4.8 Article

Carbonic anhydrases are upstream regulators of CO2-controlled stomatal movements in guard cells

期刊

NATURE CELL BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 87-U234

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/ncb2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [MCB0918220]
  2. NIH [GM060396]
  3. DOE [DE-FG02-03ER15449]
  4. Swedish Research Council Formas
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  6. EMBO
  7. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) [KUS-F1-021-31]
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM060396] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 causes stomatal pores in leaves to close and thus globally affects CO2 influx into plants, water use efficiency and leaf heat stress(1-4). However, the CO2-binding proteins that control this response remain unknown. Moreover, which cell type responds to CO2, mesophyll or guard cells, and whether photosynthesis mediates this response are matters of debate(5-8). We demonstrate that Arabidopsis thaliana double-mutant plants in the beta-carbonic anhydrases beta CA1 and beta CA4 show impaired CO2-regulation of stomatal movements and increased stomatal density, but retain functional abscisic-acid and blue-light responses. beta CA-mediated CO2-triggered stomatal movements are not, in first-order, linked to whole leaf photosynthesis and can function in guard cells. Furthermore, guard cell beta CA-overexpressing plants exhibit instantaneous enhanced water use efficiency. Guard cell expression of mammalian alpha CAII complements the reduced sensitivity of ca1 ca4 plants, showing that carbonic anhydrase-mediated catalysis is an important mechanism for beta CA-mediated CO2 induced stomatal closure and patch clamp analyses indicate that CO2/HCO3-transfers the signal to anion channel regulation. These findings, together with ht1-2 (ref.9) epistasis analysis demonstrate that carbonic anhydrases function early in the CO2 signalling pathway, which controls gas-exchange between plants and the atmosphere.

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

4.8
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