![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright : © 2008 Dilkes et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The Maternally Expressed WRKY Transcription Factor TTG2 Controls Lethality in Interploidy Crosses of Arabidopsis 1 Section of Plant Biology and Genome Center, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America 2 Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America 3 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom Detlef Weigel, Academic Editor Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lcomai/at/ucdavis.edu Received August 20, 2008; Accepted October 29, 2008. Abstract The molecular mechanisms underlying lethality of F1 hybrids between diverged parents are one target of speciation research. Crosses between diploid and tetraploid individuals of the same genotype can result in F1 lethality, and this dosage-sensitive incompatibility plays a role in polyploid speciation. We have identified variation in F1 lethality in interploidy crosses of Arabidopsis thaliana and determined the genetic architecture of the maternally expressed variation via QTL mapping. A single large-effect QTL, DR. STRANGELOVE 1 (DSL1), was identified as well as two QTL with epistatic relationships to DSL1. DSL1 affects the rate of postzygotic lethality via expression in the maternal sporophyte. Fine mapping placed DSL1 in an interval encoding the maternal effect transcription factor TTG2. Maternal parents carrying loss-of-function mutations in TTG2 suppressed the F1 lethality caused by paternal excess interploidy crosses. The frequency of cellularization in the endosperm was similarly affected by both natural variation and ttg2 loss-of-function mutants. The simple genetic basis of the natural variation and effects of single-gene mutations suggests that F1 lethality in polyploids could evolve rapidly. Furthermore, the role of the sporophytically active TTG2 gene in interploidy crosses indicates that the developmental programming of the mother regulates the viability of interploidy hybrid offspring. Author Summary Many flowering plants tolerate changes in the number of genome copies (ploidy), but offspring of parents with different ploidies often fail to develop. We investigated this phenomenon in Arabidopsis thaliana and discovered variation in the ability to survive interploidy matings. Two common strains (known as accessions), Ler and Col, are respectively permissive and intolerant when diploid females are mated to tetraploid males of Col. We mapped the genes responsible for this response and identified a major locus, which we call DR. STRANGELOVE1, on chromosome 2, and after finer mapping, defined the locus TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA2 (TTG2) as the candidate gene. TTG2 regulates the fate of interploidy crosses, and knock-outs of TTG2 improved the outcome of interploidy matings in both Ler and Col. Furthermore, the two accessions differed in genotype and in expression of this gene. TTG2 is an epidermal regulator whose activity affects seed endosperm development. Importantly, TTG2 acts within tissue of the seed-plant, indicating that a transgenerational interaction is responsible for controlling the outcome of interploidy mating. Introduction Postzygotic lethality of the hybrid offspring from crosses between divergent parents functions as a barrier that drives or reinforces speciation [1–16]. The molecular mechanisms underlying this response, however, are not understood. In plants, an example of F1 lethality occurs when progeny from crosses between newly formed polyploid individuals and their diploid progenitors fail during seed development. This lethality arises in the absence of any allelic diversity due to the difference in the dosage of genomes provided by the parents. The strength of this reproductive isolation can vary within species and between individuals of the same species, and has long been known to contribute to speciation. Yet, we understand neither the genetic basis of this barrier nor the source of variation within and between species Fertilizations between haploid and diploid gametes can occur in diploid species due to meiotic errors that produce unreduced (2n) gametes. In humans, for example, triploidy is associated with spontaneous miscarriage, causing postzygotic lethality in approximately 2% of all conceptions between parents of apparently normal karyotypes [17]. In diploid plants, the frequency of unreduced gametes can approach a few percent depending on the species, genotype, and environmental conditions [18–20]. Triploids from the union of normal and unreduced gametes can form tetraploid plants. Yet, the rates of new tetraploid formation are often orders of magnitude lower than unreduced gamete formation [9,21]. Still, the frequency of polyploid formation is greater than typical base substitution rates, such as estimated for Arabidopsis at approximately 1/108 [22]. Postzygotic lethality in interploidy crosses is hypothesized to play an important role in polyploid speciation by genetically isolating populations of divergent ploidy [1–16]. Polyploid speciation is very common in the flowering plants, in which it is phylogenetically coincident with 4%–10% of all plant speciation events [21]. In addition to recent polyploid speciation events, whole-genome duplication from ancient polyploidy events is a feature detected in many plant, vertebrate, fungal, and protist genomes [23–39]. Thus, the establishment of polyploid lineages and polyploid speciation has played a role in the evolution of all multicellular eukaryotic lineages. Complete reproductive isolation is not always achieved following a shift in ploidy, and the penetrance of the interploidy hybridization barrier varies within and between species [9,40,41]. In species without strong postzygotic lethality in interploidy crosses, polyploid derivatives can be formed via the fusion of a single unreduced gamete with a normal haploid gamete. When the resulting triploids are fertile, they can give rise to tetraploid and diploid offspring via the so-called triploid bridge [9]. In some plants, including Arabidopsis thaliana [42], very little postzygotic lethality has been observed in crosses between individuals of divergent ploidy, and the generation of tetraploids via a triploid bridge has been demonstrated [5,9,43,44]. Although this may increase the rate of polyploid formation, the recurrent formation of fertile triploids from interploidy crosses between tetraploid and diploid populations would permit the sharing of alleles between the two cytotypes and hinder polyploid speciation. Work with karyotypic variants and interspecies hybrids by Nishiyama and Yabuno [45], Johnston et al. [16], and Lin [46] demonstrated that the contributions of the pollen and seed parents are unequal and that a balance between these contributions is required for normal sexual reproduction in plants. In interploidy hybrids, doubling the genome of only one parent upsets this balance and can result in seed lethality. Remarkably, species vary in the combining valence of their genomes such that some interspecies crosses are more successful when individuals of divergent ploidy are crossed. The term endosperm balance number (EBN) was proposed to describe the pattern of dosage-dependent incompatibility intrinsic to each species or accession [16]. Such phenomena are not limited to angiosperms. Vertebrate interspecies hybridizations, such as crosses within the genus Hyla [47], display increased fertility when the maternal parent is in genomic excess. The interploidy barrier is also affected by the direction of the cross, with maternal excess crosses, e.g., 4x × 2x, typically resulting in less postzygotic lethality than paternal excess (2x × 4x) crosses [9]. A similar effect is typically seen for postzygotic F1 lethality in plant species barriers, including the lethality found in crosses between A. thaliana and A. arenosa, in which increasing the relative maternal dosage increases seed survival [48,49]. The similarity of progeny phenotypes from interploidy and interspecies crosses, and the shared sensitivity to changes in genome dosage, has led a number of authors to hypothesize that both forms of F1 lethality could be controlled by the same mechanisms [16,49–52]. One expectation has been that variation in imprinted genes, in which expression in the offspring depends on the parental origin of the chromosome, is responsible for the postzygotic lethality observed in interploidy crosses [46,52–57]. As both interploidy and interspecies hybridization barriers are affected by genome dosage, multiple dosage-sensitive genetic mechanisms, inclusive of imprinting, have been proposed [16,45,51,52,56,58]. The differential dosage hypothesis [51] attempts to unify these various proposals by postulating that any differential parental contribution of a dosage-dependent regulator of viability can affect the triploid block. Such differential contributions could derive from gene expression in the maternal sporophyte, gametophytes (embryo sac or pollen), or endosperm, or from parentally skewed expression in embryo tissue. There is, as of yet, no practical verification of these possibilities as contributors to postzygotic isolation. Nevertheless, genes exhibit parent-dependent effects on seed development by mechanisms other than imprinting. For instance, altering the genotype of the female gametophyte can result in growth and differentiation of the seed coat in the absence of fertilization [59–65]. Genes expressed in the seed coat, such as the TRANSPARENT TESTA GLABRA2 (TTG2) transcription factor, control seed development and coordinate the growth of the offspring and the integuments, a maternal organ in the Arabidopsis seed [66]. Ultimately, the molecular identification of genes that affect the triploid block will ascertain whether multiple seed compartments and generations can affect interploidy seed lethality. Results Arabidopsis Ecotypes Vary in Paternal Excess Tolerance To study the mechanism of interploidy seed failure, we investigated the effect of crosses generating paternal excess in different ecotypes of the model plant A. thaliana. Crosses between diploid (2x) seed parents and tetraploid (4x) Ler pollen parents within the Ler or C24 ecotypes produced mainly plump seed (Figure 1
The frequency of seed failure was influenced both by the seed parent and the pollen parent. For each of the three ecotypes used as seed parents, crosses were made to Ler and Col tetraploids. Crosses to 4x Col produced more failed seeds, regardless of the maternal genotype (Figure 1 Identification of QTL Responsible for Overcoming Paternal Excess To map the loci responsible for the differences between the two ecotypes at higher resolution, recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from Ler and Col [68] were crossed to 4x Col pollen parents. The rates of seed failure varied among the RIL and differed substantially from the Ler and Col parents (Figure S1). QTL detection and localization by composite interval mapping [69] identified a major locus affecting seed survival in 2x × 4x crosses on chromosome 2 (Figure 2
The large effect of DSL1 was confirmed using crosses with chromosome substitution strains (CSS), in which single Ler chromosomes were introgressed into the Col background [71]. CSS lines were crossed to 4x Col, and the percentage of plump to shriveled progeny were compared to those from 2x × 4x Col crosses (Figure S2). The line CSS2, which is homozygous for Ler chromosome 2, including the DSL1 locus, displayed a 38% increase in crossing success relative to the 2x × 4x Col controls. No other Ler chromosome substitutions significantly improved crossing success. Chromosome 2 was further investigated using stepped aligned inbred recombinant strains (STAIRS), which are homozygous for a single chromosomal segment of Ler in an otherwise Col background [71]. Seeds from crosses between STAIRS carrying different segments of Ler chromosome 2 and 4x Col pollen parents were assayed for viability using germination tests. Germination frequencies of seeds from the STAIRS used as seed parents and from Col controls were determined (Table S2). Using this method, upper and lower boundaries for the position of DSL1 were established at nga1126 and nga168, which overlaps with the confidence interval for the QTL determined using the RIL population. Thus, we were able to confirm both the large effect and the position of DSL1. To further refine the estimate of the DSL1 position and investigate the mode of inheritance for DSL1, the frequency of shriveled seed in the progeny of backcross (BC) generations was determined in crosses to 4x Col. Two BC1 (F1 × parental line) populations were generated by backcrossing a Col × Ler F1 to both Ler and Col diploids. The frequency of plump seed was compared to the genotypes of markers located in the DSL1 interval. In both BC1 populations, crossing success increased with increasing dosage of DSL1Ler alleles (Figure 3
Individual BC1 (F1 × Col) plants with recombination breakpoints within the DSL1 interval were backcrossed to 2x Col to generate BC2 families. BC2 individuals were genotyped at four markers within the DSL1 QTL: nga361, FIS2, Ve017, and nga168. Progeny from BC2 individuals crossed to 4x Col pollen parents were phenotyped. Statistical significance of t-test comparisons between Col homozygotes and heterozygotes at the FIS2 marker are presented for each BC2 family in Figure 3 None of these genetic analyses could distinguish between QTL caused by gene expression in the female sporophyte and postmeiotic gene expression in the female gametophyte or fertilization products. This was addressed using the progeny of a F1 (Ler × Col) × 4x Col cross. Markers linked to DSL1 should depart from the expected ratio 1:1 of Ler:Col in the progeny of this cross if DSL1 acts via expression in the female gametophyte or fertilization products. By contrast, no distortion of allele frequency is expected if DSL1 acts via sporophytic expression, such as via the seed-parent's vegetative organs, flowers, or in the seed coat. Progeny from F1 × 4x Col (n = 164) were typed for the same markers used in Figure 3 DSL1 Participates in an Epistatic Network Genome-wide scans for epistatic interactions with DSL1 were carried out by regression analysis. Significance thresholds for the detection of epistasis were set by permutation and estimation of the effect of all marker pairs plus their interaction in each permuted set. Regressions using two markers and their interaction with combined effects that exceeded this threshold were identified (for a complete table, see Table S3). These putative epistatic interactions were reexamined by multiple regression to ensure that the interaction component significantly improved the fit of the model to the data. Two loci, EPISTASIS OVERCOMES PATERNAL EXCESS1 (EOP1) and EOP2, comprising multiple markers on chromosome 3 and chromosome 5, respectively, affected seed survival when considered in conjunction with the genotype at DSL1 (Figure 4
The effect of EOP1 on cross fertility was strong in the RIL, so the mode of EOP1 action was investigated by transmission ratio test. If EOP1 acts via the genotype of the fertilization products or embryo sac, it should exhibit a distorted ratio in interploidy crosses between Col × Ler F1 hybrids and 4x Col. If, like DSL1, the interaction occurs between alleles in the maternal sporophyte, no distortion should be observed. Markers linked to EOP1, nga172, and nga162 were genotyped in the F1 × 4x Col progeny. Consistent with a postsegregation requirement for EOP1 in interploidy seeds, the genotype at nga172 was distorted in triploid (X2 p-value = 0.0008, observed heterozygotes [Het] = 109, Col = 65 vs. expected Het = 87, Col = 87), but not in diploid progeny (p-value > 0.05; Het = 47, Col = 54). A similar trend was observed at nga162, but it was not significant. The detection of interploidy-dependent transmission ratio distortion confirms the presence of a QTL on chromosome 3 that affects interploidy viability via expression in the female gametophyte, endosperm or embryo. TTG2 Regulates the Interploidy Barrier We sought to determine which gene within the DSL1 interval could be responsible for the phenotypes observed. The imprinted gene FERTILIZATION INDEPENDENT SEED2 (FIS2) is near the DSL1 interval, and the Col allele has a 180-bp in-frame deletion in the coding region with respect to Ler and C24 [65]. Another candidate gene in the DSL1 interval is TTG2. TTG2 encodes a WRKY transcription factor that controls epidermal cell fate with pleiotropic effects on seed development and trichome production [72]. Seeds from mothers homozygous for ttg2 loss-of-function mutations have a pale seed coat because the innermost layer of the seed coat (the endothelium) fails to accumulate pigments; in addition, the epidermal layer of the outer integument does not produce mucilage [72]. ttg2–1 mutants produce small seeds exhibiting reduced cell elongation in integuments, and precocious endosperm cellularization [66]. The mutants also have reduced leaf trichome density and decreased trichome branch number [72,73]. As the DSL1 QTL was additive and sporophytic (Figure 3 A trichome density QTL in the Ler × Col RIL population was detected in previous studies, consistent with a weak loss-of-function allele of TTG2 in Ler [75–77]. The effect of TTG2 on seed rescue was tested by crossing loss-of-function ttg2 mutants isolated in both Ler and Col backgrounds to 4x Col pollen parents. The ttg2–1 mutant was previously isolated in the Ler background [72]. We also identified a novel allele in the Col background, ttg2–3 (SALK_148838), created by a T-DNA insertion in the 5′ untranslated region (UTR) of the TTG2 gene. Like ttg2–1, ttg2–3 results in few and aberrant trichomes [73] and a loss of seed coat pigmentation (Figure 5
No polymorphisms between the Ler and Col coding sequence of TTG2 were found. We therefore sought to determine whether an expression level polymorphism differentiates the alleles. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in the TTG2 transcript were identified in the data from chip-based resequencing of A. thaliana [78]. A SNP present in the 5′ UTR of the full gene (PERL030427) was confirmed by sequencing of PCR reactions using genomic DNA from the Ler and Col ecotypes as template. The proportion of each allele was measured in the amplified products of DNA and cDNA prepared from Ler × Col F1 hybrids. By measuring the proportion of the two alleles that accumulated in an F1 hybrid, the two alleles were tested in an identical regulatory environment at equal gene dosage, and any differential allelic contribution must result from a cis-regulatory difference between the two alleles. The proportion of TTG2 mRNA contributed by the Ler allele to the reverse transcription PCR products was approximately 20% less than genomic DNA samples (t-test p-value < 0.001) (Figure 5 The hybridization-based resequencing data did not clearly indicate any polymorphisms that might explain the difference in expression. To determine what, if any, putative cis-regulatory polymorphisms exist, the DNA sequence immediately upstream of the presumptive transcriptional start site was determined in Ler. At the −53 position, relative to the start of the longest TTG2 cDNA, and 11 bp downstream of the previously identified Werewolf, Glabrous1, and Transparent Testa2 transcription factor binding sites [73], Ler contains a 7-bp insertion of the sequence AGACCAA between the nucleotides ACGTTCAACGAGTGTCCAT and a 26-bp stretch of pyrimidines, beginning with CTCCCTC. This insertion is 43 bp 5′ of the presumptive TATA box of the TTG2 promoter. Consistent with the presence of an insertion, the hybridization-based resequencing data [78] show hybridization failure in microarrays hybridized with Ler, but not Col, labeled genomic DNA beginning with probes 8 bp upstream of the insertion site (http://signal.salk.edu/perlegen.html). Amplification of genomic DNA from Col and Ler using PCR primers flanking the insertion confirmed a fragment-length polymorphism distinguishing Col and Ler that could be resolved on an agarose gel (unpublished data). Cellularization of the Peripheral Endosperm Is Associated with Rescue of Interploidy Seeds We next examined developing seeds from crosses between Col, Ler, ttg2–3, ttg2–1, or CSS2 seed parents and 4x Col pollen parents. Phenotypes associated with lethality and rescue were observed by confocal and differential interference microscopy. Confocal images of seeds at 6 DAP are shown in Figure 6
The frequency and timing of endosperm cellularization was determined by examining confocal micrographs of developing seeds. The frequency of endosperm cellularization was consistently increased in all comparisons that improved interploidy crossing success (Figure 7 Discussion Postzygotic hybridization barriers restrict gene flow and isolate populations from one another. It has long been known that shifts in ploidy can affect postzygotic lethality and create isolated populations of different ploidy. This kind of F1 lethality can occur in the absence of any allelic diversity. The presence of such barriers has been proposed as one of the mechanisms by which shifts in ploidy can potentiate the process of speciation [9,21,79]. Yet, considerable variability in this trait exists within species and between species [9,41]. We investigated the molecular mechanism responsible for variation in the lethality of interploidy crosses in Arabidopsis. The genotype of both the paternal and maternal lineages caused variation in the postzygotic lethality of 2x × 4x crosses (Figure 1 Dr. Strangelove1 and an Epistatic Network Control Interploidy Lethality A single QTL, called Dr. Strangelove1, was detected using the fertility of Ler × Col RIL crossed to 4x Col as a quantitative trait (Figure 2 Two additional QTL, EOP1 and EOP2 (Figure 4 We made no estimates of the confidence intervals for the positions of EOP1 or EOP2. Nevertheless, the finding that TTG2 (discussed below) could affect the interploidy barrier suggests that loci with demonstrated genetic interactions with TTG2 such as the leucine-rich receptor-like kinase Haiku2 (IKU2) [66] may also possess the ability to regulate the ploidy barrier. Similarly, upstream regulators of TTG2, such as the transcription factors TTG1 and TT2, which are required for TTG2 expression [81], might also modulate interploidy lethality. Interestingly, IKU2 and TTG1 map to the same chromosome arms as EOP1 and EOP2, respectively. TTG2 and the Control of Interploidy Lethality The transcription factor TTG2, which controls seed development via expression in the maternal sporophyte, was located within the chromosomal interval containing DSL1 [66,72]. Seeds from ttg2–1 mutant sporophytes possess defects in both sporophytic (seed coat differentiation) and zygotic (precocious endosperm cellularization) traits. We propose that allelic variation at TTG2 could explain the DSL1 QTL. Loss-of-function mutations in TTG2 isolated from both the Ler and Col backgrounds improved interploidy crossing success (Figure 5 Additional phenotypes are consistent with Ler encoding a weak TTG2 allele. A QTL affecting reduced trichome density and linked to TTG2 has been described previously [75–77]. The effect of this QTL on trichome density is additive [77], just like DSL1 (Figure 3 Control of Cellular Differentiation in the Endosperm and the Mechanism of DSL1- and TTG2-Mediated Fertility The earliest evidence of aberrant development in the progeny of paternal excess crosses was visible in the endosperm [42]. Endosperm failed to progress from the free nuclear proliferation typical of early development to cellularized mitotic proliferation, which normally occurs at the globular to heart transition of embryogenesis. The lack of endosperm cellularization in 2x Col × 4x Col crosses is similar to that observed in A. thaliana × A. arenosa crosses [49] and the heterochronic shift described in fertilized seeds of mutants affected in the Arabidopsis orthologs of Polycomb-Repressive Complex 2 subunits [59–65,83]. Paternal excess crosses of diploid Ler or Col and tetraploid Col differed in their respective endosperm growth phenotypes. Cellularized peripheral endosperm was observed more frequently in crosses to Ler seed parents than in Col seed parents (Figure 7 TTG2 was identified as an effector of plant development. The ttg2–1 allele in the Ler background has a maternal effect on seed size and induces early cellularization of the endosperm in balanced crosses [66,84]. Loss of TTG2 from diploid maternal sporophytes can result in seed failure due to an interaction with the haiku2–1 (iku2–1) mutation [66], which also decreased seed size and induced early cellularization of the endosperm. This demonstrated that proper TTG2 function can be required for viability. Similar to the effects in balanced crosses, ttg2–1 × 4x Col crosses also produced seeds with precocious endosperm cellularization as compared to wild-type Ler × 4x Col (Figure 7 Rescue of lethality by DSL1Ler and ttg2 mutants was not associated with the resolution of all aberrant features of the endosperm. For instance, neither the size of the chalazal endosperm nor the presence of nodules in the peripheral endosperm was consistently affected by genotypes providing rescue of lethality. Peripheral endosperm cellularization, however, was always greater in backgrounds that increased seed survival. Rather than a suppression of early proliferation of chalazal endosperm hypertrophy, cellularization of the endosperm is likely to be the critical feature in paternal excess interploidy crosses that determines the development of the embryo. One proposed mechanism for the effect of TTG2 on endosperm cellularization in balanced crosses is that the reduced growth of maternal tissue in ttg2 mutants restricts embryo sac expansion and promotes endosperm cellularization [85]. Mature seeds produced by a self-pollinated ttg2–1 mutant are notably smaller than wild type, and ttg2–3 seeds are slightly smaller. Yet, embryo sacs at the time of endosperm cellularization from ttg2–3 × 4x Col crosses were no smaller than those of the uncellularized proliferating Col × 4x Col. Thus, loss of TTG2 function in Col appears to promote endosperm cellularization independent of seed or ovule growth. Alternative explanations include a change in signaling molecule release or perception due to loss of TTG2. Proanthocyanidins, which were markedly reduced in ttg2–1 seeds [66,72], decrease the permeability of the endothelium, the maternal cell layer adjoining the endosperm [82]. Their absence in the endothelium of ttg2 mutants may allow diffusion of a molecule that promotes endosperm differentiation. Alternatively, ttg2 mutations may prevent normal differentiation of the endothelium [82], and thereby disrupt the production of a signal from the seed coat to the endosperm that delays cellularization in wild-type plants. Evolutionary Consequences of Variation in Interploidy Barriers A stronger postzygotic hybridization barrier, such as provided by the Col genome, would restrict allele sharing between diploids and tetraploids. In the absence of gene flow, independent adaptation of the two populations and/or speciation would be possible. Even complete interploidy block might not result in polyploid speciation as new alleles arising in diploids can be shared with tetraploid populations via unreduced gametes or recurrent polyploid formation. The relative absence of a crossing barrier, however, would result in more frequent triploid production. Triploids of Arabidopsis produce aneuploid swarms that resolve into diploid and tetraploid cytotypes [15,44]. More frequent swarm production would increase the opportunities for karyotype evolution, selection of alleles in novel and unbalanced karyotypes, and both diploid and tetraploid descendants from a triploid would facilitate gene flow between diploid and tetraploid cytotypes. This is expected to strongly inhibit the establishment of new polyploid species, but to increase the chance of finding polyploid cytotypes within a diploid population [1,2,5,9]. Thus far, surveys of the nuclear DNA content from a few hundred Arabidopsis accessions have identified only two tetraploids [44,86]. A study utilizing crosses between 288 accessions of Arabidopsis identified one additional tetraploid accession on the basis of increased seed lethality in the intercross progeny [67]. Rates of 2n gamete formation in pollen meioses of A. thaliana have been estimated to be an order of magnitude lower than these observed frequencies of tetraploid accessions, at approximately 1/3,000 [87]. Given these low frequencies and the low rate of outcrossing in A. thaliana [88,89], selection on mutations that prevent triploid offspring from unreduced gametes or sympatric tetraploids seems unlikely. Within-species variation for the ploidy hybridization barrier is not unprecedented (e.g., [41]) and may result from selection on seed performance. The genes that have been hypothesized by some to underlie the interploidy barrier might be under continued selection due to the ability of variation in expression to affect seed fitness [51] or purifying selection to maintain optimal expression regulation [90,91]. Despite these suggestions, it is possible that neutral variation, i.e., of no consequence in balanced crosses, limits fitness in the out-of-balance fertilization products produced by interploidy crosses. Further study of the genes and alleles identified here will be necessary to determine whether they are subject to selection in diploid populations. The identification of TTG2, which also determines trichome density, as a determinant of variation in interploidy postzygotic lethality suggests that pleiotropy may confound the interpretation of such results. For instance, in the absence of herbivore pressure, trichome density is negatively associated with Arabidopsis fitness, whereas it is beneficial in the presence of herbivores [92]. TTG2 alleles selected for their effect on trichome density, but neutral with respect to seed fertility in balanced crosses, may result in differences in seed lethality following interploidy hybridization. Epigenetics and Development Converge in Plant Hybridization Previously, it has been shown that disruption of gene silencing via loss of CG methylation can disrupt both interploidy survival [55] and interspecies hybrid survival [49]. The disruption of imprinting in the species hybrids may destroy the coordination of the two maternal programs (those expressed in the seed and those in the integuments), resulting in seed failure. In this sense, intergenerational control of seed development is responsible for maternal control of both the species barrier and ploidy barrier (this study; [48,49]). Loss of imprinting in interspecies hybrids was associated with epigenetic disturbance affecting both heterochromatin and genes [48], and chromatin and DNA methylation disturbances have been noted in interploidy crosses of both Arabidopsis and maize [93,94]. In this study, we demonstrate that a compensatory change in the maternal genotype can overcome these epigenetic disturbances. Although it would appear that there are two, as yet, nonoverlapping mechanisms affecting the strength of the interploidy hybridization barrier, they may have more in common. It is reasonable to propose that the mechanism identified here might interact with targets of CG-dinucleotide methylation that coordinate the growth and development of seeds. For example, it is possible that runaway proliferation in the endosperm caused by misregulation of MEDEA, an imprinted gene and known target of CG methylation, could be opposed by reduced TTG2 function. Materials and Methods Plant materials and growth. Tetraploids of Arabidopsis ecotypes Col-0 and Ler were produced by submerging seedlings for 2 h in an aqueous solution of 0.1% colchicine (Sigma). Seedlings were subsequently washed in copious quantities of water, and transplanted to soil. Treated plants were grown to maturity and the basal nuclear ploidy of the progeny determined by flow cytometric analyses of nuclear DNA content following isolation of nuclei from leaves or inflorescence buds as previously described [44]. RILs derived from a cross between Col and Ler [68] were provided by the Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center (ABRC). STAIRS were provided by Michael Kearsey (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom). A male-sterile C24 A9 barnase line described by Paul et al. [95] was crossed to Col-0 for ten successive generations to produce “Col A9” (gift of Rinke Vinkenoog). Col-0/Ler F1 hybrid individuals were crossed to Col A9 male-sterile plants or to hand-emasculated Ler plants to generate reciprocal BC1 families. Col A9 male-sterile plants were crossed to Ler to produce male-sterile F1 plants used to test transmission ratio distortion in crosses to 4x Col. ttg2–1 was a gift from David Smyth [72]. The novel allele ttg2–3 was derived from the SALK insertion line 149938 [96]. The fis2–8 allele [97,98] was provided by Ramin Yadegari and Kristen Newcomb (University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona), who backcrossed the mutation in the Col background for seven consecutive generations. The Col × Ler RIL population was grown in the University of Washington greenhouse with ambient light supplemented to make a 16-h light to 8-h dark day. Temperatures were set for 18 °C at night to 21 °C during the day, but varied with atmospheric conditions. All other experiments were carried out in controlled chamber conditions under 16:8-h light:dark and 21:18 °C day:night temperatures. Crosses for the RIL, BC1, and TRD experiments were performed by emasculating inflorescences by removing all organs from the outer three whorls with jewelers forceps. Crosses to the STAIRS were done by removing only the stamens and pollinating 2 d after emasculation. STAIRS and control crosses were grown at the University of Bath in a Sanyo controlled environment room with a day length of 16 h, at 23:18 °C day:night temperatures. For comparison of ttg2 mutants and wild type, seeds were weighed with a Mettler UMT2 microbalance (Mettler-Toledo). Genetic analyses. For the analysis of RILs, marker genotypes were obtained from the European Union (EU) Natural program (see also, http://arabidopsis.info/new_ri_map.html). Only genetic markers with data for 95% or more of the lines were used for mapping. Markers with no recombination between them were removed from the analysis using the MapManagerQTX 2.0 package [99]. Markers and genotypes for the RIL used in the analysis can be found as Table S4. Three individuals from each RIL were crossed to 4x Col, and the numbers of plump and shriveled seeds were counted. The frequency of plump seeds for each individual was defined as the trait, and RIL means were computed from at least three replicates. QTL identification and likelihood estimation were performed using the mean RIL values under models 1 and 6 in the QTL Cartographer software package [100]. Statistical thresholds for QTL identification were set by 1,000 permutations according to the method of Churchill and Doerge [101]. Estimates of QTL position in the RIL were made by 1,000 bootstraps with replacement followed by interval mapping [102]. The effects of genomic loci segregating between STAIRS and controls or among BC1 populations on the frequency of plump seed following crosses to 4x Col-0 were tested by t-test and regression. Transmission ratio distortion was evaluated by chi-square comparisons of observed allele frequencies to expected (1:1) frequencies in the progeny of crosses of F1 or BC1 individuals heterozygous for informative markers to a 4x Col-0 pollen parent. All regressions for multivariate analyses and epistasis confirmation were performed using the JMP statistics program (Ver. 5.1, SAS institute). Epistatic QTL were identified using MapManagerQTX by regression using every possible marker pair. Statistical thresholds for epistasis detection were set by 1,000 permutations of the data followed by regression on every possible marker pair. Epistatic interactions were considered putative if they exceeded a chi-square value of 28.6, which corresponded to the permutation-adjusted p-value of 0.05. Epistatic interactions were considered confirmed if the interaction term was significant in linear regressions of both markers and the interaction term on the mean RIL data (y = M1 + M2 + M1 × M2; where y corresponds to the mean plump seed frequency and M1 and M2 are marker genotypes). Marker genotypes of BC1 and BC2 individuals were determined at nga361, nga168, and nga162 by autoradiography of dried gels following electrophoresis of 32P alpha-CTP incorporation-labeled PCR products in 6% polyacrylamide (37:1 acrylamide to bis acrylamide) in 0.5 × Tris borate EDTA by standard protocols [103]. Markers nga172, Ve017, TTG2, and FIS2 were analyzed by photography of ethidium bromide fluorescence from electrophoresis of PCR products in agarose and 0.5 × TBE by standard methods. PCR products from primers amplifying marker Ve017 was digested as recommended by The Arabidopsis Information Resource (http://www.arabidopsis.org). All primers are given in Table S8. eQTL determination by SNP quantitation at TTG2. Genomic DNA and total RNA were extracted from diploid Ler, Col-0, and F1 hybrid young leaves. cDNA was generated using the gene-specific primer ttg2_bottomR (CTTTCTCCCTTCGACTCACG) and superscriptII Reverse transcriptase according to the manufacture's instructions (Invitrogen). Primers (ttg25′snpR-ttcaccatcattcacctcca; ttg25′snpF-gatccatccaacgttcccta) spanning the first intron of the TTG2 transcript and flanking the PERL0390427 SNP (http://www.arabidopsis.org;[78]) were used as PCR primers using cDNA and genomic DNA as templates. This produced amplicons of 259 and 443 bp from cDNA and genomic DNA, respectively. Amplified products were run on a 2% agarose gel in 0.5 × TBE and purified using the QIAQUICK gel extraction kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA sequencing was performed by Davis Sequencing using the ttg25′snpR primer utilized in the amplification. Fluorescence peak amplitudes were recorded for the cytosine and guanine peaks corresponding to the PERL0390427 SNP [104]. The relative contribution of the lesser allele to the total was compared in the genomic DNA and cDNA amplifications by t-test. There was no overlap in range between the ratios calculated for amplifications of cDNA and genomic DNA-derived samples. Microscopy. Mature seeds were observed by stereomicroscopy using an Olympus SZ-60 microscope equipped with an annular ring light. Seeds were scored as plump if they contained a visible embryo that occupied more than 20% the normal size, and shriveled if they contained no discernable embryo or an aberrant embryo less than 20% of the size of the seed. Mature seeds were photographed with a Nikon SMZ1500 stereomicroscope using a Nikon Digital Sight DS-U1 camera, and JPG images were processed with Adobe Photoshop. Measurements were taken on digital images of 50 seeds per cross using ImageJ (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/). Developing seeds were cleared in chloral hydrate:water:glycerol (8w:3v:1v), photographed with a Nikon 90i Eclipse microscope using differential contrast optics. and measurements taken on 12–20 seeds per cross using ImageJ. For confocal microscopy, Feulgen-stained seeds were processed as previously described [42] and imaged with an argon ion laser, 488-nm excitation and 515/530-nm emission, using a Nikon C1 confocal microscope system with a 90i Eclipse microscope and EZ-C1 software (Nikon UK). Images were saved as TIFFs and processed with Adobe Photoshop. Figure S1: Distribution of the Percentage of Live Seed for Each Ler × Col RIL (50 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(50K, doc) Figure S2: Effect of Chromosomal Substitutions on Plump Seed in STAIR × 4x Col Crosses (1.21 MB AI) Click here for additional data file.(1.1M, pdf) Table S1: Marker genotypes of Col × Ler RIL used in QTL identification (75 KB TXT) Click here for additional data file.(75K, txt) Table S2: STAIRs Localization of DSL1 Position on Chromosome 2 (107 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(107K, doc) Table S3: Summary of Significant Pair-Wise Marker Interactions Affecting Interploidy Lethality in Ler × Col RIL Crossed to Tetraploid Col (105 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(105K, doc) Table S4: Main and Interaction Effects for %Live Seed in Col × Ler (37 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(37K, doc) Table S5: fis2–8 Did Not Modulate Viability in Crosses to Tetraploid Col (37 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(37K, doc) Table S6: TTG2 Modulates Mature Seed Size in Ler and Col Genetic Backgrounds (29 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(29K, doc) Table S7: TTG2 Modulates Seed Viability in Crosses of Diploid Mutants to Tetraploid Col (37 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(37K, doc) Table S8: Oligonucleotide Primers Used in This Study (47 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(135K, doc) Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Biology Greenhouse (Biology Department, University of Washington) for material support, and Nikon UK Ltd for supporting the Nikon and University of Bath Imaging Suite (NUBIS). We thank the Yadegari, Kearsey, Manly, and Smyth laboratories for seeds and software resources. We are grateful to Drs. Caroline Josefsson, Isabelle Henry, and Margaret Woodhouse for comments that improved the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript. Abbreviations
Footnotes ¤ Current address: Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States of America. Author contributions. BPD, MS, RJS, and LC conceived and designed the experiments. BPD, MS, RW, BW, and DBW performed the experiments. BPD, MS, RJS, and LC analyzed the data. contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. BPD, MS, and LC wrote the paper. Funding. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program, Polyploidy Project (NSF DBI 0077774 and DBI 0501712 to LC), the National Institutes of Health (1R01GM076103 to LC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Research Initiative (2003-35300-13248 to BPD), and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK (grant no. BBD0012341 to MS). Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evolution. 2000 Aug; 54(4):1182-91.
[Evolution. 2000]Genet Med. 2005 Apr; 7(4):251-63.
[Genet Med. 2005]Heredity. 2007 Mar; 98(3):143-50.
[Heredity. 2007]Genetics. 2003 Jan; 163(1):287-94.
[Genetics. 2003]Annu Rev Genet. 2000; 34():401-437.
[Annu Rev Genet. 2000]Genetics. 2000 May; 155(1):369-78.
[Genetics. 2000]Evolution. 2000 Aug; 54(4):1182-91.
[Evolution. 2000]Annu Rev Genet. 2000; 34():401-437.
[Annu Rev Genet. 2000]Plant Cell. 2003 Sep; 15(9):2192-202.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Genome Biol. 2007; 8(4):R53.
[Genome Biol. 2007]Am Nat. 2005 Sep; 166(3):330-8.
[Am Nat. 2005]Plant J. 2002 Dec; 32(6):1057-66.
[Plant J. 2002]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]Heredity. 2001 Nov; 87(Pt 5):573-82.
[Heredity. 2001]Genetics. 2005 Aug; 170(4):1979-88.
[Genetics. 2005]Genetics. 1984 May; 107(1):103-115.
[Genetics. 1984]J Hered. 1995 Nov-Dec; 86(6):432-40.
[J Hered. 1995]Curr Biol. 2006 Jul 11; 16(13):1322-8.
[Curr Biol. 2006]Plant Cell. 2003 Jun; 15(6):1430-42.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Plant Cell. 2003 Jun; 15(6):1430-42.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Genetics. 1984 May; 107(1):103-115.
[Genetics. 1984]Plant Cell. 2004 Dec; 16(12):3174-80.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Dev Biol. 2004 Jun 15; 270(2):277-89.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Science. 1998 Apr 17; 280(5362):446-50.
[Science. 1998]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]PLoS Biol. 2007 Sep; 5(9):e236.
[PLoS Biol. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Dec 1; 90(23):10972-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993]Plant J. 2002 Aug; 31(3):355-64.
[Plant J. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jan 5; 96(1):296-301.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1359-75.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Plant Cell. 2005 Jan; 17(1):52-60.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2007 Aug; 19(8):2531-43.
[Plant Cell. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Sep 12; 97(19):10637-42.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jan 5; 96(1):296-301.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Plant Cell. 2006 Jun; 18(6):1360-72.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Genetica. 2005 Feb; 123(1-2):75-85.
[Genetica. 2005]Development. 1996 Mar; 122(3):997-1005.
[Development. 1996]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1359-75.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Plant Cell. 2007 Aug; 19(8):2531-43.
[Plant Cell. 2007]Science. 2007 Jul 20; 317(5836):338-42.
[Science. 2007]Plant Cell. 2007 Aug; 19(8):2531-43.
[Plant Cell. 2007]Science. 2007 Jul 20; 317(5836):338-42.
[Science. 2007]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]Annu Rev Genet. 2000; 34():401-437.
[Annu Rev Genet. 2000]Plant J. 2002 Dec; 32(6):1057-66.
[Plant J. 2002]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]Development. 2000 Jun; 127(11):2493-502.
[Development. 2000]Plant Cell. 2004 Dec; 16(12):3174-80.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Plant Cell. 2004 Dec; 16(12):3174-80.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Nature. 2003 Jul 10; 424(6945):194-7.
[Nature. 2003]Plant Cell. 2005 Jan; 17(1):52-60.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2004 Jan; 134(1):296-306.
[Plant Physiol. 2004]Plant Cell. 2005 Jan; 17(1):52-60.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1359-75.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Genetica. 2005 Feb; 123(1-2):75-85.
[Genetica. 2005]Development. 1996 Mar; 122(3):997-1005.
[Development. 1996]Plant Cell. 2003 Nov; 15(11):2514-31.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]Plant Cell. 2003 Jun; 15(6):1430-42.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Science. 1998 Apr 17; 280(5362):446-50.
[Science. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jan 5; 96(1):296-301.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Curr Biol. 2001 Feb 20; 11(4):277-81.
[Curr Biol. 2001]Plant Cell. 2005 Jan; 17(1):52-60.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Physiol. 2003 Apr; 131(4):1661-70.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Trends Plant Sci. 2005 Oct; 10(10):472-7.
[Trends Plant Sci. 2005]Plant Cell. 2005 Jan; 17(1):52-60.
[Plant Cell. 2005]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1359-75.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Plant Cell. 2003 Nov; 15(11):2514-31.
[Plant Cell. 2003]PLoS Genet. 2007 Apr 27; 3(4):e70.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Genetics. 2005 Aug; 170(4):1979-88.
[Genetics. 2005]Evolution. 2000 Aug; 54(4):1182-91.
[Evolution. 2000]Ann Bot. 2004 Mar; 93(3):317-21.
[Ann Bot. 2004]PLoS Biol. 2007 Sep; 5(9):e236.
[PLoS Biol. 2007]Plant J. 2002 Dec; 32(6):1057-66.
[Plant J. 2002]Plant Cell. 2004 Dec; 16(12):3174-80.
[Plant Cell. 2004]Nat Rev Genet. 2003 May; 4(5):359-68.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2003]Am Nat. 1998 Jan; 151(1):20-8.
[Am Nat. 1998]Development. 2000 Jun; 127(11):2493-502.
[Development. 2000]Plant Cell. 2003 Jun; 15(6):1430-42.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Curr Biol. 2006 Jul 11; 16(13):1322-8.
[Curr Biol. 2006]Chromosoma. 2006 Oct; 115(5):383-94.
[Chromosoma. 2006]Plant Cell. 2007 Jun; 19(6):1782-94.
[Plant Cell. 2007]Genetics. 2005 Aug; 170(4):1979-88.
[Genetics. 2005]Plant Mol Biol. 1992 Jul; 19(4):611-22.
[Plant Mol Biol. 1992]Plant Cell. 2002 Jun; 14(6):1359-75.
[Plant Cell. 2002]Science. 2003 Aug 1; 301(5633):653-7.
[Science. 2003]Dev Biol. 1998 Oct 1; 202(1):136-51.
[Dev Biol. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 29; 103(35):13244-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Mamm Genome. 2001 Dec; 12(12):930-2.
[Mamm Genome. 2001]Genetics. 1994 Nov; 138(3):963-71.
[Genetics. 1994]Genetics. 1996 Jun; 143(2):1013-20.
[Genetics. 1996]Science. 2007 Jul 20; 317(5836):338-42.
[Science. 2007]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Sep 19; 309(2):331-8.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003]Development. 1998 Sep; 125(17):3329-41.
[Development. 1998]