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)
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Plant Biology
To synchronize flowering time with spring, many plants undergo vernalization, a floral-promotion process triggered by exposure to long-term winter cold. In Arabidopsis thaliana, this is achieved through cold-mediated epigenetic silencing of the floral repressor, FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). COOLAIR, a cold-induced antisense RNA transcribed from the FLC locus, has been proposed to facilitate FLC silencing. Here, we show that C-repeat (CRT)/dehydration-responsive elements (DREs) at the 3′-end of FLC and CRT/DRE-binding factors (CBFs) are required for cold-mediated expression of COOLAIR. CBFs bind to CRT/DREs at the 3′-end of FLC, both in vitro and in vivo, and CBF levels increase gradually during vernalization. Cold-induced COOLAIR expression is severely impaired in cbfs mutants in which all CBF genes are knocked-out. Conversely, CBF-overexpressing plants show increased COOLAIR levels even at warm temperatures. We show that COOLAIR is induced by CBFs during early stages of vernalization but COOLAIR levels decrease in later phases as FLC chromatin transitions to an inactive state to which CBFs can no longer bind. We also demonstrate that cbfs and FLCΔCOOLAIR mutants exhibit a normal vernalization response despite their inability to activate COOLAIR expression during cold, revealing that COOLAIR is not required for the vernalization process.
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
An evolutionary perspective enhances our understanding of biological mechanisms. Comparison of sex determination and X-chromosome dosage compensation mechanisms between the closely related nematode species C. briggsae (Cbr) and C. elegans (Cel) revealed that the genetic regulatory hierarchy controlling both processes is conserved, but the X-chromosome target specificity and mode of binding for the specialized condensin dosage compensation complex (DCC) controlling X expression have diverged. We identified two motifs within Cbr DCC recruitment sites that are highly enriched on X: 13-bp MEX and 30-bp MEX II. Mutating either MEX or MEX II in an endogenous recruitment site with multiple copies of one or both motifs reduced binding, but only removing all motifs eliminated binding in vivo. Hence, DCC binding to Cbr recruitment sites appears additive. In contrast, DCC binding to Cel recruitment sites is synergistic: mutating even one motif in vivo eliminated binding. Although all X-chromosome motifs share the sequence CAGGG, they have otherwise diverged so that a motif from one species cannot function in the other. Functional divergence was demonstrated in vivo and in vitro. A single nucleotide position in Cbr MEX can determine whether Cel DCC binds. This rapid divergence of DCC target specificity could have been an important factor in establishing reproductive isolation between nematode species and contrasts dramatically with conservation of target specificity for X-chromosome dosage compensation across Drosophila species and for transcription factors controlling developmental processes such as body-plan specification from fruit flies to mice.