Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

The plant stress hormone ethylene controls floral transition via DELLA-dependent regulation of floral meristem-identity genes

Patrick Achard, Mourad Baghour, Andrew Chapple, Peter Hedden, Dominique Van Der Straeten, Pascal Genschik, Thomas Moritz, and Nicholas P. Harberd
  1. *Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich NR4 7UJ, United Kingdom;
  2. †Institut de Biologie Moléculaire des Plantes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Propre de Recherche 2357, Conventionné avec l'Université Louis Pasteur, 67084 Strasbourg, France;
  3. ‡Umeå Plant Science Center, Department of Forest and Plant Physiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden;
  4. §Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom; and
  5. ¶Unit Plant Hormone Signaling and Bio-Imaging, Department of Molecular Genetics, Ghent University, Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS April 10, 2007 104 (15) 6484-6489; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610717104
Patrick Achard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mourad Baghour
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Chapple
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Hedden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominique Van Der Straeten
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pascal Genschik
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Moritz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas P. Harberd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nicholas.harberd@bbsrc.ac.uk
  1. Edited by Jan A. D. Zeevaart, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, and approved February 15, 2007 (received for review December 4, 2006)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The length of the Arabidopsis thaliana life cycle depends on the timing of the floral transition. Here, we define the relationship between the plant stress hormone ethylene and the timing of floral initiation. Ethylene signaling is activated by diverse environmental stresses, but it was not previously clear how ethylene regulates flowering. First, we show that ethylene delays flowering in Arabidopsis, and that this delay is partly rescued by loss-of-function mutations in genes encoding the DELLAs, a family of nuclear gibberellin (GA)-regulated growth-repressing proteins. This finding suggests that ethylene may act in part by modulating DELLA activity. We also show that activated ethylene signaling reduces bioactive GA levels, thus enhancing the accumulation of DELLAs. Next, we show that ethylene acts on DELLAs via the CTR1-dependent ethylene response pathway, most likely downstream of the transcriptional regulator EIN3. Ethylene-enhanced DELLA accumulation in turn delays flowering via repression of the floral meristem-identity genes LEAFY (LFY) and SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS 1 (SOC1). Our findings establish a link between the CTR1/EIN3-dependent ethylene and GA–DELLA signaling pathways that enables adaptively significant regulation of plant life cycle progression in response to environmental adversity.

  • floral transition
  • Arabidopsis thaliana
  • LFY
  • gibberellin

Floral initiation is a major step in the plant life cycle (1). Accordingly, plants have evolved mechanisms for regulating the timing of floral initiation. These mechanisms permit an adaptively significant integrated response to multiple interacting factors (both internal and external to the plant). In essence, the endogenous developmental competence of plants to flower is integrated with environmental cues that signal the onset of conditions favorable for reproductive success (2).

In this article, we describe the role of the gaseous phytohormone ethylene in the regulation of floral initiation. Ethylene is already known to modulate Arabidopsis vegetative environmental growth responses (3–5). For example, adverse environmental conditions enhance ethylene production, and thereby restrain growth (3, 4). Ethylene is perceived by the ETR1 family of ethylene receptors (6–10). In the absence of ethylene, ETR1 activates CTR1, a Ser/Thr kinase (closely related to the RAF kinases) that is a negative regulator of ethylene signaling (11, 12). Downstream of CTR1 are several positive regulators of ethylene response: EIN2 (a membrane-associated protein whose function is not clear; ref. 13) and the EIN3 and EIN3-like (EIL) transcription factors (14, 15). EIN3 regulates ethylene-responsive genes (6, 15), whereas overexpression of EIN3 results in the constitutive activation of ethylene responses (14). Furthermore, ethylene response depends on EIN3 stability. In the absence of ethylene, EIN3 degradation is promoted by a specific Skp1-cullin-F box protein (SCF) E3 ubiquitin ligase (SCFEBF1/EBF2) that targets EIN3 for destruction by the proteasome (16–18). However, despite this detailed understanding of mechanisms connecting ethylene perception to ethylene response, the mechanisms by which EIN3 modulates plant growth remain unclear. In addition, ethylene-mediated regulation of the floral transition (19) has not been systematically investigated.

In contrast, the phytohormone gibberellin (GA) is well known to play a prominent role in regulating the timing of the floral transition (20). GA-deficient mutants are dwarfed and late-flowering, and treatment of these plants with GA restores normal growth and flowering time (20). GA is perceived by a soluble receptor, GID1 (21, 22). Downstream of GID1 is a family of nuclear growth repressor proteins, the DELLAs (23–25). The DELLAs are a subfamily of the GRAS family of putative transcriptional regulators (20, 26), a subfamily that in Arabidopsis comprises GAI, RGA, RGL1, RGL2, and RGL3 (23, 27–29). DELLAs restrain plant growth, whereas GA promotes growth via relief of DELLA-mediated growth restraint (24, 25, 30, 31). The binding of GA to GID1 promotes an interaction between GID1 and DELLAs, and it has been proposed that this interaction subsequently enhances the affinity between DELLAs and a specific SCF E3 ubiquitin–ligase complex (involving the F-box protein AtSLY1/OsGID2), thus promoting the eventual destruction of DELLAs by the 26S proteasome (21, 32–34). The GA–DELLA system regulates the timing of floral initiation via effects on the levels of transcripts of the floral meristem identity genes LEAFY (LFY) and SUPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION CONSTANS 1 (SOC1). In particular, DELLAs delay flowering in short-day photoperiods (SDs) by repressing the up-regulation of LFY and SOC1 transcripts (35–40). DELLAs subsequently regulate the development of flowers themselves, via transcriptional repression of the floral homeotic genes APETALA3, PISTILLATA, and AGAMOUS (41). Interestingly, the expression of LFY and APETALA1 was not affected by DELLAs during flower development (41), indicating differential regulation of LFY by DELLAs during floral initiation and flower development.

Previous studies have indicated that ethylene can regulate vegetative growth by modulation of GA content (42). More recent evidence indicates that both ethylene and the phytohormone auxin can influence vegetative growth by modulation of DELLA levels (43–45). For example, ethylene inhibits Arabidopsis root growth at least in part by enhancing DELLA-dependent growth restraint (43). These observations have led to the proposal that DELLAs control plant growth in response to a plethora of internal and external cues, by integrating signals from different signaling pathways (3, 46, 47). However, although it is well known that adverse conditions promote the production of ethylene, the way in which adversity-generated ethylene affects the floral transition, a key step in the plant life cycle, is currently not well understood. In this study, we find that ethylene delays Arabidopsis flowering in a DELLA-dependent fashion. We show that activation of the ethylene signaling pathway reduces bioactive GA levels, thus promoting the accumulation of DELLAs. Accumulation of DELLAs in turn represses LFY and SOC1, thus delaying flowering. Our studies identify the “GA pathway” of floral control (1, 2) as a major regulator of flowering in response to environmental signals (see also ref. 48).

Results

Ethylene Delays Flowering via a DELLA-Dependent Signaling Pathway.

We first found that Arabidopsis plants (WT) grown in the presence of the ethylene precursor 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC; Fig. 1 A), or in an ethylene-rich atmosphere (3), flowered late. Previous analyses have shown that ethylene signaling acts predominantly via CTR1 (11). We found that the ctr1–1 loss-of-function mutation confers late flowering in long-day photoperiods (LDs) [supporting information (SI) Fig. 6]. Interestingly, the effect of ctr1–1 on flowering time is particularly evident in SDs. ctr1–1 plants were still in the vegetative growth phase after 2 months growth in SDs (although WT plants had already flowered (Fig. 1 B and C). Eventually, a few ctr1–1 plants did flower after 2 months in SDs (data not shown).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Ethylene delays flowering by reducing bioactive GA levels. (A) Representative (25-day-old) WT Ler plants (two plants per box are shown) grown in LDs on growth medium containing 10 μM ACC (+ACC) and/or 10 μM GA (+GA) (and control). All plants shown have bolted, except for plants growing on ACC. (B) Representative (5-week-old) ctr1–1 and ga1–3 mutant plants grown in SDs and treated with GA (+GA) or control. (C) Mean vegetative rosette leaf number (± SD; n > 30) of WT Col, ctr1–1, WT Ler, and ga1–3 plants grown on soil in SDs and GA-treated (red) or control (blue). The asterisks represent plants that had not flowered by the end of the experiment (8 weeks). (D) Levels of GAs in WT Col and ctr1–1 mutant plants (expressed as picograms per gram of fresh weight; ±SD; n = 5). n.d. indicates not detected.

We next showed that GA abolished the effect of ACC and ctr1–1 on flowering time in SDs (Fig. 1 A–C; also in LDs, as shown in SI Fig. 6). Thus, the defect in SD flowering conferred by ACC or ctr1–1 was reminiscent of the defect in SD flowering conferred by the GA-deficiency mutation ga1–3 (which can also be overcome by GA; Fig. 1 B and C; ref. 36). We therefore compared the endogenous GA contents of WT and ctr1–1 plants. As shown in Fig. 1 D, the levels of the biologically active (“bioactive”) GAs, GA4 and GA1, were significantly reduced in LD-grown ctr1–1 plants. These observations indicate that ethylene-mediated inhibition of CTR1 activity results in a reduction in bioactive GA levels and a consequent delay in floral initiation. Furthermore, the contents of some intermediate GAs (GA24 and GA53; substrates of the GA 20-oxidase enzymes that catalyze the penultimate step in the production of bioactive GAs; ref. 49) were significantly increased in ctr1–1, suggesting that ethylene inhibits 20-oxidase activity (see Discussion).

The developmental effects of GA are caused by the destruction of DELLAs (34). Because ctr1–1 contains reduced levels of bioactive GAs, and GA overcomes ACC-induced and ctr1–1-conferred delays in SD flowering, we tested the hypothesis that ethylene delays flowering via a DELLA-dependent mechanism. We found that lack of the DELLAs GAI and RGA (in ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24) substantially suppressed the late-flowering phenotype conferred by ctr1–1 in SDs (Fig. 2 A, B, and D). Actually, ctr1–1 plants lacking GAI and RGA bolted 1 week later in SDs than did WT plants. This slight remaining delay could be DELLA-dependent (these plants retained RGL1, RGL2, and RGL3) or DELLA-independent. As shown above, GA treatment accelerated the SD flowering time of ctr1–1 and restored almost to normal the SD flowering time of ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 (Fig. 2 B and D). Similarly, the delayed flowering of ctr1–1 in LDs was significantly reduced by GA treatment or lack of GAI and RGA (SI Fig. 7 A and B ). Thus ctr1–1 does indeed delay flowering via a DELLA-dependent mechanism.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Activation of GA signaling accelerates the flowering of ctr1–1 plants. (A and B) Representative (5-week-old) WT Ler, ctr1–1 × Ler, ctr1–1 gai-t6, ctr1–1 rga-24, and ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 mutant plants grown in SDs and treated with GA (B) or control (A). (C) Representative (5-week-old) ctr1–1 × Ler and ctr1–1 spy-5 mutant plants grown in SDs and treated with GA (+GA; Right) or control (Left). (D) Mean vegetative rosette leaf number (± SD; n > 30) of WT Ler, ctr1–1 × Ler, ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24, and ctr1–1 spy-5 plants grown on soil in SDs and treated with GA (red) or control (blue). The asterisk represents plants that had not flowered by the end of the experiment (8 weeks).

Mutations in SPINDLY Accelerate the ctr1–1 Floral Transition.

The SPINDLY (SPY) gene encodes a negative regulator of GA signaling, and loss-of-function spy mutations partially suppress the phenotype of the GA-deficient ga1–2 mutant (50). We found that LD-grown ctr1–1 spy-5 plants bolted at a similar time to WT controls (or ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 plants; data not shown). In SDs, ctr1–1 spy-5 plants bolted 10 days later than WT plants but much earlier than ctr1–1 single-mutant plants (Fig. 2 C and D). Thus the elevated GA responses conferred by lack of either GAI and RGA or SPY at least partially suppress the delay in floral transition conferred by the ctr1–1 mutation.

Ethylene Delays Floral Transition via DELLA-Dependent Repression of the Floral Activator Genes LFY and SOC1.

GA promotes SD flowering by activating the floral meristem-identity genes LFY and SOC1 (36–39), via a mechanism that is DELLA-dependent (40). Because ctr1-1, like ga1–3, exhibits DELLA-dependent delays in flowering time, we investigated the possibility that ctr1–1 might delay SD flowering by maintaining relatively low levels of LFY and SOC1 transcripts. We determined relative transcript levels at the time when WT plants bolted and found that ctr1–1 plants had relatively low levels of both LFY and SOC1 transcripts. Relatively normal LFY and SOC1 transcript levels were observed in GA-treated ctr1–1 plants or ctr1–1 plants lacking both GAI and RGA (Fig. 3 A and SI Fig. 7C ). These observations suggest that ethylene inhibits the up-regulation of LFY and SOC1 transcript levels via a DELLA-dependent mechanism, thus delaying the floral transition. Consistent with this hypothesis, transgenic overexpression of LFY (in a weak overexpression line; 35S:LFY; ref. 51) overcame the effect of ACC on floral transition (completely with respect to time of bolting, partially with respect to rosette leaf number; Fig. 3 B).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Ethylene delays flowering via DELLA-dependent repression of LFY and SOC1 transcript levels. (A) Levels of floral meristem identity LFY and SOC1, and GA biosynthesis AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 gene transcripts in SD, soil-grown, GA-treated WT Ler, ctr1–1 × Ler, ctr1–1 gai-t6, ctr1–1 rga-24, and ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 mutant plants (and controls). ELF4a transcripts provide loading control. (B) Flowering time (time at which 50% of plants had bolted) expressed as time to bolt and number of rosette leaves (± SD; n > 15) of WT Ler and 35S:LFY overexpression plants grown in LDs on growth medium containing 10 μM ACC (light gray) or control (dark gray).

GA Biosynthesis Gene Transcripts Are Up-Regulated in ctr1–1.

The in planta levels of bioactive GAs are subject to tight regulatory control, in particular at the level of accumulation of gene transcripts encoding GA biosynthesis enzymes. For example, the AtGA3ox1 (GA4) and AtGA20ox1 (GA5) genes encode, respectively, GA 3β-hydroxylase and GA 20-oxidase enzymes that catalyze the final steps in the production of bioactive GAs (49, 52, 53). Increased DELLA accumulation (as in the GA-deficient ga1–3 mutant) results in increased levels of these transcripts, because of perturbation of a GA-activated DELLA-dependent negative feedback loop (52, 53). We found that ctr1–1 plants accumulated higher levels of AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 transcripts than WT controls (Fig. 3 A and SI Fig. 7C ). In contrast, AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 transcripts accumulated to a level similar to that of WT in ctr1–1 plants lacking GAI and RGA (ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24), thus implicating DELLA function in the up-regulation of these transcripts in ctr1–1 (Fig. 3 A). We also found that the elevated AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 transcript levels in ctr1–1 are reduced 2 days after GA treatment (Fig. 3 A; the small amount of remaining AtGA20ox1 transcripts observed in GA-treated ctr1–1 plants might represent nascent transcripts). Thus the delayed SD flowering and elevated AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 transcript levels that are characteristic of ctr1–1 both likely result from increased DELLA accumulation (consequent on a reduction in the level of bioactive GAs).

Ethylene Delays Floral Transition via an EIN3-Dependent Mechanism.

Ethylene activates ethylene-responses by inhibiting the activity of SCFEBF1/EBF2, thus increasing the stability of EIN3 and the EIN3-like proteins (16–18). We next showed that the ethylene-induced delay in floral transition works via CTR1/EIN3-dependent signaling. The F-box specificity components of SCFEBF1/EBF2 are encoded by the genes EBF1 and EBF2 (16–18). Loss-of-reduced-function ebf1–1 and ebf2–1 mutations, especially in the ebf1–1 ebf2–1 double-mutant combination, confer stabilization of EIN3 in the absence of ethylene (16–18). We found that although flowering of ebf1–1 or ebf2–1 single mutants was not significantly delayed, ebf1–1 ebf2–1 double mutants exhibited a clearly detectable delay in bolting time (Fig. 4 A and B and SI Fig. 8). Thus the severe ctr1-like vegetative growth phenotype of ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants (17) is accompanied by a ctr1-like delay in flowering. Although ctr1–1 plants bolted ≈10 days later than WT controls, ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants had still not bolted by ≈25 days after the mean bolting time of WT in LDs (Fig. 4 B). Thus, conditions that stabilize EIN3 (perhaps in addition to other effects of the ebf1–1 ebf2–1 combination) correlate with a severe delay in flowering. Furthermore, we found that ein3–1 mutants were insensitive to ethylene-induced late flowering (SI Table 1).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Ethylene regulation of floral transition is EIN3-dependent. (A) Representative (30-day-old) ebf1–1 ebf2–1 mutant plants grown in LDs and treated with GA (+GA; Right) or control (Left). (B) Flowering time (time at which 50% of plants had bolted) of selected lines as indicated (± SD; n > 30) grown in soil in LDs in the presence (red) or absence (blue) of GA treatment. The asterisk represents plants that had not bolted by the end of the experiment (50 days). (C) Immunodetection of EIN3 in 2-week-old selected lines as indicated. ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants were treated with GA (+GA) or not. The asterisk marks EIN3 at the expected molecular size. β-tubulin (β-TUB; Middle) and Ponceau red (Bottom) staining of the membrane after transfer serve as a sample-loading controls. (D) Mean vegetative rosette leaf number (±SD; n > 15) of WT Col and 35S:ERF1 plants grown on soil in SDs (8-h photoperiod), GA-treated (red) or control (blue). (E) Levels of ERF1 and floral meristem identity LFY and SOC1 gene transcripts (determined by RT-PCR) in SDs, soil-grown, GA-treated WT Col, and 35S:ERF1 plants (and controls). ELF4a transcripts provide loading control.

As shown above, GA treatment or lack of GAI and RGA overcomes the delayed flowering that is characteristic of ctr1–1. Similarly, we found that GA treatment overcomes the delayed flowering of ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants grown in LDs (Fig. 4 A and B). However, GA treatment did not restore a normal growth phenotype or floral transition to ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants grown in SDs (data not shown), indicating that there are aspects of the growth phenotype conferred by the double ebf1–1 ebf2–1 mutation that are not GA-responsive.

The phenotype conferred by ctr1–1 and ebf1–1 ebf2–1 results from stabilization of EIN3 (16–18). It was therefore possible that GA treatment or lack of GAI and RGA causes destabilization of EIN3 in these lines, thus overcoming the EIN3-dependent delay in flowering. However, we showed that EIN3 levels are changed neither by lack of GAI and RGA, nor by GA treatment. As shown previously (16, 17), EIN3 accumulates to immunodetectable levels in ctr1–1 and ebf1–1 ebf2–1 mutants (Fig. 4 C). We found that EIN3 levels were substantially maintained in ctr1–1 mutants that additionally lacked GAI and RGA or in ebf1–1 ebf2–1 mutants treated with GA (Fig. 4 C). Because EIN3 was not detected in WT controls (Fig. 4 C), our observations suggest that EIN3 accumulation delays flowering via effects on DELLA stability (rather than vice versa). Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that transgenic overexpression of ETHYLENE RESPONSE 1 (ERF1, a gene that is transcriptionally activated by EIN3; ref. 15) from a 35S:ERF1 construct conferred a constitutive ethylene response (15), a delay in floral initiation in SDs similar to that conferred by ctr1–1 (Fig. 4 D), and an associated reduction in LFY and SOC1 transcript levels (Fig. 4 E). We also found that GA treatment suppressed the delayed SD flowering of 35S:ERF1 plants and restored almost to normal the levels of LFY and SOC1 transcripts in those plants (Fig. 4 D and E). Thus, our experiments indicate that ethylene-mediated EIN3 accumulation delays flowering (at least in part) by activating ERF1, which we propose promotes DELLA accumulation by reducing GA content.

Discussion

Ethylene production is commonly stimulated by adverse biotic or abiotic stress conditions (3, 5, 54, 55), and elevated ethylene levels frequently delay flowering (19). However, the mechanism by which ethylene delays flowering was not previously understood. Several distinct genetic pathways are known to promote flowering by activating floral meristem-identity genes (e.g., the photoperiod pathway, the autonomous pathway, the GA pathway), whereas other pathways inhibit the activity of floral meristem-identity genes (56). The experiments described in this article define the relationship between these previously defined floral pathways and the stress hormone ethylene.

We initially showed that ethylene treatments caused a delay in the flowering of Arabidopsis, a similar delay was conferred by the constitutive ethylene-response ctr1–1 mutation, and the delaying effects of both ethylene and ctr1–1 were increased in SDs. Because the GA pathway has a greater effect on the flowering time of Arabidopsis in SDs than in LDs (36) our observations immediately suggested that the effect of ethylene on flowering depends more on the GA pathway than it does on the other flowering pathways. Accordingly, we found that the delayed SD flowering of ctr1–1 could be corrected by exogenous GA, and that ctr1–1 contains reduced levels of bioactive GAs (Fig. 1). We also found that exogenous GA substantially rescues the vegetative growth phenotypes (vegetative rosette size, petiole length, etc.) of ctr1–1 (data not shown).

Endogenous plant bioactive GA levels are regulated by a negative feedback mechanism that controls the levels of gene transcripts encoding GA biosynthesis enzymes (49, 52, 53). Thus, the elevated AtGA3ox1 and AtGA20ox1 transcript levels observed in ctr1–1 are presumably a consequence of the reduced bioactive GA levels observed in that mutant. The reason these elevated transcript levels do not restore normal bioactive GA levels is not clear, especially given the relatively high accumulation of the GA 20-oxidase substrates GA24 and GA53. Perhaps CTR1 activity regulates the activities of the 20-oxidase (and 3β-hydroxylase) enzymes themselves.

The reduced bioactive GA level in ctr1–1 presumably causes accumulation of DELLAs, thus enhancing DELLA activity. Accordingly, we have shown that DELLA activity is substantially responsible for the late flowering of ctr1–1 (because lack of GAI and RGA largely suppresses the late flowering of ctr1–1; Fig. 2 A, B, and D). In fact, ethylene likely regulates DELLA accumulation by modulating both endogenous bioactive GA levels and the relative stability of DELLAs in response to GA (43). The GA–DELLA pathway activates flowering via up-regulation of the floral meristem-identity genes LFY and SOC1 (36–40). Accordingly, we found that, at the time when WT and ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 plants were just beginning to bolt, the later-flowering ctr1–1 plants displayed reduced levels of LFY and SOC1 transcript accumulation with respect to WT or ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24 plants (Fig. 3 A). Furthermore, we found that 35S:LFY plants flower earlier than controls in the presence of the ethylene-precursor ACC. Taken together, these observations indicate that ethylene promotes the accumulation of DELLAs, the consequent inhibition of LFY and SOC1 up-regulation, and a resultant delay in flowering.

At the seedling stage of development, ethylene signaling works primarily via the linear CTR1/EIN3 pathway (6). We determined whether the CTR1/EIN3 pathway also affects floral initiation by investigating the combined effects of the ebf1–1 and ebf2–1 mutations on flowering time. We found that ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants exhibited a severe ctr1–1-like phenotype (a phenotype that is more severe than that displayed by WT plants treated continuously with high levels of ethylene; ref. 6) and a delay in flowering that was restored to normal by treatment with exogenous GA (Fig. 4 A and B). We also showed that the level of the EIN3 protein in ebf1–1 ebf2–1 plants was unaffected by treatment with GA (Fig. 4 C) or by lack of the DELLAs GAI and RGA (in ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24; Fig. 4 C). Furthermore, the late flowering conferred by transgenic overexpression of ERF1 (a gene that is normally transcriptionally activated by EIN3) was suppressed by GA treatment (Fig. 4 D). Taken together, these observations indicate that the GA–DELLA pathway acts downstream of CTR1 (and likely also downstream of EIN3) in the ethylene-dependent regulation of flowering.

A previous report (57) indicates that WT plants bolt 1–6 days earlier than the ethylene insensitive mutants ein3–1, ein2–1 and etr1. We similarly observed a relative delay in etr1–3 flowering time, but no delay in the flowering of ein3–1 (SI Table 1). However, in contrast to what was observed with WT, we also observed that the flowering time of both etr1–3 and ein3–1 was not further delayed by ACC treatment (and also unchanged by ACC plus GA treatments; SI Table 1). Thus, as expected, etr1–1 and ein3–1, because they confer ethylene insensitivity, also abolish the ethylene/DELLA-dependent delay in flowering. The (slight) delay in flowering exhibited by untreated ethylene-insensitive mutants (57) is presumably caused by an unknown mechanism that is distinct from the ethylene-mediated DELLA-dependent mechanism described here.

Thus, our observations indicate the existence of a previously unknown mechanism whereby environmental stress regulates the timing of a key plant life-cycle step (the floral transition) via a connection between the ethylene and GA–DELLA signaling pathways (Fig. 5). This mechanism is distinct from the recently proposed mechanism in which abscisic acid regulates floral transition by modulation of the flowering CA-dependent autonomous pathway (58). The ethylene-dependent mechanism of floral regulation comprises the following events. First, activation of ethylene production by environmental stress enhances ethylene responses via the linear CTR1–EIN3-dependent pathway (see also ref. 3). Second, activation of ethylene responses results in reduced bioactive GA levels, thus causing increased accumulation of DELLAs. Third, increased DELLA accumulation delays the initiation of the floral transition by inhibiting up-regulation of the floral inducers LFY and SOC1.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Model for integration of the ethylene and GA–DELLA signaling pathways in the regulation of floral transition. Activation of ethylene signaling reduces bioactive GA levels, thus promoting the accumulation of DELLAs. DELLA accumulation in turn slows the plant life cycle and delays flowering. Ethylene production activates ethylene signaling by inhibiting CTR1 and increasing EIN3 levels via the SCFEBF1/EBF2 ubiquitin pathway. Accumulation of DELLAs delays floral transition (via regulation of LFY and SOC1 transcript levels) and increases the abundance of GA-biosynthesis gene transcripts via a negative feedback loop.

Our observations indicate intriguing similarities between Arabidopsis plants grown in SDs and in environments that induce ethylene signaling. In both conditions, the GA pathway becomes the predominant regulator of floral induction. Thus, the same signaling pathway has been recruited to facilitate appropriate response to these two distinct environmental regulators of floral transition.

Methods

Arabidopsis Lines.

Mutant lines were derived from Landsberg erecta (Ler) (ga1–3; spy-5; DELLA mutants) or Columbia (Col) (ethylene signaling mutants) backgrounds. ga1–3, ctr1–1 × Ler, ctr1–1 gai-t6, ctr1–1 rga-24, ctr1–1 gai-t6 rga-24, ctr1–1, etr1–3, ein3–1, ebf1–1, ebf2–1, ebf1–1 ebf2–1, and 35S:LFY were as described (refs. 3, 17, 43, 45, and 51 and SI Text ). 35S:ERF1 was from the European Arabidopsis Stock Centre (Loughborough, U.K.; ref. no. N6143).

Flowering Time Experiments.

Seeds were surface-sterilized and placed on GM medium [Murashige and Skoog medium 1×, pH 5.7 (M0255 Duchefa), 1% saccharose, 0.9% agar; containing 10 μM ACC and/or 10 μM GA3, as indicated] at 4°C for 5 days (43). After 1 month at 20°C (16-h photoperiod), a representative (from among 10) was photographed. Soil-grown plants were sown in 20°C, 16-h photoperiod (LD) or 10-h photoperiod (SD; except for the 35S:ERF1 experiment where SD was 8 h) and sprayed with 100 μM GA3 (or water control) twice a week. Flowering time was measured temporally or expressed as the number of vegetative leaves produced before flowering.

RT-PCR Analysis.

Total RNA was extracted (Trizol reagent; GIBCO/BRL, Carlsbad, CA) from apical meristem/young leaves of 3-week-old soil-grown plants (20°C; 10-h photoperiod except Fig. 4 E where the photoperiod was 8 h; GA treatment and controls as described above; Figs. 3 A and 4 E and SI Fig. 7C ). cDNA synthesis/PCR amplification were as described (43). For results in Fig. 3 A and SI Fig. 7C , RT-PCRs (18 cycles) were blotted and probed with the corresponding full-length PCR amplified random-labeled 32P-labeled fragment (Promega, Madison, WI). Primers for PCR amplification/probe preparation are in SI Text . For data in Fig. 4 E, RT-PCRs (28 cycles) were loaded onto an agarose/ethidium bromide gel.

Immunodetection of EIN3.

Protein extractions (2 week-old plants) and immunoblot analyses were as described (16, 43). Equivalent amounts were ground up in liquid nitrogen, homogenized in 2× SDS/PAGE sample buffer, separated by 10% PAGE, and blotted onto nitrocellulose. Immunodetection used an anti-EIN3 antibody and peroxydase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Southern Biotech, Birmingham, AL), visualized by chemiluminescence (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ). The blot was subsequently stripped with 0.2 M glycine, pH 2.5 and reprobed with anti-β-tubulin.

GA Determinations.

GA determinations were performed on soil-grown mature vegetative rosettes of equivalent developmental age: WT, 16 days old; ctr1–1, 25 days old grown at 20°C, 16 h photoperiod, just before bolting, essentially as described (3). GAs from 500 mg (fresh weight) of tissue were purified and analyzed by GC/MS-selected reaction monitoring (JSM-Mstation 700; JEOL, Tokyo, Japan), using 2H2-GAs (L. Mander, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) as internal standards. Where indicated as not detected, endogenous GAs were not detected, whereas 2H2–GA standards were detected.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Ecker (The Salk Institute, San Diego, CA) for EIN3 antibodies, R. Sablowski (John Innes Centre) for the 35S:LFY line, C. Lloyd (John Innes Centre) for β-tubulin antibodies, and T. Potuschak for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by European Union Grant RTN1-2000-00090-INTEGA, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Core Strategic Grant to the John Innes Centre and Rothamsted Research and Response Modes Grant 208/P19972), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, and European Molecular Biology Organization Grant ALTF-414-2005.

Footnotes

  • ‖To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nicholas.harberd{at}bbsrc.ac.uk
  • Author contributions: P.A., P.H., D.V.D.S., P.G., T.M., and N.P.H. designed research; P.A., M.B., and A.C. performed research; P.A., P.H., D.V.D.S., P.G., T.M., and N.P.H. analyzed data; and P.A., T.M., and N.P.H. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0610717104/DC1.

  • Abbreviations:
    GA,
    gibberellin;
    SCF,
    Skp1-cullin-F box protein;
    SD,
    short-day photoperiod;
    LD,
    long-day photoperiod;
    ACC,
    1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid.
  • © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

References

  1. ↵
    1. Simpson GG ,
    2. Dean C
    (2002) Science 296:285–289.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Mouradov A ,
    2. Cremer F ,
    3. Coupland G
    (2002) Plant Cell 14:S111–S130.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Achard P ,
    2. Cheng H ,
    3. De Grauwe L ,
    4. Decat J ,
    5. Schoutteten H ,
    6. Moritz T ,
    7. Van Der Straeten D ,
    8. Peng J ,
    9. Harberd NP
    (2006) Science 311:91–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Abeles FB ,
    2. Morgan PW ,
    3. Saltveit ME, Jr
    (1992) Ethylene in Plant Biology (Academic, San Diego).
  5. ↵
    1. Wang KL ,
    2. Li H ,
    3. Ecker JR
    (2002) Plant Cell 14:S131–S151.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Guo H ,
    2. Ecker JR
    (2004) Curr Opin Plant Biol 7:40–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sakai H ,
    2. Hua J ,
    3. Chen QG ,
    4. Chang C ,
    5. Medrano LJ ,
    6. Bleecker AB ,
    7. Meyerowitz EM
    (1998) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:5812–5817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hua J ,
    2. Chang C ,
    3. Sun Q ,
    4. Meyerowitz EM
    (1995) Science 269:1712–1714.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Hua J ,
    2. Sakai H ,
    3. Nourizadeh S ,
    4. Chen QG ,
    5. Bleecker AB ,
    6. Ecker JR ,
    7. Meyerowitz EM
    (1998) Plant Cell 10:1321–1332.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Hua J ,
    2. Meyerowitz EM
    (1998) Cell 94:261–271.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kieber JJ ,
    2. Rothenberg M ,
    3. Roman G ,
    4. Feldmann KA ,
    5. Ecker JR
    (1993) Cell 72:427–441.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Huang Y ,
    2. Li H ,
    3. Hutchison CE ,
    4. Laskey J ,
    5. Kieber JJ
    (2003) Plant J 33:221–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Alonso JM ,
    2. Hirayama T ,
    3. Roman G ,
    4. Nourizadeh S ,
    5. Ecker JR
    (1999) Science 284:2148–2152.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Chao Q ,
    2. Rothenberg M ,
    3. Solano R ,
    4. Roman G ,
    5. Terzaghi W ,
    6. Ecker JR
    (1997) Cell 89:1133–1144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Solano R ,
    2. Stepanova A ,
    3. Chao Q ,
    4. Ecker JR
    (1998) Genes Dev 12:3703–3714.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Guo H ,
    2. Ecker JR
    (2003) Cell 115:667–677.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Potuschak T ,
    2. Lechner E ,
    3. Parmentier Y ,
    4. Yanagisawa S ,
    5. Grava S ,
    6. Koncz C ,
    7. Genschik P
    (2003) Cell 115:679–689.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Gagne JM ,
    2. Smalle J ,
    3. Gingerich DJ ,
    4. Walker JM ,
    5. Yoo SD ,
    6. Yanagisawa S ,
    7. Vierstra RD
    (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:6803–6808.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Thomas B ,
    2. Vince Prue D
    (1997) Photoperiodism in Plants (Academic, San Diego), 2nd Ed.
  20. ↵
    1. Richards DE ,
    2. King KE ,
    3. Ait-ali T ,
    4. Harberd NP
    (2001) Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 52:67–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Ueguchi-Tanaka M ,
    2. Ashikari M ,
    3. Nakajima M ,
    4. Itoh H ,
    5. Katoh E ,
    6. Kobayashi M ,
    7. Chow TY ,
    8. Hsing YI ,
    9. Kitano H ,
    10. Yamaguchi I ,
    11. et al.
    (2005) Nature 437:693–698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Nakajima M ,
    2. Shimada A ,
    3. Takashi Y ,
    4. Kim YC ,
    5. Park SH ,
    6. Ueguchi-Tanaka M ,
    7. Suzuki H ,
    8. Katoh E ,
    9. Iuchi S ,
    10. Kobayashi M ,
    11. et al.
    (2006) Plant J 46:880–889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Peng J ,
    2. Carol P ,
    3. Richards DE ,
    4. King KE ,
    5. Cowling RJ ,
    6. Murphy GP ,
    7. Harberd NP
    (1997) Genes Dev 11:3194–3205.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Dill A ,
    2. Sun TP
    (2001) Genetics 159:777–785.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. King KE ,
    2. Moritz T ,
    3. Harberd NP
    (2001) Genetics 159:767–776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Bolle C
    (2004) Planta 218:683–692.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Silverstone AL ,
    2. Jung HS ,
    3. Dill A ,
    4. Kawaide H ,
    5. Kamiya Y ,
    6. Sun TP
    (2001) Plant Cell 13:1555–1565.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Lee S ,
    2. Cheng H ,
    3. King KE ,
    4. Wang W ,
    5. He Y ,
    6. Hussain A ,
    7. Lo J ,
    8. Harberd NP ,
    9. Peng J
    (2002) Genes Dev 16:646–658.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Wen CK ,
    2. Chang C
    (2002) Plant Cell 14:87–100.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Harberd NP ,
    2. King KE ,
    3. Carol P ,
    4. Cowling RJ ,
    5. Peng J ,
    6. Richards DE
    (1998) BioEssays 20:1001–1008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Harberd NP
    (2003) Science 299:1853–1854.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. McGinnis KM ,
    2. Thomas SG ,
    3. Soule JD ,
    4. Strader LC ,
    5. Zale JM ,
    6. Sun TP ,
    7. Steber CM
    (2003) Plant Cell 15:1120–1130.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Sasaki A ,
    2. Itoh H ,
    3. Gomi K ,
    4. Ueguchi-Tanaka M ,
    5. Ishiyama K ,
    6. Kobayashi M ,
    7. Jeong DH ,
    8. An G ,
    9. Kitano H ,
    10. Ashikari M ,
    11. et al.
    (2003) Science 299:1896–1898.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Fu X ,
    2. Richards DE ,
    3. Fleck B ,
    4. Xie D ,
    5. Burton N ,
    6. Harberd NP
    (2004) Plant Cell 16:1406–1418.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Cheng H ,
    2. Qin L ,
    3. Lee S ,
    4. Fu X ,
    5. Richards DE ,
    6. Cao D ,
    7. Luo D ,
    8. Harberd NP ,
    9. Peng J
    (2004) Development (Cambridge, UK) 131:1055–1064.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Blazquez MA ,
    2. Weigel D
    (2000) Nature 404:889–892.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Bonhomme F ,
    2. Kurz B ,
    3. Melzer S ,
    4. Bernier G ,
    5. Jacqmard A
    (2000) Plant J 24:103–111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Borner R ,
    2. Kampmann G ,
    3. Chandler J ,
    4. Gleiβner R ,
    5. Weisman E ,
    6. Apel K ,
    7. Melzer S
    (2000) Plant J 24:591–599.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Moon J ,
    2. Suh SS ,
    3. Lee H ,
    4. Choi KR ,
    5. Hong CB ,
    6. Paek NC ,
    7. Kim SG ,
    8. Lee I
    (2003) Plant J 35:613–623.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Achard P ,
    2. Herr A ,
    3. Baulcombe DC ,
    4. Harberd NP
    (2004) Development (Cambridge, UK) 131:3357–3365.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Yu H ,
    2. Ito T ,
    3. Zhao Y ,
    4. Peng J ,
    5. Kumar P ,
    6. Meyerowitz EM
    (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7827–7832.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Hoffmann-Benning S ,
    2. Kende H
    (1992) Plant Physiol 99:1156–1161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Achard P ,
    2. Vriezen WH ,
    3. Van Der Straeten D ,
    4. Harberd NP
    (2003) Plant Cell 15:2816–2825.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Fu X ,
    2. Harberd NP
    (2003) Nature 421:740–743.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Vriezen WH ,
    2. Achard P ,
    3. Harberd NP ,
    4. Van Der Straeten D
    (2004) Plant J 37:505–516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Alvey L ,
    2. Harberd NP
    (2005) Physiol Plant 123:153–160.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    1. Achard P ,
    2. Liao L ,
    3. Jiang C ,
    4. Desnos T ,
    5. Bartlett J ,
    6. Fu X ,
    7. Harberd NP
    (2007) Plant Physiol 143:1163–1172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. MacMillan CP ,
    2. Blundell CA ,
    3. King RW
    (2005) Plant Physiol 138:1794–1806.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Hedden P ,
    2. Phillips AL
    (2000) Trends Plant Sci 5:523–530.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Jacobsen SE ,
    2. Olszewski NE
    (1993) Plant Cell 5:887–896.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Gallois JL ,
    2. Nora FR ,
    3. Mizukami Y ,
    4. Sablowski R
    (2004) Genes Dev 18:375–380.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Cowling RJ ,
    2. Kamiya Y ,
    3. Seto H ,
    4. Harberd NP
    (1998) Plant Physiol 117:1195–1203.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Xu YL ,
    2. Li L ,
    3. Gage DA ,
    4. Zeevaart JA
    (1999) Plant Cell 11:927–936.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Liu Y ,
    2. Zhang S
    (2004) Plant Cell 16:3386–3399.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Kim CY ,
    2. Liu Y ,
    3. Thorne ET ,
    4. Yang H ,
    5. Fukushige H ,
    6. Gassmann W ,
    7. Hildebrand D ,
    8. Sharp RE ,
    9. Zhang S
    (2003) Plant Cell 15:2707–2718.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Henderson IR ,
    2. Dean C
    (2004) Development (Cambridge, UK) 131:3829–3838.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Ogawara T ,
    2. Higashi K ,
    3. Kamada H ,
    4. Ezura H
    (2003) J Plant Physiol 160:1335–1340.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Razem FA ,
    2. El-Kereamy A ,
    3. Abrams SR ,
    4. Hill RD
    (2006) Nature 439:290–294.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The plant stress hormone ethylene controls floral transition via DELLA-dependent regulation of floral meristem-identity genes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The plant stress hormone ethylene controls floral transition via DELLA-dependent regulation of floral meristem-identity genes
Patrick Achard, Mourad Baghour, Andrew Chapple, Peter Hedden, Dominique Van Der Straeten, Pascal Genschik, Thomas Moritz, Nicholas P. Harberd
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2007, 104 (15) 6484-6489; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0610717104

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The plant stress hormone ethylene controls floral transition via DELLA-dependent regulation of floral meristem-identity genes
Patrick Achard, Mourad Baghour, Andrew Chapple, Peter Hedden, Dominique Van Der Straeten, Pascal Genschik, Thomas Moritz, Nicholas P. Harberd
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2007, 104 (15) 6484-6489; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0610717104
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 104 (15)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Horse fossil
Mounted horseback riding in ancient China
A study uncovers early evidence of equestrianism in ancient China.
Image credit: Jian Ma.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490