Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 8;6:31134. doi: 10.1038/srep31134

Figure 4. The characterization of the GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines.

Figure 4

(a) Four-week-old plants of the Col-0, GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines. Bar = 2.5 cm. (b) The rosette leaves from the plants of Col-0 and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines from the top to the bottom. Bar = 2 cm. (c) Six-week-old plants of the Col-0, bzr1-1D, and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines. Bar = 2 cm. (d) The transparent siliques of Col-0 and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines. Bar = 4 mm. (e) Statistical analysis of seed number per silique from the 3rd to 13th silique on the primary stem (a total of 5 plants from each line) of wild type and transgenic lines. The student t test was used to analyze the significant differences between wild type and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). (f) The 6-day-old seedlings of Col-0 without BRZ treatment, Col-0, bzr1-1D, and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines grown on the 1/2MS medium with BRZ in dark. Bar = 1 cm. (g) Statistical analysis of the length of 6-day-old seedling hypocotyls of wild type. bzr1-1D and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines with BRZ treatment in dark condition (a total of 15 plants from each line). The student t test was used to analyze the significant differences between the wild type and bzr1-1D, GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines with BRZ treatment (**p < 0.01). (h) The expression level of CPD and DWF4 in 10-day-old seedlings of Col-0, bzr1-1D, and GmBZL2*-GUS transgenic lines.