Tissue-Specificity of Plant Circadian Clocks

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Maria A. Nohales	+ 2039 word(s)	2039	2021-03-23 05:09:30	\|
2	format correct	Vivi Li	Meta information modification	2039	2021-03-31 05:41:34	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/genes12030442

The plant circadian clock has a pervasive influence on many aspects of plant biology and is proposed to function as a developmental manager. To do so, the circadian oscillator needs to be able to integrate a multiplicity of environmental signals and coordinate an extensive and diverse repertoire of endogenous rhythms accordingly. Recent studies on tissue-specific characteristics and spatial structure of the plant circadian clock suggest that such plasticity may be achieved through the function of distinct oscillators, which sense the environment locally and are then coordinated across the plant through both intercellular coupling and long-distance communication.

circadian clock plant tissue-specific coupling spatial organization organismal synchronization

1. Introduction

A circadian clock is an endogenous molecular mechanism that generates 24 h rhythms in a wide array of biological processes. As a consequence of the Earth’s rotation, organisms have evolved these timing mechanisms to align their physiology and development with the periodic changes in environmental conditions that occur over the day-night cycle. In the natural environment, the ability to track time enables organisms to anticipate these conditions and adequately coordinate different processes to occur at the most appropriate times. The anticipatory behavior conferred by these biological oscillators thus allows for an efficient distribution and use of metabolic resources and is thought to provide an adaptive advantage ^[1]. In fact, plant circadian mutants with dysfunctional clocks display reduced photosynthesis, growth and viability, especially under challenging conditions ^[1]^[2]^[3]. While the internal circadian oscillator runs with an intrinsic free-running period of approximately 24 h, it is synchronized, or entrained, to the exact period of environmental cycles through its sensitivity to multiple input signals, both exogenous and endogenous ^[4]. Light and temperature play a major role in the entrainment of the plant clock ^[5], which is also affected by other factors including humidity ^[6], ions ^[7]^[8] and metabolites ^[9]^[10].

Almost every aspect of plant physiology and development is subject to some extent of circadian regulation and many efforts have been devoted towards the identification of the genes and proteins that constitute the core molecular mechanism driving this pervasive rhythmicity. As a result, multiple clock components and intricate reciprocal regulatory connections have been identified ^[5]^[11]^[12] (Figure 1). Similarly to other organisms ^[13], the central oscillator in plants is composed of numerous transcriptional-translational loops where clock genes exert feedback regulation on each other, providing this timing mechanism and ultimately driving rhythmic expression of a significant portion of the transcriptome ^[14]^[15]. Two single MYB-domain transcription factors, CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED 1 (CCA1) and LATE ELONGATEDHYPOCOTYL (LHY), are expressed at dawn and they directly repress the expression of morning- and evening-phased clock genes, as well as their own expression ^[16]^[17]. As the day progresses, members of the PSEUDO-RESPONSE REGULATOR (PRR) family (PRR9, PRR7, PRR5 and PRR1 (better known as TIMING OF CAB EXPRESSION 1, TOC1)) are sequentially expressed and they repress CCA1 and LHY, as well as each other ^[18]^[19]^[20]. In the evening, TOC1 represses all the previously expressed and aforementioned clock components, including GIGANTEA (GI), LUX ARRYTHMO (LUX) and EARLY FLOWERING 4 (ELF4) ^[20]. Later during the night, a tripartite complex conformed by ELF3, ELF4 and LUX (the Evening Complex, EC) maintains the repression of GI and represses PRR9, PRR7 and LUX and likely indirectly induces CCA1 and LHY expression ^[21].

Figure 1. Transcriptional feedback loops at the core of the circadian oscillator in Arabidopsis thaliana. Clock components are sequentially expressed across the day as depicted from left to right. Black bars indicate repression of transcription and the broken green arrow, activation of transcription not proven to be direct. At dawn, CCA1 and LHY repress the expression of the PRRs, GI and the members of the Evening Complex (EC) LUX, ELF3 and ELF4. PRR9, PRR7, PRR5 and TOC1 are sequentially expressed and repress the expression of CCA1 and LHY, as well as each other’s. In the evening, TOC1 represses CCA1, LHY and the PRRs, as well as GI, LUX and ELF4. Later, the EC maintains repression on GI, PRR9 and PRR7 and likely indirectly activates CCA1 and LHY.

2. Tissue-Specificity of the Plant Circadian Clock

2.1. Early Evidences for Tissue-Specific Clocks

The existence of multiple oscillators in plants has long been proposed. Early studies in bean plants evidenced that the free-running period of stomatal opening and photosynthesis was different to that of leaflet movement ^[22] and studies in tobacco plants showed that rhythms in cytosolic free calcium (Ca²⁺) levels also free-run with a different period than the expression of a light-harvesting complex (Lhc)b gene family member ^[23]. A single clock can control multiple rhythms with different phases, but it will only render one period, as period is an intrinsic property of the oscillator. Hence, it was deduced that the difference in free-running periods displayed by these rhythms arose from the function of multiple separate plant oscillators with different intrinsic frequencies. Tissue-specific properties of these pacemakers were further investigated by analyzing a single rhythm, namely cytosolic free Ca²⁺ oscillations, in different tissues ^[24]. For this, transgenic tobacco plants expressing the aequorin protein (a luminescent reporter for Ca²⁺ levels) driven by different promoters with distinct spatial patterns of expression were generated. Under free-running conditions, circadian oscillations in Ca²⁺ exhibited distinct phases in each line. While these findings do not necessarily imply the function of separate oscillators, they evidence the existence of distinct cellular control mechanisms contributing to circadian rhythms in Ca²⁺ levels ^[24].

To inspect whether the different oscillators were composed of similar components or not, the effect of mutations in the central oscillator and light input pathway genes on presumably independent rhythms was analyzed. These rhythms comprised oscillations in cytosolic Ca²⁺ levels, as well as in CHALCONE SYNTHASE (CHS), CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN (CAB) and PHYTOCHROME B (PHYB) promoter activity, which owing to their distinct spatial distribution patterns and free-running periods were suggested to be regulated by separate oscillators located in different cell types ^[25]^[26]^[27]. Genetic analyses revealed that two clock-affecting mutations (in the core clock gene TOC1 and the light signaling component DE-ETIOLATED 1, DET1) similarly affected the period of CHS and CAB promoter activity ^[25]. Likewise, misexpression of the red-light photoreceptor PHYB and the core clock genes CCA1, LHY and ELF3 also affected the period of both CAB and PHYB promoter activity in a similar fashion, hence suggesting that the separate oscillators share common components ^[26]. Further supporting this notion, it was observed that rhythms in cytosolic Ca²⁺ levels and CAB promoter activity were both dependent on CCA1, LHY and TOC1 function ^[27]. However, this study also revealed that a semidominant allele of TOC1 (toc1-1), which contains an amino acid change in the conserved CCT (for CONSTANS, CONSTANS-LIKE and TOC1) domain, uncoupled both rhythms and only affected CAB oscillations ^[27]. Thus, these findings indicated that although the separate oscillators do seem to share common components, these may function or relate to each other differently in each tissue to render different frequencies.

2.2. Mechanisms Underlying Tissue-Specific Circadian Rhythms

Local differences in circadian rhythmicity from a similar oscillator can be achieved through various mechanisms including diverging levels in core clock gene expression, functional modulation of these clock genes by tissue-specific regulators and/or through differential perception of input signals.

The majority of clock genes are rhythmically expressed across the entire plant ^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31], but tissue-specific expression levels and circadian properties have been reported for many of them. Comparison of CCA1 promoter activity under free-running conditions in the center of the leaf with that in the center of the rosette of Arabidopsis thaliana plants revealed differences in period length depending on the organ ^[32]. CCA1 was also reported to display lower expression levels and a longer free-running period in guard cells compared to whole leaves ^[33]. A similar behavior was also observed for other oscillator components such as LHY, TOC1 and CCA1 HIKING EXPEDITION (CHE) ^[33]. Interestingly, in the same study it was observed that another clock gene, GI, also had a later phase and run with a longer period in guard cells, but displayed similar expression levels in this cell type compared to whole leaves ^[33]. Hence, individual clock components behave differently across the plant. In terms of expression levels, GI seems to be more highly expressed in the vasculature ^[34], similarly to PRR3, which is suggested to regulate TOC1 protein stability in this tissue ^[29]. Further evidence on tissue-specific variations in the expression levels of core clock components was later provided by a genome-wide gene expression analysis in isolated vasculature and mesophyll cells compared to whole leaves ^[35]. It was observed that morning expressed clock genes such as CCA1, LHY, PRR9 and PRR7 are more highly expressed in mesophyll, while expression of evening phased genes such as TOC1, ELF4 and LUX is higher in the vasculature ^[35]. Differences in the expression levels of clock genes have also been observed between shoots and roots ^[36]. Interestingly, morning and evening phased clock components seem to have a varying impact on circadian function in roots compared to shoots and mutation of several such components affects clock function differently in each organ ^[36]^[37]^[38]^[39]^[40], which indicates that the clock network might be wired differently in each case. Hence, divergence in the expression levels and tissue-specific molecular connections among core clock components is likely one of the mechanisms through which distinct local rhythms are achieved.

Differential processing of environmental signals is another factor that may contribute to tissue-specific circadian regulation. Because different parts of the plant are exposed to different microenvironments, it is anticipated that the impact of specific environmental cues, such as light quality and quantity, temperature or nutrient levels, will differ. Local differences in the clock’s sensitivity to a wide array of signals would enhance plasticity and could allow the clock to better adapt to ambient conditions locally ^[4]^[41].

Perhaps the most important entraining signal in plants is light. Plants use different classes of photoreceptors to sense the light environment and set the clock to the actual pace of day-night cycles ^[42]. These photoreceptors include PHYs and CRYPTOCHROMEs (CRYs), which transmit red and blue light signals, respectively ^[42]. Mutations in both PHY and CRY photoreceptors have been shown to affect circadian period length in response to different light qualities ^[43]^[44] and the spatial expression pattern of PHY and CRY genes varies among tissues ^[45]^[46]^[47]. Therefore, local differences in the sensitivity to light via these photoreceptors could be part of the mechanism underlying tissue-specific functions of the clock. Recent reports suggest that the differences in period length between shoots and roots can in fact be explained by different light inputs ^[36]^[48], in addition to other input signals such as metabolic sugars ^[48]. While the free-running period in roots and shoots is fairly similar under constant darkness, the period length of the root clock is considerably longer than the one in shoots under constant light conditions. Furthermore, the root clock is slowed down by blue light compared to red light, whereas the shoot clock showed similar periods in both blue and red light, evidencing differences in light perception and/or signal transduction in both organs ^[36]. Recent data suggest that function of the evening complex may in fact be part of the light input mechanism that differs between roots and shoots ^[39]. Additionally, tissue-specific functions of PHYB ^[49]^[50] and CRY2 ^[51], as well as other light signaling components that affect light input to the clock, such as COP1 ^[52], SPA1 ^[53] and PIFs ^[54]^[55]^[56], have been reported and could therefore contribute to local differences in the response to light. Further investigation will be required to uncover the overall topology of these tissue-specific light input networks and mechanistically define their function in clock rhythmicity.

In addition to light, temperature is another signal that conveys important information about the surrounding environment. Early studies showed that two separate oscillators involved in the regulation of CAB2 and CATALASE 3 (CAT3) expression had different sensitivity to light and temperature. The pacemaker regulating CAB2 gene expression seemed to preferentially respond to light–dark cycles, while the one controlling CAT3 expression, was more sensitive to temperature signals ^[57]. More recent studies have also reported differential processing of light and temperature signals in different tissues. By analyzing TOC1 promoter activity oscillations in the vasculature compared to whole leaves under light-dark and temperature cycles, it was seen that the vascular clock has lower sensitivity to temperature and higher sensitivity to photoperiodic signals ^[58]. In fact, an oscillator located in vascular phloem companion cells plays an essential role in photoperiodic flowering control ^[35]^[59]. Conversely, a clock in the epidermis seems to display a higher sensitivity to ambient temperature and be required to coordinate other output processes such as temperature-dependent cell elongation ^[59]. Differences in the response to temperature between shoots and roots have also been documented. Temperature seems to have a more prominent effect on clock speed in roots and this is likely dependent on PRR9 and PRR7 function ^[37]^[38].

Altogether, several pieces of evidence suggest that local differences in circadian function may arise from a combination of factors, including heterogeneity in the expression levels of core clock components, tissue-specific connections within the circadian network and differential sensitivity and processing of environmental input signals.

References

Millar, A.J. The Intracellular Dynamics of Circadian Clocks Reach for the Light of Ecology and Evolution. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2016, 67, 595–618.
Green, R.M.; Tingay, S.; Wang, Z.-Y.; Tobin, E.M. Circadian Rhythms Confer a Higher Level of Fitness to Arabidopsis Plants. Plant Physiol. 2002, 129, 576–584.
Dodd, A.N.; Salathia, N.; Hall, A.; Kévei, E.; Tóth, R.; Nagy, F.; Hibberd, J.M.; Millar, A.J.; Webb, A.A.R. Plant Circadian Clocks Increase Photosynthesis, Growth, Survival, and Competitive Advantage. Science 2005, 309, 630–633.
Webb, A.A.R.; Seki, M.; Satake, A.; Caldana, C. Continuous dynamic adjustment of the plant circadian oscillator. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1–9.
Nohales, M.A.; Kay, M.A.N.S.A. Molecular mechanisms at the core of the plant circadian oscillator. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2016, 23, 1061–1069.
Mwimba, M.; Karapetyan, S.; Liu, L.; Marqués, J.; McGinnis, E.M.; Buchler, N.E.; Dong, X. Daily humidity oscillation regulates the circadian clock to influence plant physiology. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1–10.
Ruiz, M.C.M.; Hubbard, K.E.; Gardner, M.J.; Jung, H.J.; Aubry, S.; Hotta, C.T.; Mohd-Noh, N.I.; Robertson, F.C.; Hearn, T.J.; Tsai, Y.-C.; et al. Circadian oscillations of cytosolic free calcium regulate the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Nat. Plants 2018, 4, 690–698.
Salomé, P.A.; Oliva, M.; Weigel, D.; Krämer, U. Circadian clock adjustment to plant iron status depends on chloroplast and phytochrome function. EMBO J. 2012, 32, 511–523.
Haydon, M.J.; Mielczarek, O.; Robertson, F.C.; Hubbard, K.E.; Webb, A.A.R. Photosynthetic entrainment of the Arabidopsis thaliana circadian clock. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 502, 689–692.
Litthauer, S.; Chan, K.X.; Jones, M.A. 3′-Phosphoadenosine 5′-Phosphate Accumulation Delays the Circadian System. Plant Physiol. 2018, 176, 3120–3135.
Nagel, D.H.; Kay, S.A. Complexity in the Wiring and Regulation of Plant Circadian Networks. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, R648–R657.
Hsu, P.Y.; Harmer, S.L. Wheels within wheels: The plant circadian system. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 240–249.
Bell-Pedersen, D.; Cassone, V.M.; Earnest, D.J.; Golden, S.S.; Hardin, P.E.; Thomas, T.L.; Zoran, M.J. Circadian rhythms from multiple oscillators: Lessons from diverse organisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6, 544–556.
Harmer, S.L.; Hogenesch, J.B.; Straume, M.; Chang, H.S.; Han, B.; Zhu, T.; Wang, X.; Kreps, J.A.; Kay, S.A. Orchestrated tran-scription of key pathways in Arabidopsis by the circadian clock. Science 2000, 290, 2110–2113.
Covington, M.F.; Maloof, J.N.; Straume, M.; A Kay, S.; Harmer, S.L. Global transcriptome analysis reveals circadian regulation of key pathways in plant growth and development. Genome Biol. 2008, 9, R130.
Kamioka, M.; Takao, S.; Suzuki, T.; Taki, K.; Higashiyama, T.; Kinoshita, T.; Nakamichi, N. Direct Repression of Evening Genes by CIRCADIAN CLOCK-ASSOCIATED1 in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Plant Cell 2016, 28, 696–711.
Adams, S.; Manfield, I.; Stockley, P.; Carré, I.A. Revised Morning Loops of the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock Based on Analyses of Direct Regulatory Interactions. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143943.
Nakamichi, N.; Kiba, T.; Henriques, R.; Mizuno, T.; Chua, N.-H.; Sakakibara, H. PSEUDO-RESPONSE REGULATORS 9, 7, and 5 Are Transcriptional Repressors in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 594–605.
Gendron, J.M.; Pruneda-Paz, J.L.; Doherty, C.J.; Gross, A.M.; Kang, S.E.; Kay, S.A. Arabidopsis circadian clock protein, TOC1, is a DNA-binding transcription factor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 3167–3172.
Huang, W.; Pérez-García, P.; Pokhilko, A.; Millar, A.J.; Antoshechkin, I.; Riechmann, J.L.; Mas, P. Mapping the Core of the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock Defines the Network Structure of the Oscillator. Science 2012, 336, 75–79.
Huang, H.; Nusinow, D.A. Into the Evening: Complex Interactions in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Trends Genet. 2016, 32, 674–686.
Hennessey, T.L.; Field, C.B. Evidence of Multiple Circadian Oscillators in Bean Plants. J. Biol. Rhythm. 1992, 7, 105–113.
Sai, J.; Johnson, C.H. Different circadian oscillators control Ca2+ fluxes and Lhcb gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 11659–11663.
Wood, N.T.; Haley, A.; Viry-Moussaïd, M.; Johnson, C.H.; Van Der Luit, A.H.; Trewavas, A.J. The Calcium Rhythms of Different Cell Types Oscillate with Different Circadian Phases. Plant Physiol. 2001, 125, 787–796.
Thain, S.C.; Murtas, G.; Lynn, J.R.; McGrath, R.B.; Millar, A.J. The Circadian Clock That Controls Gene Expression in Arabidopsis Is Tissue Specific. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 102–110.
Hall, A.; Kozma-Bognár, L.; Bastow, R.M.; Nagy, F.; Millar, A.J. Distinct regulation of CAB and PHYB gene expression by similar circadian clocks. Plant J. 2002, 32, 529–537.
Xu, X.; Hotta, C.T.; Dodd, A.N.; Love, J.; Sharrock, R.; Lee, Y.W.; Xie, Q.; Johnson, C.H.; Webb, A.A. Distinct Light and Clock Modulation of Cytosolic Free Ca2+ Oscillations and Rhythmic CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN2 Promoter Activity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 3474–3490.
Fowler, S.; Lee, K.; Onouchi, H.; Samach, A.; Richardson, K.; Morris, B.; Coupland, G.; Putterill, J. GIGANTEA: A circadian clock-controlled gene that regulates photoperiodic flowering in Arabidopsis and encodes a protein with several possible membrane-spanning domains. EMBO J. 1999, 18, 4679–4688.
Para, A.; Farré, E.M.; Imaizumi, T.; Pruneda-Paz, J.L.; Harmon, F.G.; Kay, S.A. PRR3 Is a Vascular Regulator of TOC1 Stability in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 3462–3473.
Pruneda-Paz, J.L.; Breton, G.; Para, A.; Kay, S.A. A Functional Genomics Approach Reveals CHE as a Component of the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Science 2009, 323, 1481–1485.
Chow, B.Y.; Sanchez, S.E.; Breton, G.; Pruneda-Paz, J.L.; Krogan, N.T.; Kay, S.A. Transcriptional Regulation of LUX by CBF1 Mediates Cold Input to the Circadian Clock in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 1518–1524.
Fukuda, H.; Nakamichi, N.; Hisatsune, M.; Murase, H.; Mizuno, T. Synchronization of Plant Circadian Oscillators with a Phase Delay Effect of the Vein Network. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 99, 098102.
Yakir, E.; Hassidim, M.; Melamed-Book, N.; Hilman, D.; Kron, I.; Green, R.M. Cell autonomous and cell-type specific circadian rhythms in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2011, 68, 520–531.
Edwards, J.; Martin, A.P.; Andriunas, F.; Offler, C.E.; Patrick, J.W.; McCurdy, D.W. GIGANTEA is a component of a regulatory pathway determining wall ingrowth deposition in phloem parenchyma transfer cells of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2010, 63, 651–661.
Endo, M.; Shimizu, H.; Nohales, M.A.; Araki, T.; Kay, S.A. Tissue-specific clocks in Arabidopsis show asymmetric coupling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2014, 515, 419–422.
Bordage, S.; Sullivan, S.; Laird, J.; Millar, A.J.; Nimmo, H.G. Organ specificity in the plant circadian system is explained by different light inputs to the shoot and root clocks. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 136–149.
Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Yuan, L.; Song, Y.; Sun, J.; Jia, Q.; Xie, Q.; Xu, X. Molecular investigation of organ-autonomous expression of Arabidopsis circadian oscillators. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 1501–1512.
Yuan, L.; Hu, Y.; Li, S.; Xie, Q.; Xu, X. PRR9 and PRR7 negatively regulate the expression of EC components under warm temperature in roots. Plant Signal. Behav. 2021, 16, 1855384.
Nimmo, H.G.; Laird, J.; Bindbeutel, R.; Nusinow, D.A. The evening complex is central to the difference between the circadian clocks of Arabidopsis thaliana shoots and roots. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 169, 442–451.
Chen, W.W.; Takahashi, N.; Hirata, Y.; Ronald, J.; Porco, S.; Davis, S.J.; Nusinow, D.A.; Kay, S.A.; Mas, P. A mobile ELF4 delivers circadian temperature information from shoots to roots. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 416–426.
Greenwood, M.; Locke, J.C. The circadian clock coordinates plant development through specificity at the tissue and cellular level. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 53, 65–72.
Sanchez, S.E.; Rugnone, M.L.; Kay, S.A. Light Perception: A Matter of Time. Mol. Plant 2020, 13, 363–385.
Somers, D.E.; Devlin, P.F.; Kay, S.A. Phytochromes and Cryptochromes in the Entrainment of the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Science 1998, 282, 1488–1490.
Devlin, P.F.; Kay, S.A. Cryptochromes Are Required for Phytochrome Signaling to the Circadian Clock but Not for Rhythmicity. Plant Cell 2000, 12, 2499.
Somers, D.E.; Quail, P.H. Temporal and spatial expression patterns of PHYA and PHYB genes in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 1995, 7, 413–427.
Bognár, L.K.; Hall, A.; Ádám, É.; Thain, S.C.; Nagy, F.; Millar, A.J. The circadian clock controls the expression pattern of the circadian input photoreceptor, phytochrome B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 14652–14657.
Tóth, R.; Kevei, É.; Hall, A.; Millar, A.J.; Nagy, F.; Kozma-Bognár, L. Circadian Clock-Regulated Expression of Phytochrome and Cryptochrome Genes in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2001, 127, 1607–1616.
Greenwood, M.; Domijan, M.; Gould, P.D.; Hall, A.J.W.; Locke, J.C.W. Coordinated circadian timing through the integration of local inputs in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000407.
Endo, M.; Nakamura, S.; Araki, T.; Mochizuki, N.; Nagatani, A. Phytochrome B in the Mesophyll Delays Flowering by Suppressing FLOWERING LOCUS T Expression in Arabidopsis Vascular Bundles. Plant Cell 2005, 17, 1941–1952.
Kim, J.; Song, K.; Park, E.; Kim, K.; Bae, G.; Choi, G. Epidermal Phytochrome B Inhibits Hypocotyl Negative Gravitropism Non-Cell-Autonomously. Plant Cell 2016, 28, 2770–2785.
Endo, M.; Mochizuki, N.; Suzuki, T.; Nagatani, A. CRYPTOCHROME2 in Vascular Bundles Regulates Flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 84–93.
Jang, S.; Marchal, V.; Panigrahi, K.C.S.; Wenkel, S.; Soppe, W.; Deng, X.-W.; Valverde, F.; Coupland, G. Arabidopsis COP1 shapes the temporal pattern of CO accumulation conferring a photoperiodic flowering response. EMBO J. 2008, 27, 1277–1288.
Ranjan, A.; Fiene, G.; Fackendahl, P.; Hoecker, U. The Arabidopsis repressor of light signaling SPA1 acts in the phloem to regulate seedling de-etiolation, leaf expansion and flowering time. Development 2011, 138, 1851–1862.
Kim, K.; Shin, J.; Lee, S.-H.; Kweon, H.-S.; Maloof, J.N.; Choi, G. Phytochromes inhibit hypocotyl negative gravitropism by regulating the development of endodermal amyloplasts through phytochrome-interacting factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 1729–1734.
Kim, K.; Jeong, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, N.; Kim, M.E.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.C.; Choi, G. PIF1 Regulates Plastid Development by Repressing Photosynthetic Genes in the Endodermis. Mol. Plant 2016, 9, 1415–1427.
Kim, S.; Hwang, G.; Kim, S.; Thi, T.N.; Kim, H.; Jeong, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Choi, G.; Oh, E. The epidermis coordinates thermoresponsive growth through the phyB-PIF4-auxin pathway. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–13.
Michael, T.P.; Salomé, P.A.; McClung, C.R. Two Arabidopsis circadian oscillators can be distinguished by differential temperature sensitivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 6878–6883.
Shimizu, H.; Araki, T.; Endo, M. Photoperiod sensitivity of the Arabidopsis circadian clock is tissue-specific. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015, 10, e1010933.
Shimizu, H.; Katayama, K.; Koto, T.; Torii, K.; Araki, T.; Endo, M. Decentralized circadian clocks process thermal and photoperiodic cues in specific tissues. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15163.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Plant Sciences

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Maria A. Nohales

View Times: 591

Update Date: 31 Mar 2021

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm