Front Plant Sci. 2013 Jun 26;4:223. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00223. eCollection 2013.

Are sucrose transporter expression profiles linked with patterns of biomass partitioning in Sorghum phenotypes?.

Frontiers in plant science

Ricky J Milne, Caitlin S Byrt, John W Patrick, Christopher P L Grof

PMID: 23805151 PMCID: PMC3693075 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00223

Abstract

Sorghum bicolor is a genetically diverse C4 monocotyledonous species, encompassing varieties capable of producing high grain yields as well as sweet types which accumulate soluble sugars (predominantly sucrose) within their stems to high concentrations. Sucrose produced in leaves (sources) enters the phloem and is transported to regions of growth and storage (sinks). It is likely that sucrose transporter (SUT) proteins play pivotal roles in phloem loading and the delivery of sucrose to growth and storage sinks in all Sorghum ecotypes. Six SUTs are present in the published Sorghum genome, based on the BTx623 grain cultivar. Homologues of these SUTs were cloned and sequenced from the sweet cultivar Rio, and compared with the publically available genome information. SbSUT5 possessed nine amino acid sequence differences between the two varieties. Two of the remaining five SUTs exhibited single variations in their amino acid sequences (SbSUT1 and SbSUT2) whilst the rest shared identical sequences. Complementation of a mutant Saccharomyces yeast strain (SEY6210), unable to grow upon sucrose as the sole carbon source, demonstrated that the Sorghum SUTs were capable of transporting sucrose. SbSUT1, SbSUT4, and SbSUT6 were highly expressed in mature leaf tissues and hence may contribute to phloem loading. In contrast, SbSUT2 and SbSUT5 were expressed most strongly in sinks consistent with a possible role of facilitating sucrose import into stem storage pools and developing inflorescences.

Keywords: Sorghum; expression profiling; source–sink pathway; sucrose storage; sucrose transporters

References

1. Plant Cell. 2003 Jun;15(6):1375-85 - PubMed
2. Mol Cell Biol. 1988 Nov;8(11):4936-48 - PubMed
3. Plant Cell Physiol. 2003 Mar;44(3):223-32 - PubMed
4. Plant Physiol. 2006 May;141(1):196-207 - PubMed
5. J Exp Bot. 2009;60(3):881-92 - PubMed
6. Plant Mol Biol. 2008 Oct;68(3):289-99 - PubMed
7. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55:341-72 - PubMed
8. Plant J. 2011 Mar;65(5):757-70 - PubMed
9. Plant Physiol. 2011 Sep;157(1):109-19 - PubMed
10. J Plant Res. 2011 May;124(3):395-403 - PubMed
11. J Biol Chem. 2012 Aug 31;287(36):30296-304 - PubMed
12. Yeast. 1991 Oct;7(7):691-2 - PubMed
13. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2012 Mar;14(2):325-36 - PubMed
14. BMC Plant Biol. 2007 Jun 20;7:33 - PubMed
15. Plant Physiol. 2009 Jan;149(1):71-81 - PubMed
16. New Phytol. 2006;171(4):759-70 - PubMed
17. J Exp Bot. 2002 Jul;53(374):1671-6 - PubMed
18. Bioinformatics. 2004 Nov 22;20(17):3258-60 - PubMed
19. Plant J. 2007 Feb;49(4):750-64 - PubMed
20. Plant J. 2011 Oct;68(1):129-36 - PubMed
21. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jul 1;36(Web Server issue):W465-9 - PubMed
22. J Membr Biol. 2000 Mar 1;174(1):31-40 - PubMed
23. Plant Cell Physiol. 2001 Oct;42(10):1181-5 - PubMed
24. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000 May 1;1465(1-2):246-62 - PubMed
25. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Nov 22;8:460 - PubMed
26. Plant J. 2000 Mar;21(5):455-67 - PubMed
27. Plant Physiol. 1983 May;72(1):1-6 - PubMed
28. Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Oct;50(3):453-62 - PubMed
29. J Plant Physiol. 2012 Apr 15;169(6):605-13 - PubMed
30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jul 21;95(15):9025-30 - PubMed
31. FEBS Lett. 2000 Nov 24;485(2-3):189-94 - PubMed
32. FEBS Lett. 1995 Aug 21;370(3):264-8 - PubMed
33. Planta. 1991 Dec;186(1):109-14 - PubMed
34. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009 Jul;50(7):1329-44 - PubMed
35. J Biol Chem. 2010 Jan 8;285(2):1138-46 - PubMed
36. Biochemistry. 2012 Apr 17;51(15):3284-91 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article