4.8 Article

The MYB23 Gene Provides a Positive Feedback Loop for Cell Fate Specification in the Arabidopsis Root Epidermis

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 1080-1094

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.108.063180

关键词

-

资金

  1. Crop Functional Genomics Center of the 21st Century Frontier Program [CG2152]
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology/Korea Science and Engineering Foundation [2009-0079304/R0602494]
  3. National Science Foundation [IBN0316312, IOS-0744599]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The specification of cell fates during development requires precise regulatory mechanisms to ensure robust cell type patterns. Theoretical models of pattern formation suggest that a combination of negative and positive feedback mechanisms are necessary for efficient specification of distinct fates in a field of differentiating cells. Here, we examine the role of the R2R3-MYB transcription factor gene, AtMYB23 (MYB23), in the establishment of the root epidermal cell type pattern in Arabidopsis thaliana. MYB23 is closely related to, and is positively regulated by, the WEREWOLF (WER) MYB gene during root epidermis development. Furthermore, MYB23 is able to substitute for the function of WER and to induce its own expression when controlled by WER regulatory sequences. We also show that the MYB23 protein binds to its own promoter, suggesting a MYB23 positive feedback loop. The localization of MYB23 transcripts and MYB23-green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion protein, as well as the effect of a chimeric MYB23-SRDX repressor construct, links MYB23 function to the developing non-hair cell type. Using mutational analyses, we find that MYB23 is necessary for precise establishment of the root epidermal pattern, particularly under conditions that compromise the cell specification process. These results suggest that MYB23 participates in a positive feedback loop to reinforce cell fate decisions and ensure robust establishment of the cell type pattern in the Arabidopsis root epidermis.

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