![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org Cytological Investigations of the Arabidopsis thaliana elo1 Mutant Give New Insights into Leaf Lateral Growth and Elongator Function 1Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Ecologia, Via ponte P. Bucci, Cubo 6B, I-87036, Arcavacata di Rende, CS, Italia 2Department of Plant Systems Biology, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), Ghent University, Technologiepark 927, B-9052 Gent, Belgium 3ACPFG – Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia *For correspondence. E-mail andrea.falcone/at/unical.it Received November 15, 2006; Revisions requested January 30, 2007; Accepted April 11, 2007. Abstract Background and Aims Leaf growth is a complex developmental process controlled by genetic and environmental factors and is determined by a proliferation, expansion and maturation phase. Mutational analysis in Arabidopsis thaliana showed that leaf size and shape is dependent on cell division and cell expansion activity. An investigation was made at the cytophysiological and ultrastructural level of the elo1 mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana, which is defective in one of the components of the histone acetyl transferase Elongator complex and displays a distinct ‘narrow leaves’ phenotype, owing to a reduced cell number and no transition between petiole and lamina. Relative expression levels of three sucrose metabolism/transport-related genes were also investigated. The aim was to determine the physiological basis of leaf morphology in this mutant, by investigating the modulatory role of sucrose. Methods The elo1 mutant was taken as representative of all the elo mutations and investigated at cytophysiological level. A germination test and growth assays were performed on seedlings grown for 21 d at different sucrose concentrations. Leaf morphometric and ultrastructural features were also investigated by image analysis and electron microscopy, respectively. Finally, a quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis was performed with three sucrose metabolism/transport-related genes that were investigated under different sucrose concentrations. Key Results elo1 plants at high sucrose concentrations exhibited an enhancement of germination and inhibition of leaf growth as compared with wild-type plants. qPCR experiments with three sucrose metabolism/transport-related genes showed an interaction between sucrose availability and the elo1 mutation. Furthermore, electron microscopy analysis provided the first ultrastructural description of an elo mutant, which showed a hypotonic vacuole, alterations in the size of grana and starch grains in the chloroplasts, and the massive presence of Golgi vesicles in the cytoplasm. Conclusions Based on the results obtained it is proposed that mechanisms producing carbon assimilates or importing sucrose could be affected in elo1 plants and could account for the observed differences, implying a role for Elongator in the regulation of these processes. Key words: Elongator complex, elo1, leaf development, germination, cell division, cell expansion, morphometric analysis, electron microscopy, qPCR, Arabidopsis thaliana, sucrose INTRODUCTION Leaf morphogenesis is a complex developmental process, and is controlled by genetic and environmental factors. It ultimately produces a functional photosynthetic organ that is able to capture light, produce carbon metabolites, exchange gasses, and transpire water for plant cooling and circulation (Pozzi et al., 2001; Tsukaya, 2002, 2005; Micol and Hake, 2003; Kessler and Sinha, 2004; Fleming, 2005). Leaf growth is determined by cell division and expansion. According to the ‘neo cell theory’ (Tsukaya, 2005), the size and shape of leaves is secondarily affected by the size and shape of each leaf cell, which is considered the unit of all tissues and organs. Both final cell number and cell polarity have a genetic basis, thus controlling tissue organization and, finally, leaf shape. Indeed, the manipulation of cell cycle or cell-wall extensibility resulted in different leaf shapes (Fleming, 2002). Peculiarly, in plant leaf an inter-reliant cellular compensatory mechanism can deliver the same morphological output in different ways: for instance, a specific lamina width can be achieved with many small palisade cells or vice versa with a smaller number of large palisade cells. However, this so-called compensation mechanism does not always occur. Furthermore, environmental variables, such as light, temperature and nutrients, play a modulatory role and can modify an established morphogenetic programme (Van Volkenburgh, 1999). In this context, an important role is played by sucrose, which is an important metabolite for plant growth, tissue differentiation and maturation. Namely, its import and cleavage, via invertases and sucrose synthases, into signal hexoses (glucose, fructose, UDP-glucose) is known to act at the cellular level, controlling cell division and expansion (Weber et al., 1997; Sturm, 1999; Lemoine, 2000; Weschke et al., 2003; Koch, 2004; Roitsch and González, 2004). In the present work, a ‘narrow leaf’ elo1 mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana, which displays a slim lamina (Fig. 1
In yeast, the holo-Elongator complex, which contains histone acetyltransferase (HAT) activity (Winkler et al., 2002), consists of two subcomplexes: ELP1, ELP2 and ELP3 (HAT) that compose the core-Elongator and ELP4, ELP5 and ELP6 that constitute the accessory subcomplex. The ELP genes are the homologues of the Toxin Target (TOT) genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that, upon mutation, slowly adapt growth to changing conditions and resistance to the zymocin toxin (Fig. 1 The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of different sucrose concentrations on seed germination, leaf growth and morphogenesis of the elo1 mutant. In addition, the level of expression of three sucrose metabolism/transport-related genes was also evaluated. The elo1 mutation is shown here to affect the sucrose metabolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant material and in vitro growth conditions Seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. ecotype Landsberg erecta (Ler) and elongata1 (elo1) have been described previously (Nelissen et al., 2003, 2005). Seed stocks from both Ler and elo1 were harvested at the same time and stored in the same conditions in order to avoid differences in seed germination and in vitro growth. For standard growth conditions, seeds were strongly sterilized by incubation for 2 min in 100 % ethanol and for 12 min in 1·75 % hypochlorite solution (NaClO). Thereafter, seeds were germinated on plates with germination medium (GM) at 1 % sucrose (Valvekens et al., 1988) and 0·7 % plant cell culture agar (Sigma-Aldrich). Plates were kept for 3 d overnight at 4 °C for seed vernalization prior to be transferred to the germination chamber, where plants were grown under sterile conditions under a 16-h light/8-h dark regime at 22 °C, with light intensity of 150 µmol m−2 s−1 and 60 % relative humidity. Plant age was estimated after completion of the 3-d vernalization period and the first day of the plant corresponds to 1 d after vernalization (DAV). Different growth conditions were tested as described below. Germination analysis Germination tests performed under standard growth conditions were used as control. Different sterilization (water, 100 % ethanol, 7, 5·25, 3·5 % sodium hypochlorite solution) and nutrient (0–3 % sucrose concentration) conditions were independently tested. Three replicates were performed; for each replica, n > 50 seeds were germinated for each sample. Morphological analysis Analysis was performed on first and third expanded leaves of 24-d-old (21 DAV) Ler and elo1 plantlets, grown under standard conditions on GM, supplemented with three different sucrose concentrations (0·5, 1 or 2 %). Entire leaves were excised at the basis of the petiole, mounted onto a microscope slide, put on a millimetre paper and photographed with a fixed 6·3-megapixel Finepix S7000 digital camera (Fuji). Image analysis was performed with the ImageJ 1·032j software (Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) after pixel/mm conversion. Four parameters were measured: lamina length, width and area, and petiole length. Three different replicas were made and n > 10 leaves were utilized for each sample. Histological analysis Analysis was performed on first and third fully expanded leaves of 24-d-old (21 DAV) Ler and elo1 seedlings, grown under standard conditions on GM, supplemented with three different sucrose concentrations (0·5, 1 or 2 %). From each collected leaf a median sector was excised under a stereomicroscope and immediately fixed either in 4 % paraformaldeyde overnight or in a 3 % glutaraldehyde/0·5 % paraformaldehyde/phosphate-buffered saline solution at 4 °C, for 3 h. After dehydration, samples were embedded in Tecnovit 8100 resin and cross-sectioned at 4 µm with an RM 2155 Microtome (Leica); other samples were embedded in paraplast embedding media (Sigma-Aldrich) and cross-sectioned at 10 µm. Sections were stained for 10 min with either toluidine blue (0·05 % in 0·1 m phosphate buffer, pH 6·7) or periodic acid Schiff (PAS) and mounted with Canada balsam. Screen shots of transverse sections were consecutively acquired with a DMRB Microscope (Leica) and the IM50 software under a 200 × magnification (Leica). Palisade cell number (PCN) (Cnops et al., 2004) and palisade cell/gap number (PCGN) were estimated on the three widest sections of each leaf. PCGN analysis takes into account gaps present in the palisade layer. One gap corresponds to one ‘virtual’ palisade cell with the same mean area of the two cells that are adjacent to the gap. PCGN analysis was necessary in the case of elo1 mutants, characterized by high number of gaps in the palisade layer (>5 %), in order to obtain a more significant correlation with lamina width. Stomatal chambers were not taken into account. The screen shots of the transverse sections were merged together with the ‘photomerge’ function (Adobe Photoshop CS2) and cell area measurements on digital images were made with the freely available IMAGEJ software, after pixel/μm conversion. Three different replicas were done and n > 20 leaves were taken for each sample. Cell area analysis (n > 600 for each sample) was performed on the same sections. In addition, cell area was also measured from the adaxial side through differential interference contrast optics. Cleared first leaves were used to measure the cell area from the adaxial side. The cells seen under the microscope were digitalized and analysed with the IMAGEJ software, after pixel/μm conversion. Other parameters, such as cell length (along the proximal–distal axis of the leaf) and width (along the lateral axis of the leaf), were measured on the same pictures. Electron microscopy Analysis was performed on first and third fully expanded leaves of 24-d-old (21 DAV) Ler and elo1 seedlings, grown under standard conditions on GM, supplemented with three different sucrose concentrations (0·5, 1 or 2 %). Slices (n > 5 for each sample) were fixed overnight at 4 °C in 3 % glutaraldehyde in 0·1 m cacodylate buffer (pH 6·9) and post-fixed for 2 h in 15 % osmium tetroxide in the same buffer and at the same temperature. Specimens were dehydrated in a graded series of ethyl alcohol and propylene oxide solutions and embedded in araldite. Staining with uranyl acetate was carried out while dehydrating with 75 % alcohol. Ultrathin sections (0·06 µm) were cut with an Ultracut UCT (Leica), stained with lead citrate and observed with a transmission electron microscope (EM900; Zeiss) operating at 50 kV. qPCR For the quantitative PCR (qPCR) experiment, plants were grown for 15 d on medium containing 0·5, 1 or 2 % sucrose. RNA was extracted from the first two leaves (RNeasy, Qiagen Benelux B.V, The Netherlands). The analysed genes were sucrose synthase (At4g02280), sucrose transporter (At1g71890), sugar transporter (At5g18840) and actin (At3g60830). The primers were designed using the Beacon designer 4 program (Premier BioSoft International). The qPCR was performed on the LightCycler TM 480 (Roche). Data points in the exponential phase of the qPCR were linearly interpolated after log correction (0·5) with a perl script using the Statistics::Regression module. This script is available from the authors upon request. The actin gene was found to be stable in all samples by using the GeNorm program (Vandesompele et al., 2002) and was used to normalize the data in Qbase (Hellemans et al., 2007) taking into account the efficiencies of the PCR reactions, calculated by log-linear regression. Statistical analysis For morphometric analyses all data were evaluated statistically with the SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 11·0·0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). In order to verify whether the distribution was normal or left/right skewed, a ‘descriptive statistics’ was performed. In the case of a skewed distribution, a logarithmic transformation (lnX) of the data was applied, thus transforming it into a normal distribution. Thereafter, a Student's t-test between two sets of data was perfromed to obtain a significance value P of the mean differences. In our case the null hypothesis (H0) of ‘equality of means’ was rejected if P = 0·05. For qPCR the experimental design comprised two biological replicates and the measurement was run four times. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the qPCR data that were normalized with the actin gene using the SPSS software. The ANOVA model was a three-factor model with runs as random factor and genotype and medium as fixed factor and with medium × genotype interaction. The equality of variance error was controlled by Levene's test (P > 0·05). RESULTS Under sucrose depletion elo1 seed germination is more efficient In order to assess the best sterilization conditions, different solutions were tested. As expected, washing and only ethanol sterilization were ineffective in avoiding contamination for both elo1 and Ler seeds. By contrast, 14 min treatment with NaClO solutions suppressed any contamination whatever concentration was applied. Surprisingly, after treatment with 7 % NaClO solution, seed germination was completely inhibited for Ler seeds (0 %) and drastically reduced for elo1 seeds (<10 % germination) (Fig. 2
Thereafter, the nutrient test was performed by using the lowest NaClO concentration for sterilization and using sucrose concentration ranging from 0 to 3 % (Fig. 2 Sucrose-dependent differences in growth stage exist between elo1 and Ler plants Growth stage-based analysis (Boyes et al., 2001) of Ler and elo1 plants (Table 1) cultured for 24 d under standard in vitro conditions on GM supplied with different sucrose concentrations (0·5, 1 and 2 %) was undertaken. Seeds were synchronized by means of a 3-DAV period, but radicle appearance and cotyledon emergence from the seed coat were not synchronized (data not shown). However, 7 DAV, both wild-type and mutant plantlets reached stage 1·00 (Boyes et al., 2001), with the two cotyledons fully open. Thereafter, plant growth proceeded dissimilarly between mutants and wild-types. At 12 DAV, sucrose starvation (0·5 %) had clearly a macroscopic and visible effect on elo1 plants, which displayed a one-leaf delay as compared with those grown under standard conditions (1 % sucrose) and in sucrose abundance (2 %). Namely, the former exhibited only three rosette leaves larger than 1 mm (stage 1·03), while the latter two were able to produce four rosette leaves larger than 1 mm (stage 1·04). This delay was maintained until 21 DAV where stages 1·05 and 1·06 were reached, respectively. No visible differences were induced by sucrose treatment in Ler plants until 15 DAV. From this point onward, sucrose abundance transiently accelerated leaf emergence (stage 1·07) compared with standard conditions (stage 1·06). More precisely, at 21 DAV, Ler plants grown under standard conditions and in sucrose abundance reached the same stage (stage 1·07, with seven rosette leaves larger than 1 mm), because of a faster growth under standard conditions than under sucrose abundance. In addition, at 18 DAV, Ler plants cultured either under sucrose starvation or standard conditions displayed no growth differences and the one-leaf delay was observed only at 21 DAV.
Taken together, these observations showed that elo1 plants had a final one-stage retardation compared with Ler plants grown under the same nutrient conditions, but also that growth dynamics of wild-type and mutant plants are differentially driven by sucrose availability. Namely, sucrose abundance had no effect on elo1 plants and early effects of sucrose starvation were observed in elo1 plants with respect to wild-type, in such a way that the delay in leaf emergence was anticipated. Under different sucrose concentrations Ler and elo1 leaves exhibit opposite lamina growth dynamics Fully expanded leaves can be considered as standardized material in which cell size and cell number are representative of total cell expansion and cell division contributing to final leaf size (Cnops et al., 2004). Leaf morphometric parameters were measured of the fully expanded first and third leaves of 21 DAV plants grown on media supplemented with 0·5, 1 and 2 % sucrose. Four parameters were taken into account: petiole length, and lamina length, width and area (Fig. 3
The data showed that, with the exception of the first leaf at 0·5 % sucrose concentration, elo1 leaves were always significantly narrower than Ler leaves (Fig. 3 PC(G)N analyses show different cell division number at increasing sucrose concentrations In order to investigate whether sucrose treatments induced variations in lamina width by cell division number, the numbers of cells and gaps were evaluated in the palisade layer, PC(G)N, of leaf mesophyll. The analysis was performed on transverse sections of fully expanded first and third leaves of Ler and elo1 plants grown for 21 DAV on media supplemented with 0·5, 1 and 2 % sucrose (Fig. 4
Mutants had a significantly reduced PCN compared with Ler plants, while PCGN was reduced under almost all sucrose conditions, with the exception of first leaves in sucrose starvation and abundance. As expected, PCN increased for Ler first leaves from 0·5 to 1 % sucrose and for Ler third leaves from 1 to 2 %. These results are consistent with a clear effect of sucrose concentrations on cell division (Wobus and Weber, 1999). On the other hand, PCGN values showed that the reduction of cell number was accompanied by the presence of several gaps (Fig. 4 Sucrose concentrations differentially affected cell expansion in elo1 and wild-type plants In order to gain a complete overview of lamina growth, the area of palisade cells was evaluated on paradermal and transverse leaf sections (Fig. 5
Cell dimensions were also measured along the two main axes of the leaf, the proximal–distal x-axis and the lateral y-axis. No significant polarity was found in cell growth along these two axes (data not shown) and such conditions were not affected by sucrose concentration. The palisade cell area was also estimated on transverse sections. Surprisingly, compared with controls grown under different sucrose concentrations, mutants exhibited an overall reduced cell area (Fig. 5 These results suggest clearly that cell expansion along the dorsal–ventral axis (z-axis) is affected in mutants and that an opposite behaviour is active in elo1 and Ler plants, in a sucrose-dependent manner. Finally, in the elo1 mutant, sucrose starvation induced cells to become smaller along the z-axis and larger in the xy lamina, thus showing the establishment of a compensatory polarity in cell growth. elo1 plants have less stacked grana, a hypotonic vacuole and an active exocytosis Transmission electron microscopy was carried out on ultrathin sections of Ler and elo1 first leaves harvested at 21 DAV (Fig. 6
Comparing wild-type and mutant plants grown under standard conditions (1 % sucrose), it was evident that chloroplasts were well differentiated in Ler (Fig. 6 qPCR shows differential expression of sucrose-related genes in elo1 mutant The expression of three genes, sucrose synthase (At4g02280), sucrose transporter (At1g71890) and sugar transporter (At5g18840), with a function in sucrose metabolism was analysed by qPCR in Ler and elo1 seedlings grown for 15 d on medium containing 0·5, 1 and 2 % sucrose concentration. A three-factor ANOVA analysis was performed (Table 2) and showed that the expression of the sucrose transporter and sugar transporter were dependent on the elo1 genotype (P < 0·032 and P < 0·001, respectively), implying that the mutation alters their gene expression significantly. The sucrose transporter gene expression was upregulated in elo1 at all sucrose concentrations (Fig. 7
DISCUSSION In the present work, a clear relationship between leaf development, growth conditions and Elongator function has been detected by investigating growth responses and specific gene expression, under different nutrient conditions, in both wild-type and an arabidopsis ‘narrow leaves’ mutant (elo1), belonging to the elongata class (Berná et al., 1999), which has a mutation in one of the components of the histone acetyl transferase Elongator complex. Leaf morphology is the result of endogenous and exogenous factors (Tsukaya, 2005), which act in a co-ordinated manner to optimize leaf functions (Van Volkenburgh, 1999). Favourable environmental conditions, ranging from nutrient availability to physical and biotic factors, and active sensing mechanisms working in the plants can co-operatively enhance leaf growth, which is achieved through cell division initially, but prominently through cell expansion thereafter (Dale, 1988; Beemster et al., 2005). The ‘narrow leaves’ phenotype of the Arabidopsis elo1 mutant is mainly the result of, at the cytological level, a reduced number of palisade cells (Nelissen et al., 2003, 2005) that also show an altered pattern of cell expansion. During leaf growth cell division and cell expansion may spatially and temporally overlap and, normally, both events are tightly related to carbohydrate availability. Of relevance here is the role played by sucrose (Wobus and Weber, 1999; Paul and Pellny, 2003; Gibson, 2004; Koch, 2004). It has been widely demonstrated that sucrose depletion or abundance triggers enormous metabolic changes in order to reach a new equilibrium in nutrient balance and that sucrose plays important roles in gene expression, metabolic pathways and, ultimately, plant growth and differentiation (Koch, 1996, 2004; Li et al., 2001; Paul and Pellny, 2003; Nielsen et al., 2004; Loreti et al., 2005). For instance, glucose and fructose, which originate from sucrose cleavage, are able to modulate gene expression by inducing/repressing so-called ‘famine’ and ‘feast’ genes (Koch, 1996). In this context, it has been shown that under hexose depletion, genes involved in photosynthesis and nutrient mobilization are up-regulated in ‘source’ cells, while genes involved in storage and utilization are inhibited. By contrast, under hexose abundance, storage and utilization genes are up-regulated, to keep apart nutrients as much as possible and release energy for optimum metabolic processes (Van Volkenburgh, 1999; Roitsch and González, 2004). Using several cytological approaches, it was shown here that changes in the sucrose concentrations of the growth medium differentially affected both germination and growth in elo1 seeds and plantlets as compared with the wild-type. In addition, growth stage-based analysis revealed that no sucrose effects were evident during the first week after vernalization, thus suggesting a late stage-specific action mechanism of sucrose. Furthermore, sucrose-dependent differences between the two samples also characterized leaf morphology. Indeed, even if strong sucrose abundance (>3 %) or sucrose depletion (0 %) greatly inhibited or limited general plant growth, under different sucrose concentrations lamina growth showed opposite patterns in the two phenotypes: increasing the sucrose concentration from 0·5 to 2 % narrowed leaf lamina in elo1 mutants as compared with under standard conditions; by contrast, in wild-type lamina, growth was enhanced by increasing sucrose concentrations, mainly as a consequence of an increased cell area. Thus, it was assessed that in elo1 mutants increasing sucrose concentrations inhibited faster general growth and especially leaf expansion than in wild-type plants. A second peculiar aspect of the results dealt with the inhibitory action of high sucrose concentrations on cell expansion in elo1 mutants. According to literature data (Nelissen et al., 2003, 2005), under standard conditions the reduction of palisade cell number in elo1 first leaf was accompanied by numerous cell gaps. However, owing to a partial compensatory mechanism, the paradermal area of these cells was larger than in the wild-type. High sucrose concentrations strongly affected cell division, resulting in an even more reduced cell number in both phenotypes, but a compensatory mechanism, leading to an enhancement of cell expansion, was active only in the wild-type. Namely, elo1 cells reduced and Ler cells increased their paradermal cell area, respectively. In addition, whatever sucrose concentrations were tested, dorsal–ventral expansion of palisade cells was reduced, thus showing that in elo1 mutants cell expansion is polarly affected. Together, these different sucrose-related effects on elo1 and wild-type plants clearly indicate that sucrose and Elongator activity are mutually related to seed germination and plant growth. In this context, it is worth noting that the qPCR analysis for three sucrose metabolism/transport- related genes indicated that the elo1 mutation has an effect on their gene expression. In particular, these results suggest that mechanisms that import sucrose and produce carbon assimilates are differentially regulated in elo1 plants as compared with the wild-type. On the basis of these results it is suggested that the higher germination rates and stress tolerance mechanisms to NaClO that were detected in the elo1 mutant are tightly related to the enhancement of specific metabolic pathways leading to sucrose accumulation and sugar reallocation, both necessary processes leading to radicle emergence (Gupta and Kaur, 2005; Aoki et al., 2006). The different expression of sucrose metabolism/transport- related genes in elo1 mutants could also shed light on the cytological and ultrastructural differences observed. Indeed, elo1 cells exhibited a hypotonic vacuole filled with a dense matrix, thus indicating an impairment of water influx, which in turn could account for the lack of cell expansion. In this context, it is suggested that, owing to the mutation in the At3g11220 gene, the elo1 mutant plants no longer sense sucrose as an active metabolite or osmotic product, even if cellular concentrations are elevated. On the other hand, other ultrastructural differences, relating to the size of grana and starch grains in the chloroplasts and the massive presence of Golgi vesicles in the cytoplasm, which have been detected between Ler and elo1 plants, are all related to sucrose accumulation, catabolism or export. Conversely, in wild-types, a functional Elongator is able to ‘sense’ intracellular sucrose levels and adjust transcription of genes involved in sucrose cleavage and hexose formation, which are known to favour cell division and are important for ATP formation, thus avoiding the establishment of inhibitory levels that may affect general growth. Further speculation may suggest a stage-specific action of Elongator at the critical germination–seedling growth switch, when photosynthesis becomes the main metabolic way that leads to sucrose formation. Elongator could ‘sense’ the intracellular energetic status and control important pathways, leading to sucrose synthesis or sucrose cleavage, thus adjusting intracellular respiratory ratios. In conclusion, the sucrose-sensing mechanism of elo1 plants has been shown to be not comparable with that of the wild-type. Based on the data presented, it is suggested that in elo1 mutants high sucrose concentration, due to enhanced import and reallocation, could account for the stimulation of germination and inhibition of leaf growth. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Drs Enrico Perrotta and Enza Tenzi for technical support. This project was funded by the European Union in the frame of the PREDEC project (HPMT-CT-2000 00088) and MIUR, Italy (ex 60 % grant). LITERATURE CITED
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2001 Oct; 12(5):363-72.
[Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2001]Int J Dev Biol. 2005; 49(5-6):547-55.
[Int J Dev Biol. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2003 Feb; 131(2):389-94.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Feb; 7(1):65-72.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005 Feb; 8(1):53-8.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2005]Plant Cell. 1997 Jun; 9(6):895-908.
[Plant Cell. 1997]Plant Physiol. 1999 Sep; 121(1):1-8.
[Plant Physiol. 1999]Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000 May 1; 1465(1-2):246-62.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000]Plant J. 2003 Jan; 33(2):395-411.
[Plant J. 2003]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Jun; 7(3):235-46.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Genetics. 1999 Jun; 152(2):729-42.
[Genetics. 1999]Mol Cell. 1999 Jan; 3(1):109-18.
[Mol Cell. 1999]J Biol Chem. 2000 Apr 28; 275(17):12896-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]EMBO J. 2001 Apr 17; 20(8):1993-2003.
[EMBO J. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(4):1095-105.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]Genetics. 1999 Jun; 152(2):729-42.
[Genetics. 1999]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24; 102(21):7754-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 19; 99(6):3517-22.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]EMBO J. 2001 Apr 17; 20(8):1993-2003.
[EMBO J. 2001]Plant Cell. 2003 Mar; 15(3):639-54.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24; 102(21):7754-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Plant Cell. 2003 Mar; 15(3):639-54.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24; 102(21):7754-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Aug; 85(15):5536-5540.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988]J Exp Bot. 2004 Jul; 55(402):1529-39.
[J Exp Bot. 2004]Genome Biol. 2007; 8(2):R19.
[Genome Biol. 2007]Plant Cell. 2001 Jul; 13(7):1499-510.
[Plant Cell. 2001]J Exp Bot. 2004 Jul; 55(402):1529-39.
[J Exp Bot. 2004]Biol Chem. 1999 Jul-Aug; 380(7-8):937-44.
[Biol Chem. 1999]Genetics. 1999 Jun; 152(2):729-42.
[Genetics. 1999]Int J Dev Biol. 2005; 49(5-6):547-55.
[Int J Dev Biol. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2005 Jun; 138(2):734-43.
[Plant Physiol. 2005]Plant Cell. 2003 Mar; 15(3):639-54.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24; 102(21):7754-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Biol Chem. 1999 Jul-Aug; 380(7-8):937-44.
[Biol Chem. 1999]J Exp Bot. 2003 Jan; 54(382):539-47.
[J Exp Bot. 2003]J Exp Bot. 2004 Jan; 55(395):253-64.
[J Exp Bot. 2004]Plant Cell. 2003 Mar; 15(3):639-54.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24; 102(21):7754-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]J Biosci. 2005 Dec; 30(5):761-76.
[J Biosci. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug; 141(4):1255-63.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]