Display options
Share it on

Plant Physiol. 1987 Apr;83(4):869-77. doi: 10.1104/pp.83.4.869.

Protein degradation in lemna with particular reference to ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase: I. The effect of light and dark.

Plant physiology

R B Ferreira, D D Davies

Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom.

PMID: 16665354 PMCID: PMC1056465 DOI: 10.1104/pp.83.4.869

Abstract

Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase from Lemna minor resembles the structure reported for the enzyme from other plants. When grown in the light, the enzyme appears to undergo little or no degradation, as measured by a double-isotope method. This situation is similar to that reported for wheat and barley, but is unlike that reported for maize, where the enzyme degrades at the same rate as total protein. Prolonged periods of darkness usually induce leaf senescence, characterized by the rapid degradation of chlorophyll and protein, with ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase undergoing preferential degradation. In L. minor there is selective protein degradation in the dark, but chlorophyll and ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase are stable when fronds are kept in the darkness for up to 8 days. It appears that Lemna is not programmed to senesce, or at least that darkness does not induce senescence in Lemna. Although there is no evidence for in vivo degradation or modification of ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase during prolonged periods of darkness, extracts from fronds which have been kept in the dark for periods in excess of 24 hours convert ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase to a more acidic form. The properties of the dark-induced system which acts on ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase, suggest that it may be a mixed function oxidase. The proposition that the selectivity of protein degradation is genetically determined, so that the rate at which a protein is degraded is determined by its charge or size, was tested for fronds grown in the light or maintained in the dark. There was no significant correlation between protein degradation and either charge or size, in light or dark.

References

  1. Biochem J. 1980 Oct 15;192(1):311-20 - PubMed
  2. J Biol Chem. 1982 Apr 25;257(8):4583-7 - PubMed
  3. J Biol Chem. 1973 Jun 25;248(12):4220-8 - PubMed
  4. J Biol Chem. 1977 May 25;252(10):3430-5 - PubMed
  5. Plant Physiol. 1973 Jun;51(6):1042-5 - PubMed
  6. Plant Physiol. 1978 Oct;62(4):604-8 - PubMed
  7. Biochem J. 1976 Jun 15;156(3):561-8 - PubMed
  8. Science. 1983 Jun 10;220(4602):1165-7 - PubMed
  9. J Biol Chem. 1969 Jun 25;244(12):3303-15 - PubMed
  10. Biochem J. 1980 Nov 15;192(2):499-506 - PubMed
  11. Anal Biochem. 1977 Mar;78(1):66-75 - PubMed
  12. Plant Physiol. 1975 Sep;56(3):438-41 - PubMed
  13. J Bacteriol. 1980 Feb;141(2):652-7 - PubMed
  14. Biochem J. 1983 Apr 15;212(1):1-13 - PubMed
  15. Annu Rev Biochem. 1976;45:747-803 - PubMed
  16. Plant Physiol. 1978 Jan;61(1):54-8 - PubMed
  17. Science. 1986 Oct 10;234(4773):179-86 - PubMed
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 May;75(5):2093-7 - PubMed
  19. Plant Physiol. 1980 Jun;65(6):1103-7 - PubMed
  20. Plant Physiol. 1979 Nov;64(5):884-7 - PubMed
  21. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1975 Sep;170(1):213-9 - PubMed
  22. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680-5 - PubMed
  23. Plant Physiol. 1970 Jun;45(6):742-51 - PubMed
  24. Biochem J. 1979 Nov 15;184(2):367-77 - PubMed
  25. Plant Physiol. 1981 Jun;67(6):1214-9 - PubMed
  26. Basic Life Sci. 1978;11:113-125 - PubMed
  27. Plant Physiol. 1970 Sep;46(3):416-8 - PubMed
  28. Plant Physiol. 1949 Jan;24(1):1-15 - PubMed
  29. Plant Physiol. 1975 Jun;55(6):1009-15 - PubMed
  30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Oct;72(10):3893-7 - PubMed

Publication Types