4.6 Article

Kruppel homologue 1 interacts directly with Hairy and regulates ecdysis in the brown planthopper

期刊

INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 293-300

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imb.12635

关键词

Hry; Kr-h1; ecdysis; interaction; brown planthopper

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31471771, 31672023, 31741107]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LZ20C140002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Juvenile hormone (JH) plays important roles in the growth and development of insects. JH and its receptor methoprene-tolerant (Met) regulate the expression of transcription factors to control the transcription of downstream genes. The expression of Hairy (Hry) and Kruppel homologue 1 (Kr-h1) is regulated by JH and JH receptors. Hry and Kr-h1 are both crucial in mediating JH signalling. However, whether they interact at the gene level in regulating metamorphosis and whether they interact physically at the protein level remain unknown. We used co-immunoprecipitation, glutathione S-transferase pull-down and RNA interference (RNAi) approaches to study the genetic and biochemical interactions of the two proteins Hry and Kr-h1. The results showed that brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) Hry and Kr-h1 interact directly: Hry binds to the N-terminal of Kr-h1, which includes five zinc-finger domains. The RNAi experiment showed that downregulation of Hry reduced the ratio of ecdysis failure caused by knockdown of Kr-h1, indicating that the downregulation of Hry might mitigate ecdysis failure via the downregulation of Kr-h1. The expression of Hry increased significantly when Kr-h1 was downregulated, whereas it did not change significantly when both were downregulated. Our results suggest that the binding of Hry protein with Kr-h1 prevents the N-terminal five zinc-finger domains from binding with DNA, which in turn inactivates the transcription activator or inhibitor function of Kr-h1. Hry could possibly be used as a target for pesticide applications in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据