Plant Growth Regulation

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 53–59 | Cite as

The role of phytochrome B, D and E in thermoperiodic responses of Arabidopsis thaliana

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The objective of this work was to study the role of the phytochromes (phy) B, D and E in the thermoperiodic control of elongation and flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. WT, and phyB, phyD and phyE single mutants, and phyB phyD and phyB phyE double mutants, were grown under day/night temperatures (DT/NT) of 12/22°C, 17/17°C or 22/12°C (negative, zero and positive DIF, respectively) for inflorescence stem length measurements, and under DT/NT 17/25°C or 25/17°C (negative and positive DIF, respectively) for leaf morphology and flowering time measurements. In WT final length of the stem, petiole and leaf blade were longer under positive DIF compared to negative DIF. The temperature effect was stronger in the leaf petiole than the stem, whereas only a slight change was seen in the leaf blade length direction and none in the width direction. The temperature effect on stem and petiole elongation was reduced or nearly eliminated in the genotypes lacking phyB, while a phyD or a phyE mutation had no influence or a slightly positive influence on the temperature effect, respectively. These results suggest that phyB, and not phyD or phyE, is needed for a complete thermoperiodic control of elongation growth in A. thaliana. For all genotypes tested, plants flowered earlier at negative DIF than positive DIF, suggesting that none of the three phytochromes B, D, or E is needed for a thermoperiodic control of flowering time in A. thaliana.

Keywords

Arabidopsis DIF Elongation growth Flowering time Phytochrome 

Abbreviations

WT

Wild type

phyA to E

Phytochromes A to E

DIF

Difference between day temperature (DT) and night temperature (NT)

positive DIF

DT > NT

zero DIF

DT=NT

negative DIF

DT < NT

EOD

End-of-day

R:FR ratio

Ratio of red light (R) to far red light (FR)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Marit Siira and Gry Skjeseth for skilful technical assistance, and to Dr. Grete G. Patil for useful comments on the manuscript. Sincere thanks are also extended to Professor Garry Whitelam, University of Leicester, UK, for providing the phytochrome mutant seeds. This study has been carried out with financial support from the Norwegian Research Council, project nr. 121604/111 and project nr. 155041/140.

References

  1. Aukerman MJ, Hirschfeld M, Wester L, Weaver M, Clack T, Amasino RM, Sharrock RA (1997) A deletion in the PHYD gene of the Arabidopsis Wassilewskija ecotype defines a role for phytochrome D in red/far-red light sensing. Plant Cell 9:1317–1326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clack T, Mathews S, Sharrock RA (1994) The phytochrome apoprotein family in Arabidopsis is encoded by five genes: the sequences and expression of PHYD and PHYE. Plant Mol Biol 25:413–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Devlin PF, Patel SR, Whitelam GC (1998) Phytochrome E influences internode elongation and flowering time in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10:1479–1487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Halliday KJ, Whitelam GC (2003) Changes in photoperiod or temperature alter the functional relationships between phytochromes and reveal roles for phyD and phyE. Plant Physiol 131:1913–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Halliday KJ, Salter MG, Thingnaes E, Whitelam GC (2003) The phyB-controlled flowering pathway is temperature sensitive and is mediated by the floral integrator FT. Plant J 33(5):875–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koornneef M, Rolff E, Spruit CJP (1980) Genetic control of light-inhibited hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Zeits Pflanzenphysiol 100:147–160Google Scholar
  7. Kozuka T, Horiguchi G, Kim GT, Ohgishi M, Sakai T, Tsukaya H (2005) The different growth responses of the Arabidopsis thaliana leaf blade and the petiole during shade avoidance are regulated by photoreceptors and sugar. Plant Cell Physiol 46(1):213–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moe R, Heins RD, Erwin J (1991) Stem elongation and flowering of the long-day plant Campanula isophylla Moretti in response to day and night temperature alternations and light quality. Sci Hortic 48:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myster J, Moe R (1995) Effect of diurnal temperature alternations on plant morphology in some greenhouse crops – a mini review. Sci Hortic 62:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Patil GG, Oi R, Gissinger A, Moe R (2001) Plant morphology is affected by light quality selective plastic films and alternating day and night temperature. Gartenbauwissenschaft 66(2):53–60Google Scholar
  11. Smith H (1995) Physiological and ecological function within the phytochrome family. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 46:289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith H (2000) Phytochromes and light signal perception by plants – an emerging synthesis. Nature 407:585–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thingnaes E, Torre S, Ernstsen A, Moe R (2003) Day and night temperature responses in Arabidopsis: effects on gibberellin and auxin content, cell size, morphology and flowering time. Ann Bot 92:601–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tsukaya H (2002) Leaf development. In: Somerville CR, Meyerowitz EM (eds) The Arabidopsis book. American Society of Plant Biologists, Rockville, MD. doi:10.1199/tab.0072, http://www.aspb.org/publications/arabidopsis/
  15. Went FW (1944) Plant growth under controlled conditions. II. Thermoperiodicity in growth and fruiting of the tomato. Am J Bot 31:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Xiong J, Patil GG, Moe R (2002) Effect of DIF and end-of-day light quality on stem elongation in Cucumis sativus. Sci Hortic 94: 219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific Committee for Food SafetyNydalenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Life sciencesÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations