4.6 Article

Physcomitrella patens MAX2 characterization suggests an ancient role for this F-box protein in photomorphogenesis rather than strigolactone signalling

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 219, 期 2, 页码 743-756

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.15214

关键词

bryophyte; F-box protein; hormone signalling; moss; photomorphogenesis; strigolactone

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-12-BSV6-004-01]
  2. BBSRC [BB/L00224811]
  3. Gatsby [GAT2962]
  4. National Research Foundation (SARChi Research Chair 'Genetic tailoring of biopolymers') of South Africa
  5. Labex Saclay Plant Sciences-SPS [ANR-10-LABX-0040-SPS]
  6. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [COST Action FA1206 STREAM]
  7. CNRS ATIP-Avenir programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strigolactones (SLs) are key hormonal regulators of flowering plant development and are widely distributed amongst streptophytes. In Arabidopsis, SLs signal via the F-box protein MORE AXILLARY GROWTH2 (MAX2), affecting multiple aspects of development including shoot branching, root architecture and drought tolerance. Previous characterization of a Physcomitrella patens moss mutant with defective SL synthesis supports an ancient role for SLs in land plants, but the origin and evolution of signalling pathway components are unknown. Here we investigate the function of a moss homologue of MAX2, PpMAX2, and characterize its role in SL signalling pathway evolution by genetic analysis. We report that the moss Ppmax2 mutant shows very distinct phenotypes from the moss SL-deficient mutant. In addition, the Ppmax2 mutant remains sensitive to SLs, showing a clear transcriptional SL response in dark conditions, and the response to red light is also altered. These data suggest divergent evolutionary trajectories for SL signalling pathway evolution in mosses and vascular plants. In P.patens, the primary roles for MAX2 are in photomorphogenesis and moss early development rather than in SL response, which may require other, as yet unidentified, factors.

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