Search

In angiosperms, the strigolactone receptor is the α/β hydrolase DWARF14 (D14) that, upon strigolactone binding, undergoes conformational changes, triggers strigolactone-dependent responses, and hydrolyses strigolactones. Strigolactone signalling involves the formation of a complex between strigolactone-bound D14, the E3-ubiquitin ligase SCFMAX2, and the transcriptional corepressors SMXL6/7/8, which become ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome. Strigolactone also destabilizes the D14 receptor. The current model proposes that D14 degradation occurs after ubiquitination of the SMXLs via SCFMAX2 and proteasomal degradation. Using fluorescence and luminescence assays on transgenic lines expressing D14 fused to GREEN FLUORESCENT PROTEIN or LUCIFERASE, we showed that strigolactone-induced D14 degradation may also occur independently of SCFMAX2 and/or SMXL6/7/8 through a proteasome-independent mechanism. Furthermore, strigolactone hydrolysis was not essential for triggering either D14 or SMXL7 degradation. The activity of mutant D14 proteins predicted to be non-functional for strigolactone signalling was also examined, and their capability to bind strigolactones in vitro was studied using differential scanning fluorimetry. Finally, we found that under certain conditions, the efficiency of D14 degradation was not aligned with that of SMXL7 degradation. These findings indicate a more complex regulatory mechanism governing D14 degradation than previously anticipated and provide novel insights into the dynamics of strigolactone signalling in Arabidopsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetically modified Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 was developed to produce soy leghemoglobin by introducing the LGB2 coding sequence encoding leghemoglobin from soybean (Glycine max). The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not raise any safety concerns. The safety of soy leghemoglobin as a food additive has already been assessed by the EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA‐Q‐2022‐00031). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of soy leghemoglobin protein as expressed in K. phaffii, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change its overall allergenicity. The GMO Panel concludes that the LegH Prep derived from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe for human consumption with regard to the effects of the genetic modification. No environmental impact from the use of this product is expected regarding the recombinant DNA sequences possibly remaining in the product. The GMO Panel concludes that LegH Prep from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment at the proposed use and use level as far as the impact of the genetic modification is concerned. The overall conclusion is that the genetic modification does not lead to safety issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetically modified maize DP51291 was developed to confer control against susceptible corn rootworm pests and tolerance to glufosinate‐containing herbicide; these properties were achieved by introducing the ipd072Aa, pmi and mo‐pat expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP51291 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for phosphorus in forage and manganese, proline, oleic acid (C18:1) and linoleic acid (C18:2) in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins as expressed in maize DP51291 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP51291. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP51291 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP51291 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP51291 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP51291. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP51291 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified soybean MON × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐126). The applicant conducted a 90‐day feeding study on GM soybean MON 87705 and provided a proposal for post‐market monitoring considering the altered fatty acid profile of GM soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, to fulfil the deficiencies identified by EFSA GMO Panel, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from a previous EFSA scientific opinion issued in 2020. The GMO Panel concludes that the 90‐day feeding study on GM soybean MON 87705 is in line with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and that no treatment‐related adverse effects were observed in rats after feeding diets containing soybean MON 87705 meals at 30% or 15% for 90 days. The GMO Panel reiterates the recommendation for a PMM for food in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and concludes that the proposal provided by the applicant is in line with the recommendations described for the PMM plan of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 in the adopted scientific opinion. Taking into account the previous assessment and the new information, the GMO Panel concludes that soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, as assessed in the scientific opinion on application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐126 and in the supplementary toxicity study, is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested and does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals, within the scope of this application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Shoot branching is determined by a balance between factors that promote axillary bud dormancy and factors that release buds from the quiescent state. The TCP family of transcription factors is classified into two classes, Class I and Class II, which usually play different roles. While the role of the Class II TCP BRANCHED1 (BRC1) in suppressing axillary bud development in Arabidopsis thaliana has been widely explored, the function of Class I TCPs in this process remains unknown.We analyzed the role of Class I TCP14 and TCP15 in axillary branch development in Arabidopsis through a series of genetic and molecular studies.In contrast to the increased branch number shown by brc1 mutants, tcp14 tcp15 plants exhibit a reduced number of branches compared with wild‐type. Our findings provide evidence that TCP14 and TCP15 act by counteracting BRC1 function through two distinct mechanisms. First, they indirectly reduce BRC1 expression levels. Additionally, TCP15 directly interacts with BRC1 decoying it from chromatin and thereby preventing the transcriptional activation of a set of BRC1‐dependent genes.We describe a molecular mechanism by which Class I TCPs physically antagonize the action of the Class II TCP BRC1, aligning with their opposite roles in axillary bud development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The miRNA156 (miR156)/ SQUAMOSA PROMOTER-BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE (SPL/SBP) regulatory hub is highly conserved among phylogenetically distinct species, but how it interconnects multiple pathways to converge to common integrators controlling shoot architecture is still unclear. Here, we demonstrated that the miR156/ SlSBP15 node modulates tomato shoot branching by connecting multiple phytohormones with classical genetic pathways regulating both axillary bud development and outgrowth. miR156-overexpressing plants (156-OE) displayed high shoot branching, whereas plants overexpressing a miR156-resistant SlSBP15 allele (rSBP15) showed arrested shoot branching. Importantly, the rSBP15 allele was able to partially restore the wild-type shoot branching phenotype in the 156-OE background. rSBP15 plants have tiny axillary buds, and their activation is dependent on shoot apex-derived auxin transport inhibition. Hormonal measurements revealed that indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and abscisic acid (ABA) concentrations were lower in 156-OE and higher in rSBP15 axillary buds, respectively. Genetic and molecular data indicated that SlSBP15 regulates axillary bud development and outgrowth by inhibiting auxin transport and GOBLET (GOB) activity, and by interacting with tomato BRANCHED1b (SlBRC1b) to control ABA levels within axillary buds. Collectively, our data provide a new mechanism by which the miR156/ SPL/SBP hub regulates shoot branching, and suggest that modulating SlSBP15 activity might have potential applications in shaping tomato shoot architecture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The available information on the regulation of flowering transition in model systems, such as Arabidopsis and rice, provides a framework to undertake the study of this process in plant [...]

Flowers with bilateral symmetry (zygomorphic) evolved in several clades independently as an adaptation to specialized methods of pollination and played an important role in the diversification of flowering plants. In addition, the origin of zygomorphy is being studied by comparing the function of CYC-like genes in species with zygomorphic flowers with their function in species with radially symmetrical flowers.