Abstract
Phosphorus is acquired by plant roots primarily via the high-affinity inorganic phosphate (Pi) transporters. The transcripts for Pi transporters are highly inducible upon Pi starvation, which also results in enhanced Pi uptake when Pi is resupplied. Using antibodies specific to one of the tomato Pi transporters (encoded by LePT1), we show that an increase in the LePT1 transcript under Pi starvation leads to a concurrent increase in the transporter protein, suggesting a transcriptional regulation for Pi acquisition. LePT1 protein accumulates rapidly in tomato roots in response to Pi starvation. The level of transporter protein accumulation depends on the Pi concentration in the medium, and it is reversible upon resupply of Pi. LePT1 protein accumulates all along the roots under Pi starvation and is localized primarily in the plasma membranes. These results clearly demonstrate that plants increase their capacity for Pi uptake during Pi starvation by synthesis of additional transporter molecules.
Keywords: [antibodies, tomatoLycopersicon esculentum, plasma membrane]
Phosphorus availability is considered one of the major factors that limits growth of plants in natural ecosystems. The concentration of available phosphorus is generally in the micromolar range, which is below that of many micronutrients (1). Consequently plants have developed several adaptive mechanisms to overcome Pi deficiency. These include changes in root growth and architecture, increased production of phosphatases and RNases, altered activity of several enzymes of the glycolytic pathway (2, 3), and an increased Pi uptake rate of roots (4). The ultimate consequences of these modifications are increased Pi availability in the rhizosphere and enhanced uptake.
Phosphorus is acquired by the plant roots in an energy-mediated cotransport process driven by a proton gradient generated by plasma membrane H+-ATPases (5). The kinetic characterization of the Pi-uptake system by whole plants and cultured cells indicates a high-affinity transport activity operating at low concentrations (micromolar range) and a low-affinity activity operating at higher concentrations. The very low concentration (micromolar) of Pi in soil solution suggests that high-affinity transporters are primarily involved in Pi uptake by plants (3). The low-affinity system is apparently expressed constitutively, whereas the high-affinity system is induced under Pi deficiency (6). The induction process appears to involve de novo protein synthesis, since inhibitors of protein synthesis drastically reduce the induction of high-affinity Pi transport. The increased synthesis of a high-affinity carrier system has been proposed to be responsible for enhanced Pi uptake observed under Pi-deficiency conditions (6).
High-affinity Pi transporter genes have been cloned and characterized from fungi and from several plant species, including Arabidopsis, tomato, potato, Medicago, and Catharanthus (7). All the cloned Pi transporters are integral membrane proteins containing 12 membrane-spanning regions, separated into two groups of 6 by a large hydrophilic charged region, a common feature shared by many proteins involved in transport of sugars, ions, antibiotics, and amino acids (8). The transcripts encoding these transporters are predominantly expressed in roots and are strongly induced upon Pi starvation (9, 10). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) genes encoding Pi transporters (LePT1 and LePT2) are induced in a temporal- and Pi-concentration-dependent manner (9). The induction of these genes is a rapid response to Pi starvation and is reversible upon replenishment of phosphorus. These responses point to the existence of a fine coordination between gene expression and increased uptake of Pi.
Although genes coding for major plant nutrient transporters have been isolated and their expression characterized at the level of mRNA accumulation, there is no evidence showing that these changes result in altered levels of transport proteins. In this study, using antibodies specific to one of the tomato Pi transporters (LePT1), we demonstrate that an increase in the transcripts under Pi starvation is accompanied by a concurrent increase in the transporter protein, suggesting a transcriptional regulation for Pi acquisition. To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the transcriptional regulation of any major nutrient transporter in plants. In addition, this study also shows that Pi transporters are enriched in the plasma membranes of Pi-deficient roots, a physiologically relevant location for the high-affinity Pi transporters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Isolation and Analysis of Pi Transporter Transcripts.
Total RNA was isolated from the roots of tomato plants by extraction with hot phenol and precipitation with lithium chloride (11). Total RNA (10 μg) was electrophoretically separated on denaturing formaldehyde 1% agarose gels and blotted onto BA-S (Schleicher & Schuell) nitrocellulose membrane. The northern analysis conditions were similar to those described earlier (9).
Antibody Production.
A synthetic peptide (C-VAEIRATSGRTVPV) corresponding specifically to the C terminus of LePT1 was used as the antigen for preparation of LePT1-specific antibodies. An extra cysteine residue was added at the N terminus for coupling to a carrier protein. The peptide was coupled to activated keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) carrier according to the supplier’s instructions (Pierce). After the coupling reaction, excess peptide and other components of the reaction were removed by dialysis against phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Approximately 200 μg of KLH-peptide conjugate was mixed with an equal volume (500 μl) of complete Freund’s adjuvant and injected subcutaneously into laying hens. The chickens were given two booster injections (100 μg of conjugate and Freund’s incomplete adjuvant) 2 and 4 weeks after the primary immunization. The antibodies (IgY fraction) were purified from eggs collected before the injections (preimmune), and eggs collected 1 week after the final booster injection (immune), essentially as described by Song et al. (12)
Culture of Tomato Plants and Isolation of Total Proteins.
Tomato plants were grown in an aeroponics facility as described earlier (13). The plants were subjected to various Pi treatments by spraying roots at regular intervals with a fine mist of half-strength modified Hoagland’s solution containing indicated amounts of Pi. For Pi-replenishment studies, the plants were starved of Pi for 5 days and then either resupplied with 250 μM Pi or maintained in Pi-deficient conditions. Plant roots were harvested, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at −70°C. The tissues were ground to a fine powder in a mortar and pestle chilled with liquid nitrogen. The ground powder was transferred to a vial containing cold acetone and stored at −20°C overnight. The acetone-insoluble precipitate was collected by filtration through Whatman no. 1 paper and washed several times with cold acetone to remove moisture. The powder was dried under vacuum, and the total proteins were extracted by boiling in SDS sample buffer (20 μl/mg of powder) for 10 min.
Western Blots.
The proteins were separated on SDS/10% polyacrylamide gels and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes in Towbin buffer (14). The membranes were blocked with 3% gelatin in TBS (20 mM Tris⋅HCl/500 mM NaCl, pH 7.5) at room temperature for 30 min, and then washed twice with TTBS (TBS + 1% Tween-20) for 5 min each. The blots were incubated for 4 hr at room temperature with a 1:1000 dilution of LePT1 antibodies in TTBS containing 1% gelatin. The membranes were washed three times with TTBS and then incubated with secondary antibody (alkaline phosphatase-conjugated rabbit anti-chicken antibody, 1:5000 dilution, Jackson ImmunoResearch) for 1 hr at room temperature. After two washes with TTBS and one wash with alkaline phosphatase buffer (100 mM NaCl/100 mM Tris⋅HCl, pH 9.5/50 mM MgCl2), the membranes were incubated in 0.01% 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate/0.01% nitroblue tetrazolium solution (in alkaline phosphatase buffer) for color development. The reaction was stopped by rinsing the membrane several times with water.
Isolation of Plasma Membrane Fractions.
Plasma membranes were isolated from roots of Pi-starved tomato plants by an aqueous two-phase extraction procedure (15, 16). The root tissue was homogenized by blending in an ice-cold grinding buffer (4 ml/g) consisting of 250 mM sucrose, 3 mM EDTA, 2.5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), and 25 mM Tris-Mes, pH 7.5. The homogenate was filtered through four layers of cheesecloth and centrifuged at 13,000 × g for 15 min at 4°C. The supernatant was recentrifuged at 80,000 × g for 60 min at 4°C to pellet the membranes. The microsomal pellet was resuspended in 6 ml of the resuspension buffer (5 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.8/250 mM sucrose/3 mM KCl) by repeated pipetting and added to a 30-g phase partitioning system (final concentrations: 6.2% dextran T-500, 6.2% PEG 3350, 5 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.8, 3 mM KCl, and 250 mM sucrose). After thorough mixing of the phases and centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 5 min in a swinging-bucket rotor, the upper and lower phases were collected. The phases were repartitioned twice in fresh phase buffers as described (15). The purified phases were diluted with grinding buffer and centrifuged at 150,000 × g for 60 min to pellet the membranes. The membrane pellets were resuspended in 1 ml of grinding buffer and used for protein analysis and enzyme assays.
Enzyme Assays.
The purity of plasma membrane fractions isolated as described above was analyzed by marker enzyme assays for the plasma membrane (vanadate-sensitive ATPase, ref. 17), tonoplast (NO3-sensitive ATPase, ref. 18), and mitochondrial membranes (oligomycin-sensitive ATPase, ref. 19). ATPase assays were performed in 400-μl reaction volumes containing 250 mM sucrose, 30 mM Tris-Mes at pH 6.5 (pH 8.0 for assaying NO3-sensitive ATPase activity), 3 mM ATP (Tris salt), 3 mM MgSO4, 1 mM sodium azide (omitted when testing for oligomycin sensitivity), 0.1 mM ammonium molybdate, 50 mM KCl (when present), and 5 μg of membrane protein. The specific inhibitors were added as follows; 0.1 mM sodium orthovanadate for vanadate-sensitive activity, 50 mM KNO3 in place of KCl for NO3-sensitive activity, and 10 μg/ml oligomycin. Orthovanadate was included in the reactions testing for NO3-sensitive activity, KNO3 was present in the reactions testing for vanadate-sensitive activity, and both KNO3 and orthovanadate were included in the reactions testing for oligomycin-sensitive activity. Reactions were carried out at 37°C for 1 hr, and the released Pi was measured by the method of Ames (20).
RESULTS
Transcription and Translation of Pi Transporters Are Coordinated During Pi Starvation.
Western blotting of total proteins isolated from roots of tomato plants (Fig. 1B) indicate that the antibodies react specifically with a 60-kDa protein present in Pi-starved plants. The observed size of the detected protein corresponds to the size of the LePT1 protein calculated from the amino acid sequence (9). Accumulation of LePT1 protein increased markedly in plants grown under Pi-limiting conditions. LePT1 protein was present primarily in the roots, with a small amount also detectable in the leaves and stems of Pi-starved plants (data not shown). Both the LePT1 mRNA and protein increased during Pi starvation, indicating that transcription and translation are highly coordinated in increasing Pi uptake. Similar responses in message accumulation during Pi starvation have been reported in other plants (10, 21–25). The accumulation of LePT1 protein is evident within 24 hr of Pi starvation (Fig. 1C), suggesting a rapid induction of the synthesis of this protein in response to Pi starvation.
Accumulation of LePT1 Protein in Roots Is Controlled by Pi Availability.
Earlier studies showed that expression of LePT1 transcript increased in roots of plants provided with 100 μM Pi or less, suggesting a relation between the concentration of Pi in the medium and the level of LePT1 gene expression (9). The increased accumulation of LePT1 transcript resulted in increased accumulation of LePT1 protein (Fig. 2). A strong accumulation of LePT1 protein was evident in roots of tomato plants sprayed with nutrient solution containing 10 μM or less of Pi. Lower levels of LePT1 protein were also observed in roots of plants provided with 100 μM Pi. The negative correlation between Pi availability in the medium and LePT1 protein accumulation was further examined by resupplying Pi to plants that were P deficient and strongly expressing the LePT1 gene (Fig. 3). When 250 μM Pi was resupplied to these plants, the LePT1 protein level decreased within 24 hr, and it reached the uninduced level by 5 days. These observations, along with the earlier data on mRNA accumulation (9), clearly demonstrate a direct correlation between increased transcript levels of the Pi transporter gene and increased accumulation of transporter molecules.
The potential ability of different parts of roots to absorb Pi was examined by analysis of LePT1 protein accumulation in roots (Fig. 4). Interestingly, all the examined parts of Pi-deficient roots, except for extreme tip regions, had markedly higher levels of the protein. The data suggest that Pi starvation leads to enhanced expression of the Pi transporter in all parts of the plant root, supporting the hypothesis that under Pi deficiency the ability of the entire root system to absorb Pi increases (26).
Phosphate Transporters Are Enriched in the Plasma Membrane.
On the basis of the deduced amino acid sequence of Pi transporters, LePT1 protein is predicted to be an integral membrane protein. The sequence also lacks any discernible signal peptide motif at the N terminus, suggesting that it is likely to be associated with the plasma membrane. This prediction was confirmed by the observation that LePT1 protein is enriched in the plasma membrane fractions isolated from roots of Pi-starved tomato plants (Fig. 5A). The total membranes isolated from these roots were fractionated into plasma membrane and other membrane fractions by repeated aqueous two-phase extraction. This procedure yields highly enriched plasma membrane vesicles as judged by the activities of marker enzymes in the fractions (Fig. 5B). Vanadate-sensitive ATPase activity, a marker enzyme for plasma membrane, showed severalfold enrichment in the plasma membrane fractions but little or no enrichment in other fractions. The nitrate- (tonoplast marker) and oligomycin- (mitochondrial membrane marker) sensitive ATPase activities did not show any significant enrichment in the plasm membrane fractions. The presence of LePT1 protein in the plasma membranes correlates well with its proposed function in nutrient uptake.
DISCUSSION
The uptake of Pi by plants under natural conditions proceeds through an energy-dependent proton/phosphate symport system. Because of the persistently low concentration of Pi in soil solution, the high-affinity Pi transport is considered the primary mode of Pi uptake in plants. This transport system is composed of the high-affinity Pi transporters that are inducible during Pi starvation (3, 10). The ability of plants to increase Pi uptake under Pi starvation is well documented (4, 27, 28). The results of studies on Pi transporter gene expression in tomato have shown that the transcripts for Pi transporters (LePT1 and LePT2) are highly induced under Pi-deficient conditions (9, 21). Similar increases in the transcript levels of genes encoding Pi transporters in other plant species, including Arabidopsis, potato, Medicago, and Catharanthus, have been reported (10, 22–25).
The increased Pi absorption following an episode of Pi starvation is thought to be associated with a higher capacity of roots for Pi transport, possibly by formation of additional carriers of Pi (4, 28). This increased Pi uptake occurs with little or no change in the apparent Km but significant increase in Vmax because of increased synthesis of Pi transporters (6). Results of many Pi uptake experiments confirm that plants adjust their Pi uptake on the basis of internal Pi status, particularly by increasing Imax (maximum influx), whereas change in Km is of minor importance in this process (29). Although allosteric regulation of Pi uptake under Pi starvation is suggested (30), it is becoming evident that the capacity for Pi uptake is regulated by increasing the total number of transporter molecules (3). Inducible expression of Pi transporters is vital for growth of plants under varying concentrations of Pi. The induction of LePT1 protein in response to Pi starvation correlates with the observed increase in Pi uptake rate of roots and cell cultures (27, 31). Addition of protein synthesis inhibitors suppressed Pi starvation-induced Pi uptake in tobacco cell cultures, indicating that de novo synthesis of Pi transporters is required for the transport process (28). Increased accumulation of LePT1 protein in tomato plants provides direct evidence for altered synthesis of the transporters during Pi starvation. Expression of Pi transporter genes is not only induced rapidly in response to Pi deficiency, but is also reversible upon resupply of Pi. Both the induction and repression of Pi transporters are detectable within 24 hr of Pi removal or resupply, respectively. Similarly, enhanced Pi uptake rates in Pi-starved tomato plants returned to the normal rate 30 hr after Pi replenishment (32), indicating down-regulation of the uptake process. Regulated expression of Pi transporters will allow plants to obtain the required amount of Pi without leading to toxic effects. These data support the hypothesis that plants modulate their capacity for Pi uptake primarily by synthesis/turnover of the transporter molecules. However, under certain experimental conditions, some Pi-starved plants exposed to high concentration of Pi may accumulate toxic levels of the nutrient (27). This response is likely caused by rapid accumulation of Pi before the turnover of transport proteins and inhibition of transcript accumulation. A coordinated, rapid induction of both the mRNA (9) and protein after Pi removal is likely a reflection of transcriptional regulation of gene expression. Transcriptional regulation of Pi uptake will provide plants with a rapid and responsive mechanism to regulate Pi uptake in the rhizosphere. A similar mechanism is known to function in other organisms, such as yeast and bacteria (33, 34).
Transcriptional regulation of Pi transporters in plants may not preclude other, as-yet-uncharacterized, control mechanisms, including posttranslational modification of proteins. In yeast, expression of structural genes encoding high-affinity Pi transporters and repressible phosphatases is controlled at the transcription level by an intricate cascade involving both positive and negative regulatory proteins (33). Protein–protein interaction is also involved in regulation of Pi uptake of yeast cells (35). There is a growing evidence supporting the existence of similar regulatory mechanisms in plants (7). Further studies should reveal interactions of Pi transporters with other proteins as observed in regulation of the yeast high-affinity Pi transporter. However, the complexity of tissues and organs in plants and the required transport of Pi throughout the plant suggest that additional regulatory mechanisms are likely to function in regulating Pi uptake and metabolism in plants.
There is a continuing debate on the ability of different parts of root system to absorb nutrients. The Pi transporter accumulation in different parts of roots shows that plants are able to absorb Pi all along the roots during Pi starvation. A similar observation on the ability of the root system to acquire Pi was made earlier (26). It has been shown that the entire root system retains the potential to transport Pi at an increased rate, despite anatomical and physiological changes associated with aging (4). Furthermore, under Pi starvation, influx of Pi was first evident in the older root zone close to the shoot, and it spreads along the root toward the apical region (26). This type of physiological and biochemical flexibility will allow any part of the root system to acquire Pi as and where the nutrient becomes available. It is becoming clear that plants respond to Pi starvation not only by increasing root growth but also by changing biochemistry of roots to increase Pi availability and enhance uptake (2, 7). Detailed in situ hybridization and immunolocalization studies of different members of the Pi transporter family should help in understanding the complexity of P nutrition in higher plants.
Localization of LePT1 protein in plasma membranes strongly suggests its primary role in high-affinity Pi transport in cells. The deduced amino acid sequence of LePT1 did not show the presence of any organellar targeting sequence, indicating that insertion of LePT1 into the plasma membrane may be due to its innate structural properties. The plasma membrane is the physiologically relevant target for the high-affinity Pi transporters. A steep Pi concentration gradient between the cytoplasm (millimolar) and soil solution (micromolar) and the negative inside transmembrane electrical gradient requires that Pi transport occurs via an energy-dependent high-affinity transport system located at the plasma membrane. Uptake kinetics studies in both yeast (21) and tobacco cell cultures (36) expressing the cloned Pi transporters showed that Km of the high-affinity Pi transporters is within the range of available phosphorus in the soil solution. Furthermore, the presence of millimolar concentrations of Pi inside plant cells precludes the need for high-affinity Pi transporters in other organellar membranes. This is particularly true for vacuoles, the primary site for Pi storage in cells. The Pi transport across the tonoplast is presumed to occur through the low-affinity (high Vmax) transport systems, whose biochemical and biophysical properties are not well understood at present. The Pi fluxes across the tonoplast could play a significant role in Pi homeostasis in the cytoplasm, and consequently in expression of Pi transporters, leading to altered uptake. The localization of Pi transporter proteins to plasma membranes and their expression in the root epidermis and root hairs (9, 21) are indicative of the role of Pi transporters in the nutrient acquisition.
The results presented here show that an increase in the LePT1 mRNA under Pi starvation directly correlates with an increase in the transport protein. These data, in combination with studies of mRNA accumulation (9) and Pi uptake (4, 27), provide strong evidence for the transcriptional regulation of Pi uptake in plants.
Acknowledgments
We thank Drs. Peter B. Goldsbrough and David Rhodes for critical review of the manuscript. This work was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (97-35100-4211) to K.G.R. This is journal paper no. 15964 of the Purdue University Agriculture Research Program.
References
- 1.Barber S A, Walker J M, Vasey E H. J Agric Food Chem. 1963;11:204–207. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Plaxton W C, Carswell M C. In: Plant Responses to Environmental Stresses: From Phytohormones to Genome Reorganization. Lerner H R, editor. New York: Dekker; 1999. pp. 349–372. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Raghothama K G, Muchhal U S, Kim D H, Bucher M. In: Phosphorus in Plant Biology: Regulatory Roles in Molecular, Cellular, Organismic, and Ecological Processes. Lynch J P, Deikman J, editors. Rockville, MD: Am. Soc. Plant Physiologists; 1998. pp. 271–280. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Drew M C, Saker L R. Planta. 1984;160:500–507. doi: 10.1007/BF00411137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ullrich-Eberius C I, Novacky A, Fischer E, Lüttge U. Plant Physiol. 1981;67:797–801. doi: 10.1104/pp.67.4.797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Furihata T, Suzuki M, Sakurai H. Plant Cell Physiol. 1992;33:1151–1157. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Raghothama K G. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Mol Biol. 1999;50:665–693. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.50.1.665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Henderson P J F. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1993;5:708–721. doi: 10.1016/0955-0674(93)90144-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Liu C, Muchhal U S, Mukatira U, Kononowicz A K, Raghothama K G. Plant Physiol. 1998;116:91–99. doi: 10.1104/pp.116.1.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Muchhal U S, Pardo J M, Raghothama K G. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:10519–10523. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.19.10519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pawlowski K, Kunze R, De Vries S, Bisseling T. In: Plant Molecular Biology Manual. Gelvin S B, Shilperoort R A, editors. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer; 1994. pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Song C S, Yu J-H, Bai D H, Hester P Y, Kim K H. J Immunol. 1985;135:3354–3359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Liu C, Muchhal U S, Raghothama K G. Plant Mol Biol. 1997;33:867–874. doi: 10.1023/a:1005729309569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Towbin J, Staehelin T, Gordon J. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1979;76:4350–4354. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.9.4350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hodges T K, Mills D. Methods Enzymol. 1986;118:41–54. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Larsson C, Sommarin M, Widell S. Methods Enzymol. 1994;228:451–469. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gallagher S R, Leonard R T. Plant Physiol. 1982;70:1335–1340. doi: 10.1104/pp.70.5.1335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Churchill K A, Sze H. Plant Physiol. 1984;76:490–497. doi: 10.1104/pp.76.2.490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Itoh A, Sekiya J. FEBS Lett. 1994;356:229–232. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(94)01269-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ames B N. Methods Enzymol. 1965;8:115–118. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Daram P, Brunner S, Amrhein N, Bucher M. Planta. 1998;206:225–233. doi: 10.1007/s004250050394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kai M, Masuda Y, Kikuchi Y, Osaki M, Tadano T. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 1997;43:227–235. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Leggewie G, Willmitzer L, Riesmeier J W. Plant Cell. 1997;9:381–392. doi: 10.1105/tpc.9.3.381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Liu H, Trieu A T, Blaylock L A, Harrison M J. Mol Plant–Microbe Interact. 1998;11:14–22. doi: 10.1094/MPMI.1998.11.1.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Smith F W, Ealing P M, Dong B, Delhaize E. Plant J. 1997;11:83–92. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1997.11010083.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Clarkson D T, Sanderson J, Scattergood C B. Planta. 1978;139:47–53. doi: 10.1007/BF00390809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Clarkson D D, Scattergood C B. J Exp Bot. 1982;33:865–875. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Shimogawara K, Usuda H. Plant Cell Physiol. 1995;36:341–351. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jungk A, Asher C J, Edwards D G, Meyer D. Plant Soil. 1990;124:175–182. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lefebvre D D, Glass A D M. Physiol Plant. 1982;54:199–206. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Goldstein A H, Mayfield S P, Danon A, Tibbot B K. Plant Physiol. 1989;91:175–182. doi: 10.1104/pp.91.1.175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Katz D B, Gerloff G C, Gabelman W H. Physiol Plant. 1986;67:23–28. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Oshima Y, Ogawa N, Harashima S. Gene. 1996;179:171–177. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(96)00425-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Torriani-Gorini A, Yagil E, Silver S. Cellular and Molecular Biology. Washington, DC: Am. Soc. Microbiol.; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Bun-ya M, Shikata K, Nakade S, Yompakdee C, Harashima S, Oshima Y. Curr Genet. 1996;29:344–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Mitsukawa N, Okumura S, Shirano Y, Sato S, Kato T, Harashima S, Shibata D. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:7098–7102. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.13.7098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]