Next Article in Journal
EHMT2 Inhibition Induces Cell Death in Human Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer by Altering the Cholesterol Biosynthesis Pathway
Next Article in Special Issue
Ectopic Expression of Gs5PTase8, a Soybean Inositol Polyphosphate 5-Phosphatase, Enhances Salt Tolerance in Plants
Previous Article in Journal
NADPH Oxidase-Mediated Activation of Neutral Sphingomyelinase Is Responsible for Diesel Particulate Extract-Induced Keratinocyte Apoptosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genome-Wide Characterization and Analysis of CIPK Gene Family in Two Cultivated Allopolyploid Cotton Species: Sequence Variation, Association with Seed Oil Content, and the Role of GhCIPK6
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comprehensive Profiling of Tubby-Like Protein Expression Uncovers Ripening-Related TLP Genes in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

Key Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(3), 1000; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21031000
Submission received: 18 December 2019 / Revised: 28 January 2020 / Accepted: 29 January 2020 / Published: 3 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Cell and Organism Development)

Abstract

:
Tubby-like proteins (TLPs), which were firstly identified in obese mice, play important roles in male gametophyte development, biotic stress response, and abiotic stress responses in plants. To date, the role of TLP genes in fruit ripening is largely unknown. Here, through a bioinformatics analysis, we identified 11 TLPs which can be divided into three subgroups in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), a model plant for studying fruit development and ripening. It was shown that all SlTLPs except SlTLP11 contain both the Tub domain and F-box domain. An expression profiling analysis in different tomato tissues and developmental stages showed that 7 TLP genes are mainly expressed in vegetative tissues, flower, and early fruit developmental stages. Interestingly, other 4 TLP members (SlTLP1, SlTLP2, SlTLP4, and SlTLP5) were found to be highly expressed after breaker stage, suggesting a potential role of these genes in fruit ripening. Moreover, the induced expression of SlTLP1 and SlTLP2 by exogenous ethylene treatment and the down expression of the two genes in ripening mutants, further support their putative role in the ripening process. Overall, our study provides a basis for further investigation of the function of TLPs in plant development and fruit ripening.

1. Introduction

Tubby-like proteins (TLPs), first identified in obese mice, are ubiquitous in eukaryotes varying from single-celled to multicellular organisms [1,2]. TLPs are characterized by a signature of the C-terminal tubby domain that forms a closed β barrel with 12 anti-parallel strands and a central hydrophobic α helix [3]. In plants, most known TLPs contain not only a conserved C-terminal tubby domain but also a highly conserved F-box domain at their N-terminus, which is different from the high divergence of the N-terminal sequence in animals [4,5,6,7,8].
Tubby-like proteins were implicated as transcription factors by structural-based functional analysis and subcellular localization assays [3,9]. In animals, TLPs are known to play important roles in the maintenance and functioning of neuronal cells during post-differentiation and development. Mutation of tubby genes can lead to adult obesity, insulin resistance, retinal degeneration, and neurosensory loss [1,8,10,11]. Compared with the wide range of cellular functions of animal TLPs, our knowledge on the role and mode of action of plant TLPs remains largely incomplete. In arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), the plant research model, 11 TLPs were identified and AtTLP9 was shown to be involved in responses to salt and drought stress [4,12]. Moreover, redundant functions between AtTLP3 and AtTLP9 in plants were found in response to ABA and osmotic stress [4]. AtTLP2 was reported to regulate the biosynthetic process of homogalacturonic acid in the mucus of seed coats [4]. In rice (Oryza sativa), 14 OsTLPs were identified and an expression profiling analysis showed that OsTLPs are differentially expressed in different tissues at distinct developmental stages [2], suggesting that the OsTLP family genes may play an important role in different physiological and developmental processes. More recently, MdTLP (Tubby-like proteins in Malus domestica) family genes were found to be expressed in multiple organs with high levels in roots, stems, and leaves, but low in flowers of apples. Interestingly, the expression of all MdTLPs was up-regulated to some extent under abiotic stress, exogenous ABA and H2O2 treatments in leaves and root, suggesting the role of MdTLPs in responses to stress. Indeed, expression of MdTLP7 was reported to enhance abiotic stress tolerance in arabidopsis [13]. In addition, overexpression of CaTLP1 in chickpeas was reported to promote tolerance to salt, drought and oxidative stress [14]. These studies suggested that TLPs play an important role in stress response in different plant species, but the potential role of TLPs in fruit development is largely unknown [15].
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is not only one of the most important and popular vegetable plants in the world but also a model for fruit development and ripening research [16]. In this study, through genome-wide identification, classification and phylogenetic analysis, we identified 11 TLP family genes which can be divided into three subgroups in tomato. An expression profiling analysis by qRT-PCR showed that four TLP family genes (TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5) are specifically expressed during fruit ripening, suggesting a potential role of these genes in fruit ripening. Moreover, the expression of TLP1 and TLP2 can be induced by exogenous ethylene treatment and their expression was found to be significantly downregulated in rin and nor ripening mutants, further supporting their putative role in the tomato ripening process. Overall, our study sheds light on the putative role of TLPs in plant development and fruit ripening.

2. Results

2.1. Genome-Wide Identification and Phylogenetic Analysis of TLPs in Tomato

The TLPs in the whole genome of tomato were identified by using the sequences of arabidopsis TLPs as BLAST queries against the tomato genome (ITAG 2.40). Then we used HMMER to verify whether the identified TLPs contain typical Tub domains (PF01167). A total of 11 TLPs were identified in tomato by using these methods. The SlTLPs peptide ranged in length from 249 to 427 amino acids, with a gene length between 750 and 1284 bp. The predicted isoelectric point (PI) values of TLPs are from 9.16 to 9.63 and protein molecular weight (MW) from 27.74 to 47.80 (kDa). Moreover, subcellular localization prediction suggested that most tomato TLPs were located in the nucleus, with exception of SlTLP2 and SlTLP6 which were predicted to be located in chloroplasts and TLP3 was predicted to be located in mitochondria. These sequence characteristics of TLPs are shown in Table 1.
To investigate the phylogenetic relationship of TLP proteins in tomato, we constructed a phylogenetic tree using the neighbor-joining (NJ) method based on multiple sequence alignments of 11 arabidopsis TLP proteins, 14 rice TLP proteins and 11 tomato TLP proteins (Supplementary Table S1). The phylogenetic distribution showed that TLP genes in the three species were all divided into three major clades, A, B and C (Figure 1). Clade A can be further divided into A1 and A2 subgroups. Both subgroup A1 and A2 contained three TLPs proteins in tomato. Clade B contained four tomato TLPs (TLP7, TLP8, TLP9, TLP10) and Clade C only possessed one protein (TLP11). Among the three clades, A and B were closer to each other, while C was estranged. In addition, TLPs in tomato were found to be more similar to that in arabidopsis which is also a dicotyledonous plant.

2.2. Motif and Gene Structure Analysis of TLPs in Tomato

From the Pfam database, we found that the key domain of TLPs in tomato was Tub domain (PF01167) and all TLPs except TLP11 also contain F-box domain (PF00646). To further explore the conservation and diversity of the TLPs, 10 conserved motifs (E ≤ 0.01) were found by MEME (Figure 2 and Supplementary Table S2). All TLPs were found to contain motif 1 and motif 4. Specifically, besides TLP11, all other TLP members contained motif 2, motif 4, motif 5, motif 6, and motif 8. As shown in Figure 2, all TLP genes contained both exons and introns. Moreover, the conservation of TLP proteins was higher than that in the gene structure (Figure 2).

2.3. Chromosomal Distribution and Selective Pressure Analysis of TLPs in Tomato

To study the distribution of TLP genes on chromosomes, we mapped the chromosomal location of tomato TLP family genes. The results show that the 11 TLPs in tomato were dispersed on seven chromosomes with TLP2 and TLP4 located on chromosome 1, TLP7 and TLP8 on chromosome 2, TLP9 and TLP10 on chromosome 3, TLP6 and TLP10 on chromosome 4, TLP3 on chromosome 7, TLP1 on chromosome 9, and TLP5 on chromosome 10.
To further explore the potential evolutionary mechanism of TLPs in tomato, collinear genes in the tomato genome were identified through Blastp and MCScanX. As shown in Figure 3, two groups of genes were found to have strong collinearity. One group was TLP4 and TLP5 and another group was TLP7, TLP8, and TLP9. We also calculated their Ka/Ks by MCScanX and found that they are all less than 1 (Ka/Ks: TLP4-TLP5, 0.10; TLP7-TLP8, 0.20; TLP7-TLP9, 0.17; TLP8-TLP9, 0.15), which implies that they have strongly purifying selection during evolution.

2.4. Analysis of Promoter Sequences of SlTLPs

To study the putative role of TLPs in tomato, the promoter sequences of tomato TLPs were analyzed (CDS upstream 2000 bp) by PlantCare (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/). The cis elements of all SlTLPs promoters are shown in Figure 4 and Table 2. Noteworthily, among all TLP family genes, TLP3, TLP10, and TLP11 contain a number of different cis elements and TLP6, TLP8, and TLP9 contain fewer cis elements. Specifically, most TLP promoters contained both CGTCA-motif and TGACG-motif which were related to the jasmonate acid response. Moreover, ARE, which was related to anaerobic reaction and ABRE, which was associated to the abscisic acid response, were found in most TLPs’ promoters [2,4,6,15]. These results suggest that TLPs may play an important role in stress response, but this needs further experimental verification.

2.5. Expression Profiling of Tomato TLP Family Genes

To explore the putative function of TLPs in tomato, we examined the expression of the 11 TLPs in various tissues and different development stages, including the fruit development and ripening process. As shown in Figure 5, based on the expression pattern, the 11 TLPs were divided into two subgroups. The TLPs in subgroup I (TLP3, TLP6, TLP7, TLP8, TLP9, TLP10, and TLP11) are mainly expressed in roots, stems, buds, and flower and young fruit which suggests a role of these genes in both vegetative and reproductive development. Interestingly, members of subgroup II (TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5) are highly expressed during the fruit ripening and softening process. More particularly, TLP1 and TLP2, being specifically accumulated from Br (Breaker) to Br+10 (Breaker post 10 days) stages and TLP4 and TLP5 are specifically expressed after the Br+10 stage. The specific expression during fruit ripening and softening suggested that SlTPL1 and SlTLP2 may play an important role in fruit ripening and SlTLP4 and SlTLP5 may be involved in fruit softening.

2.6. Expression of TLPs in Fruit Ripening Mutants

The role of TLPs in stress resistance has been extensively studied in other plants, while the role of TLPs in fruit ripening remains largely unknown. To further investigate the function of the ripening-related TLPs (TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5) in tomato fruit ripening, we examined the expression levels of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5 in ripening-inhibitor (rin) and non-ripening (nor), two key ripening mutants [17,18]. The results show that TLP1 is significantly downregulated in rin at MG stage, and in nor at the Br stage (Figure 6). It is noteworthy that the expression levels of TLP2 were significantly decreased in both rin and nor mutants at the MG and Br stages (Figure 6). However, TLP4 showed no different expression in ripening mutants compared with WT. Interestingly, TLP5 displayed an upregulation in rin at the Br stage. The downregulation of TLP1 and TLP2 in ripening mutants further supports the specific role of the two genes in fruit ripening.

2.7. Expression of TLPs Under Exogenous Ethylene Treatment

To further investigate the role of TLPs in fruit ripening, we investigated the expression of ripening-related TLPs (TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5) under exogenous ethylene treatment at MG (mature green) stage fruits (Figure 7). ln line with the potential role of TLP1 and TLP2 in fruit ripening, we found that the expression of TLP1 and TLP2 was significantly induced with ethylene treatment. In contrast, the expression of TLP4 and TLP5 showed no significant change. These results suggest that TLP1 and TLP2 may be involved in ethylene-dependent fruit ripening.

3. Discussion

Tubby-like proteins (TLPs) have been identified in both animals and plants [15]. In several plant species, TLP family genes were identified and mainly shown to be involved in stress response [2,4,6,7]. However, to date, the TLP family in tomato, one of the most important model plants for fruit ripening research, had not been identified. In this study, to investigate the potential role of TLPs in fruit ripening, we identified 11 TLPs in tomato and showed that two TLP genes, TLP1 and TLP2, may act as ripening regulators based on their specific expression pattern during fruit ripening and their downregulation in ripening mutants.
Based on the analysis of the typical domains and gene structure of TLPs, we found that all TLPs expect TLP11 contain both the Tub domain and F-box domain, which is consistent with previous reports that most plant TLPs contain the F-box domain [2,4,6,7]. Moreover, we found that the motifs in TLP2 are different from other TLPs (Figure 2). To further investigate the difference of structures between TLP2 and other tomato TLP proteins, we built 3D models for Tub domains of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, TLP8, and TLP11 (Figure 8). From these 3D models, we found that the Tub domain of TLP2 is not complete and it lacks the important part which was thought to be essential for the typical tubby domain (Figure 8). The different structure of TLP2 may suggest a specific role of this gene compared with other TLP genes in tomato. Indeed, the specific expression during fruit ripening and downregulation in ripening mutants of TLPs further supports this hypothesis.
The promoter sequence analysis suggested that most TLPs, especially TLP3, TLP11, and TLP10 in tomato may be related to response to drought and other biotic stresses which were consistent with the function of most TLPs identified in different plant species. Based on the collinear analysis, we found that the TLP4 and TLP5 are paralogs. Moreover, both TLP4 and TLP5 are specific expressed in the late ripening stages. This suggests that paralogs may play similar functions during plant development. Gene expression analysis of tomato TLP genes in different tissues and developmental stages showed that seven genes are mainly expressed in root, stem, flower and young fruit. Interestingly, two genes, TLP1 and TLP2, are found to be highly expressed during fruit ripening, suggesting an important role of the two genes in fruit ripening. Moreover, the downregulation of TLP1 and TLP2 in ripening mutants further supporting the putative role of the two genes in fruit ripening. Overall, our study provides new insight into the role of TLP family genes in fruit ripening and more studies are required to reveal the role and mode of action of TLP genes in fruit ripening.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Data Collection and Identification

Genome, protein, cDNA sequence, and gene annotation files of tomato were downloaded from the NCBI database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and Solanaceae Genomics Network (https://solgenomics.net/) [19].
The HMM of the TLP domain (PF01167) was downloaded from Pfam (http://pfam.xfam.org/), and Hmmsearch (3.2.1) was used to identify all possible protein sequences in the whole genome of tomato [20,21]. We used MEME (5.05) [22] (http://meme-suite.org/tools/meme) and Pfam (32.0) to identify the sequences of each presumed protein sequences of TLPs in tomato. We identified proteins based on the best hit proteins in NCBI-Blastp. The isoelectric point (PI) and molecular weight (MW) of TLPs in tomato were analyzed using Expasy [23] (http://web.expasy.org/compute_pi/). The subcellular localization prediction of TLPs in tomato was based on WoLF PSORT [24] (https://wolfpsort.hgc.jp/).

4.2. Analysis of Gene Structure, Chromosome Localization, Conserved Motif, and 3D Model

We used Tbtools [25] to draw the gene structure of TLPs in tomato which based on the tomato genome and used the MEME to identify the motif of TLPs in tomato. Full length amino acid sequences of TLPs in tomato were used by the MEME tool [22] (http://meme-suite.org/tools/meme) to identify conserved motifs (Parameter setting: output motifs: 10; minimum motif width: 6; maximum motif width: 200). Based on the tomato genome, we draw the chromosome localization of TLPs in tomato by Circos [26]. SWISS-MODEL [27,28,29] (https://www.swissmodel.expasy.org/) was used for building TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, TLP8, and TLP11 homologous protein model (At least 186 models for each protein were generated using “building model” engine and the best model was selected based on the best global model quality estimation).

4.3. Analysis of Collinearity and Selection Pressure

MCScanX [30] was used for collinearity analysis based on the Blast results file which was obtained by Blastp (E < 1e-5) to self-compare the tomato protein. Meanwhile, we used MCScanX to calculate the ka/ks value of the corresponding TLPs.

4.4. Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Tree Construction

The TLPs in tomato, arabidopsis, and rice were aligncompared by Clustal Omega [31,32] (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/). Neighbor-Joining (NJ) and Maximum likelihood (ML) trees were constructed using MEGA X (10.0.5) [33] with the aligned protein sequences (Bootstrap = 1000 replicates) [34].

4.5. Analysis of the Promoter Cis-Regulating Elements

PlantCare [35] (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/) was used to analysis the promoter sequences. 2000 bp of genomic DNA sequence upstream of the transcriptional start sites was obtained from the tomato genome.

4.6. Analysis of Gene Expression

The RNA-Seq data of root, stem, leaf, bud, flower, 20DPA, IMG, MG, Br, Br+3, Br+7, Br+10, Br+15 in tomato were downloaded from the TomExpress database [36] (http://tomexpress.toulouse.inra.fr/). The expression data represent normalized counts per base and mean values of multiple cultivars for different tissues and developmental stages and were used to generate heat map representations with R software (https://www.r-project.org). A correlation distance (Spearman) was used to cluster together genes with similar expression profiles

4.7. Analysis of Gene Expression in Fruit Ripening Mutants and Ethylene Treatment Fruits

We used qRT-PCR to examine the expression of TLPs in WT, rin, and nor, and also the response of TLPs to exogenous ethylene treatment. cDNA was obtained by reverse transcription according to PrimeScript™RT reagent Kit with gDNA Eraser (Perfect Real Time) (Takara biomedical technology (Beijing) co., LTD., Beijing, China). Real-time quantitative (RT) PCR was performed as described by Pirrello et al., 2006 [37]. Primers for amplification were designed in software PerlPrimer v1.1.21 [38] (Supplementary Table S3). The values represent the means of three biological replicates. *, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test).

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/3/1000/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z.; Data curation, D.S. and Y.F.; Formal analysis, Y.Z. and X.H.; Project administration, M.H.; Resources, H.D.; Software, D.S.; Writing–original draft, Y.Z. and X.H.; Writing–review & editing, M.L. Specifically critical review: H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFD0400100) and this project is also supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SCU2019D013).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

TLPsTubby-like proteins
WTWild-type Ailsa Craig
rinRipening inhibitor mutant
norNon-ripening mutant
SlTLPsTubby-like proteins in Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato)
AtTLPsTubby-like proteins in Arabidopsis thaliana (Arabidopsis)
OsTLPsTubby-like proteins in Oryza sativa (Rice)
MdTLPsTubby-like proteins in Malus domestica (Apple)
CaTLPsTubby-like proteins in Cicer arietinum (Chickpeas)
20DPATomato fruit 20 days after anthesis
IMGImmature green fruit
MGMature green fruit
BrBreaker stage fruit
Br+33 d post-breaker
Br+55 d post-breaker
Br+77 d post-breaker
Br+1010 d post-breaker
Br+1515 d post-breaker

References

  1. Kleyn, P.W.; Fan, W.; Kovats, S.G.; Lee, J.J.; Pulido, J.C.; Wu, Y.; Berkemeier, L.R.; Misumi, D.J.; Holmgren, L.; Charlat, O.; et al. Identification and characterization of the mouse obesity gene tubby: A member of a novel gene family. Cell 1996, 85, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Liu, Q. Identification of rice TUBBY-like genes and their evolution. FEBS J. 2008, 275, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Boggon, T.J.; Shan, W.S.; Santagata, S.; Myers, S.C.; Shapiro, L. Implication of tubby proteins as transcription factors by structure-based functional analysis. Science 1999, 286, 2119–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Lai, C.P.; Lee, C.L.; Chen, P.H.; Wu, S.H.; Yang, C.C.; Shaw, J.F. Molecular analyses of the Arabidopsis TUBBY-like protein gene family. Plant Physiol. 2004, 134, 1586–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Gagne, J.M.; Downes, B.P.; Shiu, S.H.; Durski, A.M.; Vierstra, R.D. The F-box subunit of the SCF E3 complex is encoded by a diverse superfamily of genes in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 11519–11524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Xu, J.N.; Xing, S.S.; Zhang, Z.R.; Chen, X.S.; Wang, X.Y. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the tubby-like protein family in the malus domestica genome. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Yulong, C.; Wei, D.; Baoming, S.; Yang, Z.; Qing, M. Genome-wide identification and comparative analysis of the TUBBY-like protein gene family in maize. Genes Genom. 2016, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Noben-Trauth, K.; Naggert, J.K.; North, M.A.; Nishina, P.M. A candidate gene for the mouse mutation tubby. Nature 1996, 380, 534–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mitsuda, N.; Ohme-Takagi, M. Functional analysis of transcription factors in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009, 50, 1232–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Coleman, D.L.; Eicher, E.M. Fat (fat) and tubby (tub): Two autosomal recessive mutations causing obesity syndromes in the mouse. J. Hered. 1990, 81, 424–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Heckenlively, J.R.; Chang, B.; Erway, L.C.; Peng, C.; Hawes, N.L.; Hageman, G.S.; Roderick, T.H. Mouse model for Usher syndrome: Linkage mapping suggests homology to Usher type I reported at human chromosome 11p15. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 11100–11104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Bao, Y.; Song, W.M.; Jin, Y.L.; Jiang, C.M.; Yang, Y.; Li, B.; Huang, W.J.; Liu, H.; Zhang, H.X. Characterization of Arabidopsis Tubby-like proteins and redundant function of AtTLP3 and AtTLP9 in plant response to ABA and osmotic stress. Plant Mol. Biol. 2014, 86, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Xu, J.; Xing, S.; Sun, Q.; Zhan, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X. The expression of a tubby-like protein from Malus domestica (MdTLP7) enhances abiotic stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wardhan, V.; Jahan, K.; Gupta, S.; Chennareddy, S.; Datta, A.; Chakraborty, S.; Chakraborty, N. Overexpression of CaTLP1, a putative transcription factor in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), promotes stress tolerance. Plant Mol. Biol. 2012, 79, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, M.; Xu, Z.; Kong, Y. The tubby-like proteins kingdom in animals and plants. Gene 2018, 642, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gapper, N.E.; McQuinn, R.P.; Giovannoni, J.J. Molecular and genetic regulation of fruit ripening. Plant Mol. Biol. 2013, 82, 575–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Giovannoni, J.J. Genetic Regulation of Fruit Development and Ripening. Plant Cell 2004, 16, S170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Vrebalov, J.; Ruezinsky, D.; Padmanabhan, V.; White, R.; Medrano, D.; Drake, R.; Schuch, W.; Giovannoni, J. A MADS-box gene necessary for fruit ripening at the tomato ripening-inhibitor (rin) locus. Science 2002, 296, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernandez-Pozo, N.; Menda, N.; Edwards, J.D.; Saha, S.; Tecle, I.Y.; Strickler, S.R.; Bombarely, A.; Fisher-York, T.; Pujar, A.; Foerster, H.; et al. The Sol Genomics Network (SGN)-from genotype to phenotype to breeding. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D1036–D1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eddy, S.R. Profile hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics 1998, 14, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wheeler, T.J.; Eddy, S.R. Nhmmer: DNA homology search with profile HMMs. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 2487–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Bailey, T.L.; Boden, M.; Buske, F.A.; Frith, M.; Grant, C.E.; Clementi, L.; Ren, J.; Li, W.W.; Noble, W.S. MEME Suite: Tools for motif discovery and searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ramsby, M.; Makowski, G. Differential Detergent Fractionation of Eukaryotic Cells. In The Proteomics Protocols Handbook; Humana Press: Clifton, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 37–48. [Google Scholar]
  24. Horton, P.; Park, K.J.; Obayashi, T.; Fujita, N.; Harada, H.; Adams-Collier, C.J.; Nakai, K. WoLF PSORT: Protein localization predictor. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, W585–W587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Chen, C.; Xia, R.; Chen, H.; He, Y. TBtools, a Toolkit for Biologists integrating various HTS-data handling tools with a user-friendly interface. bioRxiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Connors, J.; Krzywinski, M.; Schein, J.; Gascoyne, R.; Horsman, D.; Jones, S.J.; Marra, M.A. Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 2009, 19, 1639–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bienert, S.; Waterhouse, A.; De Beer, T.A.P.; Tauriello, G.; Studer, G.; Bordoli, L.; Schwede, T. The SWISS-MODEL Repository-new features and functionality. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, D313–D319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Guex, N.; Peitsch, M.C.; Schwede, T. Automated comparative protein structure modeling with SWISS-MODEL and Swiss-PdbViewer: A historical perspective. Electrophoresis 2009, 30, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Waterhouse, A.; Bertoni, M.; Bienert, S.; Studer, G.; Tauriello, G.; Gumienny, R.; Heer, F.T.; De Beer, T.A.P.; Rempfer, C.; Bordoli, L.; et al. SWISS-MODEL: Homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, W296–W303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Wang, Y.; Tang, H.; Debarry, J.D.; Tan, X.; Li, J.; Wang, X.; Lee, T.H.; Jin, H.; Marler, B.; Guo, H.; et al. MCScanX: A toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Sievers, F.; Higgins, D.G. Clustal Omega for making accurate alignments of many protein sequences. Protein Sci. 2018, 27, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sievers, F.; Wilm, A.; Dineen, D.; Gibson, T.J.; Karplus, K.; Li, W.; Lopez, R.; McWilliam, H.; Remmert, M.; Söding, J.; et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2011, 7, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yang, Z. PAML 4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24, 1586–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Lescot, M. PlantCARE, a database of plant cis-acting regulatory elements and a portal to tools for in silico analysis of promoter sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 325–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zouine, M.; Maza, E.; Djari, A.; Lauvernier, M.; Frasse, P.; Smouni, A.; Pirrello, J.; Bouzayen, M. TomExpress, a unified tomato RNA-Seq platform for visualization of expression data, clustering and correlation networks. Plant J. 2017, 92, 727–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Pirrello, J.; Jaimes-Miranda, F.; Sanchez-Ballesta, M.T.; Tournier, B.; Khalil-Ahmad, Q.; Regad, F.; Latche, A.; Pech, J.C.; Bouzayen, M. Sl-ERF2, a tomato ethylene response factor involved in ethylene response and seed germination. Plant Cell Physiol. 2006, 47, 1195–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Marshall, O.J. PerlPrimer: Cross-platform, graphical primer design for standard, bisulphite and real-time PCR. Bioinformatics 2004, 20, 2471–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Neighbor-joining (NJ) tree of TLPs in Solanum lycopersicum, Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa (SlTLPs: TLPs in Solanum lycopersicum; AtTLPs: TLPs in Arabidopsis thaliana; OsTLPs: TLPs in Oryza sativa).
Figure 1. Neighbor-joining (NJ) tree of TLPs in Solanum lycopersicum, Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa (SlTLPs: TLPs in Solanum lycopersicum; AtTLPs: TLPs in Arabidopsis thaliana; OsTLPs: TLPs in Oryza sativa).
Ijms 21 01000 g001
Figure 2. The Motif, domain, and gene structure of TLPs in tomato.
Figure 2. The Motif, domain, and gene structure of TLPs in tomato.
Ijms 21 01000 g002
Figure 3. Chromosomal location and homology analysis of TLPs in tomato.
Figure 3. Chromosomal location and homology analysis of TLPs in tomato.
Ijms 21 01000 g003
Figure 4. Cis elements in the promoters of SlTLPs.
Figure 4. Cis elements in the promoters of SlTLPs.
Ijms 21 01000 g004
Figure 5. Expression of TLPs in different tissues of tomato (20DPA: Fruit at 20 days after anthesis; IMG: Immature green fruit; MG: Mature green fruit; Br: Breaker stage fruit; Br+3: 3 days post-breaker; Br+5: 5 days post-breaker; Br+7: 7 days post-breaker; Br+10: 10-day post-breaker; Br+15: 15 days post-breaker).
Figure 5. Expression of TLPs in different tissues of tomato (20DPA: Fruit at 20 days after anthesis; IMG: Immature green fruit; MG: Mature green fruit; Br: Breaker stage fruit; Br+3: 3 days post-breaker; Br+5: 5 days post-breaker; Br+7: 7 days post-breaker; Br+10: 10-day post-breaker; Br+15: 15 days post-breaker).
Ijms 21 01000 g005
Figure 6. Expression of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5 in WT, rin, and nor (MG: mature green fruit; Br: Breaker stage fruit; WT: Wild type; rin: ripening inhibitor mutant; nor: non-ripening mutant. The values represent the means of three biological replicates. *, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test).).
Figure 6. Expression of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5 in WT, rin, and nor (MG: mature green fruit; Br: Breaker stage fruit; WT: Wild type; rin: ripening inhibitor mutant; nor: non-ripening mutant. The values represent the means of three biological replicates. *, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test).).
Ijms 21 01000 g006
Figure 7. Expression of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5 under ethylene treatment (MOCK: mature green stage fruit without ethylene treatment; Ethylene treatment: mature green fruit treated with ethylene for 30 min. The values represent the means of three biological replicates. *, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test).).
Figure 7. Expression of TLP1, TLP2, TLP4, and TLP5 under ethylene treatment (MOCK: mature green stage fruit without ethylene treatment; Ethylene treatment: mature green fruit treated with ethylene for 30 min. The values represent the means of three biological replicates. *, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test).).
Ijms 21 01000 g007
Figure 8. Three-dimensional model of TLPs in tomato.
Figure 8. Three-dimensional model of TLPs in tomato.
Ijms 21 01000 g008
Table 1. Basic Information of tubby-like proteins (TLPs) in tomato.
Table 1. Basic Information of tubby-like proteins (TLPs) in tomato.
GroupNameLocusChrStartEndStrandpIMw (kDa)Protein (aa)ORF (bp)Subcellular Localization
A1TLP1Solyc09g074510Chr096673884166738900+9.3344.423961191nucl
TLP2Solyc01g067680Chr017637436076375015-9.3327.74249750chlo
TLP3Solyc07g062390Chr076529050865294312+9.1643.043861161mito
A2TLP4Solyc01g104670Chr019298882592989308-9.3547.804271284nucl
TLP5Solyc10g046970Chr103890601138906513-9.6247.804261281nucl
TLP6Solyc04g071440Chr045850945958510657+9.5447.604261281chlo
BTLP7Solyc02g085130Chr024875016748750836+9.6346.204111236nucl
TLP8Solyc02g062670Chr023494643834947426+9.2546.254111236nucl
TLP9Solyc03g033980Chr0357121895713153+9.3945.524061221nucl
TLP10Solyc04g071750Chr045879860058798766+9.4644.804001203nucl
CTLP11Solyc03g117730Chr036826682768267351-9.2645.824061221nucl
Table 2. Cis-acting regulatory elements in the promoter sequences of tomato TLP genes.
Table 2. Cis-acting regulatory elements in the promoter sequences of tomato TLP genes.
NameMeJAAnaerobicLightABASALZein MetabolismDefense and StressColdMeristemCell CycleGibberellinAuxinCircadian ControlTotal
CGTCATGACGAREACEG-BoxABRETCAO2-SiteTC-Rich RepeatsLTRCAT-BoxMSA-LikeTATC-BoxAuxRR-CoreCircadian
TLP133100010200000010
TLP222221210000000012
TLP311207721000001022
TLP411601110000000011
TLP50010112111000019
TLP60030010010000005
TLP70020000202201009
TLP82200000201000007
TLP90020110110000006
TLP1011104320000010013
TLP1122012111102200015
Total121220317171086442211119

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Y.; He, X.; Su, D.; Feng, Y.; Zhao, H.; Deng, H.; Liu, M. Comprehensive Profiling of Tubby-Like Protein Expression Uncovers Ripening-Related TLP Genes in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21031000

AMA Style

Zhang Y, He X, Su D, Feng Y, Zhao H, Deng H, Liu M. Comprehensive Profiling of Tubby-Like Protein Expression Uncovers Ripening-Related TLP Genes in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21(3):1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21031000

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Yaoxin, Xiaoqing He, Dan Su, Yuan Feng, Haochen Zhao, Heng Deng, and Mingchun Liu. 2020. "Comprehensive Profiling of Tubby-Like Protein Expression Uncovers Ripening-Related TLP Genes in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 3: 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21031000

APA Style

Zhang, Y., He, X., Su, D., Feng, Y., Zhao, H., Deng, H., & Liu, M. (2020). Comprehensive Profiling of Tubby-Like Protein Expression Uncovers Ripening-Related TLP Genes in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(3), 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21031000

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop