4.7 Article

Arabidopsis AtNAP functions as a negative regulator via repression of AREB1 in salt stress response

期刊

PLANTA
卷 245, 期 2, 页码 329-341

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-016-2609-0

关键词

AtNAP; NAC transcription factor; Negative regulator; Osmotic stress; Promoter repression; Salt stress; Senescence; Transcriptional repressor

资金

  1. 2-year Research Grant of Pusan National University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AtNAP , an Arabidopsis NAC transcription factor family gene, functions as a negative regulator via transcriptional repression of AREB1 in salt stress response. AtNAP is an NAC family transcription factor in Arabidopsis and is known to be a positive regulator of senescence. However, its exact function and underlying molecular mechanism in stress responses are not well known. Here, we investigated functional roles of AtNAP in salt stress response. AtNAP expression significantly increased at the seedling stage, with higher expression in both shoots and roots under NaCl, mannitol, and ABA treatments. T-DNA insertional loss-of-function mutants of AtNAP were more tolerant to salt stress than wild type (WT), whereas AtNAP-overexpressing transgenic plants (OXs) were more sensitive to salt stress than WT during germination, seedling development, and mature plant stage. Transcript levels of stress-responsive genes in the ABA-dependent pathway, such as AREB1, RD20, and RD29B, were significantly higher and lower in atnap mutants and AtNAP OXs, respectively, than in WT under salt stress conditions, suggesting that AtNAP might negatively regulate the expression of those genes under salt stress conditions. Indeed, AtNAP repressed the promoter activity of AREB1 under normal and salt stress conditions. These results indicate that AtNAP functions as a negative regulator in the salt stress response. Our results, together with previous studies, suggest that AtNAP functions as a negative regulator in osmotic stress responses, whereas it functions as a positive regulator in senescence.

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