Dioecious Silene latifolia plants show sexual dimorphism in the vegetative stage

Abstract

BackgroundPrior to this study, no differences in gene expression between male and female dioecious plants in the vegetative state had been detected. Among dioecious plants displaying sexual dimorphism, Silene latifolia is one of the most studied species. Although many sexually dimorphic traits have been described in S. latifolia, all of them are quantitative, and they usually become apparent only after the initiation of flowering.ResultsWe present RT-PCR-based evidence that in S. latifolia, sexual dimorphism in gene expression is present long before the initiation of flowering. We describe three ESTs that show sex-specific (two male specific and one female specific) transcription at the rosette stage before the first flowering season.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this study provides the first molecular evidence of early pre-flowering sexual dimorphism in angiosperms.

Sex-specific DNA methylation and gene expression in andromonoecious poplar

“…The difference between male and female flower bud morphology is preceded by differences at the gene expression level (Zluvova et al 2010). Spatial and temporal alterations in DNA methylation during organ development have been detected.…”

Sexual Dimorphism Floral MicroRNA Profiling and Target Gene Expression in Andromonoecious Poplar (Populus tomentosa)

“…Moreover, the high-quality, annotated genome sequence of P. trichocarpa provides a key genomics tool, enabling genome-wide regulatory analyses [1]. Sexual dimorphism is a widely studied phenomenon in dioecious plants and likely results from different modes of selection operating in males and females [2]. As dioecious trees, poplar floral development is sexual dimorphism.…”

Sex-related differences in lipid peroxidation and photoprotection in Pistacia lentiscus

“…There is evidence that females present a higher investment of nutrients in reproduction at the expense of vegetative growth, and therefore females show lower productivity than males (Gross and Soule, 1981; Ågren, 1988; Korpelainen, 1992; Cipollini and Whigham, 1994; Zluvova et al , 2010). Consequently, environmental stress, caused by less-than-optimal light, nutrition, or water conditions, often favours maleness (reviewed by Korpelainen, 1999).…”