![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, American Society of Plant Biologists Global Transcript Levels Respond to Small Changes of the Carbon Status during Progressive Exhaustion of Carbohydrates in Arabidopsis Rosettes1[W][OA] *Corresponding author; e-mail usadel/at/mpimp-golm.mpg.de. 2These authors contributed equally to the article. 3Present address: Metanomics GmbH, Tegeler Weg 33, 10589 Berlin, Germany. Received January 20, 2008; Accepted January 31, 2008. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The balance between the supply and utilization of carbon (C) changes continually. It has been proposed that plants respond in an acclimatory manner, modifying C utilization to minimize harmful periods of C depletion. This hypothesis predicts that signaling events are initiated by small changes in C status. We analyzed the global transcriptional response to a gradual depletion of C during the night and an extension of the night, where C becomes severely limiting from 4 h onward. The response was interpreted using published datasets for sugar, light, and circadian responses. Hundreds of C-responsive genes respond during the night and others very early in the extended night. Pathway analysis reveals that biosynthesis and cellular growth genes are repressed during the night and genes involved in catabolism are induced during the first hours of the extended night. The C response is amplified by an antagonistic interaction with the clock. Light signaling is attenuated during the 24-h light/dark cycle. A model was developed that uses the response of 22K genes during a circadian cycle and their responses to C and light to predict global transcriptional responses during diurnal cycles of wild-type and starchless pgm mutant plants and an extended night in wild-type plants. By identifying sets of genes that respond at different speeds and times during C depletion, our extended dataset and model aid the analysis of candidates for C signaling. This is illustrated for AKIN10 and four bZIP transcription factors, and sets of genes involved in trehalose signaling, protein turnover, and starch breakdown. Changing environmental conditions continually alter the balance between carbon (C) assimilation and utilization (Stitt, 1991; Geiger and Servaites, 1994; Stitt and Krapp, 1999; Geiger et al., 2000; Paul and Foyer, 2001). Even short periods of C starvation lead to an inhibition of growth, which is not immediately reversed when C becomes available again (Smith and Stitt, 2007; Stitt et al., 2007). For example, there is a delay before growth is reestablished when Suc is resupplied to C-depleted seedlings (Osuna et al., 2007) or wild-type plants are reilluminated after a 6-h extension of the night (Gibon et al., 2004b). A particularly dramatic example is provided by starchless pgm mutants, which deplete their sugars in the first hours of the night (Caspar et al., 1985). This is followed by an inhibition of growth, which is only slowly reversed during the next light period (Gibon et al., 2004b). Repeated periods of C depletion also have major midterm consequences. The levels of most metabolites and enzymes in pgm resemble those in wild-type plants after several days of darkness (Gibon et al., 2004a, 2006). This shows that repeated short periods clamp C depletion metabolism in a state appropriate to C starvation even if they are alternating with periods of high sugar (Gibon et al., 2006). The diurnal cycle provides a defined experimental system to investigate how the supply and utilization of C is coordinated (Smith and Stitt, 2007; Stitt et al., 2007). Plants switch each day between a surplus of C in the light and a negative C balance at night. These diurnal changes are buffered by retaining some photosynthate in the leaves as starch in the light and remobilizing it at night to support Suc synthesis and export (Geiger and Servaites, 1994; Smith et al., 1997, 2005; Stitt et al., 2007). The importance of starch turnover is demonstrated by studies of mutants that are defective in starch synthesis or mobilization. They grow at the same rate as wild-type plants in continuous light or very long days, but show a large inhibition of growth in short days (Caspar et al., 1985, 1989; Lin et al., 1988; Schulze et al., 1991; Huber and Hanson, 1992; Zeeman et al., 1998; Zeeman and ap Rees, 1999; Gibon et al., 2004b). This inhibition is due to the transient depletion of C during the night (Gibon et al., 2004b). Starch turnover is regulated in wild-type plants to avoid a shortfall of C at the end of the night. It is typically degraded in a near-linear manner, leaving only a small amount at the end of the night (Fondy and Geiger, 1985; Geiger and Servaites, 1994; Matt et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2004). When the C supply is decreased, for example, in short days or low irradiance, the rate of starch synthesis is increased and the rate of degradation is decreased. As a result, C reserves still last until the end of the night (Stitt et al., 1978; Chatterton and Silvius, 1979, 1980, 1981). Starch turnover starts to adjust on the first day after transfer from a long- to a short-day regime and, within 2 to 3 d, the levels of starch and sugars at the end of the night resemble those in long days (Gibon et al., 2004b). These observations raise fundamental questions about how plants sense changes in C availability over time and use this information to adjust and coordinate starch synthesis and breakdown with the use of C for growth. Recently, Stitt et al. (2007) and Smith and Stitt (2007) proposed that plants respond to decreasing C in an acclimatory manner (i.e. where signaling triggers changes in storage, allocation, and growth before C falls so far that it exerts an acute limitation on metabolism or growth). This hypothesis provides a framework to understand how starch turnover, metabolism, and growth are coordinated to avoid C starvation. It makes several predictions. One is that sugars should inhibit starch synthesis. This prediction is counterintuitive because increased availability of C might be expected to stimulate starch synthesis. It was recently shown that starch synthesis is decreased when small amounts of Suc are included in the rooting medium of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) seedlings provided they are grown in short-day conditions where C is limiting (Gibon et al., 2004b; Stitt et al., 2007). Second, and crucially, changes in signaling should be initiated by relatively small changes in the C status before the onset of acute C starvation. Transcript profiles provide the most comprehensive readout of signaling pathways that is currently available. It has been known for >20 years that sugars regulate gene expression in plants (Yu, 1999; Koch, 2004; Gibson, 2005; Rolland et al., 2006). Koch (1996) developed the concept of feast and famine genes; high sugar induces feast genes that are required for biosynthesis and growth, whereas low sugar induces famine genes that are required for C assimilation or the catabolism of alternative C sources. Prolonged C starvation or readdition of sugars to starved seedlings leads to changes of transcript levels for hundreds of genes that are involved in metabolism, signaling, and growth (Contento et al., 2004; Price et al., 2004; Thimm et al., 2004; Thum et al., 2004; Li et al., 2006; Osuna et al., 2007). However, these treatments are too drastic to reveal whether expression responds to small changes of C (Osuna et al., 2007). Thousands of genes show significant changes of their transcripts during diurnal light/dark cycles (Smith et al., 2004; Bläsing et al., 2005). Two lines of evidence indicate that C contributes to these changes. First, there is qualitative agreement between the diurnal changes of sugars and transcripts for many C-responsive genes (Bläsing et al., 2005). Second, the accentuated diurnal changes of sugars in pgm are accompanied by larger and more widespread changes of transcripts (Gibon et al., 2004b; Thimm et al., 2004; Bläsing et al., 2005). This is mainly due to depletion of C at night (Bläsing et al., 2005). This article presents a more comprehensive analysis of the global response of transcripts to progressive depletion of C. Arabidopsis plants were darkened at the end of the night and metabolite profiling was performed to identify when C becomes severely limiting. This information was used to define times at which samples were taken for expression profiling during a transition to acute C deprivation. This dataset was combined with published datasets for diurnal changes of transcripts and analyzed to provide an overview of the global response of transcript levels during a gradual transition from high to acutely limiting C and to identify candidates for upstream components of the transcriptional response to small changes in the C status. It was also used to formulate and test a simple linear model, which predicts the global responses of gene expression in diurnal cycles from three inputs—the clock, light, and C. This allows us to validate the role of C in the diurnal regulation of a large number of genes and provides a framework in which the role of candidate genes can be quantitatively evaluated. RESULTS Changes of Metabolites in an Extended Night Ecotype Columbia of Arabidopsis (Col-0) was grown for 5 weeks at 20°C in a 14-h light/10-h dark cycle at a moderate light intensity in well-fertilized soil. Whole rosettes were harvested at the end of the night and at different times after transfer into continuous darkness. Figure 1A
Arabidopsis grown in these conditions contains about 35, 6, and 10 μmol hexose equivalents per gram fresh weight of starch, Suc, and reducing sugars in the rosette at the start of the night (Gibon et al., 2004b). At the end of the night, about 10% of the starch is left (Fig. 1B Organic acids like fumarate and malate are present at high levels in Arabidopsis (Chia et al., 2000). They show a gradual decrease when the night is extended, which becomes more marked from 48 h onward. Other C-containing metabolites also decrease, including raffinose, inositol, and several fatty acids, especially palmitolenoate (16:2) with less marked decreases of palmitate (16:0), stearate (18:0) and linoleate (18:2), eicosenoate (20:1), and hexacosanoate (26:0). Amino acids start to rise in the first hours of the extended night (Fig. 1, A and G Expression Profiling during an Extended Night Three separate experiments provided triplicate transcript profiles for the end of the night, duplicate samples 4, 8, 24, and 48 h into an extended night, and single samples 2 and 6 h into the extended night. Robust multiarray analysis (RMA) expression measures (Bolstad et al., 2003) were calculated on all arrays used. There was close agreement between the experiments. Pairwise scatter plots between the end of the night samples yielded R2 values of 0.977, 0.975, and 0.979 (Supplemental Fig. S1a). Principal component analysis (PCA) showed samples for each time group together (Supplemental Fig. S1c). The original data are provided in Supplemental Table S1. To identify genes that show significant changes of their transcript levels early in the extended night, a linear model was fitted with limma (Smyth, 2004) and corrected for multiple testing using a false discovery rate of 0.05 (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Significantly changed genes are listed in Supplemental Table S2. After 4 h, 1,885 genes were induced and 2,147 were repressed, rising to 2,626 and 3,032 genes after 8 h, 3,135 and 3,388 genes after 24 h, and 3,929 and 3,888 genes after 48 h. Figure 2
Integration of the Extended Night Dataset and Datasets for Diurnal Changes in Gene Expression We have published replicated datasets for global changes of transcripts (1) during diurnal cycles in wild-type Col-0 (Bläsing et al., 2005); (2) after illumination of Col-0 for 4 h at the end of the night at 50 and 350 ppm [CO2] (the former prevents CO2 fixation and carbohydrate synthesis (Bläsing et al., 2005); and (3) during the diurnal cycle in the starchless pgm mutant (where there are exaggerated changes of sugars; Gibon et al., 2004b; Bläsing et al., 2005). Related treatments grouped together when the extended night dataset was combined with these datasets and subjected to hierarchical clustering (Supplemental Fig. S2) or PCA (Fig. 3
PC1 accounted for 50.6% of the total variation, and separated treatments according to their carbohydrate content and the duration of the dark treatment. From the Col-0 diurnal cycle dataset we find, from left to right, samples from 12 and 8 h into the light period, 4 h into the light period, 4 h into the dark period, 8 h into the dark period, the end of the night, and then 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, and 48 h into the extended night. pgm samples group with Col-0 samples in the light, but are shifted to the right in the night, mirroring the faster depletion of sugars (Gibon et al., 2004b; Bläsing et al., 2005). PC2 accounted for 12.3% of the variance and separated samples collected at the end of the night from samples collected during the next 8 to 12 h. The 24- and 48-h extended night treatments grouped with the end of the light period. The response to an extended night was investigated in plants growing in a 14-h light/10-h dark cycle, whereas the diurnal cycle and response to [CO2] were analyzed in a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle (Bläsing et al., 2005). We checked whether this small difference in the photoperiod precludes joint analysis of the datasets. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Supplemental Fig. S2) and PCA (Fig. 3 These results show that plants in 12/12 and a 14/10 light/dark cycle have similar transcript profiles at the end of the night, and show a similar response to an extension of the night. This conclusion was checked by fitting a linear model to the whole dataset and statistically analyzing the end-of-the-night samples from the 12/12 and 14/10 treatments with limma (Smyth, 2004). Only 917 genes had a P value <0.05, which is the proportion expected by chance (5% of approximately 22,000), only eight genes showed a >2-fold change, and no genes showed significant changes after correcting for multiple testing (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Contribution of Sugars to the Changes of Transcript Levels To provide qualitative evidence that changes of C make a major contribution to the global changes of transcription in this large dataset, we compared the weighting of genes in PC1 (see Supplemental Table S3) with the changes of transcript levels in five published datasets where different treatments were used to alter C status. These were adding 15 mm Suc to C-starved seedlings for 30 min or 3 h (Osuna et al., 2007), adding 100 mm Glc to C-starved seedlings for 3 h (Bläsing et al., 2005), comparing seedlings in full nutrient medium with C-starved seedlings (Osuna et al., 2007), and illuminating rosettes for 4 h at 350 or 50 ppm [CO2] (Bläsing et al., 2005). Regression plots yielded highly significant correlation coefficients (r) of −0.44, −0.5, −0.43, −0.47, and −0.6. With 1,000 shuffled datasets, most values of r were between 0.1 and −0.1, and none were >0.25 or <−0.25 (Supplemental Fig. S3). Temporal Kinetics of the Responses of C-Responsive Genes during Diurnal Cycles and an Extended Night A test set for C-induced genes was generated by combining the 200 most strongly induced genes 3 h after adding 15 mm Suc to C-depleted seedlings, the 200 most strongly induced genes 3 h after adding 100 mm Glc to C-starved seedlings, and the 200 most strongly induced genes after illuminating 5-week-old plants for 4 h in 350 compared to 50 ppm [CO2] (Bläsing et al., 2005; Osuna et al., 2007). Because there was overlap, the test set contained 484 genes (Supplemental Table S4). An analogous procedure generated a test set of 383 C-repressed genes. Undirected and directed approaches were applied to test whether the temporal responses are consistent with these genes being regulated by changes of C during the diurnal cycle and the first hours of the extended night. In the undirected approach, the C-repressed and C-induced genes were each separated into seven groups by K-means clustering (Fig. 4
In a directed Boolean approach, genes were assigned values of −1, 0, or +1 depending upon whether their transcript level decreased, remained unaltered, or increased in a given time interval. They were scored using a filter of >2-fold change. The time intervals were between the start and end of the night, between the end of the night and 8 h into the extended night, and between 8 and 48 h into the extended night. The results are summarized in Table I. Response classes that are qualitatively consistent with C induction or repression are shown in bold and italics, respectively. About 80% of C-repressed genes are in classes whose response is consistent with repression by C (transcripts rise during the night and/or the extended night). Almost one-half of the C-induced genes are in classes whose response is consistent with them being induced by C, whereas 43% do not show marked changes and the remainder show inconsistent responses. Crucially, some genes complete their response in the diurnal cycle (classes 12 and 14), larger sets start to change in a diurnal cycle and change further in the first hours of the extended night (e.g. classes 0 and 26), and others start to change early in the extended night (classes 1 and 26). A small set of C-repressed genes are not markedly induced until 24 to 48 h into the extended night (class 22). Some C-induced genes (class 22) were unexpectedly induced after 24 to 48 h in the dark.
Temporal Responses of Genes That Respond Rapidly to Added Suc The test sets used in the last section were compiled from treatments that lasted 3 to 4 h. The different temporal responses during the diurnal cycle and extended night might reflect differences in the timing of the signal to which they are responding or differences in the speed of their response. We therefore repeated this analysis with genes that respond rapidly to added Suc. Osuna et al. (2007) short listed >150 genes that show marked changes (>1.41, log2 scale) of their transcript levels within 30 min of adding 15 mm Suc to C-depleted seedlings. These were manually separated into groups based on the kinetics of their response during the diurnal cycle and extended night (Fig. 5A
This analysis identifies genes that are probably upstream components of the transcriptional response to C. Examples of C-repressed genes that respond rapidly to Suc addition and also respond early in the light period and recover during the night, include four trehalose-P synthase-like genes (TPS8, TPS9, TPS10, and TPS11), several transcription factors, members of the BTB/POZ domain family, a set of kelch domain F-box factors, ATG8e, a thioredoxin family member, and several glutaredoxins (Table II). Many rapidly responding C-induced genes are annotated to be involved in stress responses; of the genes with a functional annotation, stress-related genes account for two of three in group 1, three of 10 in group 2, three of six in group 3, and all in group 4, whereas two genes in group 7 are related to ethylene signaling (Table II). We investigated whether subsets of genes could be identified that might lie downstream of these early responders. To do this, we first clustered the rapid responding genes and all other C-responsive genes separately, and then correlated them with each other (Fig. 5B Data Condensation to Identify Biological Processes We next investigated which metabolic and cellular processes are subject to transcriptional regulation. The dataset comprising the global transcript profiles during the diurnal cycle and extended night was analyzed with the Pageman application (Usadel et al., 2006), which queries whether the response of the genes in a functional category differs from the response of other genes on the array. It uses an extensive plant-specific ontology developed in MAPMAN (Thimm et al., 2004; Usadel et al., 2005; http://gabi.rzpd.de/projects/Map-Man; TAIR6_MappingFile_ath_affy_tair6.m02), which contains >1,000 hierarchical and mainly nonredundant categories. This condenses the >22,000 features on an ATH1 array into about 1,000 features, many of which represent a defined biological process. Transcript levels were normalized on the values at the end of the night in the same experiment, the ratios averaged across the biological replicates, and imported into PAGEMAN to calculate the average change for the genes in a given category. To provide statistical support, we calculated Wilcoxon P values, which give the probability that the response of the genes in a given category is significantly different from the response of all other genes on the ATH1 array. An increasingly deep color indicates an increasingly large change of the average value or an increasingly significant P value. Blue and red distinguish between categories where expression increases or decreases, respectively. It should be noted that when a category contains a large number of genes, P values can be significant even though the average change is very small. When a category contains few genes, a large average change may not be significant. The full analysis is provided in Supplemental Table S5. Figure 6A
Coordinated Transcriptional Regulation of Metabolism and Cellular Growth Processes C depletion is accompanied by transcriptional repression of biosynthetic pathways and cellular growth processes that use C and induction of processes that mobilize C from alternative sources (Fig. 6B Categories showing a coordinated increase of transcripts in the light and a decrease that starts during the night include starch synthesis, glycolysis, amino acid synthesis, nucleotide synthesis, deoxynucleotide metabolism, many aspects of protein synthesis (amino acid activation, cytosolic ribosomal proteins, translation initiation, and elongation), protein folding, cell cycle, cell division, and histone synthesis. Categories showing a coordinated decrease of transcripts in the light, a small increase during the night, and a further increase early in the extended night include invertases, autophagy, and ubiquitin-regulated protein degradation. Slightly delayed responses are shown by genes in categories related to Suc synthesis, glycolipid synthesis, and plastid and mitochondrial metabolite transport, which are repressed after extension of the night, and genes related to gluconeogenesis, lipid degradation, and amino acid degradation, which do not show marked changes during the diurnal cycle but are induced early in the extended night. As already noted, metabolite profiling reveals that catabolism of alternative sources of C, including protein, commences early in the extended night (Fig. 1 Other functional categories show more complex responses. For example, genes in categories related to photosynthesis (light reactions, Calvin cycle, photorespiration), chlorophyll synthesis, chloroplast biogenesis (plastid ribosomal proteins), pigment synthesis (isoprenoids, flavanols, isoflavonols), and nitrate and sulfate assimilation decrease during the light period and recover during the night, but decrease during the extended night (see Supplemental Fig. S4). Coordinated Responses of Regulatory Genes Some gene categories involved in signaling also show marked changes during the night and early extended night (Fig. 6C
Temporal Responses of Genes Whose Expression Is Altered by Overexpression of AKIN10 Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) reported that overexpression of AKIN10 leads to changes of transcripts of >1,000 genes. This included widespread induction of genes that are involved in catabolism and repression of genes that are involved in biosynthesis and cellular growth, as well as repression of TPS8 to TPS11 and APG8e. This resembles the responses that we have seen during the night and early extended night (see above). We therefore investigated how all approximately 1,000 AKIN10-responsive genes behave in our dataset. K-means clustering (Supplemental Fig. S5) and Boolean analysis (Table I) illustrated that many of them show marked changes during the night or early in the extended night. Very few respond to extreme C starvation. This provides evidence that AKIN10 contributes to the regulation of expression in response to small changes in the C status. The diurnal cycle and extended night are complex multifactorial responses in which many other inputs, including the clock and light, may be affecting gene expression. To deepen the analysis, we investigated how C interacts with these inputs. Interaction between C and the Clock Using a stringent filter, we extracted 604 genes with an unambiguous timing of a circadian peak from a dataset of constant light-grown plants (free-running cycle) by Edwards et al. (2006). This is smaller than the list of 3,503 genes in Edwards et al. (2006) because our stringent filter excludes clock-regulated genes whose response for various technical or biological reasons is less clearly defined. Table III summarizes the overlap between the clock- and C-regulated genes and uncovers an unexpected antagonistic interaction. Most overlapping genes fall into two categories; some show a circadian peak in the subjective light period (i.e. 0–12 h, when the light would be on in a light/dark cycle), but are repressed by C, and the others show a circadian peak toward the end of the night, but are induced by C. This antagonistic interaction is explored in Figures 7 to 9
Figure 7 Responses of Clock Genes We next investigated the responses of central clock genes (Fig. 8A Responses of Genes Involved in Trehalose-6-P Signaling, Protein Turnover, and Starch Degradation There is mounting evidence that trehalose-6-P (Tre-6-P) acts as a sugar signal in plants (see “Discussion”). Arabidopsis contains a small family of genes annotated as TPS (Lunn, 2007). In a free-running cycle, TPS8 to TPS11 show a peak and TPS5 a minimum during the subjective light period (Fig. 9A Figure 9B Figure 9C Light-Regulated Genes Bläsing et al. (2005) concluded that light does not play a major role in the diurnal regulation of gene expression in Arabidopsis growing in a regular light/dark cycle. This unexpected conclusion was based on the diurnal response of a test set of approximately 400 light-regulated genes, identified from a treatment in AtGenExpress in which dark-grown seedlings were exposed to weak white light for 4 h. We used K-means clustering (Fig. 10
K-means clustering (Fig. 10 This raises the question of whether light signaling is attenuated by an interaction with the clock or C. About 13% of the light-repressed genes are present in the clock-regulated gene set. Almost all of these shared genes peak in the subjective light period (Table III), indicating that an antagonistic interaction with the clock contributes to the attenuated response of light-repressed genes. About 20% of the light-induced genes were present in the circadian set, but, in this case, the peak was at the end of the subjective night or the start of the subjective day (Table III). The pie diagrams in Figure 10 Modeling the Interaction between C, Light, and the Clock The data analysis presented so far involved qualitative comparison of simplified experimental situations in which one input plays a dominant role and complex situations where there will be a multifactorial interaction between several inputs. It would clearly be advantageous to make the analysis more rigorous by performing it in the framework of a quantitative model. We investigated whether global transcriptional responses during the diurnal cycle in Col-0, the extended night in Col-0, and the diurnal cycle in pgm (Table IV) can be predicted by a simple linear model with three inputs: the clock, light, and C.
In this model, the response of each individual gene to C is defined by the dataset from comparing rosettes after illuminating them for 4 h in the presence of 50 or 350 ppm [CO2] (Bläsing et al., 2005). The response to light is defined by the dataset from comparing rosettes after 4-h additional darkness or 4-h illumination at 50 ppm [CO2] in Bläsing et al. (2005). We use the dataset from Edwards et al. (2006) to define the response of each individual gene to the circadian clock six times during the 24-h cycle. The model attempts to predict the response of >22K genes from a linear combination of the response to sugar plus the response to light plus the response at a given time in the circadian cycle, each multiplied by a separate weighting factor. The weighting factor is varied to optimize the fit, but must be the same for all genes for a given input and time point (see “Materials and Methods” for details). For each time point in Col-0, signals for each gene were normalized on the signal at the end of the night in the same treatment. For pgm, the signals were normalized on the corresponding signals at the end of the night in Col-0 (as in Figs. 8–10 Table IV summarizes the values for the weighting factors, the fit (R2) generated by the model, and, for comparison, the fit found by regression against each individual input dataset. The model performs reasonably well. First, it provides a much better fit to the measured global response than the individual inputs. The fit was especially good in an extended night and during the night in pgm, which highlights the importance of the low sugar signal during the night in pgm (Bläsing et al., 2005; Osuna et al., 2007). Second, the weighting factors chosen by the model for C and light were qualitatively correct (i.e. daytime points were more positive and the nights lower or, in the extended night or in pgm in the dark, strongly negative). In particular, the weightings for C show very good quantitative agreement with the sugar content. When the sugar levels were extracted from Figure 1
To estimate the relative importance of the inputs at a given time point, it is necessary to include information about the magnitude of the changes of transcript levels in each input dataset. In Figure 11B Gene-Specific Assessment of the Quality of the Model We assessed the quality of the prediction for each individual gene by plotting the measured and predicted values at all 17 modeled time points against each other and calculating the correlation coefficient (r). The average correlation coefficient was 0.41. The individual values are given in Supplemental Table S6. They allow us to investigate which sets of genes or individual genes are particularly well or badly predicted. We first investigated model performance for genes that respond rapidly to Suc (>1.41 log2 scale within 30 min of adding 15 mm Suc to C-starved seedlings; Osuna et al., 2007; see Fig. 5 The model performed well with the test set of light-regulated genes that was identified from AtGenexpress (see Fig. 10 We also assessed the model using a quantitative measure of performance for each individual model (i.e. treatment). To do this, we extracted the model residual for each gene and time point (i.e. the difference between modeled and observed values at each time point). Comparing these across the 17 time points again showed that many genes are well predicted, but uncovered some that are badly predicted (data not shown). One example is DOMAIN OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION26 (DUF26)-containing genes. These lacked a significant response in the input datasets, but showed strong responses in pgm. This might indicate a higher order of long-term C integration only apparent in pgm or that these genes react to an input that is not included in the model. Several DUF26-containing genes respond to biotic stress (Nielsen et al., 2007). As already mentioned, the model performs well with genes that respond to the model inputs. We formalized this relation by using a weighted sum of inputs (weighting each input set by how often it was used in modeling). Higher input did generally lead to better qualitative agreement. However, even though binning data into different variance sets and regressing performance versus weighted input showed dependence (data not shown), there were clearly genes that were not well explained despite the apparent strong inputs (see above for examples). Thus, we were not able to identify a clear-cut threshold for the inputs or gene classes that always performed well in the model. Imposing a threshold would lead to potentially important discrepancies not being found. In general, the model is strongly underdetermined because it has only three inputs and makes no assumptions about the dependency between these inputs. Examples of Genes and Functional Classes That Are Well and Poorly Predicted The right-hand image of Figure 9 We have already short listed some genes as good candidates for upstream components because they respond rapidly to Suc (Osuna et al., 2007). We used a filter of r > 0.9 to identify genes in this set whose diurnal response is qualitatively extremely well predicted by our model (see above). Among them were TPS8 to TPS11, several transcription factors, and some genes of unknown function. The second best-predicted transcription factor was At5g49450 (bZIP1). This transcription factor is repressed by Suc and induced by the clock in the subjective light period (Fig. 9D We also extracted all the genes regulated by AKIN10 as determined by Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) and investigated their performance in the model. The performance was very good (r = 0.73, compared to an average of 0.41; see above). This confirms the qualitative conclusion (see above) that AKIN10 is deeply involved in the sugar-dependent regulation of transcriptional responses during the diurnal cycle and the first hours of the extended night. Finally, we investigated which functional classes of genes are particularly well or poorly predicted by the model. To do this, we extracted all of the genes that showed r > 0.7 or r < 0 between the modeled and predicted values and subjected them to an over- or underrepresentation analysis using the online version of Page-Man (http://mpimp-golm.mpg.de/ora; Table V; see also Supplemental Table S6). In the well-predicted genes (r > 0.7), we found high enrichment of genes involved in amino acid and nucleotide metabolism, protein synthesis, and histones, and an underrepresentation of transposases, biotic stress genes, and MADS-box transcription factors. Genes involved in autophagy were overrepresented, although at a slightly higher P value (data not shown). In the badly predicted genes (r < 0), we found an enrichment of retrotransposons, MADS-box transcription factors, and F-box proteins, and an underrepresentation of genes that are involved in proteins synthesis, the cell cycle, and structural integrity. This quantitative analysis strengthens our earlier conclusion (Fig. 6
DISCUSSION Plants Retain Only a Small Reserve of C at the End of the Night Stitt et al. (2007) and Smith and Stitt (2007) proposed that plants respond to decreasing C in an acclimatory manner, with falling C triggering changes in storage, allocation, and growth before there is an acute limitation of metabolism or growth. The experiments in this article were carried out to test a central prediction of this hypothesis, namely, that changes in signaling are initiated by small changes in C status. Transcript profiles were used to test this prediction because they provide a comprehensive readout of many signaling pathways. Typically, only a small amount of starch remains at the end of the night (see introduction). Comparison with Gibon et al. (2004b) indicates that the amount of starch and sugars retained at the end of the night is equivalent to approximately 10% of the C assimilated in a 24-h cycle. Extending the night for just 2 to 4 h leads to an acute C limitation and catabolism of protein, lipids, and other sources of C. Whereas this resembles the response in prolonged starvation (Brouquisse et al., 1991; Dieuaide et al., 1993; Aubert et al., 1996), it is striking that these changes occur so rapidly. Holding C in reserve will decrease investment in growth and lead to an incremental decrease of biomass. Indeed, there is a strong negative correlation between the starch content at the end of the night and the biomass of 20 Arabidopsis accessions in short-day conditions (Cross et al., 2006). These results indicate that Arabidopsis grows almost as fast as the available C will permit. Small Changes of C Status Trigger Major Changes in Gene Expression during the Night The progressive decrease of C during the night and extended night is accompanied by widespread changes of transcripts for thousands of genes. Three lines of evidence show that C contributes to these changes. First, the response during the diurnal cycle and an extended night resembles that expected from the endogenous changes of sugars. Second, many of the changes of transcript levels occur earlier and are accentuated in the starchless pgm mutant (Figs. 5 Pathway analysis revealed that there is a coordinated global transcriptional reprogramming of biosynthesis and cellular growth during the night and first hours of the extended night. Genes that are involved in the use of C for respiration, the biosynthesis of small structural metabolites, nucleic acid and protein synthesis, and cell division are repressed in parallel with the gradual decrease of carbohydrates during the night. Pathways for lipid and protein degradation and gluconeogenesis are induced during the night or early in the extended night in parallel with the final stages of carbohydrate depletion. Earlier studies of C depletion (Contento et al., 2004; Price et al., 2004; Thimm et al., 2004) showed that many of these processes respond to sugar depletion, but they lacked the density of time points and the evaluative tools to characterize the breadth of the response and show that it occurs so early in the transition to low C. The biological impact of changes of transcript levels depends upon whether they are followed by changes of the encoded proteins and how quickly this occurs. Our results show there is often agreement between the changes of transcripts and metabolites; for example, repression of genes involved in protein synthesis and induction of genes for protein degradation correlate with a marked decrease of polysome loading (M. Piques and M. Stitt, unpublished data), a decrease of protein, and an increase of amino acids (Fig. 1 Genes Involved in Signaling Small Changes in C Status To identify upstream components that orchestrate this set of broad and coordinated transcriptional responses, we focused on the approximately 150 genes whose transcripts respond rapidly after adding Suc to C-starved seedlings, highlighting them as early components of the transcriptional response. We identified a small set of genes whose transcripts increase rapidly after adding Suc to seedlings and also respond during a diurnal cycle (Table II). Examples include EF1B α-subunit 1 (At5g12110), a SPX (SYG1/Pho81/XPR1) domain-containing protein (At5g20150), INOSITOL-3-PHOSPHATE SYNTHASE ISOZYME1 (IPS1; At4g39800), a Glc-6-P/Pi transporter (GPT2; At1g61800), a zinc finger (C3HC4-type RING finger) family protein (At2g01150), MBF1c (At3g24500), which makes plants more resistant to stress, but also increases trehalose levels in planta (Suzuki et al., 2005), and some further genes that are annotated as involved in stress responses. Apparently, high C generates a stress response, regardless of whether sugars are added exogenously (Price et al., 2004; Osuna et al., 2007) or synthesized in the tissue. Some C-induced genes induced after 24- to 48-h extension of the night, again indicating their involvement in stress, rather than a specific role in C signaling. Another set of genes was identified whose transcripts fall rapidly after adding Suc to starved seedlings and are also decreased early in the light period and recover during the night (Table II). Examples include four TPS-like genes, several transcription factors, members of the BTB/POZ domain family, a set of kelch domain F-box factors, ATG8e, a thioredoxin family member, and several glutaredoxins. Several of these genes, including TPS8 to TPS11, APG8e, and two bZIPs, are regulated by an antagonistic interaction between sugars and the clock. This generates a complex response, which is well-predicted by our model. Taken together, this provides strong evidence that they are upstream components in the transcriptional response to small changes of sugars and highlight potentially important cross-talk between the sugar signaling and the clock, which (see below) may serve to sensitize sugar signaling to a shortage of C at dawn (see below). There is mounting evidence that Tre-6-P acts as a sugar signal in plants (Schluepmann et al., 2003; Kolbe et al., 2005; Lunn et al., 2006). Tre-6-P is synthesized by TPS. TPS is encoded by a small gene family (Leyman et al., 2001; Lunn, 2007). Whereas TPS1 encodes a functional TPS, the precise function of the TPS-like members, TPS5 to TPS11, is still unclear. Our results show that TPS8 to TPS11are induced in response to small changes in C status early in the night. The function of these proteins is unclear. Sequence analysis and the absence of direct evidence for enzymatic activity indicate that they may not catalyze the synthesis of Tre-6-P (Lunn, 2007). Chary et al. (2007) recently showed that TPS6 complements TPS-deficient yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). BTB/POZ domain proteins are thought to interact with cullin3 (Figueroa et al., 2005) or bromodomain proteins (Du and Pooviah, 2004), implicating them in targeted protein degradation or chromatin modeling. They have also been shown to interact with Ca2+ (Du and Pooviah, 2004) and to be involved in the regulation of telomerase activity (Ren et al., 2007). Their strong and early response to changes of C indicates a rather fundamental role in controlling metabolism or growth in response to C status. ATG8e is involved in the regulation of autophagy (Doelling et al., 2002; Downes and Vierstra, 2005). Its early induction during the night mirrors the widespread changes in genes for protein synthesis and indicates that one of the earliest responses as C falls is a coordinated switch from protein synthesis to protein degradation. A potential interaction of C with redox signaling is revealed by the repression of thioredoxin and several glutaredoxins. It has recently been shown that redox signaling affects a wide spectrum of biosynthesis pathways (Kolbe et al., 2006), including starch synthesis (Tiessen et al., 2002; Hendriks et al., 2003; Lunn et al., 2006). For starch synthesis, there is already evidence for close interaction between redox signaling and C signaling mediated by Tre-6-P (Kolbe et al., 2005; Lunn et al., 2006). Our results, by themselves, do not provide any information about pretranscriptional signaling. Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) noted a striking overlap between the transcriptional response to overexpression of the protein kinase AKIN10 and various treatments that lead to C depletion. This included induction of genes that are involved in catabolism, repression of genes that are involved in biosynthesis and cellular growth, and responses of several genes (e.g. TPS8–TPS11, APG8e, bZIP1), which we highlighted as possible upstream transcriptional components in the previous paragraph. Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) identified >1,000 genes whose expression is increased or decreased by constitutive overexpression of AKIN10. When we analyzed the responses of their transcripts in our dataset, we found that many started to respond during the normal night or early in the extended night. This provides strong evidence that AKIN10 is involved in the orchestration of acclimatory changes in gene expression in response to small changes in C status. Intriguingly, some of the genes that are downstream of AKIN10 show changes in their transcripts early in the night, whereas others do not respond until after the start of the extended night. This implies that additional factors are modulating the downstream output. Interaction with Light The response of gene expression to light is strongly attenuated during the 24-h light/dark cycle. This is seen regardless of whether the test set contains genes that respond to light after illumination of dark-grown seedlings or genes that respond when plants that have grown in a light/dark cycle are illuminated at 50 ppm [CO2] for 4 h at the start of the day. Strikingly, many light-regulated genes do show marked changes in an extended night, some in the first hours, and others after 1 to 2 d (Fig. 10 Kim and von Arnim (2006) reported changes of transcript levels for approximately 800 genes after transferring seedlings growing in continuous light on 1% Suc to the dark for 1 to 8 h. This contrasts with our study, where plants were grown in a light/dark cycle, and most light-regulated genes did not respond strongly until the dark treatment was extended beyond the end of the normal night. This indicates that light signaling is desensitized to changes of light during the diurnal light/dark cycle. The response of light-regulated genes is reasonably well predicted by our model. Qualitative inspection of the overlap with the clock output pathways and C signaling could contribute to the damped response of light-repressed genes. Further, it is known that, although ELF3 is required for circadian regulation of CAB expression in constant light, it also attenuates gating of the acute response of CAB expression to light (McWaters et al., 2000; Schultz and Kay, 2003). It is possible that ELF3 attenuates a wider set of the light-induced changes in expression during the diurnal cycle. ELF3 interacts with PHYB, indicating a mechanistic model that is consistent with it affecting a large sector of the light-signaling response (Schultz and Kay, 2003). Interaction with the Clock There is marked interaction between the clock and C responses (Table III; Figs. 7–9 In the first hours of an extended night, the clock and C signaling act in the same direction, increasing transcripts for C-repressed genes and decreasing transcripts for C-induced genes. This may sensitize these genes to changes in the C status during the dark-light transition and early in the day. Examples where it leads to a particularly strong increase of the transcript levels in the first hours of the extended night include TPS8 to TPS11 (see above), three genes involved in protein synthesis or degradation: EF-α-subunit 1, AtNUCL1, and ATG8e and two bZIP transcription factors. AtNUC-L1 plays a key role in nucleolus organization and rRNA synthesis (Pontvianne et al., 2007; Kojima et al., 2007) and EF-α-subunit 1β could contribute to the regulation of translation, whereas APG8e plays a key role in the regulation of autophagy (Doelling et al., 2002; Downes and Vierstra, 2005). Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) provided evidence that at least some of the responses to AKIN10 are mediated by bZIP transcription factors. All four bZIP members identified in their study show different responses in the diurnal cycle and perturbations of it, which are predicted by our model. Their varying responses are at least partly due to the differences in the direction and strength of their response to C and its interaction with the clock. A contrasting type of interaction between the clock and C is seen for PHS1, ISA3, DPE1, PHS2, DPE2, GWD, PWD, and SEX4, which are involved in starch degradation (Zeeman et al., 2007a, 2007b). Their transcripts rise during the subjective light period in a free-running cycle. Most of these genes are induced by light and/or C. In agreement, the circadian response is retained almost unaltered during a light/dark cycle. However, this increase is weakened or abolished early in an extended night when the clock is antagonized by falling C or darkness. This provides a potential mechanism to decrease the rate of starch breakdown when C is in short supply in the light period, although the impact will depend upon the speed and extent to which the encoded proteins change. Modeling Global Transcriptional Responses The global response of transcripts during diurnal cycles and an extended night are generated by a complex interplay between the clock, C, light, and many other inputs. The main features of this complex multifactorial response can nevertheless be predicted by a simple linear model. The input data are experimental datasets that provide empirical values for the response of >22K genes to the clock in a free-running cycle and to changes of C or light. The model searches for the best fit to the measured data, allowing the relative importance of the three inputs to vary independently of each other at each time point. This simple linear model allowed good qualitative prediction of the response of >22K genes during the diurnal cycle and extended night in Col-0 and a diurnal cycle in pgm, and also allowed qualitative modeling of the responses of 23 of 24 individual candidates that were chosen because they are subject to interactive regulation by the clock, light, and C. Crucially, the weightings the model selected for C and light varied in a biologically meaningful manner. Light was given a stronger and negative weighting in the dark, especially the extended night, than in the light. For C, the weighting chosen by the model correlated remarkably well with the rosette sugar content. This model provided a good qualitative prediction of the global responses of C and light-regulated genes. It also accurately predicted the responses of the genes that we have highlighted as potential upstream components in the transcriptional response to small changes of sugar (see above), including bZIP transcription factors that interact with AKIN10 and also accurately predicted the responses of >1,000 genes, which Baena-Gonzalez et al. (2007) identified as being regulated by AKIN10. Taken together, this provides good evidence that C, light, and the clock play a prominent role in regulating global gene expression in these complex physiological situations. The agreement is remarkable because the model has several limitations. First, the input datasets have obvious limitations. For example, the input set for the clock is derived from seedlings growing on 3% Suc (Edwards et al., 2006), whereas our dataset was for 5-week-old plants on soil. The general applicability is nevertheless shown by the similar absolute levels and responses of individual genes, including central clock components and strongly clock-regulated genes in starch degradation (Figs. 7–9 In conclusion, global transcript profiling reveals major changes in C signaling during the night and the first hours of the extended night before acute C depletion develops. As a result, transcripts decrease for genes involved in biosynthesis and cellular growth and increase for genes involved in the remobilization of alternative C sources. Different groups of genes respond at different times during this transition, indicating that progressive changes in C status trigger a sequence of responses. These responses can be modeled by a simple linear model, which captures interactions between C, light, and the clock. Plants possess many different mechanisms to sense changes in sugars and other C sources (Koch, 2004; Gibson, 2005; Rolland et al., 2006; Smith and Stitt, 2007; Stitt et al., 2007). By identifying sets of genes that respond at different speeds and times during C depletion, our extended dataset and model will aid the analysis of specific candidates for C signaling, as illustrated here for AKIN10/bZIP proteins, a set of genes in trehalose signaling, genes controlling protein turnover, and genes involved in starch breakdown. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant Growth For the extended night experiments, Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) ecotype Col-0 was grown on soil in a 14-h light/10-h dark day/night cycle at a light intensity of 130 μmol/m2 s, as in Thimm et al. (2004). Plants were harvested in the vegetative state with three rosettes per sample and typically at least five replicate samples. Rosettes were transferred into liquid N under ambient growth irradiance or darkness. Data for responses during diurnal cycles were obtained from Col-0 and the pgm mutant (in a Col-0 background) grown on soil in the same conditions, except that a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle was used (Bläsing et al., 2005). Reagents Chemicals were purchased from Sigma, except NADH (Roche). Enzymes for analysis were purchased from Roche, except invertase (Sigma) and UMP kinase, which was overexpressed in Escherichia coli and purified as in Serina et al. (1995). Extraction and Assay of Metabolites Suc, Glc, and Fru were determined in ethanol extracts as described in Geigenberger et al. (1996), starch was determined as in Hendriks et al. (2003), and Glc-6-P as in Gibon et al. (2002). Assays were prepared in 96-well microplates using a Multiprobe II pipetting robot (Perkin-Elmer). The absorbances were red at 340 nm or at 570 nm in a Synergy or an ELX-800-UV microplate reader (Bio-Tek). Mass spectrometry-based metabolite profiling was performed as in Gibon et al. (2006) and Osuna et al. (2007). RNA Isolation and Expression Analysis with 22K Affymetrix Arrays Isolation of total RNA, cDNA synthesis, cRNA labeling, and the hybridization on the GeneChip Arabidopsis ATH1 genome array was done exactly as described by Thimm et al. (2004) and as recommended by the manufacturer (part no. 900385; Affymetrix UK Ltd.) packages in R (R Development Core Team, 2006) were used. In brief, RMA expression measures (Bolstad et al., 2003) were calculated on all arrays used and a linear model was fitted to the data using the limma package. Afterward, contrasts of interest were extracted and P values were corrected first across genes and then across contrasts. All R code is available upon request. Microarray data have been deposited with the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus data repository (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo) under accession number GSE10016 and data can be inspected at http://mapman.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/supplement/xn. Statistical Methods All calculations were performed in R (R Development Core Team, 2006). PCA was performed using the prcomp procedure and K-means clustering of genes was performed using the Hartigan and Wong (1979) algorithm on the normalized (logged) RMA expression measures produced as described above. To cluster experiments, complete linkage hierarchical clustering was performed on the RMA-normalized values, using one minus the correlation between two experiments as the distance measure. Normalization of the Test and Input Datasets After obtaining RMA expression values, these were converted into response ratios as follows. For all data points from diurnal cycles of wild type and the pgm mutant, the RMA values at the end of the night of the wild type was subtracted. Thus, by definition, the wild-type response at the end of the night is zero for all genes. For the circadian cycle data, for each individual time point, the average of the RMA expression values at the time points 46 and 50 was subtracted because the end of the night would be at the 48-h time point. For the response to sugar, plants grown at ambient or compensation point [CO2] were sampled and the values subtracted from each other. For the response to light, from values of plants that experienced an extended night for 4 h at compensation point [CO2], the RMA measures at plants 4 h in the light at compensation point [CO2] were subtracted (see Bläsing et al., 2005). To obtain values from an independent sample, seedlings grown in tissue culture were subjected to sugar starvation and were sampled before and during sugar starvation as well as after 0.5 and 3 h of sugar readdition. For all samples, the RMA measures at sugar starvation were subtracted. As a further independent dataset for the response to light, the AtGenExpress light treatment was taken, where 7-d-old etiolated seedlings were either left further in the dark or illuminated for 4 h with weak white light. Here, the dark RMA expression measures were subtracted from the respective light values. Modeling Modeling was performed by fitting a different linear model to each time point in the diurnal sets for the wild-type and the pgm mutant as well as for time points in the extended night. For each individual time point and treatment, we tried to explain the response by a combination of the response of the circadian cycle plus sugar plus light. Thus, the model can be formulated as follows: The factors describing the influence of sugar at a given time t (f3,t) were regressed against the logarithm of the sugar level, normed to sugar level at the respective end of the night. However, when comparing the importance of different inputs, it should be noted that given the difference variance in the input datasets (ranging from lower variance in circadian cycle time points close to the end of the night through medium variance in the circadian time points close to the middle of the day to high variance in the sugar input), the model might artificially scale small variance by a higher factor. Supplemental Data The following materials are available in the online version of this article.
[Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Florian Wagner at the RZPD Company (Berlin) for carrying out the microarray hybridizations. Notes 1This work was supported by the Max Planck Society, the Bildungsministerium für Bildung und Forschung-funded Genomanalyse im biologischen System Pflanze project Arabidopsis III Gauntlets, Carbon and Nutrient Signaling: Test Systems and Metabolite and Transcript Profiles (grant no. 0312277A), and the AGRON-OMICS project within the sixth framework program of the European Union. The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Björn Usadel (usadel/at/mpimp-golm.mpg.de). [W]The online version of this article contains Web-only data. [OA]Open Access articles can be viewed online without a subscription. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J Exp Bot. 2001 Jul; 52(360):1383-400.
[J Exp Bot. 2001]Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep; 30(9):1126-49.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Physiol. 1985 Sep; 79(1):11-17.
[Plant Physiol. 1985]Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep; 30(9):1126-49.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2007]Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1997 Jun; 48():67-87.
[Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1997]Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005; 56():73-98.
[Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005]Plant Physiol. 1985 Sep; 79(1):11-17.
[Plant Physiol. 1985]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Aug; 86(15):5830-5833.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989]Plant Physiol. 1985 Aug; 78(4):753-757.
[Plant Physiol. 1985]Planta. 1998 Dec; 207(1):27-41.
[Planta. 1998]Plant Physiol. 2004 Sep; 136(1):2687-99.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Biochim Biophys Acta. 1978 Nov 15; 544(1):200-14.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 1978]Plant Physiol. 1979 Nov; 64(5):749-753.
[Plant Physiol. 1979]Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep; 30(9):1126-49.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2007]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Physiol. 1999 Nov; 121(3):687-93.
[Plant Physiol. 1999]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Jun; 7(3):235-46.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005 Feb; 8(1):93-102.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2004 Aug; 135(4):2330-47.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Aug; 16(8):2128-50.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(8):R76.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Planta. 2000 Oct; 211(5):743-51.
[Planta. 2000]Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1996 Jun; 47():569-593.
[Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1996]Plant J. 1998 Nov; 16(3):345-53.
[Plant J. 1998]Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22; 19(2):185-93.
[Bioinformatics. 2003]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Dec 18; 7():535.
[BMC Bioinformatics. 2006]Plant J. 2004 Mar; 37(6):914-39.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Physiol. 2005 Jul; 138(3):1195-204.
[Plant Physiol. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 1; 20(1):5-20.
[Bioinformatics. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Biochem J. 2006 Jul 1; 397(1):15-24.
[Biochem J. 2006]Plant J. 2007 Mar; 49(6):1053-63.
[Plant J. 2007]Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Feb; 18(2):369-79.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2007]J Biol Chem. 2002 Sep 6; 277(36):33105-14.
[J Biol Chem. 2002]Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005; 56():73-98.
[Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005]Biochem J. 2007 Jan 1; 401(1):13-28.
[Biochem J. 2007]Science. 2000 Dec 15; 290(5499):2110-3.
[Science. 2000]Plant Physiol. 2005 Aug; 138(4):2280-91.
[Plant Physiol. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2004 Sep; 136(1):2687-99.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]PLoS One. 2007 Aug 1; 2(7):e676.
[PLoS One. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep; 30(9):1126-49.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2007]Plant J. 2004 Sep; 39(6):847-62.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Physiol. 1991 Jun; 96(2):619-626.
[Plant Physiol. 1991]Biochem J. 1993 Nov 15; 296 ( Pt 1)():199-207.
[Biochem J. 1993]J Cell Biol. 1996 Jun; 133(6):1251-63.
[J Cell Biol. 1996]Plant Physiol. 2006 Dec; 142(4):1574-88.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2004 Aug; 135(4):2330-47.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Aug; 16(8):2128-50.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Plant J. 2004 Mar; 37(6):914-39.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Dec; 16(12):3304-25.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(8):R76.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Plant Physiol. 2005 Nov; 139(3):1313-22.
[Plant Physiol. 2005]Plant Cell. 2004 Aug; 16(8):2128-50.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 27; 100(11):6849-54.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 2; 102(31):11118-23.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Biochem J. 2006 Jul 1; 397(1):139-48.
[Biochem J. 2006]Trends Plant Sci. 2001 Nov; 6(11):510-3.
[Trends Plant Sci. 2001]Plant Physiol. 2008 Jan; 146(1):97-107.
[Plant Physiol. 2008]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Plant Mol Biol. 2006 Feb; 60(3):321-42.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2006]Nature. 2000 Dec 7; 408(6813):716-20.
[Nature. 2000]Science. 2003 Jul 18; 301(5631):326-8.
[Science. 2003]Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Feb; 18(2):369-79.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2007]Plant J. 2007 Mar; 49(6):1053-63.
[Plant J. 2007]J Biol Chem. 2002 Sep 6; 277(36):33105-14.
[J Biol Chem. 2002]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Biochem J. 2007 Jan 1; 401(1):13-28.
[Biochem J. 2007]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Jun; 7(3):235-46.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005 Feb; 8(1):93-102.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005]Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep; 30(9):1126-49.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2007]Plant J. 2004 Mar; 37(6):914-39.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Biochemistry. 1995 Apr 18; 34(15):5066-74.
[Biochemistry. 1995]Plant Physiol. 2003 Oct; 133(2):838-49.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Plant J. 2002 Apr; 30(2):221-35.
[Plant J. 2002]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(8):R76.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Plant J. 2007 Feb; 49(3):463-91.
[Plant J. 2007]Plant J. 2004 Mar; 37(6):914-39.
[Plant J. 2004]Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22; 19(2):185-93.
[Bioinformatics. 2003]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2006 Mar; 18(3):639-50.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Plant Cell. 2005 Dec; 17(12):3257-81.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]Nature. 2007 Aug 23; 448(7156):938-42.
[Nature. 2007]