Micrografting techniques for testing long‐distance signalling in Arabidopsis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Grafting in species other than Arabidopsis has generated persuasive evidence for long‐distance signals involved in many plant processes, including regulation of flowering time and shoot branching. Hitherto, such approaches in Arabidopsis have been hampered by the lack of suitable grafting techniques. Here, a range of micrografting methods for young Arabidopsis seedlings are described. The simplest configuration was a single‐hypocotyl graft, constructed with or without a supporting collar, allowing tests of root–shoot communication. More complex two‐shoot grafts were also constructed, enabling tests of shoot–shoot communication. Integrity of grafts and absence of adventitious roots on scions were assessed using plants constitutively expressing a GUS gene as one graft partner. Using the max1 ( more axillary growth ) and max3 increased branching mutants, it was shown that a wild‐type (WT) rootstock was able to inhibit rosette branching of mutant shoots. In two‐shoot grafts with max1 and WT shoots on a max1 rootstock, the mutant shoot branched profusely, but the WT one did not. In two‐shoot grafts with max1 and WT shoots on a WT rootstock, neither shoot exhibited increased branching. The results mirror those previously demonstrated in equivalent grafting experiments with the ramosus mutants in pea, and are consistent with the concept that a branching signal is capable of moving from root to shoot, but not from shoot to shoot. These grafting procedures will be valuable for revealing genes associated with many other long‐distance signalling pathways, including flowering, systemic resistance and abiotic stress responses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Wild type rootstocks can suppress the phenotypes of max1, max31, and max4 biosynthesis mutant scions, indicating that SL or a SL precursor can travel from root to shoot.
“Grafting studies revealed that wild type rootstocks can suppress the phenotypes of max1, max31, and max4 biosynthesis mutant scions (Sorefan et al., 2003), indicating that SL or a SL precursor can travel from root to shoot (Turnbull et al., 2002; Beveridge, 2006).”
From Shaping plant architecture (2015) · cites this paper as Turnbull et al., 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 365
- Authors
- Turnbull, C. G. N., Booker, J. P., & Leyser, H. M. O.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Turnbull, Colin G. N.
- Venue
- The Plant Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-262
- ISSN
- 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-313X
- OpenAlex
- W2002780536
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 13.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Plant Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Parasitism and Resistance
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant nutrient uptake and metabolism
- Keywords
- micrografting, long-distance signaling, Arabidopsis thaliana, root-shoot communication, GUS reporter, adventitious roots, systemic signalling
- MeSH terms
- Glucuronidase, Mutation, Signal Transduction, Arabidopsis, Plant Roots, Plant Shoots, Hypocotyl, Arabidopsis Proteins
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review