The molecular basis for control of flowering has been
studied extensively using Arabidopsis, a LDP. These
investigations provided a deep understanding of crucial
regulatory steps such as epigenetic regulation of vernalization [9], autonomous or endogenous hormone regulation of flowering [10], and light and circadian clock
interactions in photoperiodic response [11], all of which
converge at the control ofFTgene expression. On the
contrary, rice is a facultative SDP that shows several
fundamental differences in flowering response compared
with LDP. First, the photoperiodic response is completely opposite in Arabidopsis and rice because LD promotes flowering in Arabidopsis but represses flowering in
rice [12
]. Second, SDP, but not LDP, show the critical
day-length response that a small addition of day length of
about 30 min significantly delays flowering [13
]. Finally,
SDP, but not LDP, show the night-break response where
the light exposure for a short (about 10 min) period in the
night suppresses flowering [14]. In addition, recent
advances in flowering time research in rice have identified
more a complex and unique flowering pathway involving
the day-length dependent switching of expression of two
florigen genes [15
] and different targets for the natural
variation in flowering time control in rice compared with
that in Arabidopsis [16
]. Here, we will summarize our
current understanding of the rice flowering network that
is contributed from evolutionarily conserved factors and
uniquely acquired factors (Table 1) and discuss the
The molecular basis for control of flowering has beenstudied extensively using Arabidopsis, a LDP. Theseinvestigations provided a deep understanding of crucialregulatory steps such as epigenetic regulation of vernalization [9], autonomous or endogenous hormone regulation of flowering [10], and light and circadian clockinteractions in photoperiodic response [11], all of whichconverge at the control ofFTgene expression. On thecontrary, rice is a facultative SDP that shows severalfundamental differences in flowering response comparedwith LDP. First, the photoperiodic response is completely opposite in Arabidopsis and rice because LD promotes flowering in Arabidopsis but represses flowering inrice [12]. Second, SDP, but not LDP, show the criticalday-length response that a small addition of day length ofabout 30 min significantly delays flowering [13]. Finally,SDP, but not LDP, show the night-break response wherethe light exposure for a short (about 10 min) period in thenight suppresses flowering [14]. In addition, recentadvances in flowering time research in rice have identifiedmore a complex and unique flowering pathway involvingthe day-length dependent switching of expression of twoflorigen genes [15] and different targets for the naturalvariation in flowering time control in rice compared withthat in Arabidopsis [16]. Here, we will summarize ourcurrent understanding of the rice flowering network thatis contributed from evolutionarily conserved factors anduniquely acquired factors (Table 1) and discuss the
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""