| Literature DB >> 35270155 |
James W Tregear1, Frédérique Richaud2,3, Myriam Collin1, Jennifer Esbelin1, Hugues Parrinello4, Benoît Cochard5, Leifi Nodichao6, Fabienne Morcillo1,7, Hélène Adam1, Stefan Jouannic1.
Abstract
Sexual differentiation of inflorescences and flowers is important for reproduction and affects crop plant productivity. We report here on a molecular study of the process of sexual differentiation in the immature inflorescence of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). This species is monoecious and exhibits gender diphasy, producing male and female inflorescences separately on the same plant in alternation. Three main approaches were used: small RNA-seq to characterise and study the expression of miRNA genes; RNA-seq to monitor mRNA accumulation patterns; hormone quantification to assess the role of cytokinins and auxins in inflorescence differentiation. Our study allowed the characterisation of 30 previously unreported palm MIRNA genes. In differential gene and miRNA expression studies, we identified a number of key developmental genes and miRNA-mRNA target modules previously described in relation to their developmental regulatory role in the cereal panicle, notably the miR156/529/535-SQUAMOSA PROMOTER-BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE (SPL) gene regulatory module. Gene enrichment analysis highlighted the importance of hormone-related genes, and this observation was corroborated by the detection of much higher levels of cytokinins in the female inflorescence. Our data illustrate the importance of branching regulation within the developmental window studied, during which the female inflorescence, unlike its male counterpart, produces flower clusters on new successive axes by sympodial growth.Entities:
Keywords: SQUAMOSA PROMOTER-BINDING PROTEIN; branching; inflorescence; miRNA; oil palm; sexual differentiation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270155 PMCID: PMC8912876 DOI: 10.3390/plants11050685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Stages of oil palm inflorescence development; microscopic views in panels (a–f) and macroscopic views in panels (g–i). (a) Longitudinal section of male rachilla (leaf +5) showing young floral bracts; (b) Longitudinal section of male rachilla (leaf +12) showing flower primordia; (c) Longitudinal section of male rachilla (leaf +15) showing early differentiating male flower; (d) Longitudinal section of female rachilla (leaf 0) showing floral triad bracts; (e) Longitudinal section of female rachilla (leaf +10) showing floral triad initiation; (f) Longitudinal section of female rachilla (leaf +14) showing floral triad development; (g) Nearly mature male inflorescence (leaf +17); (h) nearly mature female inflorescence (leaf +16); (i) crown of adult palm showing infructescence and senescent male inflorescence. Scale bars: (a,c,d,f), 0.1 mm; (b), 0.5 mm; (e), 1 mm; (g,h), 5 cm; (i), 50 cm.
Figure 2Venn diagrams summarizing oil palm miRNA data from the present study along with pre-existing (sRNAanno database) data.
Micro-RNAs with potential targets represented in the gene sets showing sex-dependent expression. Expression values were normalised using DESeq for DEGs and per million counts for miRNAs prior to the calculation of M/F ratios. Only miRNAs with an expression ratio above 2 or below 0.5 were considered. Pale blue highlighting in the left-hand column indicates miRNAs for which target mRNAs with a reverse accumulation profile were identified. The “∞” symbol indicates that miR156 was detected only in the male inflorescence, albeit in small quantities.
| miRNA_ID | Sequence | M/F Ratio of miRNA | Type of Target | DEG mRNA Target | M/F Ratio of DEGs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| TGACAGAAGAGAGTGAGCACC | ∞ | SBP | 0.1806 | |
|
| AGAAGAGAGAGAGTACAGCCT | 8.2980 | SBP | 0.1806 | |
|
| CTGACAGAAGAGAGTGAGCAC | 8.1495 | SBP | 0.1806 | |
|
| TGACAACGAGAGAGAGCACGC | 7.2660 | SBP | 0.1806 | |
|
| TTGACAGAAGATAGAGAGCAC | 7.2342 | SBP | 0.1806 | |
|
| TTTTGCTCAAGACCGCGCAAC | 4.3972 | DEF | 0.0307 | |
|
| TGAAGCTGCCAGCATGATCTA | 3.5564 | ARF | LOC105034684 | 0.3410 |
|
| TGAAGCTGCCAGCATGATCT | 3.2110 | ARF | LOC105055363 | 0.3620 |
|
| TGGAGAAGCAGGGCACGTGCA | 2.6633 | NAC | LOC105058561 | 3.3287 |
|
| TCATTGAGTGCAGCGTTGATG | 2.4699 | Laccase | LOC105036954 | 14.0474 |
|
| TCATCGAGTGCAGCGTTGATG | 0.4993 | Laccase | LOC105036954 | 14.0474 |
Figure 3Enrichment of specific gene functional categories in the DEG sets as defined by Lohse et al. [30]. The color scale representing significance is based on log10 values calculated from the FDR-corrected p values in Table S5 using the R package of Bonnot et al. [31]. Fold enrichment calculated in Table S5 is represented on the x-axis (the vertical dotted blue line denoting an enrichment ratio of 1). Circle sizes represent the number of DEGs for each respective category as indicated. Grey circles indicate DEG set/functional category combinations with nonsignificant FDR-corrected p values.
Figure 4Analysis of the hormonal composition of oil palm male and female inflorescences. Abbreviations: IAA—indole-3-acetic acid; IAA-Asp—indole-3-acetyl-aspartate; IAA-Glu— indole-3-acetyl-glutamate; c-ZOG—cis-zeatin O—glucoside; c-ZR—cis-zeatin riboside; dhZR—dihydrozeatin riboside; iPA—isopentenyladenine; t-Z—trans-zeatin; t-ZOG—trans-zeatin O-glucoside; t-ZR— trans-zeatin riboside. Measurements are expressed as ng/g dry weight. Levels of significance calculated using the Wilcox method (R package rstatix) are indicated as follows: **—p value < 0.01; *—p value < 0.05; ns—not significant.
Figure 5Possible regulatory interactions in oil palm inflorescence sexual differentiation.