Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages (February 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gene expression (signal intensity) Control Osmotic Salt Drought Root Control Gene expression (signal intensity) Treatment.
Advertisements

A Histone H3 Lysine-27 Methyltransferase Complex Represses Lateral Root Formation in Arabidopsis thaliana  Gu Xiaofeng , Xu Tongda , He Yuehui   Molecular.
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages (February 2015)
Spatial Auxin Signaling Controls Leaf Flattening in Arabidopsis
Arabidopsis KNOXI Proteins Activate Cytokinin Biosynthesis
DELLAs Modulate Jasmonate Signaling via Competitive Binding to JAZs
Chloroplast Signaling Gates Thermotolerance in Arabidopsis
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 27, Issue 22, Pages e5 (November 2017)
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages (May 2015)
Spatiotemporal Brassinosteroid Signaling and Antagonism with Auxin Pattern Stem Cell Dynamics in Arabidopsis Roots  Juthamas Chaiwanon, Zhi-Yong Wang 
Volume 23, Issue 20, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages (January 2016)
A Truncated Arabidopsis NUCLEOSOME ASSEMBLY PROTEIN 1, AtNAP1;3T, Alters Plant Growth Responses to Abscisic Acid and Salt in the Atnap1;3-2 Mutant  Liu.
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages (January 2011)
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2017)
Bojan Gujas, Carlos Alonso-Blanco, Christian S. Hardtke 
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 23, Issue 18, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 15, Issue 13, Pages (July 2005)
Volume 18, Issue 23, Pages (December 2008)
Abdul Azeez, Pál Miskolczi, Szymon Tylewicz, Rishikesh P. Bhalerao 
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 26, Issue 18, Pages (September 2016)
PIF4 Coordinates Thermosensory Growth and Immunity in Arabidopsis
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages (September 2014)
BZR1 Positively Regulates Freezing Tolerance via CBF-Dependent and CBF- Independent Pathways in Arabidopsis  Hui Li, Keyi Ye, Yiting Shi, Jinkui Cheng,
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (March 2006)
Volume 67, Issue 4, Pages e4 (August 2017)
Volume 26, Issue 14, Pages (July 2016)
The WUSCHEL Related Homeobox Protein WOX7 Regulates the Sugar Response of Lateral Root Development in Arabidopsis thaliana  Danyu Kong, Yueling Hao, Hongchang.
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages (July 2012)
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages e5 (January 2018)
SKIP Interacts with the Paf1 Complex to Regulate Flowering via the Activation of FLC Transcription in Arabidopsis  Ying Cao, Liguo Wen, Zheng Wang, Ligeng.
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages (January 2016)
Marco Trujillo, Kazuya Ichimura, Catarina Casais, Ken Shirasu 
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 24, Issue 21, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages (March 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 16, Pages (August 2012)
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages (August 2014)
MYB34, MYB51, and MYB122 Distinctly Regulate Indolic Glucosinolate Biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana  Frerigmann Henning , Gigolashvili Tamara   Molecular.
Physcomitrella patens Auxin-Resistant Mutants Affect Conserved Elements of an Auxin- Signaling Pathway  Michael J. Prigge, Meirav Lavy, Neil W. Ashton,
A miRNA Involved in Phosphate-Starvation Response in Arabidopsis
Volume 17, Issue 13, Pages (July 2007)
Arabidopsis NF-YCs Mediate the Light-Controlled Hypocotyl Elongation via Modulating Histone Acetylation  Yang Tang, Xuncheng Liu, Xu Liu, Yuge Li, Keqiang.
Xiang Han, Hao Yu, Rongrong Yuan, Yan Yang, Fengying An, Genji Qin
HOS1 Facilitates the Phytochrome B-Mediated Inhibition of PIF4 Function during Hypocotyl Growth in Arabidopsis  Ju-Heon Kim, Hyo-Jun Lee, Jae-Hoon Jung,
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Volume 23, Issue 17, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 18, Pages (September 2012)
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 24, Issue 13, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages e4 (November 2018)
Volume 24, Issue 16, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 43, Issue 5, Pages e5 (December 2017)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2017)
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (May 2008)
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (February 2018)
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (March 2005)
Systematic Study of Nucleosome-Displacing Factors in Budding Yeast
DNA Damage-Induced Transcription of Transposable Elements and Long Non-coding RNAs in Arabidopsis Is Rare and ATM-Dependent  Zhenxing Wang, Rainer Schwacke,
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages (July 2018)
Abscisic Acid, High-Light, and Oxidative Stress Down-Regulate a Photosynthetic Gene via a Promoter Motif Not Involved in Phytochrome-Mediated Transcriptional.
Presentation transcript:

Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 437-444 (February 2017) Plant Stress Tolerance Requires Auxin-Sensitive Aux/IAA Transcriptional Repressors  Eilon Shani, Mohammad Salehin, Yuqin Zhang, Sabrina E. Sanchez, Colleen Doherty, Renhou Wang, Cristina Castillejo Mangado, Liang Song, Iris Tal, Odelia Pisanty, Joseph R. Ecker, Steve A. Kay, Jose Pruneda-Paz, Mark Estelle  Current Biology  Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 437-444 (February 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.016 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Y1H Screen for Regulators of Aux/IAA Genes (A) Phylogenetic tree of Arabidopsis Aux/IAA proteins. Blue dots mark Aux/IAA promoters cloned for the Y1H screen. (B) IAA promoter-TF interaction network. The IAA promoters are indicated by color-coded ovals; interacting TFs are blue ovals. Eighty-three TFs interacted with several pIAAs, whereas 90 TFs interacted with a single pIAA. (C) Heatmap showing enrichment of TF families for each promoter fragment. The enrichment score for each TF family on the promoter fragments was calculated by Fisher’s exact test. The −log10 p value of this enrichment score is shown above with darker colors indicating a greater enrichment score. (D) Phylogenetic tree of the Arabidopsis DREB/CBF proteins. Color-coding sub-families A1 and A4 (yellow); sub-families A2, A3, and A6 (pink); and sub-family A5 (orange) are shown. Interactions between DREB/CBF proteins and IAA promoters (color-coded circles) are plotted next to gene number. See also Figure S1 and Tables S1 and S2. Current Biology 2017 27, 437-444DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.016) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 The DRE Element Is Required for IAA5 and IAA19 Expression (A) DR5:3XVENUS-NLS seedlings after 30 min of desiccation or 48-hr PEG treatment. (B and C) Expression level in response to a 30-min desiccation period or 48-hr PEG treatment. n = 3 biological replicates. (B) Selected DREBs. The numbers above the bars represent fold change. (C) Selected IAAs. (D) Y1H interaction assay for selected DREB/CBF proteins with pIAA5 and pIAA5m. DREB 9210 and 4940 are At1G19210 and At2G44940, respectively. Bar graph is the mean of four biological replicates. (E) Representation of the IAA5 promoter (first 500 bp). Arrows indicate the position of DRE/CRT motifs. In pIAA5m, the two DRE/CRT motifs are mutated as indicated. (F) Expression of the pIAA5:LUC and pIAA5m:LUC reporters in response to desiccation. Shown are averages (±SE) for three independent pIAA5 and pIAA5m lines (n = 56 seedlings). Results are representative of at least three independent experiments. (G) Roots of pIAA19:iaa19-dII-deldIV-3xYPet seedlings in response to desiccation (1 hr) and PEG (3 hr). YPet florescence is shown in yellow. The graph at right is the quantification of YPet florescence in a.u. For all panels, differences are significant at p < 0.05 (∗) and p < 0.01 (∗∗) by Student’s t test. See also Figures S2–S5. Current Biology 2017 27, 437-444DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.016) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 DREB/CBFs Regulate Transcription of IAA5, IAA6, and IAA19 (A and B) CBF1 and DREB2A bind to the promoter of COR78, IAA5, and IAA19. (A) CBF1 binds to the promoter of COR78, IAA5, and IAA19 in 10-day-old light-grown whole seedlings. (B) DREB2A binds to the promoter of COR78, IAA5, and IAA19 in the roots of 10-day-old light-grown seedlings that were desiccated for 1 hr. Sonicated chromatin was immunoprecipitated either with or without anti-GFP antibody. Fold induction was normalized to no antibody and wild-type controls. Data represent mean with SE from two independent biological replicates with two technical replicates for CBF1 and three independent biological replicates for DREB2A. Differences are significant at p < 0.01(∗∗), p < 0.005 (∗∗∗), and p < 0.08 (#). (C–E) CBF1 and DREB2A directly regulate IAA5 and IAA19 transcription. (C) Estradiol-regulated DREB2A overexpression (Est.≫DREB2A) induces IAA5, IAA6, and IAA19 expression. Data represent means with SE from three independent biological replicates. Results are significant at p < 0.005 (∗∗∗) and p < 0.05 (∗∗). (D) Expression of DREB2A, IAA5, and IAA19 in CBF2DN line after 1 hr desiccation. Differences are significant at p < 0.05 (∗) and p < 0.005 (∗∗∗). (E) IAA5 and IAA19 levels in dreb2a dreb2b double mutant after 1 hr desiccation. Differences are significant at p < 0.005 (∗∗∗) and p < 0.01 (∗∗) Student’s t test. Current Biology 2017 27, 437-444DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.016) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 The IAA5, IAA6, and IAA19 Genes Are Required for Stress Tolerance (A–C) Response of wild-type and mutant seedlings to desiccation. Seven-day-old seedlings were placed on parafilm for 75 min and transferred to ½ MS plates for 10 days. (A) Representative 17-day-old Col-0 and iaa5-1 seedlings after recovery from desiccation stress. (B) Fresh weight after desiccation stress relative to respective control plants. (C) Survival rate after desiccation. Data represent mean ± SE from one of the three independent experiments. n = 12–15 seedlings for each genotype. Differences are significant at p < 0.001 (∗) Student’s t test for all mutants compared to Col-0. (D–F) Response of wild-type and mutant seedlings to growth on medium containing PEG-8000 (−1.0 Mpa). Seedlings were grown on ½ MS for 5 days and transferred to PEG-infused plates for a further 10 days. (D) Representative 15-day-old Col-0 and iaa5-1 seedlings after PEG stress. (E) Primary root growth of seedlings after PEG stress compared to the respective control plants. (F) Fresh weight of seedlings after PEG stress relative to controls. Data represent mean ± SE from one of the three independent experiments. n = 12–15 seedlings for each genotype. Differences are significant at p < 0.001 (∗) Student’s t test for all mutant genotypes compared to Col-0. See also Figure S6. Current Biology 2017 27, 437-444DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.016) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions