PMC

(A) Averaged data from juvenile TA synapses (open circles, n=7) show significantly less short-term facilitation in response to the natural stimulus pattern compared to SC synapses (closed squares, n=6). Inset: Example traces from juvenile SC synapses (top) and TA synapses (bottom) during a 2.5 s region of the NSP. Scale bars: 150 ms, 0.12 mV. (B) In juveniles, the percent of responses that are facilitated during the NSP is smaller at TA synapses as compared to SC synapses (p<0.5), and the percent of responses that are depressed is greater at TA synapses as compared to SC synapses (p<0.5). (C) Cumulative frequency curves of normalized responses reveal a large shift toward less facilitated responses at TA synapses (open circles) compared to SC synapses (closed squares). (D) The mean normalized fEPSP of juvenile responses to the NSP is smaller at TA synapses compared to SC synapses (p<0.05). (E) The responses of SC synapses (closed squares) and TA synapses (open circles) (from ) plotted against interstimulus interval in ms. (F) Averaged data from young adults plotted against stimulus number reveal that TA responses (open circles, n=8) are still less facilitated than SC responses (closed squares, n=6). Inset: Example traces from young adult SC synapses (top) and TA synapses (bottom) during a 2.5 s region of the NSP. Scale bars: 150 ms, 0.105 mV (SC), 0.12 mV (TA). (G) In young adults, the percent of responses that are facilitated during the NSP is smaller at TA synapses as compared to SC synapses (p<0.5), and the percent of responses that are depressed is greater at TA synapses as compared to SC synapses (p<0.5). (H) The cumulative frequency plot for TA synapses (open circles) remains shifted leftward toward less facilitated responses compared to SC synapses (closed squares) in young adults. (I) The mean normalized fEPSP of responses to the NSP is also smaller at TA synapses than at SC synapses in young adults (p<0.05). (J) The responses of SC synapses (closed squares) and TA synapses (open circles) (from ) plotted against interstimulus interval in ms.

(A) Label by iTRAQ reagent. WT refers to the wild type leaves as control; WT + TA, WT leaves treated with TA; WT + TA + JA, WT leaves treated with TA and JA together; jai1 + TA, jai1 leaves treated with TA. Four biological replicates for each treatment and one set of iTRAQ includes two biological replicates. (B) Total protein number identified in two sets with 5% false discovery rate (FDR), set 1 is colored in blue, set 2 is colored in green. (C) Distribution and overlap of differentially expressed (DE) proteins in each comparison. WT + TA was set as the control group for the other groups. Each color represents one contrast. Blue, WT vs WT + TA; Yellow, WT + TA + JA vs WT + TA; Green, jai1 + TA vs WT + TA. (D) GO terms distribution of the overall 10367 proteins categorized in “biological process”. GO-terms were categorized by Blast2Go at level 4 according to their corresponding GO-term (biological process). Each protein may be identified in more than one process.

A-C: deep TA, D-F: superficial TA.
A. Deep TA, P vs NP. * Type 1, P>NP, p=0.046; ** type 2x, P>NP, p=0.003; §type 2a, P<NP, p=0.029; §§ type 2b, P<NP, p=0.035.
B. Deep TA, P vs. CTRL. Arrow, all 1’s together, P> CTRL, p=0.05; ^ type 2b, P<CTRL, p=0.004
C. Deep TA, NP vs. CTRL. # type 2a, NP > CTRL, p=0.018; † type 2x, NP<CTRL, p=0.016
D. Superfical TA, P vs NP. no significant differences.
E. Superficial TA, P vs. CTRL. Arrow, type 2a, P>CTRL, p=0.002; ^ type 2b, P<CTRL, p=0.009.
F. Superficial TA, NP vs. CTRL. # type 2a, NP>CTRL, p=0.002; † type 2b, NP<CTRL, p=0.009

In vitro interactions between MADS proteins. Ta ANR1 is a protein with MBP‐tag, and Ta VRN‐A1 and Ta AGLG1 are the proteins with HIS‐tag. (a) The protein interaction of Ta ANR1a (60.1 kDa) and Jagger Ta AGLG1a protein (23.79 kDa) or 2174 Ta AGLGb (23.78 kDa). Diamonds represent an area where no interacting proteins are observed between the Ta ANR1a and Ta AGLG1 proteins. (b) The protein interaction of Ta ANR1a with Ta VRN‐A1 (85–191) including both Leu¹¹⁷/Phe¹¹⁷ and Ala¹⁸⁰/Val¹⁸⁰ substitutions. The interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the 2174 Ta VRN‐A1b (15.8 kDa) indicated by a star are stronger in protein band intensity than the interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the Jagger Ta VRN‐A1a (15.7 kDa) indicated by a triangle. (c) The protein interaction of Ta ANR1a with Ta VRN‐A1 (139–191) including Ala¹⁸⁰/Val¹⁸⁰ substitution only. The interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the 2174 Ta VRN‐A1b (9.3 kDa) indicated by a star are stronger in protein band intensity than the interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the Jagger Ta VRN‐A1a (9.3 kDa) indicated by a triangle. (d) The protein interaction of Ta ANR1a with Ta VRN‐A1 (85–179) including Leu¹¹⁷/Phe¹¹⁷ substitution only. The interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the 2174 Ta VRN‐A1b (14.5 kDa) indicated by a star are similar in intensity than the interacting proteins of Ta ANR1a with the Jagger Ta VRN‐A1a (14.4 kDa) indicated by a triangle. At least three independent replicates were performed for each of these interactions. M indicates a protein marker. (e) Comparison of interacted Ta ANR1 proteins between Ta VRN‐A1a and Ta VRN‐A1b proteins.