4.8 Article

Two Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases, MPK3 and MPK6, Are Required for Funicular Guidance of Pollen Tubes in Arabidopsis

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 165, 期 2, 页码 528-533

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.113.231274

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplement) [MCB-0950519]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China Young Investigator Award [31300244]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Double fertilization in flowering plants requires the delivery of two immotile sperm cells to the female gametes by a pollen tube, which perceives guidance cues, modifies its tip growth direction, and eventually enters the micropyle of the ovule. In spite of the recent progress, so far, little is known about the signaling events in pollen tubes in response to the guidance cues. Here, we show that MPK3 and MPK6, two Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mitogen-activated protein kinases, mediate the guidance response in pollen tubes. Genetic analysis revealed that mpk3 mpk6 double mutant pollen has reduced transmission. However, direct observation of mpk3 mpk6 mutant pollen phenotype was hampered by the embryo lethality of double homozygous mpk3(-/-) mpk6(-/-) plants. Utilizing a fluorescent reporter-tagged complementation method, we showed that the mpk3 mpk6 mutant pollen had normal pollen tube growth but impaired pollen tube guidance. In vivo pollination assays revealed that the mpk3 mpk6 mutant pollen tubes were defective in the funicular guidance phase. By contrast, semi-in vitro guidance assay showed that the micropylar guidance of the double mutant pollen tube was normal. Our results provide direct evidence to support that the funicular guidance phase of the pollen tube requires an in vivo signaling mechanism distinct from the micropyle guidance. Moreover, our finding opened up the possibility that the MPK3/MPK6 signaling pathway may link common signaling networks in plant stress response and pollen-pistil interaction.

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