This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Data Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Springer, N. M. Articles by Kaeppler, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Springer, N. M. Articles by Kaeppler, S. M. Agricola Articles by Springer, N. M. Articles by Kaeppler, S. M.

GENOME ANALYSIS

Evolutionary Divergence of Monocot and Dicot Methyl-CpG-Binding Domain Proteins^1,[w]

Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

The covalent modification of eukaryotic DNA by methylation of the 5' carbon of cytosine residues is frequently associated with transcriptional silencing. In mammals, a potential mechanism for transducing DNA methylation patterns into altered transcription levels occurs via binding of methyl-CpG-binding domain (MBD) proteins. Mammalian MBD-containing proteins bind specifically to methylated DNA and recruit chromatin-modifying complexes containing histone deacetylase activities. Sequence similarity searches reveal the presence of multiple proteins in plants containing a putative MBD. Outside of the MBD itself, there is no sequence relationship between plant and mammalian MBD proteins. The plant MBD proteins can be divided into eight classes based on sequence similarity and phylogenetic analyses of sequences obtained from two complete genomes (rice [Oryza sativa] and Arabidopsis [Arabidopsis thaliana]) and from maize (Zea mays). Two classes of MBD proteins are only represented in dicot species. The striking divergence of plant and animal MBD-containing proteins is in stark contrast to the amino acid conservation of DNA methyltransferases across plants, animals, and fungi. This observation suggests the possibility that while plants and mammals have retained similar mechanisms for the establishment and maintenance of DNA methylation patterns, they may have evolved distinct mechanisms for the interpretation of these patterns.

² Present address: Department of Plant Biology, University of Minnesota, 1445 Gortner Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108.

^[w] The online version of this article contains Web-only data.

www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.105.060566.

^* Corresponding author; e-mail springer{at}umn.edu; fax 612–625–1738.

Received February 1, 2005; returned for revision March 4, 2005; accepted March 4, 2005.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Zemach, O. Gaspan, and G. Grafi The Three Methyl-CpG-binding Domains of AtMBD7 Control Its Subnuclear Localization and Mobility J. Biol. Chem., March 28, 2008; 283(13): 8406 - 8411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. McGinnis, N. Murphy, A. R. Carlson, A. Akula, C. Akula, H. Basinger, M. Carlson, P. Hermanson, N. Kovacevic, M. A. McGill, et al. Assessing the Efficiency of RNA Interference for Maize Functional Genomics Plant Physiology, April 1, 2007; 143(4): 1441 - 1451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. YANO, Y. KODAMA, A. KOIKE, T. SHINYA, H.-J. KIM, M. MATSUMOTO, S. OGITA, Y. WADA, N. OHAD, and H. SANO Interaction Between Methyl CpG-Binding Protein and Ran GTPase during Cell Division in Tobacco Cultured Cells Ann. Bot., December 1, 2006; 98(6): 1179 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]