4.8 Article

Evolution of buffering in a genetic circuit controlling plant stem cell proliferation

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 786-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-019-0389-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  2. PEW Latin American Fellowship [29661]
  3. NIGMS MIRA award from the National Institutes of Health [R35GM119614-01]
  4. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2016-67013-24572, 2015-67013-22823]
  5. Next-Generation BioGreen 21 Program SSAC from the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ01322602]
  6. National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program [IOS1732253, IOS-1546837]
  7. NIFA [2016-67013-24572, 810732] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precise control of plant stem cell proliferation is necessary for the continuous and reproducible development of plant organs(1,2). The peptide ligand CLAVATA3 (CLV3) and its receptor protein kinase CLAVATA1 (CLV1) maintain stem cell homeostasis within a deeply conserved negative feedback circuit(1,2). In Arabidopsis, CLV1 paralogs also contribute to homeostasis,bycompensatingforthe loss of CLV1through transcriptional upregulation(3). Here, we show that compensation(4,5) operates in diverse lineages for both ligands and receptors, but while the core CLV signaling module is conserved, compensation mechanisms have diversified. Transcriptional compensation between ligand paralogs operates in tomato, facilitated by an ancient gene duplication that impacted the domestication of fruit size. In contrast, we found little evidence for transcriptional compensation between ligands in Arabidopsis and maize, and receptor compensation differs between tomato and Arabidopsis. Our findings show that compensation among ligand and receptor paralogs is critical for stem cell homeostasis, but that diverse genetic mechanisms buffer conserved developmental programs.

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