4.5 Article

Actin Turnover-Mediated Gravity Response in Maize Root Apices

期刊

PLANT SIGNALING & BEHAVIOR
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 52-58

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/psb.1.2.2432

关键词

actin cytoskeleton; gravisensing; graviresponding; root cap

资金

  1. Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR Koln/Bonn, Germany) [50 WB 9995, 50 WB 0434]
  2. European Space Agency (ESA/ESTEC) [AO-99-098]
  3. Ente Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze (Italy)
  4. Slovak Academy of Sciences, Grant Agency VEGA, Bratislava, Slovakia [2/5085/25]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dynamic actin cytoskeleton has been proposed to be linked to gravity sensing in plants but the mechanistic understanding of these processes remains unknown. We have performed detailed pharmacological analyses of the role of the dynamic actin cytoskeleton in gravibending of maize (Zea mays) root apices. Depolymerization of actin filaments with two drugs having different mode of their actions, cytochalasin D and latrunculin B, stimulated root gravibending. By contrast, drug-induced stimulation of actin polymerization and inhibition of actin turnover, using two different agents phalloidin and jasplakinolide, compromised the root gravibending. Importantly, all these actin drugs inhibited root growth to similar extents suggesting that high actin turnover is essential for the gravity-related growth responses rather than for the general growth process. Both latrunculin B and cytochalasin D treatments inhibited root growth but restored gravibending of the decapped root apices, indicating that there is a strong potential for effective actin-mediated gravity sensing outside the cap. This elusive gravity sensing outside the root cap is dependent not only on the high rate of actin turnover but also on weakening of myosin activities, as general inhibition of myosin ATPases induced stimulation of gravibending of the decapped root apices. Collectively, these data provide evidence for the actin turnover-mediated gravity sensing outside the root cap.

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