4.8 Article

Convergence of signaling pathways induced by systemin, oligosaccharide elicitors, and ultraviolet-B radiation at the level of mitogen-activated protein kinases in Lycopersicon peruvianum suspension-cultured cells

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 1728-1738

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.103.024414

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested whether signaling pathways induced by systemin, oligosaccharide elicitors (OEs), and ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation share common components in, Lycopersicon peruvianum suspension-cultured cells. These stress signals all induce mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activity, In desensitization assays, we found, that pretreatment with systemin and OEs transiently reduced the MAPK response to a subsequent treatment with the same or a different elicitor. In contrast, MAPK activity in response to UV-B increased after pretreatment with systemin and OEs. These experiments demonstrate the presence of signaling components that are shared by systemin, OEs, and UV-B. Based on desensitization assays, it is not dear if the same or different MAPKs are activated by different stress signals. To identify specific stress-responsive MAPKs, we cloned three MAPKs from a tomato (Lycopersican esculentum) leaf cDNA library, generated member-specific antibodies, and performed immunocomplex kinase assays with extracts from elicited L. peruvianum cells, Two highly homologous MAPKs, LeMPK1 and LeMPK2, were activated in response to systemin four different OEs, and UV-B radiation. An additional MAPK, LeMPK3, was only activated by UV-B radiation. The common activation of LeMPK1 and LeMPK2 by many stress signals is consistent with the desensitization assays and may account for substantial overlaps among stress responses. On the other hand, MAPK activation kinetics in response to elicitors and UV-B differed substantially, and UV-B activated a different set of LeMPKs than the elicitors. These differences may account for UV-B-specific responses.

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