4.6 Article

Genetic Analyses of Interactions among Gibberellin, Abscisic Acid, and Brassinosteroids in the Control of Flowering Time in Arabidopsis thaliana

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DA1061/2-1]
  2. Max Planck Society
  3. German Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP) [H 3.1]
  4. IMPRS
  5. OTKA [81399]
  6. HHMI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Genetic interactions between phytohormones in the control of flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana have not been extensively studied. Three phytohormones have been individually connected to the floral-timing program. The inductive function of gibberellins (GAs) is the most documented. Abscisic acid (ABA) has been demonstrated to delay flowering. Finally, the promotive role of brassinosteroids (BRs) has been established. It has been reported that for many physiological processes, hormone pathways interact to ensure an appropriate biological response. Methodology: We tested possible genetic interactions between GA-, ABA-, and BR-dependent pathways in the control of the transition to flowering. For this, single and double mutants deficient in the biosynthesis of GAs, ABA, and BRs were used to assess the effect of hormone deficiency on the timing of floral transition. Also, plants that over-express genes encoding rate-limiting enzymes in each biosynthetic pathway were generated and the flowering time of these lines was investigated. Conclusions: Loss-of-function studies revealed a complex relationship between GAs and ABA, and between ABA and BRs, and suggested a cross-regulatory relation between GAs to BRs. Gain-of-function studies revealed that GAs were clearly limiting in their sufficiency of action, whereas increases in BRs and ABA led to a more modest phenotypic effect on floral timing. We conclude from our genetic tests that the effects of GA, ABA, and BR on timing of floral induction are only in partially coordinated action.

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

4.6
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