Dominant repression of target genes by chimeric repressors that include the EAR motif, a repression domain, in Arabidopsis

Authors

  • Keiichiro Hiratsu,

    1. Gene Function Research Laboratory, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Central 6, Tsukuba 305-8566, Japan,
    2. Domestic Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan,
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kyoko Matsui,

    1. Gene Function Research Laboratory, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Central 6, Tsukuba 305-8566, Japan,
    2. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan, and
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Tomotsugu Koyama,

    1. Gene Function Research Laboratory, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Central 6, Tsukuba 305-8566, Japan,
    2. CREST, JST, Japan
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Masaru Ohme-Takagi

    Corresponding author
    1. Gene Function Research Laboratory, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Central 6, Tsukuba 305-8566, Japan,
    2. CREST, JST, Japan
      For correspondence (fax +81 298 61 6505; e-mail m-takagi@aist.go.jp).
    Search for more papers by this author

For correspondence (fax +81 298 61 6505; e-mail m-takagi@aist.go.jp).

Summary

The redundancy of genes for plant transcription factors often interferes with efforts to identify the biologic functions of such factors. We show here that four different transcription factors fused to the EAR motif, a repression domain of only 12 amino acids, act as dominant repressors in transgenic Arabidopsis and suppress the expression of specific target genes, even in the presence of the redundant transcription factors, with resultant dominant loss-of-function phenotypes. Chimeric EIN3, CUC1, PAP1, and AtMYB23 repressors that included the EAR motif dominantly suppressed the expression of their target genes and caused insensitivity to ethylene, cup-shaped cotyledons, reduction in the accumulation of anthocyanin, and absence of trichomes, respectively. This chimeric repressor silencing technology (CRES-T), exploiting the EAR-motif repression domain, is simple and effective and can overcome genetic redundancy. Thus, it should be useful not only for the rapid analysis of the functions of redundant plant transcription factors but also for the manipulation of plant traits via the suppression of gene expression that is regulated by specific transcription factors.

Introduction

The genome of Arabidopsis contains more than twice as many genes for transcription factors as the genomes of animals with genomes of sizes similar to that of Arabidopsis (Riechmann et al., 2000). In addition, the transcription factors encoded in plant genomes exhibit much greater variety than those in animals, and numerous plant-specific transcription factors have been recognized (Riechmann et al., 2000). However, the functions and target genes of most plant transcription factors remain to be characterized. Plant genes are frequently duplicated, and many plant transcription factors form large families in which family members include strongly conserved DNA-binding domains (Riechmann et al., 2000). This structural and functional redundancy of plant transcription factors often interferes with efforts to identify the functions of these factors. Even when gene-knockout or antisense lines specific for a particular transcription factor can be isolated, such lines often fail to exhibit an informative phenotype that might provide some direct clue to the factor's function, for example, a loss-of-function phenotype (Borevitz et al., 2000; Bouché and Bouchez, 2001; Meissner et al., 1999).

In animal cells, chimeric repressors, in which a DNA-binding domain or a transcription factor is fused to a repression domain, have been used for the targeted repression of the expression of genes of interest (Badiani et al., 1994; Beerli et al., 1998, 2000; de Haan et al., 2000; John et al., 1995). The repression domains from the Krüppel-associated box (KRAB) of the human estrogen receptor, Engrailed (En) of Drosophila or mSIN3 interaction domain (Sid) of humans, have been used effectively in mammalian cells (Badiani et al., 1994; Beerli et al., 1998, 2000; de Haan et al., 2000; John et al., 1995). Such chimeric repressors have been shown to act dominantly in animals, and thus a similar strategy might be expected to facilitate the analysis of redundant transcription factors in plants. However, the repressive activity of animal repression domains has not been demonstrated clearly in plant cells. In fact, the KRAB repression domain acts as a transcriptional activator in transient expression assays in Arabidopsis when fused to the GAL4 DNA-binding domain (unpublished results). This observation suggests that the mechanisms for the repression of transcription might differ between animals and plants. Moreover, addition of a long peptide, such as En, which includes approximately 300 amino acids, might affect the integral properties of some plant transcription factors, such as protein–protein interactions and/or dimerization. Thus, repression domains that function in plant cells and can overcome the genetic redundancy of plant transcription factors are necessary if we are to utilize chimeric repressors or the identification of the biologic functions of plant transcription factors.

We previously reported that the repression domains of the class II ETHYLENE-RESPONSIVE ELEMENT-BINDING FACTOR (ERF) and TFIIIA-type zinc finger repressors of transcription that include SUPERMAN (SUP) contain the EAR (ERF-associated amphiphilic repression) motif (Hiratsu et al., 2002; Ohta et al., 2001). When short peptides that contained the EAR motif were fused to activators of transcription, the resultant chimeric transcription factors acted as strong repressors and suppressed the expression of a reporter gene in the presence of another activator of transcription in transient expression assays in Arabidopsis, even if the activator contained the VP16 activation domain of herpes simplex virus (Hiratsu et al., 2002; Ohta et al., 2001). Given that the EAR motif was able to convert a transcriptional activator into a strong repressor, and that the repressive activity of the EAR-motif repression domain was dominant over both intra- and intermolecular activational activities (Hiratsu et al., 2002; Ohta et al., 2001), we attempted, in the present study, to convert intact plant transcription factors into dominant repressors by fusing them with the EAR-motif repression domain and to suppress the expression of the target genes of the various transcription factors in stably transformed Arabidopsis.

We chose four transcription factors from three different families, namely the products of the ETHYLENE-INSENSITIVE3 (EIN3), CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON1 (CUC1), PRODUCTION-OF-ANTHOCYANIN-PIGMENT1 (PAP1), and AtMYB23 genes, which are involved in different physiologic phenomena, namely response to hormone, differentiation, biosynthesis of a metabolite, and development, respectively (Borevitz et al., 2000; Chao et al., 1997; Kirik et al., 2001; Takada et al., 2000). We reported that the chimeric proteins that included the EAR motif acted as dominant repressors. They overcame the redundancy of transcription factors and effectively suppressed their target genes in transgenic Arabidopsis, with resultant loss-of-function phenotypes.

Results

The ethylene-insensitive phenotype of transgenic plants that expressed the chimeric EIN3 repressor

The EIN3 transcription factor is a positive regulator of ethylene-mediated effects (Chao et al., 1997). To construct the chimeric EIN3 repressor, we fused the coding region of EIN3 with the DNA encoding for the EAR-motif repression domain (RD) from tobacco ERF3 (Ohta et al., 2001) or from SUP (SUPRD), which exhibited stronger repressive activity than RD in transient expression assays (Hiratsu et al., 2002). The sequences were fused in frame, and the resultant polynucleotides were fused with the 35S promoter of cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) to yield 35S::EIN3RD and 35S::EIN3SUPRD (Figure 1a). In the 20 independent T1 transgenic lines that we examined, all 35S::EIN3RD and 35S::EIN3SUPRD plants failed to respond to ethylene, and the normal effects of ethylene, such as the triple response in etiolated seedlings and the inhibition of cell growth in rosettes, were not observed (Figure 1b). In addition, the ethylene-responsive expression of the ETHYLENE-RESPONSE-FACTOR1 gene, the PDF1.2 gene for defensin, and the gene for basic-chitinase, all of which are normally regulated by EIN3 (Chao et al., 1997; Solano et al., 1998), were also undetectable (Figure 1c). These results indicated that the transgenic Arabidopsis plants that expressed the chimeric EIN3 repressor were all insensitive to ethylene, resembling plants with loss-of-function alleles of EIN3 (Chao et al., 1997). By contrast, no ethylene-insensitive phenotype was observed in the case of transgenic plants that expressed the 35S::EIN3RDm transgene, in which EIN3 had been fused to a mutant version of repression domain (RDm; Figure 1), which lacked the ability to repress gene expression (Ohta et al., 2001; Figure 1b,c).

Figure 1.

The ethylene-insensitive phenotype of transgenic plants that expressed the chimeric EIN3 repressor.

(a) Schematic representation of the construct used for expression of the chimeric EIN3 repressors, showing the amino acid sequences of the EAR-motif repression domains from tobacco ERF3 (RD), with the mutated RD domain (RDm), and from Arabidopsis SUPERMAN (SUPRD). CaMV35S, cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter; Ω, the translational enhancer sequence from tobacco mosaic virus; and Nos, a nopaline synthase terminator. The filled box indicates a repression domain. Reverse type indicates the EAR motif.

(b) The sensitivity to ethylene of wild-type and transgenic plants that expressed the chimeric EIN3 repressor. Three-day-old etiolated seedlings (upper panel) and 21-day-old plants (lower panel) of the wild-type (Col-0) and of ein3-1, 35S::EIN3RD, 35S::EIN3RDm and 35S::EIN3SUPRD transgenic plants, all of which were grown in hydrocarbon-free air (–) or with 100 p.p.m. ethylene (+), as indicated.

(c) Expression of the ethylene-inducible ERF1, PDF1.2 (PDF1), and basic chitinase (CHN) genes in wild-type (Col-0), ein3–1, 35S::EIN3RD, 35S::EIN3RDm, and 35S::EIN3SUPRD plants. Ten micrograms of total RNA from a 21-day-old adult plant that had been treated for 12 h with hydrocarbon-free air (–) or with ethylene at 100 p.p.m. (+) were subjected to Northern blotting analysis. The cDNA for elongation factor (EF) was used as an internal control.

(d) Detection of the endogenous EIN3 gene and the transgenes for chimeric EIN3 repressors (EIN3RD and EIN3SUPRD) in wild-type (Col-0), 35S::EIN3RD, and 35S::EIN3SUPRD plants by RT-PCR. Specific primers corresponding to the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of EIN3, and to the repression domains, were used. Results for two independent lines of transgenic plants are shown. mRNA for β-tublin (TUB) was used as an internal control.

Expression of the chimeric CUC1 repressor resulted in cup-shaped cotyledons

The products of the CUC1 gene and its homolog CUC2 are functionally redundant transcriptional activators (Aida et al., 1997; Takada et al., 2000). In cuc1/cuc2 double-mutant plants, a defect in the separation of cotyledons results in the formation of a cup-shaped structure, while individual single-mutant plants are basically normal (Aida et al., 1997; Takada et al., 2000). We fused RD and SUPRD separately to CUC1 to generate chimeric CUC1 repressors, but most of the T1 transgenic plants that we obtained failed to display a loss-of-function phenotype, namely cup-shaped cotyledons (data not shown). We suspected that the repressive activities of RD or SUPRD might have been insufficient to overcome the activity of the functionally redundant transcription factor, CUC2, in transgenic plants. To overcome this putative redundancy, we maximized the potential repressive activity of the EAR-motif repression domain by minimizing the length and modifying the sequence of SUPRD (manuscript in preparation). We used the resultant repression domain, designated SRDX (LDLDLELRLGFA; Figure 2a), for the construction of chimeric repressors. When the chimeric protein in which CUC1 was fused to SRDX (35S::CUC1SRDX) was expressed, all the seedlings of T1 transgenic plants had fused cotyledons with two cotyledonary blades fused together, from the base, to varying extents (Figure 2b). Among the 63 T1 seedlings that we investigated, 16 had cup-shaped cotyledons similar to those in the cuc1/cuc2 double mutant (Aida et al., 1997). Most of the seedlings of 35S::CUC1SRDX plants failed to form a shoot apical meristem, as also reported in the cuc1/cuc2 double-mutant plants (Aida et al., 1997). The chimeric protein in which CUC2 was fused to SRDX (35S::CUC2SRDX) also caused the formation of cup-shaped cotyledons, similar to those observed in seedlings of 35S::CUC1SRDX plants (data not shown). Our results indicated that the chimeric protein with the modified EAR motif acted in a dominant manner in the presence of functionally redundant transcription factors.

Figure 2.

Expression of the chimeric CUC1 repressor resulted in cup-shaped cotyledons.

(a) Schematic representation of the construct used for expression of the chimeric repressor with the modified version of the EAR-motif repression domain (SRDX).

(b) Seedlings of wild-type (Col-0), cuc1/cuc2, (on a Ler background), and 35S::CUC1SRDX plants are shown. The 35S::CUC1SRDX transgenic seedlings had fused cotyledons in which two cotyledonary blades were fused together, from the base, to varying extents. Bars = 1 mm.

(c) Detection of the endogenous CUC1 and CUC2 genes, and of the transgene for the chimeric CUC1 repressor (CUC1SRDX) in wild-type (Col-0), cuc1/cuc2 (on a Ler background), and 35S::CUC1SRDX plants. In the case of transgenic plants, RNA was isolated from several T1 seedlings with cup-shaped cotyledons. Specific primers corresponding to the 3′ UTR of CUC1 and CUC2, and to the repression domains, were used. Two independent experiments were carried out for the transgenic plants. mRNA for β-tublin (TUB) was used as an internal control.

Expression of the chimeric PAP1 repressor resulted in reduced accumulation of purple pigment and suppression of the expression of genes related to phenylpropanoid biosynthesis

The MYB family of plant transcription factors includes PAP1, which is a positive regulator of phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (Borevitz et al., 2000). When wild-type Arabidopsis plants are grown under stress (in MS medium that contains 3% sucrose), seedlings develop purple pigmentation that is characteristic of anthocyanins (Martin et al., 2002;Figure 3a). By contrast, in 20 independent T1 transgenic lines that expressed PAP1 fused to SRDX (35S::PAP1SRDX), all the seedlings exhibited minimal purple pigmentation, or none at all, in the presence of 3% sucrose (Figure 3a). We examined the expression of genes related to phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, namely genes for phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), chalcone synthetase (CHS), and dihydroflavonol reductase (DFR), because expression of these genes is enhanced in PAP1-overexpressing mutant plants (Borevitz et al., 2000). These genes were all expressed at elevated levels in wild-type plants in the presence of 3% sucrose, while no such enhanced expression of these genes was detected in 35S::PAP1SRDX plants grown under the same condition (Figure 3b). These results indicated that the chimeric PAP1 repressor was able to suppress the induction of the various biosynthetic genes, and thus to inhibit the accumulation of anthocyanin. Putative MYB-binding sites can be found in the 5′ upstream regions, both of the PAL and CHS genes (Feinbaum and Ausubel, 1988), suggesting that these genes are directly regulated by PAP1.

Figure 3.

Expression of the chimeric PAP1 repressor resulted in reduced accumulation of purple pigment and in suppression of the expression of phenylpropanoid biosynthetic genes.

(a) Five-day-old seedlings of wild-type (Col-0) and 35S::PAP1SRDX plants were grown on MS agar medium without (–) or with 3% sucrose (+).

(b) Expression of the PAL, CHS, and DFR genes for phenylpropanoid biosynthesis as detected by RT-PCR analysis. RNA was isolated from 5-day-old seedlings with reduced accumulation of purple pigment as indicated in panel (a). TUB: β-tublin.

(c) Detection of the endogenous PAP1 and PAP2 genes, and of the transgene for the chimeric PAP1 repressor (PAP1SRDX) in wild-type (Col-0) and 35S::PAP1SRDX plants by RT-PCR. Specific primers corresponding to the 3′ UTR of PAP1 and PAP2, and to the repression domains, were used. Results are shown for two independent lines of transgenic plants. mRNA for β-tublin (TUB) was used as an internal control.

Expression of the chimeric AtMYB23 repressor resulted in reduced numbers of trichomes

The MYB transcription factor, AtMYB23, is a homolog of GLABRA1 (GL1) and a positive regulator of trichome development (Kirik et al., 2001; Oppenheimer et al., 1991). Transgenic plants that expressed the chimeric protein that consisted of AtMYB23 and SRDX (35S::AtMYB23SRDX) were characterized by the disruption to trichome development (Figure 4a). Among plants of 35 independent T1 lines investigated, six of 35S::AtMYB23SRDX plants had no trichomes and the rest had considerably fewer trichomes than the wild type. We examined the expression of genes related to trichome development, namely GL1, GL2, and TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA1 (TTG1; Rerie et al., 1994; Walker et al., 1999), and we found that the expression of only GL2 was suppressed in the 35S::AtMYB23SRDX plants while GL1 and TTG1 were unaffected (Figure 4b). The 5′ upstream region of the GL2 gene includes putative MYB-binding sites (Szymanski et al., 1998). Thus, it is likely that the chimeric AtMYB23 repressor directly and dominantly suppressed the expression of GL2. The expression of GL2 was completely suppressed in trichome-free leaves, while it was detected at a low level in leaves with reduced numbers of trichomes (Figure 4b), suggesting a correlation between the extent of inhibition of trichome development and that of the expression of GL2. It seems likely that GL2 might regulate the development of trichomes directly.

Figure 4.

Expression of the chimeric AtMYB23 repressor resulted in reduced numbers of trichomes.

(a) Fourteen-day-old leaves from a wild-type plant (Col-0) and from 35S::AtMYB23SRDX plants with no trichomes (I) and with a few trichomes (II) are shown.

(b) Expression of the GL1, GL2, and TTG1 genes in a wild-type plant (Col-0) and in 35S::AtMYB23SRDX transgenic plants, as detected by RT-PCR analysis. RNAs from leaves with no trichomes (I) and with a few trichomes (II), as shown in panel (a), were examined. mRNA for β-tublin (TUB) was used as an internal control.

(c) Detection of the endogenous AtMYB23 gene and of the transgene for the chimeric AtMYB23 repressor (AtMYB23SRDX) in wild-type (Col-0) and 35S::AtMYB23SRDX plants. RNAs from leaves with no trichomes (I) and a few trichomes (II), as shown in panel (a), were examined. Specific primers corresponding to the 3′ UTR of AtMYB23, and to the repression domains, were used. Results for four independent lines of transgenic plants are indicated. mRNA for β-tublin (TUB) was used as an internal control.

Dominant negative phenotypes were not because of co-suppression

We confirmed the expression of endogenous EIN3, CUC1, PAP1 and AtMYB23 genes, and of each of the transgenes in the respective transgenic plants (Figures 1d, 2c, 3c and 4c). Moreover, CUC2, PAP2, and GL1 redundant homologs of genes for CUC1, PAP1, and AtMYB23, respectively, were also expressed in transgenic plants (Figures 2c, 3c and 4b). These observations indicate that the loss-of-function phenotypes and the suppression of expression of target genes in the transgenic plants were not because of co-suppression. In addition, it is unlikely that the phenotypes induced by the chimeric repressors were a result of non-specific negative effects, such as transcriptional squelching, because such loss-of-function phenotypes were not observed in plants that ectopically expressed the various transcription factors (Borevitz et al., 2000; Kirik et al., 2001; Takada et al., 2000) or in transgenic plants that expressed transcription factors fused to a mutant form of the EAR-motif repression domain. We also confirmed that the phenotypes generated by the chimeric repressors were inheritable as dominant traits, except in the case of meristemless 35S::CUC1SRDX plants (data not shown).

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated that four different transcription factors, when fused to the EAR-motif repression domain, can act as dominant repressors in transgenic plants. In the case of the EIN3 gene, a mutant phenotype can result from a single mutation (Chao et al., 1997). We found that the repression domains from ERF3 (RD) and SUP (SUPRD) effectively converted EIN3 into a dominant repressor and produced transgenic plants with an ethylene-insensitive phenotype (Figure 2). However, in the case of CUC1, which encodes a protein that is made functionally redundant by CUC2, the repressive activities of RD and SUPRD seemed to be insufficient to alter the phenotype in the presence of the functionally redundant homolog. In addition, AtMYB23 has been shown to be partially redundant with respect to GL1 (Kirik et al., 2001), and PAP1 is strongly homologous to PAP2 (Borevitz et al., 2000). Therefore, we developed and made use of a strong repression domain, SRDX, instead of RD and SUPRD, to generate the chimeric repressors from the transcription factors for which putative functionally redundant homologs exist.

In studies by others, a synthetic DNA-binding domain and plant transcription factors, to which the human Sid or the Drosophila En repression domain had been fused, were found to suppress expression of a target gene or to induce phenotypes similar to those induced by loss-of-function alleles for the transcription factors in transgenic Arabidopsis (Guan et al., 2002; Markel et al., 2002). However, the repressive activities of these chimeric transcription factors in plant cells have not been characterized yet. By contrast, we confirmed that all the chimeric repressors used in our experiments acted as transcriptional repressors in transient expression assays in Arabidopsis (data not shown). Moreover, no chimeric repressors, other than those associated with the EAR motif, have been shown to act in a dominant manner in the presence of functionally redundant transcription factors in stable transgenic plants. We demonstrated that the repressive activity of the chimeric repressors that included the EAR motif was able to overcome the activity of functionally redundant transcription factors to induce a dominant loss-of-function phenotype, using CUC1/CUC2 as a model. In addition, PAP1 plus PAP2 and AtMYB23 plus GL1 are likely to be functionally redundant, and the plants with antisense constructs directed against the PAP1 or the AtMYB23 gene have no visibly abnormal features (Borevitz et al., 2000; Kirik et al., 2001).

It is surprising that a peptide of only 12 amino acids (LDLDLELRLGFA) can function as a potent repression domain that can convert transcriptional activators into dominant repressors in plant cells. To our knowledge, no other short peptide has been shown to have such an ability in plants. The phenotypes induced by the chimeric repressors derived from EIN3 and CUC1 were similar to those induced by loss-of-functional alleles, namely ein3 and cuc1/cuc2, respectively, and the expression of the chimeric repressors that included PAP1 and AtMYB23 resulted in respective anticipated abnormal phenotypes (Borevitz et al., 2000; Kirik et al., 2001). Moreover, although PAP1 and AtMYB23, both, include a strongly conserved MYB domain, the 35S::PAP1SRDX transgene did not inhibit trichome development and the 35S::AtMYB23SRDX transgene did not inhibit the accumulation of anthocyanin. These results suggest that the chimeric repressors suppressed expression of the same genes as those regulated by the original transcription factors, and that the fused EAR-motif repression domain did not affect the ability of the transcription factors to recognize their target genes or to interact with accessory factors.

We used the CaMV 35S promoter to drive the chimeric genes and succeeded in obtaining dominant-negative phenotypes using four transcription factors. However, a strong promoter does not seem, always, to be necessary for suppression of target genes because a much lower ratio of effector plasmid, encoding the repressor, to activator also resulted in effective suppression of the expression of the reporter gene in transient expression assays in Arabidopsis (Fujimoto et al., 2000). This observation suggests that the native promoter might be able to drive a chimeric repressor for expression in a defined tissue at a defined period of development.

Our chimeric repressor silencing technology (CRES-T) using the EAR motif has several advantages over the existing silencing methods. The system is unusually simple. Upon fusion of the short peptide, we can convert a transcription factor of interest into a dominant repressor. The chimeric repressor can induce a dominant-negative phenotype with high efficiency. In the case of EIN3, 100% of transgenic plants were ethylene insensitive. In the case of redundant transcription factors, namely CUC1, PAP1 and AtMYB23, 25, 50 and 17% of transgenic plants exhibited a strong dominant-negative phenotype, respectively, while the rest exhibited more modest disruption of the wild-type phenotypes. Using EAR-motif chimeric repressors, we might be able to analyze the functions of transcription factors in cases where single-gene knockout or antisense lines do not display visibly abnormal phenotypes, most probably, because of structural and functional redundancy. Our chimeric repressor system might be applicable not only to diploid plants but also to amphidiploid crop and horticultural plants, in which gene-knockout techniques might be less effective, because the EAR motif is found in rice, petunia and wheat, as well as in tobacco and Arabidopsis (Ohta et al., 2001). Thus, our system might not only facilitate the rapid analysis of the biologic functions of redundant plant transcription factors but also be useful for the manipulation of plant traits in agricultural biotechnology.

Experimental procedures

Cloning and transformation

The protein-coding regions of the EIN3, PAP1 and AtMYB23 genes were amplified by PCR from an Arabidopsis cDNA library, and those of CUC1 and CUC2 were amplified from cDNAs that were kindly provided from Dr M. Tasaka, with the appropriate 5′ and 3′ primers. The coding regions of the repression domains of ERF3 (aa 191–225) and SUP (aa 175–204) and the mutant repression domain RDm were prepared as described previously (Hiratsu et al., 2002; Ohta et al., 2001). Both strands of DNA fragments that corresponded to SRDX (LDLDLELRLGFA) were synthesized with a TAA termination codon at the 3′ end. The resultant DNAs were cloned into the transformation vector pBIG-HYG (Becker, 1990) with the CaMV 35S promoter and Nos terminator. These constructs were used to transform Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101 and were introduced into wild-type Arabidopsis plants (Col-0) by standard methods (Bechtold et al., 1993). Transgenic plants were selected on a hygromycin-containing medium.

RNA analyses

Northern blotting analysis was performed as described previously, using total RNA extracted from leaves (Fujimoto et al., 2000). For RT-PCR analysis, 50–75 ng of total RNA, which has been extracted from leaves or seedlings and then treated with DNase, was subjected to first-strand cDNA synthesis. RT-PCR was performed with gene-specific primers (Table S1) for 25–35 cycles. The gene for β-tubulin was used as an internal control. The products of PCR were diluted into 10- to 100-fold, separated on an agarose gel, and subjected to DNA blot analysis using the corresponding cDNAs as probes. Signals corresponding to mRNAs were detected with the ECL system for direct labeling and detection of nucleic acids (Amersham, NJ, USA).

Table S1.  Primers used for RT-PCR.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. M. Tasaka (NAIST) for the cDNA clones of CUC1 and CUC2 and for seeds of the cuc1/cuc2 mutant plants; the Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center (Ohio State University, Columbus) for ein3-1 seeds; and K. Yamaguchi and A. Yamanaka for their skilled technical assistance.

Supplementary Material

The following material is available from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/products/journals/suppmat/TPJ/TPJ1759/TPJ1759sm.htm

Ancillary

Advertisement