Marie Monniaux1, Bjorn Pieper1, Angela Hay2. 1. Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-Weg 10, D-50829 Köln, Germany. 2. Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-Weg 10, D-50829 Köln, Germany hay@mpipz.mpg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Floral development is remarkably robust in terms of the identity and number of floral organs in each whorl, whereas vegetative development can be quite plastic. This canalization of flower development prevents the phenotypic expression of cryptic genetic variation, even in fluctuating environments. A cruciform perianth with four petals is a hallmark of the Brassicaceae family, typified in the model species Arabidopsis thaliana However, variable petal loss is found in Cardamine hirsuta, a genetically tractable relative of A. thaliana Cardamine hirsuta petal number varies in response to stochastic, genetic and environmental perturbations, which makes it an interesting model to study mechanisms of decanalization and the expression of cryptic variation. METHODS: Multitrait quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis in recombinant inbred lines (RILs) was used to identify whether the stochastic variation found in C. hirsuta petal number had a genetic basis. KEY RESULTS: Stochastic variation (standard error of the average petal number) was found to be a heritable phenotype, and four QTL that influenced this trait were identified. The sensitivity to detect these QTL effects was increased by accounting for the effect of ageing on petal number variation. All QTL had significant effects on both average petal number and its standard error, indicating that these two traits share a common genetic basis. However, for some QTL, a degree of independence was found between the age of the flowers where allelic effects were significant for each trait. CONCLUSIONS: Stochastic variation in C. hirsuta petal number has a genetic basis, and common QTL influence both average petal number and its standard error. Allelic variation at these QTL can, therefore, modify petal number in an age-specific manner via effects on the phenotypic mean and stochastic variation. These results are discussed in the context of trait evolution via a loss of robustness.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Floral development is remarkably robust in terms of the identity and number of floral organs in each whorl, whereas vegetative development can be quite plastic. This canalization of flower development prevents the phenotypic expression of cryptic genetic variation, even in fluctuating environments. A cruciform perianth with four petals is a hallmark of the Brassicaceae family, typified in the model species Arabidopsis thaliana However, variable petal loss is found in Cardamine hirsuta, a genetically tractable relative of A. thalianaCardamine hirsuta petal number varies in response to stochastic, genetic and environmental perturbations, which makes it an interesting model to study mechanisms of decanalization and the expression of cryptic variation. METHODS: Multitrait quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis in recombinant inbred lines (RILs) was used to identify whether the stochastic variation found in C. hirsuta petal number had a genetic basis. KEY RESULTS: Stochastic variation (standard error of the average petal number) was found to be a heritable phenotype, and four QTL that influenced this trait were identified. The sensitivity to detect these QTL effects was increased by accounting for the effect of ageing on petal number variation. All QTL had significant effects on both average petal number and its standard error, indicating that these two traits share a common genetic basis. However, for some QTL, a degree of independence was found between the age of the flowers where allelic effects were significant for each trait. CONCLUSIONS: Stochastic variation in C. hirsuta petal number has a genetic basis, and common QTL influence both average petal number and its standard error. Allelic variation at these QTL can, therefore, modify petal number in an age-specific manner via effects on the phenotypic mean and stochastic variation. These results are discussed in the context of trait evolution via a loss of robustness.
Authors: P M Brakefield; J Gates; D Keys; F Kesbeke; P J Wijngaarden; A Monteiro; V French; S B Carroll Journal: Nature Date: 1996-11-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Matthew W Rhoades; Brenda J Reinhart; Lee P Lim; Christopher B Burge; Bonnie Bartel; David P Bartel Journal: Cell Date: 2002-08-23 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Nicolas Rohner; Dan F Jarosz; Johanna E Kowalko; Masato Yoshizawa; William R Jeffery; Richard L Borowsky; Susan Lindquist; Clifford J Tabin Journal: Science Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Sarah M McKim; Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska; Marie Monniaux; Daniel Kierzkowski; Bjorn Pieper; Richard S Smith; Miltos Tsiantis; Angela Hay Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Marie Monniaux; Bjorn Pieper; Sarah M McKim; Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska; Daniel Kierzkowski; Richard S Smith; Angela Hay Journal: Elife Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 8.140