Photoresponses of transgenic Arabidopsis seedlings expressing introduced phytochrome B-encoding cDNAs: evidence that phytochrome A and phytochrome B have distinct photoregulatory functions

The photocontrol of hypocotyl elongation has been studied in two transgenic lines of Arabidopsis thaliana which contain elevated levels of phytochrome B encoded by either an introduced rice- or Arabidopsis -derived cDNA driven by the 35S CaMV promoter. Inhibition of hypocotyl growth in etiolated seedlings of the phyB -transformed lines was saturated at photon fluence rates of continuous red light (R) which were markedly lower than those required for inhibition of growth in seedlings of the isogenic wild-type (WT). Inhibition of hypocotyl growth in etiolated seedlings of the phyB -transgenic lines under continuous far-red irradiation (FR), however, showed the same relationship with fluence rate as WT. Light-grown seedlings of the phyB -transgenic lines responded to end-of-day FR by an acceleration of growth, in a manner comparable with WT. This response was unaltered when the end-of-day FR was extended from a 15 min pulse to 14 h of continuous irradiation. The response of light-grown, phyB -transformed seedlings to decreasing R:FR ratio was also qualitatively similar to WT, i.e. increased elongation growth of the hypocotyl and petioles occurred under low R:FR quantum ratio. However, absolute elongation growth was markedly less in the transgenic seedlings at all R:FR ratios tested than in WT. Together, these data indicate that seedlings over-expressing phytochrome B are more responsive to R than are WT, but are unaltered in their responsiveness to FR. By contrast, seedlings overexpressing phytochrome A are more responsive than WT to both R and FR; whereas the phytochrome B-deficient mutant hy3 is unresponsive to R while retaining WT-like responsiveness to FR. These data indicate that in WT etiolated seedlings phytochrome A mediates the effects of continuous FR, and phytochrome B the effects of continuous R. The evidence thus supports the conclusion that these two molecular species of the photoreceptor have differential regulatory roles in the plant.