Abstract
The presence of a phytochrome pool down-regulated by light and the occurrence of high-irradiance responses to far-red light are well documented in angiosperms but not in gymnosperms. A pool of phytochrome was identified in Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii seedlings grown in darkness with a monoclonal antibody developed against oat phytochrome A. This pool was barely detectable in light-grown tissues. Dark-grown conifer seedlings transferred to continuous red light showed a gradual decrease of the levels of immunodetectable phytochrome. This decrease was significantly slower in gymnosperms than in angiosperms. Dark-grown seedlings of P. elliottii and P. menziesii showed enhanced growth of the cotyledonary whorl and increased anthocyanin pigmentation of the hypocotyl, but no hypocotyl-growth inhibition in response to continuous far-red light. Hourly pulses were significantly less effective than continuous far-red light. The response to far-red light was not observed in seedlings pretreated with red light to reduce the levels of immunodetectable phytochrome. Rudiments of phytochrome A-like function and kinetics are present in P. elliottii and P. menziesii.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Dark-grown seedlings of both species contained a phytochrome pool.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pseudotsuga menziesii.jpg?width=60)
Pinus elliottiie0 - Organ / stage
- seedlingse0
- Outcome
- pool of phytochromee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“A pool of phytochrome was identified in Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii seedlings grown in darkness”
Claim · model-written summary
The phytochrome pool was barely detectable in light-grown tissue.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Outcome
- poole0
- Setting
- light-grown tissuese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This pool was barely detectable in light-grown tissues”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous red light gradually decreased immunodetectable phytochrome in dark-grown conifer seedlings.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- continuous red lighte0
- Outcome
- levels of immunodetectable phytochromee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Comparator
- Dark-grown conifer seedlingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dark-grown conifer seedlings transferred to continuous red light showed a gradual decrease of the levels of immunodetectable phytochrome”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
The light-induced phytochrome decrease was slower in gymnosperms than angiosperms.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Outcome
- decreasee0
- Direction
- slowere0
- Comparator
- angiospermse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This decrease was significantly slower in gymnosperms than in angiosperms”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous far-red light enhanced cotyledonary-whorl growth in both species.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- continuous far-red lighte0
- Outcome
- growth of the cotyledonary whorle0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- Dark-grown seedlingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dark-grown seedlings of P. elliottii and P. menziesii showed enhanced growth of the cotyledonary whorl and increased anthocyanin pigmentation of the hypocotyl, but no hypocotyl-growth inhibition in response to continuous far-red light”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous far-red light increased hypocotyl anthocyanin pigmentation in both species.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- continuous far-red lighte0
- Outcome
- anthocyanin pigmentation of the hypocotyle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Dark-grown seedlingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dark-grown seedlings of P. elliottii and P. menziesii showed enhanced growth of the cotyledonary whorl and increased anthocyanin pigmentation of the hypocotyl, but no hypocotyl-growth inhibition in response to continuous far-red light”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous far-red light did not inhibit hypocotyl growth.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- continuous far-red lighte0
- Outcome
- hypocotyl-growth inhibitione0
- Direction
- noe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but no hypocotyl-growth inhibition in response to continuous far-red light”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Hourly far-red pulses were less effective than continuous far-red light.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- Hourly pulsese0
- Outcome
- less effectivee0
- Direction
- less effectivee0
- Comparator
- continuous far-red lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hourly pulses were significantly less effective than continuous far-red light”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
Claim · model-written summary
Red-light pretreatment abolished the far-red response.
- Taxon
- Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesiiPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus elliottiit0
- Treatment
- pretreated with red lighte0
- Outcome
- response to far-red lighte0
- Direction
- not observede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The response to far-red light was not observed in seedlings pretreated with red light to reduce the levels of immunodetectable phytochrome”
t0“Pinus elliottii and Pseudotsuga menziesii”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · Pinus elliottii (slash pine)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
light · disease · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
light · growth · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →light · quality: phytochemicals · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
light · quality: phytochemicals · Pinus elliottii (slash pine)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
light · disease · Pinus elliottii (slash pine)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.