2017
DOI: 10.1111/nph.14924
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting plant immunity gene expression by identifying the decoding mechanism of calcium signatures

Abstract: Calcium plays a key role in determining the specificity of a vast array of signalling pathways in plants. Cellular calcium elevations with different characteristics (calcium signatures) carry information on the identity of the primary stimulus, ensuring appropriate downstream responses. However, the mechanism for decoding calcium signatures is unknown. To determine this, decoding of the salicylic acid (SA)-mediated plant immunity signalling network controlling gene expression was examined. A dynamic mathematic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this context, the absence of PLC2 in cAMP‐sponge expressing lines could be involved in the failure of Ca 2+ entrance into cells. Lacking the correct Ca 2+ modulation, plants could not be able to activate the suitable response to a given stress, and consequently do not acclimate to the new conditions, compromising their survival (Lenzoni et al ., ). Accordingly, the delayed raise in cytosolic Ca 2+ would not allow cAS plants to initiate the suitable defence response, consequently affecting resistance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In this context, the absence of PLC2 in cAMP‐sponge expressing lines could be involved in the failure of Ca 2+ entrance into cells. Lacking the correct Ca 2+ modulation, plants could not be able to activate the suitable response to a given stress, and consequently do not acclimate to the new conditions, compromising their survival (Lenzoni et al ., ). Accordingly, the delayed raise in cytosolic Ca 2+ would not allow cAS plants to initiate the suitable defence response, consequently affecting resistance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…To date, it has not yet been elucidated how CaM can balance the activation of CBP60g and/or CAMTA3 upon pathogen attack with how the Ca 2+ signatures are integrated in this transcriptional pathway. Efforts are being made in this perspective and dynamic mathematical models incorporating several parameters are being developed with the aim of predicting regulation networks according to the generated Ca 2+ signatures [ 87 , 88 ].…”
Section: Ca 2+ Decoding Processes and Plant Immmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the CaM contribution in plant immunity was mainly revealed by the identification of CaMBP, it is now clear how CaM plays a pivotal role in the fine tuning of immune responses by acting either as a positive or a negative regulator of defence responses. Identification of the whole set of CaMBPs is certainly not complete and other CaM-binding TFs including several members of TGA, WRKY, MYB and NAC families also contribute to plant immunity either positively or negatively [ 63 , 88 , 89 ]. For example, TGA3 and several WRKY transcription factors such as WRKY7 and WRKY53 can interact with CaM in a Ca 2+ -dependent manner [ 68 ] but the effects of this interaction on the physiological and/or biochemical function of these TFs remain unknown.…”
Section: Ca 2+ Decoding Processes and Plant Immmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biotic and abiotic stresses (including mechanical, salt, osmotic, and oxidative stress) trigger rapid and transient modulations in cytosolic and organellar free Ca 2+ (Knight et al, 1991(Knight et al, , 1992(Knight et al, , 1997aKiegle et al, 2000;Monshausen et al, 2009;Loro et al, 2012Loro et al, , 2016Bonza et al, 2013;Laohavisit et al, 2013;Behera et al, 2018;Manishankar et al, 2018). These Ca 2+ signatures are held to be specific to the stimulus and result in stimulusspecific outcomes, enabled by suites of decoding proteins (Whalley et al, 2011;Whalley and Knight, 2013;Liu et al, 2015;Lenzoni et al, 2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%