The role of APETALA1 in petal number robustness

  1. Marie Monniaux
  2. Bjorn Pieper
  3. Sarah M McKim
  4. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
  5. Daniel Kierzkowski
  6. Richard S Smith
  7. Angela Hay  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Germany
  2. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

Invariant floral forms are important for reproductive success and robust to natural perturbations. Petal number, for example, is invariant in Arabidopsis thaliana flowers. However, petal number varies in the closely related species Cardamine hirsuta, and the genetic basis for this difference between species is unknown. Here we show that divergence in the pleiotropic floral regulator APETALA1 (AP1) can account for the species-specific difference in petal number robustness. This large effect of AP1 is explained by epistatic interactions: A. thaliana AP1 confers robustness by masking the phenotypic expression of quantitative trait loci controlling petal number in C. hirsuta. We show that C. hirsuta AP1 fails to complement this function of A. thaliana AP1, conferring variable petal number, and that upstream regulatory regions of AP1 contribute to this divergence. Moreover, variable petal number is maintained in C. hirsuta despite sufficient standing genetic variation in natural accessions to produce plants with four-petalled flowers.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Marie Monniaux

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bjorn Pieper

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sarah M McKim

    Plant Sciences Department, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Daniel Kierzkowski

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Richard S Smith

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9220-0787
  7. Angela Hay

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    For correspondence
    hay@mpipz.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4609-5490

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/H01313X/1)

  • Angela Hay

Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0008/2013)

  • Richard S Smith

Royal Society (University Research Fellowship)

  • Angela Hay

Max Planck Society (W2 Minerva Fellowship)

  • Angela Hay

European Molecular Biology Organization (Long Term Fellowship)

  • Marie Monniaux

National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Post-Doctoral Fellowship)

  • Sarah M McKim

European Molecular Biology Organization (Long Term Fellowship)

  • Sarah M McKim

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sheila McCormick, University of California-Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: June 23, 2018
  2. Accepted: October 11, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 18, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 29, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Monniaux 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

  • 3,667
    views
  • 584
    downloads
  • 25
    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. Marie Monniaux
  2. Bjorn Pieper
  3. Sarah M McKim
  4. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
  5. Daniel Kierzkowski
  6. Richard S Smith
  7. Angela Hay
(2018)
The role of APETALA1 in petal number robustness
eLife 7:e39399.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39399

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39399

Further reading

    1. Plant Biology
    Yuanyuan Bu, Xingye Dong ... Shenkui Liu
    Research Article

    Urea is intensively utilized as a nitrogen fertilizer in agriculture, originating either from root uptake or from catabolism of arginine by arginase. Despite its extensive use, the underlying physiological mechanisms of urea, particularly its adverse effects on seed germination and seedling growth under salt stress remains unclear. In this study, we demonstrate that salt stress induces excessive hydrolysis of arginine-derived urea, leading to an increase in cytoplasmic pH within seed radical cells, which, in turn, triggers salt-induced inhibition of seed germination (SISG) and hampers seedling growth. Our findings challenge the long-held belief that ammonium accumulation and toxicity are the primary causes of SISG, offering a novel perspective on the mechanism underlying these processes. This study provides significant insights into the physiological impact of urea hydrolysis under salt stress, contributing to a better understanding of SISG.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Henning Mühlenbeck, Yuko Tsutsui ... Cyril Zipfel
    Research Article

    Transmembrane signaling by plant receptor kinases (RKs) has long been thought to involve reciprocal trans-phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains. The fact that many of these are pseudokinase domains, however, suggests that additional mechanisms must govern RK signaling activation. Non-catalytic signaling mechanisms of protein kinase domains have been described in metazoans, but information is scarce for plants. Recently, a non-catalytic function was reported for the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RK subfamily XIIa member EFR (elongation factor Tu receptor) and phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes were proposed to regulate signaling of RKs with non-RD kinase domains. Here, using EFR as a model, we describe a non-catalytic activation mechanism for LRR-RKs with non-RD kinase domains. EFR is an active kinase, but a kinase-dead variant retains the ability to enhance catalytic activity of its co-receptor kinase BAK1/SERK3 (brassinosteroid insensitive 1-associated kinase 1/somatic embryogenesis receptor kinase 3). Applying hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis and designing homology-based intragenic suppressor mutations, we provide evidence that the EFR kinase domain must adopt its active conformation in order to activate BAK1 allosterically, likely by supporting αC-helix positioning in BAK1. Our results suggest a conformational toggle model for signaling, in which BAK1 first phosphorylates EFR in the activation loop to stabilize its active conformation, allowing EFR in turn to allosterically activate BAK1.