Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
History of botany wikipedia , lookup
Venus flytrap wikipedia , lookup
Glossary of plant morphology wikipedia , lookup
Sustainable landscaping wikipedia , lookup
Plant morphology wikipedia , lookup
Plant stress measurement wikipedia , lookup
Circadian rhythm wikipedia , lookup
Plant physiology wikipedia , lookup
Arabidopsis thaliana wikipedia , lookup
Flowering plant wikipedia , lookup
Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 57, No. 13, pp. 3387–3393, 2006 Major Themes in Flowering Research Special Issue doi:10.1093/jxb/erl071 Advance Access publication 15 September, 2006 Light signals and flowering Brian Thomas* Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne CV35 9EF, UK Received 14 March 2006; Accepted 31 May 2006 Abstract Physiological studies over a long period have shown that light acts to regulate flowering through the three main variables of quality, quantity, and duration. Intensive molecular genetic and genomic studies with the model plant Arabidopsis have given considerable insight into the mechanisms involved, particularly with regard to quality and photoperiod. For photoperiodism light, acting through phytochromes and cryptochromes, the main photomorphogenetic photoreceptors, acts to entrain and interact with a circadian rhythm of CONSTANS (CO) expression leading to transcription of the mobile floral integrator, FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT). The action of phytochromes and cryptochromes in photoperiodism is augmented by ZEITLUPE (ZTL) and FLAVIN-BINDING, KELCH REPEAT, F-BOX (FKF1) acting as accessory photoreceptors on entrainment and interaction, respectively. Light quality acts independently of the circadian system through Phytochromes B, D, and E to regulate FT. Light quantity effects, on the other hand, are still incompletely understood but are likely to be linked either directly or indirectly to patterns of assimilate partitioning and resource utilization within the plant. considered both with regard to light acting directly through photomorphogenetic mechanisms, or alterations in photosynthetic assimilation or as part of the more complex regulatory mechanisms of photoperiodism. Much of the body of literature on physiological studies will be assumed although it is worth noting that many of the revelations from recent molecular genetic studies were presaged by careful whole plant studies. Thus, concepts of photoperiodic control of flowering, based on physiological studies, envisaged an external coincidence circadian model with multiple photoreceptors acting in the leaf to generate a complex mobile flowering signal (Thomas and VincePrue, 1997). The explosion of knowledge and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana has resulted in much of the fine detail beneath the model being teased out to confirm and extend this basic concept. For light to affect a particular biological process it must be detected through the excitation of a lightabsorbing pigment (or photoreceptor) which then passes on the light as energy or as a signal through highly refined regulatory pathways or networks. A consideration of light signalling is therefore inseparable from a consideration of the roles of photoreceptors in the process of flowering. Light and photoperiodism Key words: Arabidopsis, cryptochrome, flowering, light, photoreceptors, photoperiodism phytochrome. Introduction As with almost all aspects of plant development, the flowering behaviour of higher plants is modified by environmental signals. Light is foremost among these environmental signals and can modify flowering in several different ways. This is not particularly surprising as plants need to adapt to precise ecological niches defined both spatially and temporally in terms of a favourable environmental envelope. In this review the action of light is Daylength is a major regulator of flowering time and allows sexual reproduction to take place at an appropriate time or times of the year and helps ensure that flowering is coordinated to enable cross-pollination where this forms part of the plant’s adaptive strategy. Studies on Arabidopsis have enabled the framework of understanding, based on physiological studies over more than half a century, to be supported by detailed information on the cellular and molecular genetic processes that give rise to the occurrence of photoperiodism. It is worth remembering that Arabidopsis is typical of a particular photoperiodic class, namely a facultative cruciferous, light-dominant, long-day plant (LDP). This is only one of a range of patterns of response * E-mail: [email protected] ª The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] 3388 Thomas that plants show to daylength (Thomas and Vince-Prue, 1997). Resolving the relationship of the Arabidopsis model to species with contrasting physiological responses, for example, short-day plants (SDP) is an area that is currently being addressed by a range of research groups. As these other species almost always lack the exquisite combination of genetic properties and resources that make Arabidopsis such a powerful model, resolving their photoperiodic mechanisms is a considerable challenge, but will almost certainly add levels of subtlety and complexity to our understanding. Light and clock entrainment As a starting point for examining the role of light, daylength measurement will be taken to result from an external coincidence model based on a circadian clock (Carre, 2001; Yanovsky and Kay, 2002). In this model, light has two roles. Firstly, it acts to entrain the circadian clock and, secondly, it interacts with an output from the clock at critical phases to allow or prevent flowering. Reconciliation of earlier physiological and more recent genetic models has been achieved through the findings that the clock acts to establish a rhythm of the CONSTANS (CO) gene expression, at least partially mediated by the flowering time gene GIGANTEA (GI) (Mizoguchi et al., 2005). CO levels are high towards the end of a long-day (LD) and the interaction with light results in the transcriptional activation of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) (Kardailsky et al., 1999; Samach et al., 2000; Yanovsky and Kay, 2002). The regulation of FT takes place in leaves from which FT mRNA travels to the apex to interact with FD and initiate floral development (Huang et al., 2005; Abe et al., 2005; Wigge et al., 2005). Much of the basic information on the circadian clock underlying daylength measurement derives from transgenic plants using reporters of circadian regulated photosynthetic genes fused to a luciferase reporter. It is assumed that essentially the same clock elements will form the basis of the photoperiodic clock. In general, this is supported by the fact that under the right conditions mutations that alter expression of components of the circadian clock alter flowering time (Somers et al., 1998a; Doyle et al., 2002; Matsushika et al., 2002; Sato et al., 2002; Yamamoto et al., 2003). For example, the EARLY FLOWERING 3 mutation ELF3 exhibits light-dependent arrhythmia of the clock and the gene product is thought to modulate the action of photoreceptors on the input to the clock. Entrainment of the circadian clock to cycles of light and darkness involves the action of multiple photoreceptors. There are five members of the phytochrome gene family in Arabidopsis and equivalent gene families in other species (Izawa et al., 2002; Kendrick and Weller, 2004). In Arabidopsis, at least four of the five PHYTOCHROMES (PHYA, B, D, and E) and both CRYPTROCHROMES (CRY1,2) have been shown to contribute input to the clock (Somers et al., 1998b; Devlin and Kay, 2000). A suite of photoreceptors acting singly or together enables the clock to be entrained by light at a range of wavelengths and irradiances. PHYB, PHYD, and PHYE are primarily responsible for mediating red light at high irradiances while CRY1 and CRY2 mediate high irradiance blue light. Perception of low irradiance red and blue light is mediated by PHYA. Devlin and Kay (2000) also provided evidence that cryptochrome may act downstream of PHYA on the input to the clock. Light affects components of the circadian oscillator at several levels. First, light promotes transcription of the LATE ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL (LHY), and CIRCADIAN CLOCK-ASSOCIATED 1 (CCA1) genes in the early part of the day (Martinez-Garcia et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2003). Light also acts through through the effect of ZEITLUPE (ZTL) to modulate the accumulation of the TIMING OF CAB1 (TOC1) protein (Somers et al., 2000; Mas et al., 2003). ZTL containins a LOV domain which is highly similar to the flavin chromophore binding site in PHOTOTROPINS, which act as blue light photoreceptors for phototropism and other orientation responses. ZTL is also an F-box protein that acts to target specific molecules, for example, TOC1 for degradation via the 26S proteasome. Light and the clock output The multiple effects of light on the timing mechanism that act to set the phase of the photoperiodic response rhythm and the separate effects of light acting downstream of the clock to mediate floral response can be distinguished. As with light input to the clock, phytochromes, cryptochromes, and potentially novel photoreceptors all appear to have a role. All five phytochromes contain identical tetrapyrrole chromophores (Lagarias and Rapoport, 1980; Kendrick and Weller, 2004). Mutants or transgenic plants in which chromophore biosynthesis is impaired, will be incapacitated with regard to all of the functional phytochromes. Such plants show altered daylength responses, flowering earlier than wild types in both LDP and SDP ( Montgomery et al., 2001; Izawa et al., 2002; Sawers et al., 2002) although, as different phytochromes may have opposing actions, it is difficult to draw any real significance from this. PHYA typically acts to detect light rich in far-red in deetiolating seedlings (Whitelam et al., 1993; Weller et al., 2001). Low irradiance treatments with far-red rich incandescent lamps are routinely given as photoperiod extension treatments in daylength experiments and found to be highly effective, implying a potential role for PHYA in daylength sensing. Supporting evidence for a role for PHYA in promoting flowering in LDP came from the action spectrum for flowering in wheat which shows a farred peak similar to the far-red high irradiance response in dark-grown seedlings and which is mediated by PHYA (Carr-Smith et al., 1989, 1994). This has been confirmed Light signals and flowering 3389 and extended by more recent genetic studies. PHYA is required for normal perception of long days in Arabidopsis and in the LDP, pea (Johnson et al., 1994; Neff and Chory, 1998; Weller et al., 2001). PHYA acts principally through the photoperiod pathway as it has no effect on flowering time under short days. Arabidopsis mutants deficient in PHYB flower earlier than the wild type in both SD and LD, but retain sensitivity to daylength (Reed et al., 1994). PHYB, along with PHYD and PHYE mediates early flowering in Arabidopsis in response to low red to far-red ratios (Franklin et al., 2003; Halliday et al., 2003). This response plays a role in shade avoidance and is distinct from the role of PHYB in photoperiodism (see section on Light Quality and Flowering below). By contrast, PHYB is essential for daylength perception in barley since the BMDR-1 mutant of Barley, which contains a defective PHYB is insensitive to photoperiod (Hanumappa et al., 1999) and similarly the PHYB mutant of pea is aphotoperiodic (Weller et al., 2001). Cryptochromes are flavoproteins that act as blue light photoreceptors. The participation of cryptochromes in the control of flowering in Arabidopsis is consistent with physiological studies that have shown that blue light has a promotive effect on flowering for LDP of the Cruciferae although this is not necessarily true for other families (Thomas and Vince-Prue, 1997; Runkle and Heins, 2001). Two members of the cryptochrome gene family (CRY1 and CRY2) are present in Arabidopsis (Lin and Shalitin, 2003). CRY2 is thought to be the major blue photoreceptor for flowering in Arabidopsis (Guo et al., 1998), although cry1 cry2 double mutants flowered earlier in blue light than the single mutants, indicating that both cryptochromes play a role to promote flowering (Mockler et al., 1999). CRY1 and CRY 2 act along with PHYA to stabilize CO protein synthesized towards the end of a LD treatment (Valverde et al., 2004), which provides a mechanism for an external coincidence model of day length regulation. There is evidence that allelic diversity in cryptochromes contribute to the natural variation in the response of Arabidopsis to daylength. A QTL for flowering time was accounted for by an allele of CRY2 (El-Assal et al., 2001) indicating that the blue light photoreceptor has a significant role in daylength sensing under natural conditions. The early flowering phenotype resulted from a single amino acid substitution that reduces the light-induced turnover of the CRY2 protein under short photoperiods. There is as yet no physiological evidence for a specific role for blue light, and by inference, cryptochromes, in SDP, but this remains to be confirmed in genetic and comparative genomic studies. A further novel photoreceptor may play an additional role in the Arabidopsis photoperiodic mechanism. A FLAVIN-BINDING, KELCH REPEAT, F-BOX (FKF1) (Nelson et al., 2000) protein is required to generate peak the of CO transcription observed towards the end of a long day. The mRNA is under circadian control and the protein binds flavin mononucleotide and is photoactive. In addition, FKF1’s action to regulate CO requires light and it may, therefore, act as an auxiliary blue light photoreceptor (Imaizumi et al., 2003). It has been recently shown that FKF1 controls daily CO expression in part by degrading CDF1, a repressor of CO transcription, to boost CO production at the critical point in the photoperiod for long day sensing (Imaizumi et al., 2005). Light and short-day plants The bulk of published information on photoperiodic mechanisms is derived from Arabidopsis, a facultative LDP. There is accumulating evidence that elements of the LDsensing model also form part of the mechanism in SDP (Liu et al., 2001; Searle and Coupland, 2004). Genetic analysis has identified that in species that act as SDPs, common components to those found in Arabidopsis are involved in the photoperiodic response. In rice, a SDP, Hd1, an orthologue of CO, and Hd3a, an orthologue of FT, are required for flowering in response to short-days (Yano et al., 2000; Hayama et al., 2003). The relationship between the CO and FT orthologues is, however, reversed from that found in Arabidopsis. In rice Hd1 is under circadian regulation and Hd1 mRNA accumulates towards the end of the day in LD. Coincidental exposure to light at this time acts to suppress transcription of Hd3a (Hayama and Coupland, 2004) and consequently inhibits flowering in LD. Orthologues of CO have been isolated from the SDP Pharbitis nil and show diurnal regulation of expression (Liu et al., 2001), consistent with a general mechanism for daylength regulation. A consequence of these opposite actions of CO and orthologues in different species is that mutants lacking CO default to late flowering in LDP and early flowering in SDP. Mutants of FT on the other hand would be expected always to be late flowering, irrespective of response type. If it is further assumed that FT is the mobile florigenic signal, this reversible relationship between CO and FT provides an explanation for the observations from grafting experiments that the flowering stimulus is interchangeable between response types as well as between species and in some cases, genera (Thomas and Vince-Prue, 1997). Light quality and flowering Plants grown under canopy shade conditions or in the proximity of other plants show a range of responses to the change in red (R) to far-red (FR) ratio of the ambient light. This response, known as the shade-avoidance or near neighbour detection response is characterized by increased internode extension, reduced leaf area and acceleration of flowering (Halliday et al., 1994). Many of the characteristics of the shade avoidance response can be mimicked by a 3390 Thomas short end-of-day FR treatment, implicating light-stable phytochrome as the photoregulator. PHYB is a major player in this response, but there is redundancy with PHYD and PHYE such that double or triple mutants show increasingly extreme phenotypes (Halliday et al., 1994; Aukerman et al., 1997; Devlin et al., 1998, 1999). Mutants in PHYB in Arabidopsis flower earlier than WT in both LD and SD but retain a differential response to daylength indicating a lightdependent non-photoperiodic regulatory pathway. Both light-dependent pathways, photoperiodic and light quality, act through the regulation of FT. Regulation of FT by PHYB occurs through the nuclear protein, PHYTOCHROME AND FLOWERING TIME 1 (PFT1) (Cerdan and Chory, 2003). Another characteristic of this pathway is that the early flowering phenotype in the absence of PHYB is temperature sensitive (Halliday et al., 2003). As other aspects of the shade-avoidance response do not show the same response to temperature, sensitivity lies in a floweringspecific branch of the PHYB signalling pathway. PHYB acts through FT, implying that the light quality pathway is leaf-based. This is supported by experiments with enhancer trap lines that showed suppression of FT expression by PHYB expressed in mesophyll cells (Endo et al., 2005). In pea, however, the inhibitory effect of PHYB on flowering was found not to be grafttransmissible, in contrast to the photoperiodic effect of PHYA (Weller et al., 1997). One difference between pea and Arabidopsis appears to be that, in pea, a transmissible inhibitor is linked to the effect of PHYA whereas in Arabidopsis, control by events in the leaf is mediated entirely through FT, a floral promoter. Light quantity responses While increased light levels are usually accepted as having a positive effect on flowering, the plant response to light quantity for flowering is very variable. In a study of 41 herbaceous species, 10 were found to have a facultative irradiance response while 28 were unaffected (Mattson and Erwin, 2005). Interestingly, three species in this study had a negative response to increasing irradiance. In general, light quantity responses are assumed to be linked to photosynthesis and the availability of assimilates, the photoreceptors in this case being chlorophylls and other photosynthetic pigments. This idea is supported by experiments in which a strong irradiance dependence on flowering in Brassica campestris could be eliminated by supplying sucrose (Friend, 1984). Bagnall and King (2001) found that flowering was delayed under low irradiance in PHYA mutants, but not at higher irradiances, and suggested that part of PHYA action was mediated indirectly through photosynthesis although it is not clear how such a mechanism might operate. Light quantity seems to be particularly important during early development, particularly with herbaceous species that show a clear juvenile phase (Perilleux and Bernier, 2002). It is proposed that the inability to flower during this juvenile period is because of a foliar inability to produce floral signals and/or of the competence of the apex to respond (Zeevaart, 1985; McDaniel, 1996; McDaniel et al., 1996). The length of the juvenile phase in photoperiodsensitive plants can be revealed by reciprocal transfers between permissive and non-permissive daylengths. Such experiments with Petunia showed that the length of the Fig. 1. Multiple actions of light affect flowering. The diagram indicates the main targets of light and the photoreceptors involved. Photoperiodic control involves the entrainment of the circadian rhythm and interaction with the output, primarily through CO to regulate FT. Light acts directly through phytochromes in the leaf via FT. In addition, light acts indirectly through chlorophyll (Chla/b) via photosynthesis and the availability of assimilates which are translocated to the apex with FT. (Modified from Thomas B, Carré I, Jackson SD. 2006. Photoperiodism and flowering. In: Jordan BR, ed. The molecular biology and biotechnology of flowering, 2nd edn. CAB International, 3–25, and reproduced by kind permission of CAB International.) Light signals and flowering 3391 juvenile phase is prolonged at lower irradiances (Adams, 1999). What is not clear is the precise molecular mechanisms by which irradiance, if acting through photosynthetic assimilation, can modify the length of the juvenile phase. It may well be that assimilates themselves act as part of a complex flowering signal (Perilleux and Bernier, 2002; Bernier and Perilleux, 2005) or it may be that the delivery of the mobile flowering signals such as FT is dependent upon a sufficient mass flow of assimilates. One factor inhibiting a resolution of this issue is that the juvenile phase is very short in Arabidopsis and experimental separation of source–sink relationships in very young seedlings is difficult to achieve in a manner that is comparable to the extended juvenile phase of many herbaceous species. Conclusions Physiological studies over a long period have shown that light acts to regulate flowering through the three main variables of quality, quantity, and duration (Fig. 1). Intensive molecular genetic and genomic studies with the model plant Arabidopsis have given considerable insight into the mechanisms involved, particularly with regard to quality and duration. The Arabidopsis model is now being extended to other plants, including crops and different response types and a range of variations can be expected to emerge as more studies are undertaken. Light quantity effects, on the other hand, are still incompletely understood but are likely to be linked either directly or indirectly to patterns of assimilate partitioning and resource utilization within the plant. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge support from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in preparing this review. References Abe M, Kobayashi Y, Yamamoto S, Daimon Y, Yamaguchi A, Ikeda Y, Ichinoki H, Notaguchi M, Goto K, Araki T. 2005. FD, a bZIP protein mediating signals from the floral pathway integrator FT at the shoot apex. Science 309, 1052–1056. Adams SR. 1999. The effects of temperature and light integral on the phases of photoperiod sensitivity in Petunia3hybrida. Annals of Botany 83, 263–269. Aukerman MJ, Hirschfeld M, Wester L, Weaver M, Clack T, Amasino RM, Sharrock RA. 1997. A deletion in the PHYD gene of the Arabidopsis Wassilewskija ecotype defines a role for phytochrome D in red/far-red light sensing. The Plant Cell 9, 1317–1326. Bagnall DJ, King RW. 2001. Phytochrome, photosynthesis and flowering of Arabidopsis thaliana: photophysiological studies using mutants and transgenic lines. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28, 401–408. Bernier G, Perilleux C. 2005. A physiological overview of the genetics of flowering time control. Plant Biotechnology Journal 3, 3–16. Carr-Smith HD, Johnson CB, Thomas B. 1989. Action spectrum for the effect of day-extensions on flowering and apex elongation in green, light-grown wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Planta 179, 428–432. Carr-Smith HD, Johnson CB, Plumpton C, Butcher GW, Thomas B. 1994. The kinetics of Type-1 phytochrome in green, light-grown wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Planta 194, 136–142. Carre IA. 2001. Day-length perception and the photoperiodic regulation of flowering in Arabidopsis. Journal of Biological Rhythms 16, 415–423. Cerdan PD, Chory J. 2003. Regulation of flowering time by light quality. Nature 423, 881–885. Devlin PF, Kay SA. 2000. Cryptochromes are required for phytochrome signaling to the circadian clock but not for rhythmicity. The Plant Cell 12, 2499–2509. Devlin PF, Patel SR, Whitelam GC. 1998. Phytochrome E influences internode elongation and flowering time in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 10, 1479–1487. Devlin PF, Robson PRH, Patel SR, Goosey L, Sharrock RA, Whitelam GC. 1999. Phytochrome D acts in the shade-avoidance syndrome in Arabidopsis by controlling elongation growth and flowering time. Plant Physiology 119, 909–915. Doyle MR, Davis SJ, Bastow RM, McWatters HG, KozmaBognar L, Nagy F, Millar AJ, Amasino RM. 2002. The ELF4 gene controls circadian rhythms and flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 419, 74–77. El-Assal SED, Alonso-Blanco C, Peeters AJM, Raz V, Koornneef M. 2001. A QTL for flowering time in Arabidopsis reveals a novel allele of CRY2. Nature Genetics 29, 435–440. Endo M, Nakamura S, Araki T, Mochizuki N, Nagatani A. 2005. Phytochrome B in the mesophyll delays flowering by suppressing FLOWERING LOCUS T expression in Arabidopsis vascular bundles. The Plant Cell 17, 1941–1952. Franklin KA, Praekelt U, Stoddart WM, Billingham OE, Halliday KJ, Whitelam GC. 2003. Phytochromes B, D, and E act redundantly to control multiple physiological responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 131, 1340–1346. Friend DJC. 1984. The interaction of photosynthesis and photoperiodism in induction. In: Vince-Prue D, Thomas B, Cockshull E, eds. Light and the flowering process. London: Academic Press. Guo HW, Yang WY, Mockler TC, Lin CT. 1998. Regulations of flowering time by Arabidopsis photoreceptors. Science 279, 1360–1363. Halliday KJ, Koornneef M, Whitelam GC. 1994. Phytochrome B and at least one other phytochrome mediate the accelerated flowering response of Arabidopsis thaliana L to low red/far-red ratio. Plant Physiology 104, 1311–1315. Halliday KJ, Salter MG, Thingnaes E, Whitelam GC. 2003. Phytochrome control of flowering is temperature sensitive and correlates with expression of the floral integrator FT. The Plant Journal 33, 875–885. Hanumappa M, Pratt LH, Cordonnier-Pratt MM, Deitzer GF. 1999. A photoperiod-insensitive barley line contains a light-labile phytochrome B. Plant Physiology 119, 1033–1039. Hayama R, Coupland G. 2004. The molecular basis of diversity in the photoperiodic flowering responses of Arabidopsis and rice. Plant Physiology 135, 677–684. Hayama R, Yokoi S, Tamaki S, Yano M, Shimamoto K. 2003. Adaptation of photoperiodic control pathways produces short-day flowering in rice. Nature 422, 719–722. 3392 Thomas Huang T, Bohlenius H, Eriksson S, Parcy F, Nilsson O. 2005. The mRNA of the Arabidopsis gene FT moves from leaf to shoot apex and induces flowering. Science 309, 1694–1696. Imaizumi T, Tran HG, Swartz TE, Briggs WR, Kay SA. 2003. FKF1 is essential for photoperiodic-specific light signalling in Arabidopsis. Nature 426, 302–306. Imaizumi T, Schultz TF, Harmon FG, Ho LA, Kay SA. 2005. FKF1F-BOX protein mediates cyclic degradation of a repressor of CONSTANS in Arabidopsis. Science 309, 293–297. Izawa T, Oikawa T, Sugiyama N, Tanisaka T, Yano M, Shimamoto K. 2002. Phytochrome mediates the external light signal to repress FT orthologs in photoperiodic flowering of rice. Genes and Development 16, 2006–2020. Johnson E, Bradley M, Harberd NP, Whitelam GC. 1994. Photoresponses of light-grown phya mutants of Arabidopsis: phytochrome A is required for the perception of daylength extensions. Plant Physiology 105, 141–149. Kardailsky I, Shukla VK, Ahn JH, Dagenais N, Christensen SK, Nguyen JT, Chory J, Harrison MJ, Weigel D. 1999. Activation tagging of the floral inducer FT. Science 286, 1962–1965. Kendrick RE, Weller JL. 2004. Phytochromes and other photoreceptors. In: Thomas B, Murphy DJ, Murray BG, eds. Encyclopedia of applied plant sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, 1063–1069. Kim JY, Song HR, Taylor BL, Carre IA. 2003. Light-regulated translation mediates gated induction of the Arabidopsis clock protein LHY. EMBO Journal 22, 935–944. Lagarias JC, Rapoport H. 1980. Chromopeptides from phytochrome. The structure and linkage of the Pr form of the phytochrome chromophore. Journal of the Americal Chemistry Society 102, 4821–4828. Lin CT, Shalitin D. 2003. Cryptochrome structure and signal transduction. Annual Review of Plant Biology 54, 469–496. Liu JY, Yu JP, McIntosh L, Kende H, Zeevaart JAD. 2001. Isolation of a CONSTANS ortholog from Pharbitis nil and its role in flowering. Plant Physiology 125, 1821–1830. McDaniel CN. 1996. Developmental physiology of floral initiation in Nicotiana tabacum L. Journal of Experimental Botany 47, 465–475. McDaniel CN, Hartnett LK, Sangrey KA. 1996. Regulation of node number in day-neutral Nicotiana tabacum: a factor in plant size. The Plant Journal 9, 55–61. Martinez-Garcia JF, Huq E, Quail PH. 2000. Direct targeting of light signals to a promoter element-bound transcription factor. Science 288, 859–863. Mas P, Kim WY, Somers DE, Kay SA. 2003. Targeted degradation of TOC1 by ZTL modulates circadian function in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 426, 567–570. Matsushika A, Imamura A, Yamashino T, Mizuno T. 2002. Aberrant expression of the light-inducible and circadian-regulated APRR9 gene belonging to the circadian-associated APRR1/TOC1 quintet results in the phenotype of early flowering in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant and Cell Physiology 43, 833–843. Mattson NS, Erwin JE. 2005. The impact of photoperiod and irradiance on flowering of several herbaceous ornamentals. Scientia Horticulturae 104, 275–292. Mizoguchi T, Wright L, Fujiwara S, et al. 2005. Distinct roles of GIGANTEA in promoting flowering and regulating circadian rhythms in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 17, 2255–2270. Mockler TC, Guo HW, Yang HY, Duong H, Lin CT. 1999. Antagonistic actions of Arabidopsis cryptochromes and phytochrome B in the regulation of floral induction. Development 126, 2073–2082. Montgomery BL, Franklin KA, Terry MJ, Thomas B, Jackson SD, Crepeau MW, Lagarias JC. 2001. Biliverdin reductase- induced phytochrome chromophore deficiency in transgenic tobacco. Plant Physiology 125, 266–277. Nelson DC, Lasswell J, Rogg LE, Cohen MA, Bartel B. 2000. FKF1, a clock-controlled gene that regulates the transition to flowering in Arabidopsis. Cell 101, 331–340. Neff MM, Chory J. 1998. Genetic interactions between phytochrome A, phytochrome B, and cryptochrome 1 during Arabidopsis development. Plant Physiology 118, 27–36. Perilleux C, Bernier G. 2002. The control of flowering: do genetical and physiological approaches converge. In: O’Neill SD, Roberts JA, eds. Plant reproduction, Annual Plant Reviews, Vol. 6. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1–32. Reed JW, Nagatani A, Elich TD, Fagan M, Chory J. 1994. Phytochrome A and phytochrome B have overlapping but distinct functions in Arabidopsis development. Plant Physiology 104, 1139–1149. Runkle ES, Heins RD. 2001. Specific functions of red, far red, and blue light in flowering and stem extension of long-day plants. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 126, 275–282. Samach A, Onouchi H, Gold SE, Ditta GS, Schwarz-Sommer Z, Yanofsky MF, Coupland G. 2000. Distinct roles of CONSTANS target genes in reproductive development of Arabidopsis. Science 288, 1613–1616. Sato E, Nakamichi N, Yamashino T, Mizuno T. 2002. Aberrant expression of the Arabidopsis circadian-regulated APRR5 gene belonging to the APRR1/TOC1 quintet results in early flowering and hypersensitiveness to light in early photomorphogenesis. Plant and Cell Physiology 43, 1374–1385. Sawers RJH, Linley PJ, Farmer PR, Hanley NP, Costich DE, Terry MJ, Brutnell TP. 2002. elongated mesocotyl1, a phytochrome-deficient mutant of maize. Plant Physiology 130, 155–163. Searle I, Coupland G. 2004. Induction of flowering by seasonal changes in photoperiod. EMBO Journal 23, 1217–1222. Somers DE, Webb AAR, Pearson M, Kay SA. 1998a. The short-period mutant, toc1-1, alters circadian clock regulation of multiple outputs throughout development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 125, 485–494. Somers DE, Devlin PF, Kay SA. 1998b. Phytochromes and cryptochromes in the entrainment of the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Science 282, 1488–1490. Somers DE, Schultz TF, Milnamow M, Kay SA. 2000. ZEITLUPE encodes a novel clock-associated PAS protein from Arabidopsis. Cell 101, 319–329. Thomas B, Vince-Prue D. 1997. Photoperiodism in plants. London: Academic Press. Thomas B, Carré I, Jackson SD. 2006. Photoperiodism and flowering. In: Jordan BR, ed. The molecular biology and biotechnology of flowering, 2nd edn. CAB International, 3–25. Valverde F, Mouradov A, Soppe W, Ravenscroft D, Samach A, Coupland G. 2004. Photoreceptor regulation of CONSTANS protein in photoperiodic flowering. Science 303, 1003–1006. Weller JL, Murfet IC, Reid JB. 1997. Pea mutants with reduced sensitivity to far-red light define an important role for phytochrome A in day-length detection. Plant Physiology 115, 1291–1291. Weller JL, Beauchamp N, Kerckhoffs LHJ, Platten JD, Reid JB. 2001. Interaction of phytochromes A and B in the control of deetiolation and flowering in pea. The Plant Journal 26, 283–294. Whitelam GC, Johnson E, Peng JR, Carol P, Anderson ML, Cowl JS, Harberd NP. 1993. Phytochrome A null mutants of Arabidopsis display a wild-type phenotype in white-light. The Plant Cell 5, 757–768. Wigge PA, Kim MC, Jaeger KE, Busch W, Schmid M, Lohmann JU, Weigel D. 2005. Integration of spatial and temporal Light signals and flowering 3393 information during floral induction in Arabidopsis. Science 309, 1056–1059. Yamamoto Y, Sato E, Shimizu T, Nakamich N, Sato S, Kato T, Tabata S, Nagatani A, Yamashino T, Mizuno T. 2003. Comparative genetic studies on the APRR5 and APRR7 genes belonging to the APRR1/TOC1 quintet implicated in circadian rhythm, control of flowering time, and early photomorphogenesis. Plant and Cell Physiology 44, 1119–1130. Yano M, Katayose Y, Ashikari M, et al. 2000. Hd1, a major photoperiod sensitivity quantitative trait locus in rice, is closely related to the Arabidopsis flowering time gene CONSTANS. The Plant Cell 12, 2473–2483. Yanovsky MJ, Kay SA. 2002. Molecular basis of seasonal time measurement in Arabidopsis. Nature 419, 308–312. Zeevaart JAD. 1985. Bryophyllum. In: Halevy AH, ed. Handbook of flowering. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc, 89–100.