Plant Physiol.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Plant Physiology 66:962-967 (1980)
© 1980 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (17)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Srivastava, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Srivastava, L. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Srivastava, L. M.
Articles

In vivo Binding of Gibberellin A1 in Dwarf Pea Epicotyls 1

Brian Keith and Lalit M. Srivastava

Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A 1S6

Binding of [3H]gibberellin A1 (GA1) to extracts of dwarf pea epicotyls was investigated using sliced pea epicotyls (0.5-1.0 millimeter thick) that had been incubated in a solution containing [3H]GA1 at 0 C for 3 days. Gel filtration of a 100,000g supernatant indicated binding to a high (HMW) and an intermediate molecular weight (IMW) fraction with estimated molecular weights of 6 x 105 daltons and 4 to 7 x 104 daltons, respectively. The bound 3H-activity was [3H]GA1 and not a metabolite as deduced by thin layer chromatography. The bound label did not sediment during centrifugation at 100,000g for 2 hours; also, binding was not disrupted after treatment of a combined HMW and IMW fraction with DNase, RNase, or phospholipase A or C, but it was disrupted by protease or heat treatment. These facts suggest that binding of [3H]GA1 was occurring to a soluble protein(s). [3H]GA1 bound to a combined HMW and IMW fraction was not susceptible to changes in pH, nor could it be exchanged with a variety of GAs tested under in vitro conditions. Under in vivo equilibrium conditions, biologically active GAs, such as GA1, GA3, GA4, GA5, GA7, and keto GA1, could reduce the level of [3H]GA1 binding, whereas inactive GAs, such as iodo GA1 methyl ester, GA8, GA13, GA26, and non-GAs, such as (±)abscisic acid, had no effect. By varying the concentration of [3H]GA1 in the incubation medium, the specific binding of [3H]GA1 appeared to be due to two classes of binding sites having estimated Kd of 6 x 10–8 molar and 1.4 x 10–6 molar. The concentrations of the two sites were estimated to be 0.45 picomole per gram and 4.04 picomoles per gram on a fresh weight and 0.1 picomole per milligram and 0.9 picomole per milligram on a soluble protein basis, respectively.


1 Supported in part by National Research Council of Canada Grant A2905 to L. M. S.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1980 by the American Society of Plant Biologists