|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 23 April 2008
doi: 10.1242/dev.016873
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Section of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology and The Institute for
Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, 2500
Speedway, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2 Department of Plant Cellular and Molecular Biology and Plant Biotechnology
Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: lloyd{at}uts.cc.utexas.edu)
Accepted 4 April 2008
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Key words: Epidermis, Pattern formation, Trichome, Gene regulation, Cell differentiation, Leaf, Arabidopsis thaliana, Cell fate, Transcription, TTG1
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
;
Marks, 1997;
Hulskamp and Schnittger, 1998;
Hulskamp et al., 1999).
Trichome patterning is not random or dependent on other cell types or position
on the leaf, but is thought to be generated de novo by intercellular
communication (Larkin et al.,
1996; Schnittger et al.,
1999). The model assumes that inhibitors, which are activated by
self-enhanced activators, can move between cells to mediate competition
between equivalent cells, resulting in the pattern formation
(Larkin et al., 2003;
Pesch and Hulskamp, 2004).
Years of genetic and molecular studies have enabled the identification of
components of this trichome patterning machinery. Three classes of interacting
regulators [including the R2R3-MYB transcription factor GLABRA1 (GL1)
(Oppenheimer et al., 1991),
the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) proteins GLABRA3 (GL3) and ENHANCER OF
GLABRA3 (EGL3) (Payne et al.,
2000; Zhang et al.,
2003), and the WD40 repeat protein TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA1
(TTG1) (Walker et al., 1999)]
are postulated to form a combinatorial regulatory complex. Evidence comes from
yeast two-hybrid studies showing that TTG1 and GL1 physically interact with
GL3/EGL3 but not with each other (Payne et
al., 2000; Zhang et al.,
2003). GLABRA2 (GL2) is a direct target of GL3
and EGL3 (Morohashi et al.,
2007) and TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA2 (TTG2) is
directly regulated by GL1 (Ishida et al.,
2007). This activation is believed to be through the formation of
TTG1-GL3-GL1 and TTG1-EGL3-GL1 (TTG1-bHLH-GL1) regulatory complexes
(Szymanski et al., 1998),
thereby regulating trichome cell fate. GL2, a homeodomain (HD-Zip),
and TTG2, a WRKY transcription factor, are required for normal
trichome development (Rerie et al.,
1994; Johnson et al.,
2002). Some levels of GL2 overexpression can result in trichome
clusters, indicating that this HD-Zip may function in the regulation of
trichome spacing (Ohashi et al.,
2002).
To date, a group of at least four homologous single MYB proteins
[TRIPTYCHON (TRY) (Schellmann et al.,
2002), CAPRICE (CPC) (Wada et
al., 1997), and ENHANCER OF TRY and CPC1 and 2 (ETC1 and 2)
(Kirik et al., 2004a;
Kirik et al., 2004b)] have
been identified as negative regulators of trichome initiation and patterning.
The try cpc double and the try cpc etc1 triple mutants
(Kirik et al., 2004a;
Schellmann et al., 2002)
display a greatly enhanced `clustered-trichome' phenotype, indicating that
lateral inhibition is disrupted. These inhibitory proteins contain no
recognizable transcription activation domain. Therefore, they could work as
negative transcriptional regulators. Protein interaction analysis in yeast has
suggested that TRY or CPC would interrupt the functionality of the
`activating' TTG1-bHLH-GL1 complex by competitive interaction with the bHLH
(Esch et al., 2003;
Zhang et al., 2003).
Additionally, the individual members of this inhibitory protein family may
function differently. There is evidence that TRY might be more important in
short-range inhibition, while CPC and particularly ETC1 may be important for
long-range inhibition (Schellmann et al.,
2002; Kirik et al.,
2004a).
As described above, the identification of these positive and negative
trichome regulators has laid an excellent foundation for understanding
trichome patterning. However, a large amount of the data that elucidate the
molecular mechanism of these regulators is either indirect or obtained from
another similar pathway - root hair patterning. For example, evidence for the
existence of the TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex is based entirely on protein
interaction studies in yeast (Payne et
al., 2000; Zhang et al.,
2003; Zimmermann et al.,
2004). Furthermore, the only evidence demonstrating the ability of
a single MYB inhibitor to move between cells is that CPC-GFP fusion protein is
detected both in the trichoblasts and in the atrichoblasts in roots when its
transcript is found only in hairless cells
(Wada et al., 2002). More
importantly, the regulatory events triggered by the TTG1-bHLH-MYB active
complex mostly remain unknown. The expression of CPC in the root
epidermis is GL3/EGL3 dependent
(Bernhardt et al., 2005) and
directly regulated by the MYB WEREWOLF (WER)
(Lee and Schiefelbein, 2002;
Koshino-Kimura et al., 2005;
Ryu et al., 2005), a GL1
equivalent protein in root hair patterning
(Lee and Schiefelbein,
2001).
In recent work, we have shown that GL2, CPC and ETC1 are
directly activated by GL3, and this targeting is GL1 dependent
(Morohashi et al., 2007). The
work presented here is aimed at further testing and refining details of the
trichome development model under the control of the TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex.
Here, we show that the trichome activators GL2 and TTG2, and
repressors CPC and ETC1 are major transcriptional targets
for the complex. In addition, we also demonstrate the existence of the
TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex in plants and show that loss of TTG1 or GL1 disrupts the
distribution of GL3. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the CPC protein moves in
the leaf epidermis, whereas none of the activators tested move. These results
support major aspects of the model and also add novel perspectives to the
current model for trichome patterning.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
pTTG1::YFP-TTG1 and pTTG1::TTG1-cMYC contain a TTG1 genomic fragment, including 1 kb of 5' and 3' regulatory sequences, and either the YFP-coding region without a stop codon inserted in frame with the TTG1 start codon or five copies of the cMYC epitope inserted in frame with TTG1 with the stop codon removed.
pGL1::GL1-YFP-cMYC and pGL1::GL1-YFP-6His contain a GL1 genomic fragment, including 1.45 kb of 5' and 1 kb of 3' regulatory sequences, and either a YFP-cMYC (5XcMYC) or YFP-6His fusion inserted in frame with GL1 with the stop codon removed.
p35S::HA-GL3-6His contains the CaMV35S promoter driving the GL3 genomic coding region with both the HA epitope in frame with the GL3 start codon and the 6His epitope in frame with GL3 with the stop codon removed.
p35S::GL3-YFP, p35S::GL1-YFP, p35S::GL2-YFP and p35S::YFP-CPC contain the entire GL3 or GL1 genomic coding regions or the GL2-coding cDNA, with the stop codons removed, or the entire CPC cDNA cloned into appropriate CaMV35S-YFP fusion cassette vectors.
pEGL3::EGL3-YFP contains a 6 kb EGL3 genomic fragment containing 3 kb upstream of the start with a deleted stop codon cloned in frame to YFP.
Plant materials and growth conditions
Ler/pGL3::GUS and Ler/pEGL3::GUS have been described
previously (Zhang et al.,
2003). gl3 egl3/p35S::GL3-GR has been described
previously (Morohashi et al.,
2007). ttg1/p35S::TTG1-GR seeds
(Baudry et al., 2006) were
generously provided by Dr Loic Lepiniec. gl3-2/pGL3::GL3-YFP was
previously described (Bernhardt et al.,
2005). To generate gl1/pGL3::GL3-YFP and
ttg1/pGL1::GL1-YFP-cMYC, gl3-2/pGL3::GL3-YFP was crossed to
gl1 and gl1/pGL1::GL1-YFP-cMYC was crossed to ttg1.
Plants expressing both TTG1::TTG1-cMYC and GL1::GL1-YFP-6His
fusions were created by crossing gl1/pGL1::GL1-YFP-6His to
ttg1/pTTG1::TTG1-cMYC. F2 plants were confirmed by YFP fluorescence
microscopy and western blots probed with an anti-cMYC antibody. Lines
expressing both TTG1::TTG1-cMYC and 35S::HA-GL3-6His fusions
were created by transforming ttg1/pTTG1::TTG1-cMYC plants with
p35S::HA-GL3-6His. Transformants were identified by kanamycin and BASTA double
resistance. All transgenic plants were created by floral dip transformation.
Standard plant crosses were carried out with two homozygotes and the F1 were
selfed to identify proper progeny. Arabidopsis plants were grown on
soil at 21°C in continuous white light.
Gene expression analyses
Seedlings were grown on MS media containing 3% sucrose at 21°C in
continuous white light. Four-day-old seedlings were treated with 20 µM
dexamethasone (DEX) or mock-treated with 0.001% ethanol for 4 hours, washed
with water and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Cycloheximide (CHX, 100 µM)
treatment was used when appropriate. Total RNA was prepared according to
Morohashi et al. (Morohashi et al.,
2007). RNA (4 µg) was used in 20 µl reverse transcription
reactions containing 250 nM actin and target gene-specific reverse primers.
Parallel 25 µl PCR reactions were prepared using cDNA reactions as
templates with half volume of 2x SuperPower Syber mixture (ABI) and run
on a spectrofluorometric thermal cycler (ABI 7900HT). For each target, five
PCR reactions containing 400 nM primers and 3 µl first strand target gene
cDNA as template were performed alongside four actin control PCR reactions
containing 200 nM actin primers and 1 µl first strand actin cDNA. The
comparative cycle threshold method was used to analyze the results (User
Bulletin 2, ABI PRISM Sequence Detection System). Each experiment was
performed twice for each target with consistent results. Results of
representative experiments are presented.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) experiments
ChIP experiments were performed as described previously (Morohasi et al.,
2007).
Microscopy
The histochemical analyses of Promoter::GUS reporter genes were
performed with at least five seedlings for each strain essentially as
described (Masucci et al.,
1996).
Imaging of YFP fusions was performed on a Leica SP2 AOBS confocal laser scanning microscope with excitation (488 or 514 nm) and emissions (530-600 nm for YFP and 675-800 for chlorophyll). Collected images were processed for maximum intensity projection.
Microprojectile bombardment
Tungsten particles (1.5 mg) were coated with 
5 µg of each plasmid
DNA as directed by the manufacturer's instructions (BioRad). Young leaves from
gl3 egl3 double mutant plants were excised, placed on MS plates and
bombarded at 1100 psi with a flight distance of 15 cm using a Bio-Rad
PDS-1000. Bombarded leaves were placed overnight under white light and imaged
on the confocal microscope. At least three independent bombardment experiments
were performed with each construct with multiple bombardment events in each
experiment so that over 50 events were observed for each construct.
Co-precipitation experiments
Three-week-old Arabidopsis green tissue was ground into fine
powder in liquid nitrogen. Protein extract was prepared by thorough mixing of
0.1 g powder with 1 ml ice-cold buffer A (50 mM Tris, 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM
MgCl2, 10% glycerol, 1 mM DTT, 1% Triton-X100, 1 mM PMSF, 1
µg/ml each of (Leupeptin, Antipain, Pepstatin A, Aprotinin), 5 mM
imidazole, pH 7.3) in a 1.5 ml eppendorf tube. The mixture was centrifuged
twice at 13,000 rpm for 10 minutes, and the supernatant was used as input
extract. Input extract (0.9 ml) was applied to a pre-equilibrated His-select
column (with buffer A), washed (with buffer A containing 45 mM imidazole) and
eluted (with buffer A containing 300 mM imidazole) as directed by the
manufacturer (Sigma). The elution was concentrated with Microcon Y-M30 filter
(Millipore). Input extracts and concentrated eluates were mixed with loading
buffer to final volume of 100 µl and boiled for 5 minutes prior to loading
the SDS-PAGE gel (Bio-Rad). Input (2 µl) and 5 µl of elution loading
samples were used for western blots, which were probed by anti-cMYC monoclonal
antibody 9E10 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and visualized by Western Lightning
Chemiluminescence Reagents (Amersham Biosciences).
|
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
). To study the expression of the TTG1 protein during the
process of trichome initiation and patterning, we examined YFP fluorescence of
a YFP-TTG1 fusion protein under the control of the native TTG1
promoter in the ttg1 mutant background
(ttg1/pTTG1::YFP-TTG1). The transgenic ttg1/pTTG1::YFP-TTG1
plants showed wild-type trichome formation
(Fig. 1), as well as normal
anthocyanin production, and seed coat pigment and differentiation (not shown),
indicating that the translational YFP-TTG1 fusion was functional. At early
stages, strong YFP signal is detected in the nuclei of trichome initials and
of all pavement cells, with a much weaker YFP signal in the cytoplasm of these
cells (Fig. 1A).
Fig. 1B shows that the TTG1
protein is present in all epidermal cells and trichomes at all developmental
stages. This ubiquitous and persistent expression pattern was further
confirmed by a close-up view of the YFP expression in stage 5 trichomes
(Szymanski et al., 1998) and
their surrounding epidermal cells (Fig.
1C). TTG1 protein appears to be expressed at all stages of leaf
and trichome development.
TTG1 regulates GL3 target genes
GL3 has been reported to target genes that regulate trichome development
directly, both trichome activators and repressors
(Morohashi et al., 2007). To
better define the trichome genes regulated by the TTG1-bHLH-MYB regulatory
complex, the expression changes of previously identified GL3 targets,
including GL3, GL2, ETC1 and CPC
(Morohashi et al., 2007) were
investigated by quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) in DEX-treated
ttg1/p35S::TTG1-GR plants, in the presence or absence of CHX. The
TTG1-GR fusion complements ttg1 mutants only with the addition of
DEX. Simultaneous treatment with DEX and CHX blocks de novo protein production
and allows only the direct targets to be transcribed
(Sablowski and Meyerowitz,
1998). This same TTG1-GR line has been used to show that the bHLH
TT8 was directly activated by TTG1 in siliques
(Baudry et al., 2006). In other
work, we have shown that this fusion provides DEX-dependent activation of the
late anthocyanin structural genes (Gonzalez
et al., 2008).
As shown in Fig. 2A,
GL2, CPC and ETC1 were upregulated in response to the 4-hour
induction by DEX, while the expression of GL3, TRY and ETC2
did not change. This experiment was repeated with a DEX plus CHX treatment.
GL2, CPC and ETC1 again were upregulated, but to a lower
level (Fig. 2A). A two-sided
t-test indicates that these induction levels are significantly
greater than uninduced levels (P<0.05). To confirm that these
expression results are due to direct activation, chromatin immunoprecipitation
(ChIP) experiments were performed with ttg1/pTTG1::YFP-TTG1 plants,
using antibodies against GFP which cross-react with YFP. Similar to what was
previously described for GL3 (Morohashi et
al., 2007), YFP-TTG1 was recruited to the promoters of GL2,
CPC and ETC1 in vivo (Fig.
2B). These results show that GL2, CPC and ETC1
are immediate direct targets of TTG1, indicating that TTG1 and GL3 share many
of the same targets.
TTG2 is an immediate direct target of TTG1 and GL3
Genetic data show that the expression of TTG2 requires
TTG1 (Johnson et al.,
2002), suggesting that TTG1 and GL3 directly control TTG2
expression in vivo. We analyzed ttg1/p35S::TTG1-GR and gl3
egl3/p35S::GL3-GR transgenic seedlings for expression changes in
TTG2 after DEX induction. Four-hour DEX induction of TTG1-GR and
GL3-GR resulted in the upregulation of TTG2
(Fig. 2A). Inclusion of DEX and
CHX also resulted in the significant induction (P<0.05, two-sided
t-test) of TTG2, and identified it as a direct target of
both TTG1 and GL3. This finding is confirmed by ChIP results, unequivocally
demonstrating that TTG1 binds to the promoter of TTG2 in vivo
(Fig. 2B).
|
; Ryu et al.,
2005) and it has been recently reported that GL1 directly
regulates TTG2 (Ishida et al.,
2007). We have shown that GL3 regulates and binds the promoters of
GL2, CPC, ETC1 and GL3 in vivo. The binding of GL3 to the
CPC and GL2 promoters is dependent on the presence of GL1,
while binding to its own promoter is not
(Morohashi et al., 2007). We
used gl1/pGL1::GL1-YFP-cMYC plants to perform ChIP experiments to
investigate the in vivo binding of GL1 to the promoters of these known GL3
targets. GL1 was found to bind to the promoters of CPC, ETC1 and
GL2, as well as that of TTG2, but not of GL3
(Fig. 2B). These results
suggest that GL1 participates with GL3 in the regulation of GL2, CPC,
ETC1 and TTG2, but not in the auto-regulation of GL3.
Taken together with the finding that GL2, TTG2, CPC and ETC1
are direct transcriptional targets of both GL3 and TTG1, while GL3 is
regulated only by GL3, it is most likely that GL2, TTG2, CPC and
ETC1 are activated by a complex containing TTG1, GL3 and GL1. It is interesting that the QRT-PCR analyses with cycloheximide seem to reveal additional, non-TTG1-dependent regulatory effects with GL2 being activated and TTG2 being repressed by other factors. In these experiments, we only conclude that a gene is a direct target if the RT-PCR and the ChIP experiments are in agreement.
TTG1 associates with GL3 and GL1 in vivo
The gene expression studies presented above support the hypothesis that
TTG1 participates in a TTG1-bHLH-MYB activation complex but do not directly
demonstrate that TTG1 and GL1 co-exist in a complex. To detect this complex in
vivo, we performed co-precipitation assays to test whether TTG1 associates
with GL3. The TTG1::TTG1-cMYC and 35S::HA-GL3-6His fusions
are functional in promoting trichome differentiation in ttg1 and
gl3 egl3 mutants respectively. As shown in
Fig. 3A, the TTG1-cMYC fusion
was detected in the input protein extractions of plants containing this
construct (lanes 1 and 3) using an anti-cMYC monoclonal antibody. However,
when His-select Ni columns were used to affinity purify the HA-GL3-6His fusion
protein from these extracts, TTG1-cMYC was detected only in the line
containing both fusion proteins (Fig.
3A, lane 6), demonstrating that TTG1 associates with GL3 in
vivo.
Using the same approach, we also tested for an association between TTG1 and GL1 in vivo. Strikingly, TTG1-cMYC was also purified by the His-select Ni columns only when it was co-expressed with GL1-YFP-6His (Fig. 3B, lane 6), while TTG1-cMYC was not detected in the samples processed from ttg1/pTTG1::TTG1-cMYC or gl1/pGL1:: GL1-YFP-6His (Fig. 3B, lanes 4, 5), demonstrating that TTG1 associates with GL1 in vivo.
These results do not indicate that TTG1 directly touches GL1 and when
combined with yeast 2-hybrid analysis
(Payne et al., 2000;
Zhang et al., 2003), these
results indicate that TTG1 and GL1 associate in a complex by both binding to
GL3 or EGL3 as intermediates.
Loss of TTG1 and GL1 disrupts the nuclear distribution of GL3
Experiments were performed to test whether TTG1 and GL1 affect the GL3
protein distribution pattern in the leaf epidermis. A functional
GL3::GL3-YFP fusion (Bernhardt et
al., 2005) was examined in the a gl3-1 mutant plant. We
detected GL3-YFP signal restricted to the nuclei of trichome cells with an
evenly distributed fluorescence pattern
(Fig. 4A). When
GL3::GL3-YFP was introduced into the ttg1 mutant background,
no obvious changes in the partitioning of GL3 to the nucleus was observed.
However, the GL3-YFP protein was unevenly distributed into speckles in the
nuclei of young epidermal cells and this increases with age
(Fig. 4B). GL3::YFP eventually
fades away as these cells mature. By contrast, young epidermal cells of the
ttg1 mutant showed evenly distributed GL1-YFP with only a couple of
speckles in the nucleus (Fig.
4C). These results suggest that TTG1 is required for the proper
subnuclear distribution of GL3. Although it is difficult to quantitatively
compare these images, it does not appear that loss of TTG1 affects the
stability of the GL3-YFP fusion.
To test whether mutations in GL1 might affect the distribution of GL3, we examined the subcellular localization of GL3-YFP in the gl1 mutant. When GL3::GL3-YFP was expressed in the gl1 mutant, GL3 still partitioned to the nucleus. However, just like the ttg1 mutant, GL3 formed speckles in the nuclei of leaf epidermal cells (Fig. 4D). In the roots of the same transgenic plant, where GL1 function is replaced by WER, GL3-YFP showed wild-type patterning with no speckles (Fig. 4E). These results suggest that GL1 is specifically required for the normal distribution of GL3 within the nuclei of Arabidopsis leaf cells.
|
|
CPC moves in leaf epidermal cells
It has been shown that GL3 and CPC traffic from cell to cell in the
Arabidopsis root epidermis to specify near neighbor cell fate
(Wada et al., 2002;
Bernhardt et al., 2005). We
hypothesized that similar movements might be required during trichome
patterning events. YFP fusions to TTG1, GL3, GL1, CPC and GL2 were used to
examine whether any of these proteins could move from cell to cell in the leaf
epidermis. The fusion genes were introduced into developing leaf tissue by
microprojectile bombardment and were scored after overnight expression. We
also bombarded a 35S::GUS reporter and we did not detect any area
with clusters of transformed GUS-expressing cells, indicating that the
probability of bombarding adjacent cells is very low (data not shown).
We repetitively observed extensive trafficking of the YFP-CPC fusion into
adjacent cells, as evidenced by cytoplasmic and nuclear YFP signal (CPC moved
in 32 of 76 bombardment events), generating clusters of up to 15 fluorescent
cells in the Arabidopsis leaf epidermis
(Fig. 5D; see Fig. S1 in the
supplementary material). By contrast, we did not observe the same fluorescent
pattern with any of the other fusion proteins, which were expressed in
isolated single cells (Fig. 5);
at least 50 bombardment events were observed with each gene. These results
show that CPC can move in the leaf epidermis, but that GL3 does not. Our
results, showing that CPC but not GL3 moves in the leaf epidermis, contrast
with previous findings that they both move in roots
(Bernhardt et al., 2005;
Wada et al., 2002). This
probably reflects that fact that trichome patterning and root hair patterning
are not regulated by the same mechanisms, although they largely share the same
hierarchy of regulatory genes. In roots, GL3 must move from the hair cell
files, where it is transcribed, to the hairless files where it functions. In
leaves, it is transcribed in the trichome initials, where it functions, and so
is not required to move. It is possible that there is some developmental
control of intercellular movement; however, we observed CPC movement no matter
where on the leaf we bombarded (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material)
while GL3 never moved. We note that we were not able to successfully bombard
the very youngest and smallest cells on the leaf epidermis.
|
). However,
single gl3 mutants show a much more severe reduction in trichome
initiation and branching than egl3
(Zhang et al., 2003), and we
have shown that GL3 but not EGL3 participates in an
auto-regulatory loop (Morohashi et al.,
2007). In order to begin to characterize the functional
differences between GL3 and EGL3, we carefully examined the
Promoter::GUS expression and protein accumulation patterns of
GL3 and EGL3 during trichome development in wild-type
plants. Maximum GUS activity was observed in young leaf primordia for both GL3 and EGL3 (Fig. 6A,C). In young developing leaves, GL3::GUS activity is observed especially in the region close to the basal edge of the leaf (Fig. 6A). In the same age leaves, high EGL3::GUS activity is observed in the basal one-third of the leaf and is not restricted to the edge (Fig. 6C). In both lines, maturing and mature trichomes show significantly higher levels of GUS activity than surrounding epidermal cells (Fig. 6A,C). In more mature leaves, strong GL3::GUS activity becomes restricted to trichomes (Fig. 6B), while EGL3::GUS persists at low levels in pavement cells as well as in trichomes (Fig. 6D). Compared with GL3, EGL3 exhibits a more widely distributed transcription pattern with higher GUS activity in the epidermal pavement cells than GL3 and lower GUS activity in trichomes than GL3. High EGL3::GUS activity is also observed in the petioles of leaves, while GL3::GUS is not. Taken together, GL3 and EGL3 show overlapping, yet distinct, transcription patterns during trichome development.
The GL3::GL3-YFP and EGL3::EGL3-YFP fusions were constructed and shown to be fully functional by rescuing gl3 egl3 mutants (not shown). The analysis of the YFP fluorescence profiles of representative wild-type GL3::GL3-YFP and EGL3::EGL3-YFP containing transgenic plants shows that the protein expression profiles of GL3 and EGL3 generally match well with their transcription patterns, respectively, with some notable differences.
In the basal region of the developing leaf, where trichomes continue to initiate, strong GL3-YFP signal was detected in the nuclei of unbranched trichome initials, while only a very weak GL3-YFP signal was occasionally detected in the neighboring non-trichome cells (Fig. 6E arrows, F). As a trichome matures, the level of GL3-YFP intensity keeps decreasing until it completely disappears (not shown). Like GL3-YFP, EGL3-YFP was also found to increase in the nuclei of trichome initials in the leaf basal region but not as high as GL3. However, EGL3-YFP was also detected in the nontrichome cells throughout the epidermal layer of a developing leaf (Fig. 6G,H).
A comparison of patterns of GL3::GUS and GL3::GL3-YFP reveals a difference between the transcription pattern and the protein expression pattern of GL3. Significant GL3::GUS activity was observed in the epidermal cells that neighbor young trichomes where GL3 protein is absent (compare Fig. 6A with 6E). Taken together with the finding that EGL3 gene is expressed and the EGL3 protein accumulates in both trichome and non-trichome cells, these data imply that EGL3 functions within the non-trichome cell in the maintenance of the non-trichome cell fate, while GL3 does not.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
). A
common function of WD40 repeat motifs is to facilitate protein-protein
interactions. A preponderance of indirect evidence indicated that TTG1
interacts with bHLH proteins (GL3, EGL3 and TT8) in regulating all
TTG1-dependent development pathways. The evidence includes: (1) gl3 egl3
tt8 triple mutant phenocopies ttg1 mutant; and (2) TTG1
physically interacts with GL3, EGL3 and TT8 in the yeast-two hybrid system
(Payne et al., 2000;
Zhang et al., 2003;
Baudry et al., 2004). TTG1 may
form a complex with bHLH proteins for nuclear import or retention and/or act
as a transcriptional co-regulator. Prior to the present study, it was also
possible that TTG1 was located only in the cytoplasm, possibly as a signal
transduction component to regulate bHLH proteins. A cytoplasmic location would
be in agreement with the reported location of AN11
(de Vetten et al., 1997), a
petunia WD40 protein that is highly similar to TTG1 and complements the
ttg1 mutation (not shown). In this paper, we report that TTG1 is
preferentially localized in the nucleus in the Arabidopsis leaf
epidermis (Fig. 1), with
apparently a lower, yet significant, amount of TTG1 in the cytoplasm. This
result indicates that TTG1 could function both as a transcriptional
co-regulator in the nucleus and as a protein-interacting factor in the
cytoplasm.
The TTG1-bHLH-MYB regulatory complex
Although we have demonstrated that TTG1 associates with GL3 in vivo
(Fig. 3), the biological
significance of the TTG1-bHLH interaction still remains to be elucidated. Our
previous genetic data (Zhang et al.,
2003), together with the results discussed in this paper, favors
the possibility that TTG1 functions as a transcription co-regulator. TTG1 may
modify, stabilize or in some other fashion positively affect GL3/EGL3 in their
capacity to activate the transcription of downstream target genes. Our work on
the regulation of the anthocyanin pathway shows that GL3 and TTG1 regulate the
same set of anthocyanin biosynthetic target genes
(Gonzalez et al., 2008). It
would not be surprising that TTG1 and GL3 regulate the same target genes in
the trichome development pathway. Our results using a TTG1-GR inducible system
show that GL2, CPC and ETC1 are also direct targets of TTG1,
because the transcription of these genes increased significantly in response
to TTG1-GR induction even in the absence of de novo protein synthesis. We have
also identified TTG2 as an immediate direct target of both TTG1 and
GL3 (Fig. 2), which is
consistent with the finding that TTG2 is directly regulated by GL1
(Ishida et al., 2007). These
data show that TTG1 largely regulates the transcription of the same regulatory
loci as GL3 during trichome cell fate specification. It also supports the
notion that TTG1 regulates the trichome pathway through affecting the
activation capacity of bHLH proteins.
Interestingly, we failed to detect any changes in GL3 expression
after TTG1-GR induction, as opposed to the finding that GL3 is
repressed by GL3-GR (Morohashi et al.,
2007). It has been reported that GL3 binds to and activates
GL2, CPC and ETC1 in a GL1-dependent manner, but the GL3
self-repression is GL1-independent
(Morohashi et al., 2007). In
our ChIP experiments with gl1/pGL1::GL1-YFP-cMYC, we detected the in
vivo recruitment of GL1 to the GL2, TTG2, CPC and ETC1
promoters but not to the promoter of GL3
(Fig. 2B). These data suggest
that the GL1 DNA-binding activity is required for the TTG1-bHLH complex to
select target genes and that GL3 self-repression may be both GL1 and TTG1
independent. Additionally, the in vivo association of TTG1 and GL1
(Fig. 3B) fits perfectly with
the model that TTG1, bHLH and R2R3-MYB proteins form a TTG1-bHLH-MYB
regulatory complex in vivo. The TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex seems to only activate
the transcription of downstream targets but not the transcription of bHLH or
R2R3-MYB proteins in the trichome pathway.
We could not detect changes in the expression of TRY or
ETC2 by the induction of gl3 egl3/p35S::GL3-GR
(Morohashi et al., 2007) or
ttg1/p35S::TTG1GR (Fig.
2A). These results demonstrate that although TRY and
ETC2 are largely redundant with CPC and ETC1, they
are regulated differently, perhaps by GL2 for example, which is consistent
with their different levels of expression in different tissues
(Kirik et al., 2004b).
How does TTG1 function?
GL3 transcripts can be easily detected in the ttg1 and
gl1 mutants (Payne et al.,
2000), indicating that they are not required for the transcription
of GL3. We wanted to determine whether TTG1 might regulate the subcellular
localization of GL3. In the ttg1 mutant, we found that the GL3-YFP
protein was still located entirely in the nucleus. Surprisingly, however, the
loss of TTG1 caused GL3 to be abnormally distributed within the nucleus of
leaf epidermal cells. GL3 protein forms unevenly distributed `speckles'
(Fig. 4B). By contrast, the
nuclear distribution pattern of GL1-YFP-cMYC in ttg1 is very similar
to the wild-type pattern - a more or less even nuclear distribution. One or
two GL1 speckles were found in a single nucleus
(Fig. 4C). These results
suggest that functional TTG1 protein is required for the appropriate bHLH
distribution in the nucleus but is largely not necessary for GL1
distribution.
In gl1 mutants, we also detected a speckled GL3-YFP distribution
specifically in the leaf epidermis (Fig.
4D,E). However, GL3 forms fewer but more clearly isolated nuclear
speckles in gl1 than in ttg1 (compare
Fig. 4B and 4D). We previously
showed that in a gl1 mutant, GL3 is no longer recruited to the
promoter of its major trichome targets, GL2 and CPC
(Morohashi et al., 2007).
Taken together, we conclude that GL1 is responsible for GL3 or the TTG1-bHLH
complex tethering to the promoters of specific downstream targets, and TTG1
may function as a `helper' for the bHLH::GL1 interaction. Loss of proper DNA
and/or protein interactions leads to aberrant bHLH distribution.
Besides participating in the TTG1-bHLH-MYB regulatory complex, TTG1 may
regulate trichome genes through other mechanisms. It was recently shown that
TTG1 physically interacts with GEM, a protein that modulates cell division and
represses the expression of GL2 and CPC in
Arabidopsis roots. Overexpression of GEM caused increased
root hair and decreased leaf trichome densities
(Caro et al., 2007).
Overexpressed GEM is shown to bind to the promoters of GL2 and
CPC, and is associated with the acquisition and/or maintenance of
histone H3K9me2 (typical of silent heterochromatic regions) at these two
genes. These data imply that the interaction between TTG1 and GEM could
prevent GEM from joining a complex that represses the expression of
GL2 and CPC or other trichome genes.
Trichome patterning
In theoretical models (Meinhardt,
1994; Meinhardt and Gierer,
2000), it is proposed that de novo patterning often requires the
local self-enhancement of activators in combination with lateral inhibition by
inhibitors. Based on this theory, a common model is proposed for the
Arabidopsis trichome and root hair patterning, in which single MYB
repressors (CPC and TRY) are thought to be able to move (faster than
activators if activators can also move) into neighboring cells
(Pesch and Hulskamp, 2004). In
support of such a model is the fact that although CPC-GFP proteins are
expressed in non-root hair cell files, the CPC-GFP protein is also detected in
the neighboring root hair files (Wada et
al., 2002). In this paper, our microprojectile bombardment
experiment with 35S::YFP-CPC directly demonstrates the ability of CPC
to move in the leaf epidermis for the first time
(Fig. 5), strongly supporting
the current trichome patterning model from this perspective. YFP-CPC protein
was detected in clusters of epidermal cells, generally one cell but up to two
cells away from the bombardment center, suggesting CPC could move from one
cell to another (Fig. 5D). As
we discussed, long-range repressors, CPC and ETC1
(Kirik et al., 2004a), are
directly activated by the TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex, while the short-range
repressor TRY is not. This may indicate that the accumulation of the
active TTG1-bHLH-MYB complex in the trichome initials triggers primarily
long-range inhibition but not short-range inhibition.
|
). By
examining the protein accumulation and Promoter::GUS expression
patterns, we find that GL3 is transcribed and the protein accumulates in the
trichome initials and GL3 is transcribed in the surrounding epidermal cells
but the GL3 protein is not detectable there
(Fig. 6). The apparent lack of
GL3 movement in the leaf, coupled with the transcription and protein pattern
may indicate that the absence of GL3 protein in epidermal cells is not caused
by GL3 trafficking into developing trichomes, but rather by some form of
post-transcriptional or translational regulation. The current model of trichome patterning is largely based on genetic analysis and on molecular data obtained from the root hair system. The data presented in this paper demonstrate that a similar molecular mechanism by a TTG1-bHLH-MYB regulatory complex directly activating downstream targets is responsible for trichome patterning. Based on this mechanism, we have refined the model for trichome patterning. As shown in Fig. 7, a functional activating complex TTG1-GL3/EGL3-GL1 activates trichome activators (GL2 and TTG2) and single MYB repressors (CPC and ETC1) in the cell chosen to be a trichome. CPC and ETC1 then move into the neighboring cells where they, together with locally expressed repressors, compete with GL1 for binding to EGL3, forming an inactivating complex, TTG1-EGL3-CPC/ETC1. This inactivating complex disrupts the function of the activating complex. The decreased concentration of the TTG1-EGL3-GL1 complex in these surrounding epidermal cells is not enough to activate GL2 and TTG2 beyond a required initiating threshold level, and the trichome cell fate is not triggered.
Our results also show differences between the trichome and root hair pathways at the molecular level: GL3 is preferentially transcribed in the cells where it functions during trichome development, while GL3 is transcribed in root hair cell files, and accumulates and functions in non-root hair cell files during root hair patterning. This raises many new questions for this regulatory network. Identification of the molecular components that mediate the differentiation of bHLH expression patterns in different tissues will allow the study of how these key developmental complexes are regulated in the plant.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material for this article is available at
http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/135/11/1991/DC1
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Baudry, A., Heim, M. A., Dubreucq, B., Caboche, M., Weisshaar,
B. and Lepiniec, L. (2004). TT2, TT8, and TTG1
synergistically specify the expression of BANYULS and proanthocyanidin
biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J.
39,366
-380.[CrossRef][Medline]
Baudry, A., Caboche, M. and Lepiniec, L.
(2006). TT8 controls its own expression in a feedback regulation
involving TTG1 and homologous MYB and bHLH factors, allowing a strong and
cell-specific accumulation of flavonoids in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Plant J. 46,768
-779.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bernhardt, C., Zhao, M., Gonzalez, A., Lloyd, A. and
Schiefelbein, J. (2005). The bHLH genes GL3 and EGL3
participate in an intercellular regulatory circuit that controls cell
patterning in the Arabidopsis root epidermis.
Development 132,291
-298.
Caro, E., Castellano, M. M. and Gutierrez, C.
(2007). A chromatin link that couples cell division to root
epidermis patterning in Arabidopsis. Nature
447,213
-217.[CrossRef][Medline]
de Vetten, N., Quattrocchio, F., Mol, J. and Koes, R.
(1997). The an11 locus controlling flower pigmentation in petunia
encodes a novel WD-repeat protein conserved in yeast, plants, and animals.
Genes Dev. 11,1422
-1434.
Esch, J. J., Chen, M., Sanders, M., Hillestad, M., Ndkium, S.,
Idelkope, B., Neizer, J. and Marks, M. D. (2003). A
contradictory GLABRA3 allele helps define gene interactions controlling
trichome development in Arabidopsis. Development
130,5885
-5894.
Gonzalez, T., Zhao, M., Leavitt, J. M. and Lloyd, A. M.
(2008). Regulation of the anthocyanin biosynthetic pathway by the
TTG1/bHLH/Myb transcriptional complex in Arabidopsis seedlings.
Plant J. 53,814
-827.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hulskamp, M. and Schnittger, A. (1998). Spatial
regulation of trichome formation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Semin.
Cell Dev. Biol. 9,213
-220.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hulskamp, M., Schnittger, A. and Folkers, U.
(1999). Pattern formation and cell differentiation: trichomes in
Arabidopsis as a genetic model system. Int. Rev.
Cytol. 186,147
-178.[Medline]
Ishida, T., Hattori, S., Sano, R., Inoue, K., Shirano, Y.,
Hayashi, H., Shibata, D., Sato, S., Kato, T., Tabata, S. et al.
(2007). Arabidopsis TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA2 is directly
regulated by R2R3 MYB transcription factors and is involved in regulation of
GLABRA2 transcription in epidermal differentiation. Plant
Cell 19,2531
-2543.
Johnson, C. S., Kolevski, B. and Smyth, D. R.
(2002). TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA2, a trichome and seed coat
development gene of Arabidopsis, encodes a WRKY transcription factor.
Plant Cell 14,1359
-1375.
Kirik, V., Simon, M., Hulskamp, M. and Schiefelbein, J.
(2004a). The ENHANCER OF TRY AND CPC1 gene acts redundantly with
TRIPTYCHON and CAPRICE in trichome and root hair cell patterning in
Arabidopsis. Dev. Biol.
268,506
-513.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kirik, V., Simon, M., Wester, K., Schiefelbein, J. and Hulskamp,
M. (2004b). ENHANCER of TRY and CPC 2 (ETC2) reveals
redundancy in the region-specific control of trichome development of
Arabidopsis. Plant Mol. Biol.
55,389
-398.[CrossRef][Medline]
Koshino-Kimura, Y., Wada, T., Tachibana, T., Tsugeki, R.,
Ishiguro, S. and Okada, K. (2005). Regulation of CAPRICE
transcription by MYB proteins for root epidermis differentiation in
Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol.
46,817
-826.
Larkin, J. C., Young, N., Prigge, M. and Marks, M. D.
(1996). The control of trichome spacing and number in
Arabidopsis. Development
122,997
-1005.[Abstract]
Larkin, J. C., Marks, M. D., Nadeau, J. and Sack, F.
(1997). Epidermal cell fate and patterning in leaves.
Plant Cell 9,1109
-1120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Larkin, J. C., Brown, M. L. and Schiefelbein, J.
(2003). How do cells know what they want to be when they grow up?
Lessons from epidermal patterning in Arabidopsis. Annu. Rev. Plant
Biol. 54,403
-430.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lee, M. M. and Schiefelbein, J. (2001).
Developmentally distinct MYB genes encode functionally equivalent proteins in
Arabidopsis. Development
128,1539
-1546.[Abstract]
Lee, M. M. and Schiefelbein, J. (2002). Cell
pattern in the Arabidopsis root epidermis determined by lateral inhibition
with feedback. Plant Cell
14,611
-618.
Marks, M. D. (1997). Molecular genetic analysis
of trichome development in Arabidopsis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.
Plant Mol. Biol. 48,137
-163.[CrossRef]
Masucci, J. D., Rerie, W. G., Foreman, D. R., Zhang, M., Galway,
M. E., Marks, M. D. and Schiefelbein, J. W. (1996). The
homeobox gene GLABRA2 is required for position-dependent cell differentiation
in the root epidermis of Arabidopsis thaliana.
Development 122,1253
-1260.[Abstract]
Meinhardt, H. (1994). Biological pattern
formation: new observations provide support for theoretical predictions.
BioEssays 16,627
-632.[CrossRef][Medline]
Meinhardt, H. and Gierer, A. (2000). Pattern
formation by local self-activation and lateral inhibition.
BioEssays 22,753
-760.[CrossRef][Medline]
Morohashi, K., Zhao, M., Yang, M., Read, B., Lloyd, A., Lamb, R.
and Grotewold, E. (2007). Participation of the Arabidopsis
bHLH factor GL3 in trichome initiation regulatory events. Plant
Physiol. 145,1
-11.
Ohashi, Y., Oka, A., Ruberti, I., Morelli, G. and Aoyama, T.
(2002). Entopically additive expression of GLABRA2 alters the
frequency and spacing of trichome initiation. Plant J.
29,359
-369.[CrossRef][Medline]
Oppenheimer, D. G., Herman, P. L., Sivakumaran, S., Esch, J. and
Marks, M. D. (1991). A myb gene required for leaf trichome
differentiation in Arabidopsis is expressed in stipules.
Cell 67,483
-493.[CrossRef][Medline]
Payne, C. T., Zhang, F. and Lloyd, A. M.
(2000). GL3 encodes a bHLH protein that regulates trichome
development in Arabidopsis through interaction with GL1 and TTG1.
Genetics 156,1349
-1362.
Pesch, M. and Hulskamp, M. (2004). Creating a
two-dimensional pattern de novo during Arabidopsis trichome and root hair
initiation. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
14,422
-427.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rerie, W. G., Feldmann, K. A. and Marks, M. D.
(1994). The GLABRA2 gene encodes a homeo domain protein required
for normal trichome development in Arabidopsis. Genes
Dev. 8,1388
-1399.
Ryu, K. H., Kang, Y. H., Park, Y. H., Hwang, I., Schiefelbein,
J. and Lee, M. M. (2005). The WEREWOLF MYB protein directly
regulates CAPRICE transcription during cell fate specification in the
Arabidopsis root epidermis. Development
132,4765
-4775.
Sablowski, R. W. and Meyerowitz, E. M. (1998).
A homolog of NO APICAL MERISTEM is an immediate target of the floral homeotic
genes APETALA3/PISTILLATA. Cell
92, 93-103.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schellmann, S., Schnittger, A., Kirik, V., Wada, T., Okada, K.,
Beermann, A., Thumfahrt, J., Jurgens, G. and Hulskamp, M.
(2002). TRIPTYCHON and CAPRICE mediate lateral inhibition during
trichome and root hair patterning in Arabidopsis. EMBO
J. 21,5036
-5046.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schnittger, A., Folkers, U., Schwab, B., Jurgens, G. and
Hulskamp, M. (1999). Generation of a spacing pattern: the
role of triptychon in trichome patterning in Arabidopsis. Plant
Cell 11,1105
-1116.
Szymanski, D. B., Jilk, R. A., Pollock, S. M. and Marks, M.
D. (1998). Control of GL2 expression in Arabidopsis leaves
and trichomes. Development
125,1161
-1171.[Abstract]
Wada, T., Tachibana, T., Shimura, Y. and Okada, K.
(1997). Epidermal cell differentiation in Arabidopsis determined
by a Myb homolog. CPC. Science
277,1113
-1116.
Wada, T., Kurata, T., Tominaga, R., Koshino-Kimura, Y.,
Tachibana, T., Goto, K., Marks, M. D., Shimura, Y. and Okada, K.
(2002). Role of a positive regulator of root hair development,
CAPRICE, in Arabidopsis root epidermal cell differentiation.
Development 129,5409
-5419.
Walker, A. R., Davison, P. A., Bolognesi-Winfield, A. C., James,
C. M., Srinivasan, N., Blundell, T. L., Esch, J. J., Marks, M. D. and Gray, J.
C. (1999). The TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA1 locus, which
regulates trichome differentiation and anthocyanin biosynthesis in
Arabidopsis, encodes a WD40 repeat protein. Plant Cell
11,1337
-1350.
Zhang, F., Gonzalez, A., Zhao, M., Payne, C. T. and Lloyd,
A. (2003). A network of redundant bHLH proteins functions in
all TTG1-dependent pathways of Arabidopsis.
Development 130,4859
-4869.
Zimmermann, I. M., Heim, M. A., Weisshaar, B. and Uhrig, J.
F. (2004). Comprehensive identification of Arabidopsis
thaliana MYB transcription factors interacting with R/B-like BHLH proteins.
Plant J. 40,22
-34.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Related articles in Development:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y. Pang, J. P. Wenger, K. Saathoff, G. J. Peel, J. Wen, D. Huhman, S. N. Allen, Y. Tang, X. Cheng, M. Tadege, et al. A WD40 Repeat Protein from Medicago truncatula Is Necessary for Tissue-Specific Anthocyanin and Proanthocyanidin Biosynthesis But Not for Trichome Development Plant Physiology, November 1, 2009; 151(3): 1114 - 1129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Wang, R. Liu, L. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Liang, X. Wu, B. Li, J. Wu, Y. Liang, X. Wang, et al. Nicotiana tabacum TTG1 contributes to ParA1-induced signalling and cell death in leaf trichomes J. Cell Sci., August 1, 2009; 122(15): 2673 - 2685. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Breuer, A. Kawamura, T. Ichikawa, R. Tominaga-Wada, T. Wada, Y. Kondou, S. Muto, M. Matsui, and K. Sugimoto The Trihelix Transcription Factor GTL1 Regulates Ploidy-Dependent Cell Growth in the Arabidopsis Trichome PLANT CELL, August 1, 2009; 21(8): 2307 - 2322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H.-F. Zhu, K. Fitzsimmons, A. Khandelwal, and R. G. Kranz CPC, a Single-Repeat R3 MYB, Is a Negative Regulator of Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in Arabidopsis Mol Plant, July 1, 2009; 2(4): 790 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Marks, J. P. Wenger, E. Gilding, R. Jilk, and R. A. Dixon Transcriptome Analysis of Arabidopsis Wild-Type and gl3-sst sim Trichomes Identifies Four Additional Genes Required for Trichome Development Mol Plant, July 1, 2009; 2(4): 803 - 822. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Yoshida, R. Sano, T. Wada, J. Takabayashi, and K. Okada Jasmonic acid control of GLABRA3 links inducible defense and trichome patterning in Arabidopsis Development, March 15, 2009; 136(6): 1039 - 1048. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Wang and J.-G. Chen Arabidopsis Transient Expression Analysis Reveals that Activation of GLABRA2 May Require Concurrent Binding of GLABRA1 and GLABRA3 to the Promoter of GLABRA2 Plant Cell Physiol., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 1792 - 1804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Jakoby, D. Falkenhan, M. T. Mader, G. Brininstool, E. Wischnitzki, N. Platz, A. Hudson, M. Hulskamp, J. Larkin, and A. Schnittger Transcriptional Profiling of Mature Arabidopsis Trichomes Reveals That NOECK Encodes the MIXTA-Like Transcriptional Regulator MYB106 Plant Physiology, November 1, 2008; 148(3): 1583 - 1602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-F. Wu, Y. Wang, and S.-H. Wu Two New Clock Proteins, LWD1 and LWD2, Regulate Arabidopsis Photoperiodic Flowering Plant Physiology, October 1, 2008; 148(2): 948 - 959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
