4.7 Article

Interactions of CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON and SPATULA Genes Control Carpel Margin Development in Arabidopsis thaliana

期刊

PLANT AND CELL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 1134-1143

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pcp/pcs057

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; Carpel margin; Congenital fusion; Gynoecium; Post-genital fusion

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology [Global COE] [14036222, 23012031, 21024008]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [23370023]
  3. Takeda Science Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24114001, 23370023] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A characteristic feature of flowering plants is the fusion of carpels, which results in the formation of an enclosed gynoecium. In Arabidopsis thaliana, the gynoecium is formed by the fusion of two carpels along their margins, which also act as a meristematic site for the formation of internal structures such as ovules, the septum and transmitting tract. How gene interactions coordinate the fusion and differentiation of the marginal structures during gynoecium development is largely unknown. It was previously shown that the SPATULA (SPT) gene is required for carpel fusion, whereas overexpression of the CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON genes CUC1 and CUC2 prevents it. Here we provide evidence that SPT promotes carpel fusion in the apical gynoecium partly through the negative regulation of CUC1 and CUC2 expression. In spt, transcripts of both CUC genes accumulated ectopically, and addition of cuc1 and cuc2 mutations to spt suppressed the split phenotype of carpels specifically along their lateral margins. In the basal gynoecium, on the other hand, all three genes promoted the formation of margin-derived structures, as revealed by the synergistic interactions of spt with each of the cuc mutations. Our results suggest that differential interactions among SPT, CUC1 and CUC2 direct the formation of domain-specific structures of the Arabidopsis gynoecium.

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