4.8 Article

Divergent Roles for Maize PAN1 and PAN2 Receptor-Like Proteins in Cytokinesis and Cell Morphogenesis1[W][OPEN]

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 164, 期 4, 页码 1905-1917

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.113.232660

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-1147265]
  2. University of California Academic Senate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pangloss1 (PAN1) and PAN2 are leucine-rich repeat receptor-like proteins that function cooperatively to polarize the divisions of subsidiary mother cells (SMCs) during stomatal development in maize (Zea mays). PANs colocalize in SMCs, and both PAN1 and PAN2 promote polarization of the actin cytoskeleton and nuclei in these cells. Here, we show that PAN1 and PAN2 have additional functions that are unequal or divergent. PAN1, but not PAN2, is localized to cell plates in all classes of dividing cells examined. pan1 mutants exhibited no defects in cell plate formation or in the recruitment or removal of a variety of cell plate components; thus, they did not demonstrate a function for PAN1 in cytokinesis. PAN2, in turn, plays a greater role than PAN1 in directing patterns of postmitotic cell expansion that determine the shapes of mature stomatal subsidiary cells and interstomatal cells. Localization studies indicate that PAN2 impacts subsidiary cell shape indirectly by stimulating localized cortical actin accumulation and polarized growth in interstomatal cells. Localization of PAN1, Rho of Plants2, and PIN1a suggests that PAN2-dependent cell shape changes do not involve any of these proteins, indicating that PAN2 function is linked to actin polymerization by a different mechanism in interstomatal cells compared with SMCs. Together, these results demonstrate that PAN1 and PAN2 are not dedicated to SMC polarization but instead play broader roles in plant development. We speculate that PANs may function in all contexts to regulate polarized membrane trafficking either directly or indirectly via their influence on actin polymerization.

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