4.8 Article

The shade avoidance syndrome in Arabidopsis: a fundamental role for atypical basic helix-loop-helix proteins as transcriptional cofactors

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 258-267

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04485.x

关键词

shade avoidance syndrome; bHLH proteins; DNA-binding; HLH domain; transcriptional cofactors; Arabidopsis

资金

  1. Ministerio de Educacion
  2. Gobierno de Chile
  3. CSIC
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya (Xarba) [2009-SGR697]
  5. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion - FEDER [BIO2005-00154, CSD2007-00036, BIO2008-00169]
  6. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The shade avoidance syndrome (SAS) refers to a set of plant responses aimed at anticipating eventual shading by potential competitors. The SAS is initiated after perception of nearby vegetation as a reduction in the red to far-red ratio (R:FR) of the incoming light. Low R:FR light is perceived by the phytochromes, triggering dramatic changes in gene expression that, in seedlings, eventually result in an increased hypocotyl elongation to overgrow competitors. This response is inhibited by genes such as PHYTOCHROME RAPIDLY REGULATED 1 (PAR1), PAR2 and LONG HYPOCOTYL IN FR 1 (HFR1), which are transcriptionally induced by low R:FR. Although PAR1/PAR2 and HFR1 proteins belong to different groups of basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcriptional regulators, they all lack a typical basic domain required for binding to E-box and G-box motifs in the promoter of target genes. By overexpressing derivatives of PAR1 and HFR1 we show that these proteins are actually transcriptional cofactors that do not need to bind DNA to directly regulate transcription. We conclude that protein-protein interactions involving the HLH domain of PAR1 and HFR1 are a fundamental aspect of the mechanism by which these proteins regulate gene expression, most likely through interaction with true transcription factors that do bind to the target genes and eventually unleash the observed SAS responses.

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