The GUS staining pattern in the secondary vasculature of the pPXC3::GUS plants was similar to that of pPXY::GUS, except that in PXC3::GUS, no GUS was not expressed in the interfascicular region.
Under AZC treatment (5 mM AZC for 4 h), both cotyledons and true leaves of Oshsp17.3p5/athsfA2 and Oshsp17.3p5/athsfA7a plants did not show any GUS signal (Fig. 2a), and true leaves of Oshsp17.3p5/athsfA4a, Oshsp17.3p5/athsfB2a, and Oshsp17.3p5/athsfB2b plants showed little or no GUS signal; the profile of GUS staining was similar in Oshsp17.3p5 and Oshsp17.3p5/athsfA5 plants.
Plants and seedlings that were not transformed with the GUS reporter fusion showed no GUS activity.
The investigation on the URS:: GUS plants showed that no GUS activity was observed in leaves or roots or any other non-reproductive tissues.
Histochemical assay showed that no GUS activity was detected in yeast strains containing the plasmids pAD -GAL4 + pBD -GAL4 -proTa-PHT1.2:: GUS, indicathat thet thexpressionon cassette of proTa-PHT1.2:: GUS cannot be activated by yeast transcription.
Therefore GUS activity was measured separately in each of these tissues using a relative scale of 0 to 4, where 0 represents little to no GUS activity and 4 represents intense GUS activity or staining to quantify the observed reduction in GUS activity observed in Figure 1A.
In response to Pi-starvation, no GUS activity was detected in oil palm leaves, but a strong inducible activity was observed in the roots (1.4 times higher than the CaMV35S promoter).
No GUS activity was detected in the SAM.
Transgenic rice seedling roots with no treatment showed no GUS signal (Figure 5(a), (b)).
No GUS staining was observed in unwounded and soaked leaves and in wounded but unsoaked leaves (not shown).
Early panicle development stages of young panicles, 0.5 cm – 1 cm in length, showed no GUS activity except for in the bract hair (Additional file 1: Figure S2A).
