| Title |
Isolation and functional characterization of a floral repressor, BcFLC2, from Pak-choi (Brassica rapa ssp. chinensis)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Planta, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00425-018-2891-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feiyi Huang, Tongkun Liu, Jin Wang, Xilin Hou |
| Abstract |
BcFLC2 functioned as a repressor of flowering by directly regulating BcTEM1, BcMAF2, BcSOC1 and BcSPL15 in Pak-choi. FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC) plays an important role in regulating flowering time. Here, we functionally described an FLC homologous gene, BcFLC2, that negatively regulated flowering in Pak-choi (Brassica rapa ssp. chinensis). The sequence comparison to Arabidopsis FLC showed that BcFLC2 also had a MADS-box domain at the N terminus. BcFLC2 was highly expressed in the leaves, roots, stems and stamens, and its expression was repressed by vernalization in Pak-choi. Interestingly, BcFLC2 expression exhibited a small peak at 2 weeks of vernalization treatment, suggesting that BcFLC2 may be involved in preventing premature flowering under short-term cold exposure in Pak-choi, which is different from the AtFLC expression pattern. Overexpression of BcFLC2 in Arabidopsis caused late flowering, while silencing of BcFLC2 in Pak-choi caused early flowering. BcFLC2 localized to the cell nucleus and functioned as a transcription factor. Yeast one-hybrid analysis revealed that BcFLC2 could bind to the promoters of Pak-choi Tempranillo 1 (BcTEM1), SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS 1 (BcSOC1), SQUAMOSA PROMOTER BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE 15 (BcSPL15) and MADS AFFECTING FLOWERING 2 (BcMAF2). Taken together, the present results suggested that BcFLC2 played a key role in flowering regulation as a negative regulator by controlling BcTEM1, BcMAF2, BcSOC1 and BcSPL15 expression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,611,191
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Planta
#2,165
of 2,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,050
of 326,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planta
#17
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,738 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.