Mode of Coaction of Phytochrome and Blue Light Photoreceptor in Control of Hypocotyl Elongation

Drumm‐Herrel, H.; Mohr, Hans

doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.1984.tb04584.x

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of such experiments are consistent with the occurrence of interdependent co-action or synergism between phytochromes and BL photoreceptors (e.g. Attridge et al 1984, Drumm-Herrel and Mohr 1984, 1988, Fernbach and Mohr 1990. Mohr (1986) has proposed a unifying model of the nature of this co-action in photomorphogenesis.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Co-action between phytochrome B and HY4 in Arabidopsis thaliana

Casal

Boccalandro

1995

Planta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A combination of physiological and genetic approaches was used to investigate whether phytochromes and blue light (BL) photoreceptors act in a fully independent manner during photomorphogenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Wild-type seedlings and phyA, phyB and hy4 mutants were daily exposed to 3 h BL terminated with either a red light (R) or a far-red light (FR) pulse. In wild-type and phyA-mutant seedlings, BL followed by an R pulse inhibited hypocotyl growth and promoted cotyledon unfolding. The effects of BL were reduced if exposure to BL was followed by an FR pulse driving phytochrome to the R-absorbing form (Pr). In the wild type, the effects of R versus FR pulses were small in seedlings not exposed to BL. Thus, maximal responses depended on the presence of both BL and the FR-absorbing form of phytochrome (Pfr) in the subsequent dark period. Impaired responses to BL and to R versus FR pulses were observed in phyB and hy4 mutants. Simultaneous irradiation with orange light indicated that BL, perceived by specific BL photoreceptors (i.e. not by phytochromes), required phytochrome B to display a full effect. These results indicate interdependent co-action between phytochrome B and BL photoreceptors, parti-

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Co-action between phytochrome B and HY4 in Arabidopsis thaliana

Casal

Boccalandro

1995

Planta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, our results are not consistent with the theory (6,14) that light absorbed by UV photoreceptors can lead to an increase in responsiveness toward Pfr in a subsequent dark period.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Photomorphogenic Responses to UV Light in Red and White Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.)

Lercari¹,

Sodi²,

Sbrana³

1989

Plant Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photoinhibition of hypocotyl growth in white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L., cv "Bianco Brunswick") is controlled by UV absorbing receptor(s) and the phytochrome system, while in red cabbage (cv "Rosso Olandese tardivo invemale") phytochrome can act without any requirement for the action of a specific UV receptor. Similar results have been obtained for the photoregulation of anthocyanin production. Twenty-four hour preirradiations with UV light or 692 nanometers light lead to the same increase in responsiveness of the system toward Pfr in a following dark period, suggesting a phytochrome promotion of subsequent light induction for both.A considerable number of studies have been reported on the effects of UV radiation on higher plants (2,3,10,23). Nevertheless, the nature and the mode of interaction between the photoreceptors involved in the control of the photomorphogenic responses induced by UV irradiation, is still an open question. UV may induce both negative (damaging) and positive (nondamaging) effects in higher plants, and the same response can be differently affected (positively or negatively) depending on the fluence rate (1 1). UV light is absorbed by phytochrome, the red-far red reversible photoreceptor of plants, causing photoconversion of Pr to Pfr and vice versa, both in vitro (see 13 for the relevant literature) and in vivo (15). A specific blue-UV receptor known as cryptochrome, with one of its peaks at about 370 nm has been characterized by action spectroscopy (16). In addition, a little studied UV-

show abstract

“…A phytochrome (Pfr) independent involvement of a BL/UV-A photoreceptor in the induction of these photoresponses could have easily been detected in the mutant. This reasoning would argue in favor of the hypothesis that the signal transduction chain originating from a BL/UV-A photoreceptor requires Pfr for its action [7,8,11,12,20,22,23,26,27]. On the other hand, the aurea mutation might cause pleiotropic effects and cause not only a rapid degradation of the phytochrome apoprotein, but affect the BL/UV-A photoreceptor and/or the signal transduction chain originating from it as well.…”

Section: Response Of Transcript Levels For Normally Photoregulated Gementioning

confidence: 83%

Blue-light mediated accumulation of nuclear-encoded transcripts coding for proteins of the thylakoid membrane is absent in the phytochrome-deficient aurea mutant of tomato

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyclonal antibodies against pea phytochrome detect 2 protein bands (about 116 and 120 kDa) on blots of crude protein extracts and protein of microsomal preparations of dark-grown tomato seedlings. Both protein bands are undetectable in Western blots of the aurea mutant extracts. Neither protein band is detectable after isogenic wild-type seedlings are illuminated with 3 h of red light, either in the crude extract or in the membrane fraction of the irradiated seedlings; this result is consistent with the hypothesis that both bands are phytochrome. When dark-grown wild-type seedlings are illuminated with 3 h of red light or blue light against a red light background, the transcript levels for chlorophyll a/b-binding proteins of photosystem I and II, plastocyanin, and the subunit II of photosystem I increase. In all cases, the same fluence rate of blue light is much more effective than red light alone, a result that indicates the involvement of a blue/UV-A light photoreceptor in addition to the involvement of the far-red-absorbing form of phytochrome, Pfr. The aurea mutant responds neither to red light nor to blue light. Thus, no Pfr-independent induction of the four transcripts by a blue/UV-A light photoreceptor can be measured in the aurea mutant.

show abstract

Mode of Coaction of Phytochrome and Blue Light Photoreceptor in Control of Hypocotyl Elongation

Cited by 33 publications

References 27 publications

Co-action between phytochrome B and HY4 in Arabidopsis thaliana

Co-action between phytochrome B and HY4 in Arabidopsis thaliana

Comparison of Photomorphogenic Responses to UV Light in Red and White Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.)

Blue-light mediated accumulation of nuclear-encoded transcripts coding for proteins of the thylakoid membrane is absent in the phytochrome-deficient aurea mutant of tomato

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About