4.6 Article

Daily Changes in Temperature, Not the Circadian Clock, Regulate Growth Rate in Brachypodium distachyon

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100072

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Department of Energy [DE-FG02-08ER64700DE, DE-SC0006621]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant growth is commonly regulated by external cues such as light, temperature, water availability, and internal cues generated by the circadian clock. Changes in the rate of growth within the course of a day have been observed in the leaves, stems, and roots of numerous species. However, the relative impact of the circadian clock on the growth of grasses has not been thoroughly characterized. We examined the influence of diurnal temperature and light changes, and that of the circadian clock on leaf length growth patterns in Brachypodium distachyon using high-resolution time-lapse imaging. Pronounced changes in growth rate were observed under combined photocyles and thermocycles or with thermocycles alone. A considerably more rapid growth rate was observed at 28 degrees C than 12 degrees C, irrespective of the presence or absence of light. In spite of clear circadian clock regulated gene expression, plants exhibited no change in growth rate under conditions of constant light and temperature, and little or no effect under photocycles alone. Therefore, temperature appears to be the primary cue influencing observed oscillations in growth rate and not the circadian clock or photoreceptor activity. Furthermore, the size of the leaf meristem and final cell length did not change in response to changes in temperature. Therefore, the nearly five-fold difference in growth rate observed across thermocycles can be attributed to proportionate changes in the rate of cell division and expansion. A better understanding of the growth cues in B. distachyon will further our ability to model metabolism and biomass accumulation in grasses.

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