Limits...
Antagonistic peptide technology for functional dissection of CLE peptides revisited.

Czyzewicz N, Wildhagen M, Cattaneo P, Stahl Y, Pinto KG, Aalen RB, Butenko MA, Simon R, Hardtke CS, De Smet I - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Bottom Line: Based on the analyses, it was concluded that the antagonistic peptide approach is not the ultimate means to overcome redundancy or lack of loss-of-function lines.However, information collected using antagonistic peptide approaches (in the broad sense) can be very useful, but these approaches do not work in all cases and require a deep insight on the interaction between the ligand and its receptor to be successful.This, as well as peptide ligand structure considerations, should be taken into account before ordering a wide range of synthetic peptide variants and/or generating transgenic plants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Plant and Crop Sciences, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.

No MeSH data available.


CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, and CLE27 peptide treatment. (A) Sequence of synthetic CLE and mCLE peptides used. (B–E) Treatment of wild-type seedlings with 10 µM (B, C) or 10nM of CLE or mCLE peptide (D, E). Quantification of primary root length (B, D) and emerged lateral root density (C, E) for CLEp and mCLEp-treated wild-type seedlings. The bar graph indicates the mean ± standard error. Statistical significance (Student’s t-test) compared with no peptide (*) and to CLEp treatment (♦) is indicated: ***/♦♦♦, P <0.001, */♦, P <0.05. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526918&req=5

Figure 4: CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, and CLE27 peptide treatment. (A) Sequence of synthetic CLE and mCLE peptides used. (B–E) Treatment of wild-type seedlings with 10 µM (B, C) or 10nM of CLE or mCLE peptide (D, E). Quantification of primary root length (B, D) and emerged lateral root density (C, E) for CLEp and mCLEp-treated wild-type seedlings. The bar graph indicates the mean ± standard error. Statistical significance (Student’s t-test) compared with no peptide (*) and to CLEp treatment (♦) is indicated: ***/♦♦♦, P <0.001, */♦, P <0.05. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)

Mentions: Among many processes (Cock and McCormick, 2001; Fiume and Fletcher, 2012; Hirakawa et al., 2008; Okamoto et al., 2013), various CLE peptides affect primary and lateral root growth and development (Czyzewicz et al., 2015; Depuydt et al., 2013; Fiers et al., 2005; Hobe et al., 2003; Jun et al., 2010; Rodriguez-Villalon et al., 2014; Rodriguez-Villalon et al., 2015; Stahl et al., 2009). To build on previous work investigating CLE peptides in the context of lateral root development, primary root growth, root apical stem cell maintenance, and vascular development, putative antagonistic versions of CLV3, CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, CLE27, CLE40, and CLE45 peptides were designed—based on the findings by Song et al. (2013)—to further unravel CLE peptide function (Figs 2A, 3A, 4A). To assess the function of these mutated chemically synthesized CLE peptides with Gly/cysteine (Cys) to Ala or Gly/Cys to Thr substitutions (referred to as mCLEpAla6 or mCLEp6Thr, respectively), a number of biological assays were used.


Antagonistic peptide technology for functional dissection of CLE peptides revisited.

Czyzewicz N, Wildhagen M, Cattaneo P, Stahl Y, Pinto KG, Aalen RB, Butenko MA, Simon R, Hardtke CS, De Smet I - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, and CLE27 peptide treatment. (A) Sequence of synthetic CLE and mCLE peptides used. (B–E) Treatment of wild-type seedlings with 10 µM (B, C) or 10nM of CLE or mCLE peptide (D, E). Quantification of primary root length (B, D) and emerged lateral root density (C, E) for CLEp and mCLEp-treated wild-type seedlings. The bar graph indicates the mean ± standard error. Statistical significance (Student’s t-test) compared with no peptide (*) and to CLEp treatment (♦) is indicated: ***/♦♦♦, P <0.001, */♦, P <0.05. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526918&req=5

Figure 4: CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, and CLE27 peptide treatment. (A) Sequence of synthetic CLE and mCLE peptides used. (B–E) Treatment of wild-type seedlings with 10 µM (B, C) or 10nM of CLE or mCLE peptide (D, E). Quantification of primary root length (B, D) and emerged lateral root density (C, E) for CLEp and mCLEp-treated wild-type seedlings. The bar graph indicates the mean ± standard error. Statistical significance (Student’s t-test) compared with no peptide (*) and to CLEp treatment (♦) is indicated: ***/♦♦♦, P <0.001, */♦, P <0.05. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Mentions: Among many processes (Cock and McCormick, 2001; Fiume and Fletcher, 2012; Hirakawa et al., 2008; Okamoto et al., 2013), various CLE peptides affect primary and lateral root growth and development (Czyzewicz et al., 2015; Depuydt et al., 2013; Fiers et al., 2005; Hobe et al., 2003; Jun et al., 2010; Rodriguez-Villalon et al., 2014; Rodriguez-Villalon et al., 2015; Stahl et al., 2009). To build on previous work investigating CLE peptides in the context of lateral root development, primary root growth, root apical stem cell maintenance, and vascular development, putative antagonistic versions of CLV3, CLE1/4, CLE7, CLE26, CLE27, CLE40, and CLE45 peptides were designed—based on the findings by Song et al. (2013)—to further unravel CLE peptide function (Figs 2A, 3A, 4A). To assess the function of these mutated chemically synthesized CLE peptides with Gly/cysteine (Cys) to Ala or Gly/Cys to Thr substitutions (referred to as mCLEpAla6 or mCLEp6Thr, respectively), a number of biological assays were used.

Bottom Line: Based on the analyses, it was concluded that the antagonistic peptide approach is not the ultimate means to overcome redundancy or lack of loss-of-function lines.However, information collected using antagonistic peptide approaches (in the broad sense) can be very useful, but these approaches do not work in all cases and require a deep insight on the interaction between the ligand and its receptor to be successful.This, as well as peptide ligand structure considerations, should be taken into account before ordering a wide range of synthetic peptide variants and/or generating transgenic plants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Plant and Crop Sciences, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.

No MeSH data available.