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.

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

  • 6,805
    views
  • 1,125
    downloads
  • 110
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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
    Margaret Hines, Elias Oxman ... Irene Zohn
    Insight

    A new single-cell atlas of gene expression provides insights into the patterning of the neural plate of mice.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Natsuko Emura, Florence DM Wavreil ... Mamiko Yajima
    Research Article

    The evolutionary introduction of asymmetric cell division (ACD) into the developmental program facilitates the formation of a new cell type, contributing to developmental diversity and, eventually, species diversification. The micromere of the sea urchin embryo may serve as one of those examples: an ACD at the 16-cell stage forms micromeres unique to echinoids among echinoderms. We previously reported that a polarity factor, activator of G-protein signaling (AGS), plays a crucial role in micromere formation. However, AGS and its associated ACD factors are present in all echinoderms and across most metazoans. This raises the question of what evolutionary modifications of AGS protein or its surrounding molecular environment contributed to the evolutionary acquisition of micromeres only in echinoids. In this study, we learned that the GoLoco motifs at the AGS C-terminus play critical roles in regulating micromere formation in sea urchin embryos. Further, other echinoderms’ AGS or chimeric AGS that contain the C-terminus of AGS orthologs from various organisms showed varied localization and function in micromere formation. In contrast, the sea star or the pencil urchin orthologs of other ACD factors were consistently localized at the vegetal cortex in the sea urchin embryo, suggesting that AGS may be a unique variable factor that facilitates ACD diversity among echinoderms. Consistently, sea urchin AGS appears to facilitate micromere-like cell formation and accelerate the enrichment timing of the germline factor Vasa during early embryogenesis of the pencil urchin, an ancestral type of sea urchin. Based on these observations, we propose that the molecular evolution of a single polarity factor facilitates ACD diversity while preserving the core ACD machinery among echinoderms and beyond during evolution.