Sandbox Reserved 933: Difference between revisions

[[Image:Structure_course.007.jpg|800px|Right|thumb| Figure 4. A summary of LEAFY evolution by substation in three residues on three different types of DNA binding motif. Position 312 and 345 are mainly responsible for the difference between type I and type II binding motif (AtLFY and PpLFY). In algae, LFY binds to the type III motif is largely because amino acid substitution disrupt the interface of dimer (TsLFY). In this figure, 3D structures were visualized by MacPymol with assemblies of 2VY1 and 4BHK. Lower 2D diagrams present how different LFY interact with three types of binding motifs. Information in the diagram were summarized from Hames et al. 2008, Sayou et al. 2014 and further visualized by keynote.]]

Different from other transcription factor families, LFY and its homologs retains to be a single copy gene in almost all land plants. This brought a new entry point that how LFY evolved to control different developmental processes in other plant lineages. LFY homologs in mosses have been reported controlling cell division, while through binding to a different motif rather than the one that was found in ''Arabidopsis''. Multiple alignment and a new method by systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX) of LFY and its homologs revealed that at specific position of DNA binding domain, few amino acids were substituted from angiosperms to algae, and can be further categorized into three subgroups. These changes further lead to a switch of binding ability of different binding motifs, and finally result in a diverged functionality.