Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The auxin-responsive transcription factor SlDOF9 regulates inflorescence and flower development in tomato

Nature Plants volume 8, pages 419–433 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms underlying differentiation of inflorescence and flower meristems is essential towards enlarging our knowledge of reproductive organ formation and to open new prospects for improving yield traits. Here, we show that SlDOF9 is a new modulator of floral differentiation in tomato. CRISPR/Cas9 knockout strategy uncovered the role of SlDOF9 in controlling inflorescence meristem and floral meristem differentiation via the regulation of cell division genes and inflorescence architecture regulator LIN. Tomato dof9-KO lines have more flowers in both determinate and indeterminate cultivars and produce more fruit upon vibration-assisted fertilization. SlDOF9 regulates inflorescence development through an auxin-dependent ARF5-DOF9 module that seems to operate, at least in part, differently in Arabidopsis and tomato. Our findings add a new actor to the complex mechanisms underlying reproductive organ differentiation in flowering plants and provide leads towards addressing the diversity of factors controlling the transition to reproductive organs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Heatmap representation of the expression patterns of 205 transcription factor genes preferentially expressed in meristem tissues.
Fig. 2: SlDOF9 is the most highly expressed among all DOF genes in tomato inflorescence and flower meristems.
Fig. 3: Tomato dof9-KO lines display altered inflorescence and flower development.
Fig. 4: The dof9-KO mutation results in enhanced fruit number and fruit yield regardless of the genetic background.
Fig. 5: SIMs differentiation is associated with transcriptomic reprogramming of cell division and differentiation genes in dof9-KO lines.
Fig. 6: SlDOF9 is regulated by auxin and displays an expression pattern in IMs that correlates with that of SlARF5.
Fig. 7: SlDOF9 is under direct regulation of SlARF5.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Sequence data from this article can be found in the GenBank/Sol Genomics data libraries under the following accession numbers: SlDof1 (Solyc01g096120), SlDof2 (Solyc02g065290), SlDof3 (Solyc02g067230), SlDof4 (Solyc02g076850), SlDof5 (Solyc02g077950), SlDof6 (Solyc02g077960), SlDof7(Solyc02g078620), SlDof8 (Solyc02g088070), SlDof9 (Solyc02g090220), SlDof10 (Solyc02g090310), SlDof11 (Solyc03g082840), SlDof12 (Solyc03g112930), SlDof13 (Solyc03g115940), SlDof14 (Solyc03g121400), SlDof15 (Solyc04g070960), SlDof16 (Solyc04g079570), SlDof17 (Solyc05g007880), SlDof18 (Solyc05g054510), SlDof19 (Solyc06g005130), SlDof20 (Solyc06g062520), SlDof23 (Solyc06g071480), SlDof24 (Solyc06g075370), SlDof25 (Solyc06g076030), SlDof26 (Solyc08g008500), SlDof27 (Solyc08g082910), SlDof28 (Solyc09g010680), SlDof29 (Solyc10g009360), SlDof30 (Solyc10g086440), SlDof31 (Solyc11g010940), SlDof32 (Solyc11g066050), SlDof33 (Solyc11g072500), SlDof34 (Solyc00g024680). The raw datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available (study PRJEB41426) at the European Nucleotide Archive with the following accession numbers: ERR4862988–ERR4862999. The homologue protein sequences from Solanaceae species and Arabidopsis are available from SOL Genomics database (https://solgenomics.net/) and EnsemblPlants protein database (http://plants.ensembl.org). Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Lippman, Z. B. et al. The making of a compound inflorescence in tomato and related nightshades. PLoS Biol. 6, e288 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Endress, P. K. Morphology of flowers and inflorescences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5, 348 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kobayashi, Y. & Weigel, D. Move on up, it’s time for change mobile signals controlling photoperiod-dependent flowering. Genes Dev. 21, 2371–2384 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turck, F., Fornara, F. & Coupland, G. Regulation and identity of florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T moves center stage. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 573–594 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrés, F. & Coupland, G. The genetic basis of flowering responses to seasonal cues. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 627–639 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley, D. Inflorescence commitment and architecture in Arabidopsis. Science 275, 80–83 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eveland, A. L. et al. Regulatory modules controlling maize inflorescence architecture. Genome Res. 24, 431–443 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sekhar, K. N. C. & Sawhney, V. K. A scanning electron microscope study of the development and surface features of floral organs of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Can. J. Bot. 62, 2403–2413 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sawhney, V. K. & Greyson, R. I. On the initiation of the inflorescence and floral organs in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Can. J. Bot. 50, 1493–1495 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Allen, K. D. & Sussex, I. M. Falsiflora and anantha control early stages of floral meristem development in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Planta 200, 254–264 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Welty, N., Radovich, C., Meulia, T. & van der Knaap, E. Inflorescence development in two tomato species. Can. J. Bot. 85, 111–118 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Molinero-Rosales, N. et al. FALSIFLORA, the tomato orthologue of FLORICAULA and LEAFY, controls flowering time and floral meristem identity. Plant J. 20, 685–693 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soyk, S. et al. Bypassing negative epistasis on yield in tomato imposed by a domestication gene. Cell 169, 1142–1155 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ditta, G., Pinyopich, A., Robles, P., Pelaz, S. & Yanofsky, M. F. The SEP4 gene of Arabidopsis thaliana functions in floral organ and meristem identity. Curr. Biol. 14, 1935–1940 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, C. et al. A conserved genetic pathway determines inflorescence architecture in Arabidopsis and rice. Dev. Cell 24, 612–622 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Park, S. J., Jiang, K., Schatz, M. C. & Lippman, Z. B. Rate of meristem maturation determines inflorescence architecture in tomato. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 639–644 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hendelman, A. et al. Conserved pleiotropy of an ancient plant homeobox gene uncovered by cis-regulatory dissection. Cell 184, 1724–1739 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. MacAlister, C. A. et al. Synchronization of the flowering transition by the tomato terminating flower gene. Nat. Genet. 44, 1393–1398 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Quinet, M. et al. Genetic interactions in the control of flowering time and reproductive structure development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). New Phytol. 170, 701–710 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shalit, A. et al. The flowering hormone florigen functions as a general systemic regulator of growth and termination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8392–8397 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dielen, V. et al. UNIFLORA, a pivotal gene that regulates floral transition and meristem identity in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). New Phytol. 161, 393–400 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lifschitz, E. et al. The tomato FT ortholog triggers systemic signals that regulate growth and flowering and substitute for diverse environmental stimuli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6398–6403 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Meir, Z. et al. Dissection of floral transition by single-meristem transcriptomes at high temporal resolution. Nat. Plants 7, 800–813 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta, S. et al. Insights into structural and functional diversity of Dof (DNA binding with one finger) transcription factor. Planta 241, 549–562 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cai, X. et al. Genome-wide analysis of plant-specific dof transcription factor family in tomato. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 55, 552–566 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Song, Y. H., Smith, R. W., To, B. J., Millar, A. J. & Imaizumi, T. FKF1 conveys timing information for CONSTANS stabilization in photoperiodic flowering. Science 336, 1045–1049 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kloosterman, B. et al. Naturally occurring allele diversity allows potato cultivation in northern latitudes. Nature 495, 246–250 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Corrales, A.-R. et al. Characterization of tomato cycling Dof factors reveals conserved and new functions in the control of flowering time and abiotic stress responses. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 995–1012 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo, Y., Qin, G., Gu, H. & Qu, L.-J. Dof5.6/HCA2, a Dof transcription factor gene, regulates interfascicular cambium formation and vascular tissue development in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 21, 3518–3534 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Konishi, M., Donner, T. J., Scarpella, E. & Yanagisawa, S. MONOPTEROS directly activates the auxin-inducible promoter of the Dof5.8 transcription factor gene in Arabidopsis thaliana leaf provascular cells. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 283–291 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rojas-Gracia, P. et al. The DOF transcription factor SlDOF10 regulates vascular tissue formation during ovary development in tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 216 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Miyashima, S. et al. Mobile PEAR transcription factors integrate positional cues to prime cambial growth. Nature 565, 490–494 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lemmon, Z. H. et al. The evolution of inflorescence diversity in the nightshades and heterochrony during meristem maturation. Genome Res. 26, 1676–1686 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zouine, M. et al. TomExpress, a unified tomato RNA-seq platform for visualization of expression data, clustering and correlation networks. Plant J. 92, 727–735 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ühlken, C., Horvath, B., Stadler, R., Sauer, N. & Weingartner, M. MAIN-LIKE1 is a crucial factor for correct cell division and differentiation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 78, 107–120 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li, N. et al. STERILE APETALA modulates the stability of a repressor protein complex to control organ size in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 14, e1007218 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Swinnen, G. et al. SlKIX8 and SlKIX9 are negative regulators of leaf and fruit growth in tomato. Plant Physiol. 188, 382–396 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Siegfried, K. R. et al. Members of the YABBY gene family specify abaxial cell fate in Arabidopsis. Development 126, 4117–4128 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanaka, W., Toriba, T. & Hirano, H. Three TOB 1-related YABBY genes are required to maintain proper function of the spikelet and branch meristems in rice. New Phytol. 215, 825–839 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kumaran, M. K., Bowman, J. L. & Sundaresan, V. YABBY polarity genes mediate the repression of KNOX Homeobox genes in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 14, 2761–2770 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Skirycz, A. et al. The DOF transcription factor OBP1 is involved in cell cycle regulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 56, 779–792 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. O’Malley, R. C. et al. Cistrome and epicistrome features shape the regulatory DNA landscape. Cell 165, 1280–1292 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Guilfoyle, T. J. & Hagen, G. Auxin response factors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10, 453–460 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lavy, M. & Estelle, M. Mechanisms of auxin signaling. Development 143, 3226–3229 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Wyatt, R. Inflorescence architecture: how flower number, arrangement, and phenology affect pollination and fruit-set. Am. J. Bot. 69, 585 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Harder, L. D., Jordan, C. Y., Gross, W. E. & Routley, M. B. Beyond floricentrism: the pollination function of inflorescences. Plant Species Biol. 19, 137–148 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Galvan‐Ampudia, C. S., Chaumeret, A. M., Godin, C. & Vernoux, T. Phyllotaxis: from patterns of organogenesis at the meristem to shoot architecture. WIREs Dev. Biol. 5, 460–473 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao, Z. et al. Hormonal control of the shoot stem-cell niche. Nature 465, 1089–1092 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Heisler, M. G. et al. Patterns of auxin transport and gene expression during primordium development revealed by live imaging of the arabidopsis inflorescence meristem. Curr. Biol. 15, 1899–1911 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Reinhardt, D. et al. Regulation of phyllotaxis by polar auxin transport. Nature 426, 255–260 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vernoux, T. et al. The auxin signalling network translates dynamic input into robust patterning at the shoot apex. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 508 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Friml, J. A PINOID-dependent binary switch in apical-basal PIN polar targeting directs auxin efflux. Science 306, 862–865 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tobeña-Santamaria, R. et al. FLOOZY of petunia is a flavin mono-oxygenase-like protein required for the specification of leaf and flower architecture. Genes Dev. 16, 753–763 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Okada, K., Ueda, J., Komaki, M. K., Bell, C. J. & Shimura, Y. Requirement of the auxin polar transport system in early stages of Arabidopsis floral bud formation. Plant Cell 3, 677–684 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheng, Y. Auxin biosynthesis by the YUCCA flavin monooxygenases controls the formation of floral organs and vascular tissues in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 20, 1790–1799 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Gallavotti, A. et al. sparse inflorescence1 encodes a monocot-specific YUCCA-like gene required for vegetative and reproductive development in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 15196–15201 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Phillips, K. A. et al. vanishing tassel2 encodes a grass-specific tryptophan aminotransferase required for vegetative and reproductive development in maize. Plant Cell 23, 550–566 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Zažímalová, E., Petrášek, J. & Benková, E. (eds) Auxin and its Role in Plant Development (Springer, 2014).

  59. Galli, M. et al. Auxin signaling modules regulate maize inflorescence architecture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13372–13377 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Yamaguchi, N. et al. A molecular framework for auxin-mediated initiation of flower primordia. Dev. Cell 24, 271–282 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Przemeck, G. H., Mattsson, J., Hardtke, C., Sung, Z. R. & Berleth, T. Studies on the role of the Arabidopsis gene MONOPTEROS in vascular development and plant cell axialization. Planta 200, 229–237 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Wu, M. F. et al. Auxin-regulated chromatin switch directs acquisition of flower primordium founder fate. eLife 4, e09269 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Israeli, A. et al. Multiple auxin-response regulators enable stability and variability in leaf development. Curr. Biol. 29, 1746–1759 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wu, X., Dabi, T. & Weigel, D. Requirement of homeobox gene STIMPY/WOX9 for Arabidopsis meristem growth and maintenance. Curr. Biol. 15, 436–440 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Rebocho, A. B. et al. Role of EVERGREEN in the development of the cymose petunia inflorescence. Dev. Cell 15, 437–447 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang, W. et al. DWARF TILLER1, a WUSCHEL-related homeobox transcription factor, is required for tiller growth in rice. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004154 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Sagar, M. et al. SlARF4, an auxin response factor involved in the control of sugar metabolism during tomato fruit development. Plant Physiol. 161, 1362–1374 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Zouine, M. et al. Characterization of the tomato arf gene family uncovers a multi-levels post-transcriptional regulation including alternative splicing. PLoS ONE 9, e84203 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Vazquez-Vilar, M. et al. GB3.0: a platform for plant bio-design that connects functional DNA elements with associated biological data. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, gkw1326 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Bird, C. R. et al. The tomato polygalacturonase gene and ripening-specific expression in transgenic plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 11, 651–662 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Huang, B. et al. Overexpression of the class D MADS-box gene Sl-AGL11 impacts fleshy tissue differentiation and structure in tomato fruits. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 4869–4884 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kumar, S., Stecher, G. & Tamura, K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1870–1874 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Hu, G. et al. Histone posttranslational modifications rather than DNA methylation underlie gene reprogramming in pollination‐dependent and pollination‐independent fruit set in tomato. New Phytol. 229, 902–919 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lei, Y. et al. CRISPR-P: a web tool for synthetic single-guide RNA design of CRISPR-system in plants. Mol. Plant 7, 1494–1496 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Werner, S., Engler, C., Weber, E., Gruetzner, R. & Marillonnet, S. Fast track assembly of multigene constructs using Golden Gate cloning and the MoClo system. Bioeng. Bugs 3, 38–43 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Li, G. et al. MADS1 maintains barley spike morphology at high ambient temperatures. Nat. Plants 7, 1093–1107 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Tofanelli, R., Vijayan, A., Scholz, S. & Schneitz, K. Protocol for rapid clearing and staining of fixed Arabidopsis ovules for improved imaging by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Plant Methods 15, 120 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kurihara, D., Mizuta, Y., Sato, Y. & Higashiyama, T. ClearSee: a rapid optical clearing reagent for whole-plant fluorescence imaging. Development 142, 4168–4179 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Tomato_Genome_Consortium. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature 485, 635–641 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kim, D., Paggi, J. M., Park, C., Bennett, C. & Salzberg, S. L. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 907–915 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Anders, S., Pyl, P. T. & Huber, W. HTSeq—a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, 166–169 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mi, H., Muruganujan, A., Ebert, D., Huang, X. & Thomas, P. D. PANTHER version 14: more genomes, a new PANTHER GO-slim and improvements in enrichment analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D419–D426 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hao, Y. et al. Auxin response factor SlARF2 is an essential component of the regulatory mechanism controlling fruit ripening in Tomato. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005649 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Brukhin, V., Hernould, M., Gonzalez, N., Chevalier, C. & Mouras, A. Flower development schedule in tomato Lycopersicon esculentum cv. sweet cherry. Sex. Plant Reprod. 15, 311–320 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Frazer, K. A., Pachter, L., Poliakov, A., Rubin, E. M. & Dubchak, I. VISTA: computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W273–W279 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to L. Lemonnier and D. Saint-Martin for the cultivation of tomato plants. We are also grateful to GetPlage for deep sequencing and GenoToulBioinfo for giving access to the computing facilities. G.H. was supported by the Chinese Scholarship Council. The research was supported by the European Union grants H2020 TomGEM 679796 and HARNESSTOM 101000716 and by the Labex TULIP ANR-10-LABX-41.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Guojian Hu, Keke Wang.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Toulouse, INRAe/INP Toulouse, Génomique et Biotechnologie des Fruits—UMR990, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Guojian Hu, Keke Wang, Baowen Huang, Isabelle Mila, Pierre Frasse, Elie Maza, Anis Djari, Mohamed Zouine & Mondher Bouzayen

  2. Laboratoire de Recherche en Sciences Végétales—UMR5546, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse-INP, Toulouse, France

    Guojian Hu, Keke Wang, Baowen Huang, Pierre Frasse, Elie Maza, Anis Djari, Mohamed Zouine & Mondher Bouzayen

  3. Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie—UMR 1332, Université Bordeaux, INRAE, Villenave d’Ornon, France

    Michel Hernould

  4. Key Laboratory of Plant Hormones and Development Regulation of Chongqing, School of Life Sciences, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

    Zhengguo Li & Mondher Bouzayen

Authors
  1. Guojian Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keke Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Baowen Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isabelle Mila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Frasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elie Maza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anis Djari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michel Hernould
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mohamed Zouine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zhengguo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mondher Bouzayen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B. directed the project. G.H., M.B. and K.W. conceived the project and designed the experiments. G.H. performed the experiments and contributed to the drafting of the article. G.H. and K.W. contributed to the implementation of the experiments and performed the analysis of the RNA-seq data. I.M., K.W. and G.H. conducted the subcellular localization and transactivation assay work. G.H. and B.H generated the transgenic lines. P.F. contributed to the ChIP experiment. E.M. and A.D. helped to perform the bioinformatic analyses. K.W. and B.H. contributed to the design of the CRISPR/Cas9 strategies. M.H., Z.L. and M.Z. contributed to the critical analysis of the results and discussion. M.B. supervised the work and modified the manuscript input from all co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mondher Bouzayen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Plants thanks Esther van der Knaap and and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Tomato dof9-KO lines display altered inflorescence and flower development.

(a) Generation of dof9-KO mutant lines via CRISPR/Cas9 strategy in WVA.106 (WVA) and Ailsa Craig (AC) undetermined tomato cultivars. The same guide RNAs (sgRNA1 and sgRNA2; green bars) located in the vicinity of ZFM motif were used for editing the SlDOF9 gene sequence via CRISPR/Cas9 strategy. Mutations within SlDOF9 coding sequences corresponding to nucleotide insertions or deletions are pasted red and the predicted resulting proteins are schematically illustrated (lower panel). (b) Impaired flower organ development in AC and WVA dof9-KO mutants (upper panel). White arrows indicate petalloid sepals in dof9-KO mutants and red arrow heads point to protruded stigmas or split stamens. Scale bar=1 cm. The frequency of altered flower organs phenotypes in sepals, petals and stamens were shown in lower panel. (c) Frequency of altered flower organs phenotypes in sepals, petals and stamens in Micro-Tom cultivar. (d) Leafy inflorescence phenotype displayed by AC and Micro-Tom dof9-KO mutants. Branched and leafy inflorescence are occasionally observed in AC and Micro-Tom dof9-KO mutants. Branching events are shown by red arrows and leaves differentiated from inflorescence meristems by white arrows.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Downregulation of SlDOF9 results in early flowering in Micro-Tom cultivar.

(a) dof9 mutation promotes earlier flower development compared to WT, while DOF9 overexpression delays flowering. Percentage of flowering plants at 31, 38 and 45 days after germination in WT, dof9 mutants and OE-DOF9 lines. (b) Number of vegetative leaves before flowering in WT, dof9 mutants and OE-DOF9 line. Dots indicate individual plants (n = 12). Statistical significance compared to WT was determined by two-sided t-test (***P < 0.001). Pdof9A = 1.6e-04; Pdof9B = 4.08e-08; Pdof9C = 5.58e-05; POE-DOF9 = 1.37e-09. Box edges represent the 0.25 and 0.75 quantiles, the bold lines indicate median values and Whiskers indicate 1.5 times the interquartile range. (c) Faster meristem maturation process in dof9-KO compared to WT and OE-DOF9 lines. The apical meristem in WT plants starts doming at 14 days after germination (DAG), whereas this differentiation process occurs as early as 9-12 DAG in dof9-KO lines resulting in early flowering. By contrast, in OE-DOF9 lines meristem transition from VM to TM is strongly delayed (30 DAGs) compared to WT (14 DAGs) or to dof9-KO lines (9-12 DAGs). The figure shows that in WT until the 7th leaf is initiated, the status of the meristem remains at early vegetative meristem (EVM) or late vegetative meristem (LVM) stages and the transition meristem (TM) appears when the 8th leaf is initiated. The differentiation of the TM occurs earlier in dof9-KO lines (6th leaf) while it is delayed in OE-DOF9 lines (10th leaf). L5, L6, L7, L8 and L10 refer to leaf numbering started from the 1st leaf. The pictures are representative of ten independent meristem samples all showing similar results. Scale bar = 100 µm.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Phenotypes of SlDOF9 overexpressing lines.

(a) SlDOF9 transcript levels in WT and in two independent overexpression lines (OE-DOF9) representative of the phenotypes displayed by these overexpressing tomato plants. Statistical significance compared to WT was determined by two-sided t-test. Error bars mean ± SEM of three biological replicates. (b) Representative abaxially curling leaves with retarded growth observed in OE-DOF9 lines. Higher expression level of the SlDOF9 transgene in Line 1 (L1) results in more severe phenotypes than in L2 lines that exhibit lower expression level of the transgene. Scale bars=2 cm.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Fruit number and fruit yield in WT and dof9-KO tomato plants assessed in the absence of manual pollination.

Fruit yield is determined by assessing the total fruit weight produced by WT and dof9-KO mutants in Micro-Tom (a) and WVA106 (b) cultivars. Dots indicate individual plants (nmicro-Tom = 8; nwva-WT = 5; nwva-L4 = 4). Statistical significance compared to WT was determined by two-sided t-test. Box edges represent the 0.25 and 0.75 quantiles, the bold lines indicate median values and Whiskers indicate 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Fruit diameter in dof9-KO Micro-Tom mutant lines.

Dots indicate individual plants (n = 6). Statistical significance compared to WT was determined by two-sided t-test. Box edges represent the 0.25 and 0.75 quantiles, the bold lines indicate median values and Whiskers indicate 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 qRT–PCR validation of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in WT and dof9 initially revealed by RNA-seq profiling.

(a) Transcript accumulation levels corresponding to genes related to cell division/differentiation, hormone metabolism and inflorescence development were assessed by qRT–PCR in three independent lines to validate their expression profile revealed by RNA-seq. Statistical significance compared to WT was determined by two-sided t-test. Error bars mean ± SEM of three biological replicates performed using WT and dof9A mutant lines. Two biological replicates were performed in dof9A and dof9B mutant lines. (b) Assessing the correlation levels between RNA-seq and qRT–PCR expression data. Statistical significance between RNA-seq expression data and qRT–PCR data was determined by two-sided Pearson’s Correlation test.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Phylogenetic analysis and protein structure of SlDOF2 and SlDOF9.

(a) The phylogenetic tree of tomato and Arabidopsis DOF proteins was constructed by neighbour-joining algorithm. Tomato SlDOF9 and SlDOF2 group in the same clade than Dof5.8 and OBP1 Arabidopsis orthologues (emphasized in red). (b) Protein sequence alignment of SlDOF9 and SlDOF2 with the conserved C2C2-zinc-finger motif (ZFM) framed with dash lines and Bipartite NLS peptide underlined in green.

Extended Data Fig. 8 SlDOF9 is a transcriptional activator involved in meristem differentiation.

(a) SlDOF9 is exclusively localized in the nuclear compartment as assessed by transient expression in tobacco protoplasts of the YFP fused to the N-terminal of tomato SlDOF9 protein. Three independent experiments are performed giving similar results. Scale bar = 20 μm. (b) SlDOF9 is a transcription activator as revealed by transient expression assays in tobacco protoplasts using the GFP reporter gene under the control of the Cyclin SlCycU3;2 promoter or a synthetic promoter containing 7 repeats of the conserved DOF-binding sites (‘AAAAG’ motif). SlCycU3;2 was selected as putative SlDOF9 target gene based on its strong downregulation in dof9-KO lines (see Supplementary Table 1). The two reporter constructs were co-transformed in tobacco protoplasts with an effector construct corresponding to SlDOF9 driven by 35S promoter. The control assay was performed with an empty vector (vector) lacking the SlDOF9 CDS. Statistical significance compared to control was determined by two-sided t-test. (c) Reduced ability to differentiate shoots from dof9-KO mutant callus. Cotyledons (white arrows) from WT and dof9-KO tomato lines were grown 30 days in shoot regeneration medium to form Calli and subsequently shoots and leaves (red arrows). In contrast to WT, the dof9-KO calli are unable to regenerate shoots. The number of regenerated shoots per total number of cotyledon explants is indicated at the top. The data are representative of three independent experiments with independent mutant lines. Scale bar = 1 cm.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–4: 1, List of transcription factor genes preferentially expressed in meristem tissues; 2, Complete list of DEGs in SlDOF9-KO lines; 3, Genes differentially expressed (DEGs) in dof9-KO lines that are related to cell division and differentiation, auxin and cytokinin homoeostasis, flowering time, inflorescence and flower development; 4, List of primers used in this study.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 7

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, G., Wang, K., Huang, B. et al. The auxin-responsive transcription factor SlDOF9 regulates inflorescence and flower development in tomato. Nat. Plants 8, 419–433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01121-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01121-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing