Professional Documents
Culture Documents
plag-check-report-2024-07-08T03_49_58
plag-check-report-2024-07-08T03_49_58
0.0% 0 232
Word count
Identical 0
Minor Changes 0
Paraphrased 0
Omitted 0
Powered by
QuillBot Scanned on: 03:50 July 8, 2024 UTC
Results
The results include any sources we have found in your submitted document that includes the
following: identical text, minor changed text, paraphrased text.
MINOR CHANGES
PARAPHRASED
Powered by
QuillBot Scanned on: 03:50 July 8, 2024 UTC
Scanned Text
Your text is highlighted according to the plagiarism types that where
found, as shown above.
Cotton leaf curl disease (CLCuD) in South Asia is the result of a combination of begomovirus species and a
unique betasatellite known as Cotton leaf curl Multan betasatellite (CLCuMuB). The researchers evaluated
the ability of the Cotton leaf curl Kokhran virus (CLCuKoV)/CLCuMuB proteins, namely the transcriptional
activator protein (TrAP), C4, V2, and βC1, to decrease post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) in
Nicotiana benthamiana.Every viral protein that was analysed showed different levels of local silencing
suppression, with V2 demonstrating the highest level of activity in this aspect. The C4 protein was the only
one that effectively halted the propagation of systemic silencing. The proteins TrAP, C4, V2, and βC1, which
are encoded by CLCuKoV and CLCuMuB, were produced in Escherichia coli and isolated by purification.
TrAP exhibited the capacity to selectively attach to a diverse array of nucleic acids, encompassing both
brief and extensive single-stranded (ss) and double-stranded (ds) RNA and DNA molecules. C4, V2, and
βC1 exhibited discernible affinity for binding to both single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) and double-stranded
DNA (dsDNA).Severe developmental abnormalities were observed in N. benthamiana plants when C4 was
produced transgenically under the constitutive 35S Cauliflower mosaic virus promoter, and βC1 was
induced using a dexamethasone-inducible promoter. These results indicate that homologous proteins
from begomoviruses, even those closely related, can differ significantly in their suppressor activity and
mode of action. An analysis of the significance of these findings is provided