The transcription factors LEAFY (LFY) and APETALA1 (AP1), together with the AP1 paralog CAULIFLOWER (CAL), control the onset of flower development in a partially redundant manner. This redundancy is thought to be mediated, at least in part, through the regulation of a shared set of target genes. However, whether these genes are independently or cooperatively regulated by LFY and AP1/CAL is currently unknown. To better understand the regulatory relationship between LFY and AP1/CAL and to obtain deeper insights into the control of floral initiation, we monitored the activity of LFY in the absence of AP1/CAL function. We found that the regulation of several known LFY target genes is unaffected by AP1/CAL perturbation, while others appear to require AP1/CAL activity. Furthermore, we obtained evidence that LFY and AP1/CAL control the expression of some genes in an antagonistic manner. Notably, these include key regulators of floral initiation such as (), which had been previously reported to be directly repressed by both LFY and AP1. We show here that expression is suppressed by AP1 but promoted by LFY. We further demonstrate that LFY has an inhibitory effect on flower formation in the absence of AP1/CAL activity. We propose that LFY and AP1/CAL act as part of an incoherent feed-forward loop, a network motif where two interconnected pathways or transcription factors act in opposite directions on a target gene, to control the establishment of a stable developmental program for the formation of flowers.

To efficiently counteract pathogens, plants rely on a complex set of immune responses that are tightly regulated to allow the timely activation, appropriate duration and adequate amplitude of defense programs. The coordination of the plant immune response is known to require the activity of the ubiquitin/proteasome system, which controls the stability of proteins in eukaryotes. Here, we demonstrate that the N-end rule pathway, a subset of the ubiquitin/proteasome system, regulates the defense against a wide range of bacterial and fungal pathogens in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. We show that this pathway positively regulates the biosynthesis of plant-defense metabolites such as glucosinolates, as well as the biosynthesis and response to the phytohormone jasmonic acid, which plays a key role in plant immunity. Our results also suggest that the arginylation branch of the N-end rule pathway regulates the timing and amplitude of the defense program against the model pathogen Pseudomonas syringae AvrRpm1.

A fundamental question in biology is how organisms integrate the plethora of environmental cues that they perceive to trigger a co-ordinated response. The regulation of protein stability, which is largely mediated by the ubiquitin-proteasome system in eukaryotes, plays a pivotal role in these processes. Due to their sessile lifestyle and the need to respond rapidly to a multitude of environmental factors, plants are thought to be especially dependent on proteolysis to regulate cellular processes. In this review, we present the complexity of the ubiquitin system in plants, and discuss the relevance of the proteolytic and non-proteolytic roles of this system in the regulation and co-ordination of plant responses to environmental signals. We also discuss the role of the ubiquitin system as a key regulator of plant signaling pathways. We focus more specifically on the functions of E3 ligases as regulators of the jasmonic acid (JA), salicylic acid (SA), and ethylene hormone signaling pathways that play important roles to mount a co-ordinated response to multiple environmental stresses. We also provide examples of new players in this field that appear to integrate different cues and signaling pathways.

The gene regulatory network comprised of LEAFY (LFY), APETALA1 (AP1), the AP1 paralog CAULIFLOWER (CAL), and TERMINAL FLOWER1 (TFL1) is a major determinant of the flowering process in Arabidopsis thaliana. TFL1 activity in the shoot apical meristem provides inflorescence identity while the transcription factors LFY and AP1/CAL confer floral identity to emerging floral primordia. It has been thought that LFY and AP1/CAL control the onset of flowering in part by repressing TFL1 expression in flowers. However, in the June issue of Plant Physiology, we reported that LFY and AP1 act antagonistically in the regulation of several key flowering regulators, including TFL1. Specifically, TFL1 transcription was suppressed by AP1 but promoted by LFY. Here, we present additional evidence for the role of LFY as an activator of TFL1 and propose that this regulatory activity is pivotal for the indeterminate growth of the SAM during the reproductive phase of development.