Hey these are really interesting questions. Since I don't work with plants I can share only thoughts about that. My impression is that there shouldn't be a problem to expressed unspliced mammalian gene in plants (I think that's the question). Plant genes are also unspliced, so plants will have the necessary machinery to spliced the mammalian genes. There are few problems I can think of though. First, the acceptor and donor splice sites in mammalian cells might be different from that in plant cells, or if not, the plant cells may have additional splice cites (like in mammalian cells), which are more frequently use than the ones shared between plants and animals. Second, majority of proteins in mammalian are post-translationally modified and again, how well such modifications will be preserved between plants and mammals? Through a colleague of mine (plant biologist) I know that they are trying to express human Ab genes in plants, but im not sure if the introduced genes are based on cDNA. I'll bet they are. Third, may be less relevant here, is the level of expression. Simply put the plant cell may not have need of such mammalian gene and prevent its expression, let say through some epigenetic modifications. Fourth, again may be less relevant here, but some mammalian genes do undergo RNA editing, which may not happen in plant cels and hence the protein function will be lost. Just thoughts

Hey these are really interesting questions. Since I don't work with plants I can share only thoughts about that. My impression is that there shouldn't be a problem to expressed unspliced mammalian gene in plants (I think that's the question). Plant genes are also unspliced, so plants will have the necessary machinery to spliced the mammalian genes. There are few problems I can think of though. First, the acceptor and donor splice sites in mammalian cells might be different from that in plant cells, or if not, the plant cells may have additional splice cites (like in mammalian cells), which are more frequently use than the ones shared between plants and animals. Second, majority of proteins in mammalian are post-translationally modified and again, how well such modifications will be preserved between plants and mammals? Through a colleague of mine (plant biologist) I know that they are trying to express human Ab genes in plants, but im not sure if the introduced genes are based on cDNA. I'll bet they are. Third, may be less relevant here, is the level of expression. Simply put the plant cell may not have need of such mammalian gene and prevent its expression, let say through some epigenetic modifications. Fourth, again may be less relevant here, but some mammalian genes do undergo RNA editing, which may not happen in plant cels and hence the protein function will be lost. Just thoughts

To the extent I am agreed with Vlady as plant genome has its own machinery at translational and post-translational level even though technological advancement is there without nay Hun-dun at genome level so go for cDNA cloning approach and get your job done ------

Thank you so much Vlady and Manoj. Then i think we can find the evolutionary conserved proteins and also the molecular difference between the two species. if we come to know this then we will be able to predict the role of non coding regions by doing such kind of experiments. is this right?

The main feature which needs to be with respect to translation is if the mRNA's kozak sequence's strength in facilitating translation initiation and the composition of nucleotides in identifying the ribosomal binding site region. If these 2 parameters fall within or are similar to norms of plant translation then translation would be a possibility of introduced mammalian mRNA.

Following translation the nascent protein's folding and establishing a stable form is the main challenge. As said above the post-translational modifications might differ between plants and mammals. To loosely say the same sequence which codes for a specific modification may code for an interaction with other carbohydrate moieties in plants. The type and level of glycosylation is different in different plants.

Functionality of such a translated protein will depend on how well it has folded. To start with if the folding has stabilized the protein via modifications which are non-native to its original form then there is a chance of alteration in the active site and loss or modification of functionality. If it folding is not stable then it will be targeted for degradation.

It would be exciting to know how much of translation pattern variations we would be able to find in studying the different mRNA variants.

Question: Does evolutionary conserved proteins b/w plant and animal do they have the same mRNA sequence specificity. I believe there will be a difference according to the machinery and environment.

thanko so much Abhinaya. is there any possibility that any protein would have crossed all these barriers?

To follow on Abhinaya's excellent comments the folding is really quite important for the proper protein function. It could be possible that plants don't have the proper chaperons to fold the mammalian genes. On other hand, Guruprasad I believe that evolutionary concerved proteins b/t plants and mammalian genomes will probably affect the basic cellular functions. A good example are the histon proteins. I wouldn't expect much of homology in the non coding sequences between plant and mammalian genes. As a thought, may be the non coding RNAs will share greater homology b/t plant and animals, although the interaction pattern for these RNAs (miRNAs for example) is quite different between plants and animals. But one way to answer that and in general how homologous are genes between a specific plant and animal would be to perform a BLAT search b/t the two genomes. I bet that the basic genes will show greater homology.

Thank you Vlady Vladimirov.

Vlady sir , Abhinaya mam excellent points .................

and great discussion as well

thank you :)))))))

Yes that's right. My experience comes from working with mammalian genomes, so I was referring to the non coding regions in the mammalian genome. If a noncoding region in mammals is a coding in certain plants a question to be asked is what's the synteny between these regions? Higher synteny between these organisms will demonstrate higher functional relevance. If the synteny's low then we really don't have much reason to believe that noncoding sequences in mammalians are the same coding seqs in the plants. but I might be wrong.

My experience is with mammalian genome and therefore my answer is speculative. My instincts tell me that the transcription initiation in plants and animals are quite different and therefore, I suspect that transcription initiation from the same promoters is least likely in plants. Having said that one cannot rule out transcription initiation from other regions of mammalian genome that the plant transcription machinery identifies as transcription start sites. Please note that when we talk about evolutionary conservation, the conservation occurs at the gene level, not the promoters (comparing plants and animals).

It depends of what you are looking at either at the level of protein synthesis machinary or transport and maturation of you mRNA transcripts. You must define better what is" mammalian DNA not cDNA". You have to remenber that long ago the wheat germ protein synthesis in vitro system was used to translate mammalian transcripts.

I agree with the previous excellent comments. In addition I suspect that if RNA are not correctly spliced out premature stop codons will produce many truncated unfunctional polypeptides. However, will plant RNAses allow native RNA injection without degrading it?

I do not know exactly who asked the first question, but if he, she wants to continue the discussion he, she has to reply to our question since we need some more information about mRNA, DNA , and not cDNA to be transferred and translated in plants.

@Catherine Vaquero:Thank you for your interesting information on wheat germ protein synthesis. mammalian DNA in the sense the whole DNA or gene of interest with the introns. cDNA is nothing but the Complementary sequence of mRNA that directly give rise to protein when transferred. cDNA does not need splicing mechanism.

Thanks for your explanation and definition about cDNA (of course known for ages by most molecular biologists). And I must remember you that YOU asked the first question and I am still waiting for the true formulation of your question.

Hi.. I am curious to know that if someone found something interesting in this topic