ArticleThe Plant cell2017
Differences in DNA Binding Specificity of Floral Homeotic Protein Complexes Predict Organ-Specific Target Genes.
Article in The Plant cell, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- The petal identity geneeLife · 2026Article
- Synthetic promoter design in plants: integration of computational and experimental approaches.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- AP1 is a pioneer transcription factor that programmes cell fate through MADS-domain protein tetramerisation.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Promoter Motif Profiling and Binding Site Distribution Analysis of Transcription Factors Predict Auto- and Cross-Regulatory Mechanisms inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Mechanisms driving functional divergence of transcription factor paralogs.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Transcription factor binding site divergence across maize inbred lines drives transcriptional and phenotypic variation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Reflections on the ABC model of flower development.The Plant cell · 2024Review
- Banana MabHLH28 positively regulates the expression of softening-related genes to mediate fruit ripening independently or via cooperating with MaWRKY49/111.Horticulture research · 2024Article
- Sea-ATI unravels novel vocabularies of plant active cistrome.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Evolutionary studies of the bHLH transcription factors belonging to MBW complex: their role in seed development.Annals of botany · 2023Review
- Floral Development onPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- TM3 and STM3 Promote Flowering Together with FUL2 and MBP20, but Act Antagonistically in Inflorescence Branching in Tomato.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Designing artificial synthetic promoters for accurate, smart, and versatile gene expression in plants.Plant communications · 2023Review
- Cracking the Floral Quartet Code: How Do Multimers of MIKCInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Floral Homeotic Factors: A Question of Specificity.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dual specificity and target gene selection by the MADS-domain protein FRUITFULL.Nature plants · 2023Article
- Article
- Flower Development in Arabidopsis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Floral organ identities in plants are specified by the combinatorial action of homeotic master regulatory transcription factors. However, how these factors achieve their regulatory specificities is still largely unclear. Genome-wide in vivo DNA binding data show that homeotic MADS domain proteins recognize partly distinct genomic regions, suggesting that DNA binding specificity contributes to functional differences of homeotic protein complexes. We used in vitro systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment followed by high-throughput DNA sequencing (SELEX-seq) on several floral MADS domain protein homo- and heterodimers to measure their DNA binding specificities. We show that specification of reproductive organs is associated with distinct binding preferences of a complex formed by SEPALLATA3 and AGAMOUS. Binding specificity is further modulated by different binding site spacing preferences. Combination of SELEX-seq and genome-wide DNA binding data allows differentiation between targets in specification of reproductive versus perianth organs in the flower. We validate the importance of DNA binding specificity for organ-specific gene regulation by modulating promoter activity through targeted mutagenesis. Our study shows that intrafamily protein interactions affect DNA binding specificity of floral MADS domain proteins. Differential DNA binding of MADS domain protein complexes plays a role in the specificity of target gene regulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.