2010
DOI: 10.1139/b10-075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of fluctuations in the nutrient supply on the expression of ANR1 and 11 other MADS box genes in shoots and roots of Arabidopsis thaliana

Abstract: We previously reported that the response of ANR1 expression in shoots to nitrogen (N) starvation and resupply was different from its response in roots. However, how the other root-expressed MADS box genes respond to different N fluctuations in the shoot, and how these MADS box genes respond to complete nutrient fluctuations in the root, were unknown. Results from this study have shown that some members of these root-expressed MADS box genes have different responses in the shoot and root to N treatments, wherea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When AGL16 was strongly overexpressed, stomatal density was increased, but these plants also displayed severe growth defects, with leaves that were not fully expanded (Kutter et al, 2007). Nevertheless, it remains possible that AGL16 is involved in additional functions, especially since it is expressed in the root as well (Gan et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When AGL16 was strongly overexpressed, stomatal density was increased, but these plants also displayed severe growth defects, with leaves that were not fully expanded (Kutter et al, 2007). Nevertheless, it remains possible that AGL16 is involved in additional functions, especially since it is expressed in the root as well (Gan et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All data shown in the figures were tested by means of ANOVA for significance by using Analytical Software, the Statistix program Version 3.5 (St Paul, MN, USA) (Gan et al ., ). A Student's t ‐test was calculated at the probability of either 5% (*, P < 0.05 with significant level) or 1% (**, P < 0.01 with significant level) as previously described (Zhou et al ., ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Differences between means were determined using Student’s t -test, as described previously (Gan et al , 2010; Zhou et al , 2011). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%