An allelic series reveals essential roles for FY in plant development in addition to flowering-time control

The autonomous pathway functions to promote flowering in Arabidopsis by limiting the accumulation of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). Within this pathway FCA is a plant-specific, nuclear RNA-binding protein, which interacts with FY, a highly conserved eukaryotic polyadenylation factor. FCA and FY function to control polyadenylation site choice during processing of the FCA transcript. Null mutations in the yeast FY homologue Pfs2p are lethal. This raises the question as to whether these essential RNA processing functions are conserved in plants. Characterisation of an allelic series of fy mutations reveals that null alleles are embryo lethal. Furthermore, silencing of FY, but not FCA, is deleterious to growth in Nicotiana. The late-flowering fy alleles are hypomorphic and indicate a requirement for both intact FY WD repeats and the C-terminal domain in repression of FLC. The FY C-terminal domain binds FCA and in vitro assays demonstrate a requirement for both C-terminal FY-PPLPP repeats during this interaction. The expression domain of FY supports its roles in essential and flowering-time functions. Hence, FY may mediate both regulated and constitutive RNA 3'-end processing.

Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics.

Recently, we demonstrated that humans can learn to make accurate movements in an unstable environment by controlling magnitude, shape, and orientation of the endpoint impedance. Although previous studies of human motor learning suggest that the brain acquires an inverse dynamics model of the novel environment, it is not known whether this control mechanism is operative in unstable environments. We compared learning of multijoint arm movements in a "velocity-dependent force field" (VF), which interacted with the arm in a stable manner, and learning in a "divergent force field" (DF), where the interaction was unstable. The characteristics of error evolution were markedly different in the 2 fields. The direction of trajectory error in the DF alternated to the left and right during the early stage of learning; that is, signed error was inconsistent from movement to movement and could not have guided learning of an inverse dynamics model. This contrasted sharply with trajectory error in the VF, which was initially biased and decayed in a manner that was consistent with rapid feedback error learning. EMG recorded before and after learning in the DF and VF are also consistent with different learning and control mechanisms for adapting to stable and unstable dynamics, that is, inverse dynamics model formation and impedance control. We also investigated adaptation to a rotated DF to examine the interplay between inverse dynamics model formation and impedance control. Our results suggest that an inverse dynamics model can function in parallel with an impedance controller to compensate for consistent perturbing force in unstable environments.