Molecular and physiological characterization of the effects of auxin-enriched rootstock on grafting

Abstract

Grafting is a highly useful technique, and its success largely depends on graft union formation. In this study, we found that root-specific expression of the auxin biosynthetic gene iaaM in tobacco, when used as rootstock, resulted in more rapid callus formation and faster graft healing. However, overexpression of the auxin-inactivating iaaL gene in rootstocks delayed graft healing. We observed increased endogenous auxin levels and auxin-responsive DR5::GUS expression in scions of WT/ iaaM grafts compared with those found in WT/WT grafts, which suggested that auxin is transported upward from rootstock to scion tissues. A transcriptome analysis showed that auxin enhanced graft union formation through increases in the expression of genes involved in graft healing in both rootstock and scion tissues. We also observed that the ethylene biosynthetic gene ACS1 and the ethylene-responsive gene ERF5 were upregulated in both scions and rootstocks of the WT/ iaaM grafts. Furthermore, exogenous applications of the ethylene precursor ACC to the junction of WT/WT grafts promoted graft union formation, whereas application of the ethylene biosynthesis inhibitor AVG delayed graft healing in WT/WT grafts, and the observed delay was less pronounced in the WT/ iaaM grafts. These results demonstrated that elevated auxin levels in the iaaM rootstock in combination with the increased auxin levels in scions caused by upward transport/diffusion enhanced graft union formation and that ethylene was partially responsible for the effects of auxin on grafting. Our findings showed that grafting success can be enhanced by increasing the auxin levels in rootstocks using transgenic or gene-editing techniques.

References

[1] Haberal, M ., Korpe, D. A., Iseri, O. D. & Sahin, F. I. Grafting tomato onto tobacco rootstocks is a practical and feasible application for higher growth and leafing in different tobacco-tomato unions. Biol. Agriculture Horticulture 32, 1-10 (2016).

[2] Bletsos, F. A. & Olympios, C. M. Rootstocks and grafting of tomatoes, peppers and eggplants for soil-borne disease resistance, improved yield and quality. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2, 62-73 (2008).

[3] Dvin, S. R., Moghadam, E. G. & Kiani, M. Rooting response of hardwood cuttings of MM111 apple clonal rootstock to indolebutyric acid and rooting media. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 4, 453-458 (2011).

[4] Melnyk, C. W., Schuster, C., Leyser, O. & Meyerowitz, E. M. A developmental framework for graft formation and vascular reconnection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Curr. Biol. 25, 1306-1318 (2015).

[5] Nanda, A. K. & Melnyk, C. W. The role of plant hormones during grafting. J. Plant Res. 131, 49-58 (2018).

[6] Parkinson, M. & Yeoman, M. M. Graft formation in cultured, explanted inter-nodes. N. Phytologist 91, 711-719 (1982).

[7] Matsuoka, K. et al. Differential cellular control by cotyledon-derived phyto-hormones involved in graft reunion of Arabidopsis Hypocotyls. Plant Cell Physiol. 57, 2620-2631 (2016).

[8] Melnyk, C. W. et al. Transcriptome dynamics at Arabidopsis graft junctions reveal an inter-tissue recognition mechanism that activates vascular regen-eration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2447-2456 (2018).

[9] Yin, H. et al. Graft-union development: a delicate process that involves cell-cell communication between scion and stock for local auxin accumulation. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 4219-4232 (2012).

[10] Pitaksaringkarn, W., Ishiguro, S., Asahina, M. & Satoh, S. ARF6 and ARF8 con-tribute to tissue reunion in incised Arabidopsis inflorescence stems. Plant Biotechnol. 31, 49-53 (2014a).

[11] Asahina, M. et al. Spatially selective hormonal control of RAP2.6L and ANAC071 transcription factors involved in tissue reunion in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 16128-16132 (2011).

[12] Pitaksaringkarn, W. et al. XTH 20 and XTH 19 regulated by ANAC 071 under auxin flow are involved in cell proliferation in incised Arabidopsis inflorescence stems. Plant J. 80, 604-614 (2014b).

[13] Kang, B. G., Newcomb, W. & Burg, S. P. Mechanism of auxin-induced ethylene production. Plant Physiololgy 47, 504-509 (1971).

[14] Li, S. et al. Mitogen-activated protein kinases and calcium-dependent protein kinases are involved in wounding-induced ethylene biosynthesis in Arabi-dopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 41, 134-147 (2018).

[15] Paiva Neto, V. B. et al. Involvement of ethylene in the rooting of seedling shoot cultures of Bixa orellana L. Vitr. Cellar Developmental Biol. Plant 45, 693-700 (2009).

[16] Sitbon, F. et al. Transgenic tobacco plants coexpressing the Agrobacterium tumefaciens iaaM and iaaH genes display altered growth and indoleacetic acid metabolism. Plant Physiol. 99, 1062-1069 (1992).

[17] Chiou, S., Liu, W., Fang, C. & Lin, T. Characterization of the Scutellaria barbata glycosyltransferase gene and its promoter. Planta 232, 963-974 (2010).

[18] Pina, A. & Errea, P. A review of new advances in mechanism of graft compatibility-incompatibility. Sci. Horticulture 106, 1-11 (2005).

[19] McAvoy, R. J., Khodakovskaya, M., Li, Y., Wu, Y. & Xue, S. Phenotypic char-acterization of petunia plants expressing an indoleacetic acid (IAA)-lysine synthetase transgene driven by a shoot specific promoter. Acta Horticulturae 625, 379-385 (2003).

[20] Romano, C. P., Hein, M. B. & Klee, H. J. Inactivation of auxin in tobacco transformed with the indoleacetic acid-lysine synthetase gene of Pseudomo-nas savastanoi. Genes Dev. 5, 438-446 (1991).

[21] Melnyk, C. W. Plant grafting: Insights into tissue regeneration. Regeneration 4, 3-14 (2017).

[22] Moore, R. & Walker, D. B. Studies of vegetative compatibility-incompatibility in higher-plants. Protoplasma 115, 114-121 (1983).

[23] Moore, R. The role of direct cellular contact in the formation of compatible autografts in Sedum telephoides. Ann. Bot. 54, 127-133 (1984).

[24] Moore, R. & Walker, D. B. Studies on vegetative compatibility-incompatibility in higher plants. I. A structural study of a compatible autograph in Sedum tele-phoides (Crassulaceae). Am. J. Bot. 68, 820-830 (1981a).

[25] Ikeuchi, M., Sugimoto, K. & Iwase, A. Plant callus: mechanisms of induction and repression. Plant Cell 25, 3159-3173 (2013).

[26] Moore, R. & Walker, D. B. Studies on vegetative compatibility-incompatibility in higher plants. II. A structural study of an incompatible heterograft between Sedum telephoides (Crassulaceae) and Solanum pennelli (Solanaceae). Am. J. Bot. 68, 831-842 (1981b).

[27] Weatherhead, I. Causes of graft failure in Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 130, 1329-1334 (1986).

[28] Scarpella, E., Marcos, D., Friml, J. & Berleth, T. Control of leaf vascular patterning by polar auxin transport. Genes Dev. 20, 1015-1027 (2006).

[29] Suer, S., Agusti, J., Sanchez, P., Schwarz, M. & Greb, T. WOX4 imparts auxin responsiveness to cambium cells in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 23, 3247-3259 (2011).

[30] Ren, Y. et al. Involvement of metabolic, physiological and hormonal responses in the graft-compatible process of cucumber/pumpkin combinations was revealed through the integrative analysis of mRNA and miRNA expression. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 129, 368-380 (2018).

[31] Chen, Z. et al. Transcriptome changes between compatible and incompatible graft combination of Litchi chinensis by digital gene expression profile. Sci-entific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04328-x (2017).

[32] He, W. et al. Dissection of the mechanism for compatible and incompatible graft combinations of Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck (‘Hongmian Miyou’). International Journal of Molecular Sciences https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19020505 (2018b).

[33] Natalini, A., Martinez-Diaz, V., Ferrante, A. & Pardossi, A. Ethylene sensitivity regulates the wounding response in wild type and never ripe tomatoes. Horticultural Sci. Biotechnol. 92, 591-597 (2017).

[34] Xu, J. & Zhang, S. Ethylene biosynthesis and regulation in plants. In: Wen C. K. Eds. Ethylene in Plants.Dordrecht: Springer, 1-25 (2015).

[35] Hsu, C. L. & Stewart, J. M. Callus induction by (2-Chloroethyl) phosphonic acid on cultured cotton ovules. Physiologia Plant. 36, 150-153 (1976).

[36] Iwase, A. et al. The AP2/ERF transcription factor WIND1 controls cell ded-ifferentiation in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 21, 508-514 (2011).

[37] Fan, M., Xu, C., Xu, K. & Hu, Y. Lateral organ boundaries domain transcription factors direct callus formation in Arabidopsis regeneration. Cell Res. 22, 1169-1180 (2012).

[38] Rentsch, D., Schmidt, S. & Tegeder, M. Transporter for uptake and allocation of organic nitrogen compounds in plants. FEBS Lett. 581, 2281-2289 (2007).

[39] Li, W. et al. Elevated auxin and reduced cytokinin contents in rootstocks improve their performance and grafting success. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 1556-1565 (2017).

[40] Ulmasov, T., Murfett, J., Hagen, G. & Guilfoyle, T. Aux/IAA proteins repress expression of reporter genes containing natural and highly active synthetic auxin response elements. Plant Cell 9, 1963-1971 (1997).

[41] Zheng, X. et al. The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter sequence alters the level and patterns of activity of adjacent tissue‐ and organ‐specific gene promoters. Plant Cell Rep. 26, 1195-1203 (2007).

[42] Chen, Y. et al. In vitro regeneration and Agrobacterium‐mediated genetic transformation of Euonymus alatus. Plant Cell Rep. 25, 1043-1051 (2006).

[43] Li, W. et al. An AGAMOUS intron-driven cytotoxin leads to flowerless tobacco and produces no detrimental effects on vegetative growth of either tobacco or poplar. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14, 2276-2287 (2016).

[44] Liu, S., Chen, W., Qu, L., Gai, Y. & Jiang, X. Simultaneous determination of 24 or more acidic and alkaline phytohormones in femtomole quantities of plant tissues by high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-ion trap mass spectrometry. Analatical Bioanal. Chem. 405, 1257-1266 (2013).

[45] Chen, W., Gai, Y., Liu, S., Wang, R. & Jiang, X. Quantitative analysis of cytokinins in plants by high performance liquid chromatography: electronspray ioniza-tion ion trap mass spectrometry. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 52, 925-932 (2010).