Abstract

BackgroundSquamosa promoter binding protein (SBP)-box family genes encode plant-specific transcription factors that control many important biological functions, including phase transition, inflorescence branching, fruit ripening, and copper homeostasis. Nevertheless, the evolutionary patterns of SBP-box genes and evolutionary forces driving them are still not well understood.Methods104 SBP-box gene candidates of five representative land plants were obtained from Phytozome database (v10.3). Phylogenetic combined with gene structure analyses were used to identify SBP-box gene lineages in land plants. Gene copy number and the sequence and structure features were then compared among these different SBP-box lineages. Selection analysis, relative rate tests and expression divergence were finally used to interpret the evolutionary relationships and divergence of SBP-box genes in land plants.ResultsWe investigated 104 SBP-box genes from moss, Arabidopsis, poplar, rice, and maize. These genes are divided into group I and II, and the latter is further divided into two subgroups (subgroup II-1 and II-2) based on phylogenetic analysis. Interestingly, subgroup II-1 genes have similar sequence and structural features to group I genes, whereas subgroup II-2 genes exhibit intrinsic differences on these features, including high copy numbers and the presence of miR156/miR529 regulation. Further analyses indicate that subgroup II-1 genes are constrained by stronger purifying selection and evolve at a lower substitution rate than II-2 genes, just as group I genes do when compared to II genes. Among subgroup II-2 genes, miR156 targets evolve more rapidly than miR529 targets and experience comparatively relaxed purifying selection. These results suggest that group I and subgroup II-1 genes under strong selective constraint are conserved. By contrast, subgroup II-2 genes evolve under relaxed purifying selection and have diversified through gene copy duplications and changes in miR156/529 regulation, which might contribute to morphological diversifications of land plants.ConclusionsOur results indicate that different evolutionary rates and selection strengths lead to differing evolutionary patterns in SBP-box genes in land plants, providing a guide for future functional diversity analyses of these genes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1998-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Squamosa promoter binding protein (SBP)-box family genes encode plant-specific transcription factors that control many important biological functions, including phase transition, inflorescence branching, fruit ripening, and copper homeostasis

  • Phylogenetic analysis of SBP-box genes in land plants Phylogenetic reconstruction was performed using neighbor-joining (NJ) approaches with JTT and P-distance models based on full-length protein sequences, which resulted in generally similar topologies

  • Sequence and structural characteristics of SBP-box genes We found that the sequence and structural features of subgroup II-1 SBP-box genes were highly similar to group I genes, groups II-1 and II-2 were sister in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1a)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Squamosa promoter binding protein (SBP)-box family genes encode plant-specific transcription factors that control many important biological functions, including phase transition, inflorescence branching, fruit ripening, and copper homeostasis. The differential regulation of SBP-box genes by two miRNA families provides an interesting example of the functions that these genes exhibit during land plant development; e.g., the low-level expression of SBP-box genes in an miR156-overexpression mutant prolonged the juvenile phase in maize [13] and Arabidopsis [14]. These studies suggest that land plant SBP-box genes have diverged and are functionally diverse. Our long-term research questions are: What evolutionary forces drive the divergence of SBP-box genes in land plants? Do these genes evolve under the same constraints and at the same rate?

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.