4.7 Article

CEP5 and XIP1/CEPR1 regulate lateral root initiation in Arabidopsis

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 67, 期 16, 页码 4889-4899

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw231

关键词

Arabidopsis; CEP5; lateral root initiation; post-translationally modified peptide; receptor kinase; XIP1

资金

  1. BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship [BB_BB/H022457/1]
  2. Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant [PERG06-GA-2009-256354]
  3. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme from the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office [IAP VI/33, IUAP P7/29]
  4. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council
  6. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)
  7. Ghent University
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1094837, BB/H022457/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. BBSRC [BB/H022457/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We identified C-TERMINALLY ENCODED PEPTIDE 5 (CEP5) as a novel, auxin-repressed and phloem pole-expressed signal assisting in the formation of lateral roots.Roots explore the soil for water and nutrients through the continuous production of lateral roots. Lateral roots are formed at regular distances in a steadily elongating organ, but how future sites for lateral root formation become established is not yet understood. Here, we identified C-TERMINALLY ENCODED PEPTIDE 5 (CEP5) as a novel, auxin-repressed and phloem pole-expressed signal assisting in the formation of lateral roots. In addition, based on genetic and expression data, we found evidence for the involvement of its proposed receptor, XYLEM INTERMIXED WITH PHLOEM 1 (XIP1)/CEP RECEPTOR 1 (CEPR1), during the process of lateral root initiation. In conclusion, we report here on the existence of a peptide ligand-receptor kinase interaction that impacts lateral root initiation. Our results represent an important step towards the understanding of the cellular communication implicated in the early phases of lateral root formation.

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