Molecular phylogeny of the stress-70 protein family with reference to algal relationships

The stress-70 protein family has previously been shown to be a useful tool for molecular phylogeny at the kingdom to family levels. Although sequences of many members of the stress-70 family are available, few genes from the Protoctista have been sequenced to date. Phylogenetic analyses of algae based on various molecules have not, as yet, provided dear results concerning relationships between major divisions. We cloned and sequenced several algal stress-70 genes in order to provide additional data and to further analyse phylogenetic relationships among algal divisions. New nuclear sequences were obtained from Guillardia theta (Cryptophyta), Ascophyllum nodosum (Heterokontophyta) and Cyanophora paradoxa (Glaucocystophyta). Phylogenetic trees of the stress-70 protein family calculated using different methods are presented. In our trees, the heterokont alga Ascophyllum nodosum is closely related to the slime mould Dictyostelium discoideum, while the nucleomorph (eukaryotic endosymbiont) of the cryptophyte Rhodomonas salina seems to be related to the chlorobiont lineage. The glaucocystophyte Cyanophora paradoxa and the nuclear sequence (host) of the cryptomonad alga Guillardia theta also seem to be closely related. The Cryptophyta and the heterokont algae have evolved from different secondary endosymbiotic events involving different hosts and probably different endosymbionts. However, until more stress-70 sequences of algal divisions become available no definitive conclusions can be drawn concerning branching of the major divisions

Truncated Cotton Subtilase Promoter Directs Guard Cell-Specific Expression of Foreign Genes in Tobacco and Arabidopsis

A 993-bp regulatory region upstream of the translation start codon of subtilisin-like serine protease gene was isolated from Gossypium barbadense. This (T/A)AAAG-rich region, GbSLSP, and its 5′- and 3′-truncated versions were transferred into tobacco and Arabidopsis after fusing with GUS or GFP. Histochemical and quantitative GUS analysis and confocal GFP fluorescence scanning in the transgenic plants showed that the GbSLSP-driven GUS and GFP expressed preferentially in guard cells, whereas driven by GbSLSPF2 to GbSLSPF4, the 5′-truncated GbSLSP versions with progressively reduced Dof1 elements, both GUS and GFP expressed exclusively in guard cells, and the expression strength declined with (T/A)AAAG copy decrement. Deletion of 5′-untranslated region from GbSLSP markedly weakened the activity of GUS and GFP, while deletion from the strongest guard cell-specific promoter, GbSLSPF2, not only significantly decreased the expression strength, but also completely abolished the guard cell specificity. These results suggested both guard cell specificity and expression strength of the promoters be coordinately controlled by 5′-untranslated region and a cluster of at least 3 (T/A)AAAG elements within a region of about 100 bp relative to transcription start site. Our guard cell-specific promoters will enrich tools to manipulate gene expression in guard cells for scientific research and crop improvement