Floral organs are specified by the combinatorial action of MADSdomain transcription factors, yet the mechanisms by which MADSdomain proteins activate or repress the expression of their target genes and the nature of their cofactors are still largely unknown. Here, we show using affinity purification and mass spectrometry that five major floral homeotic MADS-domain proteins (AP1, AP3, PI, AG, and SEP3) interact in floral tissues as proposed in the "floral quartet" model. In vitro studies confirmed a flexible composition of MADSdomain protein complexes depending on relative protein concentrations and DNA sequence. In situ bimolecular fluorescent complementation assays demonstrate that MADS-domain proteins interact during meristematic stages of flower development. By applying a targeted proteomics approach we were able to establish a MADS-domain protein interactome that strongly supports a mechanistic link between MADS-domain proteins and chromatin remodeling factors. Furthermore, members of other transcription factor families were identified as interaction partners of floral MADS-domain proteins suggesting various specific combinatorial modes of action.protein complex isolation | transcriptional regulation | chromatin activation | histone marks F lower development is one of the best understood developmental processes in plants. According to the classic ABC model (1), floral organs in the model plant species Arabidopsis are specified by the combinatorial activity of three functional gene classes. The A class genes represented by APETALA1 (AP1) and APETALA2 (AP2) specify sepal identity, and together with B class genes APETALA3 (AP3) and PISTILLATA (PI), they determine the identity of petals. The C class gene AGA-MOUS (AG) alone determines carpel identity and, together with B class genes, it specifies stamen identity. The ABC model was extended to the ABCE model, in which E class genes [SEPAL-LATA1-4 (SEP1-4)] are required for the specification of all four types of floral organs (2, 3). Based on genetic and yeast n-hybrid protein interaction data, it was later proposed in the "floral quartet model" that floral organs are specified by combinatorial protein interactions of ABCE-class MADS-domain transcription factors, which are thought to assemble into organ-specific quaternary protein complexes that bind to two CArG boxes, DNA consensus sequence CC[A/T] 6 GG, in regulatory regions of target genes (4, 5). E-class proteins have a special role in this model as major mediators of higher-order complex formation. Although interactions that were predicted in this model were further supported by additional in vitro DNA-binding assays and protoplast , formation and composition of these complexes in endogenous tissues remained unknown.Heterologous interaction studies in yeast and genetic data suggest recruitment of transcriptional coregulators such as SEUSS (SEU) and LEUNIG (LUG) by floral MADS-domain proteins (9). Ovule-specific MADS-domain protein complexes were found to form higher-order interactions with BELL1 (BEL1), a mem...

A yeast 3-hybrid screen in Arabidopsis reveals MADS box protein complexes: SEP3 is shown to mediate complex formation and floral timing.

Fruit ripening in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) requires the coordination of both developmental cues as well as the plant hormone ethylene. Although the role of ethylene in mediating climacteric ripening has been established, knowledge regarding the developmental regulators that modulate the involvement of ethylene in tomato fruit ripening is still lacking. Here, we show that the tomato APETALA2a (AP2a) transcription factor regulates fruit ripening via regulation of ethylene biosynthesis and signaling. RNA interference (RNAi)-mediated repression of AP2a resulted in alterations in fruit shape, orange ripe fruits, and altered carotenoid accumulation. Microarray expression analyses of the ripe AP2 RNAi fruits showed altered expression of genes involved in various metabolic pathways, such as the phenylpropanoid and carotenoid pathways, as well as in hormone synthesis and perception. Genes involved in chromoplast differentiation and other ripening-associated processes were also differentially expressed, but softening and ethylene biosynthesis occurred in the transgenic plants. Ripening regulators RIPENING-INHIBITOR, NON-RIPENING, and COLORLESS NON-RIPENING (CNR) function upstream of AP2a and positively regulate its expression. In the pericarp of AP2 RNAi fruits, mRNA levels of CNR were elevated, indicating that AP2a and CNR are part of a negative feedback loop in the regulation of ripening. Moreover, we demonstrated that CNR binds to the promoter of AP2a in vitro.

BackgroundTCP proteins are plant-specific transcription factors, which are known to have a wide range of functions in different plant species such as in leaf development, flower symmetry, shoot branching, and senescence. Only a small number of TCP genes has been characterised from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Here we report several functional features of the members of the entire family present in the tomato genome.ResultsWe have identified 30 Solanum lycopersicum SlTCP genes, most of which have not been described before. Phylogenetic analysis clearly distinguishes two homology classes of the SlTCP transcription factor family - class I and class II. Class II differentiates in two subclasses, the CIN-TCP subclass and the CYC/TB1 subclass, involved in leaf development and axillary shoots formation, respectively. The expression patterns of all members were determined by quantitative PCR. Several SlTCP genes, like SlTCP12, SlTCP15 and SlTCP18 are preferentially expressed in the tomato fruit, suggesting a role during fruit development or ripening. These genes are regulated by RIN (RIPENING INHIBITOR), CNR (COLORLESS NON-RIPENING) and SlAP2a (APETALA2a) proteins, which are transcription factors with key roles in ripening. With a yeast one-hybrid assay we demonstrated that RIN binds the promoter fragments of SlTCP12, SlTCP15 and SlTCP18, and that CNR binds the SlTCP18 promoter. This data strongly suggests that these class I SlTCP proteins are involved in ripening. Furthermore, we demonstrate that SlTCPs bind the promoter fragments of members of their own family, indicating that they regulate each other. Additional yeast one-hybrid studies performed with Arabidopsis transcription factors revealed binding of the promoter fragments by proteins involved in the ethylene signal transduction pathway, contributing to the idea that these SlTCP genes are involved in the ripening process. Yeast two-hybrid data shows that SlTCP proteins can form homo and heterodimers, suggesting that they act together in order to form functional protein complexes and together regulate developmental processes in tomato.ConclusionsThe comprehensive analysis we performed, like phylogenetic analysis, expression studies, identification of the upstream regulators and the dimerization specificity of the tomato TCP transcription factor family provides the basis for functional studies to reveal the role of this family in tomato development.

Summary Plants are exposed to combinations of various biotic and abiotic stresses, but stress responses are usually investigated for single stresses only.Here, we investigated the genetic architecture underlying plant responses to 11 single stresses and several of their combinations by phenotyping 350 Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. A set of 214 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was screened for marker‐trait associations in genome‐wide association (GWA) analyses using tailored multi‐trait mixed models.Stress responses that share phytohormonal signaling pathways also share genetic architecture underlying these responses. After removing the effects of general robustness, for the 30 most significant SNPs, average quantitative trait locus (QTL) effect sizes were larger for dual stresses than for single stresses.Plants appear to deploy broad‐spectrum defensive mechanisms influencing multiple traits in response to combined stresses. Association analyses identified QTLs with contrasting and with similar responses to biotic vs abiotic stresses, and below‐ground vs above‐ground stresses. Our approach allowed for an unprecedented comprehensive genetic analysis of how plants deal with a wide spectrum of stress conditions.