Next Article in Journal
Circulating Monocyte Subsets and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Previous Article in Journal
The Circadian Clock in the Retinal Pigment Epithelium Controls the Diurnal Rhythm of Phagocytic Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 23
Issue 10
10.3390/ijms23105301
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genetic Dissection of Light-Regulated Adventitious Root Induction in Arabidopsis thaliana Hypocotyls

by
Yinwei Zeng
1,
Sebastien Schotte
1,
Hoang Khai Trinh
1,2,
Inge Verstraeten
1,
Jing Li
1,
Ellen Van de Velde
1,
Steffen Vanneste
1,3,4,5,* and
Danny Geelen
1,*
1
Department Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2
Biotechnology Research and Development Institute, Can Tho University, Can Tho City 900000, Vietnam
3
Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Faculty of Sciences, Ghent University, Technologiepark 71, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
4
VIB Center for Plant SystemsBiology, VIB, Technologiepark 71, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
5
Lab of Plant Growth Analysis, Ghent University Global Campus, Incheon 21985, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(10), 5301; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105301
Submission received: 2 April 2022 / Revised: 5 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 10 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Plant Sciences)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Photomorphogenic responses of etiolated seedlings include the inhibition of hypocotyl elongation and opening of the apical hook. In addition, dark-grown seedlings respond to light by the formation of adventitious roots (AR) on the hypocotyl. How light signaling controls adventitious rooting is less well understood. Hereto, we analyzed adventitious rooting under different light conditions in wild type and photomorphogenesis mutants in Arabidopsis thaliana. Etiolation was not essential for AR formation but raised the competence to form AR under white and blue light. The blue light receptors CRY1 and PHOT1/PHOT2 are key elements contributing to the induction of AR formation in response to light. Furthermore, etiolation-controlled competence for AR formation depended on the COP9 signalosome, E3 ubiquitin ligase CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC (COP1), the COP1 interacting SUPPRESSOR OF PHYA-105 (SPA) kinase family members (SPA1,2 and 3) and Phytochrome-Interacting Factors (PIF). In contrast, ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL5 (HY5), suppressed AR formation. These findings provide a genetic framework that explains the high and low AR competence of Arabidopsis thaliana hypocotyls that were treated with dark, and light, respectively. We propose that light-induced auxin signal dissipation generates a transient auxin maximum that explains AR induction by a dark to light switch.

1. Introduction

Light, as with many other environmental factors, is of fundamental importance for the autotrophic growth of plants [1]. Therefore, it is not surprising that plants tune their body plan through the correct positioning of aerial organs or to accelerate elongation to outgrow competing plants to optimally capture and use the available light [2,3]. In fact, light triggers a major developmental transition just after germination [4]. Seedlings that germinated in the dark, grow almost exclusively by elongation in their search for light, which in turn signals that they have reached the soil surface. This is referred to as skotomorphogenesis. Once seedlings emerge into the light, plants develop a de-etiolated morphology (photomorphogenesis), including a short hypocotyl and open, expanded and green cotyledons [5], and the development of adventitious roots (AR) [6] The latter is, however, a poorly understood effect that is associated with the induction of photomorphogenesis. In fact, light has been reported to both stimulate and inhibit rooting [7]. While the dark to light switch is a commonly used AR induction assay [8], it was recently reported that continuous dark treatment is sufficient for AR formation [7]. Moreover, different light conditions, in terms of intensity and quality, also differentially impact on AR formation [9,10]. These examples illustrate that light and/or photomorphogenesis pathways exert complex effects on AR formation that remain to be resolved.
The transition from skoto- to photomorphogenesis is regulated by a diverse group of photoreceptors that allow plants to monitor and respond to different wavelengths of ambient light [11]. When grown under light, the photoreceptor PHYA is rapidly degraded, and the effects of PHYB and the cryptochromes begin to dominate [12]. Blue light-independent cryptochromes CRY1 and CRY2 are predominantly nuclear proteins that play major roles in photomorphogenesis [13,14], mediate entrainment of the circadian clock in response to light [15,16] and regulate up to 10–20% gene expression in the Arabidopsis thaliana genome [17]. As well as cryptochromes, two phototropins, designated PHOT1 and PHOT2, are blue light receptors in Arabidopsis thaliana [18], and both act to mediate the phototropism of hypocotyl in response to high intensities of blue light [19]. Recently, PHOT1 and PHYB were implicated in AR formation by, respectively, modulating auxin transport in response to blue light [9] and inhibiting auxin signaling in the dark [7]. These examples clearly connect light perception with the control of AR formation, but a mechanistic model is lacking.
The E3-ligase CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC1 (COP1) and SUPPRESSOR OF phyA-105 (SPA) kinases prevent photomorphogenic growth in the dark [20]. In Arabidopsis thaliana, the SPAs bind and activate the E3 ubiquitin ligase COP1 [21,22] to target the transcription factor ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL 5 (HY5) for 26S proteasome-mediated degradation [22,23,24]. This activity of COP1 requires its nuclear localization, which depends on the action of the COP9 signalosome (CSN) [25,26,27]. The CSN is an evolutionary conserved eight-subunit protein complex originally identified as a genetic screen for mutants that mimic light-induced photomorphogenic development when grown in the dark [25,28]. CSN controls the RUB/NEDD8 modification of the CULLIN subunit of multiple E3 ligases, thereby regulating not only plant photomorphogenesis [29] but also a set of diverse signaling cascades such as DNA damage [30], auxin signaling [31,32,33,34] and jasmonate signaling [35]. Mutants in different CSN subunits were shown to be defective in auxin-induced AR formation [36]. COP1, HY5 and the CSN complex act downstream of photoreceptors such as PHYA, PHYB, CRY1, CRY2 and PHOT2 [11,37,38,39]. Their role and interplay during adventitious rooting is, however, poorly characterized.
Photomorphogenic development is largely driven by these factors, converging on extensive transcriptional reprogramming, that is mediated by HY5 and PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTOR (PIF) transcription factors [40,41]. PIF transcription factors are stable in the dark and degraded in the light [41], and they suppress photomorphogenesis [42,43]. PIFs are antagonized by the basic leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factors HY5 and its homolog HYH [44] that are stable in the light to promote photomorphogenesis [45,46,47,48]. The most prominent phenotype of skotomorphogenic development is hypocotyl elongation and apical hook formation [4]. In the light, HY5 represses hypocotyl elongation by enhancing brassinosteroid signaling [48], mediating ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation [49] and regulating transcriptional changes [50,51]. The apical hook formation is regulated by PIFs, in parallel with ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3 (EIN3) and EIN3-LIKE1 (EIL1) transcription factors in response to hormone and light signals [24,52,53,54]. Of these transcription factors, EIN3/EIL1 was reported to suppress adventitious rooting from leaf explants [55], while the roles of HY5 and PIFs in AR formation remained to be evaluated.
The plant hormone auxin is a potent regulator of plant growth and development [56]. Its local accumulation in the pericycle of the root or hypocotyl triggers asymmetric cell divisions, as a first morphological hallmark of, respectively, lateral or adventitious root development [57,58]. In the root, the auxin homeostasis and signaling mechanisms that control lateral root spacing are well characterized [59,60], while this knowledge is lacking for AR induction in the hypocotyl [61]. Recently, the auxin co-receptors TIR1 and AFB2, their Aux/IAA counterparts IAA6, IAA9 and IAA17 [61], and downstream transcription factors ARF6, ARF8 [62] and the ARF7/ARF19 pair [63], have been implicated in AR formation. Light is an important regulator of AR formation. However, its effects on AR formation are somewhat ambiguous. It has been hypothesized that light stimulates AR formation via activating ARF6/8 [64], which was corroborated by the direct interaction between CRY1 and PHYB with ARF6 and ARF8 [65]. However, this was contradicted by Li et al. (2021) who showed that light, through PHYB, suppresses AR formation by stabilizing Aux/IAA proteins and by suppressing ARF7/19 activity [7]. These seemingly conflicting data illustrate the complexity by which light modulates auxin activities to control AR development.
A dark period prior to light treatment has been shown to enhance the rooting capacity of many plant species [66,67]. Insight into the genetic factors involved in light control of rooting is of primordial importance to crop propagation. Moreover, there are seemingly contradicting reports on how light and darkness affect adventitious root formation. The purpose of this study was to establish a mechanistic framework of light-regulated AR formation. Therefore, we used etiolated Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings as a well-established genetic model to explore how different light signaling and photomorphogenesis pathways control AR formation. In addition to the regulation of hypocotyl adventitious rooting capacity by the COP9 signalosome (CSN), SPA1, 2 and 3, and PIFs, we identified the transcription factor HY5 as a strong inhibitor of rooting competence. Together, these findings clearly position key regulators of light signaling and photomorphogenesis in the context of light-controlled AR induction. Based on our observations and known target processes of the respective components, we propose that the transition from dark to light triggers auxin redistribution and auxin sensitivity changes that result in AR inductive auxin activity maxima.

2. Results

2.1. Hypocotyl Adventitious Root Initiation Is Triggered by De-Etiolation

Light sensing triggers photomorphogenesis in dark-grown seedlings [68]. At the level of the hypocotyl, this includes the arrest of elongation [69], apical hook opening [70] and induction of adventitious roots (AR) [36]. The role of light and the process of photomorphogenesis on AR formation is, however, the least well understood. Therefore, we chose to study this in Arabidopsis thaliana, in which many mutants in light signaling and photomorphogenesis are readily available. The exposure of etiolated seedlings to light induced AR formation in Arabidopsis thaliana hypocotyls [71,72], while no AR appeared in the hypocotyls of seedlings that were germinated in the light (Figure 1a,b). Light-grown seedlings did not show indications of cell divisions or arrested primordia, which was visualized upon tissue clearing in the etiolated seedlings exposed to light (Figure 1c–e, Figure S1). An average of 1.487 AR primordia (ARP) were observed in hypocotyls of the etiolated seedlings transferred to light conditions (Figure 1f). Etiolation is therefore a critical precondition for light-dependent AR induction in Arabidopsis thaliana hypocotyls.

2.2. AR Formation in Etiolated Seedlings Is Stimulated by Blue, but Not by Red Light

Next, we aimed to characterize the effects of different light conditions on AR formation. We found that etiolated seedlings transferred into the light produced more AR than those kept in the dark (Figure 2). Continuous darkness, however, did not prevent AR induction, and AR primordia were observed in cleared hypocotyls,, indicating that light is not essential, yet enhances the capacity to form AR (Figure 2a,c). To determine the sensitivity to different light wavelengths, etiolated seedlings were exposed to white, blue, red and far-red LED light. The transfer of three days etiolated seedlings into the light strongly suppressed hypocotyl elongation with blue light showing the strongest inhibition (Figure 2a,b). Blue and white light stimulated AR formation, whereas red and far-red did not show a significant increase in the number of AR compared to seedlings kept in darkness (Figure 2c). The elongation and root induction response to blue light illumination was consistent with a previous report that identified blue light as a strong inducer of hypocotyl AR formation [9].

2.3. Blue Light Signaling Contributes to AR Formation

Since blue light is perceived by cryptochromes (cry1 [73], cry1cry2 [74]) and phototropins (phot1phot2 [75]), we analyzed the contributions of these receptors to hypocotyl elongation and AR formation. Hypocotyls elongated in the dark (Figure 2b and Figure 3e), and this was suppressed by white (Figure 2b) and blue (Figure 2b and Figure 3e) light as expected. This suppression was significantly less in cry1, cry1cry2 and phot1phot2 mutants (Figure 3b). In the dark, AR formation in the photoreceptor mutants did not differ from the wild type controls (Figure 3d,f). In white light, ARP formation was strongly reduced in cry1 and cry1cry2 (Figure 3a,c), suggesting that blue light receptors are more important for AR formation than red and far-red signaling. Therefore, we explored in more detail the blue light signaling components (Figure 3). In white light, the cryptochrome mutants cry1 and cry1cry2 had longer hypocotyls than WT (Ler) and phot1phot2 (Figure 3a,b), while AR formation in all tested blue light receptors was significantly reduced (Figure 3a,c). In blue light, a similar response was observed, except for the phot1phot2 mutant that was responsive to blue light by inhibiting hypocotyl elongation (Figure 3d,e) and stimulating AR formation (Figure 3d,f). These data suggest a prominent role for CRY in hypocotyl elongation and AR formation, whereas PHOTs are not required for elongation and play only a minor role in AR formation.

2.4. CSN Subunits Play Differential Roles in AR Initiation

Since de-etiolation by white and blue light increased the ARP number, we asked whether activation of photomorphogenesis was sufficient for AR induction. To test this, constitutively photomorphogenic mutants of the COP9 signalosome were analyzed. Constitutive photomorphogenesis mutants produce short hypocotyls in the dark [76,77] and since hypomorphic alleles have been identified, namely, csn2-5 [78], csn3-3 [79], csn5a-1 [80], csn5a-2 [80] and csn5b-1 [80], these were analyzed. These weak alleles did not show the short hypocotyl phenotype and instead, with the exception of csn3-3, hypocotyls were longer than the corresponding WTs (Figure 4a,b).
Previously, a weak allele of CSN4 (csn4-2035) was identified as a suppressor for excessive AR production in the auxin-overproducing superroot2-1 (sur2-1) mutant [36]. The csn2-5 and csn3-3 mutants formed fewer ARP than WT. The full and partial CSN5A knock-out alleles, csn5a-1 and csn5a-2, respectively [80], hardly formed any ARPs. In contrast, the full knock-out in CSN5B (csn5b-1) [80] formed significantly more ARPs than WT (Figure 4a,c). This antagonistic function of CSN was also observed previously and reflects the differential contributions of the CSN5 subunits in AR initiation [36]. Taken together, these results suggest that activation of photomorphogenesis is not sufficient for AR stimulation.

2.5. COP1/SPA Complex Plays a Role in Dark-Light-Induced AR Initiation

The suppression of photomorphogenesis in dark-grown Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings also requires, next to COP1, the activity of members of the SUPPRESSOR OF PHYA-105 (SPA) kinase family [81]. SPA kinases interact with and activate COP1 [82,83], forming a complex that promotes ubiquitination and degradation of ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL5 (HY5) to repress photomorphogenesis in the dark. Knocking out this COP1/SPA pathway is lethal or leads to developmental defects including dwarfism and early flowering [84], precluding the assessment of post-embryonic processes such as AR development. Therefore, we focused on mutants of the SPA family [22] that can complete the life cycle [82].
The hypocotyl of etiolated spa1-100 [85], spa2-2 [86] and spa3-1 [87] was slightly longer than WT (Figure 5a,c), consistent with SPA involvement in shade-avoidance [88]. In contrast, the spa1-3spa2-1spa3-1 (spa1/2/3) triple mutant [82] had a slightly shorter hypocotyl (Figure 5a,b). The moderate hypocotyl elongation defect in spa1/2/3 is likely due to the presence of sucrose in the medium [82].
We then examined the dark-light transition-induced AR formation. While the spa1-100, spa2-2 and spa3-1 single mutants formed similar numbers of AR as Col-0, the spa1/2/3 triple mutant did not form AR (Figure 5a,b). In the dark, COP1/SPA stimulates the proteolysis of bZIP transcription factors LONG HYPOCOTYL5 (HY5) and HY5 HOMOLOGUE (HYH), and in the light they are stabilized, activating light-dependent gene expression and photomorphogenesis [89]. Consistent with this dark-light regulatory system, hy5 and hyh hypocotyls were longer than WT (Figure 5a,b) and formed more AR (Figure 5a,c). These results affirm that photomorphogenesis primarily suppresses AR formation.

2.6. Skotomorphogenesis PIF Factors Are Required for AR Formation

Phytochrome-Interacting Factors (PIFs) are basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors (TFs) that accumulate in the dark to promote skotomorphogenesis [90,91] and act antagonistically to HY5 in light responses [41,92,93]. To determine whether the etiolation factors PIF control AR formation, phenotypic responses in dark–to-light growth conditions were analyzed for single mutants pif1-1, pif3-7, pif4-2 and pif5-3,and the multiplex mutant pifQ [42]. The single mutants developed slightly longer hypocotyls than the wild type (Figure 6a,b). In contrast, pifQ had shorter hypocotyls (Figure 6a,b), consistent with PIF functional redundancy in suppressing photomorphogenesis [94,95].
Similarly, the single knock-out mutants showed moderate to no changes in AR formation, while pifQ formed very few or no ARP four days after transfer into white light (Figure 6a,b). These results indicate that etiolation-induced AR competence depends on PIFs.

3. Discussion

3.1. Light Has Contrasting Effects on AR Formation

Light plays a pivotal role in plant growth and development [96], with other environmental factors [97]. Darkness and low light conditions induce etiolation and light triggers photomorphogenic growth. The transition from dark to light causes the arrest of hypocotyl elongation, opening of the apical hook, activation of the shoot meristem, greening and the induction of adventitious roots [8,98,99,100]. While many of these developmental processes have been studied intensively, AR induction is less well understood, and moreover, light has been reported to both stimulate and inhibit rooting [7].
The notion that photomorphogenesis and light signaling inhibit AR formation comes from the inhibition of AR formation in light-grown seedlings (Figure 1b). Mutants that express (partial) photomorphogenesis characteristics in the dark, e.g., cns, pifQ and spa1/2/3 triple (Figure 5), and mutants expressing a constitutive active PHYB [7], show a severely reduced capacity of AR formation. Consistently, the incapacity to execute photomorphogenesis in the hy5 mutant [101] resulted in increased AR formation.
This complementarity leads to the interpretation that skotomorphogenesis is associated with increased AR competence. In Arabidopsis thaliana hypocotyls, there seems to be an optimal etiolation time for AR induction, after which the light-induced AR production becomes less efficient [7]. This is reflected in the lack of AR formation in pifQ mutants that are defective in the major skotomorphogenesis transcription factors (Figure 6). Consistent with enhanced AR competence in etiolated seedlings, a dark treatment is often used to improve AR formation of cuttings as shown for Petunia hybrida and Prunus avium [66,67], and in micropropagation of various horticulture and tree crops as in, e.g., Acacia mangium and Malus domestica (Borkh.) Likhonos [102,103]. Therefore, this improved AR formation might be explained by a partial reversal of the photomorphogenetic state during the dark treatment, which alleviates the suppression of AR formation.
The rooting responses of skotomorphogenesis and photomorphogenesis Arabidopsis thaliana mutants illustrate how darkness installs a state of AR competence and light reduces AR formation. Light, however, stimulates AR formation when applied to etiolated seedlings within a limited time period [7]. Blue light and red light, but not far-red light, are AR inductive signals in etiolated hypocotyls [9]. In our experiments, stronger stimulation of AR formation by blue light than with red light was observed, presumably because we used higher intensities than in previous studies. Light intensity may therefore also be a factor determining the capacity to induce AR formation in etiolated seedlings.
The AR inducing effect by light has been proposed to be related to the activation of photosynthesis [104]. However, in our experiments, the blue-light effect was entirely dependent on the blue light receptors CRY1 and CRY2, and partially on PHOT1/PHOT2, indicating that photosynthesis played only a minor role. Photosynthesis may however contribute to AR formation during further development of the AR primordia by activating the small GTPase ROP2 and TOR kinase [105], leading to AR formation in potato [106].
In conclusion, our data show that light acts as an inhibitor of AR competence when applied to light-grown seedlings, while it functions as an AR stimulus in dark-grown seedlings.

3.2. Auxin Plays a Central Role in the Dual Effect of Light on AR Formation

Auxin is the central signaling hormone for AR induction. Its accumulation in the pericycle activates asymmetric cell division and subsequent AR organogenesis [61]. Light is therefore expected to control AR formation via auxin. One of the major molecular differences between light and darkness lies in the antagonism between PIF and HY5 transcription factors that are stable in darkness and light, respectively. A direct target of PIFs are auxin biosynthesis genes of the YUCCA family [107,108]. In the dark, PIFs stimulate auxin biosynthesis and act cooperatively with the auxin ARF6 and brassinosteroid BZR1 transcription factors [109]. ARF6 mediates auxin regulation of AR induction [34,62] and brassinosteroids stimulate AR formation in the auxin-overproducing sur2-7 mutant [110]. A similar cooperation between PIFs, ARF6 and BZR1 may control AR competence in the dark.
In light, PIFs are degraded and HY5 is stabilized, activating photomorphogenesis-related genes [111]. We found that dark-grown pifQ and hy5 mutants form, respectively, less and more ARs upon transfer to light. One possible explanation for this phenomenon can be found in their respective known targets. While PIFs enhance auxin levels in the dark [112], HY5 suppresses auxin signaling in the light by inducing Aux/IAA signaling repressors SLR/IAA14 and AXR2/IAA7 [113] and suppressing YUCCA9 [114]. Consistently, it was recently found that extended darkness leads to the formation of ARs independent of a light stimulus [7]. This underlines the central role of auxin and darkness in determining the competence to form AR.
Next to auxin biosynthesis, auxin receptivity also determines AR formation. This follows from the observed reduction in AR in csn mutants (Figure 4) [36], which display auxin resistance [31] due to a direct impact on auxin co-receptor SCFTIR1/AFB activity [115] via its role in deconjugation of NEDD8/RUB1 of the CUL1 subunit in SCF complexes. The nuclear localization and HY5-degrading activity of COP1 in the dark depends on CSN [25], causing the constitutive photomorphogenic phenotype of csn mutants, revealing that CSN contributes to AR competence in etiolated seedlings possibly via two separate signaling routes.
In blue light, auxin signaling is mediated via cryptochromes and phototropins. CRY1 interacts with the transcription factors PIF4 and PIF5 [43,116,117,118] and with SPA1 to suppress COP1-dependent degradation of the transcription factor HY5 [119,120]. In addition, CRY1 counteracts the association of TIR1 and AUX/IAAs [121] and represses DNA binding of ARF6 and ARF8 [65]. Cryptochrome-mediated blue light signaling thereby suppresses auxin signaling, and thus AR formation, in the hypocotyl. However, we found that CRY1 is required for blue light-induced AR formation (Figure 3). CRYs, therefore, also positively influence auxin signaling in the context of AR formation, a process that awaits elucidation.
A hint for the mechanism by which blue light might regulate AR induction comes from phot mutant analysis (Figure 3). PHOT1-mediated blue light perception in AR formation was proposed to result in the modulation of auxin transport via PIN3 activity [9]. PHOT1 also inhibits the auxin transporter ABCB19, changing auxin flux from the shoot to the hypocotyl [122]. This is consistent with a model in which blue light affects auxin flux from the shoot to the hypocotyl and modulates PIN3-mediated auxin transport to the pericycle to induce AR formation.

3.3. Model for Dual Role of Light in AR Formation

Light and darkness have contrasting effects on auxin homeostasis and signaling. Here, we propose that the switch from darkness to light results in a transient and local accumulation of auxin in the pericycle that reconciles both effects on the induction of AR.
During skotomorphogenesis, auxin biosynthesis rates are high to stimulate rapid growth and to maintain the apical hook [123,124] (Figure 7a). The transfer to light and activation of photomorphogenesis causes an important relocalization of auxin and suppression of auxin signaling in the entire hypocotyl, resulting in an arrest of hypocotyl growth and the induction of apical hook opening (Figure 7b). We anticipate that the redistribution of auxin, further facilitated via blue light effects on auxin transport, results in local auxin maxima in the pericycle that are sufficiently strong to trigger asymmetric division and AR formation. Over time, light signaling and photomorphogenesis install auxin resistance at the level of the signaling machinery, precluding further AR induction (Figure 7c). Future studies to test this hypothesis require the analysis of temporal changes of auxin levels and transport in the Arabidopsis thaliana hypocotyl.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Materials and Growth Conditions

The phot1phot2 [75], csn3-3 [79], csn5a-1 [80], csn5a-2 [80], csn 5b-1 [80], spa1-100 [85], spa2-2 [86], spa3-1 [87], spa1-3spa2-1spa3-1 (spa1/2/3) triple mutant [82], pif1-1(SAIL_256G07), pif3-7 (CS66042), pif4-2 (SALK_140393), pif5-3 (CS66044) and pifQ (pif1-1pif3-3pif4-2pif5-3) [42] used in this study are in the Columbia-0 (Col-0) background. The cry1 [73], cry1cry2 [74] and csn2-5 [78] are in the Landsberg erecta (Ler) background. The hy5 [125] and hyh [89] are in the Wassilewskija (Ws) background. The single pif mutants were obtained from NASC (The Nottingham Arabidopsis Stock Centre). Homozygous, genotyped lines were selected after two complete growth cycles (primers in Table S1). Wild type Arabidopsis thaliana seeds were collected at the same time for assays. Seeds were surface sterilized and sown on 1/2 MS agar vertical plates (1.5 g/L MS, 0.5% (w/v) sucrose, 0.05% (w/v) MES and 0.8% (w/v) agar, pH 5.7). Plates were incubated for 4 d at 4 °C in dark for stratification. Plants were germinated by 8 h incubation in the light (22 °C, 70 µmol/m2s) before incubated for 3 d in the dark to induce hypocotyl elongation as described [71]. Well-elongated seedings were transferred to 1/2 MS agar vertical plates and further grown on these plates for 4 d in a growth chamber at 70% relative humidity and 22 °C, with 16 h/8 h light/dark cycles (150 µmol/m2s).

4.2. Light Sources

For light-response experiments, seedlings were grown in darkness for 3 days at 22 °C with 16 h/8 h light/dark cycles after stratified 4 days at 4 °C in dark and followed by stimulation under blue light (peak: 470 nm, half band width: 30 nm, 59.75 µmol/m2s), red light (peak: 660 nm, half band width: 20 nm, 41.62 µmol/m2s), far-red light (peak: 740 nm, half band width: 25 nm, 1.32 µmol/m2s) or darkness for 4 days for further analysis. The light condition was applied by Philips Greenpower light-emitting diode (LED) chambers, which are spectrally controllable by Philips GrowWise control system. Total incident light intensity and the spectral distributions of the different light sources were measured using a spectroradiometer (SS-110, Apogee Instruments, Logan, UT, USA).

4.3. Hypocotyl Phenotypic Analysis

Images of seedlings on vertical plates were taken with D7000 Nikon camera, AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8 G IF-ED lens, followed by manual analysis using the ImageJ software plugin (http://www.imagescience.org/meijering/software/neuronj/, accessed on 26 March 2021) [126] for hypocotyl length measurement.

4.4. Preparation and Observation of Cleared Seedings

For light microscopy, plant seedlings were cleared with methanol and NaOH and mounted as described in [127]. Seedlings were harvested and fixed in acetone (90%) overnight at 4 °C. After fixation, seedlings were transferred to 0.5 M phosphate buffer for 30 min at 37 °C, followed by 45 min in clearing solution I (0.24 N HCl in 20% methanol) at 60 °C and 15 min in Clearing Sol II (7% NaOH in 60% EtOH) at room temperature. Seedings were then rehydrated sequentially with ethanol series (40, 20 and 10%) at room temperature for 5 min each step and infiltrated for at least 1 h with 5% ethanol in 25% glycerol. Subsequently, the entire seedlings were mounted in 50% glycerol (our trick to keep the seedlings straight: putting the cleared seedlings on the coverslip rather than on the microscopy slide) and adventitious root primordia were inspected by BX51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) using differential interference contrast (DIC) optics.

4.5. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. One way ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to assess differences between the mutant lines (p < 0.05). Nonpaired Student t-test was used for two group comparison (Figure 1f). All mutants in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 were analyzed in the same runs, resulting in duplication of the WT data, upon splitting the data up over different figures. For all comparisons, at least three independent experiments were performed, each with more than 20 seedlings for mutant lines.

5. Conclusions

Despite AR formation being intimately connected to light signaling and photomorphogenesis, two heavily studied physiological processes, the mechanism by which these processes converge on AR formation has remained elusive. Here, we analyzed the AR competence of different mutants in key positions in these pathways, providing a first outline of the genetic framework that controls light-controlled AR formation. Integrating these findings with known targets of these components led us to propose the above model based on the contrasting effects of light and darkness on auxin signaling and homeostasis. Validation of this model will require mapping and modeling of the spatio-temporal characteristics of auxin signaling and homeostasis in tissues relevant for dark to light-induced AR formation, and how this is affected in the used light signaling and photomorphogenesis mutants. A deeper understanding of the molecular mechanism of light-regulated AR formation may inspire novel strategies for improving AR formation during clonal propagation of crop and ornamental species.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms23105301/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.V. and D.G.; methodology, Y.Z., S.S., S.V. and D.G.; formal analysis, Y.Z., J.L. and E.V.d.V.; resources, I.V.; data curation, S.V.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z., S.V. and D.G.; writing—review and editing, I.V., S.V. and D.G.; supervision, H.K.T.; funding acquisition, S.V. and D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Fonds Wetenchappelijk onderzoek (FWO), grant G049622N. The China Scholarship Council (CSC) supported Y.Z. (No. 201806300036) and J.L. grant (No. 201706350259). S.S. was supported by a Strategic Basic Research fellowship FWO (1S66418N).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw data supporting reported results are stored on a server in accordance to rules outlined by the data management plan of Ghent University (www.ugent.be/en/research/datamanagement/before-research/datamanagementplan.htm, accessed on 6 April 2022).

Acknowledgments

We thank F. Vandenbussche (FPB, UGent, Belgium), and Üte Höcker (Köln University, Germany) for providing mutant seeds, and M.C. Van Labeke for use of LED equipped growth rooms.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xing, D. Phytochrome B-mediated activation of lipoxygenase modulates an excess red light-induced defence response in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 4907–4918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Da Silva, M.M.; Debergh, P. The effect of light quality on the morphogenesis of in vitro cultures of Azorina vidalii (Wats.) Feer. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 1997, 51, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Christophe, A.; Moulia, B.; Varlet-Grancher, C. Quantitative contributions of blue light and PAR to the photocontrol of plant morphogenesis in Trifolium repens (L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 2379–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Pfeiffer, A.; Janocha, D.; Dong, Y.; Medzihradszky, A.; Schöne, S.; Daum, G.; Suzaki, T.; Forner, J.; Langenecker, T.; Rempel, E. Integration of light and metabolic signals for stem cell activation at the shoot apical meristem. eLife 2016, 5, e17023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gommers, C.M.; Monte, E. Seedling establishment: A dimmer switch-regulated process between dark and light signaling. Plant Physiol. 2018, 176, 1061–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bellini, C.; Pacurar, D.I.; Perrone, I. Adventitious roots and lateral roots: Similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014, 65, 639–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Q.Q.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.L.; Zhong, L.Y.; Chao, Z.F.; Gao, Y.Q.; Han, M.L.; Xu, L.; Chao, D.Y. Phytochrome B inhibits darkness-induced hypocotyl adventitious root formation by stabilizing IAA14 and suppressing ARF7 and ARF19. Plant J. 2021, 105, 1689–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sorin, C.; Bussell, J.D.; Camus, I.; Ljung, K.; Kowalczyk, M.; Geiss, G.; McKhann, H.; Garcion, C.; Vaucheret, H.; Sandberg, G. Auxin and light control of adventitious rooting in Arabidopsis require ARGONAUTE1. Plant Cell 2005, 17, 1343–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Zhai, S.; Cai, W.; Xiang, Z.-X.; Chen, C.-Y.; Lu, Y.-T.; Yuan, T.-T. PIN3-mediated auxin transport contributes to blue light-induced adventitious root formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Sci. 2021, 312, 111044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alallaq, S.; Ranjan, A.; Brunoni, F.; Novák, O.; Lakehal, A.; Bellini, C. Red light controls adventitious root regeneration by modulating hormone homeostasis in Picea abies seedlings. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Galvão, V.C.; Fankhauser, C. Sensing the light environment in plants: Photoreceptors and early signaling steps. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2015, 34, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Nemhauser, J.; Chory, J. Photomorphogenesis. In The Arabidopsis Book; American Society of Plant Biologists: Derwood, MD, USA, 2002; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ahmad, M.; Cashmore, A.R. HY4 gene of A. thaliana encodes a protein with characteristics of a blue-light photoreceptor. Nature 1993, 366, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Guo, H.; Yang, H.; Mockler, T.C.; Lin, C. Regulation of flowering time by Arabidopsis photoreceptors. Science 1998, 279, 1360–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Yang, H.-Q.; Wu, Y.-J.; Tang, R.-H.; Liu, D.; Liu, Y.; Cashmore, A.R. The C termini of Arabidopsis cryptochromes mediate a constitutive light response. Cell 2000, 103, 815–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Kleiner, O.; Kircher, S.; Harter, K.; Batschauer, A. Nuclear localization of the Arabidopsis blue light receptor cryptochrome 2. Plant J. 1999, 19, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Ma, L.; Li, J.; Qu, L.; Hager, J.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, H.; Deng, X.W. Light control of Arabidopsis development entails coordinated regulation of genome expression and cellular pathways. Plant Cell 2001, 13, 2589–2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Briggs, W.R.; Christie, J.M. Phototropins 1 and 2: Versatile plant blue-light receptors. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sakai, T.; Kagawa, T.; Kasahara, M.; Swartz, T.E.; Christie, J.M.; Briggs, W.R.; Wada, M.; Okada, K. Arabidopsis nph1 and npl1: Blue light receptors that mediate both phototropism and chloroplast relocation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 6969–6974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Xu, X.; Paik, I.; Zhu, L.; Huq, E. Illuminating progress in phytochrome-mediated light signaling pathways. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sheerin, D.J.; Menon, C.; zur Oven-Krockhaus, S.; Enderle, B.; Zhu, L.; Johnen, P.; Schleifenbaum, F.; Stierhof, Y.-D.; Huq, E.; Hiltbrunner, A. Light-activated phytochrome A and B interact with members of the SPA family to promote photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis by reorganizing the COP1/SPA complex. Plant Cell 2015, 27, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hoecker, U. The activities of the E3 ubiquitin ligase COP1/SPA, a key repressor in light signaling. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2017, 37, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, X.; Kathare, P.K.; Pham, V.N.; Bu, Q.; Nguyen, A.; Huq, E. Reciprocal proteasome-mediated degradation of PIFs and HFR1 underlies photomorphogenic development in Arabidopsis. Development 2017, 144, 1831–1840. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Mazzella, M.A.; Casal, J.J.; Muschietti, J.P.; Fox, A.R. Hormonal networks involved in apical hook development in darkness and their response to light. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Chamovitz, D.A.; Wei, N.; Osterlund, M.T.; von Arnim, A.G.; Staub, J.M.; Matsui, M.; Deng, X.-W. The COP9 complex, a novel multisubunit nuclear regulator involved in light control of a plant developmental switch. Cell 1996, 86, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wang, X.; Li, W.; Piqueras, R.; Cao, K.; Deng, X.W.; Wei, N. Regulation of COP1 nuclear localization by the COP9 signalosome via direct interaction with CSN1. Plant J. 2009, 58, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Choi, H.H.; Gully, C.; Su, C.-H.; Velazquez-Torres, G.; Chou, P.-C.; Tseng, C.; Zhao, R.; Phan, L.; Shaiken, T.; Chen, J. COP9 signalosome subunit 6 stabilizes COP1, which functions as an E3 ubiquitin ligase for 14-3-3σ. Oncogene 2011, 30, 4791–4801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Wei, N.; Chamovitz, D.A.; Deng, X.-W. Arabidopsis COP9 is a component of a novel signaling complex mediating light control of development. Cell 1994, 78, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, H.; Shen, Y.; Tang, X.; Yu, L.; Wang, J.; Guo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Feng, S.; Strickland, E. Arabidopsis CULLIN4 forms an E3 ubiquitin ligase with RBX1 and the CDD complex in mediating light control of development. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 1991–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Dohmann, E.M.; Levesque, M.P.; De Veylder, L.; Reichardt, I.; Jürgens, G.; Schmid, M.; Schwechheimer, C. The Arabidopsis COP9 signalosome is essential for G2 phase progression and genomic stability. Development 2008, 135, 2013–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Schwechheimer, C.; Serino, G.; Callis, J.; Crosby, W.L.; Lyapina, S.; Deshaies, R.J.; Gray, W.M.; Estelle, M.; Deng, X.-W. Interactions of the COP9 signalosome with the E3 ubiquitin ligase SCFTIR1 in mediating auxin response. Science 2001, 292, 1379–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Dohmann, E.M.N.; Levesque, M.P.; Isono, E.; Schmid, M.; Schwechheimer, C. Auxin responses in mutants of the Arabidopsis CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC9 signalosome. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 1369–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Laxmi, A.; Pan, J.; Morsy, M.; Chen, R. Light plays an essential role in intracellular distribution of auxin efflux carrier PIN2 in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lakehal, A.; Chaabouni, S.; Cavel, E.; Le Hir, R.; Ranjan, A.; Raneshan, Z.; Novák, O.; Păcurar, D.I.; Perrone, I.; Jobert, F. A molecular framework for the control of adventitious rooting by TIR1/AFB2-Aux/IAA-dependent auxin signaling in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1499–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Feng, S.; Ma, L.; Wang, X.; Xie, D.; Dinesh-Kumar, S.; Wei, N.; Deng, X.W. The COP9 signalosome interacts physically with SCFCOI1 and modulates jasmonate responses. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 1083–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Pacurar, D.I.; Pacurar, M.L.; Lakehal, A.; Pacurar, A.M.; Ranjan, A.; Bellini, C. The Arabidopsis Cop9 signalosome subunit 4 (CSN4) is involved in adventitious root formation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kang, C.-Y.; Lian, H.-L.; Wang, F.-F.; Huang, J.-R.; Yang, H.-Q. Cryptochromes, phytochromes, and COP1 regulate light-controlled stomatal development in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 2624–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Yadav, V.; Kundu, S.; Chattopadhyay, D.; Negi, P.; Wei, N.; Deng, X.W.; Chattopadhyay, S. Light regulated modulation of Z-box containing promoters by photoreceptors and downstream regulatory components, COP1 and HY5, in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2002, 31, 741–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Jeong, R.-D.; Chandra-Shekara, A.; Barman, S.R.; Navarre, D.; Klessig, D.F.; Kachroo, A.; Kachroo, P. Cryptochrome 2 and phototropin 2 regulate resistance protein-mediated viral defense by negatively regulating an E3 ubiquitin ligase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 13538–13543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Quail, P.H. Phytochrome-regulated gene expression. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2007, 49, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leivar, P.; Quail, P.H. PIFs: Pivotal components in a cellular signaling hub. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Leivar, P.; Monte, E.; Oka, Y.; Liu, T.; Carle, C.; Castillon, A.; Huq, E.; Quail, P.H. Multiple phytochrome-interacting bHLH transcription factors repress premature seedling photomorphogenesis in darkness. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18, 1815–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Shin, J.; Kim, K.; Kang, H.; Zulfugarov, I.S.; Bae, G.; Lee, C.-H.; Lee, D.; Choi, G. Phytochromes promote seedling light responses by inhibiting four negatively-acting phytochrome-interacting factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 7660–7665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Jakoby, M.; Weisshaar, B.; Dröge-Laser, W.; Vicente-Carbajosa, J.; Tiedemann, J.; Kroj, T.; Parcy, F. bZIP transcription factors in Arabidopsis. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Osterlund, M.T.; Hardtke, C.S.; Wei, N.; Deng, X.W. Targeted destabilization of HY5 during light-regulated development of Arabidopsis. Nature 2000, 405, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ulm, R.; Baumann, A.; Oravecz, A.; Máté, Z.; Ádám, É.; Oakeley, E.J.; Schäfer, E.; Nagy, F. Genome-wide analysis of gene expression reveals function of the bZIP transcription factor HY5 in the UV-B response of Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 1397–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lee, J.; He, K.; Stolc, V.; Lee, H.; Figueroa, P.; Gao, Y.; Tongprasit, W.; Zhao, H.; Lee, I.; Deng, X.W. Analysis of transcription factor HY5 genomic binding sites revealed its hierarchical role in light regulation of development. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 731–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Li, J.; Terzaghi, W.; Gong, Y.; Li, C.; Ling, J.-J.; Fan, Y.; Qin, N.; Gong, X.; Zhu, D.; Deng, X.W. Modulation of BIN2 kinase activity by HY5 controls hypocotyl elongation in the light. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Yang, Y.; Liang, T.; Zhang, L.; Shao, K.; Gu, X.; Shang, R.; Shi, N.; Li, X.; Zhang, P.; Liu, H. UVR8 interacts with WRKY36 to regulate HY5 transcription and hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis. Nat. Plants 2018, 4, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, L.; Peng, T.; Chen, C.-Y.; Ji, R.; Gu, D.; Li, T.; Zhang, D.; Tu, Y.-T.; Wu, K.; Liu, X. HY5 interacts with the histone deacetylase HDA15 to repress hypocotyl cell elongation in photomorphogenesis. Plant Physiol. 2019, 180, 1450–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Jing, Y.; Zhang, D.; Wang, X.; Tang, W.; Wang, W.; Huai, J.; Xu, G.; Chen, D.; Li, Y.; Lin, R. Arabidopsis chromatin remodeling factor PICKLE interacts with transcription factor HY5 to regulate hypocotyl cell elongation. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Zhang, X.; Ji, Y.; Xue, C.; Ma, H.; Xi, Y.; Huang, P.; Wang, H.; An, F.; Li, B.; Wang, Y. Integrated regulation of apical hook development by transcriptional coupling of EIN3/EIL1 and PIFs in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2018, 30, 1971–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Aizezi, Y.; Shu, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, H.; Peng, Y.; Lan, H.; Xie, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Guo, H. Cytokinin regulates apical hook development via the coordinated actions of EIN3/EIL1 and PIF transcription factors in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Gallego-Bartolomé, J.; Arana, M.V.; Vandenbussche, F.; Žádníková, P.; Minguet, E.G.; Guardiola, V.; Van Der Straeten, D.; Benkova, E.; Alabadí, D.; Blázquez, M.A. Hierarchy of hormone action controlling apical hook development in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2011, 67, 622–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Li, H.; Yao, L.; Sun, L.; Zhu, Z. ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE 3 suppresses plant de novo root regeneration from leaf explants and mediates age-regulated regeneration decline. Development 2020, 147, dev179457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vanneste, S.; Friml, J. Auxin: A trigger for change in plant development. Cell 2009, 136, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dubrovsky, J.G.; Sauer, M.; Napsucialy-Mendivil, S.; Ivanchenko, M.G.; Friml, J.; Shishkova, S.; Celenza, J.; Benková, E. Auxin acts as a local morphogenetic trigger to specify lateral root founder cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 8790–8794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Esmon, C.A.; Tinsley, A.G.; Ljung, K.; Sandberg, G.; Hearne, L.B.; Liscum, E. A gradient of auxin and auxin-dependent transcription precedes tropic growth responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Xuan, W.; De Gernier, H.; Beeckman, T. The dynamic nature and regulation of the root clock. Development 2020, 147, dev181446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Motte, H.; Vanneste, S.; Beeckman, T. Molecular and environmental regulation of root development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2019, 70, 465–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Lakehal, A.; Bellini, C. Control of adventitious root formation: Insights into synergistic and antagonistic hormonal interactions. Physiol. Plant. 2019, 165, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Gutierrez, L.; Bussell, J.D.; Pacurar, D.I.; Schwambach, J.; Pacurar, M.; Bellini, C. Phenotypic plasticity of adventitious rooting in Arabidopsis is controlled by complex regulation of AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR transcripts and microRNA abundance. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 3119–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Lee, H.W.; Cho, C.; Pandey, S.K.; Park, Y.; Kim, M.-J.; Kim, J. LBD16 and LBD18 acting downstream of ARF7 and ARF19 are involved in adventitious root formation in Arabidopsis. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Gutierrez, L.; Mongelard, G.; Floková, K.; Păcurar, D.I.; Novák, O.; Staswick, P.; Kowalczyk, M.; Păcurar, M.; Demailly, H.; Geiss, G. Auxin controls Arabidopsis adventitious root initiation by regulating jasmonic acid homeostasis. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 2515–2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mao, Z.; He, S.; Xu, F.; Wei, X.; Jiang, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, T.; Xu, P.; Du, S. Photoexcited CRY1 and phyB interact directly with ARF6 and ARF8 to regulate their DNA-binding activity and auxin-induced hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2020, 225, 848–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Klopotek, Y.; Haensch, K.-T.; Hause, B.; Hajirezaei, M.-R.; Druege, U. Dark exposure of petunia cuttings strongly improves adventitious root formation and enhances carbohydrate availability during rooting in the light. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Quambusch, M.; Gruß, S.; Pscherer, T.; Winkelmann, T.; Bartsch, M. Improved In Vitro Rooting of Prunus Avium Microshoots Using a Dark Treatment and an Auxin Pulse. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 220, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wei, N.; Deng, X.W. The COP9 signalosome. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2003, 19, 261–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Young, J.C.; Liscum, E.; Hangarter, R.P. Spectral-dependence of light-inhibited hypocotyl elongation in photomorphogenic mutants of Arabidopsis: Evidence for a UV-A photosensor. Planta 1992, 188, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liscum, E.; Hangarter, R.P. Light-stimulated apical hook opening in wild-type Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. Plant Physiol. 1993, 101, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zeng, Y.; Verstraeten, I.; Trinh, H.K.; Heugebaert, T.; Stevens, C.V.; Garcia-Maquilon, I.; Rodriguez, P.L.; Vanneste, S.; Geelen, D. Arabidopsis Hypocotyl Adventitious Root Formation Is Suppressed by ABA Signaling. Genes 2021, 12, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Trinh, H.K.; Verstraeten, I.; Geelen, D. In Vitro Assay for Induction of Adventitious Rooting on Intact Arabidopsis Hypocotyls. In Root Development; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bruggemann, E.; Handwerger, K.; Essex, C.; Storz, G. Analysis of fast neutron-generated mutants at the Arabidopsis thaliana HY4 locus. Plant J. 1996, 10, 755–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mao, J.; Zhang, Y.-C.; Sang, Y.; Li, Q.-H.; Yang, H.-Q. A role for Arabidopsis cryptochromes and COP1 in the regulation of stomatal opening. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 12270–12275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Kagawa, T.; Sakai, T.; Suetsugu, N.; Oikawa, K.; Ishiguro, S.; Kato, T.; Tabata, S.; Okada, K.; Wada, M. Arabidopsis NPL1: A phototropin homolog controlling the chloroplast high-light avoidance response. Science 2001, 291, 2138–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhao, X.; Jiang, Y.; Li, J.; Huq, E.; Chen, Z.J.; Xu, D.; Deng, X.W. COP1 SUPPRESSOR 4 promotes seedling photomorphogenesis by repressing CCA1 and PIF4 expression in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11631–11636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Chang, C.-S.J.; Maloof, J.N.; Wu, S.-H. COP1-mediated degradation of BBX22/LZF1 optimizes seedling development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Stuttmann, J.; Lechner, E.; Guérois, R.; Parker, J.E.; Nussaume, L.; Genschik, P.; Noël, L.D. COP9 signalosome-and 26S proteasome-dependent regulation of SCFTIR1 accumulation in Arabidopsis. J. Biol. Chem. 2009, 284, 7920–7930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Huang, H.; Quint, M.; Gray, W.M. The eta7/csn3-3 auxin response mutant of Arabidopsis defines a novel function for the CSN3 subunit of the COP9 signalosome. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Dohmann, E.M.; Kuhnle, C.; Schwechheimer, C. Loss of the CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC9 signalosome subunit 5 is sufficient to cause the cop/det/fus mutant phenotype in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2005, 17, 1967–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Laubinger, S.; Marchal, V.; Gentilhomme, J.; Wenkel, S.; Adrian, J.; Jang, S.; Kulajta, C.; Braun, H.; Coupland, G.; Hoecker, U. Arabidopsis SPA proteins regulate photoperiodic flowering and interact with the floral inducer CONSTANS to regulate its stability. Development 2006, 133, 3213–3222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Laubinger, S.; Fittinghoff, K.; Hoecker, U. The SPA quartet: A family of WD-repeat proteins with a central role in suppression of photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 2293–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Paik, I.; Chen, F.; Pham, V.N.; Zhu, L.; Kim, J.-I.; Huq, E. A phyB-PIF1-SPA1 kinase regulatory complex promotes photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Deng, X.-W.; Caspar, T.; Quail, P.H. cop1: A regulatory locus involved in light-controlled development and gene expression in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 1991, 5, 1172–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Yang, J.; Lin, R.; Hoecker, U.; Liu, B.; Xu, L.; Wang, H. Repression of light signaling by Arabidopsis SPA1 involves post-translational regulation of HFR1 protein accumulation. Plant J. 2005, 43, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ríos, G.; Lossow, A.; Hertel, B.; Breuer, F.; Schaefer, S.; Broich, M.; Kleinow, T.; Jásik, J.; Winter, J.; Ferrando, A. Rapid identification of Arabidopsis insertion mutants by non-radioactive detection of T-DNA tagged genes. Plant J. 2002, 32, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Laubinger, S.; Hoecker, U. The SPA1-like proteins SPA3 and SPA4 repress photomorphogenesis in the light. Plant J. 2003, 35, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Rolauffs, S.; Fackendahl, P.; Sahm, J.; Fiene, G.; Hoecker, U. Arabidopsis COP1 and SPA genes are essential for plant elongation but not for acceleration of flowering time in response to a low red light to far-red light ratio. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 2015–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Holm, M.; Ma, L.-G.; Qu, L.-J.; Deng, X.-W. Two interacting bZIP proteins are direct targets of COP1-mediated control of light-dependent gene expression in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 2002, 16, 1247–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Leivar, P.; Monte, E.; Al-Sady, B.; Carle, C.; Storer, A.; Alonso, J.M.; Ecker, J.R.; Quail, P.H. The Arabidopsis phytochrome-interacting factor PIF7, together with PIF3 and PIF4, regulates responses to prolonged red light by modulating phyB levels. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Castillon, A.; Shen, H.; Huq, E. Phytochrome interacting factors: Central players in phytochrome-mediated light signaling networks. Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kami, C.; Lorrain, S.; Hornitschek, P.; Fankhauser, C. Light-regulated plant growth and development. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2010, 91, 29–66. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lau, O.S.; Deng, X.W. Plant hormone signaling lightens up: Integrators of light and hormones. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2010, 13, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, R.; Hao, H.; Wang, Z.; Bi, Y. Phytochrome interacting factors (PIFs) are essential regulators for sucrose-induced hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 168, 1771–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Martínez, C.; Nieto, C.; Prat, S. Convergent regulation of PIFs and the E3 ligase COP1/SPA1 mediates thermosensory hypocotyl elongation by plant phytochromes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 188–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Fankhauser, C.; Chory, J. Light control of plant development. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 1997, 13, 203–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Perrino, E.V.; Valerio, F.; Jallali, S.; Trani, A.; Mezzapesa, G.N. Ecological and biological properties of Satureja cuneifolia Ten. and Thymus spinulosus Ten.: Two wild officinal species of conservation concern in Apulia (Italy). A preliminary survey. Plants 2021, 10, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Von Arnim, A.; Deng, X.-W. Light control of seedling development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1996, 47, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Girault, T.; Bergougnoux, V.; Combes, D.; Viemont, J.D.; Leduc, N. Light controls shoot meristem organogenic activity and leaf primordia growth during bud burst in Rosa sp. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 1534–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. De Greef, J.; Butler, W.; Roth, T. Greening of etiolated bean leaves in far red light. Plant Physiol. 1971, 47, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Kurihara, Y.; Makita, Y.; Shimohira, H.; Matsui, M. Time-course transcriptome study reveals mode of bZIP transcription factors on light exposure in arabidopsis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Monteuuis, O.; Bon, M.-C. Influence of auxins and darkness on in vitro rooting of micropropagated shoots from mature and juvenile Acacia mangium. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2000, 63, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Druart, P.; Kevers, C.; Boxus, P.; Gaspar, T. In Vitro Promotion of Root Formation by Apple Shoots through Darkness Effect on Endogenous Phenols and Peroxidases. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 1982, 108, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Li, M.; Svoboda, V.; Davis, G.; Kramer, D.; Kunz, H.-H.; Kirchhoff, H. Impact of ion fluxes across thylakoid membranes on photosynthetic electron transport and photoprotection. Nat. Plants 2021, 7, 979–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Schepetilnikov, M.; Makarian, J.; Srour, O.; Geldreich, A.; Yang, Z.; Chicher, J.; Hammann, P.; Ryabova, L.A. GTP ase ROP 2 binds and promotes activation of target of rapamycin, TOR, in response to auxin. EMBO J. 2017, 36, 886–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Deng, K.; Dong, P.; Wang, W.; Feng, L.; Xiong, F.; Wang, K.; Zhang, S.; Feng, S.; Wang, B.; Zhang, J. The TOR pathway is involved in adventitious root formation in Arabidopsis and potato. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Franklin, K.A.; Lee, S.H.; Patel, D.; Kumar, S.V.; Spartz, A.K.; Gu, C.; Ye, S.; Yu, P.; Breen, G.; Cohen, J.D. Phytochrome-interacting factor 4 (PIF4) regulates auxin biosynthesis at high temperature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20231–20235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Sun, J.; Qi, L.; Li, Y.; Chu, J.; Li, C. PIF4–mediated activation of YUCCA8 expression integrates temperature into the auxin pathway in regulating Arabidopsis hypocotyl growth. PLoS Genet. 2012, 8, e1002594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Oh, E.; Zhu, J.-Y.; Bai, M.-Y.; Arenhart, R.A.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Z.-Y. Cell elongation is regulated through a central circuit of interacting transcription factors in the Arabidopsis hypocotyl. eLife 2014, 3, e03031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Maharjan, P.M.; Dilkes, B.P.; Fujioka, S.; Pěnčík, A.; Ljung, K.; Burow, M.; Halkier, B.A.; Choe, S. Arabidopsis gulliver1/superroot2-7 identifies a metabolic basis for auxin and brassinosteroid synergy. Plant J. 2014, 80, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wang, P.; Abid, M.A.; Qanmber, G.; Askari, M.; Zhou, L.; Song, Y.; Liang, C.; Meng, Z.; Malik, W.; Wei, Y. Photomorphogenesis in plants: The central role of phytochrome interacting factors (PIFs). Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 194, 104704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kwon, Y.; Kim, J.H.; Nguyen, H.N.; Jikumaru, Y.; Kamiya, Y.; Hong, S.-W.; Lee, H. A novel Arabidopsis MYB-like transcription factor, MYBH, regulates hypocotyl elongation by enhancing auxin accumulation. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 3911–3922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Cluis, C.P.; Mouchel, C.F.; Hardtke, C.S. The Arabidopsis transcription factor HY5 integrates light and hormone signaling pathways. Plant J. 2004, 38, 332–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Wei, X.; Wang, W.; Xu, P.; Wang, W.; Guo, T.; Kou, S.; Liu, M.; Niu, Y.; Yang, H.Q.; Mao, Z. Phytochrome B interacts with SWC6 and ARP6 to regulate H2A. Z deposition and photomorphogensis in Arabidopsis. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2021, 63, 1133–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Schwechheimer, C.; Mergner, J. The NEDD8 modification pathway in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 103. [Google Scholar]
  116. Huq, E.; Quail, P.H. PIF4, a phytochrome-interacting bHLH factor, functions as a negative regulator of phytochrome B signaling in Arabidopsis. EMBO J. 2002, 21, 2441–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Khanna, R.; Huq, E.; Kikis, E.A.; Al-Sady, B.; Lanzatella, C.; Quail, P.H. A novel molecular recognition motif necessary for targeting photoactivated phytochrome signaling to specific basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 3033–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Kunihiro, A.; Yamashino, T.; Mizuno, T. PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTORS PIF4 and PIF5 are implicated in the regulation of hypocotyl elongation in response to blue light in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2010, 74, 2538–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Lian, H.-L.; He, S.-B.; Zhang, Y.-C.; Zhu, D.-M.; Zhang, J.-Y.; Jia, K.-P.; Sun, S.-X.; Li, L.; Yang, H.-Q. Blue-light-dependent interaction of cryptochrome 1 with SPA1 defines a dynamic signaling mechanism. Genes Dev. 2011, 25, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Liu, B.; Zuo, Z.; Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Lin, C. Arabidopsis cryptochrome 1 interacts with SPA1 to suppress COP1 activity in response to blue light. Genes Dev. 2011, 25, 1029–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Xu, F.; He, S.; Zhang, J.; Mao, Z.; Wang, W.; Li, T.; Hua, J.; Du, S.; Xu, P.; Li, L. Photoactivated CRY1 and phyB interact directly with AUX/IAA proteins to inhibit auxin signaling in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant 2018, 11, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Christie, J.M.; Yang, H.; Richter, G.L.; Sullivan, S.; Thomson, C.E.; Lin, J.; Titapiwatanakun, B.; Ennis, M.; Kaiserli, E.; Lee, O.R. phot1 inhibition of ABCB19 primes lateral auxin fluxes in the shoot apex required for phototropism. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Žádníková, P.; Wabnik, K.; Abuzeineh, A.; Gallemi, M.; Van Der Straeten, D.; Smith, R.S.; Inzé, D.; Friml, J.; Prusinkiewicz, P.; Benková, E. A model of differential growth-guided apical hook formation in plants. Plant Cell 2016, 28, 2464–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Vandenbussche, F.; Petrášek, J.; Žádníková, P.; Hoyerová, K.; Pešek, B.; Raz, V.; Swarup, R.; Bennett, M.; Zažímalová, E.; Benková, E. The auxin influx carriers AUX1 and LAX3 are involved in auxin-ethylene interactions during apical hook development in Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. Development 2010, 137, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Oyama, T.; Shimura, Y.; Okada, K. The Arabidopsis HY5 gene encodes a bZIP protein that regulates stimulus-induced development of root and hypocotyl. Genes Dev. 1997, 11, 2983–2995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Popko, J.; Fernandes, A.; Brites, D.; Lanier, L.M. Automated analysis of NeuronJ tracing data. Cytom. Part A J. Int. Soc. Adv. Cytom. 2009, 75, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Malamy, J.E.; Benfey, P.N. Organization and cell differentiation in lateral roots of Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 1997, 124, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 23 05301 g001 550
Figure 1. Adventitious root formation in etiolated and non-etiolated hypocotyls of Arabidopsis thaliana. (a) AR formation upon exposure to light of etiolated (7 days) Col-0, (b) no hypocotyl AR are formed in light grown (7 days) Col-0, (red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction, scale bar: 2 mm). (c) Stage I ARP, (d) stage II ARP and (e) stage III ARP in cleared hypocotyls from 2 days de-etiolated seedlings. White arrowheads point to cell walls from anticlinal or oblique cell divisions; black arrowheads point to cell walls from periclinal divisions; scale bar: 50 μm. (f) Adventitious root number per hypocotyl in de-etiolated and non-etiolated Col-0 seedlings. AR were quantified after 7 days in the light. The data represented as means ± SD (etiolated, n = 39; non-etiolated, n = 37). (***: p ≤ 0.001, unpaired Student’s t-test).
Figure 1. Adventitious root formation in etiolated and non-etiolated hypocotyls of Arabidopsis thaliana. (a) AR formation upon exposure to light of etiolated (7 days) Col-0, (b) no hypocotyl AR are formed in light grown (7 days) Col-0, (red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction, scale bar: 2 mm). (c) Stage I ARP, (d) stage II ARP and (e) stage III ARP in cleared hypocotyls from 2 days de-etiolated seedlings. White arrowheads point to cell walls from anticlinal or oblique cell divisions; black arrowheads point to cell walls from periclinal divisions; scale bar: 50 μm. (f) Adventitious root number per hypocotyl in de-etiolated and non-etiolated Col-0 seedlings. AR were quantified after 7 days in the light. The data represented as means ± SD (etiolated, n = 39; non-etiolated, n = 37). (***: p ≤ 0.001, unpaired Student’s t-test).
Ijms 23 05301 g001
Ijms 23 05301 g002 550
Figure 2. Hypocotyl elongation and adventitious root formation under different light sources. (a) Representative hypocotyl images of three-day-old etiolated WT (Col-0) seedlings that were illuminated with different LED light for 4 days. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b) Quantification of the hypocotyl length of the seedlings as in (a). (c) Quantification of the number of ARP in the hypocotyl of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are represented as mean values ± SD, n-dark = 56; n-white = 34; n-blue = 38; n-red = 53; n-far-red = 51). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 5 mm. All images were taken at the same magnification.
Figure 2. Hypocotyl elongation and adventitious root formation under different light sources. (a) Representative hypocotyl images of three-day-old etiolated WT (Col-0) seedlings that were illuminated with different LED light for 4 days. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b) Quantification of the hypocotyl length of the seedlings as in (a). (c) Quantification of the number of ARP in the hypocotyl of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are represented as mean values ± SD, n-dark = 56; n-white = 34; n-blue = 38; n-red = 53; n-far-red = 51). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 5 mm. All images were taken at the same magnification.
Ijms 23 05301 g002
Ijms 23 05301 g003 550
Figure 3. Blue light photoreceptors promote adventitious root induction. (a) Representative images of WT (Ler), cry1 (Ler), cry1cry2 (Ler), WT (Col-0) and phot1phot2 (Col-0) cleared hypocotyls grown in white light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. Scale bar: 2 mm. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of seedlings as in (a). (d) Representative hypocotyl images of three-day-old etiolated seedlings illuminated with blue light for 4 days. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (e,f) Quantification of the (e) hypocotyl length and (f) number of ARP. The data in b and c (Ler, n = 40; cry1, n = 45; cry1cry2, n = 42; Col-0, n = 37; phot1phot2, n = 37), and in e and f (Ler, n = 60, 50; cry1, n = 44, 36; cry1cry2, n = 46, 52; Col-0, n = 56, 38; phot1phot2, n = 35, 45 for dark and blue light, respectively) represent mean values ± SD. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bars in all pictures = 2 mm.
Figure 3. Blue light photoreceptors promote adventitious root induction. (a) Representative images of WT (Ler), cry1 (Ler), cry1cry2 (Ler), WT (Col-0) and phot1phot2 (Col-0) cleared hypocotyls grown in white light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. Scale bar: 2 mm. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of seedlings as in (a). (d) Representative hypocotyl images of three-day-old etiolated seedlings illuminated with blue light for 4 days. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (e,f) Quantification of the (e) hypocotyl length and (f) number of ARP. The data in b and c (Ler, n = 40; cry1, n = 45; cry1cry2, n = 42; Col-0, n = 37; phot1phot2, n = 37), and in e and f (Ler, n = 60, 50; cry1, n = 44, 36; cry1cry2, n = 46, 52; Col-0, n = 56, 38; phot1phot2, n = 35, 45 for dark and blue light, respectively) represent mean values ± SD. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bars in all pictures = 2 mm.
Ijms 23 05301 g003
Ijms 23 05301 g004 550
Figure 4. Light-induced ARP formation is impaired in the CSN subunits mutants. (a) Representative images of cleared hypocotyls of WT (Col-0), csn3-3 (Col-0), csn5a-1 (Col-0), csn5a-2 (Col-0), csn5b-1 (Col-0), WT (Ler) and csn2-5 (Ler) grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation in the dark. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) number of ARP of the seedlings as shown in (a). The data are presented as mean values ± SD, Col-0, n = 27; csn3-3, n = 22; csn5a-1, n = 26; csn5a-2, n = 29; csn5b-1, n = 23; Ler n = 22 and csn2-5, n = 22. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images are taken at the same magnification.
Figure 4. Light-induced ARP formation is impaired in the CSN subunits mutants. (a) Representative images of cleared hypocotyls of WT (Col-0), csn3-3 (Col-0), csn5a-1 (Col-0), csn5a-2 (Col-0), csn5b-1 (Col-0), WT (Ler) and csn2-5 (Ler) grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation in the dark. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) number of ARP of the seedlings as shown in (a). The data are presented as mean values ± SD, Col-0, n = 27; csn3-3, n = 22; csn5a-1, n = 26; csn5a-2, n = 29; csn5b-1, n = 23; Ler n = 22 and csn2-5, n = 22. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images are taken at the same magnification.
Ijms 23 05301 g004
Ijms 23 05301 g005 550
Figure 5. Hypocotyl elongation and adventitious root formation phenotypes of spa1,2,3 single and triple mutants, hy5 and hyh. (a) Representative images of WT (Col-0), spa1-100 (Col-0), spa2-2 (Col-0), spa3-1 (Col-0), spa1/2/3 triple (Col-0), WT (Ws), hy5 (Ws) and hyh (Ws) mutant cleared hypocotyl grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are represented as mean values ± SD (Col-0, n = 27; spa1-100, n = 25; spa2-2, n = 22; spa3-1, n = 25; spa1/2/3 triple n = 40; Ws, n = 22; hy5 n = 23 and hyh, n = 26). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images were taken with the same magnification.
Figure 5. Hypocotyl elongation and adventitious root formation phenotypes of spa1,2,3 single and triple mutants, hy5 and hyh. (a) Representative images of WT (Col-0), spa1-100 (Col-0), spa2-2 (Col-0), spa3-1 (Col-0), spa1/2/3 triple (Col-0), WT (Ws), hy5 (Ws) and hyh (Ws) mutant cleared hypocotyl grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. White arrowheads indicate ARPs, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are represented as mean values ± SD (Col-0, n = 27; spa1-100, n = 25; spa2-2, n = 22; spa3-1, n = 25; spa1/2/3 triple n = 40; Ws, n = 22; hy5 n = 23 and hyh, n = 26). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images were taken with the same magnification.
Ijms 23 05301 g005
Ijms 23 05301 g006 550
Figure 6. Hypocotyl elongation and rooting response of Phytochrome-Interacting Factor (PIF) mutants. (a) Representative images of WT (Col-0), pif1-1 (Col-0), pif3-7 (Col-0), pif4-2 (Col-0), pif 5-3 (Col-0) and pifQ (Col-0) cleared hypocotyl grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. White arrowheads indicate ARP, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are means ± SD obtained from mutant lines (Col-0, n = 27; pif1-1, n = 24; pif3-7, n = 22; pif4-2, n = 22; pif 5-3, n = 22 and pifQ, n = 46). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images were taken at the same magnification.
Figure 6. Hypocotyl elongation and rooting response of Phytochrome-Interacting Factor (PIF) mutants. (a) Representative images of WT (Col-0), pif1-1 (Col-0), pif3-7 (Col-0), pif4-2 (Col-0), pif 5-3 (Col-0) and pifQ (Col-0) cleared hypocotyl grown in the light for 4 days after 3 days etiolation. White arrowheads indicate ARP, the red arrowhead points to the hypocotyl root junction. (b,c) Quantification of the (b) hypocotyl length and (c) ARP of the seedlings as in (a). The data in (b,c) are means ± SD obtained from mutant lines (Col-0, n = 27; pif1-1, n = 24; pif3-7, n = 22; pif4-2, n = 22; pif 5-3, n = 22 and pifQ, n = 46). Different letters indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 (ANOVA and LSD post hoc analysis). Scale bar: 2 mm. All images were taken at the same magnification.
Ijms 23 05301 g006
Ijms 23 05301 g007 550
Figure 7. Model for light-induced adventitious root formation. (a) In darkness, skotomorphogenetic growth is governed by an auxin maximum that maintains the apical hook, rapid elongation growth and high adventitious rooting competence. (b) Light signaling antagonizes auxin activities that control apical hook maintenance and elongation growth by activating auxin transport and dampening auxin signaling, resulting in the formation of a new auxin sink at the site of AR initiation. (c) Photomorphogenesis is complete. The apical hook has opened, cotyledons are expanded and green, and the adventitious roots develop further. At this point the competence for AR formation is strongly reduced, and no new ARs are initiated.
Figure 7. Model for light-induced adventitious root formation. (a) In darkness, skotomorphogenetic growth is governed by an auxin maximum that maintains the apical hook, rapid elongation growth and high adventitious rooting competence. (b) Light signaling antagonizes auxin activities that control apical hook maintenance and elongation growth by activating auxin transport and dampening auxin signaling, resulting in the formation of a new auxin sink at the site of AR initiation. (c) Photomorphogenesis is complete. The apical hook has opened, cotyledons are expanded and green, and the adventitious roots develop further. At this point the competence for AR formation is strongly reduced, and no new ARs are initiated.
Ijms 23 05301 g007
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, Y.; Schotte, S.; Trinh, H.K.; Verstraeten, I.; Li, J.; Van de Velde, E.; Vanneste, S.; Geelen, D. Genetic Dissection of Light-Regulated Adventitious Root Induction in Arabidopsis thaliana Hypocotyls. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105301

AMA Style

Zeng Y, Schotte S, Trinh HK, Verstraeten I, Li J, Van de Velde E, Vanneste S, Geelen D. Genetic Dissection of Light-Regulated Adventitious Root Induction in Arabidopsis thaliana Hypocotyls. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(10):5301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Yinwei, Sebastien Schotte, Hoang Khai Trinh, Inge Verstraeten, Jing Li, Ellen Van de Velde, Steffen Vanneste, and Danny Geelen. 2022. "Genetic Dissection of Light-Regulated Adventitious Root Induction in Arabidopsis thaliana Hypocotyls" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 10: 5301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105301

APA Style

Zeng, Y., Schotte, S., Trinh, H. K., Verstraeten, I., Li, J., Van de Velde, E., Vanneste, S., & Geelen, D. (2022). Genetic Dissection of Light-Regulated Adventitious Root Induction in Arabidopsis thaliana Hypocotyls. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(10), 5301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop