![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2005, American Society of Plant Biologists MicroRNA-Directed Regulation of Arabidopsis AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR17 Is Essential for Proper Development and Modulates Expression of Early Auxin Response Genes ![]() aWhitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 bDepartment of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 cDepartment of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail bartel/at/rice.edu or dbartel/at/wi.mit.edu; fax 713-348-5154 or 617-258-6788. Received February 9, 2005; Accepted March 20, 2005. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The phytohormone auxin plays critical roles during plant growth, many of which are mediated by the auxin response transcription factor (ARF) family. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), endogenous 21-nucleotide riboregulators, target several mRNAs implicated in auxin responses. miR160 targets ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17, three of the 23 Arabidopsis thaliana ARF genes. Here, we describe roles of miR160-directed ARF17 posttranscriptional regulation. Plants expressing a miRNA-resistant version of ARF17 have increased ARF17 mRNA levels and altered accumulation of auxin-inducible GH3-like mRNAs, YDK1/GH3.2, GH3.3, GH3.5, and DFL1/GH3.6, which encode auxin-conjugating proteins. These expression changes correlate with dramatic developmental defects, including embryo and emerging leaf symmetry anomalies, leaf shape defects, premature inflorescence development, altered phyllotaxy along the stem, reduced petal size, abnormal stamens, sterility, and root growth defects. These defects demonstrate the importance of miR160-directed ARF17 regulation and implicate ARF17 as a regulator of GH3-like early auxin response genes. Many of these defects resemble phenotypes previously observed in plants expressing viral suppressors of RNA silencing and plants with mutations in genes important for miRNA biogenesis or function, providing a molecular rationale for phenotypes previously associated with more general disruptions of miRNA function. INTRODUCTION MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are endogenous 21-nucleotide riboregulators that modulate gene expression in plants and animals (Bartel and Bartel, 2003; Carrington and Ambros, 2003; Bartel, 2004; Mallory and Vaucheret, 2004). In plants, miRNAs are processed from imperfectly complementary stem-loop precursor RNAs (Reinhart et al., 2002), and proper accumulation of some miRNAs depends on the nuclear activity of DICER-LIKE1 (DCL1) as well as HYL1, HEN1, and AGO1 (Park et al., 2002; Reinhart et al., 2002; Boutet et al., 2003; Kasschau et al., 2003; Han et al., 2004; Vaucheret et al., 2004; Vazquez et al., 2004a). In both plants and animals, miRNAs can direct cleavage of target mRNAs and/or inhibition of productive translation, although plant miRNAs appear to act primarily via mRNA cleavage (Lee et al., 1993; Wightman et al., 1993; Olsen and Ambros, 1999; Hutvágner and Zamore, 2002; Llave et al., 2002; Aukerman and Sakai, 2003; Kasschau et al., 2003; Tang et al., 2003; Chen, 2004; Yekta et al., 2004). Studies examining pairing requirements between miR165/166:PHABULOSA and miR171:SCL6 miRNA:target pairs have revealed that mismatches in the miRNA 5′ region disrupt cleavage more effectively than mismatches in the miRNA 3′ region (Mallory et al., 2004b; Parizotto et al., 2004). Many plant and animal miRNAs do not accumulate ubiquitously, but instead are restricted to specific tissue types and developmental stages, suggesting spatial and temporal regulation of miRNA accumulation and, thus, of target expression (Carrington and Ambros, 2003; Ambros, 2004; Bartel, 2004). Many miRNAs isolated from the dicot Arabidopsis thaliana are conserved in the monocot rice (Oryza sativa) and in other plants, implying conserved evolutionary roles for plant miRNAs (Reinhart et al., 2002; Floyd and Bowman, 2004; Jones-Rhoades and Bartel, 2004; Sunkar and Zhu, 2004; Wang et al., 2004a; Axtell and Bartel, 2005). Plant miRNAs often have extensive, evolutionarily conserved complementarity to plant mRNAs (Rhoades et al., 2002; Axtell and Bartel, 2005). This observation has enabled numerous regulatory targets to be confidently predicted (Park et al., 2002; Rhoades et al., 2002; Xie et al., 2003; Jones-Rhoades and Bartel, 2004; Sunkar and Zhu, 2004; Wang et al., 2004b), more than 50 of which have been experimentally validated in plants (Dugas and Bartel, 2004). Plant miRNA complementary sites are usually present as single copies in the open reading frame of the target mRNA, although complementary sites in both 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) have been reported. This trend contrasts with the initially characterized animal miRNA complementary sites, which typically are present as multiple sites in the 3′ UTR of target mRNAs (Bartel, 2004). However, recent studies indicate that targeting of single sites and targeting within open reading frames are widespread for mammalian miRNAs (Lewis et al., 2005; Lim et al., 2005). Many plant miRNA targets encode transcription factors involved in cell fate determination (Rhoades et al., 2002), supporting the idea that miRNAs regulate plant development. In further support of this idea, plants impaired in miRNA accumulation, such as dcl1, ago1, hyl1, and hen1 mutants (Park et al., 2002; Reinhart et al., 2002; Boutet et al., 2003; Kasschau et al., 2003; Han et al., 2004; Vaucheret et al., 2004; Vazquez et al., 2004a), and plants expressing viral suppressors of gene silencing that alter miRNA accumulation (Mallory et al., 2002; Kasschau et al., 2003; Chapman et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2004) display dramatic anomalies during vegetative and floral development. The overexpression of miRNAs and the expression of miRNA-resistant targets in vivo have allowed assignment of developmental roles to miR159/miR319/JAW, miR164, miR165/166, and miR172 miRNA families. These miRNAs regulate rosette leaf expansion and curvature (Palatnik et al., 2003), embryonic, vegetative, and floral organ boundary formation (Laufs et al., 2004; Mallory et al., 2004a), radial patterning (Emery et al., 2003; Juarez et al., 2004; Mallory et al., 2004b; McHale and Koning, 2004; Zhong and Ye, 2004), and floral organ identity and flowering time (Aukerman and Sakai, 2003; Chen, 2004). miR162 and miR168 likely influence development through feedback regulation of miRNA pathway components, DCL1 and AGO1, respectively (Xie et al., 2003; Vaucheret et al., 2004). Particular miRNAs accumulate in response to sulfur starvation (Jones-Rhoades and Bartel, 2004), abiotic stresses (Sunkar and Zhu, 2004), or phytohormones (Achard et al., 2004; Sunkar and Zhu, 2004), suggesting that miRNAs are important not only for development but also for responses to environmental stimuli. The phytohormone auxin influences many aspects of plant development (Rogg and Bartel, 2001; Liscum and Reed, 2002; Swarup et al., 2002; Friml, 2003; Jürgens, 2003), and the identity of several miRNA targets suggests roles for miRNAs in auxin signaling. miR160 is complementary to AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR10 (ARF10), ARF16, and ARF17 (Rhoades et al., 2002), and miR167 is complementary to ARF6 and ARF8 (Rhoades et al., 2002; Bartel and Bartel, 2003). Thus, at least five of the 23 Arabidopsis ARF transcription factors are potentially miRNA regulated. ARFs are a plant-specific family of DNA binding proteins that control auxin-regulated transcription (Guilfoyle et al., 1998). They bind to auxin-responsive promoter elements (AuxREs), which are found in early auxin response genes, including Auxin/Indole-3-Acetic Acid (Aux/IAA), SAUR, and GH3, and can either enhance or repress transcription (Abel and Theologis, 1996; Ulmasov et al., 1999a, 1999b; Hagen and Guilfoyle, 2002). Most ARFs have a conserved N-terminal DNA binding domain (DBD), a nonconserved middle region conferring transcriptional repression or activation, and a conserved C-terminal dimerization domain (CTD) that can mediate ARF homodimerization and heterodimerization with Aux/IAA repressors (Guilfoyle et al., 1998; Ulmasov et al., 1999a, 1999b; Guilfoyle and Hagen, 2001; Liscum and Reed, 2002; Tiwari et al., 2003). Aux/IAA proteins, short-lived nuclear proteins, can heterodimerize with activating ARF proteins, preventing early auxin-response gene expression (Kim et al., 1997; Rouse et al., 1998; Reed, 2001; Dharmasiri and Estelle, 2002; Kepinski and Leyser, 2002; Liscum and Reed, 2002; Tiwari et al., 2004). C-terminal domains of Aux/IAA proteins mediate heterodimerization and are conserved with the CTD of most ARF proteins. Increased auxin levels accelerate proteolysis of Aux/IAA proteins, which would allow ARF proteins to homodimerize and impose their regulatory functions on early auxin-response gene expression. The transcriptional repressors ARF1-ARF4 and ARF9 have Pro-Ser-Thr–rich middle regions, whereas the transcriptional activators ARF5-ARF8 have Gln-Leu-Ser–rich middle regions (Ulmasov et al., 1999b; Tiwari et al., 2003). These observations suggest that ARFs can be classified as activators or repressors based on the amino acid composition of their middle regions. In addition, most tested ARFs require CTD-mediated dimerization to bind stably to AuxREs in vitro (Ulmasov et al., 1997, 1999a); however, ARF1 does not require the CTD to bind AuxREs in vitro (Ulmasov et al., 1997, 1999a), and ARF3 lacks a CTD. ARF10 and ARF16 display typical ARF sequence characteristics: each has a conserved DBD and CTD and a nonconserved middle region. By contrast, ARF17 is unusual because it lacks a conserved CTD, which is present in 21 of 23 Arabidopsis ARF proteins (Ulmasov et al., 1997, 1999a; Hagen and Guilfoyle, 2002). miR160 and target ARFs are conserved in dicots and monocots (Rhoades et al., 2002; Bartel and Bartel, 2003), but the importance of miR160-directed regulation of ARF17, ARF16, and ARF10 has not been explored. These three ARFs comprise a subgroup of Arabidopsis ARF proteins (Remington et al., 2004). arf10 and arf16 loss-of-function mutants do not display obvious developmental anomalies (Okushima et al., 2005), and ARF17 has not been characterized in vivo. Here, we demonstrate that disrupting miR160 regulation of ARF17 increases ARF17 mRNA levels, leads to severe developmental abnormalities, including defects in embryonic, root, vegetative, and floral development, and alters GH3-like gene expression. These results indicate that miR160-directed regulation is critical for the developmental functions of ARF17 and expose ARF17 as a possible transcriptional regulator of GH3-like early auxin-response genes. RESULTS miR160 Regulates ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 Expression We detected fragments of ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 mRNAs from Arabidopsis tissues and mapped the end of each fragment to precisely the nucleotide predicted for miR160-directed cleavage (Figure 1A
35S:ARF17 Plants Overaccumulate ARF17 3′ Cleavage Product To assess the importance of ARF17 transcriptional regulation during development, we expressed an ARF17 genomic clone in wild-type Arabidopsis under the control of the 35S promoter of Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), which drives strong constitutive expression (Cary et al., 2002). Among 23 35S:ARF17 primary transformants, 21 displayed no obvious developmental defects, whereas two displayed a slight reduction in rosette leaf size and overall stature (data not shown). RNA gel blot analysis revealed a threefold to fourfold increase in full-length ARF17 mRNA accumulation in rosette leaves of four out of five 35S:ARF17 primary transformants, including the two smaller plants (35S:ARF17-1 and 35S:ARF17-4) (Figure 1C Plants Expressing miR160-Resistant ARF17 Have Dramatic Developmental Defects The above results suggested that posttranscriptional regulation limits ARF17 mRNA accumulation. To examine the importance of miR160 in this regulation, we constructed a miR160-resistant version of ARF17. This construct, designated 5mARF17, had five silent mutations within the miR160-complementary domain of an ARF17 genomic clone, thereby increasing the number of mismatches between miR160 and the ARF17 mRNA from one in wild type to six without altering the amino acid sequence of the encoded ARF17 protein (Figure 2A
To determine whether miR160-directed cleavage of 5mARF17 RNA was reduced, we used an in vitro assay that relies on miRNA-programmed silencing complexes endogenously present in wheat germ extract (Tang et al., 2003), which can direct cleavage of wild-type ARF17 RNA (G. Tang, M. Jones-Rhoades, D.P. Bartel, and P. Zamore, unpublished data), consistent with the presence of a miR160 locus in wheat (Triticum aestivum) (Jones-Rhoades and Bartel, 2004) and the cloning of miR160 from wheat germ extract (R. Rajagopalan and D.P. Bartel, unpublished data). For wild-type ARF17 RNA, but not for 5mARF17 RNA, a product of the size expected for miR160-directed cleavage was detected, demonstrating that 5mARF17 mismatches interfered with miR160-directed ARF17 cleavage (Figure 2B To assess the in vivo consequences of disrupting miR160 regulation, we transformed wild-type Arabidopsis plants with 5mARF17 and control ARF17 genomic constructs under the control of the native ARF17 5′ and 3′ regulatory sequences. To preserve endogenous ARF17 transcriptional regulation, we included 1.9 kb of 5′ flanking sequence, which extends ~120 bp into the annotated 3′ UTR of the upstream gene At1g77840 (~60 bp downstream of the At1g77840 stop codon), and 1.7 kb of 3′ flanking sequence, which stops 170 bp upstream of the stop codon of the downstream, reverse-oriented gene At1g77855 (Figure 2A None of the 101 control ARF17 primary transformants displayed obvious or consistent developmental anomalies (Figures 3
5mARF17 progeny plants displayed presumed embryonic defects, including symmetry anomalies in which the normally bilateral symmetry of germinating seedlings was instead trilateral or quadrilateral, resulting in one or two extra cotyledons (Figures 3A to 3C To observe the effects of disrupting both transcriptional and miR160 regulation of ARF17, we transformed wild-type plants with the 5mARF17 construct under the control of the CaMV 35S promoter (35S:5mARF17). Like the 5mARF17 primary transformants, nine out of 19 35S:5mARF17 primary transformants displayed embryonic (data not shown), rosette leaf (Figure 3J 5mARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 Plants Overaccumulate ARF17 mRNA RNA gel blot analysis revealed that 12- and 16-d-old 5mARF17 seedlings displaying cotyledon phenotypes (Figures 5A and 5C
The increased ARF17 mRNA levels in 5mARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 plants correlated with the severity of the rosette leaf phenotype (Figures 1C Because developmental defects consistent with those observed in 5mARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 plants were not observed in 101 control ARF17 primary transformants or numerous progeny of these plants or 23 35S:ARF17 primary transformants, we conclude that the developmental phenotypes and increased ARF17 mRNA accumulation in 5mARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 plants resulted from disrupting miR160-directed ARF17 regulation, rather than from expressing an extra copy of ARF17. Together, these results show that miR160 is crucial for the posttranscriptional regulation of ARF17 expression and that this regulation is necessary for the proper growth and development of many Arabidopsis organs. 5mARF17 Plants Respond to Auxin Treatment 5mARF17 plants have fewer lateral roots and shorter hypocotyls than control plants (Figure 4M
IAA Treatment Does Not Appreciably Alter miR160, miR164, and miR167 Accumulation in Seedlings In addition to miR160 and miR167, which regulate ARF genes (Figure 1 miR160-Directed ARF17 Regulation Is Necessary for Proper Expression of Certain GH3-Like Early Auxin Response Genes Although no molecular connections between ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 and auxin responses have been reported, these ARFs all have Pro-Ser-Thr–rich middle regions (see Supplemental Figure 1 online), suggesting that they may repress transcription of early auxin-response genes. To identify molecular changes in 5mARF17 plants, we monitored mRNA accumulation profiles of five GH3-like transcripts and three Aux/IAA transcripts in seedlings and rosette leaves. In 16-d-old seedlings, we found levels of GH3.3 increased approximately fourfold in 5mARF17 seedlings compared with wild-type or control ARF17 seedlings (Figure 7A
YDK1/GH3.2, GH3.3, GH3.5, and DFL1/GH3.6 are group II GH3-like proteins that conjugate IAA to amino acids in vitro (Staswick et al., 2005) and therefore are predicted to decrease active IAA levels in the cell. To determine if responsiveness to endogenous auxin is changed in 5mARF17 plants, we expressed control ARF17 and 5mARF17 in the widely used DR5-GUS reporter line (Guilfoyle, 1999). The DR5-GUS line expresses β-glucuronidase (GUS) under the control of a minimal CaMV 35S promoter fused to multiple copies of the TGTCTC AuxRE, first defined in the auxin responsive promoter of the soybean (Glycine max) GH3 gene. Rosette leaves of control DR5-GUS plants transformed with control ARF17 accumulated similar levels of GUS mRNA as those of the parental line (Figure 8C DISCUSSION Here, we describe in vivo roles of miR160-directed ARF17 posttranscriptional regulation. Plants expressing a miRNA-resistant version of ARF17 (5mARF17) display increased ARF17 mRNA accumulation and exhibit dramatic developmental defects. These phenotypes correlate with reduced accumulation of GH3.5 and DFL1/GH3.6, two closely related mRNAs (Staswick et al., 2002), and increased accumulation of YDK1/GH3.2 and GH3.3, two other closely related mRNAs (Staswick et al., 2002), as well as DR5-GUS. These results indicate that miR160-directed regulation of ARF17 is critical for proper development, establish a molecular link between ARF17 and the auxin response pathway, and add another posttranscriptional regulatory dimension to ARF-mediated regulation. The Developmental Abnormalities of 5mARF17 Plants Overlap with Those of Plants Impaired in miRNA Functioning In Arabidopsis, mutations in DCL1, AGO1, HYL1, and HEN1 impair the miRNA pathway and lead to developmental defects that overlap with those exhibited by 5mARF17 plants. In particular, hypomorphic ago1 rosette leaves are serrated and ago1, hyl1, and hen1 null mutants exhibit upwardly curled rosette leaves and a dwarfed stature. Indeed, miR160 accumulation is reduced and ARF17 mRNA accumulation is increased in dcl1, ago1, hyl1, and hen1 mutants (Kasschau et al., 2003; Vaucheret et al., 2004; Vazquez et al., 2004a), consistent with the possibility that reduced miR160-directed ARF17 regulation contributes to the developmental abnormalities of these mutants. Viral proteins can interfere with the miRNA pathway and affect development when expressed in plants (Mallory et al., 2002; Kasschau et al., 2003; Chapman et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2004). For example, Arabidopsis plants expressing viral proteins P1/HC-Pro, p19, p15, and p21 display reduced miRNA-directed mRNA cleavage and developmental abnormalities (Kasschau et al., 2003; Chapman et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2004), whereas plants expressing viral proteins 2b, p38, and p25 are not impaired in miRNA-directed target mRNA cleavage and lack dramatic developmental defects (Chapman et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2004). The small, serrated rosette leaf phenotypes of P1/HC-Pro, p19, p15, and p21 expressing plants (Kasschau et al., 2003; Chapman et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2004) are strikingly similar to those of 5mARF17 plants (Figures 3E to 3I ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 Are Similar to Repressing ARFs ARF proteins can either activate or repress transcription, depending on the nature of the middle domain (Ulmasov et al., 1999b). ARF5, ARF6, ARF7, ARF8, and ARF19 are activating ARFs with Gln-Leu-Ser–rich middle regions, whereas ARF1, ARF2, ARF3, ARF4, and ARF9 are repressing ARFs with Pro-Ser-Thr–rich middle regions (Ulmasov et al., 1999b; Tiwari et al., 2003). ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 and their four rice homologs have Pro-Ser-Thr–rich middle regions (see Supplemental Figure 1 online), suggesting that they might be repressors. However, the five known repressing ARFs are more closely related to the activating ARFs than either group is to ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 (Remington et al., 2004), so ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 may define a specialized ARF class. arf10 and arf16 loss-of-function mutants do not display obvious developmental anomalies (Okushima et al., 2005). In an attempt to identify a loss-of-function arf17 mutant, we searched the Salk Institute Genomic Analysis Laboratory collection (Alonso et al., 2003) for plants with disruptions in ARF17. No mutants were found with insertions in the open reading frame of ARF17, but one mutant, SALK_062511, had a T-DNA inserted ~210 bp upstream of the ARF17 start codon. Plants homozygous for this insertion did not display obvious developmental defects (data not shown); however, RT-PCR revealed that these plants still accumulated ARF17 mRNA (data not shown), indicating that this mutant was not a null allele. As has been demonstrated for other members of the ARF family (Okushima et al., 2005), functional redundancy among ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 may preclude informative analyses of single arf mutants in this class. ARF17 Regulates GH3-Like Expression There are 20 Arabidopsis GH3 homologs, which fall into three clades. Group II GH3 proteins, including YDK1/GH3.2, GH3.3, GH3.5, and DFL1/GH3.6, conjugate IAA to amino acids in vitro (Staswick et al., 2005). Regulating IAA conjugation is important for maintaining endogenous IAA levels (Ljung et al., 2002); these GH3 proteins likely play an important role in auxin responsiveness by reducing active auxin levels and thus negatively regulating auxin signaling. We observed decreased GH3.5 and DFL1/GH3.6 mRNA levels in 5mARF17 rosette leaves (Figures 8B Gain-of-Function ydk1-D Mutants Mimic 5mARF17 Hypocotyl and Root Phenotypes YDK1/GH3.2 mRNA is increased in 5mARF17 rosette leaves (Figure 8A Gain-of-function dfl1-D plants are resistant to exogenous auxin and exhibit reduced lateral root number and hypocotyl length and a dwarf stature. Antisense DFL1 plants have increased lateral roots (Nakazawa et al., 2001), whereas 5mARF17 plants, which show reduced DFL1/GH3.6 mRNA accumulation in rosette leaves (Figure 8B The expression of GH3.5, DFL1, YDK1, and GH3.3 is altered in 5mARF17 rosette leaves (Figures 8A and 8B miR160 and miR167 May Coordinately Modulate GH3-Like Expression ARF8 appears to negatively regulate free IAA levels by controlling GH3-like gene expression (Tian et al., 2004). Levels of three GH3 mRNAs, GH3.5, DFL1/GH3.6, and GH3.17, are reduced in arf8 loss-of-function mutants and increased in ARF8 overexpressing plants (Tian et al., 2004), suggesting that ARF8 activates GH3-like expression. We found that miR160-directed regulation of ARF17 is also important for proper GH3-like expression (Figures 7 Intriguingly, ARF8 is regulated by miR167 (Rhoades et al., 2002; Kasschau et al., 2003), a miRNA unrelated in sequence to miR160. The miR167 complementary sites of ARF6 and ARF8 are in the conserved CTD (Rhoades et al., 2002; Bartel and Bartel, 2003), whereas the miR160 complementary sites in the ARF10, ARF16, and ARF17 mRNAs (Rhoades et al., 2002) comprise the major block of conservation within the middle regions of these ARFs (see Supplemental Figure 1 online). These differences suggest independent evolutionary origins of two ARF-miRNA regulatory pairings. Although a role for miR167-directed ARF8 regulation in GH3-like expression remains to be examined, it is possible that miR160 and miR167 coordinately modulate GH3-like mRNA expression by regulating expression of repressing and activating ARF proteins encoded by ARF17 and ARF8, thus contributing to the intricate interplay between auxin levels and auxin responses. miRNAs and Auxin Signaling In addition to ARF regulation by miR160 and miR167 (Rhoades et al., 2002; Kasschau et al., 2003), miR164 and miR393 also target genes implicated in auxin signaling. miR393 targets mRNAs encoding TIR1 and its three most closely related F-box proteins (Jones-Rhoades and Bartel, 2004; Sunkar and Zhu, 2004). TIR1 is the specificity component of an SCF E3 ubiquitin ligase that targets Aux/IAA proteins for ubiquitin-dependent degradation in response to auxin (Gray et al., 1999, 2001). In addition to targeting CUC1 and CUC2 mRNAs (Rhoades et al., 2002; Kasschau et al., 2003; Laufs et al., 2004; Mallory et al., 2004a), which establish organ boundaries in embryos and flowers (Aida et al., 1997), miR164 targets NAC1 (Rhoades et al., 2002; Mallory et al., 2004a), a putative transcription factor that promotes lateral root development downstream of TIR1 (Xie et al., 2000, 2002). Furthermore, ARF3 and ARF4 mRNAs overaccumulate in zip, sgs3, and rdr6 mutants (Peragine et al., 2004); sgs3 and rdr6 are impaired in the accumulation of trans-acting short interfering RNAs, endogenous small RNAs that, like miRNAs, appear to regulate gene expression by directing mRNA cleavage (Peragine et al., 2004; Vazquez et al., 2004b). The propensity for unrelated miRNAs and possibly trans-acting short interfering RNAs to regulate genes involved in auxin signaling suggests that the severe developmental consequences observed when disrupting miRNA-mediated regulation of ARF17 will be one of numerous examples in which endogenous silencing RNAs are shown to be key players modulating auxin responses during development. METHODS DNA Constructs, Transgenic Plants, Agrobacterium tumefaciens–Mediated Transient Expression, and in Vitro Cleavage Assay The genomic sequence of ARF17 (At1g77850), including ~1.9 and ~1.7 kb of putative 5′ and 3′ regulatory sequences, respectively, was cloned as an ~6.6-kb EcoRI-SpeI fragment into pBluescript II SK+ (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) from the BAC F28K19. Site-directed mutagenesis using primers ARF17 mutagenesis forward and reverse (Table 1) was performed using PfuUltra polymerase followed by DpnI digestion, as suggested by the manufacturer (Stratagene), to produce the 5mARF17 sequence. After mutagenesis, an ~1.9-kb SgrAI-SexAI fragment spanning the mutagenized ARF17 miR160 complementary site was subcloned and used to replace the corresponding wild-type sequence of the original ARF17 genomic clone. This 1.9-kb fragment was sequenced to ensure that only the desired silent mutations were present. The control ARF17 and the 5mARF17 ~6.6-kb EcoRI-SpeI fragments were subcloned into binary vectors pGreenII0129 (hygromycin resistance) and pGreenII0229 (bialaphos resistance) and then electroporated into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101:pMP90 (Koncz and Schell, 1986).
To generate 35S:ARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 constructs, 3.3 kb EcoR1-BamH1 fragments of each of the 6.6 kb control ARF17 and 5mARF17 pBluescript clones described above were subcloned into pLBR19 downstream from the duplicated enhancer of CaMV 35S RNA promoter (P70) (Meyermans et al., 2000). 35S:ARF17 and 35S:5mARF17 KpnI-EcoRI fragments were then subcloned into the binary vector pBINPLUS (kanamycin resistance) (van Engelen et al., 1995) and electroporated into Agrobacterium GV3101:pMP90. Arabidopsis thaliana (Col-0 accession) and DR5-GUS Arabidopsis in the Col-0 accession (Guilfoyle, 1999) were transformed using the floral dip method (Clough and Bent, 1998). Collected seeds were surface sterilized and plated on Bouturage 2 medium (Duchefa Biochemie, Haarlem, The Netherlands) containing 30 μg/mL hygromycin or 50 μg/mL kanamycin for selecting Col-0 transformants or 10 μg/mL Glufosinate-ammonium PESTANAL (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) for selecting DR5-GUS Col-0 transformants. Seedlings were grown in long days (16 h light, 8 h dark) at 20°C for ~14 d before transfer to Metromix 200 soil (Scotts, Maysville, OH), where they were grown at 20°C in either long or short (8 h light, 16 h dark) days. For genotyping, genomic DNA from ARF17 and 5mARF17 plants was extracted and amplified with primers ARF17 screen and pGII far SacI (Table 1). Agrobacterium infiltration of Nicotiana benthamiana leaves was performed as described (Llave et al., 2000). Bacteria were coinjected each at a final OD600 = 0.50, and the zones of infiltration were harvested 64 h after infiltration for total RNA isolation (Mallory et al., 2001). Expression of 35S:GUS was monitored as an infiltration control. Arabidopsis ARF17 transcripts containing the miR160 complementary site were generated by PCR amplification of ARF17 or 5mARF17 genomic clones followed by in vitro transcription using T7 RNA polymerase. Primers ARF17 wheat germ forward and reverse (Table 1) were used to generate ARF17 and 5mARF17 templates. Wheat germ lysate preparation, cap labeling, and in vitro cleavage assays were performed as described (Tang et al., 2003). RNA Isolation, RNA Gel Blot Analysis, and 5′ RACE Analysis Total RNA was isolated (Mallory et al., 2001) and miRNA gel blot analysis was conducted (Reinhart et al., 2002) as previously described. For mRNA gel blot analysis, RNA was separated on 1.2% agarose gels containing 0.8% formaldehyde and transferred to nylon membranes by capillary action. Blots were hybridized with α-UTP 32P-labeled RNA probes at 68°C in ULTRAhyb buffer as recommended by the manufacturer (Ambion, Austin, TX). Using the ARF17 genomic clone (3′ ARF17 probe), pBI101 vector (GUS probe), Col-0 cDNA (At2g23170 probe), or Col-0 genomic DNA as template, 32P-UTP RNA probes were generated by PCR with primers listed in Table 1 followed by T7-mediated in vitro transcription. mRNA gel blots were rehybridized with an end-labeled ACTIN2 DNA probe. Hybridization signals were quantified using a Fuji phosphor imager (Tokyo, Japan) and normalized to ACTIN2 or 25S rRNA for mRNA gel blot analyses or to U6 for miRNA gel blot analyses. Poly(A)+ RNA isolation, cDNA synthesis, non-gene-specific 5′ RACE amplifications and gene-specific 5′ RACE amplifications (primers listed in Table 1) were performed as described (Mallory et al., 2004a). RT-PCR, ApaLI Digestion, and DNA Gel Blot Analysis Five micrograms of total RNA prepared from rosette leaves of 30-d-old plants as described (Mallory et al., 2001) was used for (dT)20-primed first-strand cDNA synthesis followed by RNase H digestion as recommended by the manufacturer (ThermoScript RT system; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). PCR amplification using 50 ng of cDNA as template was performed to completion using ARF17-RT forward and reverse primers (Table 1). To equalize the possibility of heteroduplex formation in the 5mARF17 samples, the final PCR products were denatured and renatured. ApaLI digestion of the ~330-bp 5mARF17 PCR product yielded ~250- and ~80-bp fragments. To monitor ApaLI digestion efficiency, parallel reactions were spiked with a 2.2-kb DNA fragment containing an ApaLI restriction site, which produced ~1.75- and ~0.45-bp fragments after digestion. This control DNA was cleaved to completion, indicating that the undigested fragments in the 5mARF17 RT-PCR lacked the ApaLI site and derived from the endogenous ARF17 gene. DNA gel blot analysis was performed as described (Mallory et al., 2001). Briefly, undigested and ApaLI-digested PCR amplicons were separated on a 2% agarose gel, blotted to a nylon membrane, and hybridized with 32P end-labeled ARF17-RT forward primer (Table 1), which detects both undigested ARF17 and 5mARF17 330-bp PCR products and the 250-bp ApaLI digestion fragment of the 5mARF17 PCR product. Hybridization signals were quantified using a Fuji phosphor imager. Phenotypic Analyses Plant tissues were fixed and imaged for scanning electron microscopy as described (Mallory et al., 2004a). For histochemical staining, seedlings were submerged in a solution of 50 mM NaPO4, pH 7.0, 0.5 mM K3Fe(CN)6, 0.5 mM K4Fe(CN)6, 10 mM EDTA, and 0.5 mg/mL 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-d-glucuronide cyclohexylammonium salt (Gold Biotechnology, St. Louis, MO), vacuum infiltrated, and incubated 14 to 16 h at 37°C. To remove chlorophyll before photography, seedlings were rinsed repeatedly with 90% ethanol. For seedling growth analyses, plants were grown at 20°C in long days on Bouturage 2 medium unless otherwise noted. T3 plants were grown under yellow long-pass filters (Stasinopoulos and Hangarter, 1990) to minimize IAA breakdown on horizontal plates for 7 d, after which primary root and hypocotyl lengths were measured and lateral roots were counted. To monitor IAA-responsive transcripts, Col-0 seedlings were grown on plates for 7 d and then transferred to liquid Bouturage cultures supplemented with 0 or 10 μM IAA. Cultures were grown at 20°C with constant light and shaking (100 rpm) for the specified time, after which seedlings were collected and flash frozen with liquid nitrogen for RNA extraction. [Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank M. Jones-Rhoades, G. Tang, and P. Zamore for wheat germ extracts, P. Mullineaux and R. Hellens (John Innes Centre and the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, Norwich, UK) for the pGreenII0129 and pGreenII0229 binary vectors, T. Guilfoyle for DR5-GUS transgenic seeds, H. Vaucheret, M. Jones-Rhoades, and D. Dugas for critical comments on the manuscript, the W.M. Keck Foundation Biological Imaging Facility (Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA) for scanning electron microscope use, and T. DiCesare for graphics assistance with the cover image. The Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center at The Ohio State University (Columbus, OH) supplied the F28K19 clone and SALK 062511 seeds. This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (F32-GM071200, A.C.M.; R24-GM069512, B.B. and D.P.B.), the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation (B.B.), and the Robert A. Welch Foundation (C-1309, B.B.). Notes The authors 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.plantcell.org) are: David P. Bartel (dbartel/at/wi.mit.edu) and Bonnie Bartel (bartel/at/rice.edu). Online version contains Web-only data.Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at www.plantcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1105/tpc.105.031716. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Plant Physiol. 2003 Jun; 132(2):709-17.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Science. 2003 Jul 18; 301(5631):336-8.
[Science. 2003]Cell. 2004 Jan 23; 116(2):281-97.
[Cell. 2004]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004 Apr; 7(2):120-5.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004]Genes Dev. 2002 Jul 1; 16(13):1616-26.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Genes Dev. 2002 Jul 1; 16(13):1616-26.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Nature. 2004 Apr 1; 428(6982):485-6.
[Nature. 2004]Mol Cell. 2004 Jun 18; 14(6):787-99.
[Mol Cell. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Aug; 16(8):2001-19.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(5):1688-95.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2004]Cell. 2004 Jan 23; 116(2):281-97.
[Cell. 2004]Cell. 2005 Jan 14; 120(1):15-20.
[Cell. 2005]Nature. 2005 Feb 17; 433(7027):769-73.
[Nature. 2005]Cell. 2002 Aug 23; 110(4):513-20.
[Cell. 2002]Curr Biol. 2002 Sep 3; 12(17):1484-95.
[Curr Biol. 2002]Genes Dev. 2002 Jul 1; 16(13):1616-26.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Curr Biol. 2003 May 13; 13(10):843-8.
[Curr Biol. 2003]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Nature. 2003 Sep 18; 425(6955):257-63.
[Nature. 2003]Development. 2004 Sep; 131(17):4311-22.
[Development. 2004]Curr Biol. 2004 Jun 22; 14(12):1035-46.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Curr Biol. 2003 Oct 14; 13(20):1768-74.
[Curr Biol. 2003]Nature. 2004 Mar 4; 428(6978):84-8.
[Nature. 2004]Dev Cell. 2001 Nov; 1(5):595-604.
[Dev Cell. 2001]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul; 49(3-4):387-400.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul; 49(3-4):411-26.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2003 Feb; 6(1):7-12.
[Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2003]Mech Dev. 2003 Nov; 120(11):1395-406.
[Mech Dev. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Oct 28; 94(22):11786-91.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997]Science. 1998 Feb 27; 279(5355):1371-3.
[Science. 1998]Trends Plant Sci. 2001 Sep; 6(9):420-5.
[Trends Plant Sci. 2001]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul; 49(3-4):401-9.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Plant Cell. 2002; 14 Suppl():S81-95.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 11; 96(10):5844-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Plant Cell. 2003 Feb; 15(2):533-43.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Science. 1997 Jun 20; 276(5320):1865-8.
[Science. 1997]Plant J. 1999 Aug; 19(3):309-19.
[Plant J. 1999]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul; 49(3-4):373-85.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Cell. 2002 Aug 23; 110(4):513-20.
[Cell. 2002]Plant Physiol. 2003 Jun; 132(2):709-17.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2004 Jul; 135(3):1738-52.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Feb; 17(2):444-63.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Science. 2002 Sep 20; 297(5589):2053-6.
[Science. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Plant J. 2002 Dec; 32(6):867-77.
[Plant J. 2002]Genes Dev. 2003 Jan 1; 17(1):49-63.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Mol Cell. 2004 Jun 18; 14(6):787-99.
[Mol Cell. 2004]Plant J. 1995 Feb; 7(2):211-20.
[Plant J. 1995]Plant Cell. 2003 Dec; 15(12):2979-91.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Cell. 2002 Aug 23; 110(4):513-20.
[Cell. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Development. 2004 Sep; 131(17):4311-22.
[Development. 2004]Curr Biol. 2004 Jun 22; 14(12):1035-46.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Genes Dev. 2000 Dec 1; 14(23):3024-36.
[Genes Dev. 2000]Plant Cell. 2005 Feb; 17(2):616-27.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1405-15.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Genes Dev. 2004 May 15; 18(10):1187-97.
[Genes Dev. 2004]Curr Biol. 2004 Feb 17; 14(4):346-51.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 12; 99(23):15228-33.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Genes Dev. 2004 May 15; 18(10):1179-86.
[Genes Dev. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 May; 16(5):1235-50.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 11; 96(10):5844-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Plant Cell. 2003 Feb; 15(2):533-43.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2004 Jul; 135(3):1738-52.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Feb; 17(2):444-63.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Science. 2003 Aug 1; 301(5633):653-7.
[Science. 2003]Plant Cell. 2005 Feb; 17(2):616-27.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul; 49(3-4):249-72.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Plant J. 2004 Feb; 37(4):471-83.
[Plant J. 2004]Plant J. 2001 Jan; 25(2):213-21.
[Plant J. 2001]Plant J. 2004 Nov; 40(3):333-43.
[Plant J. 2004]Cell. 2002 Aug 23; 110(4):513-20.
[Cell. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2003 Jun; 132(2):709-17.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Cell. 2002 Aug 23; 110(4):513-20.
[Cell. 2002]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):205-17.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Mol Cell. 2004 Jun 18; 14(6):787-99.
[Mol Cell. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Aug; 16(8):2001-19.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Genes Dev. 1999 Jul 1; 13(13):1678-91.
[Genes Dev. 1999]J Biol Chem. 2000 Nov 24; 275(47):36899-909.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]Transgenic Res. 1995 Jul; 4(4):288-90.
[Transgenic Res. 1995]Plant J. 1998 Dec; 16(6):735-43.
[Plant J. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Nov 21; 97(24):13401-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Plant Cell. 2001 Mar; 13(3):571-83.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Genes Dev. 2003 Jan 1; 17(1):49-63.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Plant Cell. 2001 Mar; 13(3):571-83.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Genes Dev. 2002 Jul 1; 16(13):1616-26.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Curr Biol. 2004 Jun 22; 14(12):1035-46.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2001 Mar; 13(3):571-83.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Curr Biol. 2004 Jun 22; 14(12):1035-46.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Plant Physiol. 1990 Aug; 93(4):1365-1369.
[Plant Physiol. 1990]Science. 2002 Sep 20; 297(5589):2053-6.
[Science. 2002]