No abstract

We aim to demonstrate that a complex plant tissue protein mixture can be reliably "fingerprinted" by running conventional 1-D SDS-PAGE in bulk and analyzing gel banding patterns using machine learning methods. An unsupervised approach to filter noise and systemic biases (principal component analysis) was coupled to state-of-the-art supervised methods for classification (support vector machines) and attribute ranking (ReliefF) to improve tissue discrimination, visualization, and recognition of important gel regions.

Artificial conditions of tissue culture affect growth and physiology of crassulacean acid metabolism plants which often results in formation of hyperhydric shoots. In in vitro conditions Mammillaria gracilis Pfeiff. (Cactaceae) growth switches from organized to unorganized way, producing a habituated organogenic callus which simultaneously regenerates morphologically normal as well as altered hyperhydric shoots. In this study, influence of tissue culture conditions on morphology of cactus spines of normal and hyperhydric shoots was investigated. Spines of pot-grown Mammillaria plants and of in vitro regenerated shoots were examined with stereo microscope and scanning electron microscope. The pot-grown plants had 16-17 spines per areole. In vitro grown normal shoots, even though they kept typical shoot morphology, had lower number of spines (11-12) and altered spine morphology. This difference was even more pronounced in spine number (six to seven) and morphology of the hyperhydric shoots. Scanning electron microscopy analysis revealed remarkable differences in micromorphology of spine surface between pot-grown and in vitro grown shoots. Spines of in vitro grown normal shoots showed numerous long trichomes, which were more elongated on spines of the hyperhydric shoots; the corresponding structures on spine surface of pot-grown plants were noticed only as small protrusions. Scanning electron microscopy morphometric studies showed that the spines of pot-grown plants were significantly longer compared to the spines of shoots grown in tissue culture. Moreover, transverse section shape varies from elliptical in pot-grown plants to circular in normal and hyperhydric shoots grown in vitro. Cluster and correspondence analyses performed on the scanning electron microscope obtained results suggest great variability among spines of pot-grown plants. Spines of in vitro grown normal and hyperhydric shoots showed low level of morphological variation among themselves despite the significant difference in shoot morphology.

The RecA loading activity of the RecBCD enzyme, together with its helicase and 5′ → 3′ exonuclease activities, is essential for recombination in Escherichia coli. One particular mutant in the nuclease catalytic center of RecB, i.e., recB1080, produces an enzyme that does not have nuclease activity and is unable to load RecA protein onto single-stranded DNA. There are, however, previously published contradictory data on the recombination proficiency of this mutant. In a recF– background the recB1080 mutant is recombination deficient, whereas in a recF+ genetic background it is recombination proficient. A possible explanation for these contrasting phenotypes may be that the RecFOR system promotes RecA-single-strand DNA filament formation and replaces the RecA loading defect of the RecB1080CD enzyme. We tested this hypothesis by using three in vivo assays. We compared the recombination proficiencies of recB1080, recO, recR, and recF single mutants and recB1080 recO, recB1080 recR, and recB1080 recF double mutants. We show that RecFOR functions rescue the repair and recombination deficiency of the recB1080 mutant and that RecA loading is independent of RecFOR in the recB1080 recD double mutant where this activity is provided by the RecB1080C(D–) enzyme. According to our results as well as previous data, three essential activities for the initiation of recombination in the recB1080 mutant are provided by different proteins, i.e., helicase activity by RecB1080CD, 5′ → 3′ exonuclease by RecJ- and RecA-single-stranded DNA filament formation by RecFOR.

No abstract