Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 22.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Cell. 2014 Sep 8;30(5):598–609. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.07.026

Figure 4. Targeting of proteins to the COM is impaired in mgd1 and pgp1-1 mutants.

Figure 4

(A–D) The targeting efficiency of COM proteins in mgd1 and pgp1-1 mutants. (A and C) Targeting of AtOEP7:GFP (A) or AtToc64:GFP (C) to chloroplasts in WT, mgd1 or pgp1-1 protoplasts. mRFP, a control for the transformation efficiency and chloroplast fractionation. RbcL, loading control. NT, non-transformed; To, total protoplast extracts; CH, chloroplast fractions. (B and D) Quantification of the chloroplast targeting of AtOEP7:GFP (B) or AtToc64:GFP (D). Mean ± SD are shown (n = 3).

(E and F) Chloroplast protein levels in mgd1 and pgp1-1 mutants. (E) Western blot analysis of various endogenous protein levels. Actin, loading control. (F) Quantification of the protein levels in mgd1 and pgp1-1 plants. The protein levels were normalized using Actin. The expression level in WT plants was set to 1. Mean ± SD are shown (n = 3). The asterisks indicate a significant difference from the corresponding control experiment by Student’s t-test (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001). See also Figure S3.