Table 2.

Comparison of microtubule inner protein (MIP) structure between Tetrahymena t. and Chlamydomonas r.

19 MIPs found in both Tetrahymena t. and Chlamydomonas r.RIB72, FAP115, FAP67, FAP53, FAP127, FAP161, RIB43, FAP20 (fly), PACRG, FAP52, FAP106, FAP45, FAP210, FAP112, CCDC39/FAP59, CCDC40/FAP172, DC1, DC2, DC3
19 MIPs identified in Chlamydomonas r. but possibly absent in Tetrahymena t.FAP222, FAP252, FAP21, FAP68, FAP107, FAP85, FAP90, FAP95, FAP129, FAP141, FAP143, FAP182 (mice), FAP166, FAP273, FAP363, RIB21, RIB30, FAP126 (mice), FAP276
19 Unidentified MIPs or complexes found in Tetrahymena t. whose density are missing in Chlamydomonas r. and their atomic models are lacking,1 in pf A04∼A05 region6 in pf A06∼A10 region6 in ribbon region3 in inner junction region3 fMIPs in pf B03∼B06
  • Note: The MIPs highlighted in red cause ciliopathy in human or phenotypic defects in other metazoan as indicated. These are based on a summary in Ma et al (2019) and references cited within.