4.8 Article

Auxin, actin and growth of the Arabidopsis thaliana primary root

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 514-528

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03068.x

关键词

cell division; cytoplasmic streaming; elemental elongation; PIN1; PIN2

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [EB00573-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To understand how auxin regulates root growth, we quantified cell division and elemental elongation, and examined actin organization in the primary root of Arabidopsis thaliana. In treatments for 48 h that inhibited root elongation rate by 50%, we find that auxins and auxin-transport inhibitors can be divided into two classes based on their effects on cell division, elongation and actin organization. Indole acetic acid (IAA), 1-naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) and tri-iodobenzoic acid (TIBA) inhibit root growth primarily through reducing the length of the growth zone rather than the maximal rate of elemental elongation and they do not reduce cell production rate. These three compounds have little effect on the extent of filamentous actin, as imaged in living cells or by chemical fixation and immuno-cytochemistry, but tend to increase actin bundling. In contrast, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid (2,4-D) and naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) inhibit root growth primarily by reducing cell production rate. These compounds remove actin and slow down cytoplasmic streaming, but do not lead to mislocalization of the auxin-efflux proteins, PIN1 or PIN2. The effects of 2,4-D and NPA were mimicked by the actin inhibitor, latrunculin B. The effects of these compounds on actin were also elicited by a 2 h treatment at higher concentration but were not seen in two mutants, eir1-1 and aux1-7, with deficient auxin transport. Our results show that IAA regulates the size of the root elongation zone whereas 2,4-D affects cell production and actin-dependent processes; and, further, that elemental elongation and localization of PINs are appreciably independent of actin.

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