AGL24 acts in concert with SOC1 and FUL during Arabidopsis floral transition

Arabidopsis plants flower in response to long days (LDs). Exposure of leaves to inductive day lengths activates expression of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) protein which moves to the shoot apical meristem (SAM) to induce developmental reprogramming. SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS 1 (SOC1) and FRUITFULL (FUL) are induced by FT at the apex. We previously screened the SAM for mRNAs of genes required to promote the floral transition in response to photoperiod, and conducted detailed expression and functional analyses on several putative candidates. Here, we show that expression of AGAMOUS-LIKE 24 (AGL24) is detected at the SAM under SD conditions and increases upon exposure to LDs. Mutations in AGL24 further delay flowering of a soc1 ful double mutant, suggesting that flowering is controlled by AGL24 partly independently of SOC1 and FUL.     

Integration of flowering signals in winter-annual Arabidopsis

Photoperiod is the primary environmental factor affecting flowering time in rapid-cycling accessions of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Winter-annual Arabidopsis, in contrast, have both a photoperiod and a vernalization requirement for rapid flowering. In winter annuals, high levels of the floral inhibitor FLC (FLOWERING LOCUS C) suppress flowering prior to vernalization. FLC acts to delay flowering, in part, by suppressing expression of the floral promoter SOC1 (SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS1). Vernalization leads to a permanent epigenetic suppression of FLC. To investigate how winter-annual accessions integrate signals from the photoperiod and vernalization pathways, we have examined activation-tagged alleles of FT and the FT homolog, TSF (TWIN SISTER OF FT), in a winter-annual background. Activation of FT or TSF strongly suppresses the FLC-mediated late-flowering phenotype of winter annuals; however, FT and TSF overexpression does not affect FLC mRNA levels. Rather, FT and TSF bypass the block to flowering created by FLC by activating SOC1 expression. We have also found that FLC acts as a dosage-dependent inhibitor of FT expression. Thus, the integration of flowering signals from the photoperiod and vernalization pathways occurs, at least in part, through the regulation of FT, TSF, and SOC1.     

The quest for florigen: a review of recent progress

The photoperiodic induction of flowering is a systemic process requiring translocation of a floral stimulus from the leaves to the shoot apical meristem. In response to this stimulus, the apical meristem stops producing leaves to initiate floral development; this switch in morphogenesis involves a change in the identity of the primordia initiated and in phyllotaxis. The physiological study of the floral transition has led to the identification of several putative floral signals such as sucrose, cytokinins, gibberellins, and reduced N-compounds that are translocated in the phloem sap from leaves to the shoot apical meristem. On the other hand, the genetic approach developed more recently in Arabidopsis thaliana allowed the discovery of many genes that control flowering time. These genes function in 'cascades' within four promotive pathways, the 'photoperiodic', 'autonomous', 'vernalization', and 'gibberellin' pathways, which all converge on the 'integrator' genes SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CO 1 (SOC1) and FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT). Recently, several studies have highlighted a role for a product of FT as a component of the floral stimulus or 'florigen'. These recent advances and the proposed mode of action of FT are discussed here.     

Long-day induction of flowering in Lolium temulentum involves sequential increases in specific gibberellins at the shoot apex

One challenge for plant biology has been to identify floral stimuli at the shoot apex. Using sensitive and specific gas chromatography-mass spectrometry techniques, we have followed changes in gibberellins (GAs) at the shoot apex during long day (LD)-regulated induction of flowering in the grass Lolium temulentum. Two separate roles of GAs in flowering are indicated. First, within 8 h of an inductive LD, i.e. at the time of floral evocation, the GA(5) content of the shoot apex doubled to about 120 ng g(-1) dry weight. The concentration of applied GA(5) required for floral induction of excised apices (R.W. King, C. Blundell, L.T. Evans [1993] Aust J Plant Physiol 20: 337-348) was similar to that in the shoot apex. Leaf-applied [(2)H(4)] GA(5) was transported intact from the leaf to the shoot apex, flowering being proportional to the amount of GA(5) imported. Thus, GA(5) could be part of the LD stimulus for floral evocation of L. temulentum or, alternatively, its increase at the shoot apex could follow import of a primary floral stimulus. Later, during inflorescence differentiation and especially after exposure to additional LD, a second GA action was apparent. The content of GA(1) and GA(4) in the apex increased greatly, whereas GA(5) decreased by up to 75%. GA(4) applied during inflorescence differentiation strongly promoted flowering and stem elongation, whereas it was ineffective for earlier floral evocation although it caused stem growth at all times of application. Thus, we conclude that GA(1) and GA(4) are secondary, late-acting LD stimuli for inflorescence differentiation in L. temulentum.     

Specification of Arabidopsis floral meristem identity by repression of flowering time genes

Flowering plants produce floral meristems in response to intrinsic and extrinsic flowering inductive signals. In Arabidopsis, the floral meristem identity genes LEAFY (LFY) and APETALA1 (AP1) are activated to play a pivotal role in specifying floral meristems during floral transition. We show here that the emerging floral meristems require AP1 to partly specify their floral identities by directly repressing a group of flowering time genes, including SHORT VEGETATIVE PHASE (SVP), AGAMOUS-LIKE 24 (AGL24) and SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CO1 (SOC1). In wild-type plants, these flowering time genes are normally downregulated in emerging floral meristems. In the absence of AP1, these genes are ectopically expressed, transforming floral meristems into shoot meristems. By post-translational activation of an AP1-GR fusion protein and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays, we further demonstrate the repression of these flowering time genes by induced AP1 activity and in vivo AP1 binding to the cis-regulatory regions of these genes. These findings indicate that once AP1 is activated during the floral transition, it acts partly as a master repressor in floral meristems by directly suppressing the expression of flowering time genes, thus preventing the continuation of the shoot developmental program.     

Synthesis of gibberellin GA6 and its role in flowering of Lolium temulentum

The induction of flowering by one long day (LD) in the grass Lolium temulentum is most closely mimicked by application of the gibberellins (GAs) GA(5) or GA(6), both of which occur naturally. These gibberellins promote floral development but have little effect on stem elongation. Endogenous GA(5) and GA(6) contents in the shoot apex double on the day after the LD and, for GA(5) (and we presume for GA(6) as well) reach a concentration known to be inductive for the excised shoot apex in vitro. They are, therefore, strong candidates as LD floral stimuli in this grass. The synthesis of GA(6) and an examination of its florigenic properties in L. temulentum are described.     

Reversion of flowering in Glycine Max (Fabaceae)

Photoperiodic changes, if occurring before a commitment to flowering is established, can alter the morphological pattern of plant development. In this study, Glycine max (L.) Merrill cv. Ransom plants were initially grown under an inductive short-day (SD) photoperiod to promote flower evocation and then transferred to a long-day (LD) photoperiod to delay flower development by reestablishing vegetative growth (SD-LD plants). Some plants were transferred back to SD after 4-LD exposures to repromote flowering (SD-LD-SD plants). Alterations in organ initiation patterns, from floral to vegetative and back to floral, are characteristic of a reversion phenomenon. Morphological features that occurred at the shoot apical meristem in SD, LD, SD-LD, and SD-LD-SD plants were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Reverted plants initiated floral bracts and resumed initiation of trifoliolate leaves in the two-fifths floral phyllotaxy prior to terminal inflorescence development. When these plants matured, leaf-bract intermediates were positioned on the main stem instead of trifoliolate leaves. Plants transferred back to a SD photoperiod flowered earlier than those left in LD conditions. Results indicated that in plants transferred between SDs and LDs, photoperiod can influence organ initiation in florally evoked, but not committed, G. max plants.     

Flowering of the grass Lolium perenne: effects of vernalization and long days on gibberellin biosynthesis and signaling

Almost 50 years ago, it was shown that gibberellin (GA) applications caused flowering in species normally responding to cold (vernalization) and long day (LD). The implication that GAs are involved with vernalization and LD responses is examined here with the grass Lolium perenne. This species has an obligatory requirement for exposure to both vernalization and LD for its flowering (inflorescence initiation). Specific effects of vernalization or LD on GA synthesis, content, and action have been documented using four treatment pairs: nonvernalized or vernalized plants exposed to short days (SDs) or LDs. Irrespective of vernalization status, exposure to two LDs increased expression of L. perenne GA 20-oxidase-1 (LpGA20ox1), a critical GA biosynthetic gene, with endogenous GAs increasing by up to 5-fold in leaf and shoot. In parallel, LD led to degradation of a DELLA protein, SLENDER (within 48 h of LD or within 2 h of GA application). There was no effect on GA catabolism or abscisic acid content. Loss of SLENDER, which is a repressor of GA signaling, confirms the physiological relevance of increased GA content in LD. For flowering, applied GA replaced the need for LD but not that for vernalization. Thus, GAs may be an LD, leaf-sourced hormonal signal for flowering of L. perenne. By contrast, vernalization had little impact on GA or SLENDER levels or on SLENDER degradation following GA application. Thus, although vernalization and GA are both required for flowering of L. perenne, GA signaling is independent of vernalization that apparently impacts on unrelated processes.