, Van de Peer Y: EST data suggest that poplar is an ancient polyploid. New Phytol. 2005, 167: 165-170. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01378.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Tuskan GA, Difazio S, Jansson S, Bohlmann J, Grigoriev I, Hellsten U, Putnam N, Ralph S, Rombauts S, Salamov A, et al: The genome of black cottonwood, Populus trichocarpa (Torr. & Gray). Science. 2006, 313: 1596-604.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Lescot M, Rombauts S, Zhang J, Aubourg S, Mathe C, Jansson S, Rouze P, Boerjan W: Annotation of a 95-kb Populus deltoides genomic sequence reveals a disease resistance gene cluster and novel class I and class II transposable elements. Theor Appl Genet. 2004, 109: 10-22. 10.1007/s00122-004-1621-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kurepa J, Walker JM, Smalle J, Gosink MM, Davis SJ, Durham TL, Sung DY, Vierstra RD: The small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) protein modification system in Arabidopsis. Accumulation of SUMO1 and -2 conjugates is increased by stress. J Biol Chem. 2003, 278: 6862-6872. 10.1074/jbc.M209694200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Murtas G, Reeves PH, Fu YF, Bancroft I, Dean C, Coupland G: A nuclear protease required for flowering-time regulation in Arabidopsis reduces the abundance of SMALL UBIQUITIN-RELATED MODIFIER conjugates. Plant Cell. 2003, 15: 2308-2319. 10.1105/tpc.015487.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Krzywda S, Brzozowski AM, Verma C, Karata K, Ogura T, Wilkinson AJ: The crystal structure of the AAA domain of the ATP-dependent protease FtsH of Escherichia coli at 1.5 A resolution. Structure. 2002, 10: 1073-1083. 10.1016/S0969-2126(02)00806-7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ito K, Akiyama Y: Cellular functions, mechanism of action, and regulation of FtsH protease. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2005, 59: 211-231. 10.1146/annurev.micro.59.030804.121316.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sokolenko A, Pojidaeva E, Zinchenko V, Panichkin V, Glaser VM, Herrmann RG, Shestakov SV: The gene complement for proteolysis in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 and Arabidopsis thaliana chloroplasts. Curr Genet. 2002, 41: 291-310. 10.1007/s00294-002-0309-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Ostersetzer O, Adam Z: Light-stimulated degradation of an unassembled Rieske FeS protein by a thylakoid-bound protease: the possible role of the FtsH protease. Plant Cell. 1997, 9: 957-965. 10.1105/tpc.9.6.957.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Zelisko A, Garcia-Lorenzo M, Jackowski G, Jansson S, Funk C: AtFtsH6 is involved in the degradation of the light-harvesting complex II during high-light acclimation and senescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005, 102: 13699-13704. 10.1073/pnas.0503472102.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindahl M, Spetea C, Hundal T, Oppenheim AB, Adam Z, Andersson B: The thylakoid FtsH protease plays a role in the light-induced turnover of the photosystem II D1 protein. Plant Cell. 2000, 12: 419-431. 10.1105/tpc.12.3.419.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Bailey S, Thompson E, Nixon PJ, Horton P, Mullineaux CW, Robinson C, Mann NH: A critical role for the Var2 FtsH homologue of Arabidopsis thaliana in the photosystem II repair cycle in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2002, 277: 2006-2011. 10.1074/jbc.M105878200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Sakamoto W, Tamura T, Hanba-Tomita Y, Murata M: The VAR1 locus of Arabidopsis encodes a chloroplastic FtsH and is responsible for leaf variegation in the mutant alleles. Genes to Cells. 2002, 7: 769-780. 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2002.00558.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Silva P, Thompson E, Bailey S, Kruse O, Mullineaux CW, Robinson C, Mann NH, Nixon PJ: FtsH is involved in the early stages of repair of photosystem II in Synechocystis sp PCC 6803. Plant Cell. 2003, 15: 2152-2164. 10.1105/tpc.012609.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Leonhard K, Herrmann JM, Stuart RA, Mannhaupt G, Neupert W, Langer T: AAA proteases with catalytic sites on opposite membrane surfaces comprise a proteolytic system for the ATP-dependent degradation of inner membrane proteins in mitochondria. Embo J. 1996, 15: 4218-4229.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Heazlewood JL, Tonti-Filippini JS, Gout AM, Day DA, Whelan J, Millar AH: Experimental analysis of the Arabidopsis mitochondrial proteome highlights signaling and regulatory components, provides assessment of targeting prediction programs, and indicates plant-specific mitochondrial proteins. Plant Cell. 2004, 16: 241-256. 10.1105/tpc.016055.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Urantowka A, Knorpp C, Olczak T, Kolodziejczak M, Janska H: Plant mitochondria contain at least two i-AAA-like complexes. Plant Mol Biol. 2005, 59: 239-252. 10.1007/s11103-005-8766-3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Sakamoto W, Zaltsman A, Adam Z, Takahashi Y: Coordinated regulation and complex formation of yellow variegated1 and yellow variegated2, chloroplastic FtsH metalloproteases involved in the repair cycle of photosystem II in Arabidopsis thylakoid membranes. Plant Cell. 2003, 15: 2843-2855. 10.1105/tpc.017319.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Zaltsman A, Ori N, Adam Z: Two Types of FtsH Protease Subunits Are Required for Chloroplast Biogenesis and Photosystem II Repair in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2005, 17: 2782-2790. 10.1105/tpc.105.035071.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipinska B, Fayet O, Baird L, Georgopoulos C: Identification, characterization, and mapping of the Escherichia coli htrA gene, whose product is essential for bacterial growth only at elevated temperatures. J Bacteriol. 1989, 171: 1574-1584.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Clausen T, Southan C, Ehrmann M: The HtrA family of proteases: Implications for protein composition and cell fate. Molecular Cell. 2002, 10: 443-455. 10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00658-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Spiess C, Beil A, Ehrmann M: A temperature-dependent switch from chaperone to protease in a widely conserved heat shock protein. Cell. 1999, 97: 339-347. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80743-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Schubert M, Petersson UA, Haas BJ, Funk C, Schroder WP, Kieselbach T: Proteome map of the chloroplast lumen of Arabidopsis thaliana. J Biol Chem. 2002, 277: 8354-8365. 10.1074/jbc.M108575200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Haussuhl K, Andersson B, Adamska I: A chloroplast DegP2 protease performs the primary cleavage of the photodamaged D1 protein in plant photosystem II. Embo J. 2001, 20: 713-722. 10.1093/emboj/20.4.713.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Kieselbach T, Funk C: The family of Deg/HtrA proteases: from Escherichia coli to Arabidopsis. Physiologia Plantarum. 2003, 119: 337-346. 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2003.00199.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Huesgen PF, Schuhmann H, Adamska I: The family of Deg proteases in cyanobacteria and chloroplasts of higher plants. Physiologia Plantarum. 2005, 123: 413-420. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00458.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Itzhaki H, Naveh L, Lindahl M, Cook M, Adam Z: Identification and characterization of DegP, a serine protease associated with the luminal side of the thylakoid membrane. J Biol Chem. 1998, 273: 7094-7098. 10.1074/jbc.273.12.7094.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Chassin Y, Kapri-Pardes E, Sinvany G, Arad T, Adam Z: Expression and characterization of the thylakoid lumen protease DegP1 from Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130: 857-864. 10.1104/pp.007922.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Schuhman H HPF: Deg15 in Arabidopsis thaliana. FEBS Journal. 2005, 272: B3-046P.Google Scholar
  33. Horwich AL, Weber-Ban EU, Finley D: Chaperone rings in protein folding and degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999, 96: 11033-11040. 10.1073/pnas.96.20.11033.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruger E, Witt E, Ohlmeier S, Hanschke R, Hecker M: The clp proteases of Bacillus subtilis are directly involved in degradation of misfolded proteins. J Bacteriol. 2000, 182: 3259-3265. 10.1128/JB.182.11.3259-3265.2000.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Porankiewicz J, Wang J, Clarke AK: New insights into the ATP-dependent Clp protease: Escherichia coli and beyond. Mol Microbiol. 1999, 32: 449-458. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01357.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Janska H: ATP-dependent proteases in plant mitochondria: What do we know about them today?. Physiologia Plantarum. 2005, 123: 399-405. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2004.00439.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang J, Hartling JA, Flanagan JM: The structure of ClpP at 2.3 A resolution suggests a model for ATP-dependent proteolysis. Cell. 1997, 91: 447-456. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80431-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Clarke AK, MacDonald TM, Sjogren LLE: The ATP-dependent Clp protease in chloroplasts of higher plants. Physiologia Plantarum. 2005, 123: 406-412. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00452.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Sokolenko A, Lerbs-Mache S, Altschmied L, Herrmann RG: Clp protease complexes and their diversity in chloroplasts. Planta. 1998, 207: 286-295. 10.1007/s004250050485.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakabayashi K, Ito M, Kiyosue T, Shinozaki K, Watanabe A: Identification of clp genes expressed in senescing Arabidopsis leaves. Plant Cell Physiol. 1999, 40: 504-514.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Adam Z, Adamska I, Nakabayashi K, Ostersetzer O, Haussuhl K, Manuell A, Zheng B, Vallon O, Rodermel SR, Shinozaki K, Clarke AK: Chloroplast and mitochondrial proteases in Arabidopsis. A proposed nomenclature. Plant Physiol. 2001, 125: 1912-1918. 10.1104/pp.125.4.1912.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Dougan DA, Reid BG, Horwich AL, Bukau B: ClpS, a substrate modulator of the ClpAP machine. Mol Cell. 2002, 9: 673-683. 10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00485-9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Lupas AN, Koretke KK: Bioinformatic analysis of ClpS, a protein module involved in prokaryotic and eukaryotic protein degradation. J Struct Biol. 2003, 141: 77-83. 10.1016/S1047-8477(02)00582-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Sakamoto W: Protein Degradation Machineries in Plastids. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2006Google Scholar
  45. Besche H, Zwickl P: The Thermoplasma acidophilum Lon protease has a Ser-Lys dyad active site. Eur J Biochem. 2004, 271: 4361-4365. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.2004.04421.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Botos I, Melnikov EE, Cherry S, Tropea JE, Khalatova AG, Rasulova F, Dauter Z, Maurizi MR, Rotanova TV, Wlodawer A, Gustchina A: The catalytic domain of Escherichia coli Lon protease has a unique fold and a Ser-Lys dyad in the active site. J Biol Chem. 2004, 279: 8140-8148. 10.1074/jbc.M312243200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Rotanova TV, Melnikov EE, Khalatova AG, Makhovskaya OV, Botos I, Wlodawer A, Gustchina A: Classification of ATP-dependent proteases Lon and comparison of the active sites of their proteolytic domains. Eur J Biochem. 2004, 271: 4865-4871. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.2004.04452.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kikuchi M, Hatano N, Yokota S, Shimozawa N, Imanaka T, Taniguchi H: Proteomic analysis of rat liver peroxisome: presence of peroxisome-specific isozyme of Lon protease. J Biol Chem. 2004, 279: 421-428. 10.1074/jbc.M305623200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee JR US: Regulated intracellular ligand transport and proteolysis controls EGF signal activation in Drosophila. Cell. 2001, 107: 161-171. 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00526-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Urban S, Lee JR, Freeman M: Drosophila rhomboid-1 defines a family of putative intramembrane serine proteases. Cell. 2001, 107: 173-182. 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00525-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Koonin EV, Makarova KS, Rogozin IB, Davidovic L, Letellier MC, Pellegrini L: The rhomboids: a nearly ubiquitous family of intramembrane serine proteases that probably evolved by multiple ancient horizontal gene transfers. Genome Biol. 2003, 4: R19-10.1186/gb-2003-4-3-r19.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Kanaoka MM, Urban S, Freeman M, Okada K: An Arabidopsis Rhomboid homolog is an intramembrane protease in plants. FEBS Lett. 2005, 579: 5723-5728.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Freeman M: Proteolysis within the membrane: rhomboids revealed. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2004, 5: 188-197. 10.1038/nrm1334.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmermann P, Hirsch-Hoffmann M, Hennig L, Gruissem W: GENEVESTIGATOR. Arabidopsis microarray database and analysis toolbox. Plant Physiol. 2004, 136: 2621-2632. 10.1104/pp.104.046367.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Chen G, Bi YR, Li N: EGY1 encodes a membrane-associated and ATP-independent metalloprotease that is required for chloroplast development. Plant J. 2005, 41: 364-375.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Woltering EJ: Death proteases come alive. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9: 469-472. 10.1016/j.tplants.2004.08.001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Yamada K, Matsushima R, Nishimura M, Hara-Nishimura I: A slow maturation of a cysteine protease with a granulin domain in the vacuoles of senescing Arabidopsis leaves. Plant Physiol. 2001, 127: 1626-1634. 10.1104/pp.127.4.1626.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Koizumi M, Yamaguchishinozaki K, Tsuji H, Shinozaki K: Structure and Expression of 2 Genes That Encode Distinct Drought-Inducible Cysteine Proteinases in Arabidopsis-Thaliana. Gene. 1993, 129: 175-182. 10.1016/0378-1119(93)90266-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Moreau C, Aksenov N, Lorenzo MG, Segerman B, Funk C, Nilsson P, Jansson S, Tuominen H: A genomic approach to investigate developmental cell death in woody tissues of Populus trees. Genome Biol. 2005, 6: R34-10.1186/gb-2005-6-4-r34.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Beers EP, Woffenden BJ, Zhao C: Plant proteolytic enzymes: possible roles during programmed cell death. Plant Mol Biol. 2000, 44: 399-415. 10.1023/A:1026556928624.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Beers EP, Jones AM, Dickerman AW: The S8 serine, C1A cysteine and A1 aspartic protease families in Arabidopsis. Phytochemistry. 2004, 65: 43-58. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2003.09.005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Gan S, Amasino RM: Inhibition of leaf senescence by autoregulated production of cytokinin. Science. 1995, 270: 1986-1988. 10.1126/science.270.5244.1986.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Noh YS, Amasino RM: Regulation of developmental senescence is conserved between Arabidopsis and Brassica napus. Plant Mol Biol. 1999, 41: 195-206. 10.1023/A:1006389803990.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Solomon M, Belenghi B, Delledonne M, Menachem E, Levine A: The involvement of cysteine proteases and protease inhibitor genes in the regulation of programmed cell death in plants. Plant Cell. 1999, 11: 431-444. 10.1105/tpc.11.3.431.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Sterky F, Bhalerao RR, Unneberg P, Segerman B, Nilsson P, Brunner AM, Charbonnel-Campaa L, Lindvall JJ, Tandre K, Strauss SH, Sundberg B, Gustafsson P, Uhlen M, Bhalerao RP, Nilsson O, Sandberg G, Karlsson J, Lundeberg J, Jansson S: A Populus EST resource for plant functional genomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004, 101: 13951-13956. 10.1073/pnas.0401641101.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Ewing R, Poirot O, Claverie JM: Comparative analysis of the Arabidopsis and rice expressed sequence tag (EST) sets. In Silico Biol. 1999, 1: 197-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Andersson A, Keskitalo J, Sjodin A, Bhalerao R, Sterky F, Wissel K, Tandre K, Aspeborg H, Moyle R, Ohmiya Y, Brunner A, Gustafsson P, Karlsson J, Lundeberg J, Nilsson O, Sandberg G, Strauss S, Sundberg B, Uhlen M, Jansson S, Nilsson P: A transcriptional timetable of autumn senescence. Genome Biol. 2004, 5: R24-10.1186/gb-2004-5-4-r24.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Wissel K PF: What affects mRNA levels in leaves of field-grown aspen? - A study of developmental and environmental influences. Plant Physiology. 2003, 133: 1190-1197. 10.1104/pp.103.028191.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Segerman B, Jansson S, Karlsson J: Characterization of genes with narrow expression patterns in Populus. Tree Genetics & Genomes. 2006.Google Scholar
  70. Nixon PJ, Barker M, Boehm M, de Vries R, Komenda J: FtsH-mediated repair of the photosystem II complex in response to light stress. J Exp Bot. 2005, 56: 357-363. 10.1093/jxb/eri021.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Yu F, Park S, Rodermel SR: Functional redundancy of AtFtsH metalloproteases in thylakoid membrane complexes. Plant Physiol. 2005, 138: 1957-1966. 10.1104/pp.105.061234.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Populus trichocarpa DB. [http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Poptr1/Poptr1.home.html].
  73. Letunic I, Copley RR, Schmidt S, Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, Schultz J, Ponting CP, Bork P: SMART 4.0: towards genomic data integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32: D142-4. 10.1093/nar/gkh088.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. InterProScan. [http://www.ebi.ac.uk/InterProScan/].
  75. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG: The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25: 4876-4882. 10.1093/nar/25.24.4876.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB, Nei M: MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 1244-1245. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1244.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. PopulusDB: [http://www.populus.db.umu.se].
  78. Sjodin A, Bylesjo M, Skogstrom O, Eriksson D, Nilsson P, Ryden P, Jansson S, Karlsson J: UPSC-BASE--Populus transcriptomics online. Plant J. 2006, 48: 806-817. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02920.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Ihaka R, Gentlemen R: R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 1996, 5 (3): 299-314. 10.2307/1390807.Google Scholar
  80. Saeed AI, Sharov V, White J, Li J, Liang W, Bhagabati N, Braisted J, Klapa M, Currier T, Thiagarajan M, et al: TM4: a free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis. Biotechniques. 2003, 34: 374-378.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© García-Lorenzo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement