4.8 Review

Conservation and divergence of light-regulated genome expression patterns during seedling development in rice and Arabidopsis

Journal

PLANT CELL
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages 3239-3256

Publisher

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.105.035840

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM047850, R37 GM047850, GM-47850] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide 70-mer oligonucleotide microarrays of rice (Oryza sativa) and Arabidopsis thaliana were used to profile genome expression changes during light-regulated seedling development. We estimate that the expression of similar to 20% of the genome in both rice and Arabidopsis seedlings is regulated by white light. Qualitatively similar expression profiles from seedlings grown under different light qualities were observed in both species; however, a quantitatively weaker effect on genome expression was observed in rice. Most metabolic pathways exhibited qualitatively similar light regulation in both species with a few species-specific differences. Global comparison of expression profiles between rice and Arabidopsis reciprocal best-matched gene pairs revealed a higher correlation of genome expression patterns in constant light than in darkness, suggesting that the genome expression profile of photomorphogenesis is more conserved. Transcription factor gene expression under constant light exposure was poorly conserved between the two species, implying a faster-evolving rate of transcription factor gene expression in light-grown plants. Organ-specific expression profiles during seedling photomorphogenesis provide genome-level evidence for divergent light effects in different higher plant organs. Finally, overrepresentation of specific promoter motifs in root- and leaf-specific light-regulated genes in both species suggests that these cis-elements are important for gene expression responses to light.

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