4.6 Article

The Kelch-F-box protein SMALL AND GLOSSY LEAVES 1 (SAGL1) negatively influences salicylic acid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana by promoting the turn-over of transcription factor SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED RESISTANCE DEFICIENT 1 (SARD1)

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 235, 期 3, 页码 885-897

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.18197

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; F-box protein; growth-immunity trade-off; phenylpropanoid metabolism; salicylic acid (SA); SARD1

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31970323, 32170269]
  2. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council exchange grant [BB/R02118X/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals a novel regulatory mechanism of plant hormones, which negatively regulates the synthesis of salicylic acid through post-translational regulation, thereby affecting plant growth and immune activation.
Salicylic acid (SA) is a key phytohormone regulating plant immunity. Although the transcriptional regulation of SA biosynthesis has been well-studied, its post-translational regulation is largely unknown. We report that a Kelch repeats-containing F-box (KFB) protein, SMALL AND GLOSSY LEAVES 1 (SAGL1), negatively influences SA biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana by mediating the proteolytic turnover of SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED RESISTANCE DEFICIENT 1 (SARD1), a master transcription factor that directly drives SA biosynthesis during immunity. Loss of SAGL1 resulted in characteristic growth inhibition. Combining metabolomic, transcriptional and phenotypic analyses, we found that SAGL1 represses SA biosynthesis and SA-mediated immune activation. Genetic crosses to mutants that are deficient in SA biosynthesis blocked the SA overaccumulation in sagl1 and rescued its growth. Biochemical and proteomic analysis identified that SAGL1 interacts with SARD1 and promotes the degradation of SARD1 in a proteasome-dependent manner. These results unravelled a critical role of KFB protein SAGL1 in maintaining SA homeostasis via controlling SARD1 stability.

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