|
|
||||||||
|
Plant Physiology Preview Published on November 30, 2007; 10.1104/pp.107.110643
OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
Received October 9, 2007 Micro-electrode Flux Estimation confirms that the Solanum pimpinellifolium cu3Mutant Still Responds to Systemin
Laboratory of Plant Physiology, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 14, 9750 AA, Haren, The Netherlands; Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA * Corresponding author; email: F.C.Lanfermeijer{at}rug.nl.
In this study we introduce the Micro-electrode Ion Flux Estimation (MIFE) technique as a sensitive and accurate technique to study systemin-induced changes in ion-fluxes from isolated nearly intact plant tissues. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness and value of the MIFE technique to monitor and characterize those elicitor induced ion flux-changes from intact tissues. We used the method to monitor the systemin-induced changes in ion fluxes from leaf-tissue of various plant species, amongst which wildtype and cu3 mutant tomato plants (Solanum pimpinellifolium) and confirm previous observations but now in intact leaf-tissue. Upon exposure of leaf-tissue of plant species from the subtribe solaneae to systemin the H+ influx and K+ efflux were transiently strongly increased. Plant species of other clades did not show a response upon systemin exposure. Although it has been reported that the gene containing the cu3 null mutation is identical to the SR160/tBRI1 gene, which encodes the systemin/brassinosteroid receptor, and is essential in systemin and brassinosteroid perception we observed no differences in the response of H+ and K+ fluxes from both wildtype and mutant leaf-tissue to systemin. Also, the effects of various pharmacological effectors on systemin induced flux-changes were similar. Moreover, a SR160/tBRI1-transgene containing tobacco line was insensitive to systemin, whereas both this line and its wildtype predecessor were responsive to the elicitor flg22. Our results support the conclusion that the Cu3 receptor of tomato is not the systemin receptor and, hence, another receptor is the principal systemin receptor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| ASPB Publications | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY | THE PLANT CELL | |
|---|---|---|---|