light control of seedling development - ufvarquivo.ufv.br/dbv/pgfvg/bve684/htms/pdfs_revisao... ·...

1040-2519/96/0601-0215$08.00 215

Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1996. 47:215–43Copyright © 1996 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

LIGHT CONTROL OF SEEDLINGDEVELOPMENT

Albrecht von Arnim and Xing-Wang Deng

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8104

KEY WORDS: seedling, development, light,Arabidopsis, morphogenesis

ABSTRACT

Light control of plant development is most dramatically illustrated by seedlingdevelopment. Seedling development patterns under light (photomorphogenesis)are distinct from those in darkness (skotomorphogenesis or etiolation) with re-spect to gene expression, cellular and subcellular differentiation, and organ mor-phology. A complex network of molecular interactions couples the regulatoryphotoreceptors to developmental decisions. Rapid progress in defining the rolesof individual photoreceptors and the downstream regulators mediating lightcontrol of seedling development has been achieved in recent years, predomi-nantly because of molecular genetic studies inArabidopsis thalianaand otherspecies. This review summarizes those important recent advances and high-lights the working models underlying the light control of cellular development.We focus mainly on seedling morphogenesis inArabidopsisbut include com-plementary findings from other species.

INTRODUCTION ......................................... ..........................................................................216COMPLEXITY OF LIGHT RESPONSES AND PHOTORECEPTORS................................ 217

RESPONSES ....................................... .......................................................................... 219Seed Germination.................................... .......................................................................... 219Sketch of Seedling Photomorphogenesis. .......................................................................... 221Formation of New Cell Types.................. .......................................................................... 222Cell Autonomy and Cell-Cell Interactions......................................................................... 223Unhooking and Separation of the Cotyledons.................................................................... 223Cotyledon Development and Expansion.. .......................................................................... 224Inhibition of Hypocotyl Elongation......... .......................................................................... 225Phototropism............................................ .......................................................................... 227Plastid Development................................ .......................................................................... 228

REGULATORS OF LIGHT RESPONSES IN SEEDLINGS.................................................. 229Positive Regulators................................. .......................................................................... 229

Possible Roles of Plant Hormones........... .......................................................................... 231Repressors of Light-Mediated Development....................................................................... 232

CONCLUSION.............................................. .......................................................................... 235

INTRODUCTION1

Seed germination and seedling development interpret the body plan with itspreformed embryonic organs, the cotyledons, the hypocotyl, and the root.Whereas embryo and seed development take place in the shelter of the paren-tal ovule, rather independently of the environmental conditions, seed germina-tion and seedling development are highly sensitive and dramatically respon-sive to environmental conditions. Higher plants have evolved a remarkableplasticity in their developmental pathways with respect to many environ-mental parameters. First, the embryonic axes of the root and the shoot orientthemselves in opposite directions in the field of gravity. Second, seedling de-velopment is highly responsive to light fluence rates over approximately sixorders of magnitude. The direction of incident light entices shoots and roots torespond phototropically. Light intensity and wavelength composition are im-portant factors in determining the speed of cell growth, of pigment accumula-tion, and of plastid differentiation.

Angiosperms, in particular, choose between two distinct developmentalpathways, according to whether germination occurred in darkness or in light.The light developmental pathway, known as photomorphogenesis, leads to aseedling morphology that is optimally designed to carry out photosynthesis.The dark developmental pathway, known as etiolation, maximizes cell elon-gation in the shoot with little leaf or cotyledon development as the plant at-tempts to reach light conditions sufficient for photoautotrophic growth. Al-though the exact patterns of seedling morphogenesis vary widely among dif-ferent taxa, the light-regulated developmental decision between the etiolatedand the photomorphogenic pathway transcends phylogenetic classification.Arabidopsis thaliana,for example, is programmed to switch between the pho-tomorphogenic and the etiolation pathway in the hypocotyl and the cotyle-dons. In the legumes, such asPisum sativum,which use the cotyledons asstorage organs, the corresponding developmental switch is programmed in theepicotyl and the primary leaves. Comparable phenomena of developmentalplasticity are observed in the mesocotyl, the coleoptile, and the first leaf ofmonocotyledonous seedlings such as oat and rice (50, 99, 136). It is reason-able to speculate that the fundamental mechanism is similar in different plant

LIGHT CONTROL OF SEEDLING DEVELOPMENT 217

1Abbreviations: UV-A, 320–400 nm light; UV-B, 280–320 nm light; HIR, high-irradiance re-

sponse; LF, low fluence response; VLF, very low fluence response; Pr, phytochrome form withabsorbance maximum in the red; Pfr, phytochrome form with absorbance maximum in far-red.We follow the phytochrome nomenclature proposed in Reference 141.

species, though defined light signals are frequently coupled to individual re-sponses in a species-dependent manner.

The contrasting developmental patterns are thought to be mediated primar-ily by changes in the expression level of light-regulated genes (reviewed in 5,90, 168). The cellular events leading to the activation of these genes havebeen studied intensively, and extensive progress in elucidating some of thedownstream steps in phytochrome and blue light receptor signaling has beenreviewed during the past two years (15, 115, 138, 140, 152). Use ofArabidop-sis thalianaas a model organism has led to profound advances in understand-ing the light control of seedling development. We attempt to put these recentgenetic advances in perspective with traditional physiological data from otherspecies and focus on the overlap and the mutual fertilization between thesetwo lines of research.

Many valuable perspectives on photomorphogenesis have been describedin a series of recent reviews on, for example, responses to blue light (75, 97),responses to UV light and high light stress (7, 40), ecological considerations(154, 155, 157), progress based on transgenic plants (188), phytochrome(138–140, 157, 176, 177), and mutational analysis (28, 45, 78, 86, 97, 134,143, 188).

COMPLEXITY OF LIGHT RESPONSES ANDPHOTORECEPTORS

In a given species, the specific effects of light can differ drastically from oneorgan or cell type to the other and even between neighboring cells. InArabi-dopsis,light treatment of a dark-grown seedling will reduce the cell elonga-tion rate in the hypocotyl while inducing cell expansion and cell division inthe cotyledon and the shoot apex. Meanwhile, stomata differentiation is pro-moted by light in both the growth-arrested hypocotyl and the expanding coty-ledon. In light-exposed shoots, plastids differentiate from proplastids or etio-plasts into chloroplasts, whereas in the adjacent cells of the root, plastids dif-ferentiate instead into amyloplasts under both light and dark conditions.

Light responses are also known to exhibit fundamental changes in sensitiv-ity as development progresses, e.g. from responsiveness to red light to bluelight. This effect is conceptually most easily demonstrated at the level of geneexpression (18, 61, 64, 73).

Finally, the kinetics of light-mediated effects allow for fast responses (inminutes), such as the inhibition of hypocotyl elongation (37, 162) or the in-duction of early light-inducible transcripts (114), but also accommodate slowresponses (from hours to days), e.g. the entrainment of circadian rhythms bylight (3a, 12, 103, 106, 121, 192).

218 VON ARNIM & DENG

Perhaps the most important component for encoding the complexity of re-sponses is the multiple families of photoreceptors. Seedling responses to lightare mediated by at least three classes of regulatory photoreceptors: (a) phyto-chromes, which respond mainly to red and far-red light but which also absorbblue and UV-light; (b) photoreceptors that are specific for blue and UV-Alight; and (c) UV-B photoreceptors. Photosynthetic pigments, for examplechlorophylls and carotenoids, have important roles as screening agents for theregulatory photoreceptors. Surprisingly little is known about their direct ef-fects on developmental responses (169).

Molecular cloning of theArabidopsis CRY1/HY4gene (3, 91a, 91b, 103a)as well as characterization of photoreceptor mutants (80, 81, 83, 92) may helpto reveal the well-kept secrets of the blue light photoreceptors, which havelong been referred to as “cryptochromes.” The basis for the wide absorptionband ofCRY1in the blue and UV-A region of the spectrum has been resolvedby molecular analysis, which showed thatCRY1can bind two types of chro-mophores simultaneously, a flavin and a pterin (91b, 103a). It is conceivablethat both chromophore binding sites can be mutated independently, thus sepa-rating sensitivity to UV-A and blue light genetically, as has been demon-strated in Reference 191. InArabidopsis(3, 87), and also in transgenic to-bacco (103a),CRY1is responsible for sensitivity of hypocotyl elongation togreen light, in addition to blue and UV-A. A possible explanation is providedby the tendency ofCRY1to stabilize a reduced, green-light absorbing form ofthe flavin chromophore (91b).

The phytochromes (phys), a family of dimeric, approximately 240-kDachromoproteins, are by far the best studied of all photoreceptors (62, 138–141,176, 177). In all known phytochromes, absorption of light leads to a confor-mational shift (photoconversion) of a red light absorbing form (Pr, absorptionmaximum around 660 nm) into a form with increased sensitivity to far-redlight (Pfr, 730 nm). Absorption of far-red light converts the molecule back tothe Pr form. Overlap in the absorption spectra of Pr and Pfr ensures that nolight condition can convert all phytochrome into exclusively one form. Onlyphytochrome that is newly synthesized in complete darkness is present exclu-sively as Pr. It is generally approximated that the concentration of Pfr, ratherthan Pr, is responsible for all of the photomorphogenic effects of phyto-chrome, although this view has recently been challenged (95, 142, 151, 154).

Phytochrome responses allow an operational distinction among differentlevels of sensitivity: Low fluence (LF) responses are saturated by pulses witha red fluence component of 1 to 1000µmol photons/m2. They are at least par-tially reversible by a subsequent far-red light pulse. The effectiveness of thefar-red pulse is a function of the intervening period of darkness. This functionis known as the escape kinetic, a powerful tool to probe the chain of down-stream signaling events. Very low fluence (VLF) responses (<1µmol/m2 red)


are inducible by pulses of far-red light alone. High-irradiance responses (HIR)(typically >1 µmol/m2/s) require continuous irradiation, which precludesanalysis of far-red reversibility.

Phytochrome apoproteins are encoded by a small gene family with fivemembers inArabidopsis(PHYA, PHYB, PHYC, PHYD,andPHYE) (34, 139).Typically, phytochrome A (phyA) holoprotein is abundant in etiolated tissueand is greatly reduced in green tissue because it is degraded with a half life ofapproximately 1 h when in the Pfr form (177). Expression of thePHYAgenein Arabidopsisand some other species is downregulated by light (38, 66, 149,159).PHYB, C, D,andE are moderately expressed in both etiolated and greentissues (34, 141, 158). Mutational analysis has revealed that phyA and phyBhave distinct, partially complementary and partially overlapping functions inArabidopsis(31, 71, 140, 142, 154, 155, 188). The absorption spectra of atleast phyA and phyB appear to be almost identical and can therefore not be re-sponsible for the different physiological functions (179, 180). In addition, thephytochromes that have been examined at the seedling stage seem to be ex-pressed ubiquitously, albeit at different levels, and may contribute only quan-titatively to the tissue specificity of many light responses (1, 34, 158).

Functionally distinct phytochromes have been similarly observed in manyother species (139, 188). Apart fromArabidopsis(Table 1) (86, 87), mutantsdeficient in specific phytochromes have been described in cucumber (lh) (2,102),Brassica(ein) (49), pea (lv) (186), tomato (85) (tri ) (172, 173), and sor-ghum (27).

RESPONSES

Seed GerminationSeminal experiments on the light control of seed germination and its actionspectrum revealed the photoreversibility of the phytochrome photoreceptor(13, 153). The recent availability of mutants affecting specific phytochromesin Arabidopsishas allowed a critical evaluation of the roles of individual phy-tochromes on seed germination (35, 142, 151). Rapid germination ofAra bi-dopsisseeds imbibed in darkness is controlled primarily by phyB, stored inthe Pfr form (PfrB) in the seed, whereas phyA contributes little to the decisionto germinate in darkness. The seed germination rate in darkness is particularlyhigh in seeds overexpressing phyB (108). Moreover, short pulses of red lightincrease the germination efficiency of the wild type further, which suggeststhat a significant level of phyB is also present in the Pr form in at least a frac-tion of seeds (151). A prominent role for a light-stable phytochrome such asphyB is consistent with the slow escape of the red response from reversibilityby a pulse of far-red light (14).



Table 1 Arabidopsismutants defective in aspects of photomorphogenesisa

Name Other names Genecloned

Phenotype References

Mutants in photoreceptor apoprotein genes

phyA hy8, fre1 Yes long hy in FR 41, 120, 133, 142, 189

phyB hy3 Yes long hy in R and W 87, 118, 142, 160

cry1 hy4 Yes long hy in B and W 3, 87, 91a,b, 98, 103a

Mutants in genes for pleiotropic regulators

Negative regulators cop1to fus 12in D:

cop1 fusl, embl68 Yes –short hy 46–48, 112, 116

cop8 fus8, embl34 No –open cotyledons 116, 185

cop9 fus7, embl43 Yes –green root 116, 183, 184

cop10 fus9, embl44 No –thylakoid membranes 116, 185

cop11 fus6, emb78 Yes –cell differentiation 24, 116, 185

detl fus2 Yes –derepression of light-inducible genes

30, 32, 33, 116, 135

fus4, -5,-11, -12

No 88a, 116

Positive regulators

fhy1, fhy3 No long hy in FR 189

hy5 No long hy under R and B 87

Mutants in genes regulating specific responses

Negative regulators

amp1 No hook open, derepressed geneexpression in D

25

cop2 No hook open 68

cop3 hls1 No hook open 51, 68

cop4 No de-etiolated, nuclear geneexpressionagravitropic

68

det2 No de-etiolated, nuclear geneexpression

29

det3 No short hy, open cotyledons 19a

doc1–doc3 No elevatedCABexpression in D

89

gun1–gun3

No nuclear gene expressionuncoupled from plastid

165

icx1 No CHSexpression sensitized tolight

68a

Positive regulators

cue1 No low CAB expression 89a

Other phytochromes, such as phyA, gradually accumulate in the imbibedseed, promoting germination particularly under continuous far-red light. Un-der far-red light,phyB mutant seeds germinate more efficiently than wildtype. Thus, the wild-typePHYBallele appears to negate the action of phyA,which provides an example for antagonistic control of the same response bythe two types of phytochrome (142, 151). Because the inhibitory effect ofPHYB is clearly retained in thephyAmutant (142), phyB probably does notact directly on phyA but rather on a downstream effector of phyA. The levelof PfrB is extremely low in far-red light and suggests that the negative effectof phyB on phyA-mediated seed germination may be conferred by its Pr form(142, 151).

Sketch of Seedling Photomorphogenesis

Seedling development in complete darkness differs markedly from that incontinuous white light or under a light-dark cycle. Under light conditions, theArabidopsisseedling emerges from the seed coat, consisting of a hypocotylwith an apical hook, two small folded cotyledons, and a short main root. Afteran initial increase in volume, which is attributable primarily to hydration, theapical hook starts to straighten, and, at the same time, the cotyledons open andexpand by cell division and cell expansion, accompanied by chlorophyll accu-mulation and greening. Meanwhile, the apical meristem gives rise to the firstpair of true leaves, which carry trichomes. The hypocotyl translates positivephototropic and negative gravitropic cues into growth by differential cellelongation, in order to position the cotyledons for optimal exposure to thelight source. In contrast, the root interprets the same signals in exactly the op-posite manner, showing positive gravitropism and negative phototropism.

In darkness, the embryonic organs develop according to a completely dif-ferent program. After an initial phase of moderate cell expansion due to hy-dration, the hypocotyl cells elongate rapidly while the apical hook persists for


Table 1 (continued)

Name Other names Genecloned

Phenotype References

Phototropism mutants

nph1 JK224 No nonphototropic 80, 81, 83, 92

nph2, nph4 No “-” 92

nph3 JK218 No “-” 80, 81, 92

rpt1–rpt3 No nonphototropicroot

129–131

Abbreviations: hy, hypocotyl; FR, far-red light; R, red light; B, blue light; W, white light; D, dark-ness; CAB, chlorophyll a/b–binding protein gene; CHS, chalcone synthase gene.

over a week and the cotyledons remain folded. The apical meristem remainsarrested in the dark. Only gravitropic cues position the hypocotyl upright inanticipation of a light source.

At the subcellular level, plastids undergo drastic changes in morphologyand protein composition in both darkness and light. In darkness, proplastids inthe cotyledons develop into etioplasts, characterized by a paracrystalline pro-lamellar body and a poorly developed endomembrane system. Upon exposureto light the prolamellar body quickly disappears and is replaced by an exten-sive network of unstacked and grana-stacked thylakoid membranes, similar tothose of the light-grown seedlings.

In contrast with the aerial portion of the seedling, roots develop in a similarpattern in both light and darkness. During the first week of seedling develop-ment, chloroplast development remains repressed under both light and darkconditions. However, if plants continue to expose their roots to light beyondthe seedling stage and into adulthood, chloroplast development can be ob-served in the older part of the root system.

Formation of New Cell Types

Under laboratory conditions, light-dependent decisions that affect cell shapeand differentiation duringArabidopsisseedling development only become ap-parent two days after germination and then lead quickly into diverging path-ways (185). The first two days in light or darkness are accompanied by overallcell enlargement in hypocotyl, root, and cotyledon, and root hairs develop.During the following day in darkness, hypocotyl cells elongate enormously,and the hypocotyl epidermis forms a smooth surface. In the light-grown sib-ling hypocotyl, cell enlongation is inhibited and cell-type differentiation pro-ceeds. The most obvious examples are the initiation and maturation of stomatain the epidermal layer of the hypocotyl, which are absent from the hypocotylin the dark (185). InArabidopsis,epidermal hairs are confined to true leaves,which are themselves dependent on light. The related cruciferSinapis alba(white mustard), however, shows that differentiation of epidermal hairs on thehypocotyl can be under direct light control (181).

The cotyledon development in darkness is essentially arrested after twodays, whereas in the light, cotyledon cells differentiate into distinct cell types,such as vascular, mesophyll, and epidermal cells. The most conspicuouschange in the expanding mesophyll cells is the differentiation of numerousproplastids into green chloroplasts, although little differentiation betweenpalisade and spongy mesophyll cells occurs (32, 46). Meanwhile, the epider-mal pavement cells expand into their characteristic lobed, jigsaw puzzleshape. A set of guard-cell initials is present in the embryonic cotyledons andwill differentiate into guard-cell precursors regardless of light conditions dur-ing the first two days (185). While development of guard-cell precursors then


arrests in darkness, it continues to completion under light conditions. In addi-tion, only in the light-grown cotyledons do new guard-cell initials form, fol-lowing polarized cell divisions of epidermal cells (185). Finally, the vascula-ture in dark-grown seedlings is rather undeveloped but is quite extensive inlight-grown seedlings. This has been clearly documented inZinnia seedlingsby using three early markers for developing xylem and phloem cells (44).

Cell Autonomy and Cell-Cell Interactions

What is the role of cell-cell communication and the extent of cell autonomyduring the light control of seedling development? After microinjection of phy-tochrome into tomato hypocotyl cells, it was shown that the anthocyanin accu-mulation and the phytochrome-mediated gene expression pathways are cellautonomous (123). Similar conclusions were reached for the anthocyanin ac-cumulation pathway by irradiating mustard cotyledons with a microbeam ofred or far-red light (124). Microirradiation at one site, specifically on a vascu-lar bundle or on a site in the lamina, could suppress anthocyanin accumulationat a site distant from the irradiated site, such as the leaf margin. This demon-strates that long-range inhibitory signals are transmitted through the leaf uponirradiation (124). Even under uniform irradiation, individual cells in the mus-tard cotyledons responded in an all-or-none fashion, which resulted in patchypatterns for both anthocyanin synthesis and for the mRNA of the key enzymechalcone synthase (CHS). However, only a subset of those cells that accumu-latedCHSmRNA accumulated a significant level of anthocyanin. This indi-cates that, in addition toCHSmRNA, additional rate-limiting factors must bedistributed unevenly over the leaf as well. If those factors are themselveslight-dependent, then the mustard seedling’s competence for the stochasticpatterning may be interpreted as a means to preserve responsiveness over awide range of fluence rates, which is typical for light responses in plants(124).

Unhooking and Separation of the CotyledonsThe separation of the cotyledons and the opening of the apical hook are stimu-lated by red light (23, 94); in some species, such asArabidopsis,hook openingis also promoted by far-red or blue light, which indicates that multiple photo-receptors mediate this response (94, 96). Cotyledons that are folded back onthe hypocotyl are formed initially during the late stage of embryogenesis, andthe apical hook is maintained at the top of the hypocotyl during etiolation. Adevelopmental problem is that the hypocotyl, but not the hook, responds to di-rectional light with differential cell elongation and phototropic curvature,while the hook manages to perform differential cell elongation in the com-plete absence of any directional light signal. Mutations in a number ofArabi-dopsis loci, such ashookless1(hls1)/constitutively photomorphogenic3


(cop3), amp1,andcop2(25, 51, 68), result in a loss of the apical hook in dark-ness. On the other hand, mutation to ethylene overproduction (eto) or to a con-stitutive ethylene response (ctr1), or external application of ethylene, all resultin an exaggerated hook. Therefore it is likely that ethylene, perhaps in con-junction with auxins, is required to maintain the apical hook (51). The effectof ethylene on hook formation may well be counterbalanced by cytokinins, assuggested by the hookless phenotype of the cytokinin overproducing mutantamp1(25), although external application of cytokinins can also facilitate hookformation via ethylene (21). Light, however, overrides the effect of the ethyl-ene signal (82).

In Arabidopsis,the response of the hook to both low fluence red and bluelight is phytochrome mediated and far-red reversible, whereas intense far-redand blue light act through high-irradiance responses, which lack fluence reci-procity and far-red reversibility (94, 96). The latter involve phyA and a bluelight–specific pathway that is also involved in hypocotyl elongation (97). Dur-ing the transition of dark-grown seedlings to light, unhooking and arrest of hy-pocotyl elongation follow similar fluence rate-response curves inArabidopsis(94). Both also require a functionalHY5gene (96) and may therefore dependon similar signal transduction pathways, but in other species the two processesare more easily separated (94).

Cotyledon Development and Expansion

The same light signals that inhibit cell elongation in the hypocotyl also pro-mote cell expansion in the cotyledons and the leaf. How these differential re-sponses to the same light environment are regulated remains poorly under-stood (39, 50, 174, 175). Blue and red light–mediated leaf expansion beginsafter distinct short and long lag times, respectively, in leaves ofPhaseolus,which is reminiscent of the short and long lag times that pass between blueand red irradiation, respectively, and the inhibition of hypocotyl cell elonga-tion in cucumber (10, 37). Perhaps promotion and inhibition of cell expansionare induced by similar pathways in the two organs. Under white light, phyto-chromes A and B appear almost dispensable individually for cotyledon expan-sion in Arabidopsis(142). Full cotyledon expansion in bright red and bluelight, however, depends on signals perceived by phytochrome B, as indicatedby reduced cotyledon expansion in thephyBmutant (142). This phytochrome-B-mediated cotyledon expansion is organ autonomous (122). Thecry1/hy4mutants show a decrease in cotyledon expansion, which confirms the involve-ment of a blue light receptor (11, 87, 93). Detaching the cotyledons from thehypocotyl rescues the cotyledon defect ofcry1/hy4in blue light, suggestingthat thecry1/hy4mutant hypocotyl may exert an inhibitory effect on cotyle-don expansion (11). The importance of light perception in the hypocotyl or thehook for events in the cotyledons (126), and vice versa (9), has long been


known. Overexpression of the photomorphogenic repressor COP1 leads to aninhibition of cotyledon cell expansion under blue light only, similar to the ef-fect in cry1/hy4(113). This result indicates that COP1 contributes to the inhi-bition of cotyledon cell expansion that is alleviated by CRY1/HY4 activity.

Inhibition of Hypocotyl Elongation

The inhibition of hypocotyl elongation in response to illumination is one ofthe most easily quantifiable developmental processes and has greatly facili-tated our understanding of the roles of regulatory components (16, 65, 85, 87,93, 113, 182). Inhibition of hypocotyl elongation shows a complex fluence de-pendence that combines inductive, i.e. phytochrome-photoreversible (50,127), and high-irradiance responses (HIR) (6, 89, 191). The considerablequantitative variation in the spectral sensitivity among different species is noteasily explained (104).

Multiple photoreceptors can control hypocotyl elongation, although withdistinct kinetics. In cucumber hypocotyls, for instance, cell wall extensibilityand subsequent cell elongation are inhibited extremely rapidly in response toblue light, starting after a lag of less than 30 s (37, 161, 162). Such a fast re-sponse is unlikely to require gene expression. Following a lag of over 10 min,the phytochrome-mediated response is considerably delayed (157).

In Arabidopsis,phytochromes A and B, the blue light receptorCRY1/HY4and a genetically separable UV-A receptor have been shown to contribute tothe inhibition of hypocotyl cell elongation (65, 87, 188, 191). Different from,for example,Sinapis alba,which is most sensitive to red and far-red light (6,67), Arabidopsishypocotyl elongation is most easily inhibited under bluelight, where phytochromes and blue light receptors appear to act additively,specializing in low and high fluence responses, respectively (97, 91a).Whether the species-specific differences in sensitivity reflect subtle differ-ences in the spectral properties or concentrations of the photoreceptors, thelight environment inside the plant tissue, the mutual coupling of different pho-totransduction chains, or merely differences in the experimental protocol re-mains to be addressed.

ArabidopsisphyB mutants show a moderately elongated hypocotyl underwhite light (87, 118, 144, 160), wherephyAmutants exhibit no such defect(41, 120, 133, 189). A drastic exaggeration of the long hypocotyl phenotype isseen inphyA/phyBdouble mutants (142). Therefore, under white light, inhibi-tion of hypocotyl elongation can be mediated not only by blue and UV-A lightbut also by both phyA and phyB in an arrangement suggesting multiple, butonly partially redundant, control (22, 140, 142).

Under continuous red light, phyB is the active phytochrome species inhib-iting hypocotyl elongation, whereas under continuous far-red light, phyA isprimarily responsible. However, supplementing a seedling growing in con-


stant red or white light with far-red light causes the hypocotyl to elongatemore rapidly than in constant red or white or in far-red light alone (110, 190).This effect is apparent in many species and is part of the “shade avoidance”response in adult plants, because a high ratio of far-red to red light is typicalfor the light environment under a plant canopy (154, 155).

One simple model attempts to explain the rate of hypocotyl elongationsolely on the basis of the distinct steady-state levels of PfrB and PfrA, as esti-mated from their differential stability and expression levels: As discussed inthe section on Complexity of Light Responses and Photoreceptors, phyB isrelatively stable as Pfr and is expressed continuously at a moderate level,fairly independent of light. In contrast, phyA expression is high in darknessand low in the light, and PfrA is rapidly degraded (160, 177). Continuous red-light irradiation will therefore rapidly deplete the plant of phyA but not ofphyB. Little phyA-mediated signaling is expected under these conditions, andcontinuous red light effects are attributed mainly to phyB. Continuous far-redlight, however, can lead to a relatively high steady-state level of PfrA andhence can cause a pronounced developmental effect, because the low ratio ofactive Pfr to inactive Pr may be compensated for by the high overall phyAlevel. The low level of phyB in combination with the low Pfr-to-Pr ratiomakes signaling through phyB negligible under the continuous far-red light.This model approximates the different roles of phyA and phyB on the basis oftheir expression levels and degradation rates alone and does not take into ac-count some possible differences in the coupling of phyA and phyB to regula-tors or downstream effectors.

Consistent with the overlapping roles of phyA and phyB as inferred frommutant analysis, overexpression of cereal phyA in tobacco (26, 72, 76, 77,107, 110, 111, 119), tomato (16), andArabidopsis(17) or of phyB inArabi-dopsis(108, 180) increases the seedlings’ sensitivity to light, as judged by anextremely short hypocotyl under white light. Overexpression of heterologousphyA increases the sensitivity to far-red, white, and red light, which suggeststhat the elevated level of phyA persists even under prolonged irradiation withred light, a condition that leads to rapid degradation of the endogenous phyA(16, 25, 110, 111, 119). On the other hand, is sensitivity to far-red light alsoincreased in seedlings overexpressing the photostable phyB? Such an increasewould be expected according to the model put forward, on the basis of the es-sentially identical absorption spectra of phyA and phyB. However, this doesnot seem to be the case. Overexpression of phyB does not sensitize hypocotylinhibition to far-red light (108, 109, 187). Therefore, phyA and phyB may in-teract with distinct sets of regulator or effector molecules. Similarly, phyBoverexpression does not disable the shade avoidance response in adult plants,in contrast with the effect of phyA (110).


Phototropism

Seedlings of higher plants orient their growth with regard to the direction oflight in an attempt to optimize exposure of the photosynthetic organs to light(55). The phototropic curvature of the shoot is achieved by differentialgrowth, with cells on the shaded side elongating more strongly than cells onthe surface exposed to light. Phototropism inArabidopsisis superimposedover the light inhibition of hypocotyl elongation and over the negative gravi-tropic regulation of cell elongation in the hypocotyl (19). Therefore, a singlecell elongation event may integrate signals from three different transductionchains simultaneously. The role of light on tropic responses is complicatedfurther by the interaction of a phytochrome-mediated pathway with the gravi-tropic pathway in both the hypocotyl (63) and the root (54, 95).

Typically, phototropism is mediated by blue and UV-A light, but greenlight is effective inArabidopsisas well (163). Red light absorbed by phyto-chrome stimulates phototropism directly in pea (132) and modulates the pho-totropic response to blue light inArabidopsis(69, 70). Transduction of photo-tropic stimuli involves an early phosphorylation of a 120-kDa membrane-associated protein (152). Mutational analysis has identified four complemen-tation groups of nonphototropic hypocotyl (nph) mutants (80, 92) and threecomplementation groups for root phototropism (rpt) mutants (129–131).

Mutants defective in blue light–mediated hypocotyl cell elongation (cry1/hy4) retain normal phototropic responses, and phototropic mutants (JK218/nph3 and nph1-1) respond normally to light by inhibition of hypocotyl cellelongation. Those results not only confirm that the two processes are geneti-cally separable but also suggest that they are almost certainly mediated by dis-tinct photoreceptors (92, 98), becauseCRY1/HY4encodes a blue light recep-tor (3) andnph1mutants are defective in an early signaling step of blue andgreen light–mediated phototropism, most likely light perception (92). A con-ceptual similarity among the distinct roles of individual phytochrome familymembers and the members of the family of blue light receptors becomes ap-parent.

Althoughnph1mutants are defective in both shoot and root phototropism,other phototropism mutants, such asrpt1 andrpt2, are specifically defectivein root—but not shoot—phototropism only (129, 130). This suggests thatnph1-mediated signals can be fed into at least two different pathways, depend-ing on cell type, and that the signaling mechanisms in shoot and root are dis-tinct. In support of this interpretation, shoot but not root phototropism is re-sponsive to green light inArabidopsis(131).

Plant hormones, especially auxins, have been implicated in differential cellelongation processes, such as during phototropism and gravitropism in hypo-cotyls, coleoptiles, and roots. Whether phototropism requires redistribution ofauxins or modulation of auxin sensitivity is not well established (55, 125,


130), but investigation of phototropism in auxin-deficient, resistant, or over-producing strains could differentiate between different models. In fact, be-cause the phototropic response is unaffected by the auxin resistance mutationaux1 (130), root phototropism may not necessarily be compromised by de-fects in auxin signaling.

Roots and hypocotyls ofArabidopsisalso exhibit differential cell elonga-tion responses after gravitropic stimulation (129). Phototropism mutants nowenable us to dissect the relationship between phototropism and gravitropismin Arabidopsisroots. Roots exhibit positive gravitropism and negative photot-ropism, and both responses rely on differential cell elongation. Three mutantshave been described that affect both photo- and gravitropism (80, 81), butmany mutations that affect one of the responses specifically are available.Both rpt1 and rpt2 have apparently normal shoot gravitropism, which alsosuggests that a specific signaling pathway for light exists in the root. How-ever, the agravitropic mutantsaux1andagr1 show normal root phototropism(130). In the shoot, photo- and gravitropism are clearly separable genetically,because four differentnph mutants, includingnph1,are gravitropically nor-mal (92).

Previous photophysiological analysis demonstrated separate photoreceptorsystems for blue/UV-A light (PI) and green light (PII) (75, 83, 84), but an alle-lic series ofnph1 mutants suggests a new interpretation. The weak allelenph1-2(JK224) is merely defective in first (low light) positive phototropismin blue light but is wild-type-like in green light, whereas more severe alleles,for examplenph1-1,are additionally defective in second positive curvature inboth blue light and green light. The allelic series ofNPH1 indicates that bothtypes of signals are processed by a single gene product for a photoreceptorapoprotein, possibly carrying two independently disruptable chromophores orone chromophore in alternative chemical states (92). In this respect it is inter-esting to note that the CRY1/HY4 gene product may also bind two distinctchromophores, namely a pterin and a flavin (3, 91b, 103a). A detailed com-parison of the relationship between the two photoreceptor systems awaits mo-lecular analysis of theNPH1gene.

Plastid Development

Chlorophyll accumulation and the concomitant transition of the proplastid oretioplast to the chloroplast are arguably the most striking responses to lightand certainly require the intricate cooperation between multiple biochemicalassembly and disassembly processes. In several species, pretreatment with redlight, perceived at least partially by phyA and phyB, potentiates the accumula-tion of chlorophyll (74, 91). A feedback mechanism that conditions nucleargene expression for a subset of plastid proteins operates via a biochemicallyundefined plastid signal, which is depleted by photooxidative damage to the


plastid (36, 166, 167). At least part of this regulatory circuit involves an in-hibitory element, because nuclear gene expression has escaped from the con-trol by the plastid in recessive mutant alleles of at least threeArabidopsiscomplementation groups (GUN1–GUN3) (165). These mutants have few mor-phological defects, but have the tendency to green inefficiently when they aretransferred from darkness to light in the etiolated state (165).

Mutant analysis has further demonstrated a panel of negative regulators,which keep chloroplast development suppressed in the cotyledons of dark-grown seedlings. Mutations at each of 10 loci known asConstitutively Photo-morphogenic(COP1, COP8–COP11), De-etiolated (DET1), and Fusca(FUS4, 5, 11,and12) result in the absence of etioplasts and in partial chloro-plast development in complete darkness, accompanied by cotyledon expan-sion, arrest of hypocotyl elongation, and light-specific cell type differentiation(24, 30, 32, 46, 48, 88a, 112, 116, 184, 185). The same loci also suppresschloroplast development in the roots of light-grown seedlings, because themutants’ roots develop chloroplasts and turn green.

Mutations at several other loci affect overall organ development and ex-pression of light-inducible genes during seedling morphogenesis without re-sulting in plastid differentiation. For examples,cop4anddet2,both of whichdisplay significant derepression of light-inducible genes in darkness, have noimpact on chloroplast development (29, 68). A group of mutants at three loci,known asDOC1, DOC2,andDOC3 (dark overexpressors of CAB) accumu-late mRNA from the chlorophyll a/b binding protein gene (CAB) promoter indarkness, without a conspicuous morphological phenotype (89). The comple-mentary mutant phenotype, namely opening of the cotyledons on a short hy-pocotyl accompanied by continued repression of light-inducible genes indarkness, has been described for thedet3mutant (19a). In this mutant chlor-plast, development remains tightly controlled by light.

The particular combinations of phenotypic defects in the various mutantsdescribed to date present a dilemma for the geneticist, because no simple lin-ear sequence of gene action is consistent with all the data. While it is temptingand straightforward to invoke feedback circuits in order to solve the problem,detailed evidence for them is scarce. Elucidating the logic of the light signaltransduction events may therefore require the mechanistic dissection of thefunction of the various gene products.

REGULATORS OF LIGHT RESPONSES IN SEEDLINGS

Positive RegulatorsIt is a recurring theme that predominantly negative regulators of photomor-phogenic seedling development are uncovered in various genetic screens,


whereas genetic identification of the positive regulators is sparse (see Figure1) (28, 45).

The prevalent coaction between pigment systems (52, 70, 117, 128, 171)and, in particular, the partial redundancy inherent in multiple photoreceptorsystems may be two reasons for the difficulty of establishing mutants in posi-tive regulators. Remarkable exceptions are the genesFHY1andFHY3,whichresult in phenotypes similar tophyAmutants. These gene products may actdownstream ofPHYAin transmitting a signal specific for phytochrome A (71,189). A fruitful approach to identifying specific regulators genetically may in-clude screening for modifiers, suppressors or enhancers, of established photo-morphogenic mutations. As an example, a suppressor of theArabidopsisphytochrome-deficienthy2 mutation (shy1) with some specificity for sup-pressing the phenotype under red rather than far-red light has been uncovered(BC Kim, MS Soh, BJ Kang, M Furuya & HG Nam, personal communica-tion).

A second promising line of research is to screen for mutants defective inthe light-dependent expression of specific genes. Following this rationale,the CUE1gene has been identified as a positive regulator of light-dependentnuclear and plastid gene expression (89a). Similarly, expression of the genefor chalcone synthase (CHS) and genes for related enzymes in the antho-cyaninsynthesis pathway is sensitized to light in theArabidopsismutanticx1(68a).

The HY5 gene product integrates signals from multiple photoreceptors tomediate inhibition of hypocotyl cell elongation in response to blue, red, andfar-red light, but not UV-B light (4, 28, 87). These light conditions have alsobeen shown to cooperate in abolishing the activity of COP1, a negative regu-lator of light responses (113). Mutations ofCOP1and the positive light regu-latory componentHY5exhibit an allele-specific interaction. Although a strongallele ofcop1 is epistatic over a mutanthy5allele,hy5can suppress the phe-notype of the weak allelecop1-6.The suppression of thecop1-6phenotype byhy5could be attributed to compensating alterations in the surfaces of two in-


Figure 1 Scheme change of the sequence of events leading from light perception to developmentalresponse. Examples for relevant gene products that have been identified by mutation are indicated.Please note that developmental and hormonal signals can modulate the light response by affectingany step of the sequence.

teracting proteins (4). Molecular cloning of theHY5 gene should allow a di-rect test of this hypothesis.

Possible Roles of Plant Hormones

Many of the light-regulated seedling developmental responses, such as the in-hibition of hypocotyl cell elongation (21, 101, 150), stem elongation (8), thecell division in the shoot apex (33), opening of the apical hook (51), and theinduction or repression of nuclear gene expression, also respond to treatmentwith one or more of a variety of plant hormones (38, 42, 56). We have brieflyalluded to possible contributions of ethylene and auxins to the control oftropic responses (51, 55, 125, 130). The question arises how hormonal andlight effects are integrated with each other: Are hormones second messengersin light responses? Or do they transmit another signal that shares a commontarget with light? Or do they serve as integrators of distinct signaling path-ways by “cross talk?”

CYTOKININS The relationship between light on the one hand and cytokininsand giberellins on the other has received the most thorough attention. For exam-ple, control of a wheat kinase gene homolog (WPK4) by light may require thepresence of cytokinin, because a putative cytokinin antagonist (2-chloro-4-cyclobutylamino-6-ethylamino-s-triazine) specifically prevented the inductionof WPK4mRNA (148). Even more intriguing is that de-etiolation of dark-grownArabidopsisseedlings can be mimicked partially by supplementing seedlingswith cytokinins under defined laboratory conditions (33). Moreover, the typi-cally light-inducible genes for a chlorophyll a/b binding protein (CAB) (64, 73)and for chalcone synthase (CHS) (53, 88) were moderately activated by cytoki-nin treatment, although the effective levels of applied cytokinins were about ten-fold higher than the endogenous level in these experiments. Tentative linksbetween a high cytokinin level and a suppressed etiolation response are sug-gested because of the correlation of a hook opening phenotype with a signifi-cantly elevated cytokinin level in theamp1mutant, epistasis ofamp1overhy2(25), and the aberrant response ofdet1anddet2to cytokinin (33). However, en-dogenous cytokinin levels in dark- and light-grown seedlings and indet1anddet2mutants were not consistent with the notion that light signals are transmit-ted simply by a change in cytokinin concentration (33). Furthermore, an addi-tive and probably independent co-action of cytokinin and light has beendemonstrated for the control of hypocotyl elongation (163a).

Cytokinin may act posttranscriptionally onCAB mRNA levels inLemnagibba, while light clearly has a transcriptional component, indicating inde-pendent and probably additive action of cytokinin and light (56, 57). Stimula-tory effects by moderate concentrations of applied cytokinins on the expres-


sion of light-inducible, circadian clock–regulated genes have also been ob-served under light conditions, which again suggests additive effects (42, 43).

In conclusion, although light effects may not be mediated primarily by cy-tokinin levels, any drastic alteration of the cellular cytokinin level by anystimulus other than light would be expected to modulate the seedling’s re-sponsiveness to light.

GIBERELLINS Although both light and giberellins control hypocotyl elonga-tion, e.g. in cucumber (101), and mesocotyl elongation, for example, in rice(170), few genetic studies support the simple hypothesis that light acts throughaltering the levels of active giberellins (145–147). However, alterations in phy-tochrome levels have been shown to affect giberellin levels in tobacco (72),Sor-ghum(58, 59), andBrassica(49). One phenotype of the long hypocotyl mutantlh of cucumber, which has a deficiency in a B-type phytochrome and a constitu-tive shade avoidance response (100–102, 156), is an increase in the responsive-ness to giberellin. Conversely, in the wild type, depletion of Pfr increases theresponsiveness to giberellin (101). Phytochrome may similarly inhibit the sensi-tivity of the rice mesocotyl to giberellin (170).

The careful dissection of the signaling chains for light on the one hand andhormones on the other by use of defined mutations and by molecular andphysiological analysis will allow researchers to pry apart the intertwined path-ways and will finally reveal the role of cytokinin, giberellins, and other hor-mones in the light control of seedling development.

Repressors of Light-Mediated Development

PLEIOTROPIC COP, DET, AND FUS GENES Combined efforts in photomorpho-genic mutant screens (cop or detmutants) and purple seed color screens (fuscamutants) have yielded a set of at least ten loci that are required for the full estab-lishment of the dark developmental pathway and suppression of photomorpho-genic development in darkness. The ten loci have been designated asCOP1/FUS1, DET1/FUS2, COP8/FUS8, COP9/FUS7, COP10/FUS9,COP11/FUS6, FUS4, FUS5, FUS11, and FUS12,and mutations in each resultin dark-grown seedlings with a pleiotropic de-etiolated or constitutively photo-morphogenic phenotype (24, 32, 46, 88a, 116, 184, 185). The mutants displaychloroplast-like plastids containing thylakoid membrane systems and lacking aprolamellar body in the dark-grown cotyledons and show a pattern of light-regulated gene expression in the dark resembling their light-grown siblings. Thewild-typeCOP/DET/FUSgenes also contribute to the repression of photomor-phogenic responses in seedling roots under light conditions, because greeningand chloroplast development have been consistently observed in the light-grown mutants. The elevated expression of nuclear- and plastid-encoded light-inducible genes in the dark-grown mutants is a direct or indirect loss in the abil-


ity to repress nuclear gene promoter activity as indicated by analysis of trans-genic promoter-reporter gene fusions in the mutant backgrounds (29, 46, 184,185). Consistent with a widespread evolution of COP/DET/FUS-like functions,a pea mutant with light-independent photomorphogenesis (lip) has been de-scribed (60). On the basis of the recessive nature of those mutations and theirpleiotropic phenotype, it has been proposed that the photomorphogenic path-way constitutes the default route of development, whereas the etiolation path-way is an evolutionarily recent adaptation pioneered by the angiosperms (185).

It is important to point out that for certain light-regulated processes, thepleiotropicCOP/DET/FUS loci are clearly not required. For instance, severeloss-of-function alleles of all ten loci seem to retain normal phytochrome con-trol of seed germination (46, 88a, 185).

The immediate downstream target of any of the COP, DET, and FUS re-pressor molecules remains unknown. It is possible that they directly inhibitthe transcription of photosynthetic genes or that they modulate expression ofan intermediate set of regulatory genes, which in turn regulate the final targetgenes. Some indirect evidence is consistent with the latter possibility. For ex-ample, COP1 is a regulator of thePHYAgene itself (46). Further, it was re-cently reported that the normally light-inducible homeobox geneATH1 wasderepressed in dark-growncop1anddet1mutants (137). Together,ATH1andtwo other homeobox genes,ATHB-2and -4, exhibit light-regulated expressionpatterns (20, 137) and may act as downstream effectors of the COP/DET/FUSproteins. In addition, the DNA binding factor CA-1, which binds to a regionof the CAB promoter important for light regulation, was absent in thedet1-1mutant allele, consistent with its function as a downstream target of inactiva-tion by DET1 (79, 164).

OVEREXPRESSION STUDIES The molecular cloning of four pleiotropicCOP/DET/FUSloci (24, 47, 135, 183) permitted a direct test using overexpres-sion studies of the genetic model that their gene products act as repressors of thephotomorphogenic pathway. To date, overexpression of COP1 has producedthe clearest evidence for a photomorphogenic suppressor (113). Moderate two-to fourfold overexpression resulted in two responses typical for the etiolationpathway, namely, an elongation of the hypocotyl under blue and far-red lightand under a dark/light cycle and a reduction in cotyledon expansion under bluelight. These effects of COP1 overexpression under far-red or blue light resemblethose of thephyAorcry1/hy4mutants, which supports the notion that COP1 actsdownstream of multiple photoreceptors (11, 113). Overexpression of COP9 re-sulted in a similar but less dramatic elongation of the hypocotyl, again most pro-nounced under blue and far-red light, although no inhibitory effect on cotyledoncell expansion could be discerned (N Wei & X-W Deng, unpublished data).Therefore, the overexpression results in general confirm the conclusion that the


pleiotropic COP/DET/FUS gene products are repressors of photomorphogenicdevelopment.

REGULATION OF COP/DET/FUS ACTIVITY BY LIGHT Limited sequence identityof COP9, COP11/FUS6, and DET1 to other eukaryotic protein sequences sub-mitted in databases suggests that they participate in a highly conserved, but asyet undefined, cellular process (24a). For COP1, sequence similarity to theRing-finger class of zinc binding proteins and theβ-subunit of trimeric G pro-teins is consistent with a role as a nuclear regulator of gene expression (47). Thisalone, however, does not clarify the mechanism of light regulation. COP1 andCOP9 protein are detected in dark-grown seedlings, when the proteins are ac-tive, and also in the light-grown seedlings, when they are photomorphogenicallyinactive (112, 183). Similarly,DET1 mRNA is expressed in both dark- andlight-grown seedlings (135). Therefore, the light inactivation of DET1, COP1,and COP9 is probably not mediated by the expression level but by some othermeans of posttranslational regulation. Recent studies with COP1 and COP9point out some interesting insights. Our laboratory has shown that COP9 is asubunit of a large nuclear-localized protein complex whose apparent molecularweight can be shifted upon exposure of dark-grown seedlings to light (183).This may reflect light regulation of COP9 activity through modulation ofprotein-protein interactions in the COP9 complex. While DET1 (135) and theCOP9 complex (N Wei & X-W Deng, unpublished data) appear to have the po-tential for nuclear localization, examination of the subcellular localization of fu-sion proteins between COP1 andβ-glucuronidase (GUS) reporter enzymesuggested that the nucleocytoplasmic partitioning of COP1 is regulated by lightin a cell type–dependent manner (178). In root cells, where COP1 is constitu-tively active and helps to repress chloroplast development (48), GUS-COP1 isfound in the nucleus under all light conditions. In hypocotyl cells, however,GUS-COP1 is nuclear in darkness but excluded from the nucleus under constantwhite light. Upon a switch in illumination conditions from darkness to light, theprotein slowly repartitions in the hypocotyl from a nuclear to a cytoplasmic lo-cation, and vice versa (178). Complementation of thecop1-mutant phenotypeby theGUS-COP1transgene suggests that it is a functional substitute ofCOP1(our unpublished data). GUS-COP1 nucleocytoplasmic repartitioning coin-cides with light-regulated developmental redifferentiation processes, but theirinitiation clearly precedes any noticeable shift of GUS-COP1 (178). Further, thekinetics of repartitioning seem independent of the presence or absence of wild-type COP1 in the genetic background (our unpublished data). It is thereforelikely that COP1 relocalization serves to maintain a developmental commit-ment that has previously been communicated to the cell by means other thanCOP1 partitioning.


Evidence for a role of the cytoskeleton in modulating COP1 partitioninghas been obtained following the isolation of a COP1-interacting protein, CIP1(105). The subcellular localization of CIP1 is cell type–dependent. WhileCIP1 shows a fibrous, cytoskeleton-like distribution in protoplasts derivedfrom hypocotyl and cotyledons, it is localized to discrete foci in protoplastsderived from roots. The cell type–dependent localization pattern of CIP1 mayprovide a mechanism to regulate access of COP1 to the nucleus by specificprotein-protein interactions with a cytoplasmic anchor protein (105).

CONCLUSION

In the past few years a combination of molecular genetic, biochemical, andcell biological studies has brought us remarkable progress in defining thecritical players and their specific roles in mediating the light control of seed-ling development. The basic network of signaling events seems remarkablyconserved throughout the angiosperm species examined. Therefore the focuson a model organism will prove to be continuously fruitful.

How light signals perceived by distinct photoreceptors are integrated tocontrol cellular development and differentiation decisions may become a ma-jor focus in the coming years. A comprehensive understanding will not onlyreveal the players involved but also how those players interact with otherstimuli, such as hormones, to reach a precise response according to the exactlight environmental cues. In particular, many decisions in the natural environ-ment are not simply all-or-none but quantitative. Therefore, physiologicalstudies will probably play increasingly greater roles in the future work.Moreover, individual light responses vary significantly among different spe-cies. Explaining the evolutionary flexibility on the basis of conserved modulesof protein function will be a major challenge in the future. In addition, most ofthe key players identified to date seem to be present in most if not all celltypes, though each cell type produces a distinct response to a particular lightstimulus. Answers to the questions presented here will bring further insightsinto the light control of seedling development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Jeffrey Staub for a critical review of the manuscript and Peter Quail,Ning Wei, Steve Kay, and Hong Gil Nam for communicating unpublished re-sults. Research in this laboratory was supported by grants from the NationalScience Foundation and by the National Institutes of Health.

Any Annual Reviewchapter, as well as any article cited in anAnnual Reviewchapter,may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.

1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: [email protected]



1. Adam E, Szell M, Szekeres M, Schäfer E,Nagy F. 1994. The developmental andtissue-specific expression of tobacco phy-tochrome A genes.Plant J.6:283–93

2. Adamse P, Jaspers PAPM, Kendrick RE,Koorneef M. 1987. Photomorphogenic re-sponses of a long hypocotyl mutant ofCu-cumis sativus. J. Plant Physiol.127:481–91

3. Ahmad M, Cashmore AR. 1993. TheHY4gene ofArabidopsis thalianaencodes aprotein with characteristics of a blue lightphotoreceptor.Nature366:162–66

3a. Anderson SL, Kay SA. 1995. Phototrans-duction and circadian clock pathwaysregulating gene transcription in higherplants.Adv. Genet.In press

4. Ang L-H, Deng X-W. 1994. Regulatory hi-erarchy of photomorphogenic loci: allele-specific and light-dependent interactionbetweenHY5 and COP1 loci. Plant Cell6:613–28

5. Batschauer A, Gilmartin PM, Nagy F,Schäfer E. 1994. The molecular biology ofphotoregulated genes. See Ref. 78a, pp.559–600

6. Beggs CJ, Holmes MG, Jabben M, SchäferE. 1980. Action spectra for the inhibition ofhypocotyl growth by continuous irradia-tion in light and dark-grownSinapis albaL. seedlings.Plant Physiol.66:615–18

7. Beggs CJ, Wellmann E. 1994. Photocon-trol of flavonoid biosynthesis. See Ref.78a, pp. 733–52

8. Behringer FJ, Davies PJ, Reid JB. 1992.Phytochrome regulation of stem growthand indole-3-acetic acid levels in thelv andLv genotypes of Pisum.Photochem. Pho-tobiol. 56:677–84

9. Black M, Shuttleworth JE. 1974. The roleof the cotyledons in the photocontrol of hy-pocotyl extension inCucumis sativusL.Planta117:57–66

10. Blum DE, Elzenga JTM, Linnemeyer PA,van Volkenburgh E. 1992. Stimulation ofgrowth and ion uptake in bean leaves byred and blue light. Plant Physiol.100:1968–75

11. Blum DE, Neff MM, van Volkenburgh E.1994. Light-stimulated cotyledon expan-sion in theblu3andhy4mutants ofArabi-dopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol.105:1433–36

12. Boldt R, Scandalios JG. 1995. Circadianregulation of theCat3 catalase gene inmaize (Zea maysL. ): entrainment of thecircadian rhythm ofCat3by different lighttreatments.Plant J.7:989–99

13. Borthwick HA, Hendricks SB, ParkerMW, Toole EH, Toole VK. 1952. A re-versible photoreaction controlling seed

germination.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA38:662–66

14. Borthwick HA, Hendricks SB, Toole EH,Toole VK. 1954. Action of light on lettuceseed germination.Bot. Gaz.115:205–25

15. Bowler C, Chua N. 1994. Emergingthemes of plant signal transduction.PlantCell 6: 1529–41

16. Boylan MT, Quail PH. 1989. Oat phyto-chrome is biologically active in transgenictomatoes.Plant Cell1:765–73

17. Boylan MT, Quail PH. 1991. PhytochromeA overexpression inhibits hypocotyl elon-gation in transgenicArabidopsis. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA88:10806–10

18. Brusslan JA, Tobin EM. 1992. Light-independent developmental regulation ofgene expression inArabidopsis thalianaseedlings.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA89:7791–95

19. Bullen BL, Best TR, Gregg MM, BarselSE, Poff KL. 1990. A direct screening pro-cedure for gravitropism mutants inArabi-dopsis thaliana(L. ) Heynh.Plant Physiol.93:525–31

19a. Cabrera y Poch HL, Peto CA, Chory J.1993. A mutation in theArabidopsisDET3gene uncouples photoregulated leaf devel-opment from gene expression and chloro-plasts biogenesis.Plant J.4:671–82

20. Carabelli M, Sessa G, Baima S, Morelli G,Ruberti I. 1993. TheArabidopsis Athb-2and-4 genes are strongly induced by far-red-rich light.Plant J.4:469–79

21. Cary AJ, Liu W, Howell SH. 1995. Cytoki-nin action is coupled to ethylene in its ef-fects on the inhibition of root and hypo-cotyl elongation inArabidopsis thalianaseedlings.Plant Physiol.107:1075–82

22. Casal JJ. 1995. Coupling of phytochromeB to the control of hypocotyl growth inArabidopsis. Planta196:23–29

23. Casal JJ, Sanchez RA, Vierstra RD. 1994.Avenaphytochrome A overexpressed intransgenic tobacco seedlings differentiallyaffects red/far-red reversible and very-low-fluence responses (cotyledon unfold-ing) during de-etiolation. Planta192:306–9

24. Castle L, Meinke D. 1994. AFUSCAgeneof Arabidopsisencodes a novel protein es-sential for plant development.Plant Cell6:25–41

24a. Chamovitz D, Deng X-W. 1995. Thenovel components of the Arabidopsis lightsignaling pathway may define a group ofgeneral developmental regulators sharedby both animal and plant kingdoms.Cell82: 353–54

25. Chaudhury AM, Letham S, Craig S, Den-nis ES. 1993.amp1,a mutant with high cy-

Literature Cited


tokinin levels and altered embryonic pat-tern, faster vegetative growth, constitutivephotomorphogenesis, and precociousflowering.Plant J.4:907–16

26. Cherry JR, Hershey HP, Vierstra RD.1991. Characterization of tobacco express-ing functional oat phytochrome.PlantPhysiol.96:775–85

27. Childs KL, Cordonnier-Pratt MM, PrattLH, Morgan PW. 1992. Genetic regulationof development inSorghum bicolor.VII.Thema3Rmutant lacks a phytochrome thatpredominates in green tissue.PlantPhysiol.99:765–70

28. Chory J. 1993. Out of darkness: mutants re-veal pathways controlling light-regulateddevelopment in plants.Trends Genet.9:167–72

29. Chory J, Nagpal P, Peto CA. 1991. Pheno-typic and genetic analysis ofdet2,a newmutant that affects light-regulated seedlingdevelopment inArabidopsis. Plant Cell3:445–59

30. Chory J, Peto CA. 1990. Mutations in theDET1 gene affect cell-type-specific ex-pression of light-regulated genes and chlo-roplast development inArabidopsis. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA87:8776–80

31. Chory J, Peto C, Ashbaugh M, Saganich R,Pratt LH, Ausubel F. 1989a. Different rolesfor phytochrome in etiolated and greenplants deduced from characterization ofArabidopsis thalianamutants.Plant Cell1:867–80

32. Chory J, Peto C, Feinbaum R, Pratt L, Au-subel F. 1989.Arabidopsis thalianamu-tant that develops as a light grown plant inthe absence of light.Cell 58:991–99

33. Chory J, Reinecke D, Sim S, Washburn T,Brenner M. 1994. A role for cytokinins inde-etiolation inArabidopsis: detmutantshave an altered response to cytokinins.Plant Physiol.104:339–47

34. Clack T, Mathews S, Sharrock RA. 1994.The phytochrome apoprotein family inArabidopsisis encoded by five genes: thesequences and expression ofPHYD andPHYE. Plant Mol. Biol.25:413–27

35. Cone JW, Kendrick RE. 1985. Fluence-response curves and action spectra for pro-motion and inhibition of seed germinationin wild type and long-hypocotyl mutants ofArabidopsis thalianaL. Planta163:45–54

36. Conley TR, Shih M-C. 1995. Effects oflight and chloroplast functional state on ex-pression of nuclear genes encoding chloro-plast glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehy-drogenase in long hypocotyl (hy) mutantsand wild typeArabidopsis thaliana. PlantPhysiol.108:1013–22

37. Cosgrove D. 1994. Photomodulation ofgrowth. See Ref. 78a, pp. 631–58

38. Cotton J, Ross C, Byrne D, Colbert J. 1990.Down-regulation of phytochrome mRNA

abundance by red light and benzyladeninein etiolated cucumber cotyledons.PlantMol. Biol. 14:707–14

39. Dale JE. 1988. The control of leaf expan-sion.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol.Biol. 39:267–95

40. Demmig-Adams B, Adams WW. 1992.Photoprotection and other responses ofplants to high light stress.Annu. Rev. PlantPhysiol. Plant Mol. Biol.43:599–26

41. Dehesh K, Franci C, Parks BM, SeeleyKA, Short TW, et al. 1993.ArabidopsisHY8 locus encodes phytochrome A.PlantCell 5:1081–88

42. Deikman J, Hammer PE. 1995. Inductionof anthocyanin accumulation by cytoki-nins in Arabidopsis thaliana. PlantPhysiol.108:47–57

43. Deikman J, Ulrich M. 1995. A novel cyto-kinin resistant mutant ofArabidopsiswithabbreviated shoot development.Planta195:440–49

44. Demura T, Fukuda H. 1994. Novel vascu-lar cell-specific genes whose expression isregulated temporally and spatially duringvascular system development.Plant Cell6:967–81

45. Deng X-W. 1994. Fresh view of light sig-nal transduction in plants.Cell 76:423–26

46. Deng X-W, Caspar T, Quail PH. 1991.cop1:a regulatory locus involved in light-controlled development and gene ex-pression inArabidopsis. Genes Dev.5:1172–82

47. Deng X-W, Matsui M, Wei N, Wagner D,Chu AM, et al. 1992.COP1,anArabidop-sis regulatory gene, encodes a novel pro-tein with both a Zn-binding motif and a Gβhomologous domain.Cell 71:791–801

48. Deng X-W, Quail PH. 1992. Genetic andphenotypic characterization ofcop1 mu-tants ofArabidopsis thaliana. Plant J.2:83–95

49. Devlin DF, Rood SB, Somers DE, QuailPH, Whitelam GC. 1992. Photophysiologyof the elongated internode (ein) mutant ofBrassica rapa:theein-mutant lacks a de-tectable phytochrome B-like protein.PlantPhysiol.100:1442–47

50. Downs RJ. 1955. Photoreversibility of leafand hypocotyl elongation of dark grownred kidney bean seedlings.Plant Physiol.30:468–73

51. Ecker JR. 1995. The ethylene signal trans-duction pathway in plants.Science268:667–75

52. Elmlinger MW, Bolle C, Batschauer A,Oelmüller R, Mohr H. 1994. Coaction ofblue light and light absorbed by phyto-chrome in control of glutamine synthetasegene expression in Scots pine (Pinussylvestris L. ) seedlings. Planta 192:189–94

53. Feinbaum RL, Storz G, Ausubel F. 1991.


High intensity, blue light regulated expres-sion of chimeric chalcone synthase genesin transgenicArabidopsis thalianaplants.Mol. Gen. Genet.226:449–56

54. Feldman LJ, Briggs WR. 1987. Light-regulated geotropism in seedling roots ofmaize.Plant Physiol.83:241–43

55. Firn RD. 1994. Phototropism. See Ref.78a, pp. 659–81

56. Flores S, Tobin E. 1986. Benzyladeninemodulation of the expression of two genesfor nuclear-encoded chloroplasts proteinsin Lemna gibba: apparent post-transcriptional regulation. Planta168:340–49

57. Flores S, Tobin E. 1988. Cytokinin modu-lation of LHCP mRNA levels: the involve-ment of post-transcriptional regulation.Plant Mol. Biol.11:409–15

58. Foster KR, Miller FR, Childs KL, MorganPW. 1994. Genetic regulation of develop-ment in Sorghum bicolor.VIII. Shootgrowth, tillering, flowering, giberellin bio-synthesis, and phytochrome levels are dif-ferentially affected by dosage of the ma3

R

allele.Plant Physiol.105:941–4859. Foster KR, Morgan PW. 1995. Genetic

regulation of development inSorghum bi-color. IX. The ma3

R allele disrupts diurnalcontrol of giberellin biosynthesis.PlantPhysiol.108:337–43

60. Frances S, White MJ, Edgerton MD, JonesAM, Elliott RC, Thompson WF. 1992. Ini-tial characterization of a pea mutant withlight-independent photomorphogenesis.Plant Cell4:1519–30

61. Frohnmeyer H, Ehmann B, Kretsch T, Ro-choll M, Harter K, et al. 1992. Differentialusage of photoreceptors for chalcone syn-thase gene expression during plant devel-opment.Plant J.2:899–906

62. Furuya M. 1993. Phytochromes: their mo-lecular species, gene families, and func-tions.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol.Biol. 44:617–46

63. Gaiser JC, Lomax TL. 1993. The alteredgravitropic response of thelazy-2mutantof tomato is phytochrome regulated.PlantPhysiol.102:339–44

64. Gao J, Kaufman LS. 1994. Blue-light regu-lation of the Arabidopsis thaliana Cab1gene.Plant Physiol.104:1251–57

65. Goto N, Yamamoto KT, Watanabe M.1993. Action spectra for inhibition of hy-pocotyl growth of wild-type plants and ofthe hy2 long-hypocotyl mutant ofArabi-dopsis thalianaL. Photochem. Photobiol.57: 867–71

66. Higgs DC, Colbert JT. 1994. Oat phyto-chrome A mRNA degradation appears tooccur via two distinct pathways.Plant Cell6:1007–19

67. Holmes MG, Schäfer E. 1981. Actionspectra for changes in the ‘high irradiance

reaction’ in hypocotyls ofSinapis albaL.Planta153:267–72

68. Hou Y, von Arnim AG, Deng X-W. 1993.A new class ofArabidopsisconstitutivephotomorphogenic genes involved in regu-lating cotyledon development.Plant Cell5: 329–39

68a. Jackson JA, Fuglevand G, Brown BA,Shaw MJ, Jenkins GI. 1995. Isolation ofArabidopsismutants altered in the light-regulation of chalcone synthase gene ex-pression using a transgenic screening ap-proach.Plant J.8:369–80

69. Janoudi AK, Poff KL. 1991. Characteriza-tion of adaptation in phototropism ofArabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol.95:517–22

70. Janoudi AK, Poff KL. 1992. Action spec-trum for enhancement of phototropism byArabidopsis thalianaseedlings.Photo-chem. Photobiol.56:655–59

71. Johnson E, Bradley M, Harberd NP,Whitelam GC. 1994. Photoresponses oflight-grown phyA mutants ofArabidopsis:phytochrome A is required for the percep-tion of daylength extensions.PlantPhysiol.105:141–49

72. Jordan ET, Hatfield PM, Hondred D, TalonM, Zeevaart JAD, Vierstra RD. 1995. Phy-tochrome A overexpression in transgenictobacco: correlation of dwarf phenotypewith high concentrations of phytochromein vascular tissue and attenuated giberellinlevels.Plant Physiol.107:797–805

73. Karlin-Neumann GA, Sun L, Tobin E.1988. Expression of light harvesting chlo-rophyll a/b binding protein genes isphytochrome-regulated in etiolatedArabi-dopsis thalianaseedlings.Plant Physiol.88: 1323–31

74. Kasemir H, Oberdorfer U, Mohr H. 1973.A two-fold action of phytochrome in con-trolling chlorophyll a accumulation.Pho-tochem. Photobiol.18:481–86

75. Kaufman LS. 1993. Transduction of blue-light signals.Plant Physiol.102:333–37

76. Kay SA, Nagatani A, Keith B, Deak M, Fu-ruya M, Chua N-H. 1989. Rice phyto-chrome is biologically active in transgenictobacco.Plant Cell1:775–82

77. Keller JM, Shanklin J, Vierstra RD, Her-shey HP. 1989. Expression of a functionalmonocotyledonous phytochrome in to-bacco.EMBO J.8:1005–12

78. Kendrick RE, Kerkhoffs LHJ, PundsnesAS, van Tuinen A, Koorneef M, et al. 1994.Photomorphogenic mutants of tomato.Euphytica79:227–34

78a. Kendrick RE, Kronenberg GHM, eds.1994.Photomorphogenesis in Plants.Dor-drecht: Kluwer

79. Kenigsbuch D, Tobin EM. 1995. A regionof theArabidopsisLhcb1*3 promoter thatbinds to CA-1 activity is essential for high


expression and phytochrome regulation.Plant Physiol.108:1023–27

80. Khurana JP, Poff KL. 1989. Mutants ofArabidopsis thalianawith altered photot-ropism.Planta178:400–506

81. Khurana JP, Ren Z, Steinitz B, Parks B,Best TR, Poff KL. 1989. Mutants ofArabi-dopsis thalianawith decreased amplitudein their phototropic response.PlantPhysiol.91:685–89

82. Kieber JJ, Rothenberg M, Roman G, Feld-man KA, Ecker JR. 1993. CTR1, a nega-tive regulator of the ethylene responsepathway inArabidopsis,encodes a mem-ber of the Raf family of protein kinases.Cell 72: 427–41

83. Konjevic R, Khurana JP, Poff KL. 1992.Analysis of multiple photoreceptor pig-ments for phototropism in a mutant ofArabidopsis thaliana. Photchem. Photo-biol. 55:789–92

84. Konjevic R, Steinitz B, Poff KL. 1989. De-pendence of the phototropic response ofArabidopsis thalianaon fluence rate andwavelength.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA86:9876–80

85. Koornneef M, Cone JW, Dekens RG,O’Herne-Robers EG, Spruit CJP, Ken-drick RE. 1985. Photomorphogenic re-sponses of long hypocotyl mutants of to-mato.J. Plant Physiol.120:153–65

86. Koornneef M, Kendrick RE. 1994. Photo-morphogenic mutants of higher plants. SeeRef. 78a, pp. 601–28

87. Koornneef M, Rolff E, Spruit CJP. 1980.Genetic control of light inhibited hypo-cotyl elongation inArabidopsis thaliana(L.) Heynh. Z. Pflanzenphysiol.100:147–60

88. Kubasek WL, Shirley BW, McKillop A,Goodman HM, Briggs W, Ausubel FM.1992. Regulation of flavonoid biosyntheticgenes in germinatingArabidopsisseed-lings.Plant Cell4:1229–36

88a. Kwok SF, Piekos B, Misera M, Deng X-W. 1996. A complement of ten essentialand pleiotropic Arabidopsis COP/DET/FUS genes are necessary for repression ofphotomorphogenesis in darkness.PlantPhysiol.In press

89. Li H, Altschmied L, Chory J. 1994.Arabi-dopsis mutants define downstreambranches in the phototransduction path-way.Genes Dev.8:339–49

89a. Li H, Culligan K, Dixon RA, Chory J.1995. CUE1: a mesophyll cell–specificregulator of light-controlled gene ex-pression inArabidopsis. Plant Cell7:1599–620

90. Li H, Washburn T, Chory J. 1993. Regula-tion of gene expression by light.Opin.Cell. Biol.5:455–60

91. Lifschitz S, Gepstein S, Horwitz BA. 1990.Photoregulation of greening in wild type

and long hypocotyl mutants ofArabidopsisthaliana. Planta181:234–38

91a. Lin C, Ahmad M, Gordon D, Cashmore A.1995. Expression of anArabidopsiscryp-tochrome gene in transgenic tobacco re-sults in hypersensitivity to blue, UV-A, andgreen light.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA92:8423–27

91b. Lin C, Robertson DE, Ahmad M,Raibekas AA, Schuman-Jorns M, et al.1995. Association of flavin adenine dinu-cleotide with theArabidopsisblue light re-ceptor CRY1.Science269:968–70

92. Liscum E, Briggs WR. 1995. Mutations inthe NPH1 locus ofArabidopsisdisrupt theperception of phototropic stimuli.PlantCell 7:473–85

93. Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1991.Arabidop-sismutants lacking blue light dependent in-hibition of hypocotyl elongation.PlantCell 3:685–94

94. Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1993. Light-stimulated apical hook opening in wild-typeArabidopsisthaliana seedlings.PlantPhysiol.101:567–72

95. Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1993. Geneticevidence that the Pr form of phytochromeB modulates gravitropism inArabidopsisthaliana. Plant Physiol.103:15–19

96. Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1993. Photomor-phogenic mutants ofArabidopsis thalianareveal activities of multiple photosensorysystems during light-stimulated apicalhook opening.Planta191:214–21

97. Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1994. Mutationalanalysis of blue-light sensing inArabidop-sis. Plant Cell Environ.17:639–48

98. Liscum E, Young JC, Poff KL, HangarterRP. 1992. Genetic separation of phototro-pism and blue light inhibition of stem elon-gation.Plant Physiol.100:267–71

99. Loercher L. 1966. Phytochrome changescorrelated to mesocotyl inhibition in etio-lated Avena seedlings.Plant Physiol.41:932–36

100.Lopez-Juez E, Buurmeijer WF, HeeringaGH, Kendrick RE, Wesselius JC. 1990.Response of light grown wild-type andlong hypocotyl mutant cucumber plants toend-of-day far-red light.Photochem. Pho-tobiol. 52:143–49

101.Lopez-Juez E, Kobayashi M, Sakurai A,Kamiya Y, Kendrick RE. 1995. Phyto-chrome, giberellins, and hypocotylgrowth.Plant Physiol.107:131–40

102.Lopez-Juez E, Nagatani A, Tomizawa K-I,Deak M, Kern R, et al. 1992. The cucumberlong hypocotyl mutant lacks a light stablephyB-like phytochrome.Plant Cell 4:241–51

103.Lumsden PJ. 1991. Circadian rhythms andphytochrome.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.Plant Mol. Biol.42:351–71

103a. Malhotra K, Kim ST, Batschauer A,


Dawut L, Sancar A. 1995. Putative blue-light photoreceptors fromArabidopsisthalianaandSinapis albawith a high de-gree of homology to DNA photolyase con-tain the two photolyase cofactors but lackDNA repair activity. Biochemistry 34:6892–99

104.Mancinelli AI. 1994. The physiology ofphytochrome action. See Ref. 78a, pp.211–70

105.Matsui M, Stoop CD, von Arnim AG, WeiN, Deng X-W. 1995.ArabidopsisCOP1protein specifically interacts in vitro witha cytoskeleton-associated protein, CIP1.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA92:4239–43

106.McClung CR, Kay SA. 1994. Circadianrhythms inArabidopsis thaliana.In Arabi-dopsis,ed. CR Somerville, EM Meyerow-itz, pp. 615–38. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press

107.McCormac AC, Cherry JR, Hershey HP,Vierstra RD, Smith H. 1991. Photore-sponses of transgenic tobacco plants ex-pressing an oat phytochrome gene.Planta185: 162–70

108.McCormac AC, Smith H, Whitelam GC.1993. Photoregulation of germination inseed of transgenic lines of tobacco andArabidopsiswhich express an introducedcDNA encoding phytochrome A or phyto-chrome B.Planta191:386–93

109.McCormac AC, Wagner D, Boylan MT,Quail PH, Smith H, Whitelam GC. 1993.Photoresponses of transgenicArabidopsisseedlings expressing introduced phyto-chrome B-encoding cDNAs: evidence thatphytochrome A and phytochrome B havedistinct photoregulatory roles.Plant J. 4:19–27

110.McCormac AC, Whitelam GC, BoylanMT, Quail PH, Smith H. 1992. Contrastingresponses of etiolated and light-adaptedseedlings to red:far-red ratio: a comparisonof wild type, mutant, and transgenic plantshas revealed differential functions of mem-bers of the phytochrome family.J. PlantPhysiol.140:707–14

111.McCormac AC, Whitelam GC, Smith H.1992. Light grown plants of transgenic to-bacco expressing an introduced phyto-chrome A gene under the control of a con-stitutive viral promoter exhibit persistentgrowth inhibition by far-red light.Planta188:173–81

112.McNellis T, von Arnim AG, Araki T,Komeda Y, Misera S, Deng X-W. 1994.Genetic and molecular analysis of an alle-lic series ofcop1mutants suggests func-tional roles for the multiple protein do-mains.Plant Cell6:487–500

113.McNellis T, von Arnim AG, Deng X-W.1994. Overexpression ofArabidopsisCOP1 results in partial suppression of

light-mediated development: evidence fora light-inactivable repressor of photomor-phogenesis.Plant Cell6:1391–400

114.Meyer G, Kloppstech K. 1984. A rapidlylight-induced chloroplast protein with ahigh turnover coded for by pea nuclearDNA. Eur. J. Biochem.138:201–7

115.Millar AJ, McGrath RB, Chua N-H. 1994.Phytochrome phototransduction path-ways.Annu. Rev. Genet.28:325–49

116.Miséra S, Müller AJ, Weiland-HeideckerU, Jürgens G. 1994. TheFUSCAgenes ofArabidopsis:negative regulators of lightresponses.Mol. Gen. Genet. 244:242–52

117.Mohr H. 1994. Coaction between pigmentsystems. See Ref. 78a, pp. 353–73

118.Nagatani A, Chory J, Furuya M. 1991.Phytochrome B is not detectable in thehy3mutant ofArabidopsiswhich is deficient inresponding to end-of-day far-red lighttreatment.Plant Cell Physiol.32:1119–22

119.Nagatani A, Kay SA, Deak M, Chua N, Fu-ruya M. 1991. Rice type I phytochromeregulates hypocotyl elongation in trans-genic tobacco seedlings.Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA88:5207–11

120.Nagatani A, Reed J, Chory J. 1993. Isola-tion and initial characterization ofArabi-dopsismutants deficient in phytochromeA. Plant Physiol.102:269–77

121.Nagy F, Fejes E, Wehmeyer B, DallmannG, Schäfer E. 1993. The circadian oscilla-tor is regulated by a very low fluence re-sponse of phytochrome in wheat.Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA90:6290–94

122.Neff MM, van Volkenburgh E. 1994.Light-stimulated cotyledon expansion inArabidopsisseedlings: the role of phyto-chrome B.Plant Physiol.104:1027–32

123.Neuhaus G, Bowler C, Kern R, Chua N-H.1993. Calcium/calmodulin-dependent andindependent phytochrome signal transduc-tion pathways.Cell 73:937–52

124.Nick P, Ehmann B, Furuya M, Schäfer E.1993. Cell communication, stochastic cellresponses, and anthocyanin pattern in mus-tard cotyledons.Plant Cell5:541–52

125.Nick P, Schäfer E. 1995. Polarity inductionversus phototropism in maize: auxin can-not replace blue light.Planta195:63–69

126.Oelze-Karow H, Mohr H. 1988. Rapidtransmission of a phytochrome signal fromhypocotyl hook to cotyledons in mustard(Sinapis albaL. ). Photochem. Photobiol.47:447–50

127.Oelze-Karow H, Schopfer P. 1971. Dem-onstration of a threshold regulation by phy-tochrome in the photomodulation of longi-tudinal growth of the hypocotyl of mustardseedlings (Sinapis albaL.). Planta 100:167–75

128.Ohl S, Hahlbrock K, Schäfer E. 1989. Astable, blue light–derived signal modulates


UV-light-induced activation of the chal-cone synthase gene in cultured parsleycells.Planta177:228–36

129.Okada K, Shimura Y. 1992. Aspects of re-cent developments in mutational studies ofplant signaling pathways.Cell70: 369–72

130.Okada K, Shimura Y. 1992. Mutationalanalysis of root gravitropism and phototro-pism of Arabidopsis thalianaseedlings.Aust. J. Plant Physiol.19:439–48

131.Okada K, Shimura Y. 1994. Modulation ofroot growth by physical stimuli. InArabi-dopsis,ed. CR Somerville, EM Meyerow-itz, pp. 665–84. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press

132.Parker K, Baskin TI, Briggs WR. 1989.Evidence for a phytochrome-mediatedphototropism in etiolated pea seedlings.Plant Physiol.89:493–97

133.Parks BM, Quail PH. 1993.hy8, a newclass ofArabidopsislong hypocotyl mu-tants deficient in functional phytochromeA. Plant Cell5:39–48

134.Pepper A, Delaney TP, Chory J. 1993. Ge-netic interactions in plant photomorpho-genesis.Semin. Dev. Biol.4:15–22

135.Pepper A, Delaney T, Washburn T, PooleD, Chory J. 1994.DET1,a negative regula-tor of light-mediated development andgene expression inArabidopsis,encodes anovel nuclear-localized protein.Cell78:109–16

136.Pjon C-J, Furuya M. 1967. Phytochromeaction in Oryza sativaL. I. Growth re-sponses of etiolated coleoptiles to red, far-red and blue light.Plant Cell. Physiol.8:709–18

137.Quaedvlieg N, Dockx J, Rook F, WeisbeekP, Smeekens S. 1995. The homeobox geneATH1of Arabidopsisis derepressed in thephotomorphogenic mutantscop1anddet1.Plant Cell7:117–29

138.Quail PH. 1994. Photosensory perceptionand signal transduction in plants.Curr.Opin. Genet. Dev.6:613–28

139.Quail PH. 1994. Phytochrome genes andtheir expression. See Ref. 78a, pp. 71–104

140.Quail PH, Boylan MT, Parks BM, ShortTW, Xu Y, Wagner D. 1995. Phyto-chromes: photosensory perception and sig-nal transduction.Science268:675–80

141.Quail PH, Briggs WR, Chory J, HangarterRP, Harberd NP, et al. 1994. Letter to theeditor: spotlight on phytochrome nomen-clature.Plant Cell6:468–72

142.Reed JW, Nagatani A, Elich T, Fagan M,Chory J. 1994. Phytochrome A and phyto-chrome B have overlapping but distinctfunctions in Arabidopsis development.Plant Physiol.104:1139–49

143.Reed JW, Nagpal P, Chory J. 1992. Search-ing for phytochrome mutants.Photochem.Photobiol.56:833–38

144.Reed JW, Nagpal P, Poole DS, Furuya M,

Chory J. 1993. Mutations in the gene forthe red/far-red light receptor phytochromeB alter cell elongation and physiologicalresponses throughoutArabidopsisdevel-opment.Plant Cell5:147–57

145.Reid JB, Hasan O, Ross JJ. 1990. Internodelength in Pisum: giberellins and the re-sponse to far-red rich light.J. PlantPhysiol.137:46–52

146.Reid JB, Ross JJ, Swain SM. 1992. Inter-node length inPisum:a new, slender mu-tant with elevated levels of C(19) giberel-lins. Planta188:462–67

147.Ross JJ, Willis CL, Gaskin P, Reid JB.1992. Shoot elongation inLathyrus elon-gatusL.: giberellin levels in light and dark-grown tall and dwarf seedlings.Planta187: 10–13

148.Sano H, Youssefian S. 1994. Light and nu-tritional regulation of transcripts encodinga wheat protein kinase homolog is medi-ated by cytokinins.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA91:2582–86

149.Sharrock RA, Quail PH. 1989. Novel phy-tochrome sequences inArabidopsis thali-ana: structure, evolution, and differentialexpression of a plant regulatory photore-ceptor family.Genes Dev.3:1745–57

150.Shibaoka H. 1994. Plant hormone inducedchanges in the orientation of cortical mi-crotubules: alterations in the crosslinkingbetween microtubules and the plasmamembrane.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.Plant Mol. Biol.45:527–44

151.Shinomura T, Nagatani A, Chory J, FuruyaM. 1994. The induction of seed germina-tion in Arabidopsis thalianais regulatedprincipally by phytochrome B and secon-darily by phytochrome A.Plant Physiol.104:363–71

152.Short TW, Briggs WR. 1994. The trans-duction of blue light signals in higherplants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. PlantMol. Biol. 45:143–72

153.Shropshire WJ, Klein WH, Elstad VB.1961. Action spectra for photomorpho-genic induction and photoinactivation ofgermination inArabidopsis thaliana. PlantCell Physiol.2:63–69

154.Smith H. 1994. Sensing the light environ-ment: the functions of the phytochromefamily. See Ref. 78a, pp. 377–416

155.Smith H. 1995. Physiological and ecologi-cal function within the phytochrome fam-ily. Annu. Rev. Plant Phys. Plant Mol. Biol.46:289–315

156.Smith H, Turnbull M, Kendrick RE.1992.Light grown plants of the cucumberlong hypocotyl mutant exhibit both long-term and rapid elongation growth re-sponses to irradiation with supplementaryfar-red light. Photochem. Photobiol.56:607–10

157.Smith H, Whitelam G. 1990. Phyto-


chrome, a family of photoreceptors withmultiple physiological roles.Plant CellEnviron.13: 695–708

158.Somers DE, Quail PH. 1995. Temporal andspatial expression patterns of phyA andphyB genes inArabidopsis. Plant J.7:413–28

159.Somers DE, Quail PH. 1995.Phytochrome-mediated light regulation ofphyA- and phyB-GUS transgenes inArabidopsis thaliana seedlings. PlantPhysiol.107: 523–34

160.Somers DE, Sharrock RA, Tepperman JM,Quail PH. 1991. Thehy3 long hypocotylmutant ofArabidopsisis deficient in phy-tochrome B.Plant Cell3:1263–74

161.Spalding E, Cosgrove DJ. 1989. Largeplasma-membrane depolarization pre-cedes rapid blue-light-induced growth in-hibition in cucumber.Planta178:407–10

162.Spalding E, Cosgrove DJ. 1992. Mecha-nism of blue-light induced plasma mem-brane depolarization in etiolated cucumberhypocotyls.Planta188:199–205

163.Steinitz B, Ren Z, Poff KL. 1985. Blue-andgreen-light induced phototropism inArabidopsis thalianaandLactuca sativaL.seedlings.Plant Physiol.77:248–51

163a. Su W, Howell SH. 1995. The effects ofcytokinin and light on hypocotyl elonga-tion in Arabidopsis seedlings are inde-pendent and additive.Plant Physiol.108:1420–30

164.Sun L, Doxsee RA, Harel E, Tobin EM.1993. CA-1, a novel phosphoprotein, inter-acts with the promoter of thecab140genein Arabidopsisand is undetectable indet1mutant seedlings.Plant Cell5:109–21

165.Susek RE, Ausubel FM, Chory J. 1993.Signal transduction mutants ofArabidop-sisuncouple nuclear CAB and RBCS geneexpression from chloroplast development.Cell 74:787–99

166.Susek RE, Chory J. 1992. A tale of two ge-nomes: role of a chloroplast signal in coor-dinating nuclear and plastid gene expres-sion.Aust. J. Plant Physiol.19:387–99

167.Taylor WC. 1989. Regulatory interactionsbetween nuclear and plastid genomes.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.40:211–33

168.Terzaghi WB, Cashmore AR. 1995. Light-regulated transcription.Annu. Rev. PlantPhys. Plant Mol. Biol.46:445–74

169.Thompson WF, White MJ. 1991. Physio-logical and molecular studies of light-regulated nuclear genes in higher plants.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.42:423–66

170.Toyomasu T, Yamane H, Murofushi N,Nick P. 1994. Phytochrome inhibits the ef-fectiveness of giberellins to induce cellelongation in rice.Planta194:256–63

171.Tripathy BC, Brown CS. 1995. Root-shoot

interaction in the greening of wheat seed-lings grown under red light.Plant Physiol.107:407–11

172.van Tuinen A, Kerckhoffs LHJ, NagataniA, Kendrick RE, Koorneef M. 1995. Far-red light-insensitive, phytochrome A-deficient mutants of tomato.Mol. Gen.Genet.246:133–41

173.van Tuinen A, Kerckhoffs LHJ, NagataniA, Kendrick RE, Koorneef M. 1995. Atemporarily red light–insensitive mutant oftomato lacks a light-stable, B-like phyto-chrome.Plant Physiol.108:939–47

174.van Volkenburgh E, Cleland RE. 1990.Light-stimulated cell expansion in bean(Phaseolus vulgarisL.) leaves. I. Growthcan occur without photosynthesis.Planta182:72–76

175.van Volkenburgh E, Cleland RE, Watan-abe M. 1990. Light-stimulated cell expan-sion in bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL. )leaves. II. Quantity and quality of light re-quired.Planta182:77–80

176.Vierstra RD. 1993. Illuminatingphytochrome functions: there is light atthe end of the tunnel.Plant Physiol.103:679–84

177.Vierstra RD. 1994. Phytochrome degrada-tion. See Ref. 78a, pp. 141–62

178.von Arnim AG, Deng X-W. 1994. Light in-activation of Arabidopsisphotomorpho-genic repressor COP1 involves a cell typespecific modulation of its nucleocytoplas-mic partitioning.Cell 79:1035–45

179.Wagner D, Quail PH. 1995. Mutationalanalysis of phytochrome B identifies asmall COOH-terminal-domain regioncritical for regulatory activity.Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA92:8596–600

180.Wagner D, Tepperman JM, Quail PH.1991. Overexpression of phytochrome Binduces a short hypocotyl phenotype intransgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Cell3:1275–88

181.Wagner E, Mohr H. 1966. Primary and sec-ondary differentiation in connection withphotomorphogenesis in seedlings ofSinapis alba L.Planta71:204–21

182.Wall JK, Johnson CB. 1983. An analysis ofphytochrome action in the ‘high irradianceresponse.’Planta159:387–97

183.Wei N, Chamovitz D, Deng X-W. 1994.ArabidopsisCOP9 is a component of anovel signaling complex mediating lightcontrol of plant development.Cell 78:117–24

184.Wei N, Deng X-W. 1992. COP9: a new ge-netic locus involved in light-regulated de-velopment and gene expression inArabi-dopsis. Plant Cell4:1507–18

185.Wei N, Kwok SF, von Arnim AG, Lee A,MacNellis T, et al. 1994.ArabidopsisCOP8, COP10 andCOP11 genes are in-volved in repression of photomorphogenic


developmental pathway in darkness.PlantCell 6:629–43

186.Weller JL, Nagatani A, Kendrick RE, Mur-fet IC, Reid JB. 1995. New lv mutants ofpea are deficient in phytochrome B.PlantPhysiol.108:525–32

187.Wester L, Somers DE, Clack T, SharrockRA. 1994. Transgenic complementation ofthe hy3 phytochrome B mutation and re-sponse to phyB gene copy number inArabidopsis. Plant J.5:261–72

188.Whitelam GC, Harberd NP. 1994. Actionand function of phytochrome family mem-bers revealed through the study of mutantand transgenic plants.Plant Cell Environ.17:615–25

189.Whitelam GC, Johnson E, Peng J, Carol P,Anderson ML, et al. 1993. Phytochrome A

null mutants ofArabidopsisdisplay a wildtype phenotype in white light.Plant Cell5:757–68

190.Whitelam GC, Smith H. 1991. Retention ofphytochrome-mediated shade avoidanceresponses in phytochrome-deficient mu-tants of Arabidopsis,cucumber and to-mato.J. Plant Physiol.139:119–25

191.Young JC, Liscum E, Hangarter RP. 1992.Spectral dependence of light-inhibited hy-pocotyl elongation in photomorphogenicmutants ofArabidopsis: evidence for aUV-A photosensor.Planta188:106–14

192.Zhong HH, Young AC, Pease EA, Hangar-ter RP, McClung CR. 1994. Interactionsbetween light and the circadian clock in theregulation of CAT2 expression inArabi-dopsis. Plant Physiol.104:889–98

light control of seedling development - ufvarquivo.ufv.br/dbv/pgfvg/bve684/htms/pdfs_revisao... ·...

Documents