Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 665–671 | Cite as

The barley Lent 1 gene promoter drives expression specifically in outer floret organs at anthesis in transgenic wheat

  • Maria N. Somleva
  • Ann E. BlechlEmail author


Genetic engineering of cereal crops could be refined and made more publicly acceptable by the use of promoters that direct transgene expression to particular organs at defined stages of plant development. A fusion between the barley Lem1 promoter and green fluorescence protein was used to transform bread wheat. Expression analyses showed that the Lem1 promoter is active in the organs surrounding the wheat floret at anthesis. It is not active in other vegetative and seed tissues. The organ specificity and developmental regulation of the Lem1 promoter suggest that it would be useful for engineering Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat.

Index words

floret development genetic transformation organ specific promoters Triticum aestivum L. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chalfie M, Tu Y, Euskirchen G, Ward WW, Prasher DC (1994) Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science 263: 802–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu WL, Niwa Y, Zeng W, Hirano T, Kobayashi H, Sheen J (1996) Engineered GFP as a vital reporter in plants. Current Biol 6: 325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen AH, Quail PF (1996) Ubiquitin promoter-based vectors for high-level expression of selectable and/or screenable marker genes in monocotyledonous plants. Transgenic Res 5: 213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen AH, Sharrock RA, Quail PH (1992) Maize polyubiquitin gene: structure, thermal perturbation of expression and transcript splicing, and promoter activity following transfer to protoplasts by electroporation. Plant Mol Biol 18: 675–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahleen LS, Okubara PA, Blechl AE (2001) Transgenic approaches to combat Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley. Crop Sci. 41: 628–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Block M, Botterman J, Vandewiele M, Dockx J, Thoen C, Gosselé V, Rao Movva N, Thompson C, Van Montagu M, Leemans J (1987) Engineering herbicide resistance in plants by expression of a detoxifying enzyme. EMBO J 6: 2513–2518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dellaporta SL, Wood J, Hicks JB (1983) A plant DNA minipreparation: versionll. Plant Mol Biol Rep 1: 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guilley H, Dudley RK, Jonard G, Balazs E, Richards KE (1982) Transcription of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA: Detection of promoter sequences and characterization of transcription. Cell 30: 763–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hänsen R, Koprek T, Mendel RR, Schulze J (1995) An improved protocol for eliminating endogenous β- glucuronidase background in barley. Plant Sci 105: 63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, Bevan MW (1987) GUS fusion: β- glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBO J 6: 3901–3907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeon J-S, Jang S, Lee S, Nam J, Kim C, Lee S-H, Chung Y-Y, Kim S-R, Lee YH, Cho Y-G, An G (2000) leafy hull sterile1 is a homeotic mutation in a rice MADS box gene affecting rice flower development. Plant Cell 12: 871–884PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Ma JKC, Drake PMW, Christou P (2003) The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants. Nat Rev Genet 4: 794–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McElroy D, Zhang W, Cao J, Wu R (1990) Isolation of an efficient actin promoter for use in rice transformation. Plant Cell 2: 163–171PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Müller KJ, Romano N, Gerstner O, Garcia-Maroto F, Pozzi C, Salamini F, Rohde W (1995) The barley Hooded mutation caused by a duplication in a homeobox gene intron. Nature 374: 727–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Okubara PA, Blechl AE, McCormick SP, Alexander NJ, Dill-Macky R, Hohn TM (2002) Engineering deoxynivalenol metabolism in wheat through the expression of a fungal trichothecene acetyltransferase gene. Theor Appl Genet 106: 74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rushton PJ, Reinstadler A, Lipka V, Lippok B, Somssich IE (2002) Synthetic plant promoters containing defined regulatory elements provide novel insights into pathogen- and wound-induced signaling. Plant Cell 14: 749–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skadsen RW, Satish P, Federico ML, Abebe T, Fu J, Kaeppler HF (2002) Cloning of the promoter for a novel barley gene, Lem1, and its organ-specific promotion of gfp expression in lemma and palea. Plant Mol Biol 49: 545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Somleva M, Blechl A (2004) Characterization of organ-specific promoters in transgenic wheat. In: Canty SM, Boring T, Wardwell J, Ward RW (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Fusarium Head Blight Symposium; 11–15 December, 2004; Orlando, FL. USA. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, pp. 263–267Google Scholar
  19. Weeks JT, Anderson OD, Blechl AE (1993) Rapid production of multiple independent lines of fertile transgenic wheat (Triticum aestivum). Plant Physiol 102: 1077–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williams-Carrier RE, Lie YS, Hake S, Lemaux PG (1997) Ectopic expression of the maize kn1 gene phenocopies the Hooded mutant of barley. Development 124: 3737–374Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2005

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.USDA - ARS, Western Regional Research CenterAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations