4.7 Article

Co-ordinated regulation of flowering time, plant architecture and growth by FASCICULATE: the pepper orthologue of SELF PRUNING

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 869-880

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern334

关键词

FASCICULATE; flowering time; pepper; plant architecture; SELF PRUNING; sympodial development

资金

  1. The Israel Science Foundation [687/05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild peppers (Capsicum spp.) are either annual or perennial in their native habitat and their shoot architecture is dictated by their sympodial growth habit. To study shoot architecture in pepper, sympodial development is described in wild type and in the classical recessive fasciculate (fa) mutation. The basic sympodial unit in wild-type pepper comprises two leaves and a single terminal flower. fasciculate plants are characterized by the formation of floral clusters separated by short internodes and miniature leaves and by early flowering. Developmental analysis of these clusters revealed shorter sympodial units and, often, precocious termination prior to sympodial leaf formation. fa was mapped to pepper chromosome 6, in a region corresponding to the tomato SELF-PRUNING (SP) locus, the homologue of TFL1 of Arabidopsis. Sequence comparison between wild-type and fa plants revealed a duplication of the second exon in the mutants' orthologue of SP, leading to the formation of a premature stop codon. Ectopic expression of FASCICULATE complemented the Arabidopsis tfl1 mutant plants and as expected, stimulated late flowering. In agreement with the major effect of FASCICULATE imposed on sympodial development, the gene transcripts were localized to the centre of sympodial shoots but could not be detected in the primary shoot. The wide range of pleiotropic effects on plant architecture mediated by a single 'flowering' gene, suggests that it is used to co-ordinate many developmental events, and thus may underlie some of the widespread variation in the Solanaceae shoot architecture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据