4.6 Review

Molecular phenology in plants: innatura systems biology for the comprehensive understanding of seasonal responses under natural environments

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 210, 期 2, 页码 399-412

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13733

关键词

FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC); flowering time; gene expression; high-resolution molecular phenology (HMP); innatura systems biology; phase lag calendar; phenological modeling; temperature response

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [26221106]
  2. Research Grants in Natural Science [26118]
  3. Mitsubishi Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenology refers to the study of seasonal schedules of organisms. Molecular phenology is defined here as the study of the seasonal patterns of organisms captured by molecular biology techniques. The history of molecular phenology is reviewed briefly in relation to advances in the quantification technology of gene expression. High-resolution molecular phenology (HMP) data have enabled us to study phenology with an approach of innatura systems biology. I review recent analyses of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a temperature-responsive repressor of flowering, along the six steps in the typical flow of innatura systems biology. The extensive studies of the regulation of FLC have made this example a successful case in which a comprehensive understanding of gene functions has been progressing. The FLC-mediated long-term memory of past temperatures creates time lags with other seasonal signals, such as photoperiod and short-term temperature. Major signals that control flowering time have a phase lag between them under natural conditions, and hypothetical phase lag calendars are proposed as mechanisms of season detection in plants. Transcriptomic HMP brings a novel strategy to the study of molecular phenology, because it provides a comprehensive representation of plant functions. I discuss future perspectives of molecular phenology from the standpoints of molecular biology, evolutionary biology and ecology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据