Overexpression of a mutated melon ethylene receptor gene Cm-ETR1/H69A confers reduced ethylene sensitivity in a heterologous plant, Nemesia strumosa

Heterologous Expression of a Mutated Carnation Ethylene Receptor Gene, Dc-ETR1nr, Suppresses Petal Abscission and Autocatalytic Ethylene Production in Transgenic Torenia fournieri Lind.

“…1A), which was then introduced into T. fournieri plants. Dc-ETR1nr transgenic plants expressing Dc-ETR1nr under the control of the CaMV 35S promoter showed no petal abscission in response to ethylene treatment, resulting in extended flower longevity, as previously observed in transgenic petunia, Nemesia strumosa, Kalanchoe, and carnation plants (Bovy et al, 1999;Cui et al, 2004;Sanikhani et al, 2008;Wilkinson et al, 1997). These results suggest that introducing the Nr-type mutation into the ethylene receptor gene is useful for modifying ethylene receptors that have been isolated from other plant species.…”

Production of male sterile transgenic plants

“…Transgenic tobacco plants expressing the mutated melon ethylene receptor genes, Cm-ERS1/H70A and Cm-ETR1/H69A, under the control of the constitutive CaMV 35S promoter showed increased flower longevity (Figure 2), as had previously been observed in transgenic Nemesia plants expressing Cm-ETR1/H69A (Cui et al 2004) and transgenic Lotus japonicus plants expressing Cm-ERS1/H70A (Nukui et al 2004). Additionally, the yellowing of leaves during senescence in these transgenic tobacco plants was delayed, in comparison to the wild type.…”

“…As has been shown with Arabidopsis etr1-1 (Rodriguez et al 1999), the missense mutation changing His-69 to Ala was introduced into Cm-ETR1, and this mutant gene was designated as Cm-ETR1/H69A (Ezura et al unpublished data). As anticipated, the Cm-ETR1/H69A gene conferred reduced ethylene sensitivity to the heterologous transgenic plant Nemesia strumosa (Cui et al 2004). Ezura et al (unpublished data) also introduced a point mutation into the melon ethylene receptor gene Cm-ERS1 by changing His-70 to Ala (Cm-ERS1/H70A), which abolished the ethylene binding ability.…”

ETR1-Specific Mutations Distinguish ETR1 from Other Arabidopsis Ethylene Receptors as Revealed by Genetic Interaction withRTE1

“…It is well established that dominant missense mutations within the ethylene-binding domain of any of these receptors result in ethylene insensitivity (Chang et al, 1993;Hua et al, 1995Wilkinson et al, 1995;Sakai et al, 1998;Hall et al, 1999;Wang et al, 2006). Furthermore, the deliberate introduction of such missense mutations is known to convert other ethylene receptor genes into dominant mutant forms that confer ethylene insensitivity (Hua et al, 1995Hall et al, 1999;Terajima et al, 2001;Shaw et al, 2002;Cui et al, 2004). Here, we present a class of dominant mutations that does not fit this paradigm.…”

“…Similarly, the ethylene-insensitive mutation of tomato Never-ripe encoding P36L (a substitution identical to that of etr2-1) was introduced into the tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) NtERS1 ethylene receptor gene to create ethylene-insensitive tobacco plants (Terajima et al, 2001), and a mutation encoding I62F was introduced into a Brassica oleracea ERS1 homolog to delay flower senescence in petunia (Petunia hybrida; Shaw et al, 2002). In another example, a mutation encoding H69A, which confers ethylene insensitivity in Arabidopsis etr1 (Hall et al, 1999;Wang et al, 2006), was engineered into melon (Cucumis melo) CmETR1 to produce ethylene insensitivity in Nemesia strumosa (Cui et al, 2004). Thus, it had been generally accepted that dominant mutations identified in one ethylene receptor gene could be introduced into another ethylene receptor gene of the same or different species in order to create a dominant mutant transgene that would confer ethylene insensitivity in wild-type plants.…”