Transcriptomic comparison sheds new light on regulatory networks for dimorphic flower development in response to photoperiod in Viola prionantha

Abstract

Abstract Background Chasmogamous (CH)–cleistogamous (CL) dimorphic flowers are developed in Viola prionantha. However, the environmental and genetic factors necessary for the CH–CL transition are unknown. Results In the present work, short-day (SD) conditions induced CH flowers, whereas long days (LDs) triggered CL flowers in V. prionantha. Compared to fully developed CH flowers, CL flowers had less mature stamens, no nectar glands, and immature petals. Comparative transcriptomics revealed differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during CL and CH development. Core genes in the photoperiod pathway, such as V. prionantha orthologs of GIGANTEA (GI), CONSTANS (CO), and SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS 1 (SOC1), which promote floral induction, were highly expressed in CL flowers, whereas UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS (UFO) and B-class MADS-box genes for floral organ identity and development showed an opposite alteration. Moreover, genes in the glycolytic process, sucrose metabolic process, and fatty acid biosynthetic process were all highly expressed in CH flowers. Interestingly, V. prionantha orthologs of the B-class MADS-box genes APETALA3 (AP3) and PISTILLATA (PI) might relate to these sugar–fatty acid processes and were co-expressed with GAIP-B-like and YABBY5 (YAB5), which regulate the development of the petal, stamen, and nectary. Compared to CH flowers, DEGs and hub genes in the most significantly correlated modules of the gene co-expression network, which are involved in abiotic and biotic responses, were upregulated in CL flowers. Conclusions We proposed an integrative model for transcription regulation of genes in the photoperiod pathway, floral organ development, stress response, and sugar–fatty acid processes to determine CH–CL flower development in V. prionantha. Particularly, under LDs, activated GI may induce genes involved in the stress-response pathways, and then downregulated AP3 and PI or UFO to inhibit the sugar–fatty acid metabolic processes, together forming CL flowers. In contrast, CH flowers were produced under SDs. This work provides novel insights into the developmental evolution of dimorphic flowers in Viola.

Keywords

• Dimorphic flower
• Differentially expressed genes (DEGs)
• Photoperiod
• Floral development
• Transcriptomics
• Viola