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

  • 6,418
    Page views
  • 1,072
    Downloads
  • 85
    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

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Taylor N Medwig-Kinney, Brian A Kinney ... David Q Matus
    Research Article

    A growing body of evidence suggests that cell division and basement membrane invasion are mutually exclusive cellular behaviors. How cells switch between proliferative and invasive states is not well understood. Here, we investigated this dichotomy in vivo by examining two cell types in the developing Caenorhabditis elegans somatic gonad that derive from equipotent progenitors, but exhibit distinct cell behaviors: the post-mitotic, invasive anchor cell and the neighboring proliferative, non-invasive ventral uterine (VU) cells. We show that the fates of these cells post-specification are more plastic than previously appreciated and that levels of NHR-67 are important for discriminating between invasive and proliferative behavior. Transcription of NHR-67 is downregulated following post-translational degradation of its direct upstream regulator, HLH-2 (E/Daughterless) in VU cells. In the nuclei of VU cells, residual NHR-67 protein is compartmentalized into discrete punctae that are dynamic over the cell cycle and exhibit liquid-like properties. By screening for proteins that colocalize with NHR-67 punctae, we identified new regulators of uterine cell fate maintenance: homologs of the transcriptional co-repressor Groucho (UNC-37 and LSY-22), as well as the TCF/LEF homolog POP-1. We propose a model in which the association of NHR-67 with the Groucho/TCF complex suppresses the default invasive state in non-invasive cells, which complements transcriptional regulation to add robustness to the proliferative-invasive cellular switch in vivo.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Virginia L Pimmett, Mounia Lagha
    Insight

    Imaging experiments reveal the complex and dynamic nature of the transcriptional hubs associated with Notch signaling.