|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.R100006200 on February 16, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 15, 11453-11456, April 13, 2001
MINIREVIEW
The Phytochromes, a Family of Red/Far-red
Absorbing Photoreceptors*
Christian
Fankhauser
From the Department of Molecular Biology, University of Geneva,
1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
 |
Plants Possess Multiple Photoreceptors |
Because plants are photo-auxotrophic they are
particularly sensitive to their light environment. To fine-tune their
development according to light intensity, direction, spectral quality,
and periodicity they possess a multiplicity of light sensors (1). In
Arabidopsis there are eight identified photoreceptors, but this list is still incomplete. It includes three UV-A/blue light receptors (phototropin, a photoreceptor to sense light direction, and
two cryptochromes that mediate many photomorphogenic responses (2, 3))
and five phytochromes (phy)1
named phyA-phyE that absorb mainly red/far-red light, with phyA also
responding to broad-spectrum light (UV-A to far-red) of very low
intensity (4). All these photoreceptors bind to a chromophore, which
for the phytochromes is a linear tetrapyrrole (phytochromobilin) (5).
Because many light effects are induced by the co-action of several
photoreceptors and because some photoreceptors regulate multiple
aspects of photomorphogenesis, a genetic approach was instrumental for
dissecting the specific roles of individual photoreceptors (1). As
a consequence, research has concentrated on a few species that are
particularly well suited for molecular genetic studies, in particular
Arabidopsis (6).
 |
Multiple Phytochromes Have Overlapping and Distinct
Functions |
Phytochromes were originally defined as the receptors responsible
for red, far-red reversible, plant responses (7-9).
Photobiological experiments led to the proposal that phy exists in two
spectral forms: the inactive Pr form (red light absorbing)
phototransforms into the active Pfr form (far-red light absorbing) upon
absorption of red light. This reaction can be reversed when Pfr is
converted to Pr upon absorption of far-red light. Purification of phy
from plants confirmed the existence of those two spectrally
interconvertible forms (10). phy are classified into two groups; type I
(phyA in Arabidopsis) is light-labile and type II
(phyB-phyE in Arabidopsis) is light-stable (11). Numerous
recent reviews cover phy-mediated photomorphogenesis in detail
(12-19).
Photobiological and genetic studies have revealed that this small gene
family plays important roles in seed germination, seedling de-etiolation, neighbor perception and avoidance, and the transition from vegetative to reproductive growth (induction of flowering). At the
molecular and cellular level phy responses include: development of the
chloroplast, inhibition or promotion of cell growth (depending on the
organ), ion fluxes at the plasma membrane, and gene expression responses (1). Genetic screens to identify loci implicated in phy
responses have yielded four apoprotein mutants (phyA,
phyB, phyD, and phyE), two chromophore
mutants (hy1 and hy2), and numerous mutants
implicated in phy-mediated signaling. The analysis of these mutants
highlighted the role of phytochromes in sensing light quality,
intensity, and the duration of the light cycle and revealed that type I
and type II phy have distinct modes of photoperception (14, 15).
Light-stable phy are responsible for the classical red/far-red
reversible phy responses. In Arabidopsis phyB plays the most prominent role; it is the major red light receptor for seedling de-etiolation, and it affects many light-regulated cell elongation responses, shade avoidance, and the regulation of flowering time by day
length (20). phyD and phyE mutants have more
subtle phenotypes that are only revealed in double or triple mutant
combinations (21-23). Because certain phytohormone mutants also
display similar phenotypes, a subset of phy responses might be mediated
by light-regulated hormonal signaling (14, 24-26).
phyA, the only type I phy in Arabidopsis, plays a major role
in gene expression and germination in response to very low fluences of
broad spectrum light as well as in sensing day-length extension (27-30). phyA is also essential for de-etiolation in far-red enriched light (31-33). Such conditions are found when a young seedling develops under a dense canopy of plants. This is a particularly interesting phy function because, contrary to most phy responses, it is
induced by far-red light and inhibited by red light (see above) (34).
This high irradiance response to far-red light identifies a novel form
of active phy, Pr, that has been cycled through Pfr, which will be
referred to as Pr*. Pr* has acquired novel properties that are distinct
from Pr and Pfr, but the molecular nature of the distinction between
Pr* and Pr is unknown (34). As illustrated above, type I and type II
phy play distinct roles; however, it must be pointed out that depending
on the responses their role can be overlapping, coordinated, or even
antagonistic (35-39).
 |
Molecular Properties of Phytochromes and Bacteriophytochromes |
Phytochromes bind phytochromobilin (P B) via a thioether linkage
to a cysteine residue in the most conserved domain among phy (Fig.
1). The first committed step in
chromophore biosynthesis is the cleavage of the tetrapyrrole ring of
heme (Fig. 1A). This reaction is catalyzed by a heme
oxygenase encoded by the HY1 gene in Arabidopsis
(40, 41). Hy2 mutants are most probably defective in the
P B synthase enzyme; this step is followed by an isomerization in the
C-3 double bond of P B (42). The nature of the P B isomerase is
still unclear, but phy itself is capable of catalyzing this reaction
(42). phy chromophore mutants can be mimicked by overexpression of a
mammalian biliverdin reductase (43). phy apoprotein binds to the
3E-P B in the cytoplasm to yield the Pr form of the photoreceptor. This reaction requires the bilin lyase domain (BLD) of the
photoreceptor. Absorption of red light triggers a "Z" to "E"
isomerization in the C-15 double bond between the C and D rings of the
linear tetrapyrrole, resulting in the far-red light-absorbing form Pfr
(44) (Fig. 1A). Conformational changes in the protein
backbone are required to maintain this high energy state of the
photoreceptor (45). Pfr can be converted to Pr either by a slow
non-photoinduced reaction (dark reversion) or much faster upon
absorption of far-red light. It is generally assumed that all phy have
the same chromophore. Because of the very low levels of type II phy
this has not been verified in vivo. Analysis of
reconstituted recombinant phyA, phyB, phyC, and phyE reveals that they
have similar but not identical spectral properties (46-48).

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Structural domains and spectral properties of
phytochromes. A, biosynthetic pathway of the
phytochrome chromophore. Enzymes are indicated in red, and
the Arabidopsis genes are indicated. Note that chromophore
binding is autocatalytic; it requires the bilin lyase domain of the
phytochrome; phytochromes also possess P B isomerase activity. The
arrow indicates the site of chromophore attachment to a
cysteine in the bilin lyase domain. Absorption of red light triggers a
"Z" to "E" isomerization in the C-15 double bond between the C
and D rings (indicated in bold). The absorption spectra of
Pr and Pfr are indicated. BVR, biliverdin reductase.
B, structural domains of prokaryotic and plant phytochromes.
PAS is the acronym from the founding members of this protein domain
(Per/Arndt/Sim). Cph1,
cyanobacterial phytochrome 1 from Synechocystis sp. PCC6803;
RcaE, regulator of chromatic adaptation E from
Fremyella diplosiphon; BphP,
bacteriophytochrome 1 from Deinococcus radiodurans;
Ppr, PYP-phytochrome-related from Rhodospirillum
centenum.
|
|
Phytochromes are soluble homodimers composed of two functional domains:
an N-terminal light-sensing domain and a C-terminal signaling domain
(Fig. 1). The N-terminal portion is necessary and sufficient for
photoperception and possesses the bilin lyase activity allowing
attachment of the chromophore to the apoprotein (42). The minimal BLD
is actually less than 200 amino acids long (49). The first 70 amino
acids of the protein are dispensable for chromophore binding; they
constitute the N-terminal extension (ATE). The ATE is poorly conserved,
possibly accounting for some functional differences among phy.
Structure function analysis has revealed that in phyA, the ATE
is composed of two subdomains (50, 51). The ATE might be implicated in
stabilization of the Pfr form of the photoreceptor, which is
particularly interesting in view of the large structural changes
observed in this part of the protein upon Pr to Pfr phototransformation
(45).
The importance of the C-terminal half of plant phytochromes is
highlighted by the numerous missense mutations affecting this portion
of the protein (4, 52). This signaling domain is composed of a PAS
(Per/Arndt/Sim)-related domain
(PRD) and a histidine kinase-related domain (HKRD) (Fig. 1) (53, 54).
PAS domains have diverse functions; they can be used either as
protein-protein interaction platforms or as co-factor binding domains
(55). Interestingly such modules are used to bind the chromophore in various blue light receptors (2). In phytochromes, the PRD domain is
required for interaction with phy signaling partners but might also
play a role in stabilization of the Pfr form of phyB (4, 47, 56, 57).
Interestingly a mutation in the BLD domain of phyB has the opposite
effect, leading to a phyB protein locked in the Pfr conformation
(58).
The discovery of phytochromes in prokaryotes had two important
consequences: they provided a phylogenetic origin for plant phy and
suggested a biochemical mechanism for phy signaling (59-61). Cyanobacterial phytochrome 1 (Cph1) is composed of a BLD and a histidine kinase domain (Fig. 1B). Cph1 autophosphorylates
and phosphorylates the Rcp1 response regulator in a light-regulated fashion (Fig. 2A) (61). It is
noteworthy that in several cases response regulators are encoded in the
same operon as the photoreceptor, suggesting that light-regulated
protein phosphorylation is a common theme in bacteriophytochrome
signaling. More complex structures have been found in the purple
bacteria Rhodospirillum centenum where the photoreceptor has
an additional photoactive yellow protein (PYP) domain, which is highly
related to the PAS domains present in plant phy (62).
Bacteriophytochromes have been discovered in non-photosynthetic
organisms as well (63). Their biological function is not always
understood, but they play rather diverse roles depending on the
species, including chromatic adaptation, resetting of the circadian
clock, and regulation of pigment biosynthesis (59, 62-64).
Interestingly, some of these functions have been conserved in plant phy
(38, 65).

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Light regulation of phytochrome
functions. A, light-regulated His kinase
activity initiates phytochrome-mediated light signaling in prokaryotes.
The cyanobacterial phytochrome 1 (Cph1) has light-modulated protein
kinase activity. Autophosphorylation is attenuated by red light and
increased by far-red light. Phosphorylated Pr could trigger a light
signal. The phosphorylated Pr transfers its phosphate to the Rcp
response regulator; this could in turn initiate light signaling.
Phosphorylated Rcp could transfer this phosphate to a yet to be
determined acceptor (X). Note that for most plant
phytochrome responses Pfr is the active isoform. B,
nuclear events in plant phytochrome signaling. Phytochrome B only
translocates into the nucleus in its far-red light absorbing form
(PfrB). In the nucleus PfrB interacts with the DNA-bound PIF3
transcription factor. Phytochrome A translocates into the nucleus in
its red light absorbing form, Pr* (Pr that has been cycled through Pfr;
this occurs preferentially in far-red rich light). Translocation also
occurs for Pfr (the far-red absorbing form); however, irradiation of plants with red light triggers rapid phyA
degradation. In the nucleus phyA presumably affects RSF1-mediated gene
activation. PKS1 is a negative regulator of phytochrome signaling; it
has been proposed that PKS1 inhibits nuclear translocation of
phytochromes. C, other light-regulated properties of plant
phytochrome. Light affects the Ser/Thr protein kinase activity of
phytochromes. Contrary to Cph1, oat phyA has higher auto- and
trans-phosphorylation activity in the Pfr form. Interaction with
signaling intermediates is also isoform-dependent; this is
true for PIF3, which is nuclear, and for NDPK2, which is found both in
the nucleus and the cytoplasm. The protein stability of phyA is very
much reduced in its far-red absorbing form (Pfr).
|
|
The HKRD domain of plant phytochromes is only distantly related to
bacterial histidine kinases, and several residues essential for kinase
activity are absent in plant phy (66). In fact, work over the past 20 years has indicated that oat phyA might be a Ser/Thr kinase, and this
has been confirmed convincingly quite recently (19, 54). Recombinant
oat phyA is a light and chromophore-modulated protein kinase with Pfr
being a more active form than Pr (Fig. 2C) (54). Oat phyA is
a phosphoprotein in vivo; two phosphorylation sites have
been mapped, and interestingly they correspond to residues phosphorylated after in vitro kinase assays (67). Ser-7 is
constitutively phosphorylated, and mutagenesis studies suggest that
phosphorylation of this residue is implicated in down-regulation of
phyA signaling (50). Ser-599 phosphorylation is only observed in phyA
extracted from light-treated plants (67). Phosphorylation of this
residue might therefore be a molecular tag distinguishing between
different forms of phy. The importance of this residue has been
demonstrated in vitro because a S599K mutant loses
light-regulated kinase activity (68). The cryptochromes and PKS1
(phytochrome kinase substrate 1) are also substrates of phyA as a
protein kinase, but the role of phosphorylation during phy-mediated
light signaling remains to be determined in vivo (68, 69).
Based on reverse genetic studies it has been proposed that PKS1 acts as
a negative regulator of phyB and phyA signaling
(68).2 The phyA-cryptochrome
interaction might be the molecular basis for the co-action between
those photoreceptors (69). These studies suggest a role for
phy-mediated phosphorylation; quite surprisingly, however, deletion of
the HKRD domain of phyB has a milder phenotype than certain point
mutations in the HKRD (52).
All five members of the phy family are widely expressed (70, 71).
PHYA transcription is negatively regulated by light through
a negative feedback loop dependent on both phyA and phyB (72). phyB
mRNA is under circadian regulation; however, this regulated gene
expression has only a minor impact on the steady state level of the
protein (73). The stability of the phyA protein is greatly dependent on
the light conditions. PfrA is selectively ubiquitinated leading to
proteolytic degradation, phyA protein levels being therefore about
100-fold lower in the light than in the dark (Fig. 2C) (74).
Interestingly PrA* (PrA which has been cycled through Pfr) has a
half-life similar to the one of PfrA. Ubiquitination of PrA* might
therefore be the molecular tag distinguishing it from PrA. It is
noteworthy that the PrA* form of phy (just like the signal generated by
PrA*) is very short lived (34, 74, 75).
Subcellular localization is probably a major level of regulation for
plant phytochrome action. Both phyA and phyB are cytoplasmic in the
dark, and appropriate light treatments trigger their translocation into
the nucleus (Fig. 2B) (12). This relocation takes several hours for phyB in contrast with the more rapid translocation of phyA.
This differential behavior correlates well with the sequential action
of those phy during light-induced inhibition of hypocotyl growth (39).
The slow nuclear translocation of phyB implies that PfrB will be
present in the cytoplasm where it could also play a role. Several rapid
phy effects, such as ion fluxes at the plasma membrane, have been
reported; they could be induced by the cytoplasmic pool of PfrB
(76).
 |
Signaling, What Happens after Photoperception? |
Pharmacological studies using microinjection of a tomato phy
mutant have identified heterotrimeric G proteins, cGMP and
Ca2+, as second messengers in phy signaling (77). Genetic
screens have identified two classes of signaling components, those
acting downstream of a single photoreceptor and those acting downstream of multiple photoreceptors (Fig. 3). This
presumably reflects the fact that light signals perceived by different
photoreceptors must be integrated (14, 15). The latter class (light
signal integration, see Fig. 3) includes both positively acting factors (i.e. HY5) and a large group of negative regulators of
photomorphogenesis (DET/COP/FUS) (16, 17). Mutants with phenotypes
under specific light conditions (i.e. only red light) are
considered as acting early in the cascade. The study of such mutants
and of phy interacting proteins reveal a complex signaling web (Fig. 3)
(14, 15, 26, 78-82). These loci can be classified into three groups:
those acting specifically downstream of phyA, downstream of phyB, or downstream of both. Interestingly both nuclear and cytoplasmic factors
have been identified, and these signaling branches include positive and
negative regulation (Fig. 3). Most of the cloned genes code for
proteins with poorly defined biochemical functions. It is currently
quite hard to propose a model that integrates all those factors,
particularly because the relative position of these elements in the
chain of events is still largely unknown.

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
A simplified model for phytochrome-mediated
light signaling. Cloned genes are indicated in
capitals. Genetic loci affecting specific branches of
phytochrome signaling are italicized. Proteins that
interact with phytochrome are boxed. Negative regulators are
underlined. The order of action of the loci in the
phyA-specific, phyB-specific, and common branch is unknown. These loci
presumably act upstream of the "light signal integration" loci.
This second class of genes acts downstream of multiple photoreceptors,
i.e. the phytochromes (phy) and the cryptochromes (cry).
RSF1/HFR1 acts downstream of phyA but might also play a role in
cry-mediated signaling. To simplify this scheme phyC, phyD, and phyE
have not been indicated; however, some of these loci might be required
for signaling downstream of those photoreceptors.
|
|
Paradoxically the best understood branch of phy signaling appears to be
rather simple (Fig. 2B). PfrB is selectively imported into
the nucleus where it interacts with PIF3, a bHLH transcription factor.
This interaction occurs specifically with PfrB but not PrB and
irrespective of DNA binding by PIF3 (Fig. 2B) (83). How
interaction with phyB affects PIF3 activity remains to be solved.
RSF1/HFR1/REP1 is another bHLH transcription factor that is quite
related to PIF3 and also plays an important role in phy signaling (82,
84-86). RSF1/HFR1/REP1 is, however, implicated in phyA- and not
phyB-mediated signaling (82, 84-86). There is currently no data
indicating a direct interaction between RSF1/HFR1/REP1 and phyA (85).
The presence of bHLH transcription factors in both phyA and phyB
signaling is particularly noteworthy in view of the recently uncovered
convergence of multiple phy signaling pathways on a single promoter
(87). Genetic studies for both PIF3 and RSF1/HFR1/REP1 have revealed
that they play important roles in phy signaling, but they also indicate
that these transcription factors only account for part of the response
initiated by the phy (82, 83, 85, 86). These recent studies illustrate the potentially very short signaling chain initiated by the
phytochromes, but we should keep in mind that much remains to be done
to have a global view of the multiple events initiated by those photoreceptors.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
I thank Jorge Casal, Masaki Furuya, Enamul
Huq, Clark Lagarias, Pill Soon Song, Rick Vierstra, and Jim Weller for
communicating results prior to publication; Miguel Blazquez, Michel
Goldschmidt-Clermont, and Patricia Lariguet for helpful comments on the
manuscript, and Nicolas Roggli for artwork.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This minireview will be reprinted
in the 2001 Minireview Compendium, which
will be available in December, 2001. This is the second article of three in the "Light
Minireview Series."
Supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular Biology,
University of Geneva, 30 quai E. Ansermet, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.
E-mail: Christian.Fankhauser@molbio.unige.ch.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 16, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.R100006200
2
J. Casal, J. Chory, and C. Fankhauser,
unpublished data.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
phy, phytochrome(s);
BLD, bilin lyase domain;
ATE, N-terminal extension;
PRD, PAS (PER/ARNT/SIM)-related domain;
HKRD, histidine kinase-related domain;
PYP, photoactive yellow protein;
bHLH, basic helix-loop-helix.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Kendrick, R. E.,
and Kronenberg, G.
(1994)
Photomorphogenesis in Plants
, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands
|
| 2.
|
Briggs, W. R.,
and Huala, E.
(1999)
Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
15,
33-62
|
| 3.
|
Cashmore, A. R.,
Jarillo, J. A.,
Wu, Y. J.,
and Liu, D.
(1999)
Science
284,
760-765
|
| 4.
|
Quail, P. H.,
Boylan, M. T.,
Parks, B. M.,
Short, T. W.,
Xu, Y.,
and Wagner, D.
(1995)
Science
268,
675-680
|
| 5.
|
Lagarias, J. C.,
and Rapoport, H.
(1980)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
102,
4821-4828
|
| 6.
|
Bevan, M.,
Bancroft, I.,
Mewes, H. W.,
Martienssen, R.,
and McCombie, R.
(1999)
Bioessays
21,
110-120
|
| 7.
|
Parker, M. W.,
Hendricks, S. B.,
Borthwick, H. A.,
and Went, F. W.
(1949)
Am. J. Bot.
36,
194-204
|
| 8.
|
Borthwick, H. A.,
Hendricks, S. B.,
Parker, M. W.,
Toole, E. H.,
and Toole, V. K.
(1952)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
38,
662-666
|
| 9.
|
Borthwick, H. A.,
Hendricks, S. B.,
and Parker, M. W.
(1952a)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
38,
929-934
|
| 10.
| Butler, W. L., Norris, K. H., Siegelman, H. W., and
Hendricks, S. B. (1959) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 1703-1708
|
| 11.
|
Hirschfeld, M.,
Tepperman, J. M.,
Clack, T.,
Quail, P. H.,
and Sharrock, R. A.
(1998)
Genetics
149,
523-535
|
| 12.
|
Nagy, F.,
and Schaefer, E.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
157-163
|
| 13.
|
Lin, C.
(2000)
Plant Physiol.
123,
39-50
|
| 14.
|
Neff, M. M.,
Fankhauser, C.,
and Chory, J.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
257-271
|
| 15.
|
Deng, X. W.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1999)
Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.
10,
121-129
|
| 16.
|
Osterlund, M. T.,
Ang, L. H.,
and Deng, X. W.
(1999)
Trends Cell Biol.
9,
113-118
|
| 17.
|
Karniol, B.,
and Chamovitz, D. A.
(2000)
Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.
3,
387-393
|
| 18.
|
Hughes, J.,
and Lamparter, T.
(1999)
Plant Physiol.
121,
1059-1068
|
| 19.
|
Cashmore, A. R.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
13358-13360
|
| 20.
|
Reed, J. W.,
Nagpal, P.,
Poole, D. S.,
Furuya, M.,
and Chory, J.
(1993)
Plant Cell
5,
147-157
|
| 21.
|
Whitelam, G. C.,
and Devlin, P. F.
(1997)
Plant Cell Environ.
20,
752-758
|
| 22.
|
Devlin, P. F.,
Patel, S. R.,
and Whitelam, G. C.
(1998)
Plant Cell
10,
1479-1488
|
| 23.
|
Devlin, P. F.,
Robson, P. R.,
Patel, S. R.,
Goosey, L.,
Sharrock, R. A.,
and Whitelam, G. C.
(1999)
Plant Physiol.
119,
909-915
|
| 24.
|
Morelli, G.,
and Ruberti, I.
(2000)
Plant Physiol.
122,
621-626
|
| 25.
|
Kamiya, Y.,
and Garcia-Martinez, J. L.
(1999)
Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.
2,
398-403
|
| 26.
|
Hsieh, H. L.,
Okamoto, H.,
Wang, M.,
Ang, L. H.,
Matsui, M.,
Goodman, H.,
and Deng, X. W.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
1958-1970
|
| 27.
|
Johnson, E.,
Bradley, M.,
Harberd, N. P.,
and Whitelam, G. C.
(1994)
Plant Physiol.
105,
141-149
|
| 28.
|
Shinomura, T.,
Nagatani, A.,
Hanzawa, H.,
Kubota, M.,
Watanabe, M.,
and Furuya, M.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
8129-8133
|
| 29.
|
Botto, J. F.,
Sanchez, R. A.,
Whitelam, G. C.,
and Casal, J. J.
(1996)
Plant Physiol.
110,
439-444
|
| 30.
|
Hamazato, F.,
Shinomura, T.,
Hanzawa, H.,
Chory, J.,
and Furuya, M.
(1997)
Plant Physiol.
115,
1533-1540
|
| 31.
|
Nagatani, A.,
Reed, R. W.,
and Chory, J.
(1993)
Plant Physiol.
102,
269-277
|
| 32.
|
Whitelam, G. C.,
Johnson, E.,
Peng, J.,
Carol, P.,
Anderson, M. L.,
Cowl, J. S.,
and Harberd, N. P.
(1993)
Plant Cell
5,
757-768
|
| 33.
|
Dehesh, K.,
Franci, C.,
Parks, B. M.,
Seeley, K. A.,
Short, T. W.,
Tepperman, J. M.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1993)
Plant Cell
5,
1081-1088
|
| 34.
|
Shinomura, T.,
Uchida, K.,
and Furuya, M.
(2000)
Plant Physiol.
122,
147-156
|
| 35.
|
Reed, J. W.,
Nagatani, A.,
Elich, T. D.,
Fagan, M.,
and Chory, J.
(1994)
Plant Physiol.
104,
1139-1149
|
| 36.
|
Robson, P. R.,
McCormac, A. C.,
Irvine, A. S.,
and Smith, H.
(1996)
Nat. Biotechnol.
14,
995-998
|
| 37.
|
Smith, H.,
Xu, Y.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1997)
Plant Physiol.
114,
637-641
|
| 38.
|
Somers, D. E.,
Devlin, P. F.,
and Kay, S. A.
(1998)
Science
282,
1488-1490
|
| 39.
|
Parks, B. M.,
and Spalding, E. P.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
14142-14146
|
| 40.
|
Davis, S. J.,
Kurepa, J.,
and Vierstra, R. D.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
6541-6546
|
| 41.
|
Muramoto, T.,
Kohchi, T.,
Yokota, A.,
Hwang, I.,
and Goodman, H. M.
(1999)
Plant Cell
11,
335-348
|
| 42.
|
Terry, M. J.
(1997)
Plant Cell Environ.
20,
740-745
|
| 43.
|
Lagarias, D. M.,
Crepeau, M. W.,
Maines, M. D.,
and Lagarias, J. C.
(1997)
Plant Cell
9,
675-688
|
| 44.
|
Andel, F., III,
Lagarias, J. C.,
and Mathies, R. A.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
15997-16008
|
| 45.
|
Song, P. S.
(1999)
J. Biochem. Mol. Biol.
32,
215-225
|
| 46.
|
Remberg, A.,
Ruddat, A.,
Braslavsky, S. E.,
Gartner, W.,
and Schaffner, K.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
9983-9990
|
| 47.
|
Elich, T. D.,
and Chory, J.
(1997)
Plant Cell
9,
2271-2280
|
| 48.
|
Eichenberg, K.,
Baurle, I.,
Paulo, N.,
Sharrock, R. A.,
Rudiger, W.,
and Schafer, E.
(2000)
FEBS Lett.
470,
107-112
|
| 49.
|
Wu, S. H.,
and Lagarias, J. C.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
13487-13495
|
| 50.
|
Stockhaus, J.,
Nagatani, A.,
Halfter, U.,
Kay, S.,
Furuya, M.,
and Chua, N. H.
(1992)
Genes Dev.
6,
2364-2372
|
| 51.
|
Jordan, E. T.,
Cherry, J. R.,
Walker, J. M.,
and Vierstra, R. D.
(1996)
Plant J.
9,
243-257
|
| 52.
|
Krall, L.,
and Reed, J. W.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
8169-8174
|
| 53.
|
Schneider-Poetsch, H. A.,
Braun, B.,
Marx, S.,
and Schaumburg, A.
(1991)
FEBS Lett.
281,
245-249
|
| 54.
|
Yeh, K. C.,
and Lagarias, J. C.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
13976-13981
|
| 55.
|
Taylor, B. L.,
and Zhulin, I. B.
(1999)
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
63,
479-506
|
| 56.
|
Ni, M.,
Tepperman, J. M.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1998)
Cell
95,
657-667
|
| 57.
|
Choi, G.,
Yi, H.,
Lee, J.,
Kwon, Y. K.,
Soh, M. S.,
Shin, B.,
Luka, Z.,
Hahn, T. R.,
and Song, P. S.
(1999)
Nature
401,
610-613
|
| 58.
|
Kretsch, T.,
Poppe, C.,
and Schafer, E.
(2000)
Plant J.
22,
177-186
|
| 59.
|
Kehoe, D. M.,
and Grossman, A. R.
(1996)
Science
273,
1409-1412
|
| 60.
|
Hughes, J.,
Lamparter, T.,
Mittman, F.,
Hartmann, E.,
Gärtner, W.,
Wilde, A.,
and Börner, T.
(1997)
Nature
386,
663
|
| 61.
|
Yeh, K. C.,
Wu, S. H.,
Murphy, J. T.,
and Lagarias, J. C.
(1997)
Science
277,
1505-1508
|
| 62.
|
Jiang, Z.,
Swem, L. R.,
Rushing, B. G.,
Devanathan, S.,
Tollin, G.,
and Bauer, C. E.
(1999)
Science
285,
406-409
|
| 63.
|
Davis, S. J.,
Vener, A. V.,
and Vierstra, R. D.
(1999)
Science
286,
2517-2520
|
| 64.
|
Schmitz, O.,
Katayama, M.,
Williams, S. B.,
Kondo, T.,
and Golden, S. S.
(2000)
Science
289,
765-768
|
| 65.
|
von Lintig, J.,
Welsch, R.,
Bonk, M.,
Giuliano, G.,
Batschauer, A.,
and Kleinig, H.
(1997)
Plant J.
12,
625-634
|
| 66.
|
Quail, P. H.
(1997)
Bioessays
19,
571-579
|
| 67.
|
Lapko, V. N.,
Jiang, X.-Y.,
Smith, D. L.,
and Song, P.-S.
(1999)
Protein Sci.
8,
1-11
|
| 68.
|
Fankhauser, C.,
Yeh, K. C.,
Lagarias, J. C.,
Zhang, H.,
Elich, T. D.,
and Chory, J.
(1999)
Science
284,
1539-1541
|
| 69.
|
Ahmad, M.,
Jarillo, J. A.,
Smirnova, O.,
and Cashmore, A. R.
(1998)
Mol. Cell
1,
939-948
|
| 70.
|
Somers, D. E.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1995)
Plant Physiol.
107,
523-534
|
| 71.
|
Goosey, L.,
Palecanda, L.,
and Sharrock, R. A.
(1997)
Plant Physiol.
115,
959-969
|
| 72.
|
Canton, F. R.,
and Quail, P. H.
(1999)
Plant Physiol.
121,
1207-1216
|
| 73.
|
Bognar, L. K.,
Hall, A.,
Adam, E.,
Thain, S. C.,
Nagy, F.,
and Millar, A. J.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
14652-14657
|
| 74.
|
Clough, R. C.,
Jordan-Beebe, E. T.,
Lohman, K. N.,
Marita, J. M.,
Walker, J. M.,
Gatz, C.,
and Vierstra, R. D.
(1999)
Plant J.
17,
155-167
|
| 75.
|
Hennig, L.,
Buche, C.,
Eichenberg, K.,
and Schafer, E.
(1999)
Plant Physiol.
121,
571-577
|
| 76.
|
Kendrick, R. E.,
and Bossen, M. E.
(1987)
in
Phytochrome Photoregulation in Plants
(Furuya, M., ed)
, Academic Press, Tokyo
|
| 77.
|
Mustilli, A. C.,
and Bowler, C.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
5801-5806
|
| 78.
|
Bolle, C.,
Koncz, C.,
and Chua, N. H.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
1269-1278
|
| 79.
|
Buche, C.,
Poppe, C.,
Schafer, E.,
and Kretsch, T.
(2000)
Plant Cell
12,
547-558
|
| 80.
|
Huq, E.,
Tepperman, J. M.,
and Quail, P. H.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
9789-9794
|
| 81.
|
Huq, E.,
Kang, Y.,
Halliday, K. J.,
Qin, M.,
and Quail, P. H.
(2000)
Plant J.
23,
461-470
|
| 82.
|
Fankhauser, C.,
and Chory, J.
(2000)
Plant Physiol.
124,
39-46
|
| 83.
|
Martinez-Garcia, J. F.,
Huq, E.,
and Quail, P. H.
(2000)
Science
288,
859-863
|
| 84.
|
Spiegelman, J. I.,
Mindrinos, M. N.,
Fankhauser, C.,
Richards, D.,
Lutes, J.,
Chory, J.,
and Oefner, P. J.
(2000)
Plant Cell
12,
2485-2498
|
| 85.
|
Fairchild, C. D.,
Schumaker, M. A.,
and Quail, P. H.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
2377-2391
|
| 86.
|
Soh, M. S.,
Kim, Y. M.,
Han, S. J.,
and Song, P. S.
(2000)
Plant Cell
12,
2061-2074
|
| 87.
|
Cerdan, P. D.,
Staneloni, R. J.,
Ortega, J.,
Bunge, M. M.,
Rodriguez-Batiller, M. J.,
Sanchez, R. A.,
and Casal, J. J.
(2000)
Plant Cell
12,
1203-1212
|
Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. M. Gonzalez, B. Fernandez-Gomez, A. Fernandez-Guerra, L. Gomez-Consarnau, O. Sanchez, M. Coll-Llado, J. del Campo, L. Escudero, R. Rodriguez-Martinez, L. Alonso-Saez, et al.
From the Cover: Genome analysis of the proteorhodopsin-containing marine bacterium Polaribacter sp. MED152 (Flavobacteria)
PNAS,
June 24, 2008;
105(25):
8724 - 8729.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. Rosales-Saavedra, E. U. Esquivel-Naranjo, S. Casas-Flores, P. Martinez-Hernandez, E. Ibarra-Laclette, C. Cortes-Penagos, and A. Herrera-Estrella
Novel light-regulated genes in Trichoderma atroviride: a dissection by cDNA microarrays.
Microbiology,
November 1, 2006;
152(Pt 11):
3305 - 3317.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Q. Sun, K. Yoda, and H. Suzuki
Internal axial light conduction in the stems and roots of herbaceous plants
J. Exp. Bot.,
January 1, 2005;
56(409):
191 - 203.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. Monte, J. M. Tepperman, B. Al-Sady, K. A. Kaczorowski, J. M. Alonso, J. R. Ecker, X. Li, Y. Zhang, and P. H. Quail
Inaugural Article: The phytochrome-interacting transcription factor, PIF3, acts early, selectively, and positively in light-induced chloroplast development
PNAS,
November 16, 2004;
101(46):
16091 - 16098.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. Kami, K. Mukougawa, T. Muramoto, A. Yokota, T. Shinomura, J. C. Lagarias, and T. Kohchi
Complementation of phytochrome chromophore-deficient Arabidopsis by expression of phycocyanobilin:ferredoxin oxidoreductase
PNAS,
January 27, 2004;
101(4):
1099 - 1104.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. L. Catlett, O. C. Yoder, and B. G. Turgeon
Whole-Genome Analysis of Two-Component Signal Transduction Genes in Fungal Pathogens
Eukaryot. Cell,
December 1, 2003;
2(6):
1151 - 1161.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. M. Parks
The Red Side of Photomorphogenesis
Plant Physiology,
December 1, 2003;
133(4):
1437 - 1444.
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. B. Maxwell, C. R. Andersson, D. S. Poole, S. A. Kay, and J. Chory
HY5, Circadian Clock-Associated 1, and a cis-Element, DET1 Dark Response Element, Mediate DET1 Regulation of Chlorophyll a/b-Binding Protein 2 Expression
Plant Physiology,
December 1, 2003;
133(4):
1565 - 1577.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. H. Markelz, D. E. Costich, and T. P. Brutnell
Photomorphogenic Responses in Maize Seedling Development
Plant Physiology,
December 1, 2003;
133(4):
1578 - 1591.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Kuno, S. G. Moller, T. Shinomura, X. Xu, N.-H. Chua, and M. Furuya
The Novel MYB Protein EARLY-PHYTOCHROME-RESPONSIVE1 Is a Component of a Slave Circadian Oscillator in Arabidopsis
PLANT CELL,
October 1, 2003;
15(10):
2476 - 2488.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. Monte, J. M. Alonso, J. R. Ecker, Y. Zhang, X. Li, J. Young, S. Austin-Phillips, and P. H. Quail
Isolation and Characterization of phyC Mutants in Arabidopsis Reveals Complex Crosstalk between Phytochrome Signaling Pathways
PLANT CELL,
September 1, 2003;
15(9):
1962 - 1980.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. Wang, J. F. Harper, and M. Gribskov
Systematic Trans-Genomic Comparison of Protein Kinases between Arabidopsis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Plant Physiology,
August 1, 2003;
132(4):
2152 - 2165.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Q. Sun, K. Yoda, M. Suzuki, and H. Suzuki
Vascular tissue in the stem and roots of woody plants can conduct light
J. Exp. Bot.,
June 1, 2003;
54(387):
1627 - 1635.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Mutsuda, K.-P. Michel, X. Zhang, B. L. Montgomery, and S. S. Golden
Biochemical Properties of CikA, an Unusual Phytochrome-like Histidine Protein Kinase That Resets the Circadian Clock in Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942
J. Biol. Chem.,
May 23, 2003;
278(21):
19102 - 19110.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Hanzawa, T. Shinomura, K. Inomata, T. Kakiuchi, H. Kinoshita, K. Wada, and M. Furuya
Structural requirement of bilin chromophore for the photosensory specificity of phytochromes A and B
PNAS,
April 2, 2002;
99(7):
4725 - 4729.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. L. Ballesteros, C. Bolle, L. M. Lois, J. M. Moore, J.-P. Vielle-Calzada, U. Grossniklaus, and N.-H. Chua
LAF1, a MYB transcription activator for phytochrome A signaling
Genes & Dev.,
October 1, 2001;
15(19):
2613 - 2625.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. A. Gambetta and J. C. Lagarias
Genetic engineering of phytochrome biosynthesis in bacteria
PNAS,
September 11, 2001;
98(19):
10566 - 10571.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. J. Campbell and E. Liscum
Plant Photobiology 2001: A Thousand Points of Enlightenment from Receptor Structures to Ecological Adaptation
PLANT CELL,
August 1, 2001;
13(8):
1704 - 1710.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|