| Literature DB >> 23467802 |
Katharina Bräutigam1, Kelly J Vining, Clément Lafon-Placette, Carl G Fossdal, Marie Mirouze, José Gutiérrez Marcos, Silvia Fluch, Mario Fernández Fraga, M Ángeles Guevara, Dolores Abarca, Oystein Johnsen, Stéphane Maury, Steven H Strauss, Malcolm M Campbell, Antje Rohde, Carmen Díaz-Sala, María-Teresa Cervera.
Abstract
Epigenetic variation is likely to contribute to the phenotypic plasticity and adaptative capacity of plant species, and may be especially important for long-lived organisms with complex life cycles, including forest trees. Diverse environmental stresses and hybridization/polyploidization events can create reversible heritable epigenetic marks that can be transmitted to subsequent generations as a form of molecular "memory". Epigenetic changes might also contribute to the ability of plants to colonize or persist in variable environments. In this review, we provide an overview of recent data on epigenetic mechanisms involved in developmental processes and responses to environmental cues in plant, with a focus on forest tree species. We consider the possible role of forest tree epigenetics as a new source of adaptive traits in plant breeding, biotechnology, and ecosystem conservation under rapid climate change.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive response; environmental stress; epigenetic memory of stressful conditions; epigenetics; forest trees; phenotypic plasticity
Year: 2013 PMID: 23467802 PMCID: PMC3586649 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Clone history shapes drought responses in poplar hybrids. Transcriptome-level responses to water withholding are influenced by geographic origin for two of the three genotypes, and are paralleled by differences in total (genome-wide) DNA methylation. Ramets of hybrid poplar genotypes (a) Okanese, (b) Walker, and (c) DN34 with distinct histories were obtained from two different locations for each of the genotypes. The response to water deficit was assessed under common, controlled environmental conditions. Okanese (a, d, g); Walker (b, e, h); DN34 (c, f, i). Tree appearance (a–c). Transcriptome-level responses (d–f). Heat maps represent relative abundance of drought responsive transcripts at pre-dawn for Okanese (d), Walker (e), and Okanese (f) obtained from two locations each. The numbers indicated to the side of the heat map correspond to transcripts with significant treatment main effect only (gray) and with significant treatment: location interactions (orange bar) (BH adjusted, P < 0.05). W, well-watered samples; D, water-deficient samples. Global DNA methylation levels as percentage of 5 mC under well-watered (shaded bars) and water-limited conditions (white bars) for the genotypes Okanese (g), Walker (h), and DN34 (l). L, location effect; T, treatment effect; and LxT, location: treatment interaction term (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, n = 6, SD bars). Locations are abbreviated as follows: AB, Alberta; SK, Saskatchewan; MB, Manitoba. Figure is adapted from Raj et al. 2011.
Figure 2Relation between epigenetic marks and the genotypic variability of phenotypic plasticity under limited water availability or not in six poplar hybrids. (a). Experimental design; (b). Stem biomass and DNA methylation levels in the shoot apex (center of morphogenesis). For each graph, g indicates the genotype effect, t the treatment effect, and (gxt) genotype by treatment effect. Means are accompanied by their standard errors SE (n = 6). Significant differences between well-watered and water-deficit conditions are indicated by asterisk: *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, and ***P ≤ 0.001; c. Linear correlation (Pearson, r) between stem biomass and DNA methylation levels. Adapted from Gourcilleau et al. 2010.
Figure 3DNA methylation profiles vary widely among chromosomes and among tissues at selected loci in Populus trichocarpa. Relative DNA methylation was determined using methylated DNA immunoprecipitation followed by Illumina sequencing (MeDIP-seq). The ratio of MeDIP-seq read counts in immunoprecipitated (IP) samples versus non-IP control is plotted in 1-kb windows for chromosomes 10 and 19, and areas of tissue-differential methylation are expanded below each chromosome. Figures from Vining et al. (2012).