4.6 Article

Characterization of spa mutants in the moss Physcomitrella provides evidence for functional divergence of SPA genes during the evolution of land plants

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 224, 期 4, 页码 1613-1626

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.16004

关键词

COP1; SPA complex; E3 ubiquitin ligase; evolution; light signaling; moss; photomorphogenesis; Physcomitrella

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [HO2793/4-1]
  2. Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS) [EXC 1028]
  3. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Freiburg Initiative for Systems Biology) [FKZ 0313921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Arabidopsis COP1/SPA complex is a key repressor of photomorphogenesis that suppresses light signaling in the dark. Both COP1 and SPA proteins are essential components of this complex. Although COP1 also exists in humans, SPA genes are specific to the green lineage. To elucidate the evolution of SPA genes we analyzed SPA functions in the moss Physcomitrella patens by characterizing knockout mutants in the two Physcomitrella SPA genes PpSPAa and PpSPAb. Light-grown PpspaAB double mutants exhibit smaller gametophores than the wild-type. In the dark, PpspaAB mutant gametophores show enhanced continuation of growth but etiolate normally. Gravitropism in the dark is reduced in PpspaAB mutant protonemata. The expression of light-regulated genes is mostly not constitutive in PpspaAB mutants. PpSPA and PpCOP1 interact; PpCOP1 also interacts with the transcription factor PpHY5 and, indeed, PpHY5 is destabilized in dark-grown Physcomitrella. Degradation of PpHY5 in darkness, however, does not require PpSPAa and PpSPAb. The data suggest that COP1/SPA-mediated light signaling is only partially conserved between Arabidopsis and Physcomitrella. Whereas COP1/SPA interaction and HY5 degradation in darkness is conserved, the role of SPA proteins appears to have diverged. PpSPA genes, unlike their Arabidopsis counterparts, are only required to suppress a subset of light responses in darkness.

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