4.1 Article

The spatial expression patterns of DROOPING LEAF orthologs suggest a conserved function in grasses

Journal

GENES & GENETIC SYSTEMS
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages 137-146

Publisher

GENETICS SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.1266/ggs.84.137

Keywords

carpel development; CRABS CLAW (CRC); DROOPING LEAF (DL); flower development; midrib formation; YABBY

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [17208002, 20061006]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17208002, 20061006] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The DROOPING LEAF (DL) gene regulates carpel specification in the flower and midrib formation in the leaf in Oryza sativa (rice). Loss-of-function mutations in the dl locus cause homeotic transformation of carpels into stamens and lack of midrib, resulting in the drooping leaf phenotype. DL is a member of the YABBY gene family and is closely related to the CRABS CLAW (CRC) gene in Arabidopsis thaliana. The function of Arabidopsis CRC, however, differs from that of rice DL: it is responsible for nectary development and is partially involved in carpel identity. Thus, genes related to DL/CRC seem to have functionally diversified during angiosperm evolution. To assess the conservation of DL function in related species, here we examined the in situ expression patterns of DL orthologs in three grass species, i.e., maize, wheat and sorghum, which is assigned to subfamilies different from Ehrhartoideae including O. sativa. The results clearly show that the temporal and spatial expression patterns of DL orthologs in the three species are identical to those of rice DL in both flower and leaf development, suggesting that DL-related genes are functionally conserved within the grass family. It is likely that DL may have been recruited to carpel specification and midrib formation within the lineage of the grass family after divergence of their ancestor from that of eudicots.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available