4.7 Article

Phototropin 1 and cryptochrome action in response to green light in combination with other wavelengths

期刊

PLANTA
卷 237, 期 1, 页码 225-237

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-012-1767-y

关键词

Photomorphogenesis; Phototropin; Cryptochrome; Green light

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-0746756]
  2. UF Graduate Program in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic studies have shown the effects of various photoreceptors on early photomorphogenic processes, defining the precise time course of red (RL), far-red (FrL) and blue light (BL) action. In this study, the effect of green wavebands in conjunction with these responses is examined. Longer-term (end point; 24-96 h) analysis of hypocotyl elongation in enriched green environments shows an increase in growth compared to seedlings under blue, red or both together. The effect was only observed at lower fluence rates (< 10 mu mol/m(2) s). Genetic analyses demonstrate that cryptochromes are required for this GL effect, consistent with earlier findings, and that the phy receptors have no influence. However, analysis of early (minutes to hours) stem growth kinetics indicates that GL cannot reverse the cryptochrome-mediated BL effect during early stem growth inhibition, and instead acts additively with BL to drive cryptochrome-mediated inhibition. Green light (GL) treatments antagonize RL and FrL-mediated hypocotyl inhibition. The GL opposition of RL responses persists in phyA, phyB, cry1cry2 and phot2 mutants. The response requires phot1 and NPH3, suggesting that this is not a GL response, but instead a response to extremely low-fluence rate BL. Tests with dim BL (< 0.1 mu mol/m(2) s) confirm a previously uncharacterized phot1-dependent promotion of stem growth, opposing the effects of RL. These findings demonstrate how enriched green environments may adjust RL and BL photomorphogenic responses through both the crys and phot1 receptors, and define a new role for phot1 in stem growth promotion.

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

4.7
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