1. Developmental Biology
  2. Plant Biology
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 58
  • Views 5,648
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e27421 doi: 10.7554/eLife.27421

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

Publication 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

  • 5,648
    Page views
  • 955
    Downloads
  • 58
    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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Tuanjun Hu et al.
    Tools and Resources

    Chickens are an important resource for smallholder farmers who raise locally adapted, genetically distinct breeds for eggs and meat. The development of efficient reproductive technologies to conserve and regenerate chicken breeds safeguards existing biodiversity and secures poultry genetic resources for climate resilience, biosecurity, and future food production. The majority of the over 1600 breeds of chicken are raised in low and lower to middle income countries under resource-limited, small-scale production systems, which necessitates a low-tech, cost-effective means of conserving diversity is needed. Here, we validate a simple biobanking technique using cryopreserved embryonic chicken gonads. The gonads are quickly isolated, visually sexed, pooled by sex, and cryopreserved. Subsequently, the stored material is thawed and dissociated before injection into sterile host chicken embryos. By using pooled GFP and RFP-labelled donor gonadal cells and Sire Dam Surrogate mating, we demonstrate that chicks deriving entirely from male and female donor germ cells are hatched. This technology will enable ongoing efforts to conserve chicken genetic diversity for both commercial and smallholder farmers, and to preserve existing genetic resources at poultry research facilities.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Dongsheng Guo et al.
    Tools and Resources

    Skeletal muscle myoblasts (iMyoblasts) were generated from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) using an efficient and reliable transgene-free induction and stem cell selection protocol. Immunofluorescence, flow cytometry, qPCR, digital RNA expression profiling, and scRNA-Seq studies identify iMyoblasts as a PAX3+/MYOD1+ skeletal myogenic lineage with a fetal-like transcriptome signature, distinct from adult muscle biopsy myoblasts (bMyoblasts) and iPSC-induced muscle progenitors. iMyoblasts can be stably propagated for >12 passages or 30 population doublings while retaining their dual commitment for myotube differentiation and regeneration of reserve cells. iMyoblasts also efficiently xenoengrafted into irradiated and injured mouse muscle where they undergo differentiation and fetal-adult MYH isoform switching, demonstrating their regulatory plasticity for adult muscle maturation in response to signals in the host muscle. Xenograft muscle retains PAX3+ muscle progenitors and can regenerate human muscle in response to secondary injury. As models of disease, iMyoblasts from individuals with Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy revealed a previously unknown epigenetic regulatory mechanism controlling developmental expression of the pathological DUX4 gene. iMyoblasts from Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy R7 and R9 and Walker Warburg Syndrome patients modeled their molecular disease pathologies and were responsive to small molecule and gene editing therapeutics. These findings establish the utility of iMyoblasts for ex vivo and in vivo investigations of human myogenesis and disease pathogenesis and for the development of muscle stem cell therapeutics.