4.7 Article

Differential and reciprocal regulation of ethylene pathway genes regulates petal abscission in fragrant and non-fragrant roses

Journal

PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 280, Issue -, Pages 330-339

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.12.013

Keywords

Ethylene signalling; Petal; Senescence; Cell separation; Flower; Vase-life

Funding

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (Govt of India) [BSC0107]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fragrant rose, Rosa bourboniana, is highly sensitive to ethylene and shows rapid petal abscission (within 16-18 h) while the non-fragrant hybrid rose, R. hybrida, shows delayed abscission (50-52 h) due to reduced ethylene sensitivity. To understand the molecular basis governing these differences, all components of the ethylene pathway (biosynthesis/receptor/signalling) were studied for expression during abscission. Transcript accumulation of most ethylene biosynthesis genes (ACS/ACO families) increased rapidly in petal abscission zones of R. bourboniana within 4-8 h of ethylene treatment. The expression of most receptor and signalling genes encoding CTRs, EIN2 and EIN3/EIL homologues also followed similar kinetics. Under natural field conditions where abscission takes longer, there was a temporal delay in transcript accumulation of most ethylene pathway genes while some biosynthesis genes (showing reduced ethylene sensitivity) were more strongly up-regulated by abscission cues. In contrast, in R. hybrida where even ethylene-induced abscission is considerably delayed, transcript accumulation of most ethylene biosynthesis and signalling genes was, surprisingly, reduced by ethylene and showed an opposite regulation compared to R. bourboniana. The results suggest that differential and reciprocal regulation of ethylene pathway is one of the major reasons for differences in petal abscission and vase-life between Rosa bourboniana and R. hybrida.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available