Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Closely related receptor complexes differ in their ABA selectivity and sensitivity

Open access
Szostkiewicz, Izabela, Richter, Klaus, Kepka, Michal, Demmel, Simone, Ma, Yue, Korte, Arthur, Assaad, Farhah F., Christmann, Alexander, Grill, Erwin·2010·The Plant Journal

Abstract

The recent discovery of a variety of receptors has led to new models for hormone perception in plants. In the case of the hormone abscisic acid (ABA), which regulates plant responses to abiotic stress, perception seems to occur both at the plasma membrane and in the cytosol. The cytosolic receptors for ABA have recently been identified as complexes between protein phosphatases 2C (PP2C) and regulatory components (RCAR/PYR/PYL) that bind ABA. Binding of ABA to the receptor complexes inactivates the PP2Cs, thereby activating the large variety of physiological processes regulated by ABA. The Arabidopsis genome encodes 13 homologues of RCAR1 and approximately 80 PP2Cs, of which six in clade A have been identified as negative regulators of ABA responses. In this study we characterize a novel member of the RCAR family, RCAR3. RCAR3 was identified in a screen for interactors of the PP2Cs ABI1 and ABI2, which are key regulators of ABA responses. RCAR3 was shown to repress ABI1 and ABI2 in vitro, and to stimulate ABA signalling in protoplast cells. RCAR3 conferred greater ABA sensitivity to the PP2C regulation than RCAR1, whereas stereo-selectivity for (S)-ABA was less stringent with RCAR3 as compared with RCAR1. In addition, regulation of the protein phosphatase activity by RCAR1 and RCAR3 was more sensitive to ABA for ABI1 than for ABI2. Based on the differences we have observed in transcriptional regulation and biochemical properties, we propose a model whereby differential expression of the co-receptors and combinatorial assembly of the receptor complexes act in concert to modulate and fine-tune ABA responses.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2009.04025.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Szostkiewicz, I., Richter, K., Kepka, M., Demmel, S., Ma, Y., Korte, A., Assaad, F. F., Christmann, A., & Grill, E.
Venue
The Plant Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
25-35
ISSN
  • 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-313X
OpenAlex
W2122220193
Cited by
189
References
1
FWCI
19.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Closely related receptor complexes differ in their ABA selectivity and sensitivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-313x.2009.04025.x
The paper
Szostkiewicz, I., Richter, K., Kepka, M., Demmel, S., Ma, Y., Korte, A., Assaad, F. F., Christmann, A., & Grill, E. (2010). Closely related receptor complexes differ in their ABA selectivity and sensitivity. The Plant Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313x.2009.04025.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.