4.5 Article

GRAVITROPISM AND MECHANICAL SIGNALING IN PLANTS

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 111-125

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1200408

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; calcium; columella; endodermis; gravitropism; MCA1; mechanosensitive channels; microtubule; MscS; signal transduction

资金

  1. NSF
  2. NASA
  3. TOYOBO Biotechnology Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanical stress is a critical signal affecting morphogenesis and growth and is caused by a large variety of environmental stimuli such as touch, wind, and gravity in addition to endogenous forces generated by growth. On the basis of studies dating from the early 19th century, the plant mechanical sensors and response components related to gravity can be divided into two types in terms of their temporal character: sensors of the transient stress of reorientation (phasic signaling) and sensors capable of monitoring and responding to the extended, continuous gravitropic signal for the duration of the tropic growth response (tonic signaling). In the case of transient stress, changes in the concentrations of ions in the cytoplasm play a central role in mechanosensing and are likely a key component of initial gravisensing. Potential candidates for mechanosensitive channels have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana and may provide clues to these rapid, ionic gravisensing mechanisms. Continuous mechanical stress, on the other hand, may be sensed by other mechanisms in addition to the rapidly adapting mechnaosensitive channels of the phasic system. Sustaining such long-term responses may be through a network of biochemical signaling cascades that would therefore need to be maintained for the many hours of the growth response once they are triggered. However, classical physiological analyses and recent simulation studies also suggest involvement of the cytoskeleton in sensing/responding to long-term mechanoresponse independently of the biochemical signaling cascades triggered by initial graviperception events.

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

4.5
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