Natural variation in autumn expression is the major adaptive determinant distinguishing Arabidopsis FLC haplotypes

  1. Jo Hepworth
  2. Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti
  3. Kristina Berggren
  4. Catja Selga
  5. Eleri H Tudor
  6. Bryony Yates
  7. Deborah Cox
  8. Barley Rose Collier Harris
  9. Judith A Irwin
  10. Martin Howard
  11. Torbjörn Säll
  12. Svante Holm  Is a corresponding author
  13. Caroline Dean  Is a corresponding author
  1. John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
  2. Mid Sweden University, Sweden
  3. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
  4. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  5. Lund University, Sweden
  6. Mid-Sweden University, Sweden

Abstract

In Arabidopsis thaliana, winter is registered during vernalization through the temperature-dependent repression and epigenetic silencing of floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). Natural Arabidopsis accessions show considerable variation in vernalization. However, which aspect of the FLC repression mechanism is most important for adaptation to different environments is unclear. By analyzing FLC dynamics in natural variants and mutants throughout winter in three field sites, we find that autumnal FLC expression, rather than epigenetic silencing, is the major variable conferred by the distinct Arabidopsis FLC haplotypes. This variation influences flowering responses of Arabidopsis accessions resulting in an interplay between promotion and delay of flowering in different climates to balance survival and, through a post-vernalization effect, reproductive output. These data reveal how expression variation through non-coding cis variation at FLC has enabled Arabidopsis accessions to adapt to different climatic conditions and year-on-year fluctuations.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all figures.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jo Hepworth

    Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4621-8414
  2. Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti

    Computational and Systems Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kristina Berggren

    Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7859-9928
  4. Catja Selga

    Department of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8683-1291
  5. Eleri H Tudor

    Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Bryony Yates

    Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Deborah Cox

    Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Barley Rose Collier Harris

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5745-1812
  9. Judith A Irwin

    Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Martin Howard

    Computational and Systems Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7670-0781
  11. Torbjörn Säll

    Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Svante Holm

    Mid-Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden
    For correspondence
    Svante.Holm@miun.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Caroline Dean

    Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    caroline.dean@jic.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6555-3525

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (MEXTIM)

  • Jo Hepworth
  • Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti
  • Kristina Berggren
  • Catja Selga
  • Eleri H Tudor
  • Deborah Cox
  • Barley Rose Collier Harris
  • Judith A Irwin
  • Martin Howard
  • Torbjörn Säll
  • Svante Holm
  • Caroline Dean

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J004588/1)

  • Jo Hepworth
  • Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti
  • Eleri H Tudor
  • Deborah Cox
  • Barley Rose Collier Harris
  • Judith A Irwin
  • Martin Howard
  • Caroline Dean

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P013511/1)

  • Jo Hepworth
  • Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti
  • Eleri H Tudor
  • Bryony Yates
  • Deborah Cox
  • Barley Rose Collier Harris
  • Judith A Irwin
  • Martin Howard
  • Caroline Dean

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P003095/1)

  • Jo Hepworth
  • Eleri H Tudor
  • Judith A Irwin

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L016079/1)

  • Eleri H Tudor

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

Copyright

© 2020, Hepworth 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

  • 2,944
    views
  • 433
    downloads
  • 34
    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. Jo Hepworth
  2. Rea L Antoniou-Kourounioti
  3. Kristina Berggren
  4. Catja Selga
  5. Eleri H Tudor
  6. Bryony Yates
  7. Deborah Cox
  8. Barley Rose Collier Harris
  9. Judith A Irwin
  10. Martin Howard
  11. Torbjörn Säll
  12. Svante Holm
  13. Caroline Dean
(2020)
Natural variation in autumn expression is the major adaptive determinant distinguishing Arabidopsis FLC haplotypes
eLife 9:e57671.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57671

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57671

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Marius Regin, Yingnan Lei ... Claudia Spits
    Research Article

    About 70% of human cleavage stage embryos show chromosomal mosaicism, falling to 20% in blastocysts. Chromosomally mosaic human blastocysts can implant and lead to healthy new-borns with normal karyotypes. Studies in mouse embryos and human gastruloids showed that aneuploid cells are eliminated from the epiblast by p53-mediated apoptosis while being tolerated in the trophectoderm. These observations suggest a selective loss of aneuploid cells from human embryos, but the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Here, we investigated the cellular consequences of aneuploidy in a total of 125 human blastocysts. RNA-sequencing of trophectoderm cells showed activated p53 pathway and apoptosis proportionate to the level of chromosomal imbalance. Immunostaining corroborated that aneuploidy triggers proteotoxic stress, autophagy, p53-signaling, and apoptosis independent from DNA damage. Total cell numbers were lower in aneuploid embryos, due to a decline both in trophectoderm and in epiblast/primitive endoderm cell numbers. While lower cell numbers in trophectoderm may be attributed to apoptosis, aneuploidy impaired the second lineage segregation, particularly primitive endoderm formation. This might be reinforced by retention of NANOG. Our findings might explain why fully aneuploid embryos fail to further develop and we hypothesize that the same mechanisms lead to the removal of aneuploid cells from mosaic embryos.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Augusto Berrocal, Nicholas C Lammers ... Michael B Eisen
    Research Advance

    Transcription often occurs in bursts as gene promoters switch stochastically between active and inactive states. Enhancers can dictate transcriptional activity in animal development through the modulation of burst frequency, duration, or amplitude. Previous studies observed that different enhancers can achieve a wide range of transcriptional outputs through the same strategies of bursting control. For example, in Berrocal et al., 2020, we showed that despite responding to different transcription factors, all even-skipped enhancers increase transcription by upregulating burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. These shared bursting strategies suggest that a unified molecular mechanism constraints how enhancers modulate transcriptional output. Alternatively, different enhancers could have converged on the same bursting control strategy because of natural selection favoring one of these particular strategies. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we compared transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. Because enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopic patterns, dissimilar bursting control strategies between endogenous and ectopic patterns would suggest that enhancers adapted their bursting strategies to their trans-regulatory environment. Here, we generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos and discovered that bursting strategies remain consistent in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. These results provide evidence for a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies and serve as a starting point to uncover the realm of strategies employed by other enhancers.