The Lotus japonicus Genome

annotated insertion events (Urbanski et al. 2012 ;

Fukai et al. 2012 ). So far, LORE1 element was

identified in 15 out of the 38 annotated members

of the NPF family and three out of the four

NRT2 members and functional characterizations

of correlated knock out mutants are in progress.

References

Bagchi R, Slaehin M, Adeyemo OS et al (2012)

Functional assessment of theMedicago truncatula

NIP/LATD protein demonstrates that is a high-affinity

nitrate transporter. Plant Physiol 160:906– 916

Barbulova A, Rogato A, D’apuzzo E et al (2007)

Differential effects of combined N sources on early

steps of the Nod factor-dependent transduction path-

way in Lotus japonicus. Mol Plant Microbe Interact

20:994– 1003

Bright LJ, Liang Y, Mitchell DM et al (2005) The LATD

gene ofMedicago truncatulais required for both

nodule and root development. Mol Plant Microbe Inter

18:521– 532

Caba JM, Centeno ML, Fernandez B et al (2000)

Inoculation and nitrate alter phytohormone levels in

soybean roots: differences between a supernodulating

mutant and the wild type. Planta 211:98– 104

Cabeza R, Koester B, Liese R et al (2014) An RNA

sequencing transcriptome analysis reveals novel

insights into molecular aspects of the nitrate impact

on the nodule activity ofMedicago truncatula. Plant

Physiol 164:400– 411

Camanes G, Pastor V, Cerezo M et al (2012) A deletion in

NRT2.1 attenuates Pseudomonas syringae-induced

hormonal perturbation, resulting in primed plant

defenses. Plant Physiol 158:1054– 1066

Table 12.3Log2 expression values of theNPFand
NRT2genes are exported by the Web-accessible resource
http://cgi-www.cs.au.dk/cgi-compbio/Niels/index.cgi
(Høgslund et al. 2009 ). Nodule-induced genes are in bold

Root Nodule

14 dpi

Nodule

21 dpi

NPF genes

chr3.LjT07H20.20/

LjNPF1.1

9.49 6.74 6.69

chr4.CM0617.810/

LjNPF1.2

2.12 2.48 2.11

chr4.CM0170.180/

LjNPF2.1

7.73 9.86 10.05

chr4.CM0170.210/

LjNPF2.4

2.29 2.29 2.28

chr1.CM0147.130/

LjNPF2.5

44 4

chr2.CM0903.350/

LjNPF3.1a

9 12.76 13.03

chr2.

CM0608.1210/

LjNPF4.1

9.1 9.1 8.8

chr4.CM0170.290/

LjNPF4.2

3.27 2.98 3.19

chr4.CM046.1690/

LjNPF4.3

7.08 2.51 2.6

chr6.CM1625.50/

LjNPF5.1

2.29 2.3 2.28

chr1.

CM0295.1000/

LjNPF5.2

2.55 2.46 2.45

chr1.CM0295.980/

LjNPF5.3a

2.6 13.2 13.53

chr1.CM0295.970/

LjNPF5.4a

2.21 13.7 13.86

chr2.

CM0081.1270/

LjNPF5.5

9.67 9.67 9.5

chr1.CM0125.390/

LjNPF5.6a

2.4 14.3 14.3

chr2.CM0826.350/

LjNPF6.2

3.06 5.24 5.44

chr2.

CM0021.3040/

LjNPF6.3

2.13 2.12 2.11

chr4.LjB20H09.30/

LjNPF6.4

7.5 7.54 7.14

chr2.CM0545.330/

LjNPF6.6

1.99 11.46 11.44

(continued)

Table 12.3 (continued)

Root Nodule

14 dpi

Nodule

21 dpi

chr4.CM0247.130/

LjNPF7.2

6.22 4.8 6.19

chr1.CM0141.10/

LjNPF7.3

2.48 2.58 2.52

chr2.

LjT15I01.230/

LjNPF8.6a

2.82 10.45 10.5

NRT2 genes

chr3.CM0649.40/

LjNRT2.1

8.87 6.93 6.18

chr3.CM0649.30/

LjNRT2.2

12.48 10.79 9.86

aIndicates a consistent nodule-induced profile in Takah-

ashi et al. ( 2012 )

134 V.T. Valkov and M. Chiurazzi