Cited by 65Plant Parasitism and ResistancePlant Molecular Biology ResearchLight effects on plants

Interactions between Axillary Branches of Arabidopsis

Open access
Ongaro, Veronica, Bainbridge, Katherine, Williamson, Lisa, Leyser, Ottoline·2008·Molecular Plant

Abstract

Studies of apical dominance have benefited greatly from two-branch assays in pea and bean, in which the shoot system is trimmed back to leave only two active cotyledonary axillary branches. In these two-branch shoots, a large body of evidence shows that one actively growing branch is able to inhibit the growth of the other, prompting studies on the nature of the inhibitory signals, which are still poorly understood. Here, we describe the establishment of two-branch assays in Arabidopsis, using consecutive branches on the bolting stem. As with the classical studies in pea and bean, these consecutive branches are able to inhibit one another's growth. Not only can the upper branch inhibit the lower branch, but also the lower branch can inhibit the upper branch, illustrating the bi-directional action of the inhibitory signals. Using mutants, we show that the inhibition is partially dependent on the MAX pathway and that while the inhibition is clearly transmitted across the stem from the active to the inhibited branch, the vascular connectivity of the two branches is weak, and the MAX pathway is capable of acting unilaterally in the stem.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mp/ssn007

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Bud vascular traces were found to be repelled from leaf vasculature in the Arabidopsis ccd8 mutant background.

    “Interestingly, bud vascular traces were found to be repelled from leaf vasculature in the Arabidopsis ccd8 mutant background (Ongaro et al., 2008).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ongaro, V., Bainbridge, K., Williamson, L., & Leyser, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of York (GB)
Venue
Molecular Plant
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-03
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
388-400
ISSN
1674-2052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966195728
Cited by
65
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Plant (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/C518057/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Parasitism and Resistance
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Light effects on plants
Keywords
apical dominance, Arabidopsis thaliana, inhibitory signals, vascular connectivity
MeSH terms
Homeostasis, Indoleacetic Acids, Fabaceae, Oxygenases, Plant Growth Regulators, Arabidopsis, Plant Leaves, Meristem, Plant Shoots, Pisum sativum, Plant Stems, Arabidopsis Proteins, Basic-Leucine Zipper Transcription Factors

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