| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Plant Physiology 148:61-64 (2008) © 2008 American Society of Plant Biologists Revisiting the Involvement of SELF-PRUNING in the Sympodial Growth of Tomato1,[W]Laboratory of Plant Physiology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Liège, B–4000 Liège, Belgium (J.T., S.O., C.P.); and Groupe de Recherche en Physiologie Végétale, Département de Biologie, Université Catholique de Louvain, B–1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (M.Q., J.-M.K.)
During flowering, the CENTRORADIALIS (CEN) gene of Antirrhinum majus and its homolog TERMINAL FLOWER1 (TFL1) in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) are required to maintain inflorescence identity of the shoot apical meristem (SAM) while flower meristems are produced on its flanks (Bradley et al., 1996
Tomato exhibits a sympodial growth pattern (Fig. 1A
); after the production of some leaves by the SAM, the growth of the primary shoot is terminated by the initiation of the first inflorescence, which is displaced from its terminal position by activation of the meristem at the axil of the last initiated leaf. The latter so-called sympodial meristem (SYM) continues shoot growth, carrying up the subtending leaf until it occupies a position above the inflorescence, which then develops laterally. The SYM undergoes a vegetative phase—producing most often three leaves—then initiates the second inflorescence, which is once again displaced laterally by the active outgrowth of the next SYM. The process is indefinitely reiterated and growth is thus indeterminate. We hereafter refer to: (1) the initial segment as the shoot portion produced by the SAM; (2) sympodial segments as the additional, successive shoot portions; (3) SYM as the meristems in the axil of the last leaf formed before an inflorescence; (4) AXM as the meristems present in the axil of other leaves and whose fate is not to form sympodial segments but to initiate secondary shoots. In sp mutants, the number of leaves initiated in successive sympodial segments is gradually reduced until production of two successive inflorescences and growth is thus determinate. The SP gene was therefore hypothesized to prevent early flowering of SYM (Pnueli et al., 1998
Contrary to CEN and TFL1, whose expression is up-regulated at flowering and precisely limited to a subapical domain in the inflorescence SAM (Bradley et al., 1996  , 1997), the SP gene was found to be expressed in both the SAM and leaves from very early stages of development, and later in inflorescences and flowers (Pnueli et al., 1998). Such a widespread pattern was unexpected because the sp mutation has no pleiotropic effects on the architecture of the initial segment, leaves, or inflorescences. This curious situation has been stressed by several authors comparing CETS homologs in different species (e.g. Amaya et al., 1999). The discovery that SP belongs to a multigene family (Carmel-Goren et al., 2003) led us to revisit its function and to test its expression pattern with a specific probe (Supplemental Fig. S1). Careful examination was needed because formation of the inflorescence in tomato is complex (for review, see Quinet and Kinet, 2007; Samach and Lotan, 2007). At floral transition, the vegetative SAM (Fig. 1B) swells before dividing into two parts, which give rise to a first floral meristem on one side and restore a mound of dividing cells on the other side (Fig. 1, C and D). This latter meristem, which has a continuous existence and bifurcates repeatedly for the production of each new flower, will be referred to as an inflorescence meristem, consistent with the view that tomato inflorescences show a raceme-like ontogeny (Quinet and Kinet, 2007). Several mutants suggest that the SAM converts into an inflorescence meristem in tomato. For example, uniflora (uf) initiates a single flower, indicating that the UF gene controls inflorescence meristem identity (Dielen et al., 2004). Other mutants are apparently defective in the maintenance of this identity, as is the case for single flower truss (sft), which produces either a solitary flower, or inflorescences that may repeatedly revert to leaf initiation and sympodial growth (Molinero-Rosales et al., 2004; Quinet et al., 2006a). We therefore undertook a comparative study of the expression pattern of SP in wild-type tomato and in these two mutants.
In our growing conditions, wild-type Ailsa Craig produced approximately nine leaves in the initial segment before the SAM initiated the first inflorescence and successive sympodial segments most often had three leaves (Fig. 1A). In these plants, SP transcripts were detected in all axillary meristems of the initial segment irrespective of their fate—either SYM or AXM—but not in the vegetative SAM (Fig. 1B). This pattern remained unchanged following floral transition of the SAM, because SP expression was still detected in SYM and AXM, but not in the inflorescence nor in the flower meristems (Fig. 1C).
Serial longitudinal and transverse sections of SYM and AXM were extrapolated to provide a three-dimensional (3-D) view of the SP domain (Fig. 1H). In longitudinal sections, the hybridization signal appeared as oval or as two strands in tangential (Fig. 1E) or more axial (Fig. 1F) sections, respectively. Interestingly, the expression zone excluded the L1 and L2 outer layers of the meristems and was limited in depth at the junction of the subtending leaf with the stem. On transverse sections, the SP expression area had the shape of two crescents facing each other and joined at their margins (Fig. 1G). Comparison of the picture 1G with the transverse sections of AXM hybridized with an EXPANSIN probe (Fig. 1I), used as a marker of nascent leaf primordia (Reinhardt et al., 1998 The sft and uf mutants initiated more leaves in the initial segment than wild-type Ailsa Craig but only uf was markedly delayed in the floral transition of sympodial segments, which produced up to nine leaves instead of three (Fig. 2, A and C ). As in the wild type, expression of SP was not detected in the vegetative SAM of sft and uf plants, nor in the inflorescence or flower meristems (Supplemental Fig. S2), but was observed in all kinds of axillary meristems, including AXM in the sft reverted inflorescences (Fig. 2, B and D).
The SP expression domain was followed in the initial segment during outgrowth of SYM and AXM following floral transition at the SAM. Similar changes were observed in both kinds of axillary meristems. As shown in Figure 3 , the meristems first increased in size (Fig. 3, A and B); the expression of SP was then observed to weaken progressively when the meristems initiated leaves (Fig. 3C), and remained "anchored" as two strands in a basal domain close to the subtending leaf/stem junction (Fig. 3D).
The expression pattern of SP reported here differs from the findings of Pnueli et al. (1998) who detected SP transcripts in the SAM, leaves, and flowers. Techniques probably account for this discrepancy, but the methodological information published by Pnueli and coworkers does not allow a detailed comparison. The specificity of the SP probe we used and the reproducibility—without exception—of our observations show that the expression domain of SP was strictly limited to axillary meristems. This pattern appeared as extremely robust because expression of SP was observed in axillary meristems irrespective of their fate (either SYM or AXM) and irrespective of the position of the subtending leaf (which can be located in an inflorescence as is the case in the sft mutant). Expression of SP in axillary meristems was also found to be independent of the fate of the SAM, which forms a flower rather than an inflorescence in the uf mutant (Fig. 2D; Supplemental Fig. S2D). These observations suggest that SP acts independently of UF and SFT. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that the inflorescence defects caused by uf and sft mutations are additive to the determinate growth phenotype of sp mutants (Molinero-Rosales et al., 2004; Quinet et al., 2006b).
In conclusion, we observed that expression of SP in tomato is strictly limited to nongrowing axillary meristems. This pattern is similar in SYM and AXM, suggesting that SP function is not restricted to sympodial growth but concerns all axillary meristems. It is well known that, at floral transition of the SAM, axillary meristems are released from apical dominance (Bernier et al., 1981
The following materials are available in the online version of this article.
We are very grateful to Professor Georges Bernier for his critical reading of this manuscript and to an anonymous reviewer for the thorough treatment he gave to the text. We acknowledge Professor Gérard Michel (Institut Supérieur des Beaux Arts Saint Luc, Liège, Belgium) for the 3-D drawings and Nathalie Detry for her excellent technical assistance. Received June 6, 2008; accepted June 23, 2008; published September 8, 2008.
1 This work was supported by the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds pour la Recherche Fondamentale et Collective (grant no. 2.4534.05). J.T. and M.Q. were awarded Ph.D. and research fellowships from the Fonds pour la Recherche dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture and the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, respectively. 
2 These authors contributed equally to the article.
3 Present address: Imaging and Flow Cytometry Technological GIGA Facility, University of Liège (CHU), Bât. B23 Sart Tilman, Avenue de l'Hôpital 3, B–4000 Liège, Belgium. The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Claire Périlleux (cperilleux{at}ulg.ac.be).
[W] The online version of this article contains Web-only data. www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.108.124164 * Corresponding author; e-mail cperilleux{at}ulg.ac.be.
Amaya I, Ratcliffe OJ, Bradley DJ (1999) Expression of CENTRORADIALIS (CEN) and CEN-like genes in tobacco reveals a conserved mechanism controlling phase change in diverse species. Plant Cell 11: 1405–1417 Bernier G, Kinet JM, Sachs RM (1981) The Physiology of Flowering, Vol 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL Bradley D, Carpenter R, Copsey L, Vincent C, Rothstein S, Coen E (1996) Control of inflorescence architecture in Antirrhinum. Nature 379: 791–797[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Bradley D, Ratcliffe O, Vincent C, Carpenter R, Coen E (1997) Inflorescence commitment and architecture in Arabidopsis. Science 275: 80–83 Carmel-Goren L, Liu YS, Lifschitz E, Zamir D (2003) The SELF PRUNING gene family in tomato. Plant Mol Biol 52: 1215–1222[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Conti L, Bradley D (2007) TERMINAL FLOWER1 is a mobile signal controlling Arabidopsis architecture. Plant Cell 19: 767–778 Dielen V, Quinet M, Chao J, Batoko H, Havelange A, Kinet JM (2004) UNIFLORA, a pivotal gene that regulates floral transition and meristem identity in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). New Phytol 161: 393–400[CrossRef][Web of Science] Guo X, Zhao Z, Chen J, Hu X, Luo D (2006) A putative CENTRORADIALIS/TERMINAL FLOWER1-like gene, Ljcen1, plays a role in phase transition in Lotus japonicus. J Plant Physiol 163: 436–444[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Jensen CS, Salchert K, Nielsen KK (2001) A TERMINAL FLOWER1-like gene from perennial ryegrass involved in floral transition and axillary meristem identity. Plant Physiol 125: 1517–1528 Kinet JM, Peet MM (1997) Tomato. In HC Wien, ed, The Physiology of Vegetable Crops. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 207–258 MacArthur JW (1932) Inherited character in tomato. I. The self pruning habit. J Hered 23: 394–395 Molinero-Rosales N, Latorre A, Jamilena M, Lozano R (2004) SINGLE FLOWER TRUSS regulates the transition and maintenance of flowering in tomato. Planta 218: 427–434[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Ordidge M, Chiurugwi T, Tooke F, Battey NH (2005) LEAFY, TERMINAL FLOWER1 and AGAMOUS are functionally conserved but do not regulate terminal flowering and floral determinacy in Impatiens balsamina. Plant J 44: 985–1000[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Pnueli L, Carmel-Goren L, Hareven D, Gutfinger T, Alvarez J, Ganal M, Zamir D, Lifschitz E (1998) The SELF-PRUNING gene of tomato regulates vegetative to reproductive switching of sympodial meristems and is the ortholog of CEN and TFL1. Development 125: 1979–1989[Abstract] Pnueli L, Gutfinger T, Hareven D, Ben-Naim O, Ron N, Adir N, Lifschitz E (2001) Tomato SP-interacting proteins define a conserved signaling system that regulates shoot architecture and flowering. Plant Cell 13: 2687–2702 Quinet M, Dielen V, Batoko H, Boutry M, Havelange A, Kinet JM (2006b) Genetic interactions in the control of flowering time and reproductive structure development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). New Phytol 170: 701–710[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Quinet M, Dubois C, Goffin MC, Chao J, Dielen V, Batoko H, Boutry M, Kinet JM (2006a) Characterization of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) mutants affected in their flowering time and in the morphogenesis of their reproductive structure. J Exp Bot 57: 1381–1390 Quinet M, Kinet JM (2007) Transition to flowering and morphogenesis of reproductive structures in tomato. Intl J Plant Dev Biol 1: 64–74 Ratcliffe OJ, Bradley DJ, Coen E (1999) Separation of shoot and floral identity in Arabidopsis. Development 126: 1109–1120[Abstract] Reinhardt D, Wittwer F, Mandel T, Kuhlemeier C (1998) Localized upregulation of a new expansin gene predicts the site of leaf formation in the tomato meristem. Plant Cell 10: 1427–1437 Samach A, Lotan H (2007) The transition to flowering in tomato. Plant Biotechnol 24: 71–82 Yeager AF (1927) Determinate growth in the tomato. J Hered 18: 263–265 This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® | THE PLANT CELL | |
|---|---|---|---|
TOP
SPATIAL EXPRESSION PATTERN OF...
TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PATTERN OF...
