4.7 Article

Grafting between model legumes demonstrates roles for roots and shoots in determining nodule type and host/rhizobia specificity

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 56, 期 416, 页码 1643-1650

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eri160

关键词

host specificity; Lotus; Medicago; Nod factor; nodule type; root; shoot

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous grafting experiments have demonstrated that legume shoots play a critical role in symbiotic development of nitrogen-fixing root nodules by regulating nodule number. Here, reciprocal grafting experiments between the model legumes Lotus japonicus and Medicago truncatula were carried out to investigate the role of the shoot in the host-specificity of legume-rhizobia symbiosis and nodule type. Lotus japonicus is nodulated by Mesorhizobium loti and makes determinate nodules, whereas M. truncatula is nodulated by Sinorhizobium meliloti and makes indeterminate nodules. When inoculated with M. loti, L. japonicus roots grafted on M. truncatula shoots produced determinate nodules identical in appearance to those produced on L. japonicus self-grafted roots. Moreover, the hypernodulation phenotype of L. japonicus har1-1 roots grafted on wild-type M. truncatula shoots was restored to wild type when nodulated with M. loti. Thus, L. japonicus shoots appeared to be interchangeable with M. truncatula shoots in the L. japonicus root/M. loti symbiosis. However, M. truncatula roots grafted on L. japonicus shoots failed to induce nodules after inoculation with S. meliloti or a mixture of S. meliloti and M. loti. Instead, only early responses to S. meliloti such as root hair tip swelling and deformation, plus induction of the early nodulation reporter gene MtENOD11:GUS were observed. The results indicate that the L. japonicus shoot does not support normal symbiosis between the M. truncatula root and its microsymbiont S. meliloti, suggesting that an unidentified shoot-derived factor may be required for symbiotic progression in indeterminate nodules.

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