4.7 Review

Connections between circadian clocks and carbon metabolism reveal species-specific effects on growth control

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 2915-2923

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru117

关键词

Arabidopsis; barley; circadian clock; diurnal; growth control; hormone signalling; sucrose

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SPP1530, SFB635]
  3. IMPRS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The plant circadian system exists in a framework of rhythmic metabolism. Much has been learned about the transcriptional machinery that generates the clock rhythm. Interestingly, these components are largely conserved between monocots and dicots, but key differences in physiological and developmental output processes have been found. How the clock coordinates carbon metabolism to drive plant growth performance is described with a focus on starch breakdown in Arabidopsis. It is proposed that clock effects on plant growth and fitness are more complex than just matching internal with external rhythms. Interesting recent findings support that the products of photosynthesis, probably sucrose, in turn feeds back to the clock to set its rhythm. In this way, the clock both controls and is controlled by carbon fluxes. This has an interesting connection to stress signalling and water-use efficiency, and it is now known that the clock and abscisic acid pathways are reciprocally coordinated. These processes converge to drive growth in a species-specific context such that predictions from the Arabidopsis model to other species can be restricted. This has been seen from phenotypic growth studies that revealed that dicot shoot growth is rhythmic whereas monocot shoot growth is continuous. Taken together, emerging evidence suggests reciprocal interactions between metabolism, the circadian clock, and stress signalling to control growth and fitness in Arabidopsis, but transferability to other species is not always possible due to species-specific effects.

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

4.7
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