4.6 Article

Systems analysis of the responses to long-term magnesium deficiency and restoration in Arabidopsis thaliana

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 187, Issue 1, Pages 132-144

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03257.x

Keywords

Arabidopsis; chlorophyll catabolism; circadian clock; hormones; magnesium (Mg) depletion; transcriptomics

Categories

Funding

  1. Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO) [IAPVI/33]
  2. Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS-FRS) [1.5.019.08]
  3. Ghent University [BOF08/01M00408]
  4. EU [FP6-026183]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Unravelling mechanisms that control plant growth as a function of nutrient availability presents a major challenge in plant biology. This study reports the first transcriptome response to long-term (1 wk) magnesium (Mg) depletion and restoration in Arabidopsis thaliana. Before the outbreak of visual symptoms, genes responding to Mg starvation and restoration were monitored in the roots and young mature leaves and compared with the Mg fully supplied as control. After 1 wk Mg starvation in roots and leaves, 114 and 2991 genes were identified to be differentially regulated, respectively, which confirmed the later observation that the shoot development was more affected than the root in Arabidopsis. After 24 h of Mg resupply, restoration was effective for the expression of half of the genes altered. We emphasized differences in the expression amplitude of genes associated with the circadian clock predominantly in leaves, a higher expression of genes in the ethylene biosynthetic pathway, in the reactive oxygen species detoxification and in the photoprotection of the photosynthetic apparatus. Some of these observations at the molecular level were verified by metabolite analysis. The results obtained here will help us to better understand how changes in Mg availability are translated into adaptive responses in the plant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available