This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abe, S. Articles by Takeda, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Abe, S. Articles by Takeda, J. Agricola Articles by Abe, S. Articles by Takeda, J.

Articles

Possible Involvement of Calmodulin and the Cytoskeleton in Electrofusion of Plant Protoplasts

Institute of Agricultural Environment Control, College of Agriculture, Ehime University, 3-5-7 Tarumi, Matsuyama 790, Japan, Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606, Japan

Calmodulin antagonists, trifluoperazine, chlorpromazine, calmidazolium, N-(6-aminohexyl)-5-chloro-1-naphthalenesulfonamide (W-7), strongly inhibited the electrofusion of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv Moor) protoplasts with a marked increase of broken fusion products, after 60 minutes of incubation. W-5, a dechlorinated analog of W-7, was found less effective for the inhibition than W-7. Ethyleneglycol-bis(- aminoethylether)-N,N'-tetraacetic acid a Ca²⁺ chelator, La³⁺, a surface Ca²⁺ antagonist, and verapamil, a Ca²⁺ channel blocker, also inhibited electrofusion. Dielectrophoresis was inhibited by La³⁺. A microtubule inhibitor, vinblastine, inhibited electrofusion strongly while colchicine, slightly. A microfilament inhibitor, cytochalasin B, promoted fused cells to become spherical while phalloidin did not affect electrofusion.