Comparative analysis of the biosynthesis of isoprenoid and aromatic cytokinins

Cover Page

Abstract


To compare the biosynthesis pathways of aromatic and isoprenoid cytokinins, a series of nucleoside derivatives of natural cytokinins was synthesized and their cytokinin activity was determined in a test system based on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Cytokinin nucleosides are known to lack the hormonal activity until cleaving the ribose moiety at the position 9. Our experiments have shown that both ribo- and 5′-deoxyribo derivatives of N 6-isopentenyladenine were able to turn into active cytokinins in planta exhibiting cytokinin activity. By contrast, 5′-deoxy nucleosides of aromatic cytokinins did not show similar activity. Since 5′-deoxy nucleosides cannot phosphorylate in vivo, the direct pathway of active cytokinin formation by cleavage of nucleotides is blocked here. The detected activity in 5′-deoxy nucleosides of isoprenoid cytokinins and the lack of the activity in 5′-deoxy nucleosides of aromatic cytokinins indicates a difference in the biosynthesis of these compounds.


About the authors

V. E. Oslovsky

Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: smikh@eimb.ru

Russian Federation, 32, Vavilov street, Moscow, 119991

E. M. Savelieva

K.A. Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: smikh@eimb.ru

Russian Federation, 35, Botanicheskaya street, Moscow, 127276

M. S. Drenichev

Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: smikh@eimb.ru

Russian Federation, 32, Vavilov street, Moscow, 119991

G. A. Romanov

K.A. Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: smikh@eimb.ru

Russian Federation, 35, Botanicheskaya street, Moscow, 127276

S. N. Mikhailov

Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: smikh@eimb.ru

Russian Federation, 32, Vavilov street, Moscow, 119991

References

  1. Sakakibara H. // Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006. V. 57. P. 431-449.
  2. Romanov G.A. // Rus. J. Plant Physiol. 2009. V. 56. P. 268-290.
  3. Lomin S.N., Krivosheev D.M., et al. // J. Exp. Bot. 2015. V. 66. P. 1851-1863.
  4. Savelieva E.M., Oslovsky V.E., et al. // Phytochemistry. 2018. V. 149. P. 161-177.
  5. Kamínek M. // J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015. V. 34. P. 723-739.
  6. Komada-Nobusada T., Sakakibara H. // Phytochemistry. 2009. V. 70. P. 444-449.
  7. Drenichev M.S., Oslovsky V.E., et al. // Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2016. V. 111. P. 84-94.
  8. Jordheim L.P., Durantel D., et al. // Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2013. V. 12. P. 447-464.
  9. Romanov G.A., Kieber J.J., Schmülling T. // FEBS Lett. 2002. V. 515. P. 39-43.
  10. Abusamhadneh E., McDonald N.E., Kline P.C. // Plant Science. 2000. V. 153. P. 25-32.
  11. Chen C.M., Kristopeit S.M. // Plant Physiol. 1981. V. 68. P. 1020-1023.

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 137

PDF (Russian) - 120

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2019 Russian academy of sciences

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies