|
Plant Physiol, December 2001, Vol. 127, pp. 1399-1404
SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE
It Takes a Garden. How Work on Diverse Plant Species Has
Contributed to an Understanding of Flavonoid
Metabolism1
Brenda
Winkel-Shirley*
Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic University, Blacksburg,
Virginia 24061-0406
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Flavonoid biosynthesis is one of the
most extensively studied areas of plant secondary metabolism.
Modern-day reports date back to 1664 and Robert Boyle's description of
the effects of acids and bases on plant pigments. Today, through the
study of flavonoid metabolism in diverse plant systems, a great deal is known about the genes involved in this pathway and the variety of
biological functions in which flavonoids participate. What is
abundantly clear from the sum of this work is that the central flavonoid pathway has been highly conserved during the course of plant
evolution, but that there has been considerable divergence in the
functional roles of its end products and, perhaps related to this, the
mechanisms by which expression of the pathway is controlled. For this
reason, the use of a variety of species in these studies has
contributed much to developing a general view of flavonoid metabolism
and function across the plant kingdom, in addition to providing a
variety of experimental tools to facilitate the characterization of
this complex system.
Received July 31, 2001; accepted September 18, 2001.
 |
ENZYME AND GENE CHARACTERIZATION |
The biochemistry of flavonoid metabolism has been elucidated over
the course of many years through the careful identification and
characterization of numerous enzymes. This work has taken advantage of
tissues from which flavonoid enzymes could be easily isolated in
large quantities. Examples include irradiated parsley (Petroselinum hortense) cells for chalcone
synthase (Kreuzaler et al., 1979 ), soybean (Glycine max)
seeds, and bean (Phaesoleus vulgarus) cell suspension
cultures for chalcone isomerase (Moustafa and Wong, 1967 ; Dixon
et al., 1982 ), and matthiola (Matthiola incana), petunia
(Petunia hybrida), and carnation
(Dianthus caryophyllus) flowers for flavanone
3-hydroxylase, flavonol synthase, flavonoid 3'-hydroxylase, and
dihydroflavonol reductase (Forkmann et al., 1980 ; Spribille and
Forkmann, 1984 ; Britsch and Grisebach, 1986 ; Stich et al., 1992 ). These
experiments uncovered the complex network of biochemical reactions that
mediate the synthesis of flavonoids in plants and laid the foundation
for efforts to isolate the corresponding genes.
An overview of the history of gene cloning in the flavonoid
pathway (Table I) shows that most of the
genes encoding enzymes of the central pathway were first isolated based
on biochemical approaches (e.g. information from enzyme
characterization or the use of antibodies raised against the purified
protein). Mutations resulting from the insertion of transposable
elements into flavonoid genes were also useful in this regard. In fact,
isolation of the bronze 1 gene, which encodes
UDP-Glc:flavonoid 3-O-glucosyl transferase, was the first
example of gene cloning using transposon tagging (Federoff et al.,
1984 ). Cloning of the original flavonoid structural genes was carried
out, for the most part, in maize and petunia, although the first
flavonoid gene, for chalcone synthase, was isolated from parsley
(Kreuzaler et al., 1983 ). Identification of genes encoding enzymes of
the isoflavonoid branch pathway, which is found primarily in legumes,
has come from recent work in soybean and alfalfa (Medicago
sativa), again largely based on biochemical approaches.
Arabidopsis is a bit of a late bloomer in the effort to identify genes
involved in flavonoid biosynthesis. Although Arabidopsis is not
particularly amenable to biochemical approaches, mutations in all of
the major structural genes have been identified in this species and are
proving useful for filling in a few remaining gaps. This includes the
recent identification of a gene that may be involved in the synthesis
of condensed tannins (Devic et al., 1999 ). These are major pigments in
many seeds that are also of agronomic importance in the vegetative
tissues of forage crops, having the beneficial property of reducing
bloat in grazing ruminants and at the same time the potential to act as
antifeedants and antinutrients (Morris and Robbins, 1997 ). Moreover,
the use of maize genes to complement Arabidopsis flavonoid mutants has
recently provided evidence that flavonoid enzymes have been
functionally conserved over large evolutionary distances (Dong et al.,
2001 ). Transposon and T-DNA tagging approaches in maize, petunia, and
Arabidopsis are also providing long-awaited information on the genes
involved in transporting flavonoids from the site of synthesis in the
cytoplasm to the vacuole (Marrs et al., 1995 ; Alfenito et al., 1998 ;
Debeaujon et al., 2001 ). These studies underscore the limitations of
homology-based approaches because petunia and maize glutathione
S-transferases with only 12% amino acid identity
functionally complement each other in vacuolar transport of flavonoids,
whereas an Arabidopsis cDNA with 50% identity to the petunia protein
cannot.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I.
History of flavonoid gene isolation
Only the original genes, identified by methods other than
homology-based cloning, are included. Entries in each section are
listed in chronological order.
|
|
The identification of genes encoding regulatory factors has relied
almost exclusively on transposon and, more recently, T-DNA, tagging
(Table I). This is largely due to the fact that regulatory proteins do
not accumulate to high levels and therefore are not amenable to
biochemical analysis; there are also limitations with regard to
homology cloning across species because the conserved sequences in
these proteins, such as bHLH and myb domains, are shared widely among
transcription factors. Therefore, transposon tagging provided a rapid
entrée to the isolation of flavonoid regulatory factors in maize,
petunia, and snapdragon. Additional novel regulatory factors are now
being isolated from Arabidopsis by positional cloning and T-DNA
tagging. A different approach, involving the isolation of transcription
factors using South-western and two-hybrid screening, has also led to
the identification of an apparent complex of flavonoid regulatory
proteins in parsley (Weisshaar et al., 1991 ; Rügner et al.,
2001 ). The information from these efforts, together with the
characterization of regulatory factors in heterologous species using
transgenic plants (Lloyd et al., 1992 ; Quattrocchio et al., 1998 ;
Uimari and Strommer, 1998 ; Bradley et al., 1999 ), is pointing to some
similarities, but also important differences, in the mechanisms by
which the flavonoid pathway is regulated in different plant species.
Therefore, the availability of information from diverse systems is a
crucial aspect of efforts to understand how this pathway is controlled, particularly in light of the widely different physiological
requirements for flavonoids that exist among plant species.
 |
PHYSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION |
The diverse resources offered by different plant species, such as
tissues that provide high yields of flavonoid enzymes and mutant lines
tagged with transposable elements or T-DNA insertions, have clearly
facilitated the rapid cloning of flavonoid genes. However, the use of
different species has perhaps been even more crucial to efforts to
define the biological functions of flavonoids in plants. Although some
of these functions are common to all plants, others are more limited
and appear to have evolved differently, or even independently, in
different lineages. For example, isoflavonoids, which are important
defense compounds and also function as signaling molecules in nitrogen
fixation, are found only in legumes and a few non-legume plants.
Characterization of this branch pathway in alfalfa and soybean is
providing tools for metabolic engineering of isoflavonoid synthesis in
other plant species (for review, see Dixon and Steele, 1999 ).
Similarly, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize, and
gloxinia (Sinningia cardinalis) are among the few
species known to synthesize 3-deoxyanthocyanins, which are involved
both in defense (Snyder and Nicholson, 1990 ) and in pigmentation
(Grotewold et al., 1994 ), and some information on the biochemistry of
this branch pathway has emerged. Analysis of maize and petunia lines carrying mutations in the first enzyme of flavonoid biosynthesis uncovered a role for flavonoids in male fertility. However, a null
mutant affecting the same enzyme in Arabidopsis was fully fertile,
demonstrating that flavonoids are not universally required during
pollen tube formation (for review, see Shirley, 1996 ). Likewise,
flavonoids have been shown to help define host-range specificity for
microbes such as Rhizobium spp. and Agrobacterium spp. (Rolfe, 1988 ; Zerback et al., 1989 ). Flavonoids also contribute to
plant host recognition by parasitic plants like Triphysaria versicolor and Cuscuta subinclusa, but apparently are
not required for successful parasitism of Arabidopsis with
Orobanche aegyptiaca (Kelly, 1990 ; Albrecht et al., 1999 ;
Westwood, 2000 ). It is clear that these biological functions are quite
specialized and have required the use of particular plant species for
experimental characterization.
Flavonoids also play a number of apparently universal roles in plants,
which presumably arose early in, and perhaps even drove, evolution of
the pathway. This is where model systems like Arabidopsis become
particularly useful by providing genetic and molecular resources that
may not be available in other plants. Arabidopsis also offers some
simplicity with regard to the flavonoid pathway in that all but one of
the enzymes of the central pathway are encoded by single genes, unlike
the situation in many other plants. Therefore, mutations in this
pathway disrupt expression in all tissues and under all environmental
conditions. For example, Arabidopsis flavonoid mutants were used to
demonstrate for the first time an unequivocal role for flavonoids in
protection of plants from UV radiation (Li et al., 1993 ). These mutants
have also provided insights into the contribution of flavonoids in the
seed coat to maintaining seed dormancy (Debeaujon et al., 2000 ).
Moreover, the long-controversial theory that flavonoids function as
inhibitors of auxin transport (Jacobs and Rubery, 1988 ) is receiving
support from studies in Arabidopsis (Jacobs and Rubery, 1988 ; Brown et al., 2001 ). In each case, Arabidopsis helps lay the foundation for
expansion and application of the work in other plant species.
 |
THE PATHWAY AS AN EXPERIMENTAL TOOL |
In addition to being the subject of efforts to characterize plant
metabolism, the flavonoid pathway has contributed directly and
indirectly to the discovery of several fundamental biological principles over the past 150 years. Two particularly well-known examples are Gregor Mendel's use of flower and seed coat color, among
other characters of peas, to develop his theories of heredity, and
Barbara McClintock's study of pigmentation patterns of maize kernels
that led to the discovery and elucidation of mobile elements. More
recently, analysis of pigmentation in maize kernels and vegetative tissues identified the epigenetic phenomenon known as paramutation, in
which allele interactions result in heritable changes in gene expression (Chandler et al., 2000 ). Similarly, the effects of flavonoid
transgene expression on petunia flower pigmentation uncovered the
phenomenon of cosuppression (Que and Jorgensen, 1998 ; Metzlaff et al.,
2000 ). The flavonoid pathway has also been a subject of interest with
regard to the study of evolution, particularly in morning glory
(Ipomoea purpurea), which offers unique genetic resources and a long history of analysis (Iida et al., 1999 ; Rausher et
al., 1999 ; Durbin et al., 2000 ). These studies support the idea that
the enzymes of flavonoid biosynthesis were recruited from primary
metabolism and that gene duplication has allowed the adaptation of
these enzymes for specialized functions. In addition, the flavonoid
pathway, and the general phenylpropanoid pathway from which it
branches, are serving as experimental models for understanding the
intracellular organization of metabolism, with recent work in alfalfa
and Arabidopsis providing new information on channeling of
intermediates and the assembly of multienzyme complexes (for review,
see Winkel-Shirley, 2001 ). Again, each of these efforts has benefited
from the unique features of a particular plant species with respect to
flavonoid metabolism.
 |
METABOLIC ENGINEERING |
The availability of well-defined structural and regulatory genes
from a variety of species has fueled interest in engineering flavonoid
metabolism, both for the floriculture industry and for nutritional
enhancement of plants (for review, see Dixon and Steele, 1999 ; Forkmann
and Martens, 2001 ). Significant progress has been made toward
engineering modified flower and plant coloration by the exchange of
flavonoid genes between species. However, this has been more
challenging than might have been expected due to the complexity of
factors, such as proper vacuolar pH and the need for accessory proteins
such as cytochrome b5s, that contribute to flavonoid-associated
pigmentation in plants. At the same time, genes are becoming available
that permit the production of beneficial isoflavonoids in non-legume
species (Akashi et al., 1998 , 1999 ; Steele et al., 1999 ; Jung et al.,
2000 ; Yu et al., 2000 ) and a petunia chalcone isomerase gene was
recently used to increase the levels of flavonols, which also have
nutritional benefits, in tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum) fruit (Muir et al., 2001 ). There is also an interest
in modifying the production of condensed tannins (proanthocyanidins) in
forage crops such as Lotus corniculatus (Morris and Robbins,
1997 ), an effort that may be facilitated by the isolation of additional
biosynthetic genes, such as the putative leucoanthocyanidin reductase
recently cloned in Arabidopsis (Tanaka et al., 1997 ; Devic et al.,
1999 ).
 |
FUTURE DIRECTIONS |
Could all of this knowledge have come from the study of a single
model plant? And will one model system provide answers to the many
questions that remain? Certainly not. Model plants such as Arabidopsis
and rice (Oryza sativa) will undoubtedly continue to
facilitate efforts to address specific questions regarding the
regulation and function of the flavonoid pathway. Arabidopsis is
already well developed in this regard and is providing new information
on general, as well as some specialized, functions of flavonoids, as
described above. Genomics tools such as microarrays are also generating
new information on coordinate expression of genes, including those of
the flavonoid pathway, in Arabidopsis as well as in maize (Bruce et
al., 2000 ; Harmer et al., 2000 ). On the other hand, very little has yet
been published on the flavonoid pathway in rice, although one flavonoid
mutant that disrupts pigmentation in the leaf and pericarp has now been
described (Reddy et al., 1995 ). It will be interesting to see how this
emerging experimental system will fit into the overall effort to
understand flavonoid metabolism, perhaps by integrating genomics data
from rice with the extensive genetic resources available for flavonoid
biosynthesis in barley (Jende-Strid, 1991 ).
There will also always be applications that are best studied in
particular plant species. For example, Lers et al. (1998) have
identified an isoflavone reductase-like gene in grapefruit that appears
to be correlated with UV-induced resistance to Penicillium digitatum. Likewise, insights into mechanisms by which plant
regulate vacuolar pH may soon come from mutants that alter flower color by disrupting a vacuolar
Na+H+ exchanger in morning
glory (Yamaguchi et al., 2001 ) and a putative regulatory gene in
petunia (Griesbach, 1998 ). Of course, there is still the question of
how plants modify the basic flavonoid skeleton to generate the
thousands of variants that are found in nature. It is quite clear that
only through the combined efforts in a diverse array of plant systems
will we arrive at the level of understanding needed to effectively
engineer flavonoid metabolism for the agronomic, horticultural, and
nutritional enhancement of plants. At the same time, the knowledge
derived from studying flavonoid biosynthesis in diverse plant species
will continue to expand our understanding of cellular metabolism and
molecular evolution, as well as other fundamental biological phenomena.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
1
Work in the author's laboratory is supported by
the National Science Foundation and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
*
E-mail winkel{at}vt.edu; fax 540-231-9307.
www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.010675.
 |
LITERATURE CITED |
-
Akashi T, Aoki T, Ayabe S
(1998)
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
251: 67-70[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Akashi T, Aoki T, Ayabe S
(1999)
Plant Physiol
121: 821-828[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Albrecht H, Yoder JI, Phillips DA
(1999)
Plant Physiol
119: 585-591[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Alfenito MR, Souer E, Goodman CD, Buell R, Mol J, Koes R, Walbot V
(1998)
Plant Cell
10: 1135-1149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Bradley JM, Deroles SC, Boase MR, Bloor S, Swinny E, Davies KM
(1999)
Plant Sci
140: 31-39[CrossRef]
-
Britsch L, Grisebach H
(1986)
Eur J Biochem
156: 569-577[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Britsch L, Ruhnau-Brich B, Forkmann G
(1992)
J Biol Chem
267: 5380-5387[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Brown DE, Rashotte AM, Murphy AS, Normanly J, Tague BW, Peer WA, Taiz L, Muday GK
(2001)
Plant Physiol
126: 524-535[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Bruce W, Folkerts O, Garnaat C, Crasta O, Roth B, Bowen B
(2000)
Plant Cell
12: 65-79[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Brugliera F, Barri-Rewell G, Holton TA, Mason JG
(1999)
Plant J
19: 441-451[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Brugliera F, Holton TA, Stevenson TW, Farcy E, Lu CY, Cornish EC
(1994)
Plant J
5: 81-92[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Chandler VL, Eggleston WB, Dorweiler JE
(2000)
Plant Mol Biol
43: 121-145[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Cone KC, Burr FA, Burr B
(1986)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
83: 9631-9635[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Debeaujon I, Léon-Kloosterziel KM, Koornneef M
(2000)
Plant Physiol
122: 403-413[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Debeaujon I, Peeters AJM, Léon-Kloosterziel KM, Koornneef M
(2001)
Plant Cell
13: 853-871[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
de Vetten N, Quattrocchio F, Mol J, Koes R
(1997)
Genes Dev
11: 1422-1434[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Devic M, Guilleminot J, Debeaujon I, Bechtold N, Bensaude E, Koornneef M, Pelletier G, Delseny M
(1999)
Plant J
19: 387-398[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Dixon RA, Dey PM, Whitehead IM
(1982)
Biochim Biophys Acta
715: 25-33
-
Dixon RA, Steele CL
(1999)
Trends Plant Sci
4: 394-400[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Dong X, Braun EL, Grotewold E
(2001)
Plant Physiol
127: 46-57[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Durbin ML, McCaig B, Clegg MT
(2000)
Plant Mol Biol
42: 79-92[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Federoff NV, Furtek DB, Nelson OE
(1984)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
81: 3825-3829[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Forkmann G, Heller W, Grisebach H
(1980)
Z Naturforsch
35: 691-695
-
Forkmann G, Martens S
(2001)
Curr Opin Biotechnol
12: 155-160[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Goodrich J, Carpenter R, Coen ES
(1992)
Cell
68: 955-964[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Griesbach RJ
(1998)
J Am Soc Hortic Sci
123: 647-650[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Grotewold E, Drummond BJ, Bowen B, Peterson T
(1994)
Cell
76: 543-553[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Guo L, Paiva NL
(1995)
Arch Biochem Biophys
320: 353-360[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Harmer SL, Hogenesch JB, Straume M, Chang H-S, Han B, Zhu T, Wang X, Kreps JA, Kay SA
(2000)
Science
290: 2110-2113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
He XZ, Reddy JT, Dixon RA
(1998)
Plant Mol Biol
36: 43-54[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Holton TA, Brugliera F, Lester DR, Tanaka Y, Hyland CD, Menting JGT, Lu C-Y, Farcy E, Stevenson TW, Cornish EC
(1993a)
Nature
366: 276-279[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Holton TA, Brugliera F, Tanaka Y
(1993b)
Plant J
4: 1003-1010[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Iida S, Hoshino A, Johzuka-Hisatomi Y, Habu Y, Inagaki Y
(1999)
Ann N Y Acad Sci
870: 265-274[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Jacobs M, Rubery PH
(1988)
241: 346-349
-
Jende-Strid B
(1991)
Theor Appl Genet
81: 668-674
-
Johnson CS, Smyth DR
(1998)
9th International Conference on Arabidopsis Research. University of Wisconsin, Madison, pp 186
-
Jung W, Yu O, Sze-Mei CL, O'Keefe DP, Odell J, Fader G, McGonigle B
(2000)
Nat Biotechnol
18: 208-213[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Kelly CK
(1990)
Ecology
71: 1916-1925[CrossRef][Web of Science]
-
Kircher S, Ledger S, Hayachi H, Weisshaar B, Schäfer E, Frohnmeyer H
(1998)
Mol Gen Genet
257: 595-605[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Kreuzaler F, Ragg H, Fautz E, Kuhn DN, Hahlbrock K
(1983)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
80: 2591-2593[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Kreuzaler F, Ragg H, Heller W, Tesch R, Witt I, Hammer D, Hahlbrock K
(1979)
Eur J Biochem
99: 89-96[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Latunde-Dada AO, Cabello-Hurtado F, Czittrich N, Didierjean L, Schopfer C, Hertkorn N, Werck-Reichhart D, Ebel J
(2001)
J Biol Chem
276: 1688-1695[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Lechelt C, Peterson T, Laird A, Chen J, Dellaporta SL, Dennis E, Peacock WJ, Starlinger P
(1989)
Mol Gen Genet
219: 225-234[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Lers A, Burd S, Lomaniec E, Droby S, Chalutz E
(1998)
Plant Mol Biol
36: 847-856[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Li J, Ou-Lee T-M, Raba R, Amundson RG, Last RL
(1993)
Plant Cell
5: 171-179[Abstract]
-
Lloyd AM, Walbot V, Davis RW
(1992)
Science
258: 1773-1775[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Ludwig SR, Habera LF, Dellaporta SL, Wessler SR
(1989)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
86: 7092-7096[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Marrs KA, Alfenito MR, Lloyd AM, Walbot V
(1995)
Nature
375: 397-400[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Martens S, Forkmann G
(1999)
Plant J
20: 611-618[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Martin C, Carpenter R, Sommer H, Saedler H, Coen ES
(1985)
EMBO J
4: 1625-1630[Web of Science][Medline]
-
McLaughlin M, Walbot V
(1987)
Genetics
117: 771-776[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Mehdy MC, Lamb CJ
(1987)
EMBO J
6: 1527-1533[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Menssen A, Höhmann S, Martin W, Schnable PS, Peterson PA, Saedler H, Gierl A
(1990)
EMBO J
9: 3051-3057[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Metzlaff M, O'Dell M, Hellens R, Flavell RB
(2000)
Plant J
23: 63-72[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Morris P, Robbins MP
(1997)
In
BD McKersie, DCW Brown, eds, Biotechnology and the Improvement of Forage Legumes. CAB International, Wallingford, CT, pp 147-173
-
Moustafa E, Wong E
(1967)
Phytochemistry
6: 625-632[CrossRef]
-
Muir SR, Collins GJ, Robinson S, Hughes S, Bovy A, De Vos CHR, van Tunen AJ, Verhoeyen ME
(2001)
Nat Biotechnol
19: 470-474[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Nakayama T, Yonekura-Sakakibara K, Sato T, Kikuchi S, Fukui Y, Fukuchi-Mizutani M, Ueda T, Nakao M, Tanaka Y, Kusumi T
(2000)
Science
290: 1163-1166[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Nesi N, Debeaujon I, Jond C, Pelletier G, Caboche M, Lepiniec L
(2000)
Plant Cell
12: 1863-1878[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
O'Reilly C, Shepherd NS, Pereira A, Schwarz-Sommer Z, Bertram I, Robertson DS, Peterson PA, Saedler H
(1985)
EMBO J
4: 877-882[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Paiva NL, Edwards R, Sun YJ, Hrazdina G, Dixon RA
(1991)
Plant Mol Biol
17: 653-667[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Paz-Ares J, Wienand U, Peterson PA, Saedler H
(1986)
EMBO J
5: 829-833[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Quattrocchio F, Wing J, van der Woude K, Souer E, de Vetten N, Mol J, Koes R
(1999)
Plant Cell
11: 1433-1444[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Quattrocchio F, Wing JF, van der Woude K, Mol JNM, Koes R
(1998)
Plant J
13: 475-488[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Que Q, Jorgensen RA
(1998)
Dev Genet
22: 100-109[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Rausher M, Miller RE, Tiffin P
(1999)
Mol Biol Evol
16: 266-274[Abstract]
-
Reddy VS, Dash S, Reddy AR
(1995)
Theor Appl Genet
91: 301-312
-
Rolfe BG
(1988)
Biofactors
1: 3-10[Medline]
-
Rügner A, Frohnmeyer H, Näke C, Wellmer F, Kircher S, Schäfer E, Harter K
(2001)
Mol Genet Genomics
265: 964-976[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Shirley BW
(1996)
Trends Plant Sci
1: 377-382
-
Snyder BA, Nicholson RL
(1990)
Science
248: 1637-1639[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Spelt C, Quattrocchio F, Mol JNM, Koes R
(2000)
Plant Cell
12: 1619-1631[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Spribille R, Forkmann G
(1984)
Br Z Naturforsch
39: 714-719
-
Steele CL, Gijzen M, Qutob D, Dixon RA
(1999)
Arch Biochem Biophys
367: 146-150[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
-
Stich K, Eidenberger T, Wurst F, Forkmann G
(1992)
Planta
187: 103-108
-
Tanaka A, Tano S, Chantes T, Yokota Y, Shikazono N, Watanabe H
(1997)
Genes Genet Syst
72: 141-148[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Uimari A, Strommer J
(1998)
Mol Gen Genet
257: 198-204[Medline]
-
Walker AR, Davison PA, Bolognesi-Winfield AC, James CM, Srinivasan N, Blundell TL, Esch JJ, Marks MD, Gray JC
(1999)
Plant Cell
11: 1337-1350[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Weisshaar B, Armstrong GA, Block A, da Costa e Silva O, Hahlbrock K
(1991)
EMBO J
10: 1777-1786[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Welle R, Schröder G, Schiltz E, Grisebach H, Schröder J
(1991)
Eur J Biochem
196: 423-430[Web of Science][Medline]
-
Westwood JH
(2000)
Weed Sci
48: 742-748[CrossRef]
-
Winkel-Shirley B
(2001)
Plant Physiol
126: 485-493[Free Full Text]
-
Yamaguchi T, Fukada-Tanaka S, Inagaki Y, Saito N, Yonekura SK, Tanaka Y, Kusumi T, Iida S
(2001)
Plant Cell Physiol
42: 451-461[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Yamazaki M, Gong Z, Fukuchi-Mizutani M, Fukui Y, Tanaka Y, Kusumi T, Saito K
(1999)
J Biol Chem
274: 7405-7411[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Yu O, Jung W, Shi J, Croes RA, Fader GM, McGonigle B, Odell JT
(2000)
Plant Physiol
124: 781-793[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Zerback R, Dressler K, Hess D
(1989)
Plant Sci
62: 83-91[CrossRef]
© 2001 American Society of Plant Physiologists
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Sapir, M. Oren-Shamir, R. Ovadia, M. Reuveni, D. Evenor, Y. Tadmor, S. Nahon, H. Shlomo, L. Chen, A. Meir, et al.
Molecular Aspects of Anthocyanin fruit Tomato in Relation to high pigment-1
J. Hered.,
May 1, 2008;
99(3):
292 - 303.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. A. Kennedy, C. Saucier, and Y. Glories
Grape and Wine Phenolics: History and Perspective
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.,
September 1, 2006;
57(3):
239 - 248.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. Zuther, S. Huang, J. Jelenska, H. Eilenberg, E. M. Arnold, X. Su, A. Sirikhachornkit, J. Podkowinski, A. Zilberstein, R. Haselkorn, et al.
Complex nested promoters control tissue-specific expression of acetyl-CoA carboxylase genes in wheat
PNAS,
February 3, 2004;
101(5):
1403 - 1408.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Elomaa, A. Uimari, M. Mehto, V. A. Albert, R. A.E. Laitinen, and T. H. Teeri
Activation of Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in Gerbera hybrida (Asteraceae) Suggests Conserved Protein-Protein and Protein-Promoter Interactions between the Anciently Diverged Monocots and Eudicots
Plant Physiology,
December 1, 2003;
133(4):
1831 - 1842.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|
|
|