Physiology of flower initiation

Lang, Anton

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-50088-6_39

Cited by 309 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 337 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

307

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study also shows that transition to flowering correlates with the release of ATX1 from the FLC locus and an increase of the level of H3K27me3 repressive marks, of which a critical level is required to achieve full repression of FLC (Shindo et al, 2006). This time-and dosage-dependent regulation resembles the vernalization process, where prolonged exposure to cold leads to progressive silencing of FLC (Chouard, 1960;Lang, 1965). Chromatin-mediated regulation of FLC, and probably other genes, is not an all-or-nothing process and fine-tuning may be achieved through different levels of histone modifications.…”

Section: Flc Is Regulated Through Dosage-dependent Interactions Of Acsupporting

confidence: 60%

ARABIDOPSIS TRITHORAX1 Dynamically RegulatesFLOWERING LOCUS CActivation via Histone 3 Lysine 4 Trimethylation

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trithorax function is essential for epigenetic maintenance of gene expression in animals, but little is known about trithorax homologs in plants. ARABIDOPSIS TRITHORAX1 (ATX1) was shown to be required for the expression of homeotic genes involved in flower organogenesis. Here, we report a novel function of ATX1, namely, the epigenetic regulation of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). Downregulation of FLC accelerates the transition from vegetative to reproductive development in Arabidopsis thaliana. In the atx1 mutant, FLC levels are reduced and the FLC chromatin is depleted of trimethylated, but not dimethylated, histone 3 lysine 4, suggesting a specific trimethylation function of ATX1. In addition, we found that ATX1 directly binds the active FLC locus before flowering and that this interaction is released upon the transition to flowering. This dynamic process stands in contrast with the stable maintenance of homeotic gene expression mediated by trithorax group proteins in animals but resembles the dynamics of plant Polycomb group function.

show abstract

Section: Flc Is Regulated Through Dosage-dependent Interactions Of Acsupporting

confidence: 60%

ARABIDOPSIS TRITHORAX1 Dynamically RegulatesFLOWERING LOCUS CActivation via Histone 3 Lysine 4 Trimethylation

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the results of the present study clearly indicate that L. gibba G3 is not a day-neutral plant since, although it will grow on photoperiods as short as 1 or 2 hours, it will not flower unless the daily photoperiod is longer than about 10 hours. This response defines L. gibba G3 as a long-day plant regardless of its sensitivity to various light interruption treatments (11,16,20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One reason for this situation is that most long-day plants gro-w rather slowvly, require several to many long days for flower induction and do not exhibit maximum photoperiodic sensitivity until they reach an age of 1 to several months or nmore. Thus detailed information concerning the various factors which interact in the control of flowering has been obtained for only a few longday plants such as Loliumt temulleitutim, Hyoscyarnus niger and Silente arnmeria (16). In view of the somewhat limited informnation available on the physiology of flowering of long-day plants, a detaiilied study was undertaken into the flowering response of the long-day plant Lemnna gibba strain G3.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flowering Responses of the Long-day Plant Lemna gibba G3

Cleland

Briggs

1967

Plant Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suntmary. Lenmna gibba L., strain G3, exhibits a qualitative long-day flowering response with a critical, daylength on a 24-hour cycle of about 10 hours. Evidence is presented that the onset of daughter frond formation in a given frond inhibits the activity of the flowering meristem. Consequently, flower induction can only occur in fronds smaller than about 0.05 to 0.07 mm lon;g. Although a minimum of 1 long day seems to be sufficient to induce the formation of flower primordia, at least 6 long days are required to obtain mature flowers since long days are also required for the early stages of flower development. The critical night length on 24, 48 and 72-hour cycles is respectiveilv 14, 16, and 18 to 22 hours. The close similarity between the critical night length for the different cycle lengths is explained in terms of an inhilbitory effect of darkness both on flower initiation and, flower development. A 10-hour dark period is more inhibitory to flowering on a 36-hour cycle than on 24, 48, 60 or 72-hour cycles. It is suggested that darkness inhilbits flowering through the formation of a light-labile flower inhibitor which acts to inhibit the funlctioninig of the flowering stimulus.Studies on the physiology of flowering have been carried out with a large number of dlifferent plants, but generally speaking the processes which control flowering are much better understood in short-day plants than in long-day plants. One reason for this situation is that most long-day plants gro-w rather slowvly, require several to many long days for flower induction and do not exhibit maximum photoperiodic sensitivity until they reach an age of 1 to several months or nmore. Thus detailed information concerning the various factors which interact in the control of flowering has been obtained for only a few longday plants such as Loliumt temulleitutim, Hyoscyarnus niger and Silente arnmeria (16). In view of the somewhat limited informnation available on the physiology of flowering of long-day plants, a detaiilied study was undertaken into the flowering response of the long-day plant Lemnna gibba strain G3.The first demonstration of unequivocal control of flowering in the Lemnaceae was by Kandeler (12,13) who showed that several strains of Lemnia gibba, including strain G3, exhibited a long-day flowering response. Kandeler (12) indicated that the critical daylength for L. gibba G3 was between 10 anid 12 hours, but did not give any suipporting evidence.

show abstract

“…Depending on the species, the site(s) and mode(s) of GA action could differ, and this may account for the contradictory responses observed between and within a species. The complexity of response has been much discussed (7,26). As a further illustration, Warm (24) concluded that GA3 acted at two sites, in either or both the leaf and the shoot apex, in promoting the flowering of Hyoscyamus niger.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gibberellins in Relation to Growth and Flowering in Pharbitis nil Chois

King¹,

Pharis²,

Mander³

1987

Plant Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACrFlowering can be modified by gibberellins (GAs) in Pharbitis nil Chois. in a complex fashion depending on GA type, dosage, and the timing of treatment relative to a single inductive dark period. Promotion of flowering occurs when GAs are applied 11 to 17 hours before a single inductive dark period. When applied 24 hours later the same GA dosage is inhibitory. Thus, depending on their activity and the tmin of application there is an optimum dose for promotion of flowering by any GA, with an excessive dose resulting in inhibition. Those GAs highly promotory for flowering at low doses are also most effective for stem elongation (2,2-dimethyl GA4>> GA32 > GA3 > GAs > GA7 > GA4). However, the effect of GAs on stem elongation contrasts markedly with that on flowering. A 10-to 50-fold greater dose is required for maximum promotion of stem elongation, and the response is not influenced by time of application relative to the inductive dark period. These differing responses of flowering and stem elongation raise questions about the use of relatively stable, highly bioactive GAs such as GA3 to probe the flowering response. It is proposed that the 'ideal' GAs for promoting flowering may be highly bioactive but with only a short lifetime in the plant and, hence, will have little or no effect on stem elongation.There are many reports of both promotive and inhibitory effects of applied GA3 on flowering of herbaceous higher plants and for woody species (20, 21, 30 and references therein). Even for a single woody species, apple, both inhibition and promotion of flowering have now been reported (9 and references therein). Depending on the species, the site(s) and mode(s) of GA action could differ, and this may account for the contradictory responses observed between and within a species. The complexity of response has been much discussed (7,26). As a further illustration, Warm (24) concluded that GA3 acted at two sites, in either or both the leaf and the shoot apex, in promoting the flowering of Hyoscyamus niger.Although some of the contrasts noted in the responses to GAs may reflect differences in the site and timing of treatment, the GA used and its uptake and metabolism in the plant could also be important. To examine the importance ofthese various factors '

show abstract

Physiology of flower initiation

Cited by 309 publications

References 337 publications

ARABIDOPSIS TRITHORAX1 Dynamically RegulatesFLOWERING LOCUS CActivation via Histone 3 Lysine 4 Trimethylation

ARABIDOPSIS TRITHORAX1 Dynamically RegulatesFLOWERING LOCUS CActivation via Histone 3 Lysine 4 Trimethylation

Flowering Responses of the Long-day Plant Lemna gibba G3

Gibberellins in Relation to Growth and Flowering in Pharbitis nil Chois

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About