![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007, American Society of Plant Biologists Biotechnology Research Center, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science (R.V.O., Y.-S.W., S.A.H., C.-J.T.), and Department of Biological Sciences (W.R.), Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; and Plant Biology Division, Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401 (Y.-S.W.) *Corresponding author; e-mail chtsai/at/mtu.edu. 2Present address: Institute of Technology, University of Tartu, Nooruse St 1, 50411 Tartu, Estonia. Received August 8, 2007; Accepted September 17, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Microtubule organization is intimately associated with cellulose microfibril deposition, central to plant secondary cell wall development. We have determined that a relatively large suite of eight α-TUBULIN (TUA) and 20 β-TUBULIN (TUB) genes is expressed in the woody perennial Populus. A number of features, including gene number, α:β gene representation, amino acid changes at the C terminus, and transcript abundance in wood-forming tissue, distinguish the Populus tubulin suite from that of Arabidopsis thaliana. Five of the eight Populus TUAs are unusual in that they contain a C-terminal methionine, glutamic acid, or glutamine, instead of the more typical, and potentially regulatory, C-terminal tyrosine. Both C-terminal Y-type (TUA1) and M-type (TUA5) TUAs were highly expressed in wood-forming tissues and pollen, while the Y-type TUA6 and TUA8 were abundant only in pollen. Transcripts of the disproportionately expanded TUB family were present at comparatively low levels, with phylogenetically distinct classes predominating in xylem and pollen. When tension wood induction was used as a model system to examine changes in tubulin gene expression under conditions of augmented cellulose deposition, xylem-abundant TUA and TUB genes were up-regulated. Immunolocalization of TUA and TUB in xylem and phloem fibers of stems further supported the notion of heavy microtubule involvement during cellulose microfibril deposition in secondary walls. The high degree of sequence diversity, differential expansion, and differential regulation of Populus TUA and TUB families may confer flexibility in cell wall formation that is of adaptive significance to the woody perennial growth habit. Polymers of the α-TUBULIN (TUA) and β-TUBULIN (TUB) proteins comprise dynamic arrays of cortical microtubules (MTs) that are continually reorganizing in response to developmental and environmental cues (e.g. Wasteneys, 2004), and are postulated to guide the deposition of cellulose microfibrils during cell wall formation in plants (Ledbetter and Porter, 1963). TUA and TUB proteins exhibit strong sequence conservation, with animal, plant, protist, and fungal isoforms typically sharing >88% amino acid sequence similarity (Fosket and Morejohn, 1992; Dutcher, 2001). Functional conservation of tubulins across kingdoms is supported by copolymerization of heterologous or chimeric TUA and TUB, either in vitro (Bondstar et al., 1986) or in vivo (Anthony and Hussey, 1999; Anthony et al., 1999). However, plant and animal tubulins differ in their sensitivities to various anti-MT drugs (Morejohn and Fosket, 1984), in accordance with plant- and vertebrate-specific TUA and TUB amino acid residues at consensus positions (Fosket and Morejohn, 1992). Functional heterogeneity of tubulin subunits within species, organs, or even cells is further manifest as spatiotemporally distinct gene products, many of which are subject to posttranslational modification (PTM; for review, see Luduena, 1998; McKean et al., 2001). Spatiotemporal control of tubulin gene expression has been documented in all plant species examined. For instance, Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) contains six TUAs encoding four distinct proteins (Kopczak et al., 1992). ArathTUA1 is expressed specifically in pollen (Carpenter et al., 1992), while the other five are expressed in vegetative tissues (Kopczak et al., 1992; Abe et al., 2004). Of the nine Arabidopsis TUBs, ArathTUB1 and ArathTUB5 are preferentially expressed in roots and leaves, respectively, while ArathTUB9 accumulates specifically in pollen (Snustad et al., 1992; Cheng et al., 2001). Rice (Oryza sativa) also contains a pollen-specific isoform (OryzaTUB8) and seven other TUBs that show variable expression during development (Yoshikawa et al., 2003). Strict temporal association of specific tubulin transcripts during cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) fiber development (Whittaker and Triplett, 1999; Li et al., 2002) or Zinnia tracheary element differentiation (Yoshimura et al., 1996) is consistent with the idea of a functional link between MTs and microfibril deposition during secondary wall synthesis. The five characterized TUAs of cotton are highly expressed in elongating fibers, but only GoshiTUA2/3 and GoshiTUA4 remain abundant following the onset of secondary cell wall synthesis (Whittaker and Triplett, 1999). In Zinnia, transcripts of ZinelTUB1 and ZinelTUB3 increase during trans-differentiation of mesophyll cells into tracheary elements, contrasting with the constitutive and weak expression of ZinelTUB2 throughout the culture period (Yoshimura et al., 1996). These data suggest a basis for examining the role of tubulin isoforms during secondary wall development in wood-forming tissues of trees, a process characterized by orderly deposition of extensive microfibril arrays. Changes in the alignment of cellulose microfibrils in developing cell walls of xylem and phloem have in fact been linked to changes in MT orientation in both hardwood and softwood tree species (Abe et al., 1995; Chaffey et al., 1997, 1999). A recent report on functional associations between cellulose synthase complexes and MTs by time-lapse visualization provides further evidence for a direct cytoskeletal guidance mechanism during cellulose deposition (Paredez et al., 2006). With the availability of the sequenced Populus genome, an in-depth analysis of the role of tubulin gene expression in wood-forming tissues can be initiated. We report here that the TUA and TUB gene families are differentially expanded in Populus compared to their herbaceous counterparts. Their encoded protein sequences are more diverse than in any other species reported so far, especially at the hypervariable C terminus. Both the TUA and TUB families contain spatiotemporally distinct isoforms, a small minority of which are highly expressed in wood-forming tissues undergoing secondary cell wall thickening. The abundance and multiplicity of xylem-expressed TUA and TUB isoforms certainly distinguish “wood” formation in Populus and Arabidopsis. Over the course of tree ontogeny, such flexibility of expression might reasonably be expected to contribute adaptively to perennial cellulose deposition and vascular development. RESULTS Cloning of Aspen TUA Genes Eight TUA cDNAs, designated TUA1 through TUA8, were isolated from quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). TUA1 was originally identified as a xylem-abundant (relative to phloem) cDNA fragment by mRNA differential display (Touchell et al., 2003) and its full-length cDNA subsequently isolated by screening an aspen xylem cDNA library. TUA2 to TUA8 were cloned from various aspen tissues using PCR-based approaches (see “Materials and Methods”). The assembly v1.1 of the recently released Populus trichocarpa genome (Tuskan et al., 2006) contains all eight TUA orthologs (annotated as PoptrTUA1 through PoptrTUA8), with two additional truncated sequences, PoptrTUA5tψ and PoptrTUA7tψ (Table I), which show highest nucleotide identity to PoptrTUA5 and PoptrTUA7, respectively, and are most likely pseudogenes. The open reading frames of the eight TUA genes range from 1,350 to 1,356 bp in size, and share 74% to 97% sequence identity. However, they contain distinct 3′-untranslated regions (UTRs), with sequence identity less than 62%. The eight predicted TUA proteins range in length from 449 to 551 amino acids, and show a very high degree of sequence homology to each other (88%–98% identity; Supplemental Fig. S1), except for their hypervariable C termini (Fig. 1
Phylogenetic Analysis of the TUA Family Phylogenetic analysis of representative algal and plant full-length TUA proteins is shown in Figure 2
The four Populus class II TUAs probably descend from one ancient gene that gave rise to the progenitors of PoptrTUA2/4 and PoptrTUA6/8 during the eurosid genome-wide duplication, and eventually to the modern complement of PoptrTUA2, PoptrTUA4, PoptrTUA6, and PoptrTUA8 following the salicoid duplication (Tuskan et al., 2006). This duplication was dated between 6 and 10 million years ago (mya), based on synonymous substitution rates of 1.5 × 10−8 and 9.1 × 10−9 mutations per site per year for dicot genes by Koch et al. (2000) and Lynch and Conery (2000), respectively. Two of the class II Arabidopsis members, ArathTUA3 and ArathTUA5, are tandem repeats encoding identical proteins. This duplication was estimated to have occurred only 3 to 5 mya. None of the other Populus and Arabidopsis TUA genes is associated with genome-wide or tandem duplications, suggesting that they may have originated from other lineage-specific segmental gene duplication events. For instance, PoptrTUA5 and PoptrTUA7 seem to have duplicated independently around the same time as the recent Populus whole-genome duplication event, followed by truncations of PoptrTUA5tψ and PoptrTUA7tψ. ArathTUA2 and ArathTUA4 also encode identical proteins, and appear to have duplicated as an independent event 5 to 8.5 mya. Gene Structure of the TUA Family TUA genomic sequences were retrieved from the Populus genome portal v1.1 for gene structure analysis. The exon-intron splice junctions of all eight full-length TUA genes follow the GT-AG rule, but class I and class II PoptrTUAs differ both in number and position of introns (Fig. 3A
In Silico Identification of Populus TUB Genes Twenty TUB genes, designated PoptrTUB1 through PoptrTUB20, were identified from the P. trichocarpa genome sequence and confirmed to be transcriptionally active in aspen (see below). The manually curated gene models are listed in Table I. The predicted open reading frames range in size from 1,335 to 1,356 bp, and share 76% to 96% nucleotide identity. Their 3′-UTRs are more variable, exhibiting less than 68% sequence identity (not shown). The hypothetical PoptrTUB proteins vary from 444 to 451 amino acids in length, and, like PoptrTUAs, are highly conserved (89%–98% sequence identity overall; Supplemental Fig. S2), except for the hypervariable C termini (Fig. 4
Phylogenetic analysis reveals at least four distinct classes of plant TUBs (Fig. 5
Gene Structure of the TUB Family All PoptrTUB genes have two introns located at conserved positions (Fig. 3B Expression Patterns of TUA and TUB Transcripts Expression of the eight TUA and 20 TUB genes in various aspen tissues was analyzed by quantitative real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR using gene-specific primers (Supplemental Table S1). The class I TUA members, with the exception of TUA7, were most abundantly expressed in developing xylem of field-grown trees. The Y-type TUA1 was by far the most abundant transcript in developing xylem, consistent with its origin as a xylem-specific cDNA, followed by the M-type TUA5 (Fig. 6A
TUB9 and TUB15 represent the predominant TUB species in developing xylem, followed by TUB16 and TUB13 (Fig. 6 Expression of TUA and TUB Transcripts in Tension Wood Tension wood is an angiosperm-specific response to gravitational stress, characterized by altered microfibril structure and properties due to the presence of a gelatinous layer that is composed primarily of cellulose (Norberg and Meier, 1966). An increased abundance of MTs, in parallel with microfibrils, has been noted in tension wood fibers (Fujita et al., 1974; Prodhan et al., 1995). We therefore measured TUA and TUB expression in tension wood tissue. As shown in Figure 7
Fiber-Specific Localization of Tubulins in Developing Stems Cellular distribution of tubulin proteins in aspen stem sections was investigated by immunolocalization (Fig. 8
DISCUSSION In mammalian systems (e.g. human and mouse), the TUA and TUB families are identical in size, with seven genes each (Sullivan, 1988; Stanchi et al., 2000). The family sizes, however, vary in higher plants, with six TUA and nine TUB genes in Arabidopsis, expanding to eight TUAs and 20 TUBs in the recently sequenced woody perennial Populus. We now know that Populus experienced two genome-wide gene duplication (eurosid and salicoid) events, followed by a series of chromosomal reorganizations, involving reciprocal tandem/terminal fusions and translocations (Tuskan et al., 2006). Interestingly, all 20 PoptrTUB genes are associated with genome-wide or tandem gene duplication events, whereas only four of the eight PoptrTUA genes are so derived. What led to the distinct patterns of gene retention (with regard to TUB) and/or loss (with regard to TUA) for two families of proteins that form 1:1 heterodimers is not known. Quantitative RT-PCR detection and sequence confirmation of all 20 TUB amplicons in various aspen tissues excludes the possibility that any TUB gene is not expressed. When viewed in the context of coordinated regulation of TUA and TUB in other species, the selective expansion of the TUB gene family in Populus is interesting. In yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), overexpression of TUA or TUB can lead to arrest of cell division, but a lethal phenotype was observed only in TUB-overexpressing strains, suggesting that transcript levels of TUB in excess of TUA are uniquely toxic (Weinstein and Solomon, 1990). Cotransformation of TUA and TUB was an absolute requirement for recovery of transgenic maize and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), as overexpression of either TUA or TUB alone was lethal (Anthony and Hussey, 1998, 1999). In the case of aspen, attempts to transgenically manipulate TUA1 expression also failed to produce viable transformants via Agrobacterium transformation and organogenesis (R.V. Oakley and C.-J. Tsai, unpublished data), suggesting that tight regulation of the TUA:TUB transcript ratio is also important in Populus. Indeed, real-time RT-PCR analysis suggests that compensatory expression may be important to maintain a viable functional balance of TUA:TUB in Populus. In xylem, for instance, fewer TUA (e.g. TUA1 and TUA5) than TUB (e.g. TUB9, TUB13, TUB15, and TUB16) genes were expressed, but the relative transcript levels of the two xylem-predominant TUAs were much higher than those of the TUBs. The same principle appeared to operate in pollen. The finding that xylem-abundant TUA, but not TUB, isoforms are also highly expressed in pollen is interesting, and may be viewed as a possible outcome of the differential evolution of these two gene families in Populus. The smaller TUA family appears to exhibit broader functionality, in this case, regulating wood formation as well as pollen development, whereas the large TUB family exhibits genewise redundancy and classwise functional specialization. Taken together, the variations in TUA and TUB family size and the quantitative differences in expression of individual gene family members lead us to hypothesize that transcriptional regulation is an important aspect of MT function in Populus. The identification of five novel Populus TUAs with a unique C-terminal Met, Glu, or Gln residue is of particular interest with regard to tyrosination/detyrosination of TUA, a PTM that has been extensively characterized in mammalian systems (MacRae, 1997). It involves the cyclic removal and re-attachment of the C-terminal Tyr (or Phe in MmTUA8; Fig. 1 Our results showed that both TUA and TUB families in Populus contain distinct isoforms, some with particularly strong expression in tissues undergoing secondary cell wall thickening and others with strong expression in pollen. Pollen-specific tubulin isoforms are phylogenetically conserved (Figs. 2 Several lines of evidence suggest that the xylem-predominant TUA and TUB isoforms are specifically associated with cellulose synthesis during secondary cell wall formation. First, TUA and TUB protein immunolocalization signals are strongest in xylem and phloem fiber cells of aspen stems undergoing secondary wall thickening (Fig. 8 Exactly how MTs exert an influence over microfibril deposition remains unclear, but it likely involves multiple factors, including an assortment of MT-associated proteins (Burk and Ye, 2002; Zhong et al., 2002) and biophysical feedback signals from cellulose microfibrils (Fisher and Cyr, 1998; Himmelspach et al., 2003). Perennial secondary growth is the most prominent of the vegetative growth features distinguishing woody species from herbaceous annuals. Although many aspects of wood formation appear to be conserved between Populus and Arabidopsis, e.g. lignin and cellulose biosynthetic gene networks (Ehlting et al., 2005; Geisler-Lee et al., 2006), the underlying cytoskeletal processes orchestrating cellulose MF deposition and orientation may depend on tubulins in ways that are less conserved. TUA and TUB gene expression has not been associated with secondary growth in Arabidopsis (Ko et al., 2004; Ehlting et al., 2005). The discrepancy in tubulin regulation appears to coincide with differential evolution of the secondary cell wall-associated TUA and TUB isoforms. The Arabidopsis class I TUA members are unusual in that two of them lack the conserved class I gene structure, and that they cluster separately from the main dicot class I branch, including the fiber-specific poplar and cotton TUAs. In the case of TUB, the class I and class I-like group is underrepresented in Arabidopsis, with a lone member. By contrast, Populus possesses a disproportionately large group of class I and I-like TUBs (10 of 20), encompassing all of the xylem- and tension wood-predominant isoforms. Taken together, our data suggest that increased tubulin isoform diversity along with elevated transcript abundance characterize wood and fiber formation in Populus. This may be in accordance with expanded transcriptional and posttranslational regulation of tubulin dynamics to sustain long-term, perennial growth of large woody plants. Future investigations into tubulin expression and possible PTMs in response to the life-long continua of developmental and biotic and abiotic cues trees face may be necessary to shed additional light on the functional significance of the expanded tubulin gene families in Populus. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant Materials Shoot apices, young leaves, stems (internodes 10–14 from the apex), and root tips (terminal 5 mm) were obtained from greenhouse-grown aspen (Populus tremuloides). Developing secondary xylem and phloem were collected from wild aspen trees on the campus of Michigan Technological University during the peak growing season (July to early August) of 1999 through 2004. Developing tension wood xylem was harvested from the upper side of aspen trees bent at a 30 to 40 degree angle from the vertical axis for 3 months. Reproductive branches were taken from individual wild aspen trees in the vicinity of Houghton in April 2006, and maintained in a greenhouse until flowering. Pollen shed from mature male catkins was collected. Tissues were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until use. DNA Cloning and Sequencing Total RNA was extracted according to Chang et al. (1993) and treated with TURBO DNase (Ambion) to remove contaminating DNA. A partial TUA1 fragment was first identified by mRNA differential display following the protocols of Touchell et al. (2003) and the full-length cDNA obtained by screening of an aspen xylem cDNA library (Ge and Chiang, 1996), according to standard recombinant DNA techniques (Sambrook and Russell, 2001). PCR-based approaches were used to clone other tubulin fragments, using cDNA synthesized with SuperScript II reverse transcriptase and an oligo(dT) primer according to the manufacturer's instructions (Invitrogen). Partial cDNA fragments of the other TUA genes were obtained by RT-PCR of phloem (TUA2, TUA5), apex (TUA3), or xylem (TUA4, TUA6, TUA7, TUA8) cDNA, using degenerate or gene-specific primers (Supplemental Table S1). Full-length cDNA clones were obtained by RT-PCR using gene-specific primers (Supplemental Table S1) or by 5′-RACE using the SMART RACE cDNA amplification kit (CLONTECH). PCR products were purified using the UltraClean PCR clean-up kit (MoBio) and cloned into the pCRII vector (Invitrogen). Positive clones were sequenced fully from both directions using the CEQ dye terminator cycle sequencing quick start kit and the CEQ8000 genetic analysis system (Beckman Coulter). Sequence Analysis Full-length amino acid sequences were aligned by ClustalW 1.82 (Chenna et al., 2003) and displayed with BOXSHADE 3.21 (http://www.ch.embnet.org/software/BOX_form.html). Phylogenetic analysis was performed with MEGA 3.1 (Kumar et al., 2004), using the neighbor-joining or minimum-evolution methods. Rooted trees were generated from the interior-branch test with 1,000 iterations, using the equal-input model (heterogeneous patterns) and the complete-deletion option for handling alignment gaps. Similar topologies were obtained when the C-terminal hypervariable regions were excluded from the sequence alignment and phylogenetic analyses (not shown). The accession numbers of sequences included in the phylogenetic analyses are listed in Supplemental Table S2. Genomic sequences corresponding to the eight TUA and 20 TUB genes were retrieved from the Populus genome portal (v1.1) hosted at the JGI and the exon-intron structure displayed using the Gene Structure visualization tool (http://warta.bio.psu.edu/cgi-bin/Tools/StrDraw.pl). Estimation of Gene Duplication Dates Protein coding regions of genes were aligned and nucleotide substitution rates were estimated using the distance measures of Nei and Gojobori, and the Jukes-Cantor correction implemented in MEGA 3.1. Synonymous substitution rates were used for calculating divergence and duplication times (T) of genes using k = Ks/2T, where k represents absolute rate of synonymous substitution per site per year for dicots, and Ks is the estimated number of synonymous substitutions per site between homologous sequences using the Kimura two-parameter method as described by Gaut et al. (1996) and Ramakrishna et al. (2002). This estimation was similarly applied to dating of gene duplications in Populus and Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Real-Time RT-PCR Analysis Relative transcript abundance of all tubulin isoforms in various aspen tissues was analyzed by real-time RT-PCR using the ABsolute QPCR SYBR Green Mix (Abgene) and the Mx3000P real-time PCR system (Stratagene). Gene-specific primers (Supplemental Table S1) flanking 94- to 294-bp amplicons near the 3′-UTRs were designed based on both cloned and JGI-predicted cDNA sequences and, whenever possible, GenBank Populus EST sequences. Each reaction was performed in duplicate with two biological replicates, using cDNA synthesized from 2.5 ng of total RNA. The specificity of amplification was assessed by dissociation curve analysis at the end of each run using the MxPro software (Stratagene), and confirmed by cloning and sequencing of the PCR products, including the PoptrTUA6/8 and PoptrTUB5/6 pairs that could not be distinguished by RT-PCR primers. Relative target transcript levels normalized to the geometric mean of three housekeeping genes (ACTIN, ELONGATION FACTOR1β, and UBIQUITIN) were determined using the ΔCT method (Tsai et al., 2006). Immunolocalization Immunolocalization was conducted according to Li et al. (2001) using butyl methyl methacrylate-embedded thin (3-μm) stem sections. Polyclonal anti-TUA antibodies were raised in rabbits using affinity-purified aspen TUA1 recombinant protein (Alpha Diagnostic). The anti-TUB antibodies (ab15568) were obtained from Abcam, and were raised against a synthetic human TUB peptide (416–430) that is highly conserved among PoptrTUBs and corresponds to the C-terminal helix H12 on the outside surface of the MT according to the electron crystallography (Nogales et al., 1998). Anti-TUA antibodies were used at 1/10,000 dilution and anti-TUB serum at 1/2,000 dilution in immunohybridization. Preimmune serum was used as the control. Hybridization signal was colorimetrically detected using nitro blue tetrazolium and 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-phosphate. Sections were then mounted in glycerol and images were recorded using a Nikon E-400 microscope equipped with a digital imaging system. Supplemental Data The following materials are available in the online version of this article.
[Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank Jingwei Yin for assistance in cloning and sequencing of the TUA6, TUA7, and TUA8 cDNAs; Dr. Vincent Chiang for providing the aspen xylem cDNA library; and Dr. Ramesh Thakur and Dr. David Karnosky for their help with aspen pollen collection. Notes 1This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative (grant nos. 98–35106–6630 to C.-J.T., 2003–35103–12906 to C.-J.T. and S.A.H., and 2005–35103–15251 to C.-J.T.). The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Chung-Jui Tsai (chtsai/at/mtu.edu). [W]The online version of this article contains Web-only data. [OA]Open Access articles can be viewed online without a subscription. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Dec; 7(6):651-60.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2001 Feb; 13(1):49-54.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2001]Cell. 1986 Feb 14; 44(3):461-8.
[Cell. 1986]Plant J. 1999 Jun; 18(6):669-74.
[Plant J. 1999]Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Jul; 17(7):712-6.
[Nat Biotechnol. 1999]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):539-47.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):557-71.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Plant Cell Physiol. 2004 Feb; 45(2):211-20.
[Plant Cell Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):549-56.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Plant Mol Biol. 2001 Oct; 47(3):389-98.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2001]Science. 2006 Jun 9; 312(5779):1491-5.
[Science. 2006]Science. 2006 Sep 15; 313(5793):1596-604.
[Science. 2006]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):557-71.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Science. 2006 Sep 15; 313(5793):1596-604.
[Science. 2006]Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Oct; 17(10):1483-98.
[Mol Biol Evol. 2000]Science. 2000 Nov 10; 290(5494):1151-5.
[Science. 2000]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):539-47.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Plant Mol Biol. 1990 Jan; 14(1):1-15.
[Plant Mol Biol. 1990]Plant Physiol. 2004 Dec; 136(4):3920-32.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Mol Biol. 1995 Feb; 27(4):715-27.
[Plant Mol Biol. 1995]Plant Mol Biol. 2001 Oct; 47(3):389-98.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2001]Plant Cell Physiol. 2003 Nov; 44(11):1202-7.
[Plant Cell Physiol. 2003]Plant J. 1993 Nov; 4(5):875-82.
[Plant J. 1993]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):549-56.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Plant J. 2002 Jan; 29(1):33-44.
[Plant J. 2002]Plant Cell. 1992 May; 4(5):549-56.
[Plant Cell. 1992]Planta. 2006 Sep; 224(4):828-37.
[Planta. 2006]Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1988; 4():687-716.
[Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1988]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000 Apr 21; 270(3):1111-8.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000]Science. 2006 Sep 15; 313(5793):1596-604.
[Science. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 1990 Oct; 10(10):5295-304.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1990]Plant J. 1998 Nov; 16(3):297-304.
[Plant J. 1998]Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Jul; 17(7):712-6.
[Nat Biotechnol. 1999]Eur J Biochem. 1997 Mar 1; 244(2):265-78.
[Eur J Biochem. 1997]Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2000 Mar; 45(3):173-84.
[Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2000]Eur J Biochem. 1994 Mar 1; 220(2):309-20.
[Eur J Biochem. 1994]J Cell Biol. 1993 Feb; 120(3):725-32.
[J Cell Biol. 1993]Planta. 1997; 201(3):349-58.
[Planta. 1997]Plant Cell. 2000 Sep; 12(9):1719-36.
[Plant Cell. 2000]Plant Cell. 2003 Jan; 15(1):251-69.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Plant J. 2007 Aug; 51(3):406-18.
[Plant J. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 4; 98(25):14732-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001]Plant J. 2006 Jan; 45(2):144-65.
[Plant J. 2006]Genetics. 2007 Jan; 175(1):399-409.
[Genetics. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Aug; 51(4):717-26.
[Plant J. 2007]Science. 2006 Jun 9; 312(5779):1491-5.
[Science. 2006]Plant Cell. 2002 Sep; 14(9):2145-60.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Plant Cell. 2002 Dec; 14(12):3101-17.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Plant Physiol. 1998 Mar; 116(3):1043-51.
[Plant Physiol. 1998]Plant J. 2003 Nov; 36(4):565-75.
[Plant J. 2003]Plant J. 2005 Jun; 42(5):618-40.
[Plant J. 2005]Plant Physiol. 1996 Oct; 112(2):861-4.
[Plant Physiol. 1996]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jul 1; 31(13):3497-500.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]Brief Bioinform. 2004 Jun; 5(2):150-63.
[Brief Bioinform. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Sep 17; 93(19):10274-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]Genetics. 2002 Nov; 162(3):1389-400.
[Genetics. 2002]New Phytol. 2006; 172(1):47-62.
[New Phytol. 2006]Plant Cell. 2001 Jul; 13(7):1567-86.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Nature. 1998 Jan 8; 391(6663):199-203.
[Nature. 1998]