cry1 and GPA1 signaling genetically interact in hook opening and anthocyanin synthesis in Arabidopsis

Fox, Ana Romina; Soto, Gabriela; Jones, Alan M.; Casal, Jorge J.; Muschietti, Jorge; Mazzella, Marı́a Agustina

doi:10.1007/s11103-012-9950-x

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is not known what effect Phe might have on agb1 or xlg1.2.3 stomatal phenotypes, it does suggest the existence of additional non‐canonical pathways. Similarly, the role of GPA1 (and GCR1) has been shown during root elongation by bacterial quorum sensing signals (Liu et al , ), blue light‐dependent apical hook opening (Fox et al , ), hydrogen peroxide‐ and nitric oxide‐dependent stomatal opening (He et al , ; Ge et al , ; Shi et al , ), nitrate‐ and phosphate‐dependent growth and various stress responses (Chakraborty et al , ; Chakraborty et al , ). However, the response of agb1 mutants were not analyzed in these studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Flexible functional interactions between G‐protein subunits contribute to the specificity of plant responses

Choudhury

Lee

et al. 2020

The Plant Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Plants being sessile integrate information from a variety of endogenous and external cues simultaneously to optimize growth and development. This necessitates the signaling networks in plants to be highly dynamic and flexible. One such network involves heterotrimeric G‐proteins comprised of Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits, which influence many aspects of growth, development, and stress response pathways. In plants such as Arabidopsis, a relatively simple repertoire of G‐proteins comprised of one canonical and three extra‐large Gα, one Gβ and three Gγ subunits exists. Because the Gβ and Gγ proteins form obligate dimers, the phenotypes of plants lacking the sole Gβ or all Gγ genes are similar, as expected. However, Gα proteins can exist either as monomers or in a complex with Gβγ, and the details of combinatorial genetic and physiological interactions of different Gα proteins with the sole Gβ remain unexplored. To evaluate such flexible, signal‐dependent interactions and their contribution toward eliciting a specific response, we have generated Arabidopsis mutants lacking specific combinations of Gα and Gβ genes, performed extensive phenotypic analysis, and evaluated the results in the context of subunit usage and interaction specificity. Our data show that multiple mechanistic modes, and in some cases complex epistatic relationships, exist depending on the signal‐dependent interactions between the Gα and Gβ proteins. This suggests that, despite their limited numbers, the inherent flexibility of plant G‐protein networks provides for the adaptability needed to survive under continuously changing environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Flexible functional interactions between G‐protein subunits contribute to the specificity of plant responses

Choudhury

Lee

et al. 2020

The Plant Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For seeds that lack the Gβ subunit and thus falsely report the nutrient status to the radicle, one expects the seeds to have altered red-light sensitivity, which they do (8). This and many similar examples (6, 8, 20, 79, 108, 122) suggest that G signaling does not directly couple a multitude of signals, as in the animal paradigm; rather, a single signal modulates a multitude of other signal pathways, acting as a molecular rheostat (Figure 3 b ). …”

Section: Crosstalk and Bottlenecks In G Signalingmentioning

confidence: 86%

Heterotrimeric G Protein–Coupled Signaling in Plants

Urano¹,

Jones

2014

Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.

Self Cite

179

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators studying G protein–coupled signaling—often called the best-understood pathway in the world owing to intense research in medical fields—have adopted plants as a new model to explore the plasticity and evolution of G signaling. Much research on plant G signaling has not disappointed. Although plant cells have most of the core elements found in animal G signaling, differences in network architecture and intrinsic properties of plant G protein elements make G signaling in plant cells distinct from the animal paradigm. In contrast to animal G proteins, plant G proteins are self-activating, and therefore regulation of G activation in plants occurs at the deactivation step. The self-activating property also means that plant G proteins do not need and therefore do not have typical animal G protein–coupled receptors. Targets of activated plant G proteins, also known as effectors, are unlike effectors in animal cells. The simpler repertoire of G signal elements in Arabidopsis makes G signaling easier to manipulate in a multicellular context.

show abstract

“…cry1 mutants grown in darkness on agar containing sucrose display more opened hooks than WT seedlings at late stages of hook development, a phenotype also observed in mutants of the heterotrimeric G alpha subunit protein (GPA1) (Fox et al, 2012). …”

Section: Light Perceived By Phytochromes and Cryptochromes Induces Homentioning

confidence: 92%

Hormonal networks involved in apical hook development in darkness and their response to light

Mazzella¹,

Casal²,

Muschietti³

et al. 2014

Front. Plant Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In darkness, the dicot seedlings produce an apical hook as result of differential cell division and extension at opposite sides of the hypocotyl. This hook protects the apical meristem from mechanical damage during seedling emergence from the soil. In darkness, gibberellins act via the DELLA-PIF (PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTORs) pathway, and ethylene acts via the EIN3/EIL1 (ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE 3/EIN3 like 1)-HLS1 (HOOKLESS 1) pathway to control the asymmetric accumulation of auxin required for apical hook formation and maintenance. These core pathways form a network with multiple points of connection. Light perception by phytochromes and cryptochromes reduces the activity of PIFs and (COP1) CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 1—both required for hook formation in darkness—, lowers the levels of gibberellins, and triggers hook opening as a component of the switch between heterotrophic and photoautotrophic development. Apical hook opening is thus a suitable model to study the convergence of endogenous and exogenous signals on the control of cell division and cell growth.

show abstract

cry1 and GPA1 signaling genetically interact in hook opening and anthocyanin synthesis in Arabidopsis

Cited by 27 publications

References 67 publications

Flexible functional interactions between G‐protein subunits contribute to the specificity of plant responses

Flexible functional interactions between G‐protein subunits contribute to the specificity of plant responses

Heterotrimeric G Protein–Coupled Signaling in Plants

Hormonal networks involved in apical hook development in darkness and their response to light

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About