Plant Reproduction: Long story short
The vast majority of flowering plants are hermaphrodites, with both male and female parts in each of their flowers (Renner, 2014). This strategy is clearly a successful one, coming with several likely advantages including that, by producing both pollen and ovules, each flower has more opportunities to pass genes on to the next generation (Charnov et al., 1976). Although hermaphrodites might also benefit from the possibility of self-fertilization (and many do), most hermaphrodites do all they can to avoid ‘selfing’ because it is often detrimental to a plant’s fitness (Charlesworth and Willis, 2009; Barrett, 2002). Hermaphroditic plants have thus evolved a wonderful array of mechanisms that help them to promote outcrossing.
One of these mechanisms, known as heterostyly, involves male and female parts of the flower (the stamen and the stigma) being in different places in different flowers. The stigma sits on the end of a stalk called the style. Some flowers have long styles and hold their stamens, which produce pollen, deep in the floral tube, whereas others have short styles and hold their stamens much higher in the floral tube (Figure 1A). This means that pollen from a long-styled plant is more likely to pollinate a short-styled flower, and vice versa. Long- and short-styled plants may also differ in the size and colour of their pollen grains and the texture of their stigmas, and outcrossing is only possible between different morphs (Barrett, 2002). Remarkably, despite its complexity, heterostyly has evolved repeatedly in flowering plants and is found in at least 30 families, including the primroses (genus Primula).
Charles Darwin was fascinated by heterostyly (Darwin, 1877) and we now know that it is caused by the expression of several genes that are inherited together as a single genetic unit (locus). However, working out how these genes influence the development of flowers has been something of a holy grail in the field. Now, in eLife, Michael Lenhard at the University of Potsdam and colleagues – including Cuong Nguyen Huu as first author – have identified the gene that is responsible for the different lengths of styles in primroses, and shown how it works (Huu et al., 2016).
Huu et al. found that a gene called CYP734A50 is only present in short-styled flowers in several species of primrose, and estimates of transcript read coverage suggest that only one copy of the gene is present in these flowers. CYP734A50 encodes an enzyme that degrades plant hormones called brassinosteroids, which are known to promote cell elongation (Ohnishi et al., 2006). Huu et al. found that a particular brassinosteroid, castasterone, is present at higher levels in long styles than in short styles, and that treating short styles with another brassinosteroid increased style length (Figure 1B). Moreover, virus-induced silencing of CYP734A50 in young plants with short styles resulted in the production of flowers with longer styles.
It has been thought for a long time, based on theoretical reasoning and comparative analysis, that the first mutation in the evolution of heterostyly was a mutation that reduced style length, and that the expression of this mutated gene should be dominant over the expression of its homologous gene at the style-length locus (Lloyd and Webb, 1992a; 1992b). The results of Huu et al. are consistent with the idea that the expression of the CYP734A50 gene in short-styled individuals is genetically dominant. But how did this dominance come about?
Huu et al. show that CYP734A50 is the result of the duplication of a gene that degrades brassinosteroids more generally. The duplication event occurred early in the evolution of the Primula genus, and the duplicated copy then evolved to be expressed only in styles. The presence or absence of the duplication has been maintained in the genus by a process called negative frequency-dependent selection, whereby the fitness of a trait (e.g. short styles) increases if it becomes rare, thus preventing its loss.
In his short autobiography, Darwin reflected that "I do not think anything in my scientific life has given me so much satisfaction as making out the meaning of the structure of heterostylous flowers". Like so much of his work, the hypothesis that he put forward has stood the test of time and remains the favoured explanation for how and why heterostyly evolved (Barrett, 2002). By identifying the gene that controls style length, the work of Huu et al. is an important step towards understanding the underlying mechanisms involved in heterostyly. A future challenge is to understand the evolutionary history of the other genes involved in heterostyly and to work out what roles they play in flower development.
Sexual interference of the floral kindHeredity 88:154–159.https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800020
The genetics of inbreeding depressionNature Reviews Genetics 10:783–796.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2664
Why be an hermaphrodite?Nature 263:125–126.https://doi.org/10.1038/263125a0
BookThe evolution of heterostylyIn: Barrett SCH, editors. Evolution and Function of Heterostyly. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 151–178.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86656-2_6
BookThe selection of heterostylyIn: Barrett SCH, editors. Evolution and Function of Heterostyly. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 179–207.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86656-2_7
The relative and absolute frequencies of angiosperm sexual systems: dioecy, monoecy, gynodioecy, and an updated online databaseAmerican Journal of Botany 101:1588–1596.https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400196
Article and author information
- Version of Record published: September 6, 2016 (version 1)
- Version of Record updated: September 7, 2016 (version 2)
© 2016, Pannell et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
- Page views
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
- Cell Biology
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Most studies of cohesin function consider the Stromalin Antigen (STAG/SA) proteins as core complex members given their ubiquitous interaction with the cohesin ring. Here, we provide functional data to support the notion that the SA subunit is not a mere passenger in this structure, but instead plays a key role in the localization of cohesin to diverse biological processes and promotes loading of the complex at these sites. We show that in cells acutely depleted for RAD21, SA proteins remain bound to chromatin, cluster in 3D and interact with CTCF, as well as with a wide range of RNA binding proteins involved in multiple RNA processing mechanisms. Accordingly, SA proteins interact with RNA, and R-loops, even in the absence of cohesin. Our results place SA1 on chromatin upstream of the cohesin ring and reveal a role for SA1 in cohesin loading which is independent of NIPBL, the canonical cohesin loader. We propose that SA1 takes advantage of structural R-loop platforms to link cohesin loading and chromatin structure with diverse functions. Since SA proteins are pan-cancer targets, and R-loops play an increasingly prevalent role in cancer biology, our results have important implications for the mechanistic understanding of SA proteins in cancer and disease.
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Genetics and Genomics
Degradation of most yeast mRNAs involves decapping by Dcp1/Dcp2. DEAD-box protein Dhh1 has been implicated as an activator of decapping, in coupling codon non-optimality to enhanced degradation, and as a translational repressor, but its functions in cells are incompletely understood. RNA-Seq analyses coupled with CAGE sequencing of all capped mRNAs revealed increased abundance of hundreds of mRNAs in dcp2Δ cells that appears to result directly from impaired decapping rather than elevated transcription. Interestingly, only a subset of mRNAs requires Dhh1 for targeting by Dcp2, and also generally requires the other decapping activators Pat1, Edc3 or Scd6; whereas most of the remaining transcripts utilize NMD factors for Dcp2-mediated turnover. Neither inefficient translation initiation nor stalled elongation appears to be a major driver of Dhh1-enhanced mRNA degradation. Surprisingly, ribosome profiling revealed that dcp2Δ confers widespread changes in relative translational efficiencies (TEs) that generally favor well-translated mRNAs. Because ribosome biogenesis is reduced while capped mRNA abundance is increased by dcp2&Delta, we propose that an increased ratio of mRNA to ribosomes increases competition among mRNAs for limiting ribosomes to favor efficiently translated mRNAs in dcp2Δ cells. Interestingly, genes involved in respiration or utilization of alternative carbon or nitrogen sources are up-regulated, and both mitochondrial function and cell filamentation are elevated in dcp2Δ cells, suggesting that decapping sculpts gene expression post-transcriptionally to fine-tune metabolic pathways and morphological transitions according to nutrient availability.