Novel Cytonuclear Combinations Modify

cytolines cytonuclear co-adaptation cytonuclear interaction dormancy germination seed longevity seed vigor

Journal

Frontiers in plant science
ISSN: 1664-462X
Titre abrégé: Front Plant Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568200

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 05 10 2018
accepted: 10 01 2019
entrez: 27 2 2019
pubmed: 26 2 2019
medline: 26 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Dormancy and germination vigor are complex traits of primary importance for adaptation and agriculture. Intraspecific variation in cytoplasmic genomes and cytonuclear interactions were previously reported to affect germination in Arabidopsis using novel cytonuclear combinations that disrupt co-adaptation between natural variants of nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes. However, specific aspects of dormancy and germination vigor were not thoroughly explored, nor the parental contributions to the genetic effects. Here, we specifically assessed dormancy, germination performance and longevity of seeds from Arabidopsis plants with natural and new genomic compositions. All three traits were modified by cytonuclear reshuffling. Both depth and release rate of dormancy could be modified by a changing of cytoplasm. Significant changes on dormancy and germination performance due to specific cytonuclear interacting combinations mainly occurred in opposite directions, consistent with the idea that a single physiological consequence of the new genetic combination affected both traits oppositely. However, this was not always the case. Interestingly, the ability of parental accessions to contribute to significant cytonuclear interactions modifying the germination phenotype was different depending on whether they provided the nuclear or cytoplasmic genetic compartment. The observed deleterious effects of novel cytonuclear combinations (in comparison with the nuclear parent) were consistent with a contribution of cytonuclear interactions to germination adaptive phenotypes. More surprisingly, we also observed favorable effects of novel cytonuclear combinations, suggesting suboptimal genetic combinations exist in natural populations for these traits. Reduced sensitivity to exogenous ABA and faster endogenous ABA decay during germination were observed in a novel cytonuclear combination that also exhibited enhanced longevity and better germination performance, compared to its natural nuclear parent. Taken together, our results strongly support that cytoplasmic genomes represent an additional resource of natural variation for breeding seed vigor traits.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30804952
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00032
pmc: PMC6370702
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

32

Références

Physiol Plant. 2008 Aug;133(4):651-69
pubmed: 18724408
Mol Ecol. 2017 Jul;26(13):3484-3496
pubmed: 28393414
Plant J. 2004 Apr;38(1):193-202
pubmed: 15053772
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Apr 11;8:524
pubmed: 28443117
Plant Cell Physiol. 2012 Jan;53(1):96-106
pubmed: 21937678
G3 (Bethesda). 2016 Oct 13;6(10):3129-3138
pubmed: 27543295
Plant Physiol. 2011 Nov;157(3):1342-62
pubmed: 21908688
Mol Ecol. 2016 Sep;25(17):4177-96
pubmed: 27454560
Plant Physiol. 2012 Feb;158(2):570-89
pubmed: 22158761
Heredity (Edinb). 1997 Aug;79 ( Pt 2):190-200
pubmed: 9279013
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2012;63:507-33
pubmed: 22136565
Plant Physiol. 2008 Sep;148(1):620-41
pubmed: 18599647
Ann Bot. 2006 Apr;97(4):623-34
pubmed: 16464878
Evolution. 2012 Jul;66(7):2287-302
pubmed: 22759302
Science. 2004 Apr 9;304(5668):253-7
pubmed: 15073369
Ann Bot. 2012 Nov;110(6):1245-51
pubmed: 23022677
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2017 Apr 28;68:85-108
pubmed: 27813652
Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):758-70
pubmed: 15926687
PLoS One. 2013 May 23;8(5):e61075
pubmed: 23717385
Mol Plant. 2016 Jan 4;9(1):34-45
pubmed: 26343970
Acta Biochim Pol. 2016;63(4):653-663
pubmed: 27801426
Genetics. 1976 Apr;82(4):677-83
pubmed: 17248705
Plant Physiol. 2009 Feb;149(2):961-80
pubmed: 19074628
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 7;103(45):17042-7
pubmed: 17065317
New Phytol. 2016 Dec;212(4):964-976
pubmed: 27432253
J Exp Bot. 2017 Feb 1;68(4):843-856
pubmed: 28391330
Ann Bot. 2010 Nov;106(5):833-42
pubmed: 20861274
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2017 Feb;35:8-14
pubmed: 27710774
Plant J. 2018 Jun;94(6):1098-1108
pubmed: 29660183
Plant Cell Physiol. 2016 Apr;57(4):660-74
pubmed: 26637538
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 2;107(9):4264-9
pubmed: 20145108
Genetics. 2003 Jun;164(2):711-29
pubmed: 12807791
Ann Bot. 2016 Feb;117(2):249-56
pubmed: 26637384
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2015 Nov;17(6):1104-12
pubmed: 26095078
Plant Physiol. 2016 Jun;171(2):849-63
pubmed: 27208265
Evolution. 2008 Dec;62(12):3014-26
pubmed: 18691264
New Phytol. 2006;171(3):501-23
pubmed: 16866955
Plant J. 2010 Sep;63(5):728-38
pubmed: 20553420
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:651-81
pubmed: 18444910
Nat Commun. 2017 Jul 13;8(1):72
pubmed: 28706187
Nature. 2010 Jun 3;465(7298):632-6
pubmed: 20520716
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Feb 05;10:32
pubmed: 30804952
Theory Biosci. 2005 Aug;124(1):1-24
pubmed: 17046345
Plant Physiol. 2011 Apr;155(4):1678-89
pubmed: 21139083
J Exp Bot. 2016 Feb;67(3):567-91
pubmed: 26585226
Plant Sci. 2011 Oct;181(4):457-64
pubmed: 21889052
Plant Physiol. 2012 Apr;158(4):1610-27
pubmed: 22345507
J Exp Bot. 2012 Oct;63(16):5843-57
pubmed: 22945943
C R Biol. 2008 Oct;331(10):796-805
pubmed: 18926494
Ann Bot. 2012 Jan;109(1):209-26
pubmed: 22012958
Mol Ecol. 2010 Apr;19(7):1335-51
pubmed: 20149097
Plant Physiol. 2012 Dec;160(4):2083-92
pubmed: 23085841
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 29;113(13):3687-92
pubmed: 26979961
Plant Signal Behav. 2011 May;6(5):635-9
pubmed: 21499027
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jan;63(2):925-39
pubmed: 22048039
PLoS One. 2010 Dec 20;5(12):e15198
pubmed: 21188145
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Aug 26;111(34):E3571-80
pubmed: 25114251
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 04;8(9):e73291
pubmed: 24023856
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 10;9(6):e99343
pubmed: 24914891
Plant Cell. 2017 Jan;29(1):109-128
pubmed: 28062752
Plant J. 2010 Mar;61(6):971-81
pubmed: 20409271
Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):740-57
pubmed: 15926686
Plant Physiol. 2004 May;135(1):432-43
pubmed: 15122038

Auteurs

Clément Boussardon (C)

Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France.

Marie-Laure Martin-Magniette (ML)

UMR MIA-Paris, AgroParisTech, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France.
Institute of Plant Sciences Paris-Saclay, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université Paris-Sud, Université Evry, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France.
Institute of Plant Sciences Paris-Saclay, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris-Cité, Orsay, France.

Béatrice Godin (B)

Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France.

Abdelilah Benamar (A)

Institut de Recherche en Horticulture et Semences, Université d'Angers, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1345, SFR 4207 QUASAV, Angers, France.

Benjamin Vittrant (B)

UMR MIA-Paris, AgroParisTech, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France.

Sylvie Citerne (S)

Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France.

Tristan Mary-Huard (T)

UMR MIA-Paris, AgroParisTech, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France.
GQE - Le Moulon, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université Paris-Sud, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.

David Macherel (D)

Institut de Recherche en Horticulture et Semences, Université d'Angers, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1345, SFR 4207 QUASAV, Angers, France.

Loïc Rajjou (L)

Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France.

Françoise Budar (F)

Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France.

Classifications MeSH