4.7 Article

Effective range of non-cell autonomous activator and inhibitor peptides specifying plant stomatal patterning

期刊

DEVELOPMENT
卷 147, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dev.192237

关键词

Arabidopsis; Genetic mosaic; Mathematical analysis; Peptide signaling; Spacial autocorrelation; Stomata

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [GBMF-3035]
  3. Mary Gates Research Scholarship
  4. Levinson Emerging Scholar Award from the University of Washington

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stomata are epidermal valves that facilitate gas exchange between plants and their environment. Stomatal patterning is regulated by the EPIDERMAL PATTERING FACTOR (EPF) family of secreted peptides: EPF1 enforces stomatal spacing, whereas EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR-LIKE9 (EPFL9), also known as Stomagen, promotes stomatal development. It remains unknown, however, how far these signaling peptides act. Utilizing Cre-lox recombination-based mosaic sectors that overexpress either EPF1 or Stomagen in Arabidopsis cotyledons, we reveal a range within the epidermis and across the cell layers in which these peptides influence patterns. To determine their effective ranges quantitatively, we developed a computational pipeline, SPACE (stomata patterning autocorrelation on epidermis), that describes probabilistic two-dimensional stomatal distributions based upon spatial autocorrelation statistics used in astrophysics. The SPACE analysis shows that, whereas both peptides act locally, the inhibitor EPF1 exerts longer range effects than the activator Stomagen. Furthermore, local perturbation of stomatal development has little influence on global two-dimensional stomatal patterning. Our findings conclusively demonstrate the nature and extent of EPF peptides as non-cell autonomous local signals and provide a means for quantitative characterization of complex spatial patterns in development. This article has an associated 'The people behind the papers' interview.yy

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