Chapter 4 132 WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pithlayer number ab a ab b WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Pith cell length (µm) a ab ab b WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cambrium cell length (µm) ns WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 5 10 15 20 25 Epidermis cell length (µm) a b b ab WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 5 10 15 20 25 Collenchyma cell length (µm) a b b ab WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 20 40 60 80 Parenchyma cell length (µm) a a a a WL Mock WL 25μM BR WL 100μM BR WL+FR Mock 0 50 100 150 Pith cell length (µm) a b c b (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Figure 4.17. Cell type responses to different BR concentrations. We treated 14 day-old tomatoes with different concentration BR by brushing onto internode 1 and analyzed the cell types response by microscopy. Data includes measurement of (a) cell types illustration of internode 1, (b) pith layer numbers, (c) pith thickness, (d) interfascicular cambium thickness, (e)epidermis cell length, (f)collenchyma cell length, (g) parenchyma cell length, and (h) pith cell length. Data are represented as mean ± SEM, and different letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on ANOVA analysis with Tukey’s post hoc test (P<0.05). The sample size for each treatment was n=80 and the experiment was repeated twice.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw