Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Floral Induction (floral + induction)
Selected AbstractsThe Arabidopsis TALE homeobox gene ATH1 controls floral competency through positive regulation of FLCTHE PLANT JOURNAL, Issue 5 2007Marcel Proveniers Summary Floral induction is controlled by a plethora of genes acting in different pathways that either repress or promote floral transition at the shoot apical meristem (SAM). During vegetative development high levels of floral repressors maintain the Arabidopsis SAM as incompetent to respond to promoting factors. Among these repressors, FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC) is the most prominent. The processes underlying downregulation of FLC in response to environmental and developmental signals have been elucidated in considerable detail. However, the basal induction of FLC and its upregulation by FRIGIDA (FRI) are still poorly understood. Here we report the functional characterization of the ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA HOMEOBOX 1 (ATH1) gene. A function of ATH1 in floral repression is suggested by a gradual downregulation of ATH1 in the SAM prior to floral transition. Further evidence for such a function of ATH1 is provided by the vernalization-sensitive late flowering of plants that constitutively express ATH1. Analysis of lines that differ in FRI and/or FLC allele strength show that this late flowering is caused by upregulation of FLC as a result of synergism between ATH1 overexpression and FRI. Lack of ATH1, however, results in attenuated FLC levels independently of FRI, suggesting that ATH1 acts as a general activator of FLC expression. This is further corroborated by a reduction of FLC -mediated late flowering in fca-1 and fve-1 autonomous pathway backgrounds when combined with ath1. Since other floral repressors of the FLC clade are not significantly affected by ATH1, we conclude that ATH1 controls floral competency as a specific activator of FLC expression. [source] A physiological overview of the genetics of flowering time controlPLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL, Issue 1 2005Georges Bernier Summary Physiological studies on flowering time control have shown that plants integrate several environmental signals. Predictable factors, such as day length and vernalization, are regarded as ,primary', but clearly interfere with, or can even be substituted by, less predictable factors. All plant parts participate in the sensing of these interacting factors. In the case of floral induction by photoperiod, long-distance signalling is known to occur between the leaves and the shoot apical meristem (SAM) via the phloem. In the long-day plant, Sinapis alba, this long-distance signalling has also been shown to involve the root system and to include sucrose, nitrate, glutamine and cytokinins, but not gibberellins. In Arabidopsis thaliana, a number of genetic pathways controlling flowering time have been identified. Models now extend beyond ,primary' controlling factors and show an ever-increasing number of cross-talks between pathways triggered or influenced by various environmental factors and hormones (mainly gibberellins). Most of the genes involved are preferentially expressed in meristems (the SAM and the root tip), but, surprisingly, only a few are expressed preferentially or exclusively in leaves. However, long-distance signalling from leaves to SAM has been shown to occur in Arabidopsis during the induction of flowering by long days. In this review, we propose a model integrating physiological data and genes activated by the photoperiodic pathway controlling flowering time in early-flowering accessions of Arabidopsis. This model involves metabolites, hormones and gene products interacting as long- or short-distance signalling molecules. [source] Phytochromes A1 and B1 have distinct functions in the photoperiodic control of flowering in the obligate long-day plant Nicotiana sylvestrisPLANT CELL & ENVIRONMENT, Issue 9 2006ZHI-LIANG ZHENG ABSTRACT The obligate long-day plant Nicotiana sylvestris with a nominal critical day length of 12 h was used to dissect the roles of two major phytochromes (phyA1 and phyB1) in the photoperiodic control of flowering using transgenic plants under-expressing PHYA1 (SUA2), over-expressing PHYB1 (SOB36), or cosuppressing the PHYB1 gene (SCB35). When tungsten filament lamps were used to extend an 8 h main photoperiod, SCB35 and SOB36 flowered earlier and later, respectively, than wild-type plants, while flowering was greatly delayed in SUA2. These results are consistent with those obtained with other long-day plants in that phyB has a negative role in the control of flowering, while phyA is required for sensing day-length extensions. However, evidence was obtained for a positive role for PHYB1 in the control of flowering. Firstly, transgenic plants under-expressing both PHYA1 and PHYB1 exhibited extreme insensitivity to day-length extensions. Secondly, flowering in SCB35 was completely repressed under 8 h extensions with far-red-deficient light from fluorescent lamps. This indicates that the dual requirement for both far-red and red for maximum floral induction is mediated by an interaction between phyA1 and phyB1. In addition, a diurnal periodicity to the sensitivity of both negative and positive light signals was observed. This is consistent with existing models in which photoperiodic time measurement is not based on the actual measurement of the duration of either the light or dark period, but rather the coincidence of endogenous rhythms of sensitivity , both positive and negative , and the presence of light cues. [source] From bud to berry, with special reference to inflorescence and bunch morphology in Vitis vinifera L.AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF GRAPE AND WINE RESEARCH, Issue 2 2000PETER MAY Abstract A brief review of the reproductive system of the grapevine is presented. Phases discussed include floral induction and initiation during early spring, inflorescence primordium growth during summer to dormancy, flower formation at budburst in the subsequent growing season, and finally flowering and berry development. Difficulties in clearly defining and describing some of these developmental stages will be outlined, especially the complex bud system, the morphology of buds at budburst, and the course of flowering. The course of floral development during dormancy and at the time of budburst requires further attention, especially the reported effect that low temperature at budburst leads to increased numbers of flowers. Also, the recent finding that ,intercarpellar' floral organs can be induced by applying auxin is of particular interest and will be described. Case studies from Burgundy vineyards with Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Gamay ovaries and berries will be included. A detailed analysis of what constitutes a grape bunch will be presented from observations of Chardonnay inflorescences and bunches collected at random after set and at harvest in two seasons from spur-pruned, cane-pruned and hedged vines growing on two sites varying in climate and productivity (Adelaide Hills and Southern Vales of South Australia). This analysis covered variability in numbers of branches and flowers and in per cent berry set, as well as relationships between branch numbers and flower numbers. Relationships between flower numbers and per cent set, per cent set and berry size along the inflorescence, and berry size and seed complement are outlined. Likely implications of inter-bunch and intra-bunch variability for bunch compactness, berry composition and yield components are discussed. [source] | ||||||||||