PvE1 plays an essential role in regulating photoperiod sensitivity and flowering time in common bean

Abstract

Flowering time is a critical trait in common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris), influencing yield stability and geographical adaptation. While PvCOL2 and PvPHYA3 are known regulators under long-day (LD) conditions, we identified a third major locus through fine-mapping of the QTL DTF9.4/DTF9.5. Within this region, PvE1 ( Phvul.009G204600) emerged as a strong candidate, sharing sequence homology with the soybean E1 gene and acting as a transcriptional repressor of flowering. A naturally occurring 34-bp deletion in its 3′ UTR ( e1-del) was associated with early flowering and reduced photoperiod sensitivity. Expression analysis revealed that PvE1 displays a circadian rhythm under LD conditions, with a bimodal pattern peaking in the morning and early evening, resembling that reported for soybean E1. Phenotypic analyses of near-isogenic lines (NILs) confirmed that PvE1 delays flowering specifically under LD and also influences plant architecture, as e1 genotypes exhibited reduced plant height and node number. Functional dissection revealed that PvE1 and PvCOL2 act in partially redundant pathways to repress PvFT gene expression, with evidence of functional interaction. This regulatory module resembles that in soybean but shows species-specific divergence likely shaped by separate evolutionary paths. Genetic diversity analysis identified two rare PvE1 alleles, e1-del and e1-fs, both associated with earlier flowering when combined with col2 mutations, indicating additive effects and reduced photoperiod sensitivity. Although functional validation by transformation was not performed, the use of NILs provides robust genetic evidence of PvE1 activity. Together, these findings establish PvE1 as a conserved legume-specific floral repressor in common bean, with novel allelic variants that can be exploited to develop early-flowering, photoperiod-insensitive cultivars adapted to temperate and high-latitude regions.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the USDA/ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station for providing germplasm. We also acknowledge support from the consolidated research unit GENECROP (www.genecrop.es), funded by the Xunta de Galicia, is also acknowledged. We thank the technical staff for their valuable assistance with plant cultivation and laboratory maintenance. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIU) through grants CPP2021-008697 (+BEAN), PID2023-147984OB-I00 and PID2023-151867OB-C31, co-funded by AEI/FEDER, EU.

Author contributions

M.S. and R.L. conceived and supervised the study. A.M.G. and M.S. designed the research strategy. A.M.G., A.M.P. and F.J.Y.-L. performed the experiments and analyzed the data, with input from R.F. and S.B. A.M.G. prepared the original draft of the manuscript. M.S., F.J.Y.-L. and R.L. contributed to manuscript revision and final editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The data underlying this study are included in the article and its online supplementary materials.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at Horticulture Research online.

References

[1] Gepts P . Origin and evolution of common bean: past events and recent trends. HortScience. 1998; 33: 1124-30

[2] Rossi M, Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, et al. Linkage disequilibrium and population structure in wild and domesticated populations of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Evol Appl. 2009; 2: 504-22

[3] Schmutz J, McClean P, Mamidi S, et al. A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nat Genet. 2014; 46: 707-13

[4] Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, Giardini A, et al. Molecular analysis of the parallel domestication of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Mesoamerica and the Andes . New Phytol. 2013; 197: 300-13

[5] Wallace DH . Physiological genetics of plant maturity, adaptation, and yield. In: Janick J, ed. Plant Breeding Reviews. Vol. 3. Westport, CT: The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., 1985, 21-168

[6] White JW, Laing DR . Photoperiod response of flowering in diverse genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) . Field Crop Res. 1989; 22: 113-28

[7] Bellucci E, Benazzo A, Xu C, et al. Selection and adaptive introgression guided the complex evolutionary history of the European common bean. Nat Commun. 2023; 14: 1908

[8] Denning-James KE, Chater C, Cortés AJ, et al. Genome-wide association mapping dissects the selective breeding of determinacy and photoperiod sensitivity in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) . G3 (Bethesda). 2025; 15: jkaf090

[9] Valverde F . CONSTANS and the evolutionary origin of photoperiodic timing of flowering . J Exp Bot. 2011; 62: 2453-63

[10] Takagi H, Hempton AK, Imaizumi T . Photoperiodic flowering in Arabidopsis: multilayered regulatory mechanisms of CONSTANS and the florigen FLOWERING LOCUS T . Plant Commun. 2023; 4: 100552

[11] Hecht V, Knowles CL, Vander Schoor JK, et al. Pea LATE BLOOMER1 is a GIGANTEA ortholog with roles in photoperiodic flowering, deetiolation, and transcriptional regulation of circadian clock gene homologs . Plant Physiol. 2007; 144: 648-61

[12] Hecht V, Laurie RE, Vander Schoor JK, et al. The pea GIGAS gene is a FLOWERING LOCUS T homolog necessary for graft-transmissible specification of flowering but not for responsiveness to photoperiod . Plant Cell. 2011; 23: 147-61

[13] Kong F, Liu B, Xia Z, et al. Two coordinately regulated homologs of FLOWERING LOCUS T are involved in the control of photoperiodic flowering in soybean . Plant Physiol. 2010; 154: 1220-31

[14] Watanabe S, Harada K, Abe J . Genetic and molecular bases of photoperiod responses of flowering in soybean. Breed Sci. 2012; 61: 531-43

[15] Kim MY, Kang YJ, Lee T, et al. Divergence of flowering-related genes in three legume species. Plant Genome . 2013; 6: 1-12

[16] Wong ACS, Hecht VFG, Picard K, et al. Isolation and functional analysis of CONSTANS-LIKE genes suggests that a central role for CONSTANS in flowering time control is not evolutionarily conserved in Medicago truncatula . Front Plant Sci. 2014; 5: 486

[17] Cao D, Li Y, Lu S, et al. GmCOL1a and GmCOL1b function as flowering repressors in soybean under long-day conditions . Plant Cell Physiol. 2015; 56: 2409-22

[18] Wu F, Sedivy EJ, Price WB, et al. Evolutionary trajectories of duplicated FT homologues and their roles in soybean domestication . Plant J. 2017; 90: 941-53

[19] No DH, Baek D, Lee SH, et al. High-temperature conditions promote soybean flowering through the transcriptional reprograming of flowering genes in the photoperiod pathway. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 1314

[20] González AM, Vander Schoor JK, Fang C, et al. Ancient relaxation of an obligate short-day requirement in common bean through loss of CONSTANS-like gene function . Curr Biol. 2021; 31: 1643-1652.e2

[21] Lin X, Dong L, Tang Y, et al. Novel and multifaceted regulations of photoperiodic flowering by phytochrome A in soybean. Proc Natl Acad Sci . 2022; 119: e2208708119

[22] Zhao F, Lyu X, Ji R, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-engineered mutation to identify the roles of phytochromes in regulating photomorphogenesis and flowering time in soybean. Crop J. 2022; 10: 1654-64

[23] Weller JL, Ortega R . Genetic control of flowering time in legumes. Front Plant Sci . 2015; 6: 136925

[24] Jaudal M, Wen J, Mysore KS, et al. Medicago PHYA promotes flowering, primary stem elongation and expression of flowering time genes in long days . BMC Plant Biol. 2020; 20: 329

[25] Weller JL, Vander Schoor JK, Perez-Wright EC, et al. Parallel origins of photoperiod adaptation following dual domestications of common bean. J Exp Bot. 2019; 70: 1209-19

[26] Xia Z, Watanabe S, Yamada T, et al. Positional cloning and characterization reveal the molecular basis for soybean maturity locus E1 that regulates photoperiodic flowering . Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012; 109: E2155-64

[27] Xu M, Yamagishi N, Zhao C, et al. The soybean-specific maturity gene E1 family of floral repressors controls night-break responses through down-regulation of FLOWERING LOCUS T orthologs . Plant Physiol. 2015; 168: 1735-46

[28] Wakabayashi T, Oh H, Kawaguchi M, et al. Polymorphisms of E1 and GIGANTEA in wild populations of Lotus japonicus . J Plant Res. 2014; 127: 651-60

[29] González AM, Yuste-Lisbona FJ, Weller J, et al. Characterization of QTL and environmental interactions controlling flowering time in Andean common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) . Front Plant Sci. 2021; 11: 599462

[30] Yamanaka N, Nagamura Y, Tsubokura Y, et al. Quantitative trait locus analysis of flowering time in soybean using a RFLP linkage map. Breed Sci. 2000; 50: 109-15

[31] Han J, Guo B, Guo Y, et al. Creation of early flowering germplasm of soybean by CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Front Plant Sci. 2019; 10: 1446

[32] Castillejo C, Pelaz S . The balance between CONSTANS and TEMPRANILLO activities determines FT expression to trigger flowering . Curr Biol. 2008; 18: 1338-43

[33] Hesketh J . 3’-untranslated regions are important in mRNA localization and translation: lessons from selenium and metallothionein. Biochem Soc Trans. 2004; 32: 990-3

[34] Amrani N, Ganesan R, Kervestin S, et al. A faux 3’-UTR promotes aberrant termination and triggers nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. Nature. 2004; 432: 112-8

[35] Mayr C . Evolution and biological roles of alternative 3′ UTRs. Trends Cell Biol. 2016; 26: 227-37

[36] Fang C, Sun Z, Li S, et al. Subfunctionalisation and self-repression of duplicated E1 homologues finetunes soybean flowering and adaptation . Nat Commun. 2024; 15: 6184

[37] Sun H, Jia Z, Cao D, et al. GmFT2a, a soybean homolog of FLOWERING LOCUS T, is involved in flowering transition and maintenance . PLoS One. 2011; 6: e29238

[38] Lee SH, Choi CW, Park KM, et al. Diversification in functions and expressions of soybean FLOWERING LOCUS T genes fine-tunes seasonal flowering . Front Plant Sci. 2021; 12: 613675

[39] Tsubokura Y, Watanabe S, Xia Z, et al. Natural variation in the genes responsible for maturity loci E1, E2, E3 and E4 in soybean . Ann Bot. 2014; 113: 429-41

[40] Zhai H, Lü S, Wu H, et al. Diurnal expression pattern, allelic variation, and association analysis reveal functional features of the E1 gene in control of photoperiodic flowering in soybean . PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0135909

[41] Zhang J, Xu M, Dwiyanti MS, et al. A soybean deletion mutant that moderates the repression of flowering by cool temperatures. Front Plant Sci. 2020; 11: 429

[42] Schmutz J, Cannon SB, Schlueter J, et al. Genome sequence of the palaeopolyploid soybean. Nature. 2010; 463: 178-83

[43] Nan H, Cao D, Zhang D, et al. GmFT2a and GmFT5a redundantly and differentially regulate flowering through interaction with and upregulation of the bZIP transcription factor GmFDL19 in soybean . PLoS One. 2014; 9: e97669

[44] Winterhagen P, Tiyayon P, Samach A, et al. Isolation and characterization of FLOWERING LOCUS T subforms and APETALA1 of the subtropical fruit tree Dimocarpus longan . Plant Physiol Biochem. 2013; 71: 184-90

[45] Coelho CP , Minow MA , Chalfun-Junior A , et al. Putative sugarcane FT/TFL1 genes delay flowering time and alter reproductive architecture in Arabidopsis . Front Plant Sci. 2014; 5: 221

[46] Zhai H, Lu S, Liang S, et al. GmFT4, a homolog of FLOWERING LOCUS T, is positively regulated by E1 and functions as a flowering repressor in soybean . PLoS One. 2014; 9: e89030

[47] Liu W, Jiang B, Ma L, et al. Functional diversification of FLOWERING LOCUS T homologs in soybean: GmFT1a and GmFT2a/5a have opposite roles in controlling flowering and maturation . New Phytol. 2018; 217: 1335-45

[48] Wu F, Price BW, Haider W, et al. Functional and evolutionary characterization of the CONSTANS gene family in short-day photoperiodic flowering in soybean . PLoS One. 2014; 9: e85754

[49] Van Berloo R . GGT: software for the display of graphical genotypes. J Hered. 1999; 90: 328-9

[50] Wan Z, Liu Y, Guo D, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutation of the E1 decreases photoperiod sensitivity, alters stem growth habits, and decreases branch number in soybean . Front Plant Sci. 2022; 13: 1066820

[51] Cuevas HE, Zhou C, Tang H, et al. The evolution of photoperiod-insensitive flowering in sorghum, a genomic model for panicoid grasses. Mol Biol Evol. 2016; 33: 2417-28

[52] Singh SP . A Key for Identification of Different Growth Habits of Phaseolus vulgaris L . Cali, Colombia: CIAT; 1981

[53] Addinsoft. XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution , Version 2023.2. Paris, France: Addinsoft; 2023

[54] Koressaar T, Remm M . Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics . 2007; 23: 1289-91

[55] Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012; 40: e115

[56] Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, et al. Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28: 1647-9

[57] Neff MM, Turk E, Kalishman M . Web-based primer design for single nucleotide polymorphism analysis. Trends Genet. 2002; 18: 613-5

[58] Lin X, Liu B, Weller JL, et al. Molecular mechanisms for the photoperiodic regulation of flowering in soybean. J Integr Plant Biol . 2021; 63: 981-94

[59] Gao Y, Zhang Y, Ma C, et al. Editing the nuclear localization signals of E1 and E1Lb enables the production of tropical soybean in temperate growing regions . Plant Biotechnol J. 2024; 22: 2145-56

[60] Lee N, Ozaki Y, Hempton AK, et al. The FLOWERING LOCUS T gene expression is controlled by high-irradiance response and external coincidence mechanism in long days in Arabidopsis . New Phytol. 2023; 239: 208-21

[61] Winer J, Jung CKS, Shackel I, et al. Development and validation of real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for monitoring gene expression in cardiac myocytes in vitro. Anal Biochem . 1999; 270: 41-9