Article

Balancing forces in the photoperiodic control of flowering

IFEVA, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. San Martín 4453, 1417, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences (Impact Factor: 2.94). 12/2010; 10(4):451-60. DOI: 10.1039/c0pp00252f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In many plant species, the duration of the daily exposure to light (photoperiod) provides a seasonal cue that helps to adjust flowering time to the most favourable time of the year. In Arabidopsis thaliana, the core mechanism of acceleration of flowering by long days involves the stabilisation of the CONSTANS (CO) protein by light reaching the leaves, the direct induction of the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) by CO and the migration of FT to the apex to promote flowering. In rice (Oryza sativa), the promotion of flowering by short days depends on the interplay between light conditions, and the genes Grain number, plant height and heading date locus 7 (Ghd7) and Early heading date 1 (Ehd1). In both cases, other day length-induced changes reinforce the core photoperiodic pathway of promotion of flowering. However, there are regulators of flowering time, quantitatively less important than the core pathways but still significant, which impact in the opposite direction, i.e. favouring rice flowering under long days or Arabidopsis flowering under short days. We show, for instance, that short days enhance leaf expression of SQUAMOSA PROMOTER BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE 3 (SPL3), which stimulates Arabidopsis flowering under these conditions. We propose that fine tuning of flowering time depends on the balance of a hierarchy of multiple points of action of photoperiod on the network controlling flowering.

Full-text

Available from: Marcelo J Yanovsky, Jun 12, 2015
4 Followers
 · 
189 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methylation at arginine residues (R) is an important post-translational modification that regulates a myriad of essential cellular processes in eukaryotes, such as transcriptional regulation, RNA processing, signal transduction and DNA repair. Arginine methylation is catalyzed by a family of enzymes known as protein arginine methyltransferases (PRMTs). PRMTs are classified as Type I or Type II, depending on the position of the methyl group on the guanidine of the methylated arginine. Previous reports have linked symmetric R methylation to transcriptional repression, while asymmetric R methylation is generally associated with transcriptional activation. However, global studies supporting this conclusion are not available. Here we compared side by side the physiological and molecular roles of the best characterized plant PRMTs, the Type II PRMT5 and the Type I PRMT4, also known as CARM1 in mammals. We found that prmt5 and prmt4a;4b mutants showed similar alterations in flowering time, photomorphogenic responses and salt stress tolerance, while only prmt5 mutants exhibited alterations in circadian rhythms. An RNA-seq analysis revealed that expression and splicing of many differentially regulated genes was similarly enhanced or repressed by PRMT5 and PRMT4s. Furthermore, PRMT5 and PRMT4s co-regulated the expression and splicing of key regulatory genes associated with transcription, RNA processing, responses to light, flowering, and abiotic stress tolerance, being candidates to mediate the physiological alterations observed in the mutants. Our global analysis indicates that two of the most important Type I and Type II arginine methyltransferases, PRTM4 and PRMT5, have mostly overlapping as well as specific, but not opposite, roles in the global regulation of gene expression in plants.
    BMC Genomics 12/2015; 16(1). DOI:10.1186/s12864-015-1399-2 · 4.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As a plant shoot develops, it produces different types of leaves, buds, and internodes, and eventually acquires the capacity to produce structures involved in sexual reproduction. Morphological and anatomical traits that change in coordinated fashion at a predictable time in vegetative development allow this process to be divided into several more-or-less discrete phases; the transition between these phases is termed "vegetative phase change." Vegetative phase change is regulated by a decrease in the expression of the related microRNAs, miR156, and miR157, which act by repressing the expression of squamosa promoter binding protein/SBP-like (SBP/SPL) transcription factors. SBP/SPL proteins regulate a wide variety of processes in shoot development, including flowering time and inflorescence development. Answers to long-standing questions about the relationship between vegetative and reproductive maturation have come from genetic analyses of the transcriptional and posttranscriptional regulatory networks in which these proteins are involved. Studies conducted over several decades indicate that carbohydrates have a significant effect on phase-specific leaf traits, and recent research suggests that sugar may be the leaf signal that promotes vegetative phase change.
    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 01/2013; 105:125-52. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-396968-2.00005-1 · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two aspects of light are very important for plant development: the length of the light phase or photoperiod and the quality of incoming light. Photoperiod detection allows plants to anticipate the arrival of the next season, whereas light quality, mainly the red to far-red ratio (R:FR), is an early signal of competition by neighbouring plants. phyB represses flowering by antagonising CO at the transcriptional and post-translational levels. A low R:FR decreases active phyB and consequently increases active CO, which in turn activates the expression of FT, the plant florigen. Other phytochromes like phyD and phyE seem to have redundant roles with phyB. PFT1, the MED25 subunit of the plant Mediator complex, has been proposed to act in the light-quality pathway that regulates flowering time downstream of phyB. However, whether PFT1 signals through CO and its specific mechanism are unclear. Here we show that CO-dependent and -independent mechanisms operate downstream of phyB, phyD and phyE to promote flowering, and that PFT1 is equally able to promote flowering by modulating both CO-dependent and -independent pathways. Our data are consistent with the role of PFT1 as an activator of CO transcription, and also of FT transcription, in a CO-independent manner. Our transcriptome analysis is also consistent with CO and FT genes being the most important flowering targets of PFT1. Furthermore, comparison of the pft1 transcriptome with transcriptomes after fungal and herbivore attack strongly suggests that PFT1 acts as a hub, integrating a variety of interdependent environmental stimuli, including light quality and jasmonic acid-dependent defences.
    The Plant Journal 02/2012; 69(4):601-12. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04815.x · 6.82 Impact Factor