Next Article in Journal
Benzenesulfonamides Incorporating Hydantoin Moieties Effectively Inhibit Eukaryoticand Human Carbonic Anhydrases
Next Article in Special Issue
Decoding Gene Expression Signatures Underlying Vegetative to Inflorescence Meristem Transition in the Common Bean
Previous Article in Journal
Cytotoxicity, Mitochondrial Functionality, and Redox Status of Human Conjunctival Cells after Short and Chronic Exposure to Preservative-Free Bimatoprost 0.03% and 0.01%: An In Vitro Comparative Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genome-Wide Identification, Expression and Interaction Analysis of GmSnRK2 and Type A PP2C Genes in Response to Abscisic Acid Treatment and Drought Stress in Soybean Plant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 23
Issue 22
10.3390/ijms232214114
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Arabidopsis thaliana SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Substitutes for Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET1 to Form Complex Leaves and Petals

by
Véronique Pautot
1,*,
Ana Berbel
2,
Thibaud Cayla
1,
Alexis Eschstruth
3,4,
Bernard Adroher
1,
Pascal Ratet
3,4,
Francisco Madueño
2 and
Patrick Laufs
1
1
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin (IJPB), 78000 Versailles, France
2
Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Plantas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas-Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Campus de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
3
Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, INRAE, Université Evry, Institute of Plant Sciences Paris-Saclay (IPS2), 91405 Orsay, France
4
Université de Paris, Institute of Plant Sciences Paris-Saclay (IPS2), 91405 Orsay, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(22), 14114; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214114
Submission received: 14 October 2022 / Revised: 9 November 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 15 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Regulatory Mechanism of Transcription Factors in Plant Morphology and Function)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
LEAFY plant-specific transcription factors, which are key regulators of flower meristem identity and floral patterning, also contribute to meristem activity. Notably, in some legumes, LFY orthologs such as Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET (SGL1) are essential in maintaining an undifferentiated and proliferating fate required for leaflet formation. This function contrasts with most other species, in which leaf dissection depends on the reactivation of KNOTTED-like class I homeobox genes (KNOXI). KNOXI and SGL1 genes appear to induce leaf complexity through conserved downstream genes such as the meristematic and boundary CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON genes. Here, we compare in M. truncatula the function of SGL1 with that of the Arabidopsis thaliana KNOXI gene, SHOOT MERISTEMLESS (AtSTM). Our data show that AtSTM can substitute for SGL1 to form complex leaves when ectopically expressed in M. truncatula. The shared function between AtSTM and SGL1 extended to the major contribution of SGL1 during floral development as ectopic AtSTM expression could promote floral organ identity gene expression in sgl1 flowers and restore sepal shape and petal formation. Together, our work reveals a function for AtSTM in floral organ identity and a higher level of interchangeability between meristematic and floral identity functions for the AtSTM and SGL1 transcription factors than previously thought.

1. Introduction

Meristems are essential for plant development, as they are required for the continuous growth and development that are distinguishing features of plants. Amongst all the different types of meristems, the shoot apical meristem (SAM) and the floral meristem (FM) share many features and have been well characterized. The class I KNOTTED-like homeobox (KNOX1) SHOOT MERISTEMLESS (STM) and CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON (CUC1), CUC2 and CUC3 genes are essential regulators of meristem and boundary activities in Arabidopsis thaliana (A. thaliana) [1,2]. Boundaries are domains of restricted growth located between the meristem and initiating organ primordia or between two organs. These domains control organ separation, inflorescence architecture, organ abscission, fruit opening and leaf shape. Boundaries share overlapping features with meristems, and the regulation of both involves common factors [3]. CUC genes are required for SAM initiation and establish boundaries together with STM, which is in turn required for SAM maintenance [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11] The three A. thaliana CUC genes, CUC1, CUC2 and CUC3, share partially redundant roles, while also having specific functions. CUC1 and CUC2 but not CUC3 transcripts are negatively regulated by microRNA164 (miR164) [12,13].
LEAFY (LFY) is a key regulator of flower meristem identity and floral patterning [14,15,16,17]. LFY acts as a pioneer transcription factor and promotes chromatin accessibility to its target genes APETALA1 (AP1) and AGAMOUS (AG) [18,19]. LFY also contributes to meristem function, particularly to the formation of floral meristems in A. thaliana [20,21,22,23]. LFY acts together with UNUSUAL FLOWER (UFO), an F-box protein, which is a substrate adaptor of CULLIN1–RING ubiquitin ligase complexes (CRL1) [24,25] to control meristem function and identity [17,26]. In flowers, both LFY and auxin transport contribute to proper positioning of sepal primordia through the regulation of CUC2 expression [27]. Besides determining floral identity and patterning, LFY also contributes to the meristematic identity of floral or axillary meristems with several regulators [21,28,29,30,31]. Among them are PENNYWISE (PNY) and POUNDFOOLISH (PNF), two BEL1-like (BELL) homeodomain partners forming heterodimers with STM [32,33]. The LFY implication in axillary meristem emergence is mediated through REGULATOR OF AXILLARY MERISTEMS1 (RAX1), a MYB transcription factor [34,35], and through the repression of ARABIDOPSIS RESPONSE REGULATOR (ARR7), encoding a cytokinin signaling component [21,36].
Meristematic features can also be found outside bone fide meristems, such as in the leaves. This attribute is particularly obvious in compound leaves, in which leaflet formation requires a transient maintenance of a meristematic-like stage. Indeed, in most species with compound leaves, KNOX1 gene down-regulation at leaf initiation is only transient and these genes are reactivated following leaf initiation, leading to leaflet formation [37,38,39,40]. In the inverted repeat-lacking (IRLC) clade of legume species, the formation of compound leaves requires the activity of the LFY orthologs called UNIFOLIATA (UNI) in pea (P. sativum) and SINGLE LEAFLET1 (SGL1) in Medicago truncatula (M. truncatula) [41,42]. These LFY orthologs substitute for KNOX1 expression, which is permanently excluded from the initiating leaf primordia [43,44]. SGL1 is expressed in the entire SAM and highly expressed in developing leaves, where its prolonged expression is required for the formation of compound leaves [42,45]. However, ectopic expression of KNOX1 genes in M. sativa and M. truncatula leaves can further increase leaf dissection [44,46], suggesting that these two Medicago species retain the capacity to respond to both LFY and KNOX1 pathways. Consistent with a central role of LFY orthologs in IRLC legume leaf morphology, loss of function of the pea UFO ortholog, STAMINA PISTILLOIDA (STP), leads to leaf complexity reduction [47]. In contrast, in non-IRLC legumes such Lotus japonicus and soybean, LFY orthologs only play a minor role, and KNOX1 proteins accumulate in leaves and are likely associated with compound leaf development [44,48].
In simple leaves, such as in A. thaliana, repression of KNOX1 genes is permanent, limiting their meristematic features [49,50]. However, these leaves are still able to develop an increased complexity in response to ectopic expression of KNOX1 genes [40,51,52,53] and to UFO [54].
The observation that depending on the species, LFY and KNOX1 genes can similarly increase leaf complexity (through the formation of leaflets or serrations) and that some species are able to respond to both factors, suggests that both pathways may at least partially converge to control leaf development. CUC genes could be such a convergence point as both KNOX1 and LFY pathways require the activity of CUC2 to make compound leaves [55,56]. Similar to CUC1/2 in A. thaliana, the expression of the M. truncatula NO APICAL MERISTEM (MtNAM) ortholog is regulated by miR164 [57], and MtNAM is required to maintain boundaries both for cotyledon and leaflet separation besides its role in apical meristem initiation [58]. SGL1 function in leaflet primordium initiation is epistatic to MtNAM activity and MtNAM RNAs levels are reduced in sgl1 mutant [58], suggesting that SGL1 acts upstream of MtNAM in this species.
Besides its function in leaves, SGL1 also plays a role in floral meristem identity. M. truncatula is a legume species developing compound inflorescences. Upon floral transition, the shoot apical meristem transforms into a primary inflorescence meristem (I1) and gives rise to a lateral secondary inflorescence meristem (I2), which produces a bract, one to three flowers and a spike [59,60,61]. In contrast to other flowering species which show a sequential floral ontogeny with successive formation of sepals, petals, stamens and carpels, each floral organ derives from a specific primordium; petals and sepals differentiate from common primordia in M. truncatula [59]. Thus, each floral meristem gives rise sequentially to five sepals and four common primordia, which further differentiate into five petals and ten stamens, and one carpel. The Arabidopsis floral organ identity genes are conserved in legumes [62]. Loss of function of SGL1 leads to the reversion of common primordia into incomplete floral meristems, giving rise to sepals and carpels without petals and stamens [42]. This phenotype is related to a B function loss. Similar to LFY in Arabidopsis [63], SGL1 acts synergistically with MtPROLIFERATING INFLORESCENCE MERISTEM (MtPIM), the A. thaliana ortholog of APETALA1 (AP1) in M. truncatula to determine floral meristem identity [61,64]. MtNMH7 and MtTM6 are the A. thaliana AP3-like paralogs. MtNMH7 determines petal identity whereas MtTL6 controls stamen identity [65]. MtPISTILLATA (MtPI) and MtNGL9 are the two A. thaliana PI-like paralogs, with MtPI functioning as the master regulator of B function [66,67]. The M. truncatula genome harbors two redundant MtAG members, MtAGa and MtAGb, which specify stamen and carpel identity and floral meristem determinacy [68,69]. Recently, a novel regulator of inflorescence development and floral organ identity was identified in M. truncatula: the AGAMOUS-like FLOWERS (AGLF) gene, which encodes a MYB domain protein that promotes the C floral identity function besides repressing A and B functions [69,70].
Here, we further compared the meristematic activity of SGL1 (LFY) and AtSTM (KNOX1) using M. truncatula compound leaf as a model system. We first showed that AtSTM could substitute for SGL1 to form complex leaves. We next tested whether AtSTM could also substitute for SGL1’s role during floral development. Indeed, AtSTM expression could restore petal formation in sgl1 flowers, revealing that AtSTM could substitute for SGL1 function to specify petal identity and promote floral organ identity gene expression. Therefore, our data reveal a high level of interchangeability between SGL1 and KNOX1 activities in M. truncatula that extends beyond the generally accepted meristematic function to the determination of the identity and growth of the flower perianth.

2. Results

2.1. AtSTM Substitutes for SGL1 in M. truncatula to Form Compound Leaves

The M. truncatula genome harbors two MtSTM-like genes, MtKNOX1 and MtKNOX6, and a previous report describes in vitro plantlets overexpressing the MtSTM-like genes, MtKNOX1 and MtKNOX6, in M. truncatula [46]. However, only the vegetative phenotype was described, as the phenotype of MtKNOX1 and MtKNOX6 overexpressors was extremely severe. Therefore, to overcome such strong phenotypes, we thought to use a KNOX gene from a heterologous system. AtSTM shares 62.8% amino acid identity with MtKNOX1 and 64.86% with MtKNOX6, and in addition to modifying leaf shape when ectopically expressed, AtSTM also has an established role in Arabidopsis floral identity [5,6,32,52,71,72]. Thus, we selected AtSTM to be expressed in M. truncatula and to explore its potential more widely; we expressed it under two different promoters by generating the p35S:AtSTM and pSGL1:AtSTM constructs that we first introduced in wild-type plants (see Section 4 and Supplemental Figure S1).
Transgenic lines expressing high levels of AtSTM presented a severe phenotype and were not viable in the greenhouse, similar to in vitro plantlets overexpressing Mt-KNOX1-like genes [46] (Figure S2). Only transgenic plants with low levels of AtSTM expression could be investigated (Figure 1 and Figure S3). The overall development of these lines was quite normal, although their fertility was reduced. In wild-type M. truncatula, the juvenile first leaf is simple, while adult later leaves are trifoliate and composed of a terminal leaflet with two lateral leaflets (Figure 1A–D). Ectopic AtSTM under the p35S or the pSGL1 promoters occasionally led to the formation of an additional leaflet fused to the terminal leaflet of adult leaves (Figure 1F,H and Figure S3). Quantitative analyses were performed using the p35S:AtSTM line (Figure 1Q). The wild-type first leaves (rank 1) were simple, while the majority of adult leaves (ranks 2 to 5) were trifoliate (only 4 out of 72 leaves had more than three leaflets). The p35S:AtSTM sequences seldom led to complex leaves, as only 8 out of 72 adult leaves (ranks 2 to 5) were more complex (Figure 1Q).
We then tested whether AtSTM expression is sufficient to rescue the sgl1 leaf phenotype (see Section 4). In the sgl1 mutant, the majority of leaves are simple (Figure 1I–L). All rank 5 leaves were simple, but 12 out 54 leaves (ranks 2 to 4) were bi- or trifoliate in the sgl1 mutant (Figure 1Q). In contrast, in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 plants, the majority of adult leaves were trifoliate as in wild-type (Figure 1B–D,O,P). The p35S:AtSTM construct restored almost systematically the capacity to form trifoliate leaves, with 52 out of 54 leaves (ranks 3 to 5) producing at least three leaflets (Figure 1Q). Therefore, we concluded that AtSTM can replace SGL1 to promote leaflet formation.
To explore the developmental origin of the extra or rescued leaflets in the different backgrounds, we imaged by SEM young developing leaf primordia (Figure 2). As observed in wild-type apices, a pair of lateral leaflets and a terminal leaflet initiated in AtSTM transgenic lines during early leaf primordium development (Figure 2A,C). At stage S8, additional leaflets could form at the base of the terminal leaflet in AtSTM (arrows Figure 2D), which were not observed in the wild-type (Figure 2B) and therefore resulted from secondary morphogenesis. This indicates that the morphogenetic window during which leaflets can be initiated is extended following AtSTM expression. In p35S:AtSTM sgl1 plants, the terminal primordium was surrounded by two lateral primordia (Figure 2G,H), already visible at early stages (S4), as seen in the wild-type (Figure 2A,G). Thus, leaflet restoration in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 does not appear to rely on a late production of leaflets but a rescue of the normal developmental process with a restoration of early lateral leaflet initiation, as occurs in the wild-type.

2.2. AtSTM Substitutes for SGL1 in M. truncatula in Specifying Petal Formation

M. truncatula is a legume species developing compound inflorescences. The wild-type M. truncatula mature flower (Figure 3A–I) comprises four whorls consisting of a calyx formed by five sepals fused at their base (Figure 3B), a corolla containing three types of yellow petals, the standard or the vexillum at the adaxial position (Figure 3C), the keel formed by two fused petals at the abaxial position surrounded by two lateral petals and the alae or wings (Figure 3D–G). The third whorl consists of an independent stamen filament at the adaxial position, the vexillary stamen filament and nine stamen filaments fused into a staminal tube that surrounds a monocarpous gynoecium [59] (Figure 3H,I). The sgl1 mutants produce inflorescences with cauliflower-like floral structures, containing incomplete floral meristems (FMs), elongated sepals and occasionally carpels [42] (Figure 3U). These cauliflowers do not produce petals nor stamens, similar to lfy mutants in Arabidopsis [73].
Wild-type plants for SGL1 overexpressing AtSTM occasionally produced abnormal flowers showing fused organs and are characterized by an increase in petal identity with petaloid sepals and petaloid stamens (Figure 3K–S). Some petals showed alterations in shape or serrated margins (Figure 3L,M). These flowers occasionally produced two to three unfused carpels (Figure 3M–O). Flowers can show petaloid sepals (Figure 3N,S), petaloid stamens (Figure 3O,P) and petaloid carpels (Figure 3Q). The fertility was severely reduced, with some plants infertile. The fruits were small, with fewer discs and unbent spines compared with wild-type fruits (Figure 3T,J). These fruits contained a few seeds. The same phenotypes were occasionally observed in pSGL1:AtSTM flowers (Figure S3F,G). We then tested the effects of p35S:AtSTM on sgl1 flower development. Surprisingly, the ectopic expression of AtSTM rescued sepal shape and petal formation in the sgl1 mutant (Figure 3V–Y). Similar to wild-type flowers, p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers formed a calyx with five sepals fused at their base (Figure 3B,W). Inside the calyx, the p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers showed a cauliflower phenotype with incomplete FMs, producing a few sepals and a majority of petals or petals with sepal sectors. Petals were partially restored as some of them had a vexillium-like, wing-like or keel-like shape (Figure 3X,Y). Thus, when ectopically expressed, AtSTM restores petal formation in sgl1. These flowers did not form carpels, in contrast to sgl1 flowers, suggesting a deficiency in C function (Figure 3). The majority of organs formed were petals, as one cauliflower flower from a 35S:AtSTM sgl1 line could produce up to 65 petals (Figure S4).
SEM analyses were performed to further characterize these flowers at early developmental stages. Figure 4A–D shows wild-type floral development. At stage 4, the wild-type floral meristem had formed five sepal primordia, four common primordia and a carpel primordium (Figure 4B). At late stage 5, the wild-type floral meristem displayed the complete set of floral organ primordia, with petal and stamen primordia deriving from the differentiation of common primordia (Figure 4D). Figure 4E–H shows the floral development of a p35S:AtSTM plant wild-type for SGL1. Figure 4F shows a late stage 5 p35S:AtSTM floral meristem. Based on sepal development, a delay in the formation of the inner floral organ primordia could be observed compared with the wild-type (Figure 4F,D). In contrast, Figure 4G shows a stage 5 floral meristem containing differentiated petals and stamen primordia and two carpel primordia, indicating that the delay in internal organ primordia differentiation is variable between flowers. Figure 4H shows a p35S:AtSTM flower developing two carpels. Similar to previous data [42,61], sgl1 inflorescences showed multiple incomplete FMs, elongated sepals, defective common primordia and carpel primordia (Figure 4I–L). Sepal primordia further develop into elongated sepals and carpel primordia into a carpel-like structure. The cauliflower phenotype is caused by the iterative conversion of common primordia into incomplete floral meristems (Figure 4I,L). In sgl1 mutants overexpressing AtSTM (Figure 4M–O), the sepal form was restored, suggesting that AtSTM could take over SGL1 function for the control of sepal shape. The late stage 5 floral meristems showed a delay in the differentiation of other floral organ primordia, as observed in p35S:AtSTM SGL1 plants (Figure 4N,F). Later, petals and sepals differentiated from these primordia (Figure 4O). Together, these observations show that expression of AtSTM partly restored normal early morphogenesis of sgl1 flowers.

2.3. AtSTM Substitutes for SGL1 to Promote Floral Organ Identity Gene Expression

To determine if AtSTM activates A and B functions to promote petal formation in sgl1 flowers, we used in situ hybridization to analyze the expression pattern of floral organ identity genes in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. We first investigated the expression of the A class gene MtPIM, the A. thaliana ortholog of AP1 in M. truncatula. MtAP1 has a conserved role with orthologous genes and is required to specify floral meristem and floral organ identity [61,64]. In wild-type inflorescences, MtAP1 transcripts localize to the floral meristem and bract (Figure 5A,B). In a stage 4 flower meristem, MtAP1 expression was observed in sepal primordia and was restricted to the outer domain of the common primordia that further gives rise to sepals and petals and was absent from the inner part, which differentiates into stamens and carpel (Figure 5C) [61,64]. At later stages, MtAP1 expression was maintained in sepals and petals (Figure 5D). Similar to the pattern described in [61], in sgl1 flowers, MtAP1 was expressed in the floral meristem and in the bract (Figure 5E). MtAP1 was expressed uniformly in defective common primordia and in reiterated floral meristems (Figure 5F–H). At later stages, MtAP1 expression localized to the outer incomplete floral meristem and disappeared from the central domain that further differentiates into carpels (Figure 5F,G). In p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers, MtAP1 was more widely expressed than in sgl1 flowers, with MtAP1 detected in reiterated floral meristems and in developing petals (I–K). Thus, in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers, AtSTM acts as a positive regulator of A function, contributing to enhanced petal identity.
We then investigated the expression of the B class gene MtPI. In wild-type, MtPI transcripts were localized to common primordia cells and later restricted to petal and stamens (Figure 6A,B) and [66,67]. In the sgl1 mutant, no MtPI expression was detected in defective common primordia, consistent with the phenotype of sgl1 flowers, which lack petals and stamens (Figure 6C). In sgl1 flowers overexpressing AtSTM, MtPI expression was detected in defective common primordia (Figure 6D,E inset-a). At a later stage, MtPI localized to the outer domain of the defective common primordia that further gives rise to petal-like organs (Figure 6E and inset-b). Later, MtPI is expressed in petal-like organs (Figure 6D,E). Thus, AtSTM acts as a positive regulator of MtPI expression consistent with the restoration of petal identity.
We further determined the expression of the M. truncatula ortholog of the A. thaliana C-class gene AG. MtAGb was used as a probe as its signal is stronger and it is more restricted than that of MtAGa [68]. In wild-type flowers, MtAGb expression was first detected at stage 2 in the central part of the floral meristem where the carpel will develop (Figure 7A). At stage 4, MtAGb expression was mainly localized to the inner domain of the common primordia that will further give rise to stamens and to carpel primordia (Figure 7B). At later stages, its expression was restricted to stamens, carpel and ovules (Figure 7C,D). In sgl1 flowers, a weak signal was detected in floral meristems and defective common primordia and was absent in the L1 layer (Figure 7E–G). Later, its expression was detected in carpel-like structures and ovules (Figure 7H). In sgl1 plants overexpressing AtSTM, MtAGb expression was detectable in only a few flowers (3 of 13). In these flowers, the signal was weak and restricted to a few cells in FM beneath the two outer most layers (Figure 7I).

3. Discussion

Here, we compared the activity of two transcription factors, AtSTM and SGL1, in M. truncatula. Our analysis is based on transgenic plants that were able to grow in a greenhouse and therefore expressed AtSTM at low levels. This allowed us to investigate the activity of AtSTM during flower development.
An increase in the leaflet number was only occasionally observed following AtSTM ectopic expression in wild-type M. truncatula. This limited effect of AtSTM could be linked to AtSTM expression levels in these lines, which were low. The additional leaflets were formed at the base of the terminal leaflet and resulted from a secondary morphogenesis. This suggests that AtSTM leads to additional leaflets through the extension of the meristematic activity, allowing more leaflets to emerge, and not from the division of the lateral leaflets into two structures. In M. truncatula, the terminal leaflet derives from the terminal zone where auxin maxima are located through the activity of SMOOTH LEAF MARGIN1 (SLM1), the PIN1 ortholog in M. truncatula [74]. Lateral leaflets result from the marginal blastozone activity and the formation of local auxin maxima that depend on SGL1 activity [74]. The tetrafoliate pattern seen in AtSTM transgenic lines likely results from a defect in auxin distribution in the terminal zone. This leaf patterning is also found in M. truncatula plants inactivated for HEADLESS (HDL) or MtREVOLUTA1 (MtREV1), the putative orthologs of A. thaliana WUSCHEL and REVOLUTA, of which mutants are altered in auxin homeostasis [75,76]. The ectopic expression of AtSTM could rescue the formation of lateral leaflets in the sgl1 mutant. These data show that AtSTM could substitute for SGL1 via an independent pathway to form complex leaves. This suggests that AtSTM could bypass the requirement for SGL1 during the formation of compound leaves in M. truncatula, indicating shared functions between these proteins, a conclusion further reinforced by the study of the floral phenotype of p35S:AtSTM sgl1 plants.
Our data revealed an unexpected effect of AtSTM on floral development, as AtSTM could induce petal identity. The effect of AtSTM on petal identity was moderately visible in an SGL1 wild-type background, as only few chimeric petaloid floral organs were formed, but was dramatic in an sgl1 mutant background. Indeed, all p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers produced petals or petals with sepal sectors, while such organs were missing in sgl1. Although the increase in petal number could be in part due to the indeterminate state conferred by the sgl1 mutation, it nevertheless indicates that AtSTM can restore petal formation in an sgl1 mutant. The shape of sgl1 sepals was also restored following AtSTM expression, showing that AtSTM could substitute for other functions of SGL1 during flower development. The formation of petals in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 was correlated with an activation of MtAP1 and more notably of MtPI expression, suggesting that AtSTM could promote the expression of these floral organ identity genes to restore petals, and not through an indirect effect on floral meristem growth, for instance. Such a role for KNOX1 genes in the promotion of B function was not yet reported in either M. truncatula nor in A. thaliana [44,46,72].
On the contrary, p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers did not form stamens, and in contrast to sgl1 cauliflowers, which developed carpels, AtSTM sgl1 cauliflowers lacked carpels. MtAGb expression was only rarely detected in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 cauliflowers, in agreement with the lack of carpel identity. Interestingly, the expression of MtAGb was systematically detected in floral meristems beneath the outermost layers in sgl1 background. The localization and the low intensity of the MtAGb signal in sgl1 cauliflowers suggest that SGL1 influences MtAGb expression.
In Arabidopsis, a link for AtSTM with carpel identity was revealed with the analysis of plants compromised for AtSTM activity in line with AtSTM expression in flowers [5,6,71,73]. A more direct contribution to carpel identity was illustrated with the phenotype of A. thaliana KNOX1 overexpressors showing homeotic conversion of ovules into pistils. However, KNOX1 ectopic expression does not complement the ag mutant [52,72]. In line with these conclusions made in Arabidopsis, we observed that in M. truncatula, ectopic expression of AtSTM could not induce the C function in the absence of SGL1 activity. It is possible that in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers, AG is playing a role related to floral meristem termination more than a function related to the specification of carpel identity.
The impact of AtSTM was more obvious both in leaves and flowers of the sgl1 mutant compared with wild-type SGL1 plants. This distinct impact could suggest that the STM pathway is more effective in the absence of SGL1 activity. It is likely that SGL1 acts in part through the M. truncatula UFO ortholog, as it does in Arabidopsis and other legumes. Indeed, in pea and in Lotus japonicus defective in STAMINA PISTILLOIDA (STP) or in PROLIFERATING FLOWER ORGAN (PFO), the A. thaliana UFO orthologs lack petals and stamens and show a reduced carpel formation similar to sgl1 flowers [47,77]. On the other hand, AtSTM was shown recently to function together in A. thaliana with AP1 to specify floral meristem identity in part via UFO [78]. This suggests that SGL1 and STM pathways may converge on MtUFO and that a competition for UFO interaction or for targets shared between SGL1 and AtSTM could be the basis for the higher effect of AtSTM in the absence of SGL1.
Our work shows that AtSTM substitutes for SGL1 function in M. truncatula during both vegetative and reproductive development. A parallel has been proposed between compound leaflet primordia and common primordia formation. Both of these processes seem to require the maintenance of an indeterminate phase controlled by SGL1 [61]. While in leaves, SGL1 maintains the indeterminate state, in flowers, SGL1 acts in opposite by promoting the formation of common primordia. The capacity for AtSTM to substitute for SGL1 in both leaves and flowers underlines this parallel and the control of meristematic activity shared by these two transcription factors.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Growth and Plant Material

M. truncatula plants were grown in a greenhouse or in growth chambers under long-day conditions (16 h light at 23 °C and 8 h dark at 15 °C). The wild-type (R108) and the sgl1-1 mutant M. truncatula lines have been described [42].
The pSGL1:GUS reporter construct was generated as follows. A 2.7 kb fragment corresponding to the SGL1 (Medtr3g098560) promoter sequence used in [42] (wild-type M. truncatula cv Jemalong) was amplified from the M. truncatula R108 ecotype using primers pSGL1-for, incorporating a BglII site, and pSGL1-rev, incorporating a BamHI site. The promoter was cloned into pCR Blunt II-TOPO vector to create pTOPO-pSGL1 and sequenced. The pSGL1 promoter was moved into the binary vector pCAMBIA 3301 in front of the β-glucuronidase (GUS) gene. For this, a BglII-BamH1 fragment containing the SGL1 promoter was ligated into pCAMBIA3301 cut with BamHI and BglII to replace the 35S promoter.
The pSGL1:HA-AtSTM construct was generated as follows (AtSTM, AT1G62360). pTOPOpSGL1 was cut with EcoR1-BamH1 to release the pSGL1 promoter, which was cloned into the pCAMBIA 3300 binary vector cut with EcoRI and BamHI to create pCAMBIA 3300 pSGL1. The alli2AtSTM plasmid harboring the triple hemagglutinin (HA) tag-AtSTM fusion under the double enhanced cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter was used as a template to amplify the HA-AtSTM fusion using primers AtSTM-for and AtSTM-rev incorporating BamHI and EcoRI sites, respectively. This fragment was ligated into the pALC vector (Syngenta Ltd., Jeolotts Hill, UK) cut with BamHI and EcoRI. The BamHI-XbaI fragment containing the HA-AtSTM fusion and the 35S terminator was cloned into pCAMBIA 3300 pSGL1 to create pCAMBIA pSGL1:HA-AtSTM 35S term.
The p35S:HA-AtSTM construct was generated as follows. The pSGL1 promoter sequence of the pCAMBIA pSGL1:HA-AtSTM 35S term was replaced with the 35S promoter sequence from pCAMBIA 3301 using the BglII and BamH1 sites. The pCAMBIA 3301 was cut with BamH1 and BglII to release the 35S promoter, and the pCAMBIA 3300 containing the pSGL1:HA-AtSTM construct was cut with BglII and BamHI to replace the pSGL1 promoter with the 35S promoter to create pCAMBIA p35S:HA-AtSTM 35S term. pSGL1-GUS, p35S:AtSTM and pSGL1:AtSTM constructs were introduced into A. tumefaciens GV3101. The pSGL1-GUS construct was used to transform M. truncatula R108 wild-type plant, while p35S:AtSTM and pSGL1:AtSTM constructs were used to transform M. truncatula R108 plants heterozygous for the sgl1-1 mutation. M. truncatula transgenic lines were created using a leaf disc protocol [79]. Transgenic calli were selected on media containing 3 mgL−1 Basta (glufosinate–ammonium). Primers are listed in Table S1.
Four independent pSGL1:GUS transgenic lines were analyzed for SGL1:GUS activity. The SGL1:GUS activity was detected in meristem, vascular tissue and young leaves in R108 M. truncatula (Figure S1), which was similar to the activity of the SGL1 promoter isolated from the JemalongA17 ecotype [42], and in axillary meristem, young floral buds and carpels (Figure S1).
Most of the transgenic plantlets expressing AtSTM were not viable when transferred to soil. RT-PCR were realized to compare the level of expression of AtSTM in transgenic lines. Total RNA was extracted from AtSTM transgenic lines expressing p35S:AtSTM (in vitro seedlings and transgenic plants grown in the greenhouse) using Tri reagent (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France) and treated with DNAse I (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. AtSTM levels were monitored using qAtSTM-F and qAtSTM-R primers. Primers specific for the M. truncatula UBIQUITIN gene (Medtr3g091400) were used as an internal control [80]. Only transgenic plantlets expressing AtSTM at low levels were viable in the greenhouse. Four p35S:AtSTM independent lines and three pSGL1:AtSTM lines were obtained. Of these, two independent p35S:AtSTM lines and one pSGL1:AtSTM based on their phenotype were chosen for further characterization. These plants showed reduced fertility. Plants homozygous for the p35S:AtSTM construct and heterozygous for sgl1 were obtained and confirmed by PCR genotyping [42].

4.2. Phenotypic Observations

Leaves and flowers were observed under a binocular microscope (Nikon, SMZ1000) and imaged with a digital camera (ProgRes C10plus). M. truncatula meristems showing GUS activity were dissected and photographed using a LeicaMZ12 dissecting microscope fitted with an AxioCam ICc5 digital camera.

4.3. Quantitative Analyses of Leaf Development

Progenies of SGL1+/sgl1 (R108) and p35S:AtSTM SGL1+/sgl1 lines were grown in a greenhouse. Four-week-old plants were used. The leaflet number was determined on R108 wild-type, sgl1/sgl1, p35S:AtSTM SGL1+ and p35S:AtSTM sgl1/sgl1 plants. Eighteen plants per genotype were analyzed.

4.4. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Three to eight-week-old plants were dissected to observe leaf and flower primordia. The samples were imaged using SEC DESKTOP SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope, (SNE-1500M), SEC, Suwon, Korea) at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV.

4.5. In Situ Localization of GUS Activity and In Situ Hybridization

GUS staining and tissue embedding have been described in [81]. RNA in situ hybridization with digoxigenin-labeled probes was performed as previously described [82]. The RNA antisense and sense probes of MtAP1 (Medtr8g066260) MtPIM, MtPI (Medtr3g088615) and MtAGb (Medtr8g087860) were generated using as cDNA templates a 426 bp fragment of MtPIM (282–707 from ATG), a 298 bp fragment of MtPI (504–801 from ATG) or a 215 bp fragment of MtAGb (558–773 from ATG), respectively, cloned into the pGEM-T Easy vector (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) and using the corresponding SP6 and T7 RNA polymerases in the vector for transcription. SP6 was used for transcription of RNA antisense probes and T7 for the sense. The in situ hybridization with control sense probes is presented in Figure S7.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms232214114/s1, Figure S1: pSGL1:GUS expression in M. truncatula, Figure S2: In vitro transgenic M. truncatula plantlets overexpressing AtSTM, Figure S3: Phenotype of a pSGL1:AtSTM transgenic line expressing AtSTM under the pSGL1 promoter, Figure S4: Petal production following AtSTM expression in sgl1 flowers, Figure S5: In situ hybridization with control sense probes, Table S1: List of primers.

Author Contributions

All authors made essential contributions to the project. V.P. performed most of the experiments; A.E. made the Medicago truncatula transgenics; T.C. performed the GUS assays, some leaf phenotypic characterization and some SEMs; B.A. provided technical assistance to V.P.; A.B. and F.M. performed the in situ analyses; P.L., P.R. and V.P. designed the research; V.P. and P.L. wrote the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by IJPB’s Plant Observatory technological platforms. The IJPB benefits from the support of Saclay Plant Sciences-SPS (ANR-17-EUR-0007). Work at F.M.’s lab was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia Innovación y Universidades and FEDER (grants BIO2015-64307-R and PGC2018-099232-B-I00). Thibaud Cayla and Alexis Eschstruth were supported by the ANR-11-BSV2-0005 Charmful.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Bruno Letarnec for help in the greenhouse. We are grateful to Shelley Hepworth and Nicolas Arnaud for critical reading.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hepworth, S.R.; Pautot, V.A. Beyond the divide: Boundaries for patterning and stem cell regulation in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Maugarny-Calès, A.; Gonçalves, B.; Jouannic, S.; Melkonian, M.; Ka-Shu Wong, G.; Laufs, P. Apparition of the NAC transcription factors predates the emergence of land plants. Mol. Plant 2016, 9, 1345–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Žádníková, P.; Simon, R. How boundaries control plant development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2014, 17, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Aida, M.; Ishida, T.; Tasaka, M. Shoot apical meristem and cotyledon formation during Arabidopsis embryogenesis: Interaction among the CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON and SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Genes. Development 1999, 126, 1563–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Endrizzi, K.; Moussian, B.; Haecker, A.; Levin, J.Z.; Laux, T. The SHOOT MERISTEMLESS gene is required for maintenance of undifferentiated cells in Arabidopsis shoot and floral meristems and acts at a different regulatory level than the meristem genes WUSCHEL and ZWILLE. Plant J. 1996, 10, 967–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Long, J.A.; Moan, E.I.; Medford, J.I.; Barton, M.K. A Member of the KNOTTED class of homeodomain proteins encoded by the STM gene of Arabidopsis. Nature 1996, 379, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Takada, S.; Hibara, K.; Ishida, T.; Tasaka, M. The CUP-SHAPEDCOTYLEDON1 gene of Arabidopsis regulates shoot apical meristem formation. Development 2001, 128, 1127–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Belles-Boix, E.; Hamant, O.; Witiak, S.M.; Morin, H.; Traas, J.; Pautot, V. KNAT6: An Arabidopsis homeobox gene involved in meristem activity and organ separation. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 1900–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Spinelli, S.V.; Martin, A.P.; Viola, I.L.; Gonzalez, D.H.; Palatnik, J.F. A Mechanistic link between STM and CUC1 during Arabidopsis development. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 1894–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Scofield, S.; Murison, A.; Jones, A.; Fozard, J.; Aida, M.; Band, L.R.; Bennett, M.; Murray, J.A.H. Coordination of meristem and boundary functions by transcription factors in the SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Regulatory Network. Development 2018, 145, 157081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aida, M.; Tsubakimoto, Y.; Shimizu, S.; Ogisu, H.; Kamiya, M.; Iwamoto, R.; Takeda, S.; Karim, M.; Mizutani, M.; Lenhard, M.; et al. Establishment of the embryonic shoot meristem involves activation of two classes of genes with opposing functions for meristem activities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Laufs, P.; Peaucelle, A.; Morin, H.; Traas, J. MicroRNA Regulation of the CUC genes is required for boundary size control in Arabidopsis meristems. Development 2004, 131, 4311–4322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Mallory, A.C.; Reinhart, B.J.; Jones-Rhoades, M.W.; Tang, G.; Zamore, P.D.; Barton, M.K.; Bartel, D.P. MicroRNA Control of PHABULOSA in leaf development: Importance of pairing to the MicroRNA 5′ Region. EMBO J. 2004, 23, 3356–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Parcy, F.; Nilsson, O.; Busch, M.A.; Lee, I.; Weigel, D. A Genetic framework for floral patterning. Nature 1998, 395, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wagner, D.; Sablowski, R.W.M.; Meyerowitz, E.M. Transcriptional activation of APETALA1 by LEAFY. Science 1999, 285, 582–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lohmann, J.U.; Hong, R.L.; Hobe, M.; Busch, M.A.; Parcy, F.; Simon, R.; Weigel, D. A Molecular link between stem cell regulation and floral patterning in Arabidopsis. Cell 2001, 105, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chae, E.; Tan, Q.K.-G.; Hill, T.A.; Irish, V.F. An Arabidopsis F-Box Protein Acts as a transcriptional co-factor to regulate floral development. Development 2008, 135, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Jin, R.; Klasfeld, S.; Zhu, Y.; Fernandez Garcia, M.; Xiao, J.; Han, S.-K.; Konkol, A.; Wagner, D. LEAFY is a pioneer transcription factor and licenses cell reprogramming to floral fate. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lai, X.; Blanc-Mathieu, R.; GrandVuillemin, L.; Huang, Y.; Stigliani, A.; Lucas, J.; Thévenon, E.; Loue-Manifel, J.; Turchi, L.; Daher, H.; et al. The LEAFY floral regulator displays pioneer transcription factor properties. Mol. Plant 2021, 14, 829–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moyroud, E.; Kusters, E.; Monniaux, M.; Koes, R.; Parcy, F. LEAFY blossoms. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chahtane, H.; Vachon, G.; Le Masson, M.; Thévenon, E.; Périgon, S.; Mihajlovic, N.; Kalinina, A.; Michard, R.; Moyroud, E.; Monniaux, M.; et al. A Variant of LEAFY reveals its capacity to stimulate meristem development by inducing RAX1. Plant J. 2013, 74, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Li, W.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Yu, P.; Cohen, J.D.; Meyerowitz, E.M. LEAFY controls auxin response pathways in floral primordium formation. Sci. Signal. 2013, 6, ra23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Yamaguchi, N.; Wu, M.-F.; Winter, C.M.; Berns, M.C.; Nole-Wilson, S.; Yamaguchi, A.; Coupland, G.; Krizek, B.A.; Wagner, D. A molecular framework for auxin-mediated initiation of flower primordia. Dev. Cell 2013, 24, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zhao, D. The ASK1 gene regulates B function gene expression in cooperation with UFO and LEAFY in Arabidopsis. Development 2001, 128, 2735–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gagne, J.M.; Downes, B.P.; Shiu, S.-H.; Durski, A.M.; Vierstra, R.D. The F-Box subunit of the SCF E3 complex is encoded by a diverse superfamily of genes in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 11519–11524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Risseeuw, E.; Venglat, P.; Xiang, D.; Komendant, K.; Daskalchuk, T.; Babic, V.; Crosby, W.; Datla, R. An activated form of UFO alters leaf development and produces ectopic floral and inflorescence meristems. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Yamaguchi, N.; Wu, M.-F.; Winter, C.; Wagner, D. LEAFY and polar auxin transport coordinately regulate Arabidopsis flower development. Plants 2014, 3, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Running, M.P.; Fletcher, J.C.; Meyerowitz, E.M. The WIGGUM gene is required for proper regulation of floral meristem size in Arabidopsis. Development 1998, 125, 2545–2553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Q.; Atkinson, A.; Otsuga, D.; Christensen, T.; Reynolds, L.; Drews, G.N. The Arabidopsis FILAMENTOUS FLOWER gene is required for flower formation. Development 1999, 126, 2715–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sawa, S.; Watanabe, K.; Goto, K.; Kanaya, E.; Morita, E.H.; Okada, K. FILAMENTOUS FLOWER, a meristem and organ identity gene of Arabidopsis, encodes a protein with a zinc finger and hmg-related domains. Genes Dev. 1999, 13, 1079–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Norberg, M.; Holmlund, M.; Nilsson, O. The BLADE ON PETIOLE genes act redundantly to control the growth and development of lateral organs. Development 2005, 132, 2203–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Kanrar, S.; Onguka, O.; Smith, H.M.S. Arabidopsis inflorescence architecture requires the activities of KNOX-BELL homeodomain heterodimers. Planta 2006, 224, 1163–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kanrar, S.; Bhattacharya, M.; Arthur, B.; Courtier, J.; Smith, H.M.S. Regulatory networks that function to specify flower meristems require the function of homeobox genes PENNYWISE and POUND-FOOLISH in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2008, 54, 924–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Keller, T.; Abbott, J.; Moritz, T.; Doerner, P. Arabidopsis REGULATOR OF AXILLARY MERISTEMS1 controls a leaf axil stem cell niche and modulates vegetative development. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Müller, D.; Schmitz, G.; Theres, K. Blind homologous R2R3 myb genes control the pattern of lateral meristem initiation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Lee, D.J.; Park, J.Y.; Ku, S.-J.; Ha, Y.-M.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.D.; Oh, M.-H.; Kim, J. Genome-wide expression profiling of ARABIDOPSIS RESPONSE REGULATOR 7(ARR7) overexpression in cytokinin response. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2007, 277, 115–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hareven, D.; Gutfinger, T.; Parnis, A.; Eshed, Y.; Lifschitz, E. The making of a compound leaf: Genetic manipulation of leaf architecture in tomato. Cell 1996, 84, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Bharathan, G.; Goliber, T.E.; Moore, C.; Kessler, S.; Pham, T.; Sinha, N.R. Homologies in leaf form inferred from KNOXI gene expression during development. Science 2002, 296, 1858–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hay, A.; Tsiantis, M. The genetic basis for differences in leaf form between Arabidopsis thaliana and its wild relative Cardamine hirsuta. Nat. Genet. 2006, 38, 942–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shani, E.; Burko, Y.; Ben-Yaakov, L.; Berger, Y.; Amsellem, Z.; Goldshmidt, A.; Sharon, E.; Ori, N. Stage-specific regulation of Solanum lycopersicum leaf maturation by class 1 KNOTTED1-LIKE HOMEOBOX proteins. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 3078–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hofer, J.; Turner, L.; Hellens, R.; Ambrose, M.; Matthews, P.; Michael, A.; Ellis, N. UNIFOLIATA regulates leaf and flower morphogenesis in Pea. Curr. Biol. 1997, 7, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Wang, H.; Chen, J.; Wen, J.; Tadege, M.; Li, G.; Liu, Y.; Mysore, K.S.; Ratet, P.; Chen, R. Control of compound leaf development by FLORICAULA/LEAFY ortholog SINGLE LEAFLET1 in Medicago truncatula. Plant Physiol. 2008, 146, 1759–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Hofer, J.; Gourlay, C.; Michael, A.; Ellis, T.H.N. Expression of a Class 1 Knotted1-like homeobox gene is down-regulated in pea compound leaf primordia. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 45, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Champagne, C.E.M.; Goliber, T.E.; Wojciechowski, M.F.; Mei, R.W.; Townsley, B.T.; Wang, K.; Paz, M.M.; Geeta, R.; Sinha, N.R. Compound leaf development and evolution in the legumes. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 3369–3378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Busch, A.; Gleissberg, S. EcFLO, a FLORICAULA-like gene from Eschscholzia californica is expressed during organogenesis at the vegetative shoot apex. Planta 2003, 217, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhou, C.; Han, L.; Li, G.; Chai, M.; Fu, C.; Cheng, X.; Wen, J.; Tang, Y.; Wang, Z.-Y. STM/BP-like KNOXI is uncoupled from ARP in the regulation of compound leaf development in Medicago truncatula. Plant Cell 2014, 26, 1464–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Taylor, S.; Hofer, J.; Murfet, I. Stamina pistilloida, the pea ortholog of Fim and UFO, is required for normal development of flowers, inflorescences, and leaves. Plant Cell 2001, 13, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Dong, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, C.; Luo, J.; Yang, J.; Huang, W.; Hu, X.; Wang, T.L.; Luo, D. Floral patterning in Lotus japonicus. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nikolov, L.A.; Runions, A.; Das Gupta, M.; Tsiantis, M. Leaf development and evolution. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2019, 131, 109–139. [Google Scholar]
  50. Challa, K.R.; Rath, M.; Sharma, A.N.; Bajpai, A.K.; Davuluri, S.; Acharya, K.K.; Nath, U. Active suppression of leaflet emergence as a mechanism of simple leaf development. Nat. Plants 2021, 7, 1264–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lincoln, C.; Long, J. A Knottedl-like homeobox gene in Arabidopsis is expressed in the vegetative meristem and dramatically alters leaf morphology when overexpressed in transgenic plants. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 1859–1876. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Pautot, V.; Dockx, J.; Hamant, O.; Kronenberger, J.; Grandjean, O.; Jublot, D.; Traas, J. KNAT2: Evidence for a link between Knotted-like genes and carpel development. Plant Cell 2001, 13, 1719–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Piazza, P.; Bailey, C.D.; Cartolano, M.; Krieger, J.; Cao, J.; Ossowski, S.; Schneeberger, K.; He, F.; de Meaux, J.; Hall, N.; et al. Arabidopsis thaliana leaf form evolved via loss of KNOX expression in leaves in association with a selective sweep. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20, 2223–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Lee, I.; Wolfe, D.S.; Nilsson, O.; Weigel, D. A LEAFY co-regulator encoded by UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS. Curr. Biol. 1997, 7, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Blein, T.; Pulido, A.; Vialette-Guiraud, A.; Nikovics, K.; Morin, H.; Hay, A.; Johansen, I.E.; Tsiantis, M.; Laufs, P. A conserved molecular framework for compound leaf development. Science 2008, 322, 1835–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bilsborough, G.D.; Runions, A.; Barkoulas, M.; Jenkins, H.W.; Hasson, A.; Galinha, C.; Laufs, P.; Hay, A.; Prusinkiewicz, P.; Tsiantis, M. Model for the regulation of Arabidopsis thaliana leaf margin development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3424–3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Vialette-Guiraud, A.C.M.; Chauvet, A.; Gutierrez-Mazariegos, J.; Eschstruth, A.; Ratet, P.; Scutt, C.P. A conserved role for the NAM/MiR164 developmental module reveals a common mechanism underlying carpel margin fusion in monocarpous and syncarpous eurosids. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Cheng, X.; Peng, J.; Ma, J.; Tang, Y.; Chen, R.; Mysore, K.S.; Wen, J. NO APICAL MERISTEM (MtNAM) regulates floral organ identity and lateral organ separation in Medicago truncatula. New Phytol. 2012, 195, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Benlloch, R.; Navarro, C.; Beltrán, J.; Cañas, L.A. Floral development of the model legume Medicago truncatula: Ontogeny studies as a tool to better characterize homeotic mutations. Sex. Plant Reprod. 2003, 15, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Benlloch, R.; Berbel, A.; Ali, L.; Gohari, G.; Millán, T.; Madueño, F. Genetic control of inflorescence architecture in legumes. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Cheng, X.; Li, G.; Tang, Y.; Wen, J. Dissection of genetic regulation of compound inflorescence development in Medicago truncatula. Development 2018, 145, 158766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hecht, V.; Foucher, F.; Ferrándiz, C.; Macknight, R.; Navarro, C.; Morin, J.; Vardy, M.E.; Ellis, N.; Beltrán, J.P.; Rameau, C.; et al. Conservation of Arabidopsis flowering genes in model legumes. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 1420–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Weigel, D.; Alvarez, J.; Smyth, D.R.; Yanofsky, M.F.; Meyerowitz, E.M. LEAFY controls floral meristem identity in Arabidopsis. Cell 1992, 69, 843–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Benlloch, R.; d’Erfurth, I.; Ferrandiz, C.; Cosson, V.; Beltrán, J.P.; Cañas, L.A.; Kondorosi, A.; Madueño, F.; Ratet, P. Isolation of mtpim proves Tnt1 a useful reverse genetics tool in Medicago truncatula and uncovers new aspects of AP1-like functions in legumes. Plant Physiol. 2006, 142, 972–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Roque, E.; Serwatowska, J.; Cruz Rochina, M.; Wen, J.; Mysore, K.S.; Yenush, L.; Beltrán, J.P.; Cañas, L.A. Functional specialization of duplicated AP3-like genes in Medicago truncatula. Plant J. 2013, 73, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Benlloch, R.; Roque, E.; Ferrándiz, C.; Cosson, V.; Caballero, T.; Penmetsa, R.V.; Beltrán, J.P.; Cañas, L.A.; Ratet, P.; Madueño, F. Analysis of B function in legumes: PISTILLATA proteins do not require the PI motif for floral organ development in Medicago truncatula. Plant J. 2009, 60, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Roque, E.; Fares, M.A.; Yenush, L.; Rochina, M.C.; Wen, J.; Mysore, K.S.; Gómez-Mena, C.; Beltrán, J.P.; Cañas, L.A. Evolution by gene duplication of Medicago truncatula PISTILLATA-like transcription factors. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 1805–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Serwatowska, J.; Roque, E.; Gómez-Mena, C.; Constantin, G.D.; Wen, J.; Mysore, K.S.; Lund, O.S.; Johansen, E.; Beltrán, J.P.; Cañas, L.A. Two euAGAMOUS genes control C-function in Medicago truncatula. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Zhu, B.; Li, H.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, P.; Xia, X.; Wang, N.; Wang, H.; Mysore, K.S.; Wen, J.; Pei, Y.; et al. AGAMOUS and TERMINAL FLOWER controls floral organ identity and inflorescence development in Medicago truncatula. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2019, 61, 917–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Zhao, Y.; Liu, R.; Xu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zhang, J.; Bai, M.; Han, C.; Xiang, F.; Wang, Z.-Y.; Mysore, K.S.; et al. AGLF provides C-function in floral organ identity through transcriptional regulation of AGAMOUS in Medicago truncatula. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 5176–5181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Clark, S.E.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Levin, J.Z.; Meyerowitz, E.M. The CLAVATA and SHOOT MERISTEMLESS loci competitively regulate meristem activity in Arabidopsis. Development 1996, 122, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Scofield, S.; Dewitte, W.; Murray, J.A.H. The KNOX Gene SHOOT MERISTEMLESS is required for the development of reproductive meristematic tissues in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2007, 50, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Schultz, E.A.; Haughn, G.W. LEAFY, a homeotic gene that regulates inflorescence development in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 1991, 3, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Zhou, C.; Han, L.; Hou, C.; Metelli, A.; Qi, L.; Tadege, M.; Mysore, K.S.; Wang, Z.-Y. Developmental analysis of a Medicago truncatula smooth leaf margin1 mutant reveals context-dependent effects on compound leaf development. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 2106–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Meng, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, B.; Wang, Z.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, P.; Wen, J.; Yang, H.; et al. HEADLESS, a WUSCHEL homolog, uncovers novel aspects of shoot meristem regulation and leaf blade development in Medicago truncatula. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Wang, H.; Xu, Y.; Hong, L.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Ding, Z.; Meng, Z.; Wang, Z.-Y.; Long, R.; et al. HEADLESS regulates auxin response and compound leaf morphogenesis in Medicago truncatula. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Zhang, S.; Sandal, N.; Polowick, P.L.; Stiller, J.; Stougaard, J.; Fobert, P.R. Proliferating Floral Organs (Pfo), a Lotus japonicus gene required for specifying floral meristem determinacy and organ identity, encodes an F-Box Protein. Plant J. 2003, 33, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Roth, O.; Alvarez, J.P.; Levy, M.; Bowman, J.L.; Ori, N.; Shani, E. The KNOXI transcription factor SHOOT MERISTEMLESS regulates floral fate in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2018, 30, 1309–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Cosson, V.; Eschstruth, A.; Ratet, P. Medicago truncatula transformation using leaf explants. Methods Mol. Biol. 2015, 1223, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kakar, K.; Wandrey, M.; Czechowski, T.; Gaertner, T.; Scheible, W.-R.; Stitt, M.; Torres-Jerez, I.; Xiao, Y.; Redman, J.C.; Wu, H.C.; et al. A community resource for high-throughput quantitative RT-PCR analysis of transcription factor gene expression in Medicago truncatula. Plant Methods 2008, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Nikovics, K.; Blein, T.; Peaucelle, A.; Ishida, T.; Morin, H.; Aida, M.; Laufs, P. The balance between the MIR164A and CUC2 genes controls leaf margin serration in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 2929–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ferrándiz, C.; Liljegren, S.J.; Yanofsky, M.F. Negative Regulation of the SHATTERPROOF genes by FRUITFULL during Arabidopsis fruit development. Science 2000, 289, 436–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 23 14114 g001 550
Figure 1. Ectopic expression of AtSTM rescues the sgl1 leaf phenotype. Phenotype of juvenile (L1) and adult leaves (rank L2, L3, L4) of 5-week-old plants. (A–D) R108 control line. Juvenile leaves are simple, while adult leaves are trifoliate and composed of a terminal leaflet plus two lateral leaflets. The petiole (p) and the rachis (r) are indicated. (E–H) p35S:AtSTM, a transgenic line expressing AtSTM under the p35S promoter producing a L2 and a L4 heart-shaped adult leaves with an ectopic leaflet fused to the terminal leaflet (arrowheads). This phenotype was occasionally observed. Leaflet margins are serrated. (I–L) sgl1 line, showing simple juvenile (L1) and adult leaves (L2–L4). (M–P) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 line, showing trifoliate L3 and L4 leaves similar to wild-type. (Q) Quantification of the leaflet number. Four-week-old plants were analyzed (n = 18 plants per genotype). Average ± SD are shown. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between genotypes at each leaf rank (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test; p ≤ 0.001). Bars = 5 mm.
Figure 1. Ectopic expression of AtSTM rescues the sgl1 leaf phenotype. Phenotype of juvenile (L1) and adult leaves (rank L2, L3, L4) of 5-week-old plants. (A–D) R108 control line. Juvenile leaves are simple, while adult leaves are trifoliate and composed of a terminal leaflet plus two lateral leaflets. The petiole (p) and the rachis (r) are indicated. (E–H) p35S:AtSTM, a transgenic line expressing AtSTM under the p35S promoter producing a L2 and a L4 heart-shaped adult leaves with an ectopic leaflet fused to the terminal leaflet (arrowheads). This phenotype was occasionally observed. Leaflet margins are serrated. (I–L) sgl1 line, showing simple juvenile (L1) and adult leaves (L2–L4). (M–P) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 line, showing trifoliate L3 and L4 leaves similar to wild-type. (Q) Quantification of the leaflet number. Four-week-old plants were analyzed (n = 18 plants per genotype). Average ± SD are shown. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between genotypes at each leaf rank (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test; p ≤ 0.001). Bars = 5 mm.
Ijms 23 14114 g001
Ijms 23 14114 g002 550
Figure 2. SEM analysis of early stages of leaf development. (A,B) R108 wild-type control line. (A) SAM and a leaf primordia at S6 stage showing a terminal leaflet (TL) developing trichomes with one of the lateral leaflets (LL) and one stipule (ST). (B) S8 stage leaf primordia with one terminal leaflet folded on itself between the two lateral leaflets. (C,D) p35S:AtSTM line. (C) SAM with a typical S4 stage leaf primordia. (D) At S8, the p35S:AtSTM line has formed a new leaflet (NL) at the base of the terminal leaflet (arrow). Leaflet margins are dissected. (E,F) sgl1 mutant. (E) SAM with a simple S5 leaf primordia (SL). (F) At S8, the leaflet is folded on itself. (G,H) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 line. (G) SAM with S4 leaf primordia that has formed lateral leaflets similar to wild-type. (H) At S8, the p35S:AtSTM sgl1 leaf primordia was similar to wild-type with the terminal leaflet surrounded by two lateral leaflets. Bars = 100 µm.
Figure 2. SEM analysis of early stages of leaf development. (A,B) R108 wild-type control line. (A) SAM and a leaf primordia at S6 stage showing a terminal leaflet (TL) developing trichomes with one of the lateral leaflets (LL) and one stipule (ST). (B) S8 stage leaf primordia with one terminal leaflet folded on itself between the two lateral leaflets. (C,D) p35S:AtSTM line. (C) SAM with a typical S4 stage leaf primordia. (D) At S8, the p35S:AtSTM line has formed a new leaflet (NL) at the base of the terminal leaflet (arrow). Leaflet margins are dissected. (E,F) sgl1 mutant. (E) SAM with a simple S5 leaf primordia (SL). (F) At S8, the leaflet is folded on itself. (G,H) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 line. (G) SAM with S4 leaf primordia that has formed lateral leaflets similar to wild-type. (H) At S8, the p35S:AtSTM sgl1 leaf primordia was similar to wild-type with the terminal leaflet surrounded by two lateral leaflets. Bars = 100 µm.
Ijms 23 14114 g002
Ijms 23 14114 g003 550
Figure 3. Ectopic expression of AtSTM in M. truncatula promotes petal identity. (A–J) R108 wild-type control line. (A) The wild-type flower showing the calyx (C) and the corolla containing 5 petals: the standard or vexillium (Vx), the keel (K) and two alae (A) or wings. (B–I) A wild-type dissected flower: (B) the calyx, formed by 5 fused sepals at their base. (C) The standard or vexillium, abaxial side. (D,E) The keel formed by two fused petals (arrows) surrounded by two lateral petals, the alae or wings, adaxial (D) and abaxial (E) sides, (F) a dissected wing. (G) A dissected keel petal. (H,I) A single carpel enclosed by a staminal tube comprising nine fused stamens plus one independent “vexillary” stamen at the adaxial position (I). (J) After fertilization, the carpel grows out to form a coiled fruit with spines. (K–T) p35S:AtSTM line. (K–Q) Phenotypes of p35S:AtSTM flowers. (L,M) Petals were abnormal and can show dissected margins. (N) Flower showing petaloid sepals. (M–O,Q) Flowers forming two or three carpels (arrowheads), with some showing an unfused carpel (arrows). (O,P) Flowers showing petaloid stamens. (Q) A dissected flower (the corolla was removed) showing 3 carpels with one developing petaloid sectors. (R) Dissected petals, some of them showing sepal sectors. (S) A dissected calyx showing petaloid sepals. (T) Fruits were smaller with unbent spines. (U) sgl1 inflorescence containing three flowers with a cauliflower-like morphology, sgl1 flowers contain sepal and carpeloid structures and lack petals and stamens. (V–Y) A p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flower showing petals. This flower contains inside incomplete FMs that produce mainly petals or petaloid sepals and a few sepals. (V) FMs are visible (*). (W) Bottom view showing the calyx (arrow), the sepal form is restored (see also Figure 4M), some other sepals are visible (arrowhead). Dissected petals: a vexillium-like petal (X), a keel-like (arrow Y) and wing-like petals (arrowhead Y). Bars = 2 mm, except for F, G, I, N and U, for which bars = 1 mm.
Figure 3. Ectopic expression of AtSTM in M. truncatula promotes petal identity. (A–J) R108 wild-type control line. (A) The wild-type flower showing the calyx (C) and the corolla containing 5 petals: the standard or vexillium (Vx), the keel (K) and two alae (A) or wings. (B–I) A wild-type dissected flower: (B) the calyx, formed by 5 fused sepals at their base. (C) The standard or vexillium, abaxial side. (D,E) The keel formed by two fused petals (arrows) surrounded by two lateral petals, the alae or wings, adaxial (D) and abaxial (E) sides, (F) a dissected wing. (G) A dissected keel petal. (H,I) A single carpel enclosed by a staminal tube comprising nine fused stamens plus one independent “vexillary” stamen at the adaxial position (I). (J) After fertilization, the carpel grows out to form a coiled fruit with spines. (K–T) p35S:AtSTM line. (K–Q) Phenotypes of p35S:AtSTM flowers. (L,M) Petals were abnormal and can show dissected margins. (N) Flower showing petaloid sepals. (M–O,Q) Flowers forming two or three carpels (arrowheads), with some showing an unfused carpel (arrows). (O,P) Flowers showing petaloid stamens. (Q) A dissected flower (the corolla was removed) showing 3 carpels with one developing petaloid sectors. (R) Dissected petals, some of them showing sepal sectors. (S) A dissected calyx showing petaloid sepals. (T) Fruits were smaller with unbent spines. (U) sgl1 inflorescence containing three flowers with a cauliflower-like morphology, sgl1 flowers contain sepal and carpeloid structures and lack petals and stamens. (V–Y) A p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flower showing petals. This flower contains inside incomplete FMs that produce mainly petals or petaloid sepals and a few sepals. (V) FMs are visible (*). (W) Bottom view showing the calyx (arrow), the sepal form is restored (see also Figure 4M), some other sepals are visible (arrowhead). Dissected petals: a vexillium-like petal (X), a keel-like (arrow Y) and wing-like petals (arrowhead Y). Bars = 2 mm, except for F, G, I, N and U, for which bars = 1 mm.
Ijms 23 14114 g003
Ijms 23 14114 g004 550
Figure 4. SEM analysis of flower development. (A–D) Flower development in wild-type R108 line. (A) An inflorescence showing floral meristems (FMs) at different stages, including a late S5 stage primordia and a spike (spk) at the base of the floral meristem. (B) S4 stage FM showing the abaxial sepal (Sab), the adaxial sepal (Sad), two lateral sepals (Sl), four common primordia (CPab, CPad and two CPI) and one carpel primordia (Cp), Br (bract). (C) S5 stage FM showing antesepal stamen (Sts), antepetal stamen (Stp) and petal (P) primordia. (D) A late S5 stage FM showing differentiated flower organ primordia, non-fused vexillary stamen (stp*), alae petals (A), vexillum (Vx), keel petals (K), carpel (C). (E–H) Flower development in p35S:AtSTM plants. (E) Inflorescence showing floral meristems at different stages. (F) Close-up of a late S5 stage FM showing the differentiation of sepal primordia (S) and the formation of bulges in the center (*). Other floral organ primordia are not differentiated. (G) Close-up of a late S5 FM showing two carpel primordia (C). (H) S8 stage flower with two differentiated carpels (C). (I–L) Flower development in sgl1 plants. (I) sgl1 inflorescence showing multiple incomplete FMs, elongated sepals (S) and S4 stage FM. (J) A close-up view of S4 stage sgl1 FM showing defective common primordia (CP’). (K) S5 stage FM, CP’s do not further differentiate. (L) Carpel primordium (C). (M–O) Flower development in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 plants. (M) Inflorescence showing incomplete FMs at different stages. (N) Close-up of S4 and a late S5 stage incomplete FM showing the differentiated sepals and bulges in the center (*). Note that the sepal form is similar to wild-type sepal (see (D)). (O) S8 stage flower (the calyx has been removed) containing two FMs that differentiate sepals (S) and petals (P). An elongated sepal is visible. Bars: (A,E,I,M–O) = 100 µm, (B–D,E,G,J,K) = 50 µm, (L) = 250 µm.
Figure 4. SEM analysis of flower development. (A–D) Flower development in wild-type R108 line. (A) An inflorescence showing floral meristems (FMs) at different stages, including a late S5 stage primordia and a spike (spk) at the base of the floral meristem. (B) S4 stage FM showing the abaxial sepal (Sab), the adaxial sepal (Sad), two lateral sepals (Sl), four common primordia (CPab, CPad and two CPI) and one carpel primordia (Cp), Br (bract). (C) S5 stage FM showing antesepal stamen (Sts), antepetal stamen (Stp) and petal (P) primordia. (D) A late S5 stage FM showing differentiated flower organ primordia, non-fused vexillary stamen (stp*), alae petals (A), vexillum (Vx), keel petals (K), carpel (C). (E–H) Flower development in p35S:AtSTM plants. (E) Inflorescence showing floral meristems at different stages. (F) Close-up of a late S5 stage FM showing the differentiation of sepal primordia (S) and the formation of bulges in the center (*). Other floral organ primordia are not differentiated. (G) Close-up of a late S5 FM showing two carpel primordia (C). (H) S8 stage flower with two differentiated carpels (C). (I–L) Flower development in sgl1 plants. (I) sgl1 inflorescence showing multiple incomplete FMs, elongated sepals (S) and S4 stage FM. (J) A close-up view of S4 stage sgl1 FM showing defective common primordia (CP’). (K) S5 stage FM, CP’s do not further differentiate. (L) Carpel primordium (C). (M–O) Flower development in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 plants. (M) Inflorescence showing incomplete FMs at different stages. (N) Close-up of S4 and a late S5 stage incomplete FM showing the differentiated sepals and bulges in the center (*). Note that the sepal form is similar to wild-type sepal (see (D)). (O) S8 stage flower (the calyx has been removed) containing two FMs that differentiate sepals (S) and petals (P). An elongated sepal is visible. Bars: (A,E,I,M–O) = 100 µm, (B–D,E,G,J,K) = 50 µm, (L) = 250 µm.
Ijms 23 14114 g004
Ijms 23 14114 g005 550
Figure 5. MtAP1 expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A–D) R108 wild-type flowers. (A,B) MtAP1 was expressed in the floral meristem (FM) and in the bract primordia (Br) and absent in secondary inflorescence meristem (I2). (C) At stage 4, MtAP1 was expressed in sepals (S). MtAP1 was restricted to the outer part of the developing common primordia (CP), which will give rise to petal (P) and was absent in the inner part that will give rise to stamen (St). (D) At stage 6, MtAP1 expression was maintained in sepals and petals. MtAP1 was absent in carpels (C) and stamens. (E–H) sgl1 flowers. (E) MtAP1 was expressed in bract (Br) and floral meristem (FM). (F,G) MtAP1 was uniformly expressed in defective common primordia (CP’), unlike in wild-type common primordia, MtAP1 was absent in the inner part of the floral meristem where carpel will develop (C). (H) MtAP1 was expressed in reiterated floral meristems deriving from floral primordia. (I–K) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. MtAP1 expression was detected in reiterated floral meristems (FM), in defective common primordia (CP’) and in developing petals (P). Bars: (A–I) = 50 µm, (J,K) = 100 µm.
Figure 5. MtAP1 expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A–D) R108 wild-type flowers. (A,B) MtAP1 was expressed in the floral meristem (FM) and in the bract primordia (Br) and absent in secondary inflorescence meristem (I2). (C) At stage 4, MtAP1 was expressed in sepals (S). MtAP1 was restricted to the outer part of the developing common primordia (CP), which will give rise to petal (P) and was absent in the inner part that will give rise to stamen (St). (D) At stage 6, MtAP1 expression was maintained in sepals and petals. MtAP1 was absent in carpels (C) and stamens. (E–H) sgl1 flowers. (E) MtAP1 was expressed in bract (Br) and floral meristem (FM). (F,G) MtAP1 was uniformly expressed in defective common primordia (CP’), unlike in wild-type common primordia, MtAP1 was absent in the inner part of the floral meristem where carpel will develop (C). (H) MtAP1 was expressed in reiterated floral meristems deriving from floral primordia. (I–K) p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. MtAP1 expression was detected in reiterated floral meristems (FM), in defective common primordia (CP’) and in developing petals (P). Bars: (A–I) = 50 µm, (J,K) = 100 µm.
Ijms 23 14114 g005
Ijms 23 14114 g006 550
Figure 6. MtPI expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A,B) MtPI expression in R108 wild-type flowers. (A) Mt PI expression was detected at stage 3 in cells of the common primordia (CP). (B) At later stages, MtPI expression was restricted to stamens (St) and petals (P). (C) MtPI was not detected in sgl1 flowers. (D,E) MtPI expression in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (D) A flower developing sepals (S) and petals (P). MtPI expression was detected in defective common primordia (CP’) and in petals (P). (E) A cauliflower showing several floral meristems and developing sepals (S) and petals (P). MtPI was detected in defective common primordia (CP’) and in petals (P). Unlike in wild-type, in which the expression of MtPI is observed in the whole common primordia, the expression of MtPI was restricted to the periphery of the defective common primordia, which will give rise to petals (see details in (a,b)). (a,b) Close-ups of the areas marked in (E). Bars: (A,C,a,b) = 50 µm, (B–E) = 100 µM.
Figure 6. MtPI expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A,B) MtPI expression in R108 wild-type flowers. (A) Mt PI expression was detected at stage 3 in cells of the common primordia (CP). (B) At later stages, MtPI expression was restricted to stamens (St) and petals (P). (C) MtPI was not detected in sgl1 flowers. (D,E) MtPI expression in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (D) A flower developing sepals (S) and petals (P). MtPI expression was detected in defective common primordia (CP’) and in petals (P). (E) A cauliflower showing several floral meristems and developing sepals (S) and petals (P). MtPI was detected in defective common primordia (CP’) and in petals (P). Unlike in wild-type, in which the expression of MtPI is observed in the whole common primordia, the expression of MtPI was restricted to the periphery of the defective common primordia, which will give rise to petals (see details in (a,b)). (a,b) Close-ups of the areas marked in (E). Bars: (A,C,a,b) = 50 µm, (B–E) = 100 µM.
Ijms 23 14114 g006
Ijms 23 14114 g007 550
Figure 7. MtAGb expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A–D) MtAGb expression in wild-type flowers. (A) MtAGb expression was located in the center cells of the floral meristem (FM) at stage 2. (B) At stage 4, MtAGb expression was detected in the carpel primordia (C) and the half of the common primordia (CP) that will give rise to the stamens. (C) At stage 5, MtAGb expression was detected in stamen (St) and carpel (C) primordia. (D) In later stages, MtAgb expression was located in stamen (St), carpel (C) and developing ovules (Ov). (E–H) MtAGb expression in sgl1 flowers. MtAGb was detected in FM (E, arrowhead) and in defective common primordia (CP’, F arrowhead, G) and absent in the L1 layer. (H) In later stages, MtAGb expression was detected in carpel (C) and ovules (Ov). (I,J) MtAGb expression in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. Expression was detected in 3 flowers out of 13. (I) An apex showing expression underneath the outermost cell layers in floral meristem (FM). (J) An apex showing no expression. Bars = 50 µm.
Figure 7. MtAGb expression in wild-type, sgl1 and p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. (A–D) MtAGb expression in wild-type flowers. (A) MtAGb expression was located in the center cells of the floral meristem (FM) at stage 2. (B) At stage 4, MtAGb expression was detected in the carpel primordia (C) and the half of the common primordia (CP) that will give rise to the stamens. (C) At stage 5, MtAGb expression was detected in stamen (St) and carpel (C) primordia. (D) In later stages, MtAgb expression was located in stamen (St), carpel (C) and developing ovules (Ov). (E–H) MtAGb expression in sgl1 flowers. MtAGb was detected in FM (E, arrowhead) and in defective common primordia (CP’, F arrowhead, G) and absent in the L1 layer. (H) In later stages, MtAGb expression was detected in carpel (C) and ovules (Ov). (I,J) MtAGb expression in p35S:AtSTM sgl1 flowers. Expression was detected in 3 flowers out of 13. (I) An apex showing expression underneath the outermost cell layers in floral meristem (FM). (J) An apex showing no expression. Bars = 50 µm.
Ijms 23 14114 g007
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pautot, V.; Berbel, A.; Cayla, T.; Eschstruth, A.; Adroher, B.; Ratet, P.; Madueño, F.; Laufs, P. Arabidopsis thaliana SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Substitutes for Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET1 to Form Complex Leaves and Petals. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 14114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214114

AMA Style

Pautot V, Berbel A, Cayla T, Eschstruth A, Adroher B, Ratet P, Madueño F, Laufs P. Arabidopsis thaliana SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Substitutes for Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET1 to Form Complex Leaves and Petals. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(22):14114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pautot, Véronique, Ana Berbel, Thibaud Cayla, Alexis Eschstruth, Bernard Adroher, Pascal Ratet, Francisco Madueño, and Patrick Laufs. 2022. "Arabidopsis thaliana SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Substitutes for Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET1 to Form Complex Leaves and Petals" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 22: 14114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214114

APA Style

Pautot, V., Berbel, A., Cayla, T., Eschstruth, A., Adroher, B., Ratet, P., Madueño, F., & Laufs, P. (2022). Arabidopsis thaliana SHOOT MERISTEMLESS Substitutes for Medicago truncatula SINGLE LEAFLET1 to Form Complex Leaves and Petals. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(22), 14114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop