4.8 Article

Brassinosteroids Modulate Meristem Fate and Differentiation of Unique Inflorescence Morphology in Setaria viridis

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 48-66

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.17.00816

关键词

-

资金

  1. DDPSC
  2. National Science Foundation [IOS-1238202, IOS-1444503]
  3. USDA-NIFA fellowship [NIFA 2017-67011-26077]
  4. Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  5. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [1444503] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflorescence architecture is a key determinant of yield potential in many crops and is patterned by the organization and developmental fate of axillary meristems. In cereals, flowers and grain are borne from spikelets, which differentiate in the final iteration of axillary meristem branching. In Setaria spp, inflorescence branches terminate in either a spikelet or a sterile bristle, and these structures appear to be paired. In this work, we leverage Setaria viridis to investigate a role for the phytohormones brassinosteroids (BRs) in specifying bristle identity and maintaining spikelet meristem determinacy. We report the molecular identification and characterization of the Bristleless1 (Bsl1) locus in S. viridis, which encodes a rate-limiting enzyme in BR biosynthesis. Loss-of-function bsl1 mutants fail to initiate a bristle identity program, resulting in homeotic conversion of bristles to spikelets. In addition, spikelet meristem determinacy is altered in the mutants, which produce two florets per spikelet instead of one. Both of these phenotypes provide avenues for enhanced grain production in cereal crops. Our results indicate that the spatiotemporal restriction of BR biosynthesis at boundary domains influences meristem fate decisions during inflorescence development. The bsl1 mutants provide insight into the molecular basis underlying morphological variation in inflorescence architecture.

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