The making of a flower: control of floral meristem identity in Arabidopsis

Pidkowich, Mark S.; Klenz, Jennifer E.; Haughn, George W.

doi:10.1016/s1360-1385(98)01369-7

Cited by 82 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Faster flowering and the production of fewer aerial branches may both be a consequence of a transition to reproduction at an earlier vegetative stage (Diggle, 1999;Pidkowich et al, 1999). When there is such an early transition to reproduction, fewer leaves are produced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present evidence that susceptible Arabidopsis plants accelerate their reproductive development and alter their shoot architecture in response to three different pathogen species. We infected 2-week-old Arabidopsis seedlings with two bacterial pathogens, Pseudomonas syringae and Xanthomonas campestris, and an oomycete, Peronospora parasitica. Infection with each of the three pathogens reduced time to flowering and the number of aerial branches on the primary inflorescence. In the absence of competition, P. syringae and P. parasitica infection also increased basal branch development. Flowering time and branch responses were affected by the amount of pathogen present. Large amounts of pathogen caused the most dramatic changes in the number of branches on the primary inflorescence, but small amounts of P. syringae caused the fastest flowering and the production of the most basal branches. RPS2 resistance prevented large changes in development when it prevented visible disease symptoms but not at high pathogen doses and when substantial visible hypersensitive response occurred. These experiments indicate that phylogenetically disparate pathogens cause similar changes in the development of susceptible Arabidopsis. We propose that these changes in flowering time and branch architecture constitute a general developmental response to pathogen infection that may affect tolerance of and/or resistance to disease.One way that plants can respond to pathogen infection is through an induced resistance response called R gene resistance. When a plant has an R gene that confers resistance to an infecting pathogen, the plant initiates extensive biochemical and structural defense mechanisms, including the production of phytoalexins and pathogenesis-related proteins, the strengthening of cell walls, local cell death, and systemic acquired resistance (Dangl and Jones, 2001). Plants that are "susceptible," i.e. do not have R gene resistance to a particular pathogen strain, exhibit many defenses similar to R gene resistance, but are slower in their expression of these responses (Yang et al., 1997;Maleck et al., 2000). Like R gene-resistant plants, susceptible plants have increased levels of salicylic acid (SA; O'Donnell et al., 2001), cell death, and defense mechanisms characteristic of systemic acquired resistance (Glazebrook, 2001). In addition, infected, susceptible plants can exhibit increased levels of jasmonic acid (JA), auxin, and ethylene (Dong, 1998;Lund et al., 1998;O'Donnell et al., 2003).These responses of plants to pathogen infection bear some similarity to responses to abiotic stress. Both can involve cell death (Beers and McDowell, 2001), ethylene, SA, and JA (Wang et al., 2002) and cause changes in the expression of some of the same transcription factors (Chen et al., 2002). One way in which plants respond to abiotic stresses is to accelerate their transition to reproduction. Researchers have noted that plants flower faster in response to shade, overcrowding, low nutrients, drought, heat, and low light quality (Casal ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flower meristem identity genes can be divided into two classes (Pidkowich et al, 1999). The first class promotes flower meristem identity and includes LFY, APETALA 1 (AP1), FRUITFUL (FUL), and CAULIFLOWER (CAL), which function along with UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS (UFO).…”

Section: Floral Meristem Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergence of Flowering‐Related Genes in Three Legume Species

Kim

Kang

Lee³

et al. 2013

The Plant Genome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a set of approximately 200 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. genes that are involved in the control of flowering time as a reference to identify orthologous (or homologous) counterparts of these genes in three legume species, that is, Lotus corniculatus L. var. (FPIs), and floral meristem identity. Many key genes, including the FPI genes FT, SOC1, and LFY, are conserved in the legumes while CO, FRI, FLC, and FD were not. Eighteen genes were conserved as single copy genes in all three legume species, including GI, VRN2, COP1, and TSF. The chromosomal distribution of paralog-rich genes revealed differences in the major evolutionary processes affecting flowering genes in legumes, including whole genome duplication in soybean, tandem duplication in M. truncatula, and ectopic duplication in L. corniculatus var. japonicus. High divergence was observed among the members of large gene families, most containing transcription factors, indicating the accumulation of gene copies and gene divergence during evolutionary adaptations to environmental changes.

show abstract

“…Meristems are dynamic structures, in which mitosis continuously replenishes cells that are depleted by differentiation (Traas and Vernoux, 2002). The SAM undergoes several distinct changes of identity during development of flowering plants (Pidkowich et al, 1999). In the vegetative phase the SAM generates lateral leaves and axillary meristems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

INCOMPOSITA: a MADS-box gene controlling prophyll development and floral meristem identity inAntirrhinum

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INCOMPOSITA (INCO) is a MADS-box transcription factor and member of the functionally diverse StMADS11 clade of the MADS-box family. The most conspicuous feature of inco mutant flowers are prophylls initiated prior to first whorl sepals at lateral positions of the flower primordium. The developing prophylls physically interfere with subsequent floral organ development that results in aberrant floral architecture. INCO, which is controlled by SQUAMOSA, prevents prophyll formation in the wild type, a role that is novel among MADS-box proteins, and we discuss evolutionary implications of this function. Overexpression of INCO or SVP, a structurally related Arabidopsis MADS-box gene involved in the negative control of Arabidopsis flowering time,conditions delayed flowering in transgenic plants, suggesting that SVP and INCO have functions in common. Enhanced flowering of squamosa mutants in the inco mutant background corroborates this potential role of INCO as a floral repressor in Antirrhinum. One further,hitherto hidden, role of INCO is the positive control of Antirrhinumfloral meristem identity. This is revealed by genetic interactions between inco and mutants of FLORICAULA, a gene that controls the inflorescence to floral transition, together with SQUAMOSA. The complex regulatory and combinatorial relations between INCO, FLORICAULA and SQUAMOSA are summarised in a model that integrates observations from molecular studies as well as analyses of expression patterns and genetic interactions.

show abstract

The making of a flower: control of floral meristem identity in Arabidopsis

Cited by 82 publications

References 49 publications

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

A Developmental Response to Pathogen Infection in Arabidopsis

Divergence of Flowering‐Related Genes in Three Legume Species

INCOMPOSITA: a MADS-box gene controlling prophyll development and floral meristem identity inAntirrhinum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About