Skip to main content
. 2015 Sep 15;27(9):2415–2426. doi: 10.1105/tpc.15.00537

Table 1. General GUS Expression Patterns in Transgenic Lines from Predicted Enhancers.

Predicted Enhancer (Short Name) Size (bp) Tissues with GUS Expression
Root (F/R)a Leaf (F/R) Flower (F/R)
Common DHS 1 (C1)b 568 −/− +++/+++ +++/+
Common DHS 2 (C2)b 684 −/− +/+ +++/−
Common DHS 3 (C3)b 393 −/NA −/NA −/NA
Common DHS 4 (C4) 580 −/− +++/+++ +++/−
Common DHS 5 (C5) 580 −/++ −/− +++/−
Common DHS 6 (C6) 384 −/NA −/NA −/NA
Common DHS 7 (C7) 403 −/NA −/NA −/NA
Common DHS 8 (C8) 562 −/− +/+++ −/−
Leaf DHS 1 (L1) 588 −/− +/++ −/NA
Leaf DHS 2 (L2) 444 +/+ +/+ −/NA
Leaf DHS 3 (L3) 625 +++/+++ +/+++ −/NA
Flower DHS 1 (F1) 622 −/− +++/+++ +++/+++
Flower DHS 2 (F2) 533 −/− −/− +/++
Flower DHS 3 (F3) 806 −/NA −/NA −/NA
a

Forward/reverse direction of each predicted enhancer within the report construct. +++, More than 75% positive transgenic plants or 50 to 75% positive transgenic plants with consistently strong signals in the same tissue(s); ++, 50 to 75% positive transgenic plants with consistently weak signals in the same tissue(s); +, <50% positive transgenic plants with consistently strong signals in the same tissue(s); −, <50% positive transgenic plants with inconsistent signals in different tissue(s) or no signals in any tissues; NA, not available.

b

C1, C2, and C3 are three putative enhancers identified previously by the enhancer trapping method (Michael and McClung, 2003).