4.8 Article

MIXTA-Like Transcription Factors and WAX INDUCER1/SHINE1 Coordinately Regulate Cuticle Development in Arabidopsis and Torenia fournieri

Journal

PLANT CELL
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 1609-1624

Publisher

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.113.110783

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bio-oriented Technology Research Advancement Institution, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The waxy plant cuticle protects cells from dehydration, repels pathogen attack, and prevents organ fusion during development. The transcription factor WAX INDUCER1/SHINE1 (WIN1/SHN1) regulates the biosynthesis of waxy substances in Arabidopsis thaliana. Here, we show that the MIXTA-like MYB transcription factors MYB106 and MYB16, which regulate epidermal cell morphology, also regulate cuticle development coordinately with WIN1/SHN1 in Arabidopsis and Torenia fournieri. Expression of a MYB106 chimeric repressor fusion (35S:MYB106-SRDX) and knockout/down of MYB106 and MYB16 induced cuticle deficiencies characterized by organ adhesion and reduction of epicuticular wax crystals and cutin nanoridges. A similar organ fusion phenotype was produced by expression of a WIN1/SHN1 chimeric repressor. Conversely, the dominant active form of MYB106 (35S:MYB106-VP16) induced ectopic production of cutin nanoridges and increased expression of WIN1/SHN1 and wax biosynthetic genes. Microarray experiments revealed that MYB106 and WIN1/SHN1 regulate similar sets of genes, predominantly those involved in wax and cutin biosynthesis. Furthermore, WIN1/SHN1 expression was induced by MYB106-VP16 and repressed by MYB106-SRDX. These results indicate that the regulatory cascade of MIXTA-like proteins and WIN1/SHN1 coordinately regulate cutin biosynthesis and wax accumulation. This study reveals an additional key aspect of MIXTA-like protein function and suggests a unique relationship between cuticle development and epidermal cell differentiation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available