Shoot branching is inhibited by auxin transported down the stem from the shoot apex. Auxin does not accumulate in inhibited buds and so must act indirectly. We show that mutations in the MAX4 gene of Arabidopsis result in increased and auxin-resistant bud growth. Increased branching in max4 shoots is restored to wild type by grafting to wild-type rootstocks, suggesting that MAX4 is required to produce a mobile branch-inhibiting signal, acting downstream of auxin. A similar role has been proposed for the pea gene, RMS1. Accordingly, MAX4 and RMS1 were found to encode orthologous, auxin-inducible members of the polyene dioxygenase family.Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev. org.Received December 6, 2002; revised version accepted March 20, 2003. Variation in shoot branching is an important cause of diversity in plant form. Individual species have a characteristic branching pattern, which can change through the life cycle in response to developmental cues and to environmental conditions (Cline 1991;Beveridge et al. 2003). Branching control therefore requires the integration of many signals, both known and unknown.Shoot branches arise from axillary meristems that form in the axils of leaves on the primary shoot axis. The axillary meristems themselves initiate leaves to form a bud. Bud growth can arrest but has the potential to reactivate to produce a shoot branch. Removal of the primary shoot apex results in activation of arrested axillary buds. The ability of the shoot apex to repress axillary bud growth is termed apical dominance. Thimann and Skoog (1933) reported that a compound, derived from the shoot apex, and later identified as auxin (indole-3-acetic acid), could inhibit the growth of lateral buds when applied to the stump of a decapitated plant. Subsequent work has provided multiple lines of evidence in support of auxinmediated bud inhibition in planta. However, a second messenger must relay the auxin signal into the bud because apically derived auxin is not transported into buds (Morris 1977) and exogenous auxin applied directly to buds does not inhibit their growth (Cline 1996).One model proposes that the effect of auxin on bud growth is mediated by cytokinin. Cytokinin can directly promote bud growth (Cline 1991); transgenic plants with increased auxin levels have reduced cytokinin levels (Eklö f et al. 2000), and cytokinin export from roots increases after decapitation, with this increase being abolished by application of auxin to the decapitated stump (Bangerth 1994). However, there is also good evidence for novel regulators of bud growth downstream of auxin. The ramosus mutants (rms1 to rms5) of pea (for reviews, see Beveridge 2000; Beveridge et al. 2003) have increased lateral branching, but this phenotype can be almost completely rescued by grafting a wild-type (WT) rootstock to an rms1, rms2, or rms5 mutant scion. Such grafting studies show that RMS1 and RMS5 are required for the production of a graft transmissible signal that moves from root to shoot and inhibits branching ...

In Pisum sativum, the RAMOSUS genes RMS1, RMS2, and RMS5 regulate shoot branching via physiologically defined mobile signals. RMS1 is most likely a carotenoid cleavage enzyme and acts with RMS5 to control levels of an as yet unidentified mobile branching inhibitor required for auxin inhibition of branching. Our work provides molecular, genetic, and physiological evidence that RMS1 plays a central role in a shoot-to-root-to-shoot feedback system that regulates shoot branching in pea. Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) positively regulates RMS1 transcript level, a potentially important mechanism for regulation of shoot branching by IAA. In addition, RMS1 transcript levels are dramatically elevated in rms3, rms4, and rms5 plants, which do not contain elevated IAA levels. This degree of upregulation of RMS1 expression cannot be achieved in wild-type plants by exogenous IAA application. Grafting studies indicate that an IAA-independent mobile feedback signal contributes to the elevated RMS1 transcript levels in rms4 plants. Therefore, the long-distance signaling network controlling branching in pea involves IAA, the RMS1 inhibitor, and an IAA-independent feedback signal. Consistent with physiological studies that predict an interaction between RMS2 and RMS1, rms2 mutations appear to disrupt this IAA-independent regulation of RMS1 expression.

Biologically active gibberellins suppress arbuscule formation in pea roots, and DELLA proteins are essential for this response, indicating that this role occurs within the root cells.

New roles for the recently identified group of plant hormones, the strigolactones, are currently under active investigation. One of their key roles is to regulate plant symbioses. These compounds act as a rhizosphere signal in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbioses and as a positive regulator of nodulation in legumes. The phosphorous and nitrogen status of the soil has emerged as a powerful regulator of strigolactone production. However, until now, the potential role of strigolactones in regulating mycorrhizal development and nodulation in response to nutrient deficiency has not been proven. In this paper, the role of strigolactone synthesis and response in regulating these symbioses is examined in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Pea is well suited to this study, since there is a range of well-characterized strigolactone biosynthesis and response mutants that is unique amongst legumes. Evidence is provided for a novel endogenous role for strigolactone response within the root during mycorrhizal development, in addition to the action of strigolactones on the fungal partner. The strigolactone response pathway that regulates mycorrhizal development also appears to differ somewhat from the response pathway that regulates nodulation. Finally, studies with strigolactone-deficient pea mutants indicate that, despite strong regulation of strigolactone production by both nitrogen and phosphate, strigolactones are not required to regulate these symbioses in response to nutrient deficiency.