Cell type boundaries organize plant development

  1. Monica Pia Caggiano
  2. Xiulian Yu
  3. Neha Bhatia
  4. André Larsson
  5. Hasthi Ram
  6. Carolyn K Ohno
  7. Pia Sappl
  8. Elliot M Meyerowitz
  9. Henrik Jönsson
  10. Marcus G Heisler  Is a corresponding author
  1. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Germany
  2. Lund University, Sweden
  3. California Institute of Technology, United States
  4. University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract

In plants the dorsoventral boundary of leaves defines an axis of symmetry through the centre of the organ separating the top (dorsal) and bottom (ventral) tissues. Although the positioning of this boundary is critical for leaf morphogenesis, how the boundary is established and how it influences development remains unclear. Using live-imaging and perturbation experiments we show that leaf orientation, morphology and position are pre-patterned by HD-ZIPIII and KAN gene expression in the shoot, leading to a model in which dorsoventral genes coordinate to regulate plant development by localizing auxin response between their expression domains. However we also find that auxin levels feedback on dorsoventral patterning by spatially organizing HD-ZIPIII and KAN expression in the shoot periphery. By demonstrating that the regulation of these genes by auxin also governs their response to wounds, our results also provide a parsimonious explanation for the influence of wounds on leaf dorsoventrality.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Monica Pia Caggiano

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Xiulian Yu

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Neha Bhatia

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. André Larsson

    Computational Biology and Biological Physics, Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hasthi Ram

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Carolyn K Ohno

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Pia Sappl

    European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Elliot M Meyerowitz

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4798-5153
  9. Henrik Jönsson

    Computational Biology and Biological Physics, Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2340-588X
  10. Marcus G Heisler

    School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    For correspondence
    marcus.heisler@sydney.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5644-8398

Funding

H2020 European Research Council (261081)

  • Marcus G Heisler

Marie Curie Actions (255089)

  • Pia Sappl

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF3406)

  • Elliot M Meyerowitz

Gatsby Charitable Foundation (GAT3395/PR4)

  • Henrik Jönsson

Swedish Research Council (VR2013-4632)

  • Henrik Jönsson

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Dominique C Bergmann, Stanford University/HHMI, United States

Version history

  1. Received: April 3, 2017
  2. Accepted: September 11, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 12, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: September 25, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: September 27, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Caggiano et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,552
    Page views
  • 1,090
    Downloads
  • 90
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

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)

  1. Monica Pia Caggiano
  2. Xiulian Yu
  3. Neha Bhatia
  4. André Larsson
  5. Hasthi Ram
  6. Carolyn K Ohno
  7. Pia Sappl
  8. Elliot M Meyerowitz
  9. Henrik Jönsson
  10. Marcus G Heisler
(2017)
Cell type boundaries organize plant development
eLife 6:e27421.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27421

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27421

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.