4.7 Article

Ectopic expression of foxtail millet zip-like gene, SiPf40, in transgenic rice plants causes a pleiotropic phenotype affecting tillering, vascular distribution and root development

期刊

SCIENCE CHINA-LIFE SCIENCES
卷 53, 期 12, 页码 1450-1458

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11427-010-4090-5

关键词

SiPf40; ZIP; phytohormone; plant architecture; root development; tiller; vascular; rice

类别

资金

  1. National Transgenic Major Program of China [2008ZX003-002, 2009ZX08009-0938]
  2. National High-Tech Research and Development Program of China [2008AA10Z158-2]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30971555, 30671124]
  4. State Key Laboratory for Agrobiotechnology in China [2010SKLAB05-12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant architecture determines grain production in rice (Oryza saliva) and is affected by important agronomic traits such as tillering, plant height, and panicle morphology. Many key genes involved in controlling the initiation and outgrowth of axillary buds, the elongation of stems, and the architecture of inflorescences have been isolated and analyzed. Previous studies have shown that SiPf40, which was identified from a foxtail millet (Setaria italica) immature seed cDNA library, causes extra branches and tillers in SiPf40-transgenic tobacco and foxtail millet, respectively. To reconfirm its function, we generated transgenic rice plants overexpressing SiPf40 under the control of the ubiquitin promoter. SiPf40-overexpressing transgenic plants have a greater tillering number and a wider tiller angle than wild-type plants. Their root architecture is modified by the promotion of lateral root development, and the distribution of xylem and phloem in the vascular bundle is affected. Analysis of hormone levels showed that the ratios of indole-3-acetic acid/zeatin (IAA/ZR) and IAA/gibberellic acid (IAA/GA) decreased in SiPf40-transgenic plants compared with wild-type plants. These findings strongly suggest that SiPf40 plays an important role in plant 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