PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in Brachypodium distachyon

Daniel P Woods; Weiya Li; Richard Sibout; Mingqin Shao; Debbie Laudencia-Chingcuanco; John P Vogel; Jorge Dubcovsky; Richard M Amasino

doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706

. 2023 May 10;19(5):e1010706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706

PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in Brachypodium distachyon

Daniel P Woods ^1,^2,^*,^#, Weiya Li ^3,^#, Richard Sibout ^4,⁵, Mingqin Shao ⁶, Debbie Laudencia-Chingcuanco ⁷, John P Vogel ⁶, Jorge Dubcovsky ^1,², Richard M Amasino ^3,^8,^*

Editor: Claudia Köhler⁹

PMCID: PMC10171608 PMID: 37163541

Abstract

Daylength sensing in many plants is critical for coordinating the timing of flowering with the appropriate season. Temperate climate-adapted grasses such as Brachypodium distachyon flower during the spring when days are becoming longer. The photoreceptor PHYTOCHROME C is essential for long-day (LD) flowering in B. distachyon. PHYC is required for the LD activation of a suite of genes in the photoperiod pathway including PHOTOPERIOD1 (PPD1) that, in turn, result in the activation of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT1)/FLORIGEN, which causes flowering. Thus, B. distachyon phyC mutants are extremely delayed in flowering. Here we show that PHYC-mediated activation of PPD1 occurs via EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3), a component of the evening complex in the circadian clock. The extreme delay of flowering of the phyC mutant disappears when combined with an elf3 loss-of-function mutation. Moreover, the dampened PPD1 expression in phyC mutant plants is elevated in phyC/elf3 mutant plants consistent with the rapid flowering of the double mutant. We show that loss of PPD1 function also results in reduced FT1 expression and extremely delayed flowering consistent with results from wheat and barley. Additionally, elf3 mutant plants have elevated expression levels of PPD1, and we show that overexpression of ELF3 results in delayed flowering associated with a reduction of PPD1 and FT1 expression, indicating that ELF3 represses PPD1 transcription consistent with previous studies showing that ELF3 binds to the PPD1 promoter. Indeed, PPD1 is the main target of ELF3-mediated flowering as elf3/ppd1 double mutant plants are delayed flowering. Our results indicate that ELF3 operates downstream from PHYC and acts as a repressor of PPD1 in the photoperiod flowering pathway of B. distachyon.

Author summary

Daylength is an important environmental cue that plants and animals use to coordinate important life history events with a proper season. In plants, timing of flowering to a particular season is an essential adaptation to many ecological niches. Perceiving changes in daylength starts with the perception of light via specific photoreceptors such as phytochromes. In temperate grasses, how daylength perception is integrated into downstream pathways to trigger flowering is not fully understood. However, some of the components involved in the translation of daylength perception into the induction of flowering in temperate grasses have been identified from studies of natural variation. For example, specific alleles of two genes called EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3) and PHOTOPERIOD1 (PPD1) have been selected during breeding of different wheat and barley varieties to modulate the photoperiodic response to maximize reproduction in different environments. Here, we show in the temperate grass model Brachypodium distachyon that the translation of the light signal perceived by phytochromes into a flowering response is mediated by ELF3, and that PPD1 is genetically downstream of ELF3 in the photoperiodic flowering pathway. These results provide a genetic framework for understanding the photoperiodic response in temperate grasses that include agronomically important crops such as wheat, oats, barley, and rye.

Introduction

The transition from vegetative growth to flowering is an important developmental decision for which the timing is often directly influenced by the environment (e.g. [1–4]). This critical life history trait has been shaped over evolutionary time to enable reproduction to coincide with the time of year that is most favorable for flower and seed development. Moreover, breeding to adjust the timing of flowering in crops has been critical for adapting various crop varieties to changing environments and to increase yield (e.g. [5]).

In many plant species, changes in day-length and/or temperature provide seasonal cues that result in flowering during a specific time of year [1,6]. Many temperate grasses such as Brachypodium distachyon (B. distachyon), wheat, and barley that flower in the spring or early summer months in response to increasing day-lengths are referred to as long-day (LD) plants [7]. B. distachyon is closely related to the core pooid clade comprising wheat, oats, barley, and rye and has a number of attributes that make it an attractive grass model organism suitable for developmental genetics research [8,9].

Variation in the LD promotion of flowering in temperate grasses such as wheat and barley can be due to allelic variation at PHOTOPERIOD1 (PPD1), a member of the pseudo-response regulator (PRR) gene family (PPD1 is also known as PSEUDO RESPONSE REGULATOR 37;PRR37) [10,11]. Natural variation in PPD1 resulting in either hypomorphic alleles as found in barley or dominant PPD1 alleles as found in tetraploid or hexaploid wheat impacts flowering [10–15]. Specifically, natural recessive mutations in the conserved CONSTANS, CONSTANS-LIKE and TIMING OF CAB EXPRESSION 1 (CCT) putative DNA binding domain in the barley PPD1 protein cause photoperiod insensitivity and delayed flowering under LD [11, 12], whereas wheat photoperiod insensitivity is linked to overlapping large deletions in the promoter region of PPD1 in either the A [13] or D genome homeologs [10]. These deletions result in elevated expression of PPD1, particularly during dawn, causing rapid flowering even under non-inductive SD conditions [13]. It is worth noting that although these wheat lines are referred to as photoperiod insensitive (PI) varieties they still flower earlier under LD than under SD if the timing of flowering is measured as the emergence of the wheat spike (heading time) [16]. It has been hypothesized that the large deletion within the PPD1 promoter might remove a binding site for one or more transcriptional repressors [13]. To date, natural variation studies of flowering in B. distachyon have not pointed to allelic variation at PPD1 and thus its role in LD flowering in B. distachyon is not known [17–21].

Variation in EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3; also known as mat and eam) impacts photoperiodic flowering in grasses, including wheat [22,23], barley [24,25], and rice [26]. In these plants, natural variation in ELF3 allows growth at latitudes that otherwise would not be inductive for flowering, enabling these crops to be grown in regions with short growing seasons [5]. For example, early maturity (eam) loci have been used by breeders to allow barley to grow at higher latitudes in regions of northern Europe with short growing seasons [24,27]. The eam8 mutant in the barley ortholog of ELF3, is a loss-of-function mutation that accelerates flowering under SD or LDs [24,25] similar to elf3 loss-of-function alleles described previously in the eudicot model Arabidopsis thaliana (A. thaliana) [28]. Moreover, loss of function of ELF3 in B. distachyon also results in rapid flowering under SD and LD, and expression of the B. distachyon ELF3 protein is able to rescue the A. thaliana elf3 mutant, demonstrating a conserved role of ELF3 in flowering across angiosperm diversification [29–31].

Work in A. thaliana has shown that ELF3 is an important component of the circadian clock that acts as a bridge protein within a trimeric protein complex that also contains LUX ARRTHYHMO (LUX), and EARLY FLOWERING 4 (ELF4) and is referred to as the evening complex (EC) [32]. Loss-of-function mutations in any of the proteins that make up the EC results in disrupted clock function and rapid flowering [33–36]. The peak expression of the EC at dusk is involved in the direct transcriptional repression of genes that make up the morning loop of the circadian clock including A. thaliana PRR7 and PRR9, which are paralogs of grass PPD1 and PRR73 [37–39]. Recently, it has been shown that the EC also directly represses PRR37, PRR95, and PRR73 in rice (PRR37 is the rice ortholog of PPD1), indicating conservation of the role of the EC across flowering plant diversification [40]. Furthermore, elf3 mutants in barley, wheat, and B. distachyon have elevated PPD1 expression [23,24,30] indicating ELF3 may impact flowering in part via PPD1, but to what extent remains to be determined.

The photoperiod and circadian pathways converge in the transcriptional activation of florigen/FLOWERING LOCUS T1 (FT1) in leaves [6,41]. In temperate grasses, PPD1 is required for the LD induction of FT1, whereas in A. thaliana CONSTANS (CO) is the main photoperiodic gene required for FT1 activation in LD [16,42,43]. There are two CO-like genes in temperate grasses. Interestingly, in the presence of functional PPD1, co1co2 wheat plants have a modest earlier heading phenotype suggesting they are in fact mild floral repressors, but in the absence of PPD1, CO1 acts as a flowering promoter under LD [16]. To date, no null co1co2 double mutants have been reported in B. distachyon. However, RNAi knock-down of co1 results in a 30-day delay in flowering under 16h LD [44] and overexpression of CO1 leads to earlier flowering in SD [44]. These results indicate that in B. distachyon CO1 has a promoting role in flowering even in the presence of a functional PPD1 gene, and suggest potential differences in the role of CO1 in the regulation of flowering between B. distachyon and wheat.

Once FT1 is activated by LD it interacts with the bZIP transcription factor FD which triggers the expression of the MADS-box transcription factor VERNALIZATION1 (VRN1) [45,46]. VRN1 in turn upregulates the expression of FT1 forming a positive feedback loop that overcomes the repression from the zinc finger and CCT domain-containing transcription factor VERNALIZATION2 (VRN2) [17,47–50]. The FT1 protein is then thought to migrate from the leaves to the shoot apical meristem, as shown in A. thaliana and rice [51,52], to induce the expression of floral homeotic genes including VRN1, thus converting the vegetative meristem to a floral meristem under favorable LD photoperiods.

Light signals are perceived initially by photoreceptors that initiate a signal transduction cascade impacting a variety of developmental responses to light [53]. The sensing of light is accomplished by complementary photoreceptors: phytochromes that perceive the ratio of red and far-red light, cryptochromes, phototropins, and Zeitlupe family proteins that detect blue light, and UV RESISTANCE LOCUS 8 that detects ultraviolet B light [54,55]. The phytochromes form homodimers that upon exposure of plants to red light undergo a confirmation shift to an active form causing the activation of a suite of downstream genes [54]. Exposure of plants to far-red or dark conditions causes reversion of the phytochromes to an inactive state [54].

There are three phytochromes in temperate grasses referred to as PHYTOCHROME A (PHYA), PHYTOCHROME B (PHYB), and PHYTOCHROME C (PHYC) [56]. Functional analyses of these phytochromes in temperate grasses revealed that PHYB and PHYC play a major role in the LD induction of flowering because loss-of-function mutations in either of these genes results in extremely delayed flowering [57–59] whereas loss-of-function mutations in PHYA in B. distachyon results in only a modest delay of flowering under inductive LD, indicating PHYB and PHYC are the main light receptors required for photoperiodic flowering in temperate grasses [29].The important role of PHYC in photoperiodic flowering is not universal as loss of phyC function in A. thaliana and rice only has small effects on flowering [60,61].

In temperate grasses, PHYB and PHYC are required for the transcriptional activation of a suite of genes involved in the photoperiod pathway, including PPD1, CO1, and FT1, and ectopic expression of FT1 in the B. distachyon phyC background results in rapid flowering—a reversal of the phyC single-mutant, delayed-flowering phenotype [57,58,62]. Moreover, consistent with PHYB/C acting at the beginning of the photoperiodic flowering signal cascade, expression of genes encoding components of the circadian clock are also severely dampened in the phyB and phyC mutant backgrounds [29,57–59]. An exception to this is that the expression of ELF3 is not altered in the temperate grass phytochrome mutants [29,58,59]. Recently, in B. distachyon it has been shown that PHYC can interact with ELF3, and this interaction destabilizes the ELF3 protein indicating that the regulation of ELF3 by PHY is at least in part at the protein level consistent with previous studies from A. thaliana, rice, and the companion study in wheat [23,29,40,63–66]. At present it is not clear to what extent the regulation of ELF3 by PHYs is critical for photoperiodic flowering.

Here, we show in B. distachyon by analyzing phyC/efl3 double mutant plants that indeed the light signal perceived by phytochromes is mediated through ELF3 for photoperiodic flowering. The extreme delayed flowering of the phyC mutant disappears in the phyC/elf3 double mutant which flower as rapidly as the elf3 single mutant. Moreover, the expression profiles of genes in the photoperiod pathway are similar between elf3 and phyC/elf3 mutants compared to phyC mutants. Thus, elf3 is completely epistatic to phyC at the phenotypic and molecular levels. Furthermore, we show strong, environment-dependent genetic interactions between ELF3 and PPD1, which indicates that PPD1 is a main target of ELF3-mediated repression of flowering. These results provide a genetic and molecular framework to understand photoperiodic flowering in the temperate grasses.

Results

Rapid flowering of elf3 is epistatic to the delayed flowering of phyC

Previous studies in B. distachyon showed that PHYC can affect the stability of the ELF3 protein, and that the transcriptome of a phyC mutant resembles that of a plant with elevated ELF3 signaling [29]. Thus, it has been suggested that the extreme delayed flowering phenotype of the phyC mutant [58] could be mediated by ELF3 [29]. To test the extent to which the translation of the light signal perceived by PHYC to control flowering is mediated by ELF3, we generated elf3/phyC double mutant plants and evaluated the flowering of the double mutant relative to that of elf3 and phyC single mutants as well as Bd21-3 wild type under 16h-LD and 8h-SD (Fig 1).

Fig 1 — The rapid flowering of the *elf3* mutant is epistatic to the delayed flowering of the *phyC* mutant (A) Representative images of Bd21-3 wild-type, *elf3*, *phyC* and *elf3/phyC* double mutant plants grown in a 16h photoperiod at 90d after germination. Bar = 17cm. (**B, D**) Flowering times under 16h (B) or 8h daylengths (D) measured as days to heading of Bd21-3, *elf3*, *phyC*, and *elf3/phyC*. (C) Flowering phenotypes under 16h (C) or 8h daylengths (E) measured as the number of leaves on the parent culm at time of heading. Bars represent the average of 8 plants ± SD. Arrows above bars indicate that none of the plants flowered at the end of the experiment (150d). Letters (a, b) indicate statistical differences (p < 0.05) according to a Tukey’s HSD test used to perform multiple comparisons.

Under both 16h LD and 8 SD photoperiods, we found that elf3 is epistatic to phyC. Specifically, in LD elf3/phyC double mutants flowered rapidly by 38 days with 6.9 leaves similar to elf3 mutants that flowered by 34 days with 6.6 leaves (Fig 1A and 1B). In contrast, phyC mutants had not flowered after 150 days with greater than 20 leaves when the experiment was terminated, and Bd21-3 wild-type flowered by 72 days with 12 leaves consistent with previous studies [49,58]. In 8h SD, elf3/phyC double mutants also flowered rapidly by 54 days with 8.8 leaves similar to elf3 mutants that flowered by 48 days with 8.5 leaves (Fig 1D and 1E). In contrast, both Bd21-3 wild-type and phyC mutants had not flowered by 150 days with >18 leaves when the experiment was terminated (Fig 1D and 1E). These results indicate that the extreme delayed flowering mutant phenotype of phyC in B. distachyon is mediated by ELF3.

To determine if PHYC affects the expression of ELF3, we analyzed ELF3 mRNA levels across a diurnal light cycle (16h light and 8h dark). There were no significant differences in ELF3 expression at any time point in the phyC mutant relative to wildtype (S1 Fig) indicating that PHYC does not affect the transcriptional profile of ELF3 in B. distachyon consistent with results from A. thaliana and wheat (67, 69).

Effect of mutations in PHYC and ELF3 on the transcriptional profiles of flowering time genes

To further understand how PHYC and ELF3 affect flowering at a molecular level, we compared the mRNA levels of B. distachyon orthologs of the photoperiod and vernalization pathway genes FT1, VRN1, PPD1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 across a diurnal cycle in 16h LD in the phyC and elf3 single mutants versus the elf3/phyC double mutant (Fig 2). We were particularly interested in determining how the expression profiles of “flowering-time genes” in the elf3/phyC double mutant compared to the elf3 and phyC single mutant. The newly expanded fourth leaf was harvested for gene expression analyses because at this developmental stage in 16h daylengths the meristems of all of the plant genotypes are at a vegetative stage and thus are developmentally equivalent. Consistent with the rapid flowering of the elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants, the mRNA expression levels of FT1 and VRN1 in these lines are significantly higher than the levels in wild-type and phyC mutants across all the time points tested (Fig 2A and 2D). Moreover, the overall expression profiles of FT1 and VRN1 in the elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants were similar throughout the day. This is in contrast to the phyC mutant in which FT1 and VRN1 mRNA levels were lower than wild type throughout the day consistent with the delayed flowering phenotype of phyC. Although the elevated levels of FT1 and VRN1 in both elf3 and elf3/phyC are consistent with their rapid flowering, the expression of the floral repressor, VRN2, exhibits a similar elevated expression profile throughout the day in both elf3 and elf3/phyC relative to wild-type or phyC single-mutants (Fig 2E). The elevated VRN2 expression levels in elf3 mutant plants are consistent with previous results in B. distachyon and other grasses [23,29,30,40,64]. The transcriptional profile of CO1 was similar in both the elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants with elevated expression compared to wild-type between zt4-8 and then lower than wild-type between zt12-20 (Fig 2C). A similar expression pattern was found for Hd1 (the rice CO homolog) in the elf3-1/elf3-2 double mutant in rice [40]. Consistent with previous reports, CO1 expression levels remained low in Brachypodium phyC mutants throughout a diurnal cycle [58]. By contrast CO1 expression is increased in the phyC mutants in wheat [57] indicating another difference in the regulation of CO1 between these two species. Lastly, the CO2 expression profiles were similar between wild-type, elf3, and elf3/phyC, whereas CO2 mRNA levels were lower in phyC throughout a diurnal cycle (Fig 2F). In summary, the transcriptional profiles of FT1, VRN1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 are similar between elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants consistent with ELF3 acting downstream from PHYC in the photoperiod flowering pathway.

Fig 2 — Normalized expression of (A) *FT1*, (B) *PPD1*, (C) *CO1*, (D) *VRN1*, (E) *VRN2*, and (F) *CO2* during a 24h diurnal cycle in Bd21-3 (black line), *elf3* (blue line), *phyC* (gray line) and *elf3/phyC* double mutant (orange line). Plants were grown in LDs until the fourth-leaf stage was reached (Zadoks = 14) at which point the newly expanded fourth leaf was harvested at zt0, zt4, zt8, zt12, zt16, and zt20. Note the zt0 value and zt24 value are the same. The average of four biological replicates is shown (three leaves per replicate). Error bars represent standard deviation of the mean. Data were normalized using *UBC18* as done in [49].

The transcriptional profile of PPD1 indicates a more complex interaction between PHYC and ELF3. In wild type, the expression levels of PPD1 peak at zt12 with the lowest expression level at dawn and during the evening consistent with previous reports of PPD1 expression patterns in B. distachyon [29,30] (Fig 2B). In both the elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants, we observed increased PPD1 expression relative to wild-type at dawn and during the evening with expression levels similar to wild-type at zt12. Interestingly, the increased expression of PPD1 observed at dawn and during the night in the elf3/phyC background was significantly lower than that of the elf3 single mutant suggesting PHYC may impact PPD1 expression via additional genes beyond ELF3. In contrast, PPD1 expression levels were reduced in the phyC mutant relative to wild type, elf3, and elf3/phyC mutants throughout a diurnal cycle, consistent with the reduced FT1 expression and delayed flowering phenotype of the phyC mutant.

Identification and mapping of a ppd1 mutant in B. distachyon

To determine the role of PPD1 in flowering in B. distachyon, the genome-sequenced, sodium-azide mutant line NaN610 with a predicted high-effect mutation impacting a splice acceptor donor site in PPD1 (BdiBd21-3.1G0218200) was obtained from the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) ([65]; https://phytozome-next.jgi.doe.gov/jbrowse/). A quarter of the NaN610 M3 seeds received were segregating for an extremely delayed flowering phenotype (Fig 3B–3D).

Fig 3 — (A) Gene structure of *PPD1* showing the location of the nucleotide change of the sodium azide-induced mutation; orange bar indicates the region that encodes the CCT domain. Below the gene structure diagram is a gel image of the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (30 cycles of amplification) showing PCR products of *PPD1* cDNA in Bd21-3 and *ppd1* mutant plants. The location of primers used in each reaction are shown in the diagram above the gel image. (B) Representative photo of Bd21-3, heterozygous, and homozygous *ppd1* plants grown in a 20h LD. Picture was taken 60d after germination in 20h LD, bar = 5cm. (C and D) Flowering time was measured as days to heading (C) and the number of leaves on the parent culm at time of heading (D), ** indicates statistical differences (p < 0.01), *** indicates statistical differences (p < 0.001) by Student’s t-test. (E) Fine mapping of *ppd1* in a population of 380 BC1F2 individuals. Individuals with seven different haplotypes were identified by three dCAPS markers and flowering times of each haplotype were determined in the F3 generation. Black, grey, and light grey rectangles represent NAN610, heterozygous, and Bd21-3 genotypes, respectively. Variants around the *PPD1* locus from the NAN610 line are shown with black dots, and yellow arrows indicate the coding genes within the mapped interval with the specific effect on the coding region indicated.

Due to the high mutant load of these NaN mutant lines, we validated through mapping that the delayed flowering phenotype is associated with PPD1 (Fig 3E and 3F). We backcrossed NaN610 with Bd21-3 and confirmed a quarter of the plants in the BC1F2 population (n = 380) were delayed flowering, demonstrating the recessive nature of the mutant. Three Derived Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences (dCAPs) markers closely linked with PPD1 were developed based on the variant’s information for the NAN610 line, with one of the dCAPs primers located within the PPD1 locus itself (Fig 3E and S1 Table). This approach allowed us to map the causative lesion to within a 1Mb interval (13.1Mb-14.2Mb) on the top arm of chromosome 1, demonstrating the delayed flowering phenotype is tightly linked with PPD1 (Fig 3E).

To confirm that the predicted splice site mutation does in fact impact the splicing of PPD1, we sequenced the mRNA products of the ppd1 NaN610 mutant line and Bd21-3 (Fig 3A). We found that the splice site mutation resulted in the mis-splicing of the sixth intron, generating a reading frame shift resulting in a truncated protein lacking the conserved CCT domain (Fig 3A). The extremely delayed flowering of the B. distachyon ppd1 mutant is consistent with the ppd1 null mutants described in wheat, which take >120 days to head under inductive LD conditions [16,43], demonstrating PPD1 is required for LD flowering broadly within temperate grasses.

Genetic interactions between ELF3 and PPD1 under long and short days

We and others have shown that PPD1/PRR37 expression is increased in an elf3 mutant background in B. distachyon, rice, and wheat (Fig 2B; [29,30,40,66]). Moreover, a CHIPseq analysis of ELF3 demonstrated that PPD1 is directly bound by ELF3 in a time-of-day-responsive manner [29,40]. Thus, ELF3 acts as a direct transcriptional repressor of PPD1 but the extent to which this explains the rapid flowering in the elf3 mutant has not been tested. Therefore, we generated an elf3/ppd1 double mutant to explore the genetic interactions of these two genes under a highly inductive 20h LD, inductive 16h LD, and non-inductive 8h SD (Fig 4).

Under all photoperiods, the elf3/ppd1 double mutant flowered significantly later than the elf3 single mutant (Fig 4). Interestingly, under 20h LD, the elf3/ppd1 double mutant flowered earlier than ppd1 by 16.2 days forming 3.0 fewer leaves whereas under 16h days elf3/ppd1 mutant flowered significantly later than ppd1 by 13.7 days with 2.5 more leaves. In 8h SD, only elf3 mutant plants were able to flower; Bd21-3, ppd1, and elf3/ppd1 all failed to flower by the end of the experiment. It is also worth noting that elf3/ppd1 double mutants are still able to respond to different photoperiods, with longer days resulting in significantly earlier flowering plants than under shorter days (Fig 4B and 4E and 4H). These results indicate that there are strong genetic interactions between ELF3 and PPD1 under different photoperiods, that PPD1 is a key flowering regulator downstream of ELF3, and that there is a residual photoperiodic response that is independent of these two genes.

Effect of mutations in ELF3 and PPD1 on the transcriptional profiles of flowering time genes

To understand how ELF3 and PPD1 affect flowering at a molecular level, we measured the mRNA levels of FT1, VRN1, PPD1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 in the elf3 and ppd1 single mutants and the elf3/ppd1 double mutant across a diurnal cycle in 16h LD (Fig 5). As noted before, FT1 and VRN1 expression levels were elevated in the elf3 mutant background; however, in the elf3/ppd1 double mutant, expression of these genes remained low and resembled the expression profile of ppd1 single mutants (Fig 5A and 5D). The low expression levels of FT1 and VRN1 in ppd1 and ppd1/elf3 mutants is consistent with the delayed flowering phenotype of both of these mutants in 16h LD. The VRN2 expression profile was similar between wild type and ppd1 mutant plants with low expression levels at dawn and increased expression throughout the light cycle before expression levels dropped in the dark (Fig 5E). Interestingly, VRN2 expression levels are similarly elevated throughout the day in elf3 and elf3/ppd1 mutants compared to wild type (Fig 5E).

Fig 5 — The fourth newly expanded leaves were harvested every 4h over a 24-hour period; three biological replicates (two leaves per replicate) were harvested at each time point for each genotype. Diurnal expression of *FT1* (A), *PPD1* (B), *CO1* (C), *VRN1* (D), *VRN2* (E), and *CO2* (F) were detected in Bd21-3 (black line), *elf3* (blue line), *ppd1* (grey line) and *elf3/ppd1* double (orange line). Bars represent the average of three biological replicates ± SD. Letters (a, b, c, d) indicate statistical differences (p < 0.05) according to a Tukey’s HSD test used to perform multiple comparisons, letter color corresponds to the four different genotypes. The black, gray, and orange lines overlap given the scale used to show *ELF3* expression in the same graph; the orange line is arbitrarily shown on top. Specific expression values are shown below the lettered statistical test. Raw data is included in S1 Data file.

Consistent with the expression patterns of PPD1 in wild type and elf3 shown in Fig 2, the expression levels of PPD1 peak at zt12 in wild-type and the elf3 mutant has increased PPD1 expression relative to wild type at dawn and during the evening (Fig 5B). PPD1 expression levels in the ppd1 mutant should be interpreted with caution because we do not know the effect of the splice site mutation on the mRNA stability. Significantly higher levels of PPD1 expression were observed in ppd1 relative to wild type at ZT8 and ZT16, and in elf3/ppd1 relative to elf3 at dawn. However, the expression patterns of PPD1 were most similar between ppd1 and wild type and between elf3/ppd1 and elf3 (Fig 5B).

CO1 and CO2 expression both exhibit peak expression in wild type at zt12 with expression dampening in the evening consistent with previous reports [29,58]. Interestingly, expression levels of CO1 and CO2 were elevated between zt4-8 in elf3 compared with wild-type. However, at zt16 and zt20, expression levels were similar in wild type, elf3, and elf3/ppd1 mutants, whereas at zt12 the expression of CO1 was reduced in elf3 compared to wild type. In contrast, the expression levels of CO1 and CO2 were lowest in ppd1 compared to the other lines at zt8. In the elf3/ppd1 mutants, CO1 and CO2 expression was most similar to ppd1 in the morning and most similar to elf3 in the evening (Fig 5C and 5F). These results indicate complex interactions between PPD1 and ELF3 in the regulation of CO1 and CO2.

Constitutive expression of ELF3 results in delayed flowering and lower PPD1, FT1, and VRN1 expression levels

In our previous study, we showed that overexpression of ELF3 in the elf3 mutant background results in strongly delayed flowering ([30], Fig 6A). However, this was done in the T0 generation, so we evaluated the flowering time and expression of downstream flowering-time genes in the T1 generation. We grew four UBI::ELF3/elf3 transgenic lines alongside Bd21-3 and elf3 in a 16h photoperiod, and harvested the newly expanded fourth leaf at zt4. This time point was chosen because expression of several critical genes such as CCA1, TOC1, LUX, PPD1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 were significantly different in the morning in the elf3 single mutant compared with wild-type [29,30]; Figs 2 and 5). We first confirmed that all of the UBI::ELF3/elf3 transgenic lines had elevated ELF3 mRNA levels, and found indeed there is a significant increase of ELF3 expression in the transgenic lines (Fig 6C). To understand how UBI::ELF3/elf3 affects flowering, we evaluated expression levels of FT1, VRN1, PPD1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 in wild type, elf3, and UBI::ELF3/elf3. Consistent with the delayed flowering, FT1 and VRN1 expression levels of UBI::ELF3/elf3 were reduced relative to wildtype compared to elevated levels elf3 relative to wildtype (Fig 6D and 6G). Also, the expression of PPD1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 were decreased in UBI::ELF3/elf3, indicating ELF3 is playing a broad repressive role in regulating CCT domain containing genes responding to photoperiodic flowering.

Discussion

The phytochromes PHYC/PHYB and ELF3 connection

B. distachyon has an obligate requirement for LD to flower [8,49,67]. Previous studies have shown the important roles that both PHYC and ELF3 play in photoperiodic flowering in B. distachyon [29,30,58]. Specifically, mutations in phyC result in extremely delayed flowering whereas loss-of-function mutations in elf3 result in rapid flowering in either LD or SD [30,58]. Furthermore, phyC mutants resemble plants grown in SD both morphologically and at the transcriptomic level regardless of day-length whereas elf3 mutants resemble plants grown in LD both morphologically and at the transcriptomic level regardless of day-length [29,30,58]. Thus, we were interested in exploring the genetic relationships between PHYC and ELF3. The extreme delayed flowering phenotype observed in phyC mutant plants is mediated by ELF3 because phyC/elf3 double mutants flower rapidly in LD and SD similar to elf3 mutants. Similar genetic interactions between phyB and elf3 were also found in wheat in the companion study [66], suggesting these interactions are likely to be conserved broadly in temperate grasses. Loss-of-function mutations in phyB in wheat also result in delayed flowering similar to phyC [59]. At present, no null phyB alleles have been reported in B. distachyon; however, PHYB is able to heterodimerize with PHYC in B. distachyon and wheat [29, 57], and both phyB [59] and phyC [57] mutants are extremely late flowering in wheat suggesting that both PHYs are likely required for photoperiodic flowering in the temperate grasses, perhaps because PHYB/PHYC heterodimers are required for flowering regulation.

Phytochrome regulation of ELF3 at the post-translational level rather than at the transcriptional level is likely to be the critical interaction impacting flowering. In A. thaliana, B. distachyon, and wheat, phyB/phyC mutants do not impact the circadian oscillation of ELF3 mRNA levels [29,59,68]. However, in all three species PHYB and PHYC have been shown to interact with the ELF3 protein, but the stability of the ELF3 protein upon exposure to light differs between A. thaliana and temperate grasses [29,63,66,69]. Specifically, in A. thaliana, PHYB contributes to the stability of the ELF3 protein during light exposure leading to ELF3 accumulation at the end of the day [63,68], whereas in rice ELF3 is degraded and or modified during light exposure in a PHY-mediated process [40]. In temperate grasses, ELF3 protein accumulates during the night and is rapidly degraded or modified upon light exposure [29,67], and this is likely to be a PHY mediated response as well.

The differences in how phytochromes impact the stability of the ELF3 protein might explain the contrasting flowering phenotypes of the phyB/phyC mutants between A. thaliana and temperate grasses. In A. thaliana, phyB mutants flower more rapidly than wild type in either LD or SD and phyC mutants flower earlier under SD [60], whereas in temperate grasses phyB or phyC mutants are extremely delayed in flowering [57–59]. However, ELF3 acts as a flowering repressor in both A. thaliana and grasses [30,32]. In A. thaliana PHYB stabilizes the ELF3 protein; therefore, in phyB mutants, ELF3 is no longer stable leading to rapid flowering. In contrast, in temperate grasses and rice, in the absence of phyB or phyC the ELF3 protein is more stable leading to delayed flowering.

Interestingly, overexpression of ELF3 results in extremely delayed flowering in B. distachyon [29,30] (Fig 6A and 6B). Given that the regulation of ELF3 appears to occur at the protein level, one might not expect that overexpression would cause such a strong flowering delay. However, if the ELF3 protein is expressed at a high level such that the degradation machinery is unable to degrade much of the ELF3 protein during LD, then a strong flowering delay might occur. In support of this idea, the delayed flowering of overexpression of ELF3 is mitigated when plants are grown under constant light versus 16h LD [29]. It is worth noting that although overexpression of ELF3 generally leads to delayed flowering in different plant species, there is considerable variation in the magnitude of this delayed flowering [29,63,66] (Fig 6A and 6B).

Similar genetic interactions between ELF3 and PHYB have also been observed in rice which is a SD-flowering plant that has two rice-specific ELF3 paralogs [70]. Mutations in either paralog results in delayed flowering in SD or LD in contrast to the rapid flowering observed in temperate grasses containing elf3 mutations [40,71,72]. Also in contrast to the situation in temperate grasses, phyB mutants flower more rapidly than wild type in rice [73]. Despite the flowering differences of the elf3 and phyB mutants between rice and temperate grasses, the flowering phenotype of phy mutants is ELF3 mediated because in both rice and temperate grasses elf3 is epistatic to phyB or phyC [Fig 1; 40, 67]. Moreover, PHYB and ELF3 proteins interact impacting the modification of ELF3 by light [40]. The opposite roles that phytochromes and elf3 have on flowering in rice and temperate grasses is likely due, at least in part, to the reverse role that the downstream PPD1/PRR37 gene has on flowering. PPD1 is a promoter of flowering in LD temperate grasses but is a repressor of flowering in SD grasses such as rice [11,16,74,75] (Fig 3).

The ELF3 and PPD1 connection

The extremely delayed flowering of B. distachyon ppd1 mutant plants under LD is similar to the extremely delayed heading of ppd1 mutants in wheat [16]. However, a previous study in B. distachyon using a CRISPR induced ppd1 mutant allele which has a 1bp deletion in the sixth exon of PPD1 has a milder delayed flowering phenotype with plants taking around 40 days to flower under 20h LD, whereas the mutant ppd1 plants presented here flower around 120 days in 20h LD [29]; Figs 3 and 4). In both studies, wild-type Bd21-3 plants flower on average between 25–30 days in 20h LD consistent with previous reports in B. distachyon [19,49,76]. The differences in flowering time between the two B. distachyon ppd1 mutant alleles suggests that the CRISPR induced ppd1 allele is a weaker hypomorphic allele than the ppd1 mutant allele characterized in this study. This is further supported by the fact that the ppd1 allele described here has an extremely delayed flowering phenotype similar to the null ppd1 wheat allele [16].

The ppd1/elf3 double mutant is delayed in flowering relative to elf3 mutant plants indicating that PPD1 is downstream of ELF3 in photoperiodic flowering. This is also consistent with the elevated PPD1 expression levels observed at dawn and dusk in the elf3 mutant relative to wild-type in temperate grasses [30,70] (Fig 5). Indeed, ELF3 binds to the PPD1/PRR37 promoter in B. distachyon, wheat, and rice indicating ELF3 is a direct transcriptional repressor of PPD1/PRR37 in grasses [29,40,66]. ELF3 does not have any known DNA binding activity and thus, the direct repression is likely to be due to ELF3’s interaction with a LUX transcription factor which, from studies in A. thaliana, recognizes GATWCG motifs that are also found in the PPD1 promoter in grasses [37,38,67]. Interestingly, photoperiod insensitivity in wheat is associated with deletions in the PPD1 promoter, which remove the LUX binding site and results in elevated PPD1 expression at dawn similar to the PPD1 expression dynamics observed in elf3 and lux mutant plants [10–13,39,77,78]. In the companion wheat paper, ChIP-PCR experiments show ELF3 enrichment of the DNA region around the LUX binding site in the PPD1 promoter, which is present within the region deleted in photoperiod-insensitive wheats. These results demonstrate that removal of the evening complex binding site leads to elevated expression in PPD1 and accelerated heading under SD in many photoperiod-insensitive wheats [66].

The characterization of elf3/ppd1 mutant plants under different photoperiods reveal complex interactions between the two genes and their downstream targets depending on the environment. For example, elf3/ppd1 mutant plants are earlier flowering than ppd1 mutant plants under 20h day-lengths, but are later flowering under 16h and 8h day-lengths. This is in contrast to elf3/ppd1 mutants in wheat, which head earlier than ppd1 under a 16h day-lengths indicating that ELF3 can delay heading independently of PPD1 in this condition [66]. Thus, there are differences between B. distachyon and wheat in the effects of ELF3 on heading in the absence of PPD1. We speculate that these differences may be related to the different interactions observed between CO1 and other flowering genes (e.g. PHY) in these two species. For example, in wheat phyC and ppd1 mutants, CO1 expression levels are elevated compared to wild type, whereas in B. distachyon CO1 expression is reduced in both mutants [57,58,66].

Materials and methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

The rapid flowering mutant elf3 and four UBI::ELF3/elf3 transgenic lines in B. distachyon were previously characterized [30] as was the delayed flowering phyC mutant [58]. All the mutants used for phenotyping and expression in this study were backcrossed at least twice with the wild-type Bd21-3 accession. Seeds were imbibed in the dark at 5°C for three days before planting in soil. Three photoperiods 8h-SD (8h light/16h dark), 16h-LD (16h light/ 8h dark), and 20h-LD (20h light/ 4h dark) were used. For Figs 1 and 2, plants were grown at the University of California-Davis in growth chambers with metal halide and sodium bulbs as the light source and a temperature of 22°C during light periods and 17°C during dark periods. Light intensity was approximately 300umol m-2s-1 at plant height. For Figs 4 and 5, plants were grown at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in growth chambers with T5 fluorescent bulbs (5000 K), and light intensity was approximately 200umol m-2s-1 at plant height. Temperatures averaged 22°C during light periods and 18°C during dark periods. Flowering time was estimated by measuring days to heading and leaves on the main culm at time of heading. Recording of days to heading was done as the days from seed germination to the first emergence of the spike.

Generation of elf3/phyC and elf3/ppd1 double-mutant lines

Epistasis analysis between phyC, ppd1, and elf3 was studied by generating elf3/phyC and elf3/ppd1 double mutants. phyC mutants were crossed with elf3 and elf3/phyC homozygous double mutant plants were selected in a segregating F2 population by genotyping using primers in S1 Table. Similarly, ppd1 was crossed with elf3, and elf3/ppd1 homozygous double mutant individuals were selected by genotyping using primers in S1 Table in the segregating F2 population. Flowering time of elf3/ppd1 double mutant were estimated by growing with Bd21-3, elf3, ppd1 side by side in 8h SD, 16h LD, and 20h LD, and elf3/phyC double mutant plants were grown in 8h SD and 16h LD.

RNA extraction and qPCR

The method for RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and quantitative PCR (qPCR) is described in [49]. Primers used for gene expression analyses are listed in S1 Table.

Statistical analyses

Comparison of more than two genotypes were performed by using agricolae package in R [79]. Statistically significant differences among different genotypes were calculated by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey’s HSD test. Student’s t-test was used for analyzing the difference between two genotypes, significant if P< 0.05.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effect of loss of function mutations in PHYC on the transcriptional profile of ELF3.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.1MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Normalized expression of CO2 detected in Bd21-3, elf3, and three UBI::ELF3/elf3 transgenic lines.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, tif)}

S1 Table. Primers used in this study.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(426.8KB, pdf)}

S1 Data. S1_Data.xlsx file contains all raw data used in this study.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(57.6KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Frédéric Bouché for fruitful discussions about photoperiod sensing in B. distachyon.

Data Availability

All mutant lines are available upon request to the following email address: front_desk@biochem.wisc.edu (Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin) with no restrictions.

Funding Statement

This work was funded in part by the US National Science Foundation (Award IOS-1755224 to RMA) and by the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research (Award No. DE-SC0018409). The work from JPV, RS, and MS (proposal: 10.46936/10.25585/60001041) conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (https://ror.org/04xm1d337), a DOE Office of Science User Facility, is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. DPW was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Fellow of the Life Sciences Research Foundation which supported the work while in Jorge Dubcovsky’s lab and paid his salary. JD was funded by HHMI. DLC is funded by USDA-ARS CRIS Project 2030-21430-014D. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Andrés F, Coupland G. The genetic basis of flowering responses to seasonal cues. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13: 627–639. doi: 10.1038/nrg3291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Fjellheim S, Boden S, Trevaskis B. The role of seasonal flowering responses in adaptation of grasses to temperate climates. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5: 431. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Bouché F, Woods DP, Amasino RM. Winter Memory throughout the Plant Kingdom: Different Paths to Flowering. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 27–35. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.01322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Gaudinier A, Blackman BK. Evolutionary processes from the perspective of flowering time diversity. New Phytol. 2020;225: 1883–1898. doi: 10.1111/nph.16205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Bendix C, Marshall CM, Harmon FG. Circadian Clock Genes Universally Control Key Agricultural Traits. Molecular Plant. 2015;8: 1135–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2015.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Song YH, Shim JS, Kinmonth-Schultz HA, Imaizumi T. Photoperiodic Flowering: Time Measurement Mechanisms in Leaves. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2015;66: 441–464. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-115555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Woods DP, Amasino RM. Dissecting the Control of Flowering Time in Grasses Using Brachypodium distachyon. Genetics and Genomics of Brachypodium. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 259–273. doi: 10.1007/7397_2015_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Raissig MT, Woods DP. The wild grass Brachypodium distachyon as a developmental model system. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2022; 147:33–71. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2021.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Hasterok R, Catalán P, Hazen SP, Roulin AC, Vogel JP, Wang K, et al. Brachypodium: 20 years as a grass biology model system; the way forward? Trends in Plant Science. 2022;27: 1002–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Beales J, Turner A, Griffiths S, Snape JW, Laurie DA. A Pseudo-Response Regulator is misexpressed in the photoperiod insensitive Ppd-D1a mutant of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2007;115: 721–733. doi: 10.1007/s00122-007-0603-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Turner A, Beales J, Faure S, Dunford RP, Laurie DA. The pseudo-response regulator Ppd-H1 provides adaptation to photoperiod in barley. Science. 2005;310: 1031–1034. doi: 10.1126/science.1117619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Campoli C, Shtaya M, Davis SJ, Korff von M. Expression conservation within the circadian clock of a monocot: natural variation at barley Ppd-H1 affects circadian expression of flowering time genes, but not clock orthologs. BMC Plant Biol. 2012;12: 1–1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Wilhelm EP, Turner AS, Laurie DA. Photoperiod insensitive Ppd-A1a mutations in tetraploid wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Theor Appl Genet. 2008;118: 285–294. doi: 10.1007/s00122-008-0898-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Shaw LM, Turner AS, Herry L, Griffiths S, Laurie DA. Mutant Alleles of Photoperiod-1 in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) That Confer a Late Flowering Phenotype in Long Days. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e79459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Seki M, Chono M, Matsunaka H, Fujita M, Oda S, Kubo K, et al. Distribution of photoperiod-insensitive alleles Ppd-B1a and Ppd-D1a and their effect on heading time in Japanese wheat cultivars. Breed Sci. 2011;61: 405–412. doi: 10.1270/jsbbs.61.405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Shaw LM, Li C, Woods DP, Alvarez MA, Lin H, Lau MY, et al. Epistatic interactions between PHOTOPERIOD1, CONSTANS1 and CONSTANS2 modulate the photoperiodic response in wheat. PLoS Genet. 2020;16: e1008812–28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Woods DP, Bednarek R, Bouché F, Gordon SP, Vogel JP, Garvin DF, et al. Genetic Architecture of Flowering-Time Variation in Brachypodium distachyon. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 269–279. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.01178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Bettgenhaeuser J, Corke FMK, Opanowicz M, Green P, Hernández-Pinzón I, Doonan JH, et al. Natural Variation in Brachypodium Links Vernalization and Flowering Time Loci as Major Flowering Determinants. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 256–268. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.00813 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Gordon SP, Contreras-Moreira B, Woods DP, Marais Des DL, Burgess D, Shu S, et al. Extensive gene content variation in the Brachypodium distachyon pan-genome correlates with population structure. Nature Communications. 2017;8: 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02292-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Tyler L, Lee SJ, Young ND, DeIulio GA, Benavente E, Reagon M, et al. Population Structure in the Model Grass Is Highly Correlated with Flowering Differences across Broad Geographic Areas. The Plant Genome. 2016;9: 0–20. doi: 10.3835/plantgenome2015.08.0074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Wilson P, Streich J, Borevitz J. Genomic Diversity and Climate Adaptation in Brachypodium. Genetics and Genomics of Brachypodium. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 107–127. [Google Scholar]
22.Zikhali M, Wingen LU, Griffiths S. Delimitation of the Earliness per se D1 (Eps-D1) flowering gene to a subtelomeric chromosomal deletion in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Journal of Experimental Botany. 2015;67: 287–299. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Alvarez MA, Tranquilli G, Lewis S, Kippes N, Dubcovsky J. Genetic and physical mapping of the earliness per se locus Eps-Am1 in Triticum monococcum identifies EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3) as a candidate gene. Funct Integr Genomics. 2016; 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10142-016-0490-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Faure S, Turner AS, Gruszka D, Christodoulou V, Davis SJ, Korff von M, et al. Mutation at the circadian clock gene EARLY MATURITY 8 adapts domesticated barley (Hordeum vulgare) to short growing seasons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109: 8328–8333. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120496109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Zakhrabekova S, Gough SP, Braumann I, Müller AH, Lundqvist J, Ahmann K, et al. Induced mutations in circadian clock regulator Mat-a facilitated short-season adaptation and range extension in cultivated barley. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109: 4326–4331. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113009109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Matsubara K, Ogiso-Tanaka E, Hori K, Ebana K, Ando T, Yano M. Natural variation in Hd17, a homolog of Arabidopsis ELF3 that is involved in rice photoperiodic flowering. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2012;53: 709–716. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Lundqvist U. Eighty years of Scandinavian barley mutation genetics and breeding. In Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era, Shu Q.Y., ed. (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009. pp. 39–43. [Google Scholar]
28.Hicks KA, Albertson TM, Wagner DR. EARLY FLOWERING3 encodes a novel protein that regulates circadian clock function and flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1281–1292. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Gao M, Geng F, Klose C, Staudt A-M, Huang H, Nguyen D, et al. Phytochromes measure photoperiod in Brachypodium. bioRxiv. 2019;16: 365–53. doi: 10.1101/697169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Bouché F, Woods DP, Linden J, Li W, Mayer KS, Amasino RM, et al. EARLY FLOWERING 3 and Photoperiod Sensing in Brachypodium distachyon. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12: 769194. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.769194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Huang H, Gehan MA, Huss SE, Alvarez S, Lizarraga C, Gruebbling EL, et al. Cross-species complementation reveals conserved functions for EARLY FLOWERING 3 between monocots and dicots. Plant Direct. 2017;1: e00018–14. doi: 10.1002/pld3.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Huang H, Nusinow DA. Into the Evening: Complex Interactions in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Trends in Genetics. 2016;32: 674–686. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Covington MF, Panda S, Liu XL, Strayer CA, Wagner DR, Kay SA. ELF3 modulates resetting of the circadian clock in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1305–1315. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Nusinow DA, Helfer A, Hamilton EE, King JJ, Imaizumi T, Schultz TF, et al. The ELF4–ELF3–LUX complex links the circadian clock to diurnal control of hypocotyl growth. Nature. 2011;475: 398–402. doi: 10.1038/nature10182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Hazen SP, Schultz TF, Pruneda-Paz JL, Borevitz JO, Ecker JR, Kay SA. LUX ARRHYTHMO encodes a Myb domain protein essential for circadian rhythms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102: 10387–10392. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503029102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Doyle MR, Davis SJ, Bastow RM, McWatters HG, Kozma-Bognar L, Nagy F, et al. The ELF4 gene controls circadian rhythms and flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature. 2002;419: 74–77. doi: 10.1038/nature00954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Silva CS, Nayak A, Lai X, Hutin S, Hugouvieux V, Jung J-H, et al. Molecular mechanisms of Evening Complex activity in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117: 6901–6909. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920972117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Ezer D, Jung J-H, Lan H, Biswas S, Gregoire L, Box MS, et al. The evening complex coordinates environmental and endogenous signals in Arabidopsis. Nature Plants. 2017; 1–12. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.87 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Mizuno N, Kinoshita M, Kinoshita S, Nishida H, Fujita M, Kato K, et al. Loss-of-Function Mutations in Three Homoeologous PHYTOCLOCK 1 Genes in Common Wheat Are Associated with the Extra-Early Flowering Phenotype. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0165618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Andrade L, Lub Y, Cordeiro A, Costa JMF, Wigge PA, Saibo NJM, et al. The evening complex integrates photoperiod signals to control flowering in rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119:e2122582119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2122582119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Yan L, Fu D, Li C, Blechl A, Tranquilli G, Bonafede M, et al. The wheat and barley vernalization gene VRN3 is an orthologue of FT. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103: 19581–19586. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0607142103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Valverde F. CONSTANS and the evolutionary origin of photoperiodic timing of flowering. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2011;62: 2453–2463. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Pearce S, Shaw LM, Lin H, Cotter JD, Li C, Dubcovsky J. Night-break experiments shed light on the Photoperiod 1-mediated flowering. Plant Physiol. 2017: pp.00361.2017–45. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.00361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Qin Z, Bai Y, Muhammad S, Wu X, Deng P, Wu J, et al. Divergent roles of FT-like 9 in flowering transition under different day lengths in Brachypodium distachyon. Nature Communications. 2019;10: 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08785-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Yan L, Loukoianov A, Tranquilli G, Helguera M, Fahima T, Dubcovsky J. Positional cloning of the wheat vernalization gene VRN1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100: 6263–6268. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0937399100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Li C, Dubcovsky J. Wheat FT protein regulates VRN1 transcription through interactions with FDL2. Plant J. 2008;55: 543–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03526.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Yan L, Loukoianov A, Blechl A, Tranquilli G, Ramakrishna W, San Miguel P, et al. The wheat VRN2 gene is a flowering repressor down-regulated by vernalization. Science. 2004;303: 1640–1644. doi: 10.1126/science.1094305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Distelfeld A, Dubcovsky J. Characterization of the maintained vegetative phase deletions from diploid wheat and their effect on VRN2 and FT transcript levels. Mol Genet Genomics. 2010;283: 223–232. doi: 10.1007/s00438-009-0510-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Ream TS, Woods DP, Schwartz CJ, Sanabria CP, Mahoy JA, Walters EM, et al. Interaction of Photoperiod and Vernalization Determines Flowering Time of Brachypodium distachyon. Plant Physiol. 2014;164: 694–709. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.232678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Woods DP, McKeown MA, Dong Y, Preston JC, Amasino RM. Evolution of VRN2/Ghd7-Like Genes in Vernalization-Mediated Repression of Grass Flowering. Plant Physiol. 2016;170: 2124–2135. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Corbesier L, Vincent C, Jang S, Fornara F, Fan Q, Searle I, et al. FT Protein Movement Contributes to Long-Distance Signaling in Floral Induction of Arabidopsis. Science. 2007;316: 1030–1033. doi: 10.1126/science.1141752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Tamaki S, Matsuo S, Wong HL, Yokoi S, Shimamoto K. Hd3a protein is a mobile flowering signal in rice. Science. 2007;316(5827):1033–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1141753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Cheng M-C, Kathare PK, Paik I, Huq E. Phytochrome Signaling Networks. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2021;72: 217–244. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-080620-024221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Quail PH. Phytochrome Photosensory Signalling Networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3: 85–93. doi: 10.1038/nrm728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Möglich A, Yang X, Ayers RA, Moffat K. Structure and Function of Plant Photoreceptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61: 21–47. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Mathews S. Evolutionary Studies Illuminate the Structural-Functional Model of Plant Phytochromes. Plant Cell. 2010;22: 4–16. doi: 10.1105/tpc.109.072280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Chen A, Li C, Hu W, Lau MY, Lin H, Rockwell NC, et al. PHYTOCHROME C plays a major role in the acceleration of wheat flowering under long-day photoperiod. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1409795111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Woods DP, Ream TS, Minevich G, Hobert O, Amasino RM. PHYTOCHROME C is an essential light receptor for photoperiodic flowering in the temperate grass, Brachypodium distachyon. Genetics. 2014;198: 397–408. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.166785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Pearce S, Kippes N, Chen A, Debernardi JM, Dubcovsky J. RNA-seq studies using wheat PHYTOCHROME B and PHYTOCHROME C mutants reveal shared and specific functions in the regulation of flowering and shade-avoidance pathways. BMC Plant Biol. BMC Plant Biology; 2016; 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s12870-016-0831-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Monte E, Alonso JM, Ecker JR, Zhang Y, Li X, Young J, et al. Isolation and characterization of phyC mutants in Arabidopsis reveals complex crosstalk between phytochrome signaling pathways. Plant Cell. 2003;15: 1962–1980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Takano M, Inagaki N, Xie X, Yuzurihara N, Hihara F, Ishizuka T, et al. Distinct and cooperative functions of phytochromes A, B, and C in the control of deetiolation and flowering in rice. Plant Cell. 2005;17: 3311–3325. doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.035899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Kippes N, VanGessel C, Hamilton J, Akpinar A, Budak H, Dubcovsky J, et al. Effect of phyB and phyC loss-of-function mutations on the wheat transcriptome under short and long day photoperiods. BMC Plant Biology; 2020: 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02506-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Liu XL, Covington MF, Fankhauser C, Chory J, Wagner DR. ELF3 encodes a circadian clock–regulated nuclear protein that functions in an Arabidopsis PHYB signal transduction pathway. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1293–1304. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Saito H, Ogiso-Tanaka E, Okumoto Y, Yoshitake Y, Izumi H, Yokoo T, et al. Ef7 encodes an ELF3-like protein and promotes rice flowering by negatively regulating the floral repressor gene Ghd7 under both short- and long-day conditions. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2012;53: 717–728. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Dalmais M, Antelme S, Ho-Yue-Kuang S, Wang Y, Darracq O, d’Yvoire MB, et al. A TILLING Platform for Functional Genomics in Brachypodium distachyon. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e65503–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Alvarez A, Li C, Lin H, Joe A, Padilla M, Woods DP and Dubcovsky J. EARLY FLOWERING 3 interactions with PHYTOCHROME B and PHOTOPERIOD1 are critical for the photoperiodic regulation of wheat heading time. PLoS Genetics. 2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Woods D, Dong Y, Bouché F, Bednarek R, Rowe M, Ream T, et al. A florigen paralog is required for short-day vernalization in a pooid grass. Elife. 2019;8: 27. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Nieto C, López-Salmerón V, Davière J-M, Prat S. ELF3-PIF4 Interaction Regulates Plant Growth Independently of the Evening Complex. Current Biology. 2015;25: 187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Yeom M, Kim H, Lim J, SHIN A-Y, Hong S, KIM J-I, et al. How Do Phytochromes Transmit the Light Quality Information to the Circadian Clock in Arabidopsis? Molecular Plant. 2014;7: 1701–1704. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssu086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Murakami M, Tago Y, Yamashino T, Mizuno T. Comparative Overviews of Clock-Associated Genes of Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2006;48: 110–121. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcl043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Zhao J, Huang X, Ouyang X, Chen W, Du A, Zhu L, et al. OsELF3-1, an Ortholog of Arabidopsis EARLY FLOWERING 3, Regulates Rice Circadian Rhythm and Photoperiodic Flowering. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e43705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Itoh H, Tanaka Y, Izawa T. Genetic Relationship Between Phytochromes and OsELF3-1 Reveals the Mode of Regulation for the Suppression of Phytochrome Signaling in Rice. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2019;60: 549–561. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcy225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Ishikawa R. et al. Phytochrome B regulates Heading date 1 (Hd1)-mediated expression of rice florigen Hd3a and critical day length in rice. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2011; 285:461–470. doi: 10.1007/s00438-011-0621-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Koo B-H, Yoo S-C, Park J-W, Kwon C-T, Lee B-D, An G, et al. Natural variation in OsPRR37 regulates heading date and contributes to rice cultivation at a wide range of latitudes. Molecular Plant. 2013;6: 1877–1888. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Murphy RL, Klein RR, Morishige DT, Brady JA, Rooney WL, Miller FR, et al. Coincident light and clock regulation of pseudoresponse regulator protein 37 (PRR37) controls photoperiodic flowering in sorghum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108: 16469–16474. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106212108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Woods DP, Ream TS, Bouché F, Lee J, Thrower N, Wilkerson C, et al. Establishment of a vernalization requirement in Brachypodium distachyon requires REPRESSOR OF VERNALIZATION1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114: 6623–6628. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1700536114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Dubcovsky J, Loukoianov A, Fu D, Valarik M, Sanchez A, Yan L. Effect of Photoperiod on the Regulation of Wheat Vernalization Genes VRN1 and VRN2. Plant Mol Biol. 2006;60: 469–480. doi: 10.1007/s11103-005-4814-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Gawronski P, Ariyadasa R, Himmelbach A, Poursarebani N, Kilian B, Stein N, et al. A distorted circadian clock causes early flowering and temperature- dependent variation in spike development in the Eps-3A^m mutant of einkorn wheat. Genetics. 2014;196(4):1253–1266. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.158444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.De Mendiburu R-project org package agricolae accessed 25 July F, 2012. Agricolae: Statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version 1.1–3. Comprehensive R Arch.

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706.r001

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Köhler

10 Dec 2022

Dear Dr Woods,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'PHYTOCHROME C regulation of PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in Brachypodium distachyon' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some concerns that we ask you address in a revised manuscript.

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.

In addition we ask that you:

1) Provide a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

2) Upload a Striking Image with a corresponding caption to accompany your manuscript if one is available (either a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). If this image is judged to be suitable, it may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel square images. For examples, please browse our archive. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Note: we cannot publish copyrighted images.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we would ask you to let us know the expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments should be included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, you will need to go to the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

Please let us know if you have any questions while making these revisions.

Yours sincerely,

Claudia Köhler

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Claudia Köhler

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: This manuscript examined the genetic relationships between PHYC, ELF3 and PPD in their role in determining flowering time in B. distachyon. Previous work in B. distachyon showed a PHYC-ELF3 interaction and a reduction in ELF3 protein abundance under light irradiation in B. distachyon. The work in this paper examines the flowering time phenotypes of elf3, phyc and elf3phyc mutants to establish that the rapid flowering of the elf3 mutant is epistatic to the delayed flowering of the phyC mutant.

Gene expression of select flowering time related genes are examined in these same backgrounds, with the conclusion that the transcriptional profiles of FT1, VRN1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2 are similar between elf3 and elf3/phyC mutants consistent with ELF3 acting downstream from PHYC in the photoperiod flowering pathway. A novel ppd mutant was identified and analyzed molecularly, and concluded to be a splice site mutation, with uncertain effects on truncated protein abundance, but likely a null based on comparison to a wheat ppd mutant.

Further experiments with this mutant followed the template used for phyC: flowering time phenotypes of ppd, elf3 and ppd elf3 double mutant descriptions. The ppd mutant is largely epistatic to elf3 with respect to flowering time, but there is more to the story that is unclear. Even more so with respect to the transcriptional profiles of FT1, VRN1, VRN2, CO1, and CO2, which varied with the gene of interest. ppd was epistatic to elf3 with respect to FT levels, but other results indicated complex interactions between PPD1 and ELF3 in the regulation of CO1 and CO2.

Overall the results are largely supportive of the conclusions the authors wish to draw, but lack any type of molecular analysis that would confirm the conclusions drawn from genetics alone. Are ELF3 protein levels dependent on PHYC levels? This should be tested in their phyC mutant. ELF3 transcript levels could also be affected by the phyC mutant, and transcript levels should be tested as well.

Reference to a companion paper was made, but was not available to this reviewer.

The authors reference a bioRxiv manuscript which, in many ways, goes beyond this paper, in providing evidence for a PHYC/ELF3 complex at gene promoters. However, the above suggestions of the potential of ELF3 levels (protein and/or transcript) regulated by PHYC would greatly strengthen this work.

Additional points:

Why is the peak time of CO2 in the elf3 mutant so different between Figure 2F and Figure 5F? This is the same time course with the same mutant background so results should not be so divergent. Something needs to be repeated or explained, as swapping the elf3 data between the two figures (each coming from 3 biological reps?) would lead to different conclusions. Also, error bars are massive for A and D in Figure 5 for elf3.

P. 20: “….elf3 mutant compared with wild-type however from zt 12-20 expression levels were lower than wild-type with a profile similar to elf3/ppd1 mutant plants.” Based on stats elf3 and WT are not different for CO2 between ZT 12-20, just CO1.

Figure 4H shows 3 lines not flowering (heading) at all but 4I indicates number of leaves at time of heading in two of those lines [ppd1 and elf3ppd1[]. How can that be? Clarify. Also in legend, must mean:

Flowering times under 20h (B), 16h (E), 8h (H) measured as days to heading of Bd21-3,

elf3, ppd1, and elf3/ppd1.

On page 21; Fig 6B should be Fig 6C. Fig 6C and F should be Fig 6D and G.

On page 24; Fig 6 should be Fig 6A and B.

On page 25; Fig 6 should be Fig 6A and B.

Reviewer #2: The authors provide a concise genetic analysis of photoperiodic flowering in the temperate grass Brachypodium. Through the phenotypic and molecular analysis of single and double mutants they show that ELF3 acts downstream of PHYC in the induction of the flowering activator PPD1, with ELF3 being a negative regulator of PPD1 expression. For this study, the authors identified a ppd1 mutant which was not available before.

The authors´conclusions are supported by the data. The manuscript is well-written. I only have a few minor comments:

Fig. 4H,I. Fig. 4H shows that the mutants ppd1 and elf3/ppd1 fail to head within the time frame of the experiment. Nevertheless, the authors show in Fig. 4H the number of leaves at the time of heading. That seems to be a discrepancy to me. Can you please explain?

Fig. 5A, D: The transcript levels of FT1 and VRN1 cannot be seen in the WT and ppd1 mutants I assume that they are not seen because they are as low as in the elf3/ppd1 mutant. Can you please indicate that or make them visible in another way? On the other hand, would it not be expected that FT1 and VRN1 transcript levels in the WT are as high as in the elf3 mutant in LD because these genotypes flower at the same time in LD (see Fig. 4a)?

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS Genet. 2023 May 10;19(5):e1010706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Mar 2023

Attachment

Submitted filename: ELF3_PHYC_PPD1_final_ response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(550.6KB, docx)}

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706.r003

Decision Letter 1

Claudia Köhler

17 Mar 2023

Dear Dr Woods,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in Brachypodium distachyon" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Claudia Köhler

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly:

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-22-01183R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010706.r004

Acceptance letter

Claudia Köhler

25 Apr 2023

PGENETICS-D-22-01183R1

PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in <i>Brachypodium distachyon<i>

Dear Dr Woods,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in <i>Brachypodium distachyon<i>" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Zsofia Freund

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Effect of loss of function mutations in PHYC on the transcriptional profile of ELF3.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.1MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Normalized expression of CO2 detected in Bd21-3, elf3, and three UBI::ELF3/elf3 transgenic lines.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, tif)}

S1 Table. Primers used in this study.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(426.8KB, pdf)}

S1 Data. S1_Data.xlsx file contains all raw data used in this study.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(57.6KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: ELF3_PHYC_PPD1_final_ response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(550.6KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All mutant lines are available upon request to the following email address: front_desk@biochem.wisc.edu (Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin) with no restrictions.

[pgen.1010706.ref001] 1.Andrés F, Coupland G. The genetic basis of flowering responses to seasonal cues. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13: 627–639. doi: 10.1038/nrg3291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref002] 2.Fjellheim S, Boden S, Trevaskis B. The role of seasonal flowering responses in adaptation of grasses to temperate climates. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5: 431. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref003] 3.Bouché F, Woods DP, Amasino RM. Winter Memory throughout the Plant Kingdom: Different Paths to Flowering. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 27–35. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.01322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref004] 4.Gaudinier A, Blackman BK. Evolutionary processes from the perspective of flowering time diversity. New Phytol. 2020;225: 1883–1898. doi: 10.1111/nph.16205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref005] 5.Bendix C, Marshall CM, Harmon FG. Circadian Clock Genes Universally Control Key Agricultural Traits. Molecular Plant. 2015;8: 1135–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2015.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref006] 6.Song YH, Shim JS, Kinmonth-Schultz HA, Imaizumi T. Photoperiodic Flowering: Time Measurement Mechanisms in Leaves. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2015;66: 441–464. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-115555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref007] 7.Woods DP, Amasino RM. Dissecting the Control of Flowering Time in Grasses Using Brachypodium distachyon. Genetics and Genomics of Brachypodium. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 259–273. doi: 10.1007/7397_2015_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref008] 8.Raissig MT, Woods DP. The wild grass Brachypodium distachyon as a developmental model system. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2022; 147:33–71. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2021.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref009] 9.Hasterok R, Catalán P, Hazen SP, Roulin AC, Vogel JP, Wang K, et al. Brachypodium: 20 years as a grass biology model system; the way forward? Trends in Plant Science. 2022;27: 1002–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref010] 10.Beales J, Turner A, Griffiths S, Snape JW, Laurie DA. A Pseudo-Response Regulator is misexpressed in the photoperiod insensitive Ppd-D1a mutant of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2007;115: 721–733. doi: 10.1007/s00122-007-0603-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref011] 11.Turner A, Beales J, Faure S, Dunford RP, Laurie DA. The pseudo-response regulator Ppd-H1 provides adaptation to photoperiod in barley. Science. 2005;310: 1031–1034. doi: 10.1126/science.1117619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref012] 12.Campoli C, Shtaya M, Davis SJ, Korff von M. Expression conservation within the circadian clock of a monocot: natural variation at barley Ppd-H1 affects circadian expression of flowering time genes, but not clock orthologs. BMC Plant Biol. 2012;12: 1–1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref013] 13.Wilhelm EP, Turner AS, Laurie DA. Photoperiod insensitive Ppd-A1a mutations in tetraploid wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Theor Appl Genet. 2008;118: 285–294. doi: 10.1007/s00122-008-0898-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref014] 14.Shaw LM, Turner AS, Herry L, Griffiths S, Laurie DA. Mutant Alleles of Photoperiod-1 in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) That Confer a Late Flowering Phenotype in Long Days. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e79459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref015] 15.Seki M, Chono M, Matsunaka H, Fujita M, Oda S, Kubo K, et al. Distribution of photoperiod-insensitive alleles Ppd-B1a and Ppd-D1a and their effect on heading time in Japanese wheat cultivars. Breed Sci. 2011;61: 405–412. doi: 10.1270/jsbbs.61.405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref016] 16.Shaw LM, Li C, Woods DP, Alvarez MA, Lin H, Lau MY, et al. Epistatic interactions between PHOTOPERIOD1, CONSTANS1 and CONSTANS2 modulate the photoperiodic response in wheat. PLoS Genet. 2020;16: e1008812–28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref017] 17.Woods DP, Bednarek R, Bouché F, Gordon SP, Vogel JP, Garvin DF, et al. Genetic Architecture of Flowering-Time Variation in Brachypodium distachyon. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 269–279. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.01178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref018] 18.Bettgenhaeuser J, Corke FMK, Opanowicz M, Green P, Hernández-Pinzón I, Doonan JH, et al. Natural Variation in Brachypodium Links Vernalization and Flowering Time Loci as Major Flowering Determinants. Plant Physiol. 2017;173: 256–268. doi: 10.1104/pp.16.00813 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref019] 19.Gordon SP, Contreras-Moreira B, Woods DP, Marais Des DL, Burgess D, Shu S, et al. Extensive gene content variation in the Brachypodium distachyon pan-genome correlates with population structure. Nature Communications. 2017;8: 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02292-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref020] 20.Tyler L, Lee SJ, Young ND, DeIulio GA, Benavente E, Reagon M, et al. Population Structure in the Model Grass Is Highly Correlated with Flowering Differences across Broad Geographic Areas. The Plant Genome. 2016;9: 0–20. doi: 10.3835/plantgenome2015.08.0074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref021] 21.Wilson P, Streich J, Borevitz J. Genomic Diversity and Climate Adaptation in Brachypodium. Genetics and Genomics of Brachypodium. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 107–127. [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref022] 22.Zikhali M, Wingen LU, Griffiths S. Delimitation of the Earliness per se D1 (Eps-D1) flowering gene to a subtelomeric chromosomal deletion in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Journal of Experimental Botany. 2015;67: 287–299. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref023] 23.Alvarez MA, Tranquilli G, Lewis S, Kippes N, Dubcovsky J. Genetic and physical mapping of the earliness per se locus Eps-Am1 in Triticum monococcum identifies EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3) as a candidate gene. Funct Integr Genomics. 2016; 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10142-016-0490-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref024] 24.Faure S, Turner AS, Gruszka D, Christodoulou V, Davis SJ, Korff von M, et al. Mutation at the circadian clock gene EARLY MATURITY 8 adapts domesticated barley (Hordeum vulgare) to short growing seasons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109: 8328–8333. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120496109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref025] 25.Zakhrabekova S, Gough SP, Braumann I, Müller AH, Lundqvist J, Ahmann K, et al. Induced mutations in circadian clock regulator Mat-a facilitated short-season adaptation and range extension in cultivated barley. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109: 4326–4331. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113009109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref026] 26.Matsubara K, Ogiso-Tanaka E, Hori K, Ebana K, Ando T, Yano M. Natural variation in Hd17, a homolog of Arabidopsis ELF3 that is involved in rice photoperiodic flowering. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2012;53: 709–716. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref027] 27.Lundqvist U. Eighty years of Scandinavian barley mutation genetics and breeding. In Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era, Shu Q.Y., ed. (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009. pp. 39–43. [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref028] 28.Hicks KA, Albertson TM, Wagner DR. EARLY FLOWERING3 encodes a novel protein that regulates circadian clock function and flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1281–1292. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref029] 29.Gao M, Geng F, Klose C, Staudt A-M, Huang H, Nguyen D, et al. Phytochromes measure photoperiod in Brachypodium. bioRxiv. 2019;16: 365–53. doi: 10.1101/697169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref030] 30.Bouché F, Woods DP, Linden J, Li W, Mayer KS, Amasino RM, et al. EARLY FLOWERING 3 and Photoperiod Sensing in Brachypodium distachyon. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12: 769194. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.769194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref031] 31.Huang H, Gehan MA, Huss SE, Alvarez S, Lizarraga C, Gruebbling EL, et al. Cross-species complementation reveals conserved functions for EARLY FLOWERING 3 between monocots and dicots. Plant Direct. 2017;1: e00018–14. doi: 10.1002/pld3.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref032] 32.Huang H, Nusinow DA. Into the Evening: Complex Interactions in the Arabidopsis Circadian Clock. Trends in Genetics. 2016;32: 674–686. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref033] 33.Covington MF, Panda S, Liu XL, Strayer CA, Wagner DR, Kay SA. ELF3 modulates resetting of the circadian clock in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1305–1315. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref034] 34.Nusinow DA, Helfer A, Hamilton EE, King JJ, Imaizumi T, Schultz TF, et al. The ELF4–ELF3–LUX complex links the circadian clock to diurnal control of hypocotyl growth. Nature. 2011;475: 398–402. doi: 10.1038/nature10182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref035] 35.Hazen SP, Schultz TF, Pruneda-Paz JL, Borevitz JO, Ecker JR, Kay SA. LUX ARRHYTHMO encodes a Myb domain protein essential for circadian rhythms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102: 10387–10392. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503029102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref036] 36.Doyle MR, Davis SJ, Bastow RM, McWatters HG, Kozma-Bognar L, Nagy F, et al. The ELF4 gene controls circadian rhythms and flowering time in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature. 2002;419: 74–77. doi: 10.1038/nature00954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref037] 37.Silva CS, Nayak A, Lai X, Hutin S, Hugouvieux V, Jung J-H, et al. Molecular mechanisms of Evening Complex activity in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117: 6901–6909. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920972117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref038] 38.Ezer D, Jung J-H, Lan H, Biswas S, Gregoire L, Box MS, et al. The evening complex coordinates environmental and endogenous signals in Arabidopsis. Nature Plants. 2017; 1–12. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.87 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref039] 39.Mizuno N, Kinoshita M, Kinoshita S, Nishida H, Fujita M, Kato K, et al. Loss-of-Function Mutations in Three Homoeologous PHYTOCLOCK 1 Genes in Common Wheat Are Associated with the Extra-Early Flowering Phenotype. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0165618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref040] 40.Andrade L, Lub Y, Cordeiro A, Costa JMF, Wigge PA, Saibo NJM, et al. The evening complex integrates photoperiod signals to control flowering in rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119:e2122582119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2122582119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref041] 41.Yan L, Fu D, Li C, Blechl A, Tranquilli G, Bonafede M, et al. The wheat and barley vernalization gene VRN3 is an orthologue of FT. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103: 19581–19586. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0607142103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref042] 42.Valverde F. CONSTANS and the evolutionary origin of photoperiodic timing of flowering. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2011;62: 2453–2463. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref043] 43.Pearce S, Shaw LM, Lin H, Cotter JD, Li C, Dubcovsky J. Night-break experiments shed light on the Photoperiod 1-mediated flowering. Plant Physiol. 2017: pp.00361.2017–45. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.00361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref044] 44.Qin Z, Bai Y, Muhammad S, Wu X, Deng P, Wu J, et al. Divergent roles of FT-like 9 in flowering transition under different day lengths in Brachypodium distachyon. Nature Communications. 2019;10: 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08785-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref045] 45.Yan L, Loukoianov A, Tranquilli G, Helguera M, Fahima T, Dubcovsky J. Positional cloning of the wheat vernalization gene VRN1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100: 6263–6268. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0937399100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref046] 46.Li C, Dubcovsky J. Wheat FT protein regulates VRN1 transcription through interactions with FDL2. Plant J. 2008;55: 543–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03526.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref047] 47.Yan L, Loukoianov A, Blechl A, Tranquilli G, Ramakrishna W, San Miguel P, et al. The wheat VRN2 gene is a flowering repressor down-regulated by vernalization. Science. 2004;303: 1640–1644. doi: 10.1126/science.1094305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref048] 48.Distelfeld A, Dubcovsky J. Characterization of the maintained vegetative phase deletions from diploid wheat and their effect on VRN2 and FT transcript levels. Mol Genet Genomics. 2010;283: 223–232. doi: 10.1007/s00438-009-0510-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref049] 49.Ream TS, Woods DP, Schwartz CJ, Sanabria CP, Mahoy JA, Walters EM, et al. Interaction of Photoperiod and Vernalization Determines Flowering Time of Brachypodium distachyon. Plant Physiol. 2014;164: 694–709. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.232678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref050] 50.Woods DP, McKeown MA, Dong Y, Preston JC, Amasino RM. Evolution of VRN2/Ghd7-Like Genes in Vernalization-Mediated Repression of Grass Flowering. Plant Physiol. 2016;170: 2124–2135. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref051] 51.Corbesier L, Vincent C, Jang S, Fornara F, Fan Q, Searle I, et al. FT Protein Movement Contributes to Long-Distance Signaling in Floral Induction of Arabidopsis. Science. 2007;316: 1030–1033. doi: 10.1126/science.1141752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref052] 52.Tamaki S, Matsuo S, Wong HL, Yokoi S, Shimamoto K. Hd3a protein is a mobile flowering signal in rice. Science. 2007;316(5827):1033–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1141753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref053] 53.Cheng M-C, Kathare PK, Paik I, Huq E. Phytochrome Signaling Networks. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2021;72: 217–244. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-080620-024221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref054] 54.Quail PH. Phytochrome Photosensory Signalling Networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3: 85–93. doi: 10.1038/nrm728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref055] 55.Möglich A, Yang X, Ayers RA, Moffat K. Structure and Function of Plant Photoreceptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61: 21–47. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref056] 56.Mathews S. Evolutionary Studies Illuminate the Structural-Functional Model of Plant Phytochromes. Plant Cell. 2010;22: 4–16. doi: 10.1105/tpc.109.072280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref057] 57.Chen A, Li C, Hu W, Lau MY, Lin H, Rockwell NC, et al. PHYTOCHROME C plays a major role in the acceleration of wheat flowering under long-day photoperiod. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1409795111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref058] 58.Woods DP, Ream TS, Minevich G, Hobert O, Amasino RM. PHYTOCHROME C is an essential light receptor for photoperiodic flowering in the temperate grass, Brachypodium distachyon. Genetics. 2014;198: 397–408. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.166785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref059] 59.Pearce S, Kippes N, Chen A, Debernardi JM, Dubcovsky J. RNA-seq studies using wheat PHYTOCHROME B and PHYTOCHROME C mutants reveal shared and specific functions in the regulation of flowering and shade-avoidance pathways. BMC Plant Biol. BMC Plant Biology; 2016; 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s12870-016-0831-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref060] 60.Monte E, Alonso JM, Ecker JR, Zhang Y, Li X, Young J, et al. Isolation and characterization of phyC mutants in Arabidopsis reveals complex crosstalk between phytochrome signaling pathways. Plant Cell. 2003;15: 1962–1980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref061] 61.Takano M, Inagaki N, Xie X, Yuzurihara N, Hihara F, Ishizuka T, et al. Distinct and cooperative functions of phytochromes A, B, and C in the control of deetiolation and flowering in rice. Plant Cell. 2005;17: 3311–3325. doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.035899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref062] 62.Kippes N, VanGessel C, Hamilton J, Akpinar A, Budak H, Dubcovsky J, et al. Effect of phyB and phyC loss-of-function mutations on the wheat transcriptome under short and long day photoperiods. BMC Plant Biology; 2020: 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02506-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref063] 63.Liu XL, Covington MF, Fankhauser C, Chory J, Wagner DR. ELF3 encodes a circadian clock–regulated nuclear protein that functions in an Arabidopsis PHYB signal transduction pathway. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 1293–1304. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.6.1293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref064] 64.Saito H, Ogiso-Tanaka E, Okumoto Y, Yoshitake Y, Izumi H, Yokoo T, et al. Ef7 encodes an ELF3-like protein and promotes rice flowering by negatively regulating the floral repressor gene Ghd7 under both short- and long-day conditions. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2012;53: 717–728. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref065] 65.Dalmais M, Antelme S, Ho-Yue-Kuang S, Wang Y, Darracq O, d’Yvoire MB, et al. A TILLING Platform for Functional Genomics in Brachypodium distachyon. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e65503–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref066] 66.Alvarez A, Li C, Lin H, Joe A, Padilla M, Woods DP and Dubcovsky J. EARLY FLOWERING 3 interactions with PHYTOCHROME B and PHOTOPERIOD1 are critical for the photoperiodic regulation of wheat heading time. PLoS Genetics. 2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref067] 67.Woods D, Dong Y, Bouché F, Bednarek R, Rowe M, Ream T, et al. A florigen paralog is required for short-day vernalization in a pooid grass. Elife. 2019;8: 27. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref068] 68.Nieto C, López-Salmerón V, Davière J-M, Prat S. ELF3-PIF4 Interaction Regulates Plant Growth Independently of the Evening Complex. Current Biology. 2015;25: 187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref069] 69.Yeom M, Kim H, Lim J, SHIN A-Y, Hong S, KIM J-I, et al. How Do Phytochromes Transmit the Light Quality Information to the Circadian Clock in Arabidopsis? Molecular Plant. 2014;7: 1701–1704. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssu086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref070] 70.Murakami M, Tago Y, Yamashino T, Mizuno T. Comparative Overviews of Clock-Associated Genes of Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2006;48: 110–121. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcl043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref071] 71.Zhao J, Huang X, Ouyang X, Chen W, Du A, Zhu L, et al. OsELF3-1, an Ortholog of Arabidopsis EARLY FLOWERING 3, Regulates Rice Circadian Rhythm and Photoperiodic Flowering. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e43705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref072] 72.Itoh H, Tanaka Y, Izawa T. Genetic Relationship Between Phytochromes and OsELF3-1 Reveals the Mode of Regulation for the Suppression of Phytochrome Signaling in Rice. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2019;60: 549–561. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcy225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref073] 73.Ishikawa R. et al. Phytochrome B regulates Heading date 1 (Hd1)-mediated expression of rice florigen Hd3a and critical day length in rice. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2011; 285:461–470. doi: 10.1007/s00438-011-0621-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref074] 74.Koo B-H, Yoo S-C, Park J-W, Kwon C-T, Lee B-D, An G, et al. Natural variation in OsPRR37 regulates heading date and contributes to rice cultivation at a wide range of latitudes. Molecular Plant. 2013;6: 1877–1888. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref075] 75.Murphy RL, Klein RR, Morishige DT, Brady JA, Rooney WL, Miller FR, et al. Coincident light and clock regulation of pseudoresponse regulator protein 37 (PRR37) controls photoperiodic flowering in sorghum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108: 16469–16474. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106212108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref076] 76.Woods DP, Ream TS, Bouché F, Lee J, Thrower N, Wilkerson C, et al. Establishment of a vernalization requirement in Brachypodium distachyon requires REPRESSOR OF VERNALIZATION1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114: 6623–6628. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1700536114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref077] 77.Dubcovsky J, Loukoianov A, Fu D, Valarik M, Sanchez A, Yan L. Effect of Photoperiod on the Regulation of Wheat Vernalization Genes VRN1 and VRN2. Plant Mol Biol. 2006;60: 469–480. doi: 10.1007/s11103-005-4814-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref078] 78.Gawronski P, Ariyadasa R, Himmelbach A, Poursarebani N, Kilian B, Stein N, et al. A distorted circadian clock causes early flowering and temperature- dependent variation in spike development in the Eps-3A^m mutant of einkorn wheat. Genetics. 2014;196(4):1253–1266. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.158444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1010706.ref079] 79.De Mendiburu R-project org package agricolae accessed 25 July F, 2012. Agricolae: Statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version 1.1–3. Comprehensive R Arch.

PERMALINK

PHYTOCHROME C regulation of photoperiodic flowering via PHOTOPERIOD1 is mediated by EARLY FLOWERING 3 in Brachypodium distachyon

Daniel P Woods

Weiya Li

Richard Sibout

Mingqin Shao

Debbie Laudencia-Chingcuanco

John P Vogel

Jorge Dubcovsky

Richard M Amasino

Roles

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

Results

Rapid flowering of elf3 is epistatic to the delayed flowering of phyC

Fig 1.

Effect of mutations in PHYC and ELF3 on the transcriptional profiles of flowering time genes

Fig 2. Effect of loss-of-function mutations in ELF3 and PHYC on the transcriptional profiles of six flowering time genes in 16h LD.

Identification and mapping of a ppd1 mutant in B. distachyon

Fig 3. Identification of a ppd1 mutant.

Genetic interactions between ELF3 and PPD1 under long and short days

Fig 4. Genetic interactions between the delayed flowering ppd1 mutant and the rapid flowering elf3 mutant.

Effect of mutations in ELF3 and PPD1 on the transcriptional profiles of flowering time genes

Fig 5. Effect of loss-of-function mutations in ELF3 and PPD1 on the transcriptional profiles of six flowering-time genes in 16h LD.

Constitutive expression of ELF3 results in delayed flowering and lower PPD1, FT1, and VRN1 expression levels

Fig 6. Overexpression of ELF3 in the elf3 mutant delays flowering.

Discussion

The phytochromes PHYC/PHYB and ELF3 connection

The ELF3 and PPD1 connection

Materials and methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

Generation of elf3/phyC and elf3/ppd1 double-mutant lines

RNA extraction and qPCR

Statistical analyses

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Köhler

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Claudia Köhler

Roles

Acceptance letter

Claudia Köhler

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases