| Literature DB >> 16737527 |
Neeraj Salathia1, Seth J Davis, James R Lynn, Scott D Michaels, Richard M Amasino, Andrew J Millar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The circadian system drives pervasive biological rhythms in plants. Circadian clocks integrate endogenous timing information with environmental signals, in order to match rhythmic outputs to the local day/night cycle. Multiple signaling pathways affect the circadian system, in ways that are likely to be adaptively significant. Our previous studies of natural genetic variation in Arabidopsis thaliana accessions implicated FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC) as a circadian-clock regulator. The MADS-box transcription factor FLC is best known as a regulator of flowering time. Its activity is regulated by many regulatory genes in the "autonomous" and vernalization-dependent flowering pathways. We tested whether these same pathways affect the circadian system.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16737527 PMCID: PMC1525167 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-6-10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Effects of null 1a) Circadian periods of FRI-FLC mutant combination and 35S:FLC plants assayed by rhythmic leaf movement in constant dim white light for approx. 1 week (n = 36–155). fri-flc τ = 24.07 ± 0.31 [SEM] h, FRI-flc τ = 24.00 ± 0.32 h, fri-FLC τ = 24.40 ± 0.29 h, FRI-FLC τ = 24.90 ± 0.31 h. 1b) Representative traces of rhythmic leaf movement of a 35S:FLC (white circles) and wild-type (filled triangles).
FLC effects on circadian period.
| genotype | ||||||
| period(h) | 24.07 | 24.00 | 24.40 | 24.90 | 24.44 | 25.65 |
| s.e.m | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.17 | 0.31 |
| n | 85 | 82 | 107 | 87 | 155 | 36 |
| P | _ | _ | *0.004 | *0.004 | _ | ** < 0.0001 |
Mean circadian periods of leaf movement in Arabidopsis mutant and wild-type seedlings, calculated using REML analysis.
* P from Wald test; indicates the statistical significance of FLC's effect alone, by comparison of FLC to flc irrespective of FRI/fri.
** P from the standard error of the difference; indicates the statistical significance of 35S:FLC effect, compared to Col wild-type.
s.e.m., standard error of the mean.
n, number of contributing leaf traces.
Figure 3Effects of vernalization on the Arabidopsis clock Comparison of circadian periods of vernalized and non-vernalized Arabidopsis mutant seedlings harboring all possible combinations of FRI-FLC (n = 18–26). After vernalization treatment at 2°C for 8 weeks, plants were assayed for rhythmic leaf movement for approx. 1 week in constant dim white light. vern fri-flc τ = 23.10 ± 0.21 [SEM] h, non-vern fri-flc τ = 24.01 ± 0.24 h, vern FRI-flc τ = 23.48 ± 0.19 h, non-vern FRI-flc τ = 24.21 ± 0.23 h, vern fri-FLC τ = 23.14 ± 0.25 h, non-vern fri-FLC τ = 23.95 ± 0.32 h, vern FRI-FLC τ = 23.43 ± 0.12 h, non-vern FRI-FLC τ = 24.56 ± 0.19 h.
Figure 2Circadian period of autonomous flowering time pathway mutants Circadian period estimates for mutants in the autonomous flowering-time pathway and their respective wild-types. Period was assayed by rhythmic leaf movement in constant white light for approx. 1 week (n = 25–155). 1a) genotypes in the Col-0 genetic background. 1b) Genotypes in the Ws-2 background. 1c) Representative leaf movement traces of Arabidopsis mutant (white circles) and wild-type seedlings (filled triangles), imaged in constant dim white light for approx. 1 week.
Figure 5Statistical significance testing for circadian period effects of floral pathway mutant lines. Measures of significance for comparisons among circadian periods from Table 2, calculated from the standard errors of the differences.
Circadian period of floral pathway mutant lines.
| genotype | |||||||
| period(h) | 24.44 | 24.91 | 24.98 | 24.49 | 25.54 | 25.30 | 25.28 |
| s.e.m | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.28 |
| n | 155 | 46 | 69 | 70 | 36 | 36 | 39 |
| genotype | |||||||
| period(h) | 24.44 | 25.93 | 25.12 | 24.15 | 25.51 | ||
| s.e.m | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.39 | ||
| n | 155 | 53 | 43 | 49 | 19 | ||
| genotype | |||||||
| period(h) | 24.15 | 24.13 | 24.44 | 25.15 | |||
| s.e.m | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 0.25 | |||
| n | 49 | 25 | 155 | 53 | |||
Mean circadian periods of Arabidopsis mutant and wild-type seedlings, tested as in Figure 1.
Circadian period of lines pre- and post-vernalization.
| Vernalized plants | ||||
| genotype | ||||
| s.e. | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.12 |
| n | 20 | 24 | 20 | 26 |
| genotype | ||||
| s.e. | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.32 | 0.19 |
| n | 22 | 18 | 23 | 24 |
Mean circadian period of Arabidopsis mutant seedlings, tested as in Figure 1, with or without vernalization at 2°C for 8 weeks.
Statistical significance testing for period effects of vernalization.
| Gene factor × vernalization | |
| 0.842 | |
| 0.692 | |
| 0.461 |
* P from Wald test; indicates the statistical significance of vernalization treatment effects alone and vernalization × gene effects on circadian period.
Figure 4Schematic of A schematic of FLC's role in regulating circadian period. FLC function increases circadian period (arrow). This function is marginally enhanced by FRI (dashed arrow) and perhaps mediated in part by repressing (blunt arrow) SOC1, which decreases period (blunt arrow). Flowering-time genes of the autonomous pathway such as LD and FCA maintain shorter circadian periods in part by repressing FLC but with significant contributions via other components (X and Y, drawn with FLC for clarity only). Vernalization also regulates circadian period by an unidentified mechanism. Not all genes of the autonomous flowering pathway influence circadian timing (e.g. FPA, not shown).