Next Article in Journal
LEAFY and Polar Auxin Transport Coordinately Regulate Arabidopsis Flower Development
Previous Article in Journal
Ca2+-Transport through Plasma Membrane as a Test of Auxin Sensitivity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Accumulation of TIP2;2 Aquaporin during Dark Adaptation Is Partially PhyA Dependent in Roots of Arabidopsis Seedlings
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Light Signaling in Bud Outgrowth and Branching in Plants

1
Université d'Angers, L'Université Nantes Angers Le Mans, Unité Mixte de Recherche 1345 IRHS, Angers F-49000, France
2
SFR 4207 Qualité et Santé du Végétal, Angers F-49000, France
3
Agrocampus-Ouest, Unité Mixte de Recherche 1345 IRHS, Angers F-49000, France
4
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherche 1345 IRHS, Beaucouzé F-49070, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2014, 3(2), 223-250; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3020223
Submission received: 18 November 2013 / Revised: 21 March 2014 / Accepted: 25 March 2014 / Published: 23 April 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Light Signalling)

Abstract

:
Branching determines the final shape of plants, which influences adaptation, survival and the visual quality of many species. It is an intricate process that includes bud outgrowth and shoot extension, and these in turn respond to environmental cues and light conditions. Light is a powerful environmental factor that impacts multiple processes throughout plant life. The molecular basis of the perception and transduction of the light signal within buds is poorly understood and undoubtedly requires to be further unravelled. This review is based on current knowledge on bud outgrowth-related mechanisms and light-mediated regulation of many physiological processes. It provides an extensive, though not exhaustive, overview of the findings related to this field. In parallel, it points to issues to be addressed in the near future.

1. Introduction

Branching is a key developmental process for plants that contributes to species adaptation and survival [1] and allows plants to adapt to available resources [2,3]. In crop species, it contributes to yield, either directly through production of flower-, fruit- or seed-bearing branches, or indirectly by increasing the competitive ability of crops against weeds [4,5] or by modulating the dynamics of pest infestation [6]. It also modulates plant shape and compactness, which influence plant visual quality in ornamental plants [7].
Branching results from several interrelated processes: axillary bud formation, dormancy induction and release, bud outgrowth (involving growth of preformed leaves, internode extension, and initiation of new leaf primordia by the shoot apical meristem (SAM)), and then shoot extension. Environmental factors finely control the activity-dormancy cycle of buds and shoot growth [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Among these, light is a major factor that significantly impacts branching in numerous species. Still, our knowledge about the molecular mechanisms from light perception by buds to bud outgrowth is scarce and fragmented. This knowledge gap contrasts with the importance of bud outgrowth in plant physiology and with the high responsiveness of bud outgrowth to light. This review is an overview of the regulatory molecular network of light signaling in bud outgrowth and proposes relevant topics for future investigations.

2. Plant Branching and Bud Outgrowth Are Regulated by Light Intensity and Quality and by the Photoperiod

2.1. Impact of Light Intensity

In many species, bud outgrowth is modulated by light intensity. In herbaceous species such as the monocots Lolium perenne [15] or Triticum aestivum [16], low-intensity light caused decreased tillering, while high-intensity light stimulated branching in several shrubs and trees such as Vaccinium bracteatum [17,18], Abies balsamea, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris [19,20], Litsea acuminata [21], Fraxinus pennsylvanica [22], Rosa hybrida and R. wichurana [23]. An absolute requirement for light was even observed for basal bud outgrowth in rose [23,24] and in pea [25]. In rose, darkness fully inhibited SAM organogenetic activity and the expansion of preformed leaves required for outgrowth. Yet, as low a Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) as 2 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 was sufficient to trigger outgrowth [23].
Light intensity not only interferes with the potential of individual buds to grow out but also, both spatially and temporally, on the bud outgrowth gradient along a shoot. For example, in R. hybrida “Radrazz” and R. wichurana, when dark conditions were applied to the upper part of the stem, outgrowth of distal buds was inhibited, and this allowed for otherwise quiescent median and basal buds to sprout [26]. In R. hybrida “Radrazz”, bud outgrowth in the median zone of the primary axis was increased when cuttings were grown initially under low-intensity light (91 µmol∙m−2∙s−1) until the floral bud was visible and then exposed to high-intensity light (580 µmol∙m−2∙s−1), in comparison to constant exposure to high-light intensity (580 µmol∙m−2∙s−1) [10].

2.2. Impact of Light Quality

The spectral quality of light is an important source of information for plants about their environment. Perception of light quality allows plants to sense the presence of other plants in their neighborhood, as well as shade, daytime and seasons. These cues help them adjust their development to better compete for resources, detect changes in daylength [27,28,29,30] or, on a longer term basis, prepare for drastic environmental changes such as low temperatures in winter. All of these signals can modulate the capacity of buds to grow out.
A well-known case is the developmental response of plants to shade conditions: under shade, e.g. in dense culture conditions or under the tree canopy, plants compete for light and develop a growth strategy called the shade-avoidance syndrome (SAS). SAS is more particularly characterized by a reduced capacity for axillary buds to grow out. As a result, plants can allocate resources so as to promote main shoot growth and leaf orientation towards sunlight and early flowering. In turn, early flowering can also influence branching, in particular in indeterminate species [31]. SAS is triggered when plants sense a low ratio of Red (R) to Far-red (FR) lights (R:FR) and reduced blue light intensity in their surroundings [32,33,34]. When red and blue wavelengths are absorbed by neighbor plants for photosynthetic assimilation and photomorphogenesis, and the reflection of FR radiation by their green tissues decreases R:FR and blue light intensity in the full light spectrum, each plant senses the presence of competing neighbors before actual shading [35,36].
Reduced shoot branching due to low R:FR has been reported in many crop plants such as Lolium multiflorum, Paspalum dilatatum [37,38], Hordeum vulgare [39], Eragrostis curvula [40], Trifolium repens [41], Brassica juncea [35]. In ornamentals too, investigations have aimed to understand how light quality can modulate branching. In Disanthus cercidifolius, Crateagus oxyacantha, different Rhododendron [42] and Rosa cultivars [23,43], R light promoted bud outgrowth while FR light was highly inhibitory in Lilium [35] and in Rosa [23,44,45].
Fewer investigations have been carried out so far on the impact of blue light on bud outgrowth, and results sometimes differ depending on species: blue light stimulated bud outgrowth in Triticum aestivum [44], Prunus cerasifera [46], and Rosa [23,47] whereas it reduced it in Solanum tuberosum [48]. Even within a single species, plants’ response to blue light can differ among varieties, as shown in tomato [49].

2.3. Impact of the Photoperiod

Photoperiodic control is a well-known environmental factor that induces bud formation and dormancy in many perennial species (for a review see [13]). However, less is known about the effect of daylength on the capacity for buds to grow out. In the ornamental plant Rhododendron catawbiense, the shoot branching pattern was modified by the photoperiod [50]: the distal shoots of single shoot plants developed under long days (LD) (16 h day) while basal shoots remained quiescent. However, under short days (SD) (8 h day), the growth potential of distal buds strongly decreased. This modified shoot branching pattern in turn reduces apical dominance, whereby the growing apex keeps buds located down the same axis dormant (see [51] for a review). In non-horticultural plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, increasing the frequency of the light/dark transition (7 h/7 h) strongly inhibited the development of lateral shoots from the axillary buds of rosette leaves [52,53]. Yet, in pea, short photoperiods (8 h day) increased the formation of basal branches [54]. The photoperiod also controls the induction of flowering in photoperiod-sensitive plants. Therefore the growth response of vegetative buds to the photoperiod may—at least partly—result from altered flowering. This should be taken into account when analyzing the potential for vegetative bud growth under photoperiodic control.

3. Photoreceptors Involved in the Control of Branching

Few data are presently available on the individual role of each plant photoreceptor in the control of bud outgrowth. Results have been obtained only in a limited number of plant species: Arabidopsis, pea, tomato and sorghum, in which photoreceptor mutants have been characterized.

3.1. Phytochromes

Phytochrome B (PHYB) is involved in the response of bud outgrowth to light in Arabidopsis [55,56] and sorghum [57,58]. In these species, phyB loss-of-function mutants exhibited a reduced branching capacity compared to the wild-type (WT), suggesting a promoting effect of PHYB on bud outgrowth in the WT background. In Arabidopsis, low R:FR caused the same reduced bud outgrowth as the phyB mutation, indicating that PHYB acts through the sensing of R:FR and that high R:FR promotes bud outgrowth by PHYB [55]. In Sorghum, supplemental FR light in a background of white light reduced bud outgrowth in the wild type in the same way as in phyB-1 mutants [58].
The action of PHYA is plant-dependent. In rice, phyA mutation did not bring about any distinguishable phenotypic characters from the WT, bud outgrowth capacity included [59]. Yet, in pea, phyA mutation induced an increased branched phenotype: in wild-type cultivar “Torsdag” pea plants grown under natural light and a long photoperiod, no lateral branch was produced. However, phyA mutation caused both basal and aerial buds to sprout and numerous branches to grow all along the main stem [60]. This latter phenotype was also observed in the WT plants grown under a SD photoperiod. Moreover, when daylength was extended to LDs using FR-rich radiation, PHYA emerged as the primary phytochrome responsible for the detection of FR-rich photoperiod extension involved in daylength detection.
From these results, it appears that phytochromes are involved in the control of bud outgrowth through the sensing of daylength and R:FR, so that plants can get cues about established or future shade conditions.

3.2. Cryptochromes

Cryptochromes are other important photoreceptors that contribute to the photocontrol of plant development through the perception of blue light. Although cry loss-of-function mutants have been obtained in several species (pea: [61], tomato: [62], Arabidopsis: [63]), no impact of cry mutation on bud outgrowth has been reported. However, CRY2-overexpression in tomato plants relieved the inhibition of axillary meristems due to apical dominance and the plants exhibited an extensively branched phenotype [64]. Interestingly, such a result was not observed in Arabidopsis CRY1 or CRY2 overexpressors [65,66,67], suggesting different developmental controls by CRY in these two plant species. Cry1 mutation previously induced reduced elongation of axillary branches in tomato [62]. It then appears that branching is under the control of cryptochromes in tomato: while CRY2 is believed to promote bud outgrowth, CRY1 is thought to stimulate the growth of the developing axillary branches.

4. Site(s) of Light Perception in the Control of Bud Outgrowth

In order to understand the effect of light on bud outgrowth, it is important to determine where the site(s) of light perception involved in the control of bud outgrowth is/are. Such a question is particularly important to clarify to what extent bud outgrowth photocontrol is an autonomous process mainly regulated by light perception by the bud itself, or a non-autonomous process involving light signal transduction from other parts of the plant toward the buds. The non-autonomous process is involved in the control of the flowering fate of the meristem in photoperiod-sensitive plants: the LD light signal is perceived by the leaves and induces higher transcription levels of the Flowering Locus T (FT) gene and transfer of the FT protein toward the shoot apical meristem via phloem transport [68].
In rose, where bud outgrowth strongly depends on photocontrol, buds are perception sites—in defoliated plants at least—that can trigger bud outgrowth on their own [23]. Therefore we can wonder where exactly they perceive light, which light sensors are present and which of them are involved in the control of bud outgrowth. In plants, light is perceived through pigments that collect light for photosynthesis (mainly chlorophylls and carotenoids in higher plants) and photoreceptors that control photomorphogenetic responses. Photosynthetic pigments are found in all green tissues. A bud’s green scales, young preformed leaves, leaf primordia as well as meristems contain chlorophyll and are thus likely to have photosynthetic activity. Regarding photoreceptors, no specific study has been carried out so far to identify the types and the distribution of the photoreceptors present in buds and their component organs. At the whole-plant level, photoreceptors have a wide distribution across the plant: they are distributed among all organs, even those that grow in dark environments such as the roots, and in all tissues, even internal ones such as vascular tissues [69,70,71]. Based on this wide distribution of light sensors in various plant organs, we can expect that (i) buds will contain all photoreceptor types; and (ii) any particular qualitative distribution of photoreceptors will have a limited effect on the regulation of their response to light. Moreover, phytochrome genes are constitutively expressed in all plant organs, with only modest changes in transcript levels across developmental stages [70,72,73]. The levels of phytochrome proteins except PHYA are also quite stable throughout development in each given organ and through diurnal and circadian light cycles [74]. This suggests that, except for light-labile PHYA, mechanisms other than transcriptional and translational regulation of PHY genes such as photoconversion, interaction with specific partners or biochemical activity are involved in the photocontrol of bud outgrowth as in the rest of the plant [70,75].

5. Light Transduction in Bud Outgrowth and Interaction with Growth Processes

5.1. From Photoreceptors to the Early Steps of Light Signaling

Little is known about the first steps of the transduction of a light signal from its photoreceptor down to bud outgrowth processes. A lot of knowledge has been gathered these past years in the identification of photoreceptors’ early interacting partners during light control of seed germination [76], hypocotyl de-etiolation [77,78,79,80], the shade-avoidance syndrome of seedlings [81,82,83,84,85] or phototropism [86], but no such study was carried out on bud tissues during outgrowth. Important roles for Phytochrome-Interacting Factors PIF1,3,4,5 and 7 were demonstrated in the above studied models. Overlapping, but also specific actions of these PIFs were shown according to the biological process studied or the light condition used ([87]). Thus, the same investigations need to be undertaken for bud outgrowth in order to identify the interactions that are specific and those that are common to the previously studied light responses. Regarding the early steps of cryptochrome signal transduction, only two interacting partners of these photoreceptors have been identified [88]. The CIB1 (Cryptochrome-Interacting Basic-helix-loop helix) protein interacts with CRY2 under blue light and binds to the promoter of certain genes to activate their transcription [89], while SPA1 (Suppressor of Phytochrome A) is involved in the post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression under blue light. SPA1 is a positive regulator of the E3 Ubiquitin ligase Constitutive Photomorphogenesis Protein 1 (COP1), and interaction with CRY leads to the suppression of the COP1-dependent degradation of transcriptional regulators [88,90,91]. No report has dealt with the role of these proteins in the photocontrol of bud outgrowth so far.

5.2. Central Integrators

Investigations have been made further down the signaling pathway. For instance, in Sorghum, PHYB contributes to the photoregulation of TEOSINTE BRANCHED1 (TB1) [58,92], a major tillering-repressor gene [93,94]. A similar study in Arabidopsis revealed that the functionality of two homologous genes of TB1, namely BRC1 and BRC2, was required for the transduction of the light signal through PHYB [55]. The authors further showed that BRC1 and BRC2 contributed differently to the transduction of the light signal and suggested that these two branching integrators belonged to two distinct light signaling pathways of bud outgrowth. Moreover, when FR was added to white light to mimic shade, BRC1 expression was promoted in Arabidopsis without affecting BRC2 expression [95]. Transcriptomic profiling of brc1 mutant buds under shade revealed groups of genes under the control of BRC1. Among them, some abscisic acid (ABA)-related genes are up-regulated while cell cycle and protein synthesis-related genes are down-regulated when BRC1 is activated [95]. This study opens the way to a better understanding of the molecular network controlled by this branching integrator under shade conditions.

5.3. Interaction of Light and Hormone Signaling Pathways during Bud Outgrowth

Several hormones play a key role in the control of bud outgrowth. Their potential interactions with light in this process are discussed below:

5.3.1. Interaction with Cytokinins

Cytokinins (CKs) are the only hormones known to stimulate bud outgrowth. They act by decreasing the expression of BRC1 [96,97] and by antagonizing auxin and strigolactones in apical dominance [98,99,100,101,102,103]. When apical dominance ends, CK levels increase in the stem [104,105] and in the bud as neo-synthesized CKs are transported from the stem to the bud [105]. Moreover, CKs promote auxin synthesis and export to the stem and buds, and this in turn induces bud outgrowth [99,106,107]. In buds, CKs control SAM organogenesis and elongation of the preformed organs [108,109,110,111] through a fine regulation [108,112,113,114,115,116].
Little is known about the interaction between CKs and the photocontrol of bud outgrowth. In pea, when etiolated epicotyls bearing cotyledon axillary buds were dipped into a sucrose solution and exposed to red light, CK application increased bud outgrowth and enhanced sucrose incorporation into the buds [117]. In tomato and Arabidopsis, SAM organogenesis was inhibited in the dark but the absence of light was offset by CKs [118]. These two works evidence a possible interaction of the CK- and light-signaling pathways in the control of SAM activity and bud outgrowth. However, limited information is currently available about the cross-talk between these two pathways in the control of bud outgrowth.

5.3.2. Interaction with Auxin

Auxin is a key component of apical dominance. As such, it plays a crucial role in the control of bud outgrowth. It is mainly produced by the young growing organs of the apex [119,120], it is transported toward the root through the xylem parenchyma in a polarized way mainly under the control of a class of auxin efflux facilitators, the PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins [121,122]. Below the apex, auxin inhibits the outgrowth of the axillary buds located on the same axis, and thus controls the systemic regulation of shoot branching [51,119,123]. Auxin does not enter the bud [124,125], and acts through indirect mechanisms. On the one hand, the auxin stream inside the stem inhibits CK synthesis inside the stem [105] and upregulates the synthesis of strigolactones [126,127], a class of hormones that inhibits bud outgrowth (see below). On the other hand, the auxin stream in the stem prevents the establishment of a polarized auxin transport (PAT) between axillary buds and the stem, and this prevents buds exporting their own auxin [128,129,130]. PAT regulation in buds is crucial for the formation of leaf primordia and vasculature in active buds [131,132,133,134].
Up to now, few results have been obtained about the impact of light on auxin signaling in the control of bud outgrowth. In Arabidopsis buds, PHYB positively regulates the expression of TRYPTOPHAN AMINOTRANSFERASE OF ARABIDOPSIS1 (TAA1), a gene that encodes a rate-limiting enzyme in auxin biosynthesis whose expression correlates with bud outgrowth [55]. In tomato meristem, light regulates the localization of PIN1 at the plasma membrane and the initiation of primodia in a CK-dependent manner [118]. In the same line, light upregulates organogenesis during bud outgrowth in rosebush axillary buds [23]. In other biological systems, an interplay between the auxin and light signaling pathways has been reported. For example, auxin accumulation in the elongating organs of seedlings during SAS was triggered by a low R:FR ratio, and mutation of TAA1 led to a partial loss of this response [135]. During phototropic growth responses too, light-directed plant growth was mediated by asymmetric auxin distribution in tissues, and this effect was mainly due to a control of PIN polarization [136,137,138,139,140]. These observations raise the question of how light can regulate stem PAT and the establishment of a PAT between bud and stem, as these are believed to have opposite effects on bud outgrowth.

5.3.3. Interaction with Strigolactones

Strigolactones, or the ultimate signal derived from them, inhibit bud outgrowth [51,141,142]. The signaling pathway involves the rice D14/D88/HTD2 gene and Petunia hybrida DAD2 gene coding for an α/β hydrolase that may act as a receptor of the strigolactone molecule [143]. Upon perception, this α/β hydrolase interacts with the F-box protein MAX2 belonging to a SCF complex to target positive branching integrators to proteolysis. MAX2 was also shown to promote expression of negative branching integrators such as BRC1 [144,145].
Little is currently known about the effects of light on the strigolactone pathway and their subsequent impacts on bud outgrowth. Still, the basal branching habit of strigolactone-synthesis-gene rms1 and rms2 pea mutants under SD shifted to more aerial branching under LD [54]. This suggests an interconnection between the photoperiod and strigolactones. Besides, MAX2 was evidenced as a positive regulator of hypocotyl de-etiolation after light exposure and its expression was induced by R and FR light, probably through PHYA and PHYB signaling [146]. The interconnection between the strigolactone- and phytochrome-signaling pathways in Arabidopsis shoot branching has been confirmed [55]. Loss-of-function mutants were used to show that full functionality of the MAX2 and MAX4 genes was required for PHYB to have both a stimulatory effect on bud initiation and outgrowth and a repressive effect on correlative inhibition between axillary branches. In sorghum, where phyB mutation or FR treatment induced bud dormancy and therefore bud outgrowth inhibition [58], these two inhibitory conditions were correlated with a strong increase in SbMAX2 expression in buds [92]. Altogether, these studies suggest that the MAX2 gene acts downstream of a light-signaling pathway that involves PHYB photoreceptors and thus contributes to the inhibition of bud outgrowth under particular light conditions.
The relationship between the changes induced by light treatment in the branching gradient along a stem and the pattern of MAX gene expression along the same stem was studied in R. hybrida “Radrazz” [26]. The decreasing gradient of bud outgrowth from the distal part to the basal part of the parent shoot observed in rose under natural light cannot be explained by the establishment of a negative expression gradient of RwMAX1, a strigolactone-synthesis gene, or of the RwMAX2 gene. However, when a spatial light treatment was applied along the stem (i.e., the three uppermost buds were placed in the dark and the three lowest buds exposed to light, causing inhibition of the uppermost buds and outgrowth of the lowest), the expression pattern of the RwMAX1 and RwMAX2 genes was modified. RwMAX2 expression increased in the upper buds and internodes subjected to darkness, as reported for FR treatment [58], and this was correlated with outgrowth inhibition. Conversely, RwMAX1 expression was promoted by light in the buds about to grow out. Such increased expression of a strigolactone-synthesis gene in an outgrowing bud is surprising but could reflect the action of a feedback loop that induces SL biosynthesis when SL signaling is repressed [144]. Overall, these results suggest that light also has an impact on strigolactone synthesis and signaling genes, and these in turn locally contribute to the control of bud outgrowth.

5.3.4. Interaction with Other Hormones

A wealth of data shows that the effect of light on certain developmental processes results from the regulation of hormone-metabolizing enzymes and/or hormone-signaling pathways [147,148,149]. Expression of the GA-inactivating gene GA2ox-2 was inversely correlated with the outgrowth potential of the buds in both phyB mutants and WT [150]. In Rosa sp., the light-induced bud outgrowth of decapitated plants went together with the control of the expression level of three GA-metabolizing genes [151]. More precisely, the inductive effect of light was associated with the rapid (within 24 h) and persistent (over 96 h) up-regulation of two GA biosynthesis enzymes (RoGA20ox and RoGA3ox) and the down-regulation of a GA-catabolizing enzyme (RoGA2ox). In the same vein, ancymidol and pacobutrazol, two well­known GA biosynthesis inhibitors [152,153] prevented bud outgrowth under light but their effect was completely relieved by adding exogenous GA3 to the medium [151]. The same synergistic effect of light and gibberellins is well documented for seed germination [154,155,156] and it differs from the effect reported during hypocotyl elongation [157]. However, no bud outgrowth was noted when rose buds were cultivated in vitro on GA3 in the dark [151]. Therefore GA-related mechanisms may be only part of an intricate mechanism behind light-induced bud outgrowth. This is in accordance with the fact that only application of CKs alone can promote SAM growth in the dark [118].
The involvement of ABA as a possible inhibitor of shoot branching has been considered, based on the facts that (i) increased auxin levels go along with higher ABA levels in axillary buds [158,159,160]; (ii) ABA levels in dormant axillary buds decrease in response to decapitation of the main shoot [159,161]; and (iii) exogenous ABA application inhibits bud outgrowth in Arabidopsis, Ipomoea and tomato [162,163]. A link between light and ABA in the regulation of bud outgrowth was recently reported by analyzing the mechanism behind the inhibition of axillary bud outgrowth by low R:FR in Arabidopsis [95,164]. The shade-mediated repression of bud outgrowth could be mediated by BRC1, which is necessary for maintaining ABA-related responses within buds [95]. A direct role for ABA in the repression of bud outgrowth from lower positions (in the rosette) under low R:FR was demonstrated by using the nced3-2 and aba2-1 ABA-biosynthesis mutants [164]. These mutants exhibited enhanced branching and defective bud n-2 outgrowth in response to low R:FR. Thus, ABA regulates bud outgrowth responses to the perception of a low R:FR, mainly transduced by PHYB [55,58,150]. PhyB loss of function results in increased ABA abundance in mature Arabidopsis leaves [165]. Hence it is tempting to speculate that the PHYB pathway reduces ABA production so that PIF or PIF-LIKE (PIL) transcription factors might activate ABA biosynthesis genes in shaded buds. Such regulation of ABA levels by light through the Arabidopsis thaliana gene PIF-LIKE 5/PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR1 (PIL5/PIF1) is well described for seed germination [154].
A connection between ethylene or brassinosteroid and light-mediated bud outgrowth, has not yet been demonstrated but is conceivable. Ethylene was indeed reported as a negative regulator of bud outgrowth [166,167], and in seedlings, its synthesis was shown to be inhibited by light through PHYB signaling [168]. Concerning brassinosteroids, they were shown to interact with auxin signaling and promote leaf growth [169], a developmental process of bud outgrowth and their role in light-dependent development in Arabidopsis was reported [149]. Further research should aim to examine their involvement in the photocontrol of bud outgrowth.
Figure 1 presents a working model drawn from all the results obtained so far about the interaction between these growth regulators and light in the control of bud outgrowth.
Figure 1. Interactions between light and hormone signaling. Full connectors represent interactions in the context of bud outgrowth, while dotted connectors represent interactions during other processes.
Figure 1. Interactions between light and hormone signaling. Full connectors represent interactions in the context of bud outgrowth, while dotted connectors represent interactions during other processes.
Plants 03 00223 g001
Phytochrome B (PHYB) is a major light integrator that positively regulates bud outgrowth [55]. PHYB is known to repress Phytochrome Interacting Factors (PIF) during photomorphogenesis [170]. The role of PIFs in bud outgrowth is not established yet. During seedling development, PIFs interact with auxin (IAA) synthesis and signalling [86,171] and both stimulation and inhibition of IAA synthesis by PIFs were reported [171,172]. The up-regulation of auxin synthesis genes in the bud by PHYB [55] would promote the establishment of the polarized auxin transport (PAT) between bud and stem, a prerequisite for bud outgrowth. At the shoot apex, down-regulation of auxin synthesis through PIFs regulation would rather decrease apical dominance, as apex-derived auxin inhibits cytokinin (CK) synthesis [105], promotes strigolactone (SL) synthesis [126,127] and increases PAT in the stem. PIFs could also act in the control of bud outgrowth through the control over other hormonal pathways. In seedlings, PIFs inhibit gibberellin (GA) synthesis by regulating DELLA proteins and induce abscisic acid (ABA) synthesis [154,155], two processes thought to repress bud outgrowth. Light however was shown to induce GA synthesis [151] and inhibits ABA and ethylene synthesis [164,168]. As both ABA and ethylene are bud outgrowth inhibitors, the effect of light on these two growth regulators would promote bud outgrowth. Auxin-induced ethylene production could also induce ABA synthesis [173,174] leading to bud outgrowth inhibition; such an induction could be mediated by PIF proteins [164,175]. Light, via PHYB, strongly affects the SL pathway by down-regulating SL synthesis, signaling (MAX2) and response (BRC1) genes [55,92]. MAX2 has a negative effect on the establishment of PAT in buds and positively controls the expression of BRC1. BRC1 expression is also repressed by CKs [55,96,176], a positive bud outgrowth regulator that also promotes PAT in buds [99,129]. Light could in turn promote bud outgrowth through its positive impact on CKs signalling in SAM as shown in excised tomato apices [118].

5.4. Interaction of Light Signaling and Nutrients during Bud Outgrowth

Sugars regulate bud growth in many species [177,178,179,180,181]. In beheaded rose plants, buds exposed to light over-express two sugar-metabolism-related genes: (i) an RhVI1 (Rosa hybrida vacuolar invertase 1) gene [182], that drives the elongation activity and sink strength of outgrowing organs [183,184,185]; and (ii) an RhSUC2 (Rosa hybrida sucrose transporter 2) gene, that catalyzes the active supply of sucrose to buds [180]. In Rosa sp., sugars agonistically interact with light to promote the expression of RhVI1 and bud outgrowth [186]. These findings and the fact that palatinose, a non-metabolizable sucrose analog, can mimic the effect of sucrose, suggest a cooperative effect of the light and disaccharide signaling pathways in the mediation of bud outgrowth and gene expression. A role for other sugar signaling pathways in the effect of light on bud outgrowth has also been proposed [186]. This may contribute to define the part played by well-known sugar signaling proteins such as SnrK1, Hexokinase and TOR kinase in light signaling. The development of new branches requires nitrogen (N) supply in addition to sugars; N compounds can originate from N reserve mobilization or current N uptake and assimilation [187,188]. The proportion between these two N sources during bud outgrowth is highly variable according to the species and the period of the year [189]. In beheaded one-year-old Rosa plants cultivated in high light conditions, N from current uptake and assimilation represented about 60% of the total N found in the new branch 4 days after bud outgrowth [190]. In addition, nitrogen deficiency strongly reduced the inductive effect of light on bud outgrowth [191].

5.5. Action of Light on Cell Growth and Expansion during Bud Outgrowth

Bud outgrowth results from the growth of bud-contained preformed leaves and their internodes and from the initiation of new ones by the meristem. During the process, growth and organogenesis involve cell division and elongation. In dormant buds, cell division is stopped and this occurs at different points of the cell cycle: in G0 in potato [192], or G1, S or G2 in pea [193], or in G1 for basal buds and G2 for upper buds along rose stems [194]. Upon bud outgrowth, the cell cycle is resumed in a synchronized manner in meristem cells. Cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases are key proteins involved in the control of the cell cycle along with EF2 transcriptional activators and repressors [195,196,197]. Cyclin gene expression in pea is a good indicator of bud growth capacity [100,193]. In Arabidopsis, where cyclin D (CYCD3) stimulates cell proliferation and inhibits cell differentiation [115,198,199], CYCD3 loss of function resulted in reduced branching and SAM size [200]. Interestingly, sugars and CKs [200,201], two main actors of bud outgrowth control, are required for CYCD3 to be active.
The initiation of new primordia at the meristem surface and the growth of preformed leaves during bud outgrowth also involve cell expansion. This process requires relaxation and then extension of the cell wall [202]. Relaxation is initiated by an increase in cell turgor, and extensibility of the wall is promoted by its hydration [203] and acidification [204,205]. For the cell wall to relax, molecular bonds between its components have to be broken, and the components have to undergo partial cleavage [206]. This is achieved by several types of proteins, among them xyloglucan-endotransglycosylases/hydrolases (XTH), endo-(1,4)-β-D-glucanases and expansins [207,208]. Upon final extension, the cell wall is strengthened by new interactions established by peroxidases and extensins [202].
Our understanding of the impact of light on cell proliferation mechanisms is currently poor. However, some reports suggest that the interaction of cell division and expansion with light may play an important role in the control of bud outgrowth.
In dormant sorghum buds, the expression of five cell-cycle genes (SbHis4, SbPCNA, SbCycD2, SbCycB, SbCDKB) was down-regulated by low R:FR treatment [92]. PhyB-1 loss of function did not have the same impact as FR treatment on the expression of the cell cycle genes, suggesting that other PHYs or photoreceptors may also be involved.
No report has been published yet on the impact of light on cell expansion during bud outgrowth. Yet, several studies on meristem functioning suggest that such regulation may takes place. For example, expansins play a key role in the induction of new initia at the meristem surface [209,210,211,212] and in the development of preformed leaves out of the apex in several species [210,213,214]. In the apex of Arabidopsis plants, the expression of several expansin genes was stimulated by light [215] and several cis-regulatory elements involved in light signaling were found in the promoter of the tomato LeEXPA2 gene [216]. Light could also indirectly control the action of expansins through the control of intracellular pH: light activates proton pumps and thus contributes to lower intracellular pH, which in turn stimulates expansin activity [217,218].

6. Response of Bud Outgrowth to Light and Photosynthetic Control

Light as an energy provider and as an environmental signal deeply influences plant development through photosynthetic assimilation and photomorphogenetic responses. The question arises then as to how these two processes are involved in the control of bud outgrowth. From a trophic viewpoint, this question is of great importance because an outgrowing bud is a strong sink organ that actively imports the sugars required for meeting its high metabolic demand [177,181].
As described above, increased branching was observed in several species under increasing light intensities. For some authors, such increased branching is part of an overall strategy of the plant aimed at allocating its resources to organs that better catch light and give the plant a better carbon return than the promoted growth of existing branches [20,219]. For example, in the shrub Vaccinium hirtum, increased light availability stimulated the production of new sprouts from the base of the plants but did not promote the growth of existing stems [219]. In Picea abies, more sylleptic shoots were formed at the top of the crown under higher irradiance, leading to a larger number of branches and branch concentration in the upper canopy where large amounts of photons can be harvested [19].
In these studies, the signal that triggers branching is expected to work at the whole plant level through altered resource allocation towards certain buds rather than through a direct impact of light on photosynthetic activity at the branching site. Still, since buds contain green tissues (green scales, young leaves, primordia and SAMs), we can wonder whether the impact of light on bud outgrowth is under photosynthetic control at the branching site. In other words, we do not know if bud exposure to low light intensity or to lower quantum efficiency light qualities such as blue light [220,221] reduces photosynthesis in bud organs and impairs their capacity to grow out. This question has not been directly addressed yet and will require future investigations.
Excised tomato shoot apices cultured in vitro provided a few answers about the interaction between photosynthesis and meristem organogenic activity: under light, new organs were produced by tomato SAMs on a sugar-supplemented medium [118]. When these same shoot apices were exposed to darkness, SAM activity was totally inhibited and no new organs were produced, evidencing a photocontrol of SAM activity in tomato. This response to light was not due to the regulation of the photosynthetic activity of tomato apices: when Norflurazon, a photosynthesis inhibitor, was added to the medium under light treatment, although tissues bleached due to the inhibition of photosynthetic pigment synthesis, SAM organogenic activity resumed with the same efficiency [118]. In Rosa, the growth of young shoots, (2–3 cm produced six days after plant pruning under light) was deeply affected by shade or darkness that caused their terminal flower bud to abort [222]. When these shoots were sprayed with DCMU, another photosynthesis inhibitor, the promoting effect of light on shoot development and organogenesis appeared independent of their photosynthetic assimilation [222]. In P. dilatatum, reduced tillering due to low R:FR was fully reversed by applying small, photosynthetically negligible amounts of R to the base of the plants. This illustrates the major role of photomorphogenesis processes over photosynthesis at the site of branching in the control of bud outgrowth [38].
Still, in order for plants to best adapt to a changing environment, photosynthetic activity and photomorphogenic processes are bound to interact to modulate plant development and branching. Recent works show such an interaction in Arabidopsis thaliana [150]. In this species, mutation of PHYB, the main photoreceptor involved in the sensing of R:FR, caused reduced branching compared to the WT. However, such reduced branching only occurred under low PPFD (160 µmol∙m−2∙s−1). When light intensity increased to 280 µmol∙m−2∙s−1, the branching level in phyB mutants reached the same level as in WT plants. This increased branching is due to a greater capacity of buds to grow out, not to higher numbers of leaves and buds produced by the plants under higher light intensity. This result demonstrates that (i) the suppressive effect of phyB mutation on plant branching can be overridden by higher light intensity; and (ii) there are interactions between photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis in the control of bud outgrowth. The expression of genes involved in bud outgrowth control led the authors to suggest that (i) PPFD and PHYB act both cooperatively and independently to regulate branching; and (ii) light, through PPFD, could influence branching through a specific signaling pathway. This is thought to allow plants to best respond to changing light environments, for example by allowing branching when R:FR is reduced by not-yet shading neighboring plants under high PPFD.
If photosynthesis interacts with photomorphogenesis in the control of bud outgrowth, which are then the mechanisms involved in this interaction? Several pigments (chlorophyll, carotenoids, anthocyanins, etc.) collect light for photosynthesis, and their amounts can be modulated by plants according to light conditions [147]. Several reports show that photoreceptors are involved in the regulation of photosynthetic pigment content. This illustrates the interconnection between photomorphogenesis and photosynthesis. For example, in tomato, the cry1 mutation reduces chlorophyll content in leaves [62], while overexpression of CRY2 has the reverse effect [64]. In Arabidopsis, a complex interaction between PHYA, PHYB and CRY1 is involved in the control of the chlorophyll content of seedlings; the triple phyAphyBcry1 mutation dramatically decreased chlorophyll levels in the young plants [223]. Can the regulation of photosynthetic pigment content in the bud itself, or in the nearby green organs, be a mechanism involved in the control of bud outgrowth? Or does such a regulation act only at the whole plant level, impair plant photosynthetic activity, and act on resource allocation towards buds as discussed above? Such issues would be interesting to address.

7. Conclusions

Although the impact of light on bud outgrowth is well established, this review shows that we know little about how light controls this process. A wealth of information can be gathered from other earlier studied developmental processes (seed germination, seedling development, flowering), but the specific actors of the transduction of light signals in the control of bud outgrowth remain to be unveiled. Challenging questions address the autonomous versus non-autonomous nature of bud response to light, and the part played by inter-organ signaling in this response. Not much is known either on the part played by the different photoreceptors, their redundant effects and their major molecular partners in the control of bud outgrowth. This challenging research work will contribute to a better understanding of how a plant builds up its architecture, but should also offer new tools to master crop compactness and yield and increase phytosanitary protection.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank their colleagues from the ARCH’E (Architecture and Environment) team from the IRHS for research work and fruitful discussions on bud outgrowth over the past years.

Author Contributions

Sabine Demotes-Mainard and Lydie Huché-Thélier wrote the abstract and introduction; Hanaé Roman, François Barbier and Thomas Péron: the part on light and hormonal regulation, Jérémy Lothier and Soulaiman Sakr: the part on light and nutrient interactions, Nathalie Leduc wrote the other parts and supervised the publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Juenger, T.; Bergelson, J. The evolution of compensation to herbivory in Scarlet Gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: Herbivore-imposed natural selection and the quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution 2000, 54, 764–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lafarge, T.A.; Broad, I.J.; Hammer, G.L. Tillering in grain sorghum over a wide range of population densities: Identification of a common hierarchy for tiller emergence, leaf area development and fertility. Ann. Bot. 2002, 90, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moulia, B.; Loup, C.; Chartier, M.; Allirand, J.M.; Edelin, C. Dynamics of architectural development of isolated plants of maize (Zea mays L.), in a non-limiting environment: The branching potential of modern maize. Ann. Bot. 1999, 84, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lemerle, D.; Verbeek, B.; Cousens, R.D.; Coombes, N.E. The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Res. 1996, 36, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhao, D.L.; Atlin, G.N.; Bastiaans, L.; Spiertz, J.H.J. Developing selection protocols for weed competitiveness in aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. 2006, 97, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Simon, S.; Morel, K.; Durand, E.; Brevalle, G.; Girard, T.; Lauri, P.-É. Aphids at crossroads: When branch architecture alters aphid infestation patterns in the apple tree. Trees 2012, 26, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boumaza, R.; Demotes-Mainard, S.; Huche-Thelier, L.; Guerin, V. Visual Characterization of the esthetic quality of the rosebush. J. Sens. Stud. 2009, 24, 774–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burnett, S.E.; van Iersel, M. Morphology and irrigation efficiency of Gaura lindheimeri grown with capacitance sensor-controlled irrigation. HortScience 2008, 43, 1555–1560. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cameron, R.W.F.; Harrison-Murray, R.S.; Atkinson, C.J.; Judd, H.L. Regulated deficit irrigation: A means to control growth in woody ornamentals. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 435–443. [Google Scholar]
  10. Demotes-Mainard, S.; Huché-Thélier, L.; Morel, P.; Boumaza, R.; Guérin, V.; Sakr, S. Temporary water restriction or light intensity limitation promotes branching in rose bush. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Huché-Thélier, L.; Boumaza, R.; Demotes-Mainard, S.; Canet, A.; Symoneaux, R.; Douillet, O.; Guérin, V. Nitrogen deficiency increases basal branching and modifies visual quality of the rose bushes. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 130, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Morel, P.; Crespel, L.; Galopin, G.; Moulia, B. Effect of mechanical stimulation on the growth and branching of garden rose. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 135, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Cooke, J.E.K.; Eriksson, M.E.; Junttila, O. The dynamic nature of bud dormancy in trees: Environmental control and molecular mechanisms. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 1707–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cooke, J.E.K.; Martin, T.A.; Davis, J.M. Short-term physiological and developmental responses to nitrogen availability in hybrid poplar. New Phytol. 2005, 167, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bahmani, I.; Hazard, L.; Varlet-Grancher, C.; Betin, M.; Lemaire, G.; Matthew, C.; Thom, E.R. Differences in tillering of long- and short-leaved perennial ryegrass genetic lines under full light and shade treatments. Crop Sci. 2000, 40, 1095–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Evers, J.B.; Vos, J.; Andrieu, B.; Struik, P.C. Cessation of tillering in spring wheat in relation to light interception and red: Far-red ratio. Ann. Bot. 2006, 97, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kawamura, K.; Takeda, H. Light environment and crown architecture of two temperate Vaccinium species: Inherent growth rules versus degree of plasticity in light response. Can. J. Bot. 2002, 80, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kawamura, K.; Takeda, H. Rules of crown development in the clonal shrub Vaccinium hirtum in a low-light understory: A quantitative analysis of architecture. Can. J. Bot. 2004, 82, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Niinemets, Ü.; Lukjanova, A. Total foliar area and average leaf age may be more strongly associated with branching frequency than with leaf longevity in temperate conifers. New Phytol. 2003, 158, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lukjanova, A. Needle longevity, shoot growth and branching frequency in relation to site fertility and within-canopy light conditions in Pinus sylvestris. Ann. For. Sci. 2003, 60, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Takenaka, A. Shoot growth responses to light microenvironment and correlative inhibition in tree seedlings under a forest canopy. Tree Physiol. 2000, 20, 987–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bartlett, G.A.; Remphrey, W.R. The effect of reduced quantities of photosynthetically active radiation on Fraxinus pennsylvanica growth and architecture. Can. J. Bot. 1998, 76, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Khayat, E.; Zieslin, N. Environmental factors involved in the regulation of sprouting of basal buds in rose plants. J. Exp. Bot. 1982, 33, 1286–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Low, V. Effects of light and darkness on the growth of peas. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 1970, 24, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  26. Djennane, S.; Oyant, L.H.-S.; Kawamura, K.; Lalanne, D.; Laffaire, M.; Thouroude, T.; Chalain, S.; Sakr, S.; Boumaza, R.; Foucher, F.; et al. Impacts of light and temperature on shoot branching gradient and expression of strigolactone synthesis and signalling genes in rose. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 742–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Facella, P.; Lopez, L.; Carbone, F.; Galbraith, D.W.; Giuliano, G.; Perrotta, G. Diurnal and circadian rhythms in the tomato transcriptome and their modulation by cryptochrome photoreceptors. PLoS One 2008, 3, e2798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kidokoro, S.; Maruyama, K.; Nakashima, K.; Imura, Y.; Narusaka, Y.; Shinwari, Z.K.; Osakabe, Y.; Fujita, Y.; Mizoi, J.; Shinozaki, K.; et al. The phytochrome-interacting factor PIF7 negatively regulates DREB1 expression under circadian control in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 151, 2046–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nakamichi, N. Molecular mechanisms underlying the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011, 52, 1709–1718. [Google Scholar]
  30. Staiger, D.; Green, R. RNA-based regulation in the plant circadian clock. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ballaré, C.L.; Trewavas, A.J. Plant behaviour special issue. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Franklin, K.A. Shade avoidance. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 930–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Franklin, K.A.; Whitelam, G.C. Phytochromes and shade-avoidance responses in plants. Ann. Bot. 2005, 96, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vandenbussche, F.; Pierik, R.; Millenaar, F.F.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; van der Straeten, D. Reaching out of the shade. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2005, 8, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ballaré, C.L.; Casal, J.J. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crops Res. 2000, 67, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, J.G.; Mahoney, K.J.; Sikkema, P.H.; Swanton, C.J. The importance of light quality in crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 2009, 49, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Casal, J.J.; Deregibus, V.A.; Sánchez, R.A. Variations in tiller dynamics and morphology in lolium multiflorum lam. Vegetative and reproductive plants as affected by differences in red/far-red irradiation. Ann. Bot. 1985, 56, 553–559. [Google Scholar]
  38. Casal, J.J.; Sanchez, R.A.; Deregibus, V.A. The effect of plant density on tillering: The involvement of R/FR ratio and the proportion of radiation intercepted per plant. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1986, 26, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Skinner, R.H.; Simmons, S.R. Modulation of leaf elongation, tiller appearance and tiller senescence in spring barley by far-red light. Plant Cell Environ. 1993, 16, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wan, C.; Sosebee, R.E. Tillering responses to red: Far-red light ratio during different phenological stages in Eragrostis curvula. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1998, 40, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Robin, C.; Hay, M.J.M.; Newton, P.C.D. Effect of light quality (red: far-red ratio) and defoliation treatments applied at a single phytomer on axillary bud outgrowth in Trifolium repens L. Oecologia 1994, 100, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marks, T.R.; Simpson, S.E. Effect of irradiance on shoot development in vitro. Plant Growth Regul. 1999, 28, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mor, Y.; Halevy, A.H.; Porath, D. Characterization of the light reaction in promoting the mobilizing ability of rose shoot tips. Plant Physiol. 1980, 66, 996–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Barnes, C.; Bugbee, B. Morphological Responses of Wheat to Blue Light. J. Plant Physiol. 1992, 139, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Healy, W.H.; Wilkins, H.F. Light and roses—An overview. South. Flor. Nurserym. 1980, 93, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  46. Muleo, R.; Morini, S.; Casano, S. Photoregulation of growth and branching of plum shoots: Physiological action of two photosystems. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2001, 37, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abidi, F.; Girault, T.; Douillet, O.; Guillemain, G.; Sintes, G.; Laffaire, M.; Ahmed, H.B.; Smiti, S.; Huché-Thélier, L.; Leduc, N. Blue light effects on rose photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis. Plant Biol. 2013, 15, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Wilson, D.A.; Weigel, R.C.; Wheeler, R.M.; Sager, J.C. Light spectral quality effects on the growth of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) nodal cuttings in vitro. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 1993, 29, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Glowacka, B. Response of the tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) transplant to the daylight supplemented with blue spectrum. Folia Hortic. Suppl. 2006, 4, 145–149. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fustec, J.; Beaujard, F. Effect of photoperiod and nitrogen supply on basal shoots development in Rhododendron Catawbiense. Biol. Plant. 2000, 43, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Domagalska, M.A.; Leyser, O. Signal integration in the control of shoot branching. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jouve, L.; Greppin, H.; Agosti, R.D. Arabidopsis thaliana floral stem elongation: Evidence for an endogenous circadian rhythm. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 1998, 36, 469–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jouve, L.; Charron, Y.; Couderc, C.; Greppin, H.; Agosti, R.D. Dependence of Arabidopsis thaliana floral stem growth and architecture on photoperiod. Biol. Plant. 1998, 41, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Beveridge, C.A.; Weller, J.L.; Singer, S.R.; Hofer, J.M.I. Axillary meristem development. budding relationships between networks controlling flowering, branching, and photoperiod responsiveness. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Finlayson, S.A.; Krishnareddy, S.R.; Kebrom, T.H.; Casal, J.J. Phytochrome regulation of branching in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 1914–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Reed, A.J.; Canvin, D.T.; Sherrard, J.H.; Hageman, R.H. Assimilation of [N]nitrate and [N]nitrite in leaves of five plant species under light and dark conditions. Plant Physiol. 1983, 71, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Childs, K.L.; Miller, F.R.; Cordonnier-Pratt, M.M.; Pratt, L.H.; Morgan, P.W.; Mullet, J.E. The sorghum photoperiod sensitivity gene, Ma3, Encodes a phytochrome B. Plant Physiol. 1997, 113, 611–619. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kebrom, T.H.; Burson, B.L.; Finlayson, S.A. Phytochrome B represses Teosinte Branched1 expression and induces sorghum axillary bud outgrowth in response to light signals. Plant Physiol. 2006, 140, 1109–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Takano, M.; Kanegae, H.; Shinomura, T.; Miyao, A.; Hirochika, H.; Furuya, M. Isolation and characterization of rice phytochrome a mutants. Plant Cell Online 2001, 13, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Weller, J.L.; Murfet, I.C.; Reid, J.B. Pea mutants with reduced sensitivity to far-red light define an important role for phytochrome A in day-length detection. Plant Physiol. 1997, 114, 1225–1236. [Google Scholar]
  61. Platten, J.D.; Foo, E.; Elliott, R.C.; Hecht, V.; Reid, J.B.; Weller, J.L. Cryptochrome 1 contributes to blue-light sensing in pea. Plant Physiol. 2005, 139, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Weller, J.L.; Perrotta, G.; Schreuder, M.E.L.; van Tuinen, A.; Koornneef, M.; Giuliano, G.; Kendrick, R.E. Genetic dissection of blue-light sensing in tomato using mutants deficient in cryptochrome 1 and phytochromes A, B1 and B2. Plant J. 2001, 25, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jackson, J.A.; Jenkins, G.I. Extension-growth responses and expression of flavonoid biosynthesis genes in the Arabidopsis hy4 mutant. Planta 1995, 197, 233–239. [Google Scholar]
  64. Giliberto, L.; Perrotta, G.; Pallara, P.; Weller, J.L.; Fraser, P.D.; Bramley, P.M.; Fiore, A.; Tavazza, M.; Giuliano, G. Manipulation of the blue light photoreceptor cryptochrome 2 in tomato affects vegetative development, flowering time, and fruit antioxidant content. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, C.; Ahmad, M.; Gordon, D.; Cashmore, A.R. Expression of an Arabidopsis cryptochrome gene in transgenic tobacco results in hypersensitivity to blue, UV-A, and green light. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 8423–8427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, C.; Ahmad, M.; Cashmore, A.R. Arabidopsis cryptochrome 1 is a soluble protein mediating blue light-dependent regulation of plant growth and development. Plant J. 1996, 10, 893–902. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lin, C.; Yang, H.; Guo, H.; Mockler, T.; Chen, J.; Cashmore, A.R. Enhancement of blue-light sensitivity of Arabidopsis seedlings by a blue light receptor cryptochrome 2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 2686–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Corbesier, L.; Coupland, G. The quest for florigen: A review of recent progress. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 3395–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cordonnier, M.M.; Greppin, H.; Pratt, L.H. Phytochrome from green Avena shoots characterized with a monoclonal antibody to phytochrome from etiolated Pisum shoots. Biochemistry (Mosc.) 1986, 25, 7657–7666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Somers, D.E.; Quail, P.H. Temporal and spatial expression patterns of PHYA and PHYB genes in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 1995, 7, 413–427. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tokuhisa, J.G.; Daniels, S.M.; Quail, P.H. Phytochrome in green tissue: Spectral and immunochemical evidence for two distinct molecular species of phytochrome in light-grown Avena sativa L. Planta 1985, 164, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Clack, T.; Mathews, S.; Sharrock, R.A. The phytochrome apoprotein family in Arabidopsis is encoded by five genes: The sequences and expression of PHYD and PHYE. Plant Mol. Biol. 1994, 25, 413–427. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hauser, B.A.; Pratt, L.H.; Cordonnier-Pratt, M.-M. Absolute quantification of five phytochrome transcripts in seedlings and mature plants of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Planta 1997, 201, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sharrock, R.A.; Clack, T. Patterns of expression and normalized levels of the five Arabidopsis phytochromes. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 442–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sharrock, R.A.; Clack, T.; Goosey, L. Differential activities of the Arabidopsis phyB/D/E phytochromes in complementing phyB mutant phenotypes. Plant Mol. Biol. 2003, 52, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Leivar, P.; Quail, P.H. PIFs: Pivotal components in a cellular signaling hub. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jang, I.-C.; Henriques, R.; Seo, H.S.; Nagatani, A.; Chua, N.-H. Arabidopsis phytochrome interacting factor proteins promote phytochrome B polyubiquitination by COP1 E3 ligase in the nucleus. Plant Cell Online 2010, 22, 2370–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Lucas, M.; Davière, J.-M.; Rodríguez-Falcón, M.; Pontin, M.; Iglesias-Pedraz, J.M.; Lorrain, S.; Fankhauser, C.; Blázquez, M.A.; Titarenko, E.; Prat, S. A molecular framework for light and gibberellin control of cell elongation. Nature 2008, 451, 480–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tepperman, J.M.; Zhu, T.; Chang, H.-S.; Wang, X.; Quail, P.H. Multiple transcription-factor genes are early targets of phytochrome A signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 9437–9442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tepperman, J.M.; Hudson, M.E.; Khanna, R.; Zhu, T.; Chang, S.H.; Wang, X.; Quail, P.H. Expression profiling of phyB mutant demonstrates substantial contribution of other phytochromes to red-light-regulated gene expression during seedling de-etiolation. Plant J. 2004, 38, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Galvão, R.M.; Li, M.; Kothadia, S.M.; Haskel, J.D.; Decker, P.V.; Buskirk, E.K.V.; Chen, M. Photoactivated phytochromes interact with HEMERA and promote its accumulation to establish photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 1851–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hornitschek, P.; Lorrain, S.; Zoete, V.; Michielin, O.; Fankhauser, C. Inhibition of the shade avoidance response by formation of non-DNA binding bHLH heterodimers. EMBO J. 2009, 28, 3893–3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hornitschek, P.; Kohnen, M.V.; Lorrain, S.; Rougemont, J.; Ljung, K.; López-Vidriero, I.; Franco-Zorrilla, J.M.; Solano, R.; Trevisan, M.; Pradervand, S.; et al. Phytochrome interacting factors 4 and 5 control seedling growth in changing light conditions by directly controlling auxin signaling. Plant J. 2012, 71, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, L.; Ljung, K.; Breton, G.; Schmitz, R.J.; Pruneda-Paz, J.; Cowing-Zitron, C.; Cole, B.J.; Ivans, L.J.; Pedmale, U.V.; Jung, H.-S.; et al. Linking photoreceptor excitation to changes in plant architecture. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 785–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lorrain, S.; Allen, T.; Duek, P.D.; Whitelam, G.C.; Fankhauser, C. Phytochrome-mediated inhibition of shade avoidance involves degradation of growth-promoting bHLH transcription factors. Plant J. 2008, 53, 312–323. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sun, J.; Qi, L.; Li, Y.; Zhai, Q.; Li, C. PIF4 and PIF5 transcription factors link blue light and auxin to regulate the phototropic response in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Online 2013, 25, 2102–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Leivar, P.; Monte, E. PIFs: Systems integrators in plant development. Plant Cell Online 2014, 26, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. 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]
  89. Liu, H.; Yu, X.; Li, K.; Klejnot, J.; Yang, H.; Lisiero, D.; Lin, C. Photoexcited CRY2 Interacts with CIB1 to regulate transcription and floral initiation in Arabidopsis. Science 2008, 322, 1535–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. 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]
  91. Zuo, Z.; Liu, H.; Liu, B.; Liu, X.; Lin, C. Blue light-dependent interaction of CRY2 with SPA1 Regulates COP1 activity and floral initiation in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kebrom, T.H.; Brutnell, T.P.; Finlayson, S.A. Suppression of sorghum axillary bud outgrowth by shade, phyB and defoliation signalling pathways. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
  93. Aguilar-Martínez, J.A.; Poza-Carrión, C.; Cubas, P. Arabidopsis BRANCHED1 acts as an integrator of branching signals within axillary buds. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 458–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Finlayson, S.A. Arabidopsis TEOSINTE BRANCHED1-LIKE 1 regulates axillary bud outgrowthand is homologous to monocot TEOSINTE BRANCHED1. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007, 48, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. González-Grandío, E.; Poza-Carrión, C.; Sorzano, C.O.S.; Cubas, P. BRANCHED1 promotes axillary bud dormancy in response to shade in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Online 2013, 25, 834–850. [Google Scholar]
  96. Braun, N.; de Saint Germain, A.; Pillot, J.-P.; Boutet-Mercey, S.; Dalmais, M.; Antoniadi, I.; Li, X.; Maia-Grondard, A.; Le Signor, C.; Bouteiller, N.; et al. The pea TCP transcription factor PsBRC1 acts downstream of Strigolactones to control shoot branching. Plant Physiol. 2012, 158, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, X.; Zhou, X.; Xi, L.; Li, J.; Zhao, R.; Ma, N.; Zhao, L. Roles of DgBRC1 in regulation of lateral branching in chrysanthemum (Dendranthema × grandiflora cv. Jinba). PLoS One 2013, 8, e61717. [Google Scholar]
  98. Faiss, M.; Zalubìlová, J.; Strnad, M.; Schmülling, T. Conditional transgenic expression of the ipt gene indicates a function for cytokinins in paracrine signaling in whole tobacco plants. Plant J. 1997, 12, 401–415. [Google Scholar]
  99. Kalousek, P.; Buchtova, D.; Balla, J.; Reinoehl, V.; Prochazka, S. Cytokinins and polar transport of auxin in axillary pea buds. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2010, 58, 79–87. [Google Scholar]
  100. Müller, D.; Leyser, O. Auxin, cytokinin and the control of shoot branching. Ann. Bot. 2011, 107, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sachs, T.; Thimann, K.V. Release of lateral buds from apical dominance. Nature 1964, 201, 939–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sachs, T.; Thimann, K.V. The role of auxins and cytokinins in the release of buds from dominance. Am. J. Bot. 1967, 54, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wickson, M.; Thimann, K.V. The antagonism of auxin and kinetin in apical dominance. Physiol. Plant. 1958, 11, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Shimizu-Sato, S.; Tanaka, M.; Mori, H. Auxin-cytokinin interactions in the control of shoot branching. Plant Mol. Biol. 2009, 69, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tanaka, M.; Takei, K.; Kojima, M.; Sakakibara, H.; Mori, H. Auxin controls local cytokinin biosynthesis in the nodal stem in apical dominance. Plant J. 2006, 45, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Davies, C.R.; Seth, A.K.; Wareing, P.F. Auxin and kinetin interaction in apical dominance. Science 1966, 151, 468–469. [Google Scholar]
  107. Li, C.; Bangerth, F. Stimulatory effect of cytokinins and interaction with IAA on the release of lateral buds of pea plants from apical dominance. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160, 1059–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kurakawa, T.; Ueda, N.; Maekawa, M.; Kobayashi, K.; Kojima, M.; Nagato, Y.; Sakakibara, H.; Kyozuka, J. Direct control of shoot meristem activity by a cytokinin-activating enzyme. Nature 2007, 445, 652–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Miyawaki, K.; Tarkowski, P.; Matsumoto-Kitano, M.; Kato, T.; Sato, S.; Tarkowska, D.; Tabata, S.; Sandberg, G.; Kakimoto, T. Roles of Arabidopsis ATP/ADP isopentenyltransferases and tRNA isopentenyltransferases in cytokinin biosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 16598–16603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tokunaga, H.; Kojima, M.; Kuroha, T.; Ishida, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Kiba, T.; Sakakibara, H. Arabidopsis lonely guy (LOG) multiple mutants reveal a central role of the LOG-dependent pathway in cytokinin activation. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2012, 69, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Werner, T.; Motyka, V.; Laucou, V.; Smets, R.; van Onckelen, H.; Schmülling, T. Cytokinin-deficient transgenic Arabidopsis plants show multiple developmental alterations indicating opposite functions of cytokinins in the regulation of shoot and root meristem activity. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 2532–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Buechel, S.; Leibfried, A.; To, J.P.C.; Zhao, Z.; Andersen, S.U.; Kieber, J.J.; Lohmann, J.U. Role of A-type ARABIDOPSIS RESPONSE REGULATORS in meristem maintenance and regeneration. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 89, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jasinski, S.; Piazza, P.; Craft, J.; Hay, A.; Woolley, L.; Rieu, I.; Phillips, A.; Hedden, P.; Tsiantis, M. KNOX action in Arabidopsis is mediated by coordinate regulation of cytokinin and gibberellin activities. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15, 1560–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Leibfried, A.; To, J.P.C.; Busch, W.; Stehling, S.; Kehle, A.; Demar, M.; Kieber, J.J.; Lohmann, J.U. WUSCHEL controls meristem function by direct regulation of cytokinin-inducible response regulators. Nature 2005, 438, 1172–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Scofield, S.; Dewitte, W.; Nieuwland, J.; Murray, J.A.H. The Arabidopsis homeobox gene SHOOT MERISTEMLESS has cellular and meristem-organisational roles with differential requirements for cytokinin and CYCD3 activity. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2013, 75, 53–66. [Google Scholar]
  116. Yanai, O.; Shani, E.; Dolezal, K.; Tarkowski, P.; Sablowski, R.; Sandberg, G.; Samach, A.; Ori, N. Arabidopsis KNOXI proteins activate cytokinin biosynthesis. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15, 1566–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Goren, R.; Galston, A.W. Phytochrome controlled C-sucrose uptake into etiolated pea buds: Effects of gibberellic acid and other substances. Plant Physiol. 1967, 42, 1087–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yoshida, S.; Mandel, T.; Kuhlemeier, C. Stem cell activation by light guides plant organogenesis. Genes Dev. 2011, 25, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Snow, R. The young leaf as the inhibiting organ. New Phytol. 1929, 28, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ljung, K.; Bhalerao, R.P.; Sandberg, G. Sites and homeostatic control of auxin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis during vegetative growth. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2001, 28, 465–474. [Google Scholar]
  121. Wisniewska, J.; Xu, J.; Seifertová, D.; Brewer, P.B.; Ruzicka, K.; Blilou, I.; Rouquié, D.; Benková, E.; Scheres, B.; Friml, J. Polar PIN localization directs auxin flow in plants. Science 2006, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Petrásek, J.; Friml, J. Auxin transport routes in plant development. Dev. Camb. Engl. 2009, 136, 2675–2688. [Google Scholar]
  123. Thimann, K.V.; Skoog, F. On the inhibition of bud development and other functions of growth substance in Vicia faba. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 1934, 114, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Hall, S.M.; Hillman, J.R. Correlative inhibition of lateral bud growth in Phaseolus vulgaris L. timing of bud growth following decapitation. Planta 1975, 123, 137–143. [Google Scholar]
  125. Prasad, T.K.; Li, X.; Abdel-Rahman, A.M.; Hosokawa, Z.; Cloud, N.P.; Lamotte, C.E.; Cline, M.G. Does auxin play a role in the release of apical dominance by shoot Inversion in Ipomoea nil? Ann. Bot. 1993, 71, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Brewer, P.B.; Dun, E.A.; Ferguson, B.J.; Rameau, C.; Beveridge, C.A. Strigolactone acts downstream of auxin to regulate bud outgrowth in pea and Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 150, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hayward, A.; Stirnberg, P.; Beveridge, C.; Leyser, O. Interactions between auxin and strigolactone in shoot branching control. Plant Physiol. 2009, 151, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Sachs, T. Polarity and the induction of organized vascular tissues. Ann. Bot. 1969, 33, 263–275. [Google Scholar]
  129. Li, C.; Bangerth, F. Autoinhibition of indoleacetic acid transport in the shoots of two‐branched pea (Pisum sativum) plants and its relationship to correlative dominance. Physiol. Plant. 1999, 106, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Balla, J.; Kalousek, P.; Reinöhl, V.; Friml, J.; Procházka, S. Competitive canalization of PIN‐dependent auxin flow from axillary buds controls pea bud outgrowth. Plant J. 2011, 65, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Reinhardt, D.; Pesce, E.-R.; Stieger, P.; Mandel, T.; Baltensperger, K.; Bennett, M.; Traas, J.; Friml, J.; Kuhlemeier, C. Regulation of phyllotaxis by polar auxin transport. Nature 2003, 426, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Scarpella, E.; Marcos, D.; Friml, J.; Berleth, T. Control of leaf vascular patterning by polar auxin transport. Genes Dev. 2006, 20, 1015–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Bayer, E.M.; Smith, R.S.; Mandel, T.; Nakayama, N.; Sauer, M.; Prusinkiewicz, P.; Kuhlemeier, C. Integration of transport-based models for phyllotaxis and midvein formation. Genes Dev. 2009, 23, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kierzkowski, D.; Lenhard, M.; Smith, R.; Kuhlemeier, C. Interaction between meristem tissue layers controls phyllotaxis. Dev. Cell 2013, 26, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tao, Y.; Ferrer, J.-L.; Ljung, K.; Pojer, F.; Hong, F.; Long, J.A.; Li, L.; Moreno, J.E.; Bowman, M.E.; Ivans, L.J.; et al. Rapid synthesis of auxin via a new tryptophan-dependent pathway is required for shade avoidance in plants. Cell 2008, 133, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Briggs, W.R. Mediation of phototropic responses of corn coleoptiles by lateral transport of auxin. Plant Physiol. 1963, 38, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. 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]
  138. Ding, Z.; Galván-Ampudia, C.S.; Demarsy, E.; Łangowski, Ł.; Kleine-Vehn, J.; Fan, Y.; Morita, M.T.; Tasaka, M.; Fankhauser, C.; Offringa, R.; et al. Light-mediated polarization of the PIN3 auxin transporter for the phototropic response in Arabidopsis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sassi, M.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Dhonukshe, P.; Blilou, I.; Dai, M.; Li, J.; Gong, X.; Jaillais, Y.; et al. COP1 mediates the coordination of root and shoot growth by light through modulation of PIN1- and PIN2-dependent auxin transport in Arabidopsis. Development 2012, 139, 3402–3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Zhang, K.-X.; Xu, H.-H.; Yuan, T.-T.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y.-T. Blue-light-induced PIN3 polarization for root negative phototropic response in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2013, 76, 308–321. [Google Scholar]
  141. Beveridge, C.A.; Kyozuka, J. New genes in the strigolactone-related shoot branching pathway. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2010, 13, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Xie, X.; Yoneyama, K.; Yoneyama, K. The strigolactone story. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2010, 48, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hamiaux, C.; Drummond, R.S.M.; Janssen, B.J.; Ledger, S.E.; Cooney, J.M.; Newcomb, R.D.; Snowden, K.C. DAD2 Is an α/β Hydrolase likely to be involved in the perception of the plant branching hormone, strigolactone. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, 2032–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Dun, E.A.; Brewer, P.B.; Beveridge, C.A. Strigolactones: Discovery of the elusive shoot branching hormone. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Dun, E.A.; de Saint Germain, A.; Rameau, C.; Beveridge, C.A. Dynamics of strigolactone function and shoot branching responses in Pisum sativum. Mol. Plant 2013, 6, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Shen, H.; Luong, P.; Huq, E. The F-box protein MAX2 functions as a positive regulator of photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2007, 145, 1471–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Casal, J.J. Photoreceptor signaling networks in plant responses to shade. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2013, 64, 403–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. 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]
  149. Li, J.; Nagpal, P.; Vitart, V.; McMorris, T.C.; Chory, J. A role for brassinosteroids in light-dependent development of Arabidopsis. Science 1996, 272, 398–401. [Google Scholar]
  150. Su, H.; Abernathy, S.D.; White, R.H.; Finlayson, S.A. Photosynthetic photon flux density and phytochrome B interact to regulate branching in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34, 1986–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Choubane, D.; Rabot, A.; Mortreau, E.; Legourrierec, J.; Péron, T.; Foucher, F.; Ahcène, Y.; Pelleschi-Travier, S.; Leduc, N.; Hamama, L.; et al. Photocontrol of bud burst involves gibberellin biosynthesis in Rosa sp. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 169, 1271–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Meijón, M.; Cañal, M.J.; Valledor, L.; Rodríguez, R.; Feito, I. Epigenetic and physiological effects of gibberellin inhibitors and chemical pruners on the floral transition of azalea. Physiol. Plant. 2011, 141, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Zheng, S.; Xie, J.; Bi, Y. Sucrose-induced hypocotyl elongation of Arabidopsis seedlings in darkness depends on the presence of gibberellins. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Oh, E.; Yamaguchi, S.; Kamiya, Y.; Bae, G.; Chung, W.-I.; Choi, G. Light activates the degradation of PIL5 protein to promote seed germination through gibberellin in Arabidopsis. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2006, 47, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Oh, E.; Yamaguchi, S.; Hu, J.; Yusuke, J.; Jung, B.; Paik, I.; Lee, H.-S.; Sun, T.; Kamiya, Y.; Choi, G. PIL5, a Phytochrome-interacting bHLH protein, regulates gibberellin responsiveness by binding directly to the GAI and RGA promoters in Arabidopsis seeds. Plant Cell Online 2007, 19, 1192–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Yamauchi, Y.; Takeda-Kamiya, N.; Hanada, A.; Ogawa, M.; Kuwahara, A.; Seo, M.; Kamiya, Y.; Yamaguchi, S. Contribution of gibberellin deactivation by AtGA2ox2 to the suppression of germination of dark-imbibed Arabidopsis thaliana seeds. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007, 48, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Feng, S.; Martinez, C.; Gusmaroli, G.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Wang, F.; Chen, L.; Yu, L.; Iglesias-Pedraz, J.M.; Kircher, S.; et al. Coordinated regulation of Arabidopsis thaliana development by light and gibberellins. Nature 2008, 451, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Eliasson, L. Effect of indoleacetic acid on the abscisic acid level in stem tissue. Physiol. Plant. 1975, 34, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Knox, J.P.; Wareing, P.F. Apical dominance in Phaseolus vulgaris L. J. Exp. Bot. 1984, 35, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Tucker, D.J. Effects of far-red light on the hormonal control of side shoot growth in the tomato. Ann. Bot. 1976, 40, 1033–1042. [Google Scholar]
  161. Gocal, G.F.; Pharis, R.P.; Yeung, E.C.; Pearce, D. Changes after decapitation in concentrations of indole-3-acetic acid and abscisic acid in the larger axillary bud of Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv tender green. Plant Physiol. 1991, 95, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Chatfield, S.P.; Stirnberg, P.; Forde, B.G.; Leyser, O. The hormonal regulation of axillary bud growth in Arabidopsis. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2000, 24, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Cline, M.G.; Oh, C. A reappraisal of the role of abscisic acid and its interaction with auxin in apical dominance. Ann. Bot. 2006, 98, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Reddy, S.K.; Holalu, S.V.; Casal, J.J.; Finlayson, S. Abscisic acid regulates axillary bud outgrowth responses to the ratio of red to far-red light. Plant Physiol. 2013, 163, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. González, C.V.; Ibarra, S.E.; Piccoli, P.N.; Botto, J.F.; Boccalandro, H.E. Phytochrome B increases drought tolerance by enhancing ABA sensitivity in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 1958–1968. [Google Scholar]
  166. Blake, T.J.; Reid, D.M.; Rood, S.B. Ethylene, indoleacetic acid and apical dominance in peas: A reappraisal. Physiol. Plant. 1983, 59, 481–487. [Google Scholar]
  167. Burg, S.P.; Burg, E.A. Ethylene formation in pea seedlings; its relation to the inhibition of bud growth caused by indole-3-acetic acid. Plant Physiol. 1968, 43, 1069–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Finlayson, S.A.; Lee, I.-J.; Morgan, P.W. Phytochrome B and the regulation of circadian ethylene production in Sorghum. Plant Physiol. 1998, 116, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Beuchat, J.; Scacchi, E.; Tarkowska, D.; Ragni, L.; Strnad, M.; Hardtke, C.S. BRX promotes Arabidopsis shoot growth. New Phytol. 2010, 188, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Li, J.; Li, G.; Wang, H.; Wang Deng, X. Phytochrome signaling mechanisms. Arabidopsis Book 2011, 9, e0148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. 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]
  172. Sairanen, I.; Novák, O.; Pěnčík, A.; Ikeda, Y.; Jones, B.; Sandberg, G.; Ljung, K. Soluble carbohydrates regulate auxin biosynthesis via PIF proteins in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 4907–4916. [Google Scholar]
  173. Grossmann, K.; Hansen, H. Ethylene-triggered abscisic acid: A principle in plant growth regulation? Physiol. Plant. 2001, 113, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Hansen, H.; Grossmann, K. Auxin-induced ethylene triggers abscisic acid biosynthesis and growth inhibition. Plant Physiol. 2000, 124, 1437–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Zhong, S.; Shi, H.; Xue, C.; Wang, L.; Xi, Y.; Li, J.; Quail, P.H.; Deng, X.W.; Guo, H. A molecular framework of light-controlled phytohormone action in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, 1530–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Dun, E.A.; de Saint Germain, A.; Rameau, C.; Beveridge, C.A. Antagonistic action of strigolactone and cytokinin in bud outgrowth control. Plant Physiol. 2012, 158, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Bonhomme, M.; Peuch, M.; Ameglio, T.; Rageau, R.; Guilliot, A.; Decourteix, M.; Alves, G.; Sakr, S.; Lacointe, A. Carbohydrate uptake from xylem vessels and its distribution among stem tissues and buds in walnut (Juglans regia L.). Tree Physiol. 2010, 30, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Chao, W.S.; Serpe, M.D.; Anderson, J.V.; Gesch, R.W.; Horvath, D.P. Sugars, hormones, and environment affect the dormancy status in underground adventitious buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Decourteix, M.; Alves, G.; Bonhomme, M.; Peuch, M.; Ben Baaziz, K.; Brunel, N.; Guilliot, A.; Rageau, R.; Améglio, T.; Pétel, G.; et al. Sucrose (JrSUT1) and hexose (JrHT1 and JrHT2) transporters in walnut xylem parenchyma cells: Their potential role in early events of growth resumption. Tree Physiol. 2008, 28, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Henry, C.; Rabot, A.; Laloi, M.; Mortreau, E.; Sigogne, M.; Leduc, N.; Lemoine, R.; Sakr, S.; Vian, A.; Pelleschi-Travier, S. Regulation of RhSUC2, a sucrose transporter, is correlated with the light control of bud burst in Rosa sp. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34, 1776–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Maurel, K.; Leite, G.B.; Bonhomme, M.; Guilliot, A.; Rageau, R.; Pétel, G.; Sakr, S. Trophic control of bud break in peach (Prunus persica) trees: A possible role of hexoses. Tree Physiol. 2004, 24, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Girault, T.; Abidi, F.; Sigogne, M.; Pelleschi-Travier, S.; Boumaza, R.; Sakr, S.; Leduc, N. Sugars are under light control during bud burst in Rosa sp. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 1339–1350. [Google Scholar]
  183. Sergeeva, L.I.; Keurentjes, J.J.B.; Bentsink, L.; Vonk, J.; van der Plas, L.H.W.; Koornneef, M.; Vreugdenhil, D. Vacuolar invertase regulates elongation of Arabidopsis thaliana roots as revealed by QTL and mutant analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 2994–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Tang, G.Q.; Lüscher, M.; Sturm, A. Antisense repression of vacuolar and cell wall invertase in transgenic carrot alters early plant development and sucrose partitioning. Plant Cell 1999, 11, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wang, L.; Li, X.-R.; Lian, H.; Ni, D.-A.; He, Y.; Chen, X.-Y.; Ruan, Y.-L. Evidence that high activity of vacuolar invertase is required for cotton fiber and Arabidopsis root elongation through osmotic dependent and independent pathways, respectively. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Rabot, A.; Henry, C.; Ben Baaziz, K.; Mortreau, E.; Azri, W.; Lothier, J.; Hamama, L.; Boummaza, R.; Leduc, N.; Pelleschi-Travier, S.; et al. Insight into the role of sugars in bud burst under light in the rose. Plant Cell Physiol. 2012, 53, 1068–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Guak, S.; Neilsen, D.; Millard, P.; Wendler, R.; Neilsen, G.H. Determining the role of N remobilization for growth of apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees by measuring xylem-sap N flux. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 2121–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Millard, P.; Wendler, R.; Grassi, G.; Grelet, G.-A.; Tagliavini, M. Translocation of nitrogen in the xylem of field-grown cherry and poplar trees during remobilization. Tree Physiol. 2006, 26, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Millard, P.; Grelet, G.-A. Nitrogen storage and remobilization by trees: Ecophysiological relevance in a changing world. Tree Physiol. 2010, 30, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Furet, P.-M.; Vian, A.; Guérin, V.; Lothier, J.; Unité Mixte de Recherche 1345 IRHS, Angers, France. Unpublished data. 2014.
  191. Furet, P.-M.; Lothier, J.; Demotes-Mainard, S.; Travier, S.; Henry, C.; Guérin, V.; Vian, A. Light and nitrogen nutrition regulate apical control in Rosa hybrida L. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Campbell, M.A.; Suttle, J.C.; Sell, T.W. Changes in cell cycle status and expression of p34cdc2 kinase during potato tuber meristem dormancy. Physiol. Plant. 1996, 98, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Devitt, M.L.; Stafstrom, J.P. Cell cycle regulation during growth-dormancy cycles in pea axillary buds. Plant Mol. Biol. 1995, 29, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Le Bris, M.; Michaux-Ferrière, N.; Jacob, Y.; Poupet, A.; Barthe, P.; Guigonis, J.-M.; Page-Degivry, M.-T.L. Regulation of bud dormancy by manipulation of ABA in isolated buds of Rosa hybrida cultured in vitro. Funct. Plant Biol. 1999, 26, 273–281. [Google Scholar]
  195. Dewitte, W.; Murray, J.A.H. The Plant Cell Cycle. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2003, 54, 235–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Inzé, D.; de Veylder, L. Cell cycle regulation in plant development. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2006, 40, 77–105. [Google Scholar]
  197. Komaki, S.; Sugimoto, K. Control of the Plant Cell Cycle by Developmental and environmental cues. Plant Cell Physiol. 2012, 53, 953–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Gaudin, V.; Lunness, P.A.; Fobert, P.R.; Towers, M.; Riou-Khamlichi, C.; Murray, J.A.; Coen, E.; Doonan, J.H. The expression of D-cyclin genes defines distinct developmental zones in snapdragon apical meristems and is locally regulated by the Cycloidea gene. Plant Physiol. 2000, 122, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Riou-Khamlichi, C.; Huntley, R.; Jacqmard, A.; Murray, J.A. Cytokinin activation of Arabidopsis cell division through a D-type cyclin. Science 1999, 283, 1541–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Dewitte, W.; Scofield, S.; Alcasabas, A.A.; Maughan, S.C.; Menges, M.; Braun, N.; Collins, C.; Nieuwland, J.; Prinsen, E.; Sundaresan, V.; et al. Arabidopsis CYCD3 D-type cyclins link cell proliferation and endocycles and are rate-limiting for cytokinin responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 14537–14542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Murray, J.A.H.; Jones, A.; Godin, C.; Traas, J. Systems analysis of shoot apical meristem growth and development: Integrating hormonal and mechanical signaling. Plant Cell Online 2012, 24, 3907–3919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Humphrey, T.V.; Bonetta, D.T.; Goring, D.R. Sentinels at the wall: Cell wall receptors and sensors. New Phytol. 2007, 176, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Cosgrove, D.J. Relaxation in a high-stress environment: The molecular bases of extensible cell walls and cell enlargement. Plant Cell 1997, 9, 1031–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Cosgrove, D.J.; Li, Z.C. Role of expansin in cell enlargement of oat coleoptiles (analysis of developmental gradients and photocontrol). Plant Physiol. 1993, 103, 1321–1328. [Google Scholar]
  205. Rayle, D.L.; Cleland, R.E. The Acid Growth Theory of auxin-induced cell elongation is alive and well. Plant Physiol. 1992, 99, 1271–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Cosgrove, D. Expansine growth of plant cell walls. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2000, 38, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Cosgrove, D.J. Growth of plant cell wall. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2005, 6, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Darley, C.P.; Forrester, A.M.; McQueen-Mason, S.J. The molecular basis of plant cell wall extension. In Plant Cell Walls; Carpita, N.C., Campbell, M., Tierney, M., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam Netherlands, 2001; pp. 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  209. Fleming, A.J.; McQueen-Mason, S.; Mandel, T.; Kuhlemeier, C. Induction of leaf primordia by the cell wall protein expansin. Science 1997, 276, 1415–1418. [Google Scholar]
  210. Pien, S.; Wyrzykowska, J.; Fleming, A.J. Novel marker genes for early leaf development indicate spatial regulation of carbohydrate metabolism within the apical meristem. Plant J. 2001, 25, 663–674. [Google Scholar]
  211. Reinhardt, D.; Wittwer, F.; Mandel, T.; Kuhlemeier, C. Localized upregulation of a new expansin gene predicts the site of leaf formation in the tomato meristem. Plant Cell Online 1998, 10, 1427–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Vogler, H.; Caderas, D.; Mandel, T.; Kuhlemeier, C. Domains of expansin gene expression define growth regions in the shoot apex of tomato. Plant Mol. Biol. 2003, 53, 267–272. [Google Scholar]
  213. Cho, H.-T.; Cosgrove, D.J. Altered expression of expansin modulates leaf growth and pedicel abscission in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 9783–9788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Gray-Mitsumune, M.; Blomquist, K.; McQueen-Mason, S.; Teeri, T.T.; Sundberg, B.; Mellerowicz, E.J. Ectopic expression of a wood-abundant expansin PttEXPA1 promotes cell expansion in primary and secondary tissues in aspen. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2008, 6, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
  215. López-Juez, E.; Dillon, E.; Magyar, Z.; Khan, S.; Hazeldine, S.; de Jager, S.M.; Murray, J.A.H.; Beemster, G.T.S.; Bögre, L.; Shanahan, H. Distinct light-initiated gene expression and cell cycle programs in the shoot apex and cotyledons of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 947–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Caderas, D.; Muster, M.; Vogler, H.; Mandel, T.; Rose, J.K.C.; McQueen-Mason, S.; Kuhlemeier, C. Limited correlation between expansin gene expression and elongation growth rate. Plant Physiol. 2000, 123, 1399–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Li, Y.; Jones, L.; McQueen-Mason, S. Expansins and cell growth. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2003, 6, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. McQueen-Mason, S.; Durachko, D.M.; Cosgrove, D.J. Two endogenous proteins that induce cell wall extension in plants. Plant Cell Online 1992, 4, 1425–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Kawamura, K.; Takeda, H. Developmentally programmed and plastic processes of growth in the multistemmed understory shrub Vaccinium hirtum (Ericaceae). Botany 2008, 86, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Inada, K. Action spectra for photosynthesis in higher plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 1976, 17, 355–365. [Google Scholar]
  221. McCree, K.J. Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data. Agric. Meteorol. 1972, 10, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Mor, Y.; Halevy, A.H. Promotion of sink activity of developing rose shoots by light. Plant Physiol. 1980, 66, 990–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Neff, M.M.; Chory, J. Genetic interactions between phytochrome A, phytochrome B, and cryptochrome 1 during Arabidopsis development. Plant Physiol. 1998, 118, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leduc, N.; Roman, H.; Barbier, F.; Péron, T.; Huché-Thélier, L.; Lothier, J.; Demotes-Mainard, S.; Sakr, S. Light Signaling in Bud Outgrowth and Branching in Plants. Plants 2014, 3, 223-250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3020223

AMA Style

Leduc N, Roman H, Barbier F, Péron T, Huché-Thélier L, Lothier J, Demotes-Mainard S, Sakr S. Light Signaling in Bud Outgrowth and Branching in Plants. Plants. 2014; 3(2):223-250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3020223

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leduc, Nathalie, Hanaé Roman, François Barbier, Thomas Péron, Lydie Huché-Thélier, Jérémy Lothier, Sabine Demotes-Mainard, and Soulaiman Sakr. 2014. "Light Signaling in Bud Outgrowth and Branching in Plants" Plants 3, no. 2: 223-250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3020223

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop