CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 215Light effects on plantsPlant Molecular Biology ResearchPlant Parasitism and Resistance

Functional analysis of each blue light receptor, cry1, cry2, phot1, and phot2, by using combinatorial multiple mutants in Arabidopsis

Open access
Ohgishi, Maki, Saji, Kensuke, Okada, Kiyotaka, Sakai, Tatsuya·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0305984101PMC PMC356932
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Blue light receptors in Arabidopsis include two types of proteins, cryptochromes and phototropins. Previous studies have suggested that the cryptochromes cry1 and cry2 function mainly in photomorphogenic responses and that the phototropins phot1 and phot2 mainly regulate photo-induced movements. Receptors in the same family have redundant functions, although their responses to the fluence rate of blue light differ. To uncover functions of blue light receptors that may be concealed by their functional redundancy, we conducted analyses of combinatorial multiple mutants of blue light receptors. Comparison of the responses of the quadruple mutant cry1 cry2 phot1 phot2 to blue light with those of related triple mutants revealed that cryptochromes function in blue light-dependent, random hypocotyl-bending and that phototropins function in one photomorphogenic response, cotyledon expansion. Microarray analysis suggested that cry1 and cry2 independently function as key regulators of early blue light-induced genes, whereas phot1 and phot2 play subsidiary roles in transcriptional regulation by blue light.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0305984101

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • At low-fluence blue light, gravitropism is inhibited by the action of phytochromes and to a lesser extent by cryptochromes.

    “These results suggest that, at low-fluence blue light, gravitropism is inhibited by the action of phytochromes and to a lesser extent by cryptochromes”

    From The action of enhancing weak light capture via phototropic growth and chloroplast movement in plants (2022) · cites this paper as Ohgishi et al., 2004

    The Results and Discussion say that phytochrome activation by blue light was minimal, contrary to the claim that phytochromes inhibit gravitropism under blue light. The paper considers cryptochrome suppression of gravitropism as a possibility, but says the observed blue-light bending appears to be actively induced by cryptochromes rather than caused by inhibition of gravitropism. It does not establish the claimed relative contributions at low fluence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Mutating both phytochromes and cryptochromes in Arabidopsis resulted in severe phototropism loss, suggesting that, in addition to phototropin, phytochromes and cryptochromes are involved in regulating phototropism in plants.

    “Mutating both phytochromes and cryptochromes in Arabidopsis resulted in severe phototropism loss (Ohgishi et al., 2004; Tsuchida-Mayama et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2020), suggesting that, in addition to phototropin, phytochromes and cryptochromes are involved in regulating phototropism in plants.”

    From The action of enhancing weak light capture via phototropic growth and chloroplast movement in plants (2022) · cites this paper as Ohgishi et al., 2004

    The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) say the mutants lacked cry1, cry2, phot1, and phot2—not phytochromes—and describe the cryptochrome-dependent bending as random and distinct from phototropism. The paper also says the cry1 cry2 double mutant has a normal phototropic response. It therefore does not report that mutating phytochromes and cryptochromes caused severe phototropism loss. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Ahmad, M. & Cashmore, A. R. (1996) Plant Mol. Biol. 30, 851–861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Fankhauser, C. & Chory, J. (1997) Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 13, 203–229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Ahmad, M. (1999) Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2, 230–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Briggs, W. R. & Huala, E. (1999) Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 15, 33–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Lin, C. (2002) Plant Cell 14, Suppl., S207–S225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Briggs, W. R. & Christie, J. M. (2002) Trends Plant Sci. 7, 204–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Sakai, T., Kagawa, T., Kasahara, M., Swartz, T. E., Christie, J. M., Briggs, W. R., Wada, M. & Okada, K. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6969–6974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Kinoshita, T., Doi, M., Suetsugu, N., Kagawa, T., Wada, M. & Shimazaki, K. (2001) Nature 414, 656–660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Ahmad, M., Jarillo, J. A. & Cashmore, A. R. (1998) Plant Cell 10, 197–207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [10]Lin, C., Yang, H., Guo, H., Mockler, T., Chen, J. & Cashmore, A. R. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 2686–2690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Casal, J. J. (2000) Photochem. Photobiol. 71, 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Frankhauser, C. & Stainger, D. (2002) Planta 216, 1–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [13]Folta, K. M. & Spalding, E. P. (2001) Plant J. 26, 471–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]Lasceve, G., Leymarie, J., Olney, M. A., Liscum, E., Christie, J. M., Vavasseur A. & Briggs W. R. (1999) Plant Physiol. 120, 605–614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Kagawa, T. & Wada, M. (2000) Plant Cell Physiol. 41, 84–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Bechtold, N. & Pelletier, G. (1998) Methods Mol. Biol. 82, 259–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [17]Okada, K. & Shimura, Y. (1992) Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19, 439–448. [Google Scholar]
  18. [18]Goda, H., Shimada, Y., Asami, T., Fujioka, S. & Yoshida, S. (2002) Plant Physiol. 130, 1319–1334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [20]Liscum, E. & Hangarter, R. P. (1993) Plant Physiol. 103, 15–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [21]Robson, P. R. H. & Smith, H. (1996) Plant Physiol. 110, 211–216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. [22]Sakamoto, K. & Briggs, W. R. (2002) Plant Cell 14, 1723–1735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [23]Harada, A., Sakai, T. & Okada K. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8583–8588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [24]Thum, K. E., Kim, M., Christopher, D. A. & Mullet, J. E. (2001) Plant Cell 13, 2747–2760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. [25]Tsunoyama, Y., Morikawa, K., Shiina, T. & Toyoshima, Y. (2002) FEBS Lett. 516, 225–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ohgishi, M., Saji, K., Okada, K., & Sakai, T.
Affiliations
Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Sakai, Tatsuya
ORCID
Sakai, Tatsuya
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-02-17
Volume
101
Issue
8
Pages
2223-2228
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0305984101
PMC
PMC356932
OpenAlex
W2117595722
Cited by
215
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 14
FWCI
17.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2004-04-13)
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
RIKEN
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Light effects on plants
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Parasitism and Resistance
Keywords
blue light receptor, cryptochrome, phototropin, CRY1, CRY2, phot1, phot2, functional redundancy, photomorphogenesis, phototropism, cotyledon expansion, transcriptional regulation, Arabidopsis thaliana
MeSH terms
Biological Clocks, Crosses, Genetic, Eye Proteins, Flavoproteins, Light, Photosynthesis, Subcellular Fractions, Restriction Mapping, Arabidopsis, Photoreceptor Cells, Invertebrate, Gene Expression Regulation, Plant, Phototropism, Hypocotyl, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Arabidopsis Proteins, Drosophila Proteins, Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled, Cryptochromes

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