4.5 Article

A gymnosperm homolog of SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE-1 (SERK1) is expressed during somatic embryogenesis

期刊

PLANT CELL TISSUE AND ORGAN CULTURE
卷 109, 期 1, 页码 41-50

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11240-011-0071-z

关键词

Gene expression; SERK; Somatic embryogenesis; Araucaria angustifolia; Endangered tree species; Leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP, Brazil)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES, Brazil)
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq, Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physiological and molecular processes controlling zygotic and somatic embryo development in angiosperms are mediated by a hierarchically organized program of gene expression. Despite the overwhelming information available about the molecular control of the embryogenic processes in angiosperms, little is known about these processes in gymnosperms. Here we describe the cloning and characterization of the expression pattern of the Araucaria angustifolia putative homolog of a SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE (SERK) gene family member, designated as AaSERK1. The Araucaria AaSERK1 gene encodes a leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase showing significant similarity to angiosperm homologs of SERK1, known to be involved in early somatic and zygotic embryogenesis. Accordingly, RT-PCR results showed that AaSERK1 is preferentially expressed in Araucaria embryogenic cell cultures. Additionally, in situ hybridization results showed that AaSERK1 transcripts initially accumulate in groups of cells at the periphery of the embryogenic calli and then are restricted to the developing embryo proper. Our results indicate that AaSERK1 might have a role during somatic embryogenesis in Araucaria, suggesting a potentially conserved mechanism, involving SERK-related leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinases, in the embryogenic processes among all seed plants.

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

4.5
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