Skip to main content
Annals of Botany logoLink to Annals of Botany
. 2011 Jan 10;108(8):1453–1462. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcq266

Epigenetic imbalance and the floral developmental abnormality of the in vitro-regenerated oil palm Elaeis guineensis

Estelle Jaligot 1,*, Sophie Adler 1, Émilie Debladis 1, Thierry Beulé 1, Frédérique Richaud 1, Pascal Ilbert 1, E Jean Finnegan 2, Alain Rival 1
PMCID: PMC3219487  PMID: 21224269

Abstract

Background

The large-scale clonal propagation of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is being stalled by the occurrence of the mantled somaclonal variation. Indeed, this abnormality which presents a homeotic-like conversion of male floral organs into carpelloid structures, hampers oil production since the supernumerary female organs are either sterile or produce fruits with poor oil yields.

Scope

In the last 15 years, the prevailing point of view on the origin of the mantled floral phenotype has evolved from a random mutation event triggered by in vitro culture to a hormone-dependent dysfunction of gene regulation processes. In this review, we retrace the history of the research on the mantled variation in the light of the parallel advances made in the understanding of plant development regulation in model systems and more specifically in the role of epigenetic mechanisms. An overview of the current state of oil palm genomic and transcriptomic resources, which are key to any comparison with model organisms, is given. We show that, while displaying original characteristics, the mantled phenotype of oil palm is morphologically, and possibly molecularly, related to MADS-box genes mutants described in model plants. We also discuss the occurrence of comparable floral phenotypes in other palm species.

Conclusions

Beyond its primary interest in the search for discriminating markers against an economically crippling phenotype, the study of the mantled abnormality also provides a unique opportunity to investigate the regulation of reproductive development in a perennial tropical palm. On the basis of recent results, we propose that future efforts should concentrate on the epigenetic regulation targeting MADS-box genes and transposable elements of oil palm, since both types of sequences are most likely to be involved in the mantled variant phenotype.

Keywords: Epigenetics, flower development, clonal fidelity, MADS-box, mantled phenotype, somaclonal variation, transposable elements, Elaeis guineensis

THE MANTLED PHENOTYPE IN OIL PALM: EMERGENCE AND MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

The African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) has become the first world source of vegetable oil thanks to both its oil yield (up to 6·5 t ha−1), which is the highest of all oleaginous plants and the large areas dedicated to its culture (Corley, 2009; Koh et al., 2009). Indonesia and Malaysia alone account for nearly 9 Mha of oil palm plantation producing >80 % of the world's palm oil (FAO statistics 2008, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx). From the late 1970s onwards, the increasing commercial interest in oil palm culture has prompted the optimization of oil production through the genetic improvement of planting material. Because of its long life cycle (25 years) which makes conventional breeding programmes expensive and time-consuming and its recalcitrance to natural vegetative propagation, in vitro cloning methods based on somatic embryogenesis have been implemented (Pannetier et al., 1981).

The subsequent up-scaling of clonal production from the laboratory to the pilot production plant allowed the detection of a proportion of several somaclonal phenotypes among the clonal progenies. The term mantled was coined by R. H. V. Corley (Corley et al., 1986) to describe the singular aspect of the abnormal fruit displayed by some of those variants. On their flowers, fleshy structures resembling carpels replace stamens and give its typical ‘wrapped’ aspect to the fruit. The effect on oil production can be dramatic since the mesocarp of the resulting fruits accumulate very low levels of oil and, in the most severe cases, the flowers are sterile (Rival, 2000; Rival and Parveez, 2005).

Although the occurrence of this variant phenotype is rather modest since it affects approx. 5 % of the regenerant palms on average, it varies widely and unpredictably depending on the genotype of the mother palm and on in vitro culture conditions (Jones et al., 1995; Eeuwens et al., 2002). The severity of this abnormality is spatially heterogeneous as it shows different degrees of organ transformation between palms originating from the same clonal progeny, between inflorescences borne on the same palm, or between flowers composing the same inflorescence. A spontaneous and gradual reversion to the normal phenotype is observed in the field and its duration depends directly on the original severity of the abnormality (Rival and Parveez, 2005). However, the reversion takes years to complete and this period of non-productivity must be added to the 2–3 years of in vitro somatic embryogenesis and micropropagation and the 5 years during which the oil palms are sexually immature. As a consequence, the mantled abnormality results not only in a considerable deficit in oil production but also in a waste of investment in state-of-the-art biotechnological infrastructures, skilled labour time and plantation area. Since it is impossible to detect the mantled material before flowering and as it is not correlated to any vegetative abnormality, the early detection of variants became a priority for breeders and biotechnologists. Since the early 1990s, research aimed at identifying early markers of the mantled phenotype has tackled simultaneously the twin problems of the ‘original trauma’ causing the abnormality and the means of its early detection.

THE SEARCH FOR EARLY MARKERS, AND HOW IT CHANGED THE SHAPE OF THE QUESTION

The term ‘somaclonal variation’ designates new phenotypes arising randomly in a somatic cell line, notably after in vitro clonal propagation. Indeed, tissue culture protocols generally include the abrupt termination of tissue correlations between the explant and the donor plant and a subsequent radical change in environmental and trophic conditions. Also, plant growth regulators such as auxins and cytokinins can be used at high levels to induce the de-differentiation and the re-differentiation of tissues and the rooting of the somaplant (Rival, 2000; Eeuwens et al., 2002). Therefore, the generic phenomenon of somaclonal variation encompasses very different situations since variant phenotypes are likely to originate from a wide range of distinct alterations arising after tissue culture (Larkin and Scowcroft, 1981; Kaeppler and Phillips, 1993; Kaeppler et al., 2000).

Amongst the perturbations that are associated with somaclonal variation, changes in ploidy level are frequent, through either the loss of chromosome or chromosome fragments (aneuploidy) or the duplication of the whole set of chromosomes without cell separation (polyploidy). Indeed, Stelly et al. (1989) showed that high frequencies of aneuploidy and tertiary monosomy in cotton (Gossyptum hirsutum) regenerants indicate that cytogenetic anomalies were a major source of somaclonal variation in this species. More recently, flow cytometry unambiguously identified euploid (diploid, mixoploid, triploid and tetraploid) and aneuploid papaya micropropagated plantlets (Clarindo et al., 2007). In oil palm, flow cytometry analyses performed on embryogenic calli and regenerated shoots showed no alteration of the ploidy level in these materials when compared with the mother palm (Rival et al., 1997).

In several cases, DNA markers proved useful in the detection of somaclonal variants in plants; indeed, Palombi and Damiano (2002) showed that SSR markers but not RAPD could detect genetic variation induced in micropropagated kiwifruit plants. In oil palm, extensive RAPD and AFLP analyses revealed no DNA polymorphisms that could be linked to the mantled variant phenotype (Rival et al., 1998), making it unlikely that a gross genetic defect could be the source of the somaclonal variation of oil palm.

These results, as well as the observed instability of the variation in time, led to the hypothesis of an epigenetic origin of the mantled phenotype. In the late 1990s the prominent role played by both the extent and the distribution of DNA methylation on the time and space of gene expression was spreading fast from the field of cancer research to that of plant developmental biology (Laird and Jaenisch, 1994; Jones, 1996; Finnegan et al., 1998). It had been shown that a given gene undergoes extensive changes in its methylation profile in the course of cell differentiation and organ specialization and that its transcription is modulated throughout plant life in response to various environmental cues (Finnegan et al., 1998, 2000; Matzke and Matzke, 2004; Jullien et al., 2006; Xiao et al., 2006; Chinnusamy and Zhu, 2009; Law and Jacobsen, 2010). More specifically, the documented correlations between perturbations of DNA methylation patterns and both somaclonal variations (Peraza-Echeverria et al., 2001; Joyce and Cassells, 2002; Joyce et al., 2003; see also more recent examples in Guo et al., 2007; Pietsch and Anderson, 2007; Park et al., 2008; Schellenbaum et al., 2008; Chang et al., 2009; Baránek et al., 2010) and abnormalities in floral induction and development (Finnegan et al., 1996; Ronemus et al., 1996; Jacobsen and Meyerowitz, 1997; Cubas et al., 1999; Jacobsen et al., 2000; Soppe et al., 2000; Kankel et al., 2003) were a strong incentive to look in that direction.

Nevertheless it must be noted that this idea was by no means exclusive of other probable influences, such as those of plant growth regulators. Indeed, the work of Besse et al. (1992) demonstrated that a type of embryogenic calli (fast-growing calli or FGC) generating nearly 100 % of mantled palms displayed a decreased level of endogenous cytokinins compared with the nodular compact calli type (NCC), which yields on average 5 % of variant regenerants. A complementary study on calli obtained by the re-cloning of normal and abnormal regenerants showed that these differences could be attributed to a defect in cytokinin uptake (Jones, 1998). Furthermore, Morcillo et al. (2006) later observed in mantled palm-derived calli a relative overexpression of the EgIAA1 gene which could be involved in promoting auxin-induced changes in gene expression. Taken together, these studies support the idea that the abnormal phenotype is probably the result of altered sensitivity and/or response to growth regulators in the in vitro culture material. Interestingly, it has been proposed that the action of plant growth regulators (PGRs) is mediated through modifications of the epigenetic marks in the corresponding hormone-responsive genes (Stokes et al., 2002; Xiao et al., 2006; Alexandre et al., 2009; Krogan and Long, 2009). So far evidence has been found, both in vitro and in planta, for the implication of chromatin-remodelling factors and transcription factors in PGR response pathways, especially in relationship to flower development (Murray et al., 2003; Kaufmann et al., 2009; Kapazoglou et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010). The direct involvement of DNA methylation in PGR-induced gene regulation is still to be demonstrated but nevertheless the hypothesis of its impact in the case of the mantled phenotype is appealing.

An epigenetic misregulation can be characterized either directly, through its effectors or the immediate modifications that they control or, indirectly, through its consequences on gene expression. With the aim of screening the largest amount of polymorphisms possible, the first searches for epigenetic markers of the mantled somaclonal variation tried therefore to investigate changes in DNA methylation or in gene expression in the whole oil palm genome or in a subset thereof (Jaligot et al., 2000; Tregear et al., 2002). Global DNA methylation rates were investigated by HPLC quantitation of nucleosides in embryogenic calli (NCC vs. FGC), leaves and inflorescences from normal vs. mantled adult clonal oil palms (Jaligot et al., 2000). The quantitation of 5-methylcytosine in a large number of DNA samples from different genotypes and tissues showed that a major epigenetic imbalance is at work in the mantled material. Indeed, a significant deficit in DNA methylation was demonstrated in all the abnormal tissues compared with their normal counterparts: the average decrease in methylation level was –19·3 % in FGC, –7·4 % in mantled inflorescences and –5·5 % in mature leaves from variant palms (Jaligot et al., 2000; E. Jaligot et al., unpubl. res.). Similar results were obtained when CG methylation rates were examined in the same study through an enzymatic saturation assay. In spite of the strong and statistically significant correlation that was demonstrated between the mantled phenotype and genome hypomethylation, it was impossible to define a unique ‘methylation threshold’ for clonal conformity because of the combination of high individual- and genotype-dependent variations in global DNA methylation levels.

Because of this background noise, several subsequent papers targeted single-sequence methylation polymorphisms in the hope of narrowing down the scope of the study to those of the differentially methylated cytosines that bore relevance to the regulation of genes (Matthes et al., 2001; Jaligot et al., 2002, 2004; Lei et al., 2006). Depending on the pre-existence or absence of candidate markers, either selected or anonymous sequences, respectively, were examined for the occurrence of methylation polymorphisms with isoschizomeric methylation-sensitive enzyme pairs. Overall, at the single-sequence level both increases and decreases in DNA methylation were observed in relationship to the mantled somaclonal variation. Similar to the whole-genome analysis, most of the differences that were found were attributed to genotype-dependent variation in DNA methylation, independent of the phenotype. As a consequence, the markers that were isolated because of their ability to discriminate between normal and variant palm material on a limited range of genotypes later proved to be inefficient for the screening of material with different clonal origins.

Likewise, potential transcriptional markers for either ‘true-to-type’ or ‘mantled’ phenotypes were scored by comparing tissues from either normal or abnormal palms or tissue cultures. The differential display technique was first implemented but was found to be time-consuming and yielded a comparatively low number of candidate markers (Tregear et al., 2002; Morcillo et al., 2007). The search for expression markers was taken to a higher level with the popularization of systematic sequencing campaigns aimed at building multi-purpose molecular resources for non-model organisms. Numerous wxpressed sequence tags (ESTs) libraries from various adult or in vitro tissues of oil palm were then constructed by research teams in France and in Malaysia (Jouannic et al., 2005; Ho et al., 2007; Low et al., 2008; Mayes et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2008; Roowi et al., 2010).

When considering the ensemble of the results, the majority of the expression polymorphisms that were detected were dependent on the genotype. Among the abundant phenotype-dependent expression polymorphisms that were indentified, most were of a quantitative (more vs. less) rather than of a qualitative (presence vs. absence) nature and proved elusive for the non- or semi-quantitative detection techniques that were available at the time, such as northern blotting and RT-PCR. Moreover, as happened in the case of sequence-specific methylation studies it proved difficult to assign the candidate markers to definite biological pathways, since the structure of these sequences pointed to a wide variety of functions. And it was even more difficult to connect these markers to a plausible and unique scenario explaining the emergence of the mantled phenotype from independent somatic embryogenesis events and unrelated oil palm genotypes.

In the light of these conclusions, it appeared crucial to consider a change in the strategies used to achieve the proposed objectives. This was performed both (a) by looking at the problem through a complementary perspective, focused on likely sources rather than on likely effects of the oil palm somaclonal variation through a candidate gene approach, and (b) by taking the search for anonymous discriminant markers to a higher level using the novel high-throughput techniques.

THE ‘CANDIDATE GENE’ APPROACH: CONFRONTING THE USUAL SUSPECTS

The candidate gene approach proposes that a gene with known function is linked to a given complex trait (Pflieger et al., 2001; Glazier et al., 2002). Originally used as a complement to mapping studies, this approach has now derived a new meaning from the field of functional biology where it consists of checking the hypothesis that a known gene function is involved in the mechanism of interest (Somerville and Somerville, 1999; Andersen and Lübberstedt, 2003; Remington and Purugganan, 2003).

In the context of the mantled abnormality, two gene families were studied following the candidate-gene approach. The occurrence of abnormal flower phenotypes involving organ conversions in Arabidopsis thaliana plants expressing low levels of the DNA-methyltransferase 1 (MET1) gene has been described in pioneering studies in plant epigenetics (Finnegan et al., 1996; Ronemus et al., 1996). As for the mantled phenotype, its correlation with a significant genomic hypomethylation prompts the question of an initial impairment of DNA-methyltransferase activity. This issue has been addressed by identifying, in the oil palm, members of the three DNA-methyltransferase gene families that have been characterized in plants: the Dnmt1/MET1 family, the chromomethylase (CMT) family and the domain-rearranged methyltransferase (DRM) family (for a review, see Finnegan and Kovac, 2000). The former two classes of enzymes are responsible for the maintenance of methylation at sites that are symmetrical across the two DNA strands (i.e. CG and CHG sites, respectively, where H is A, T or C) (Cao and Jacobsen, 2002b; Cao et al., 2003; Aufsatz et al., 2004). Moreover, DNA-methyltransferases of the CMT family are crucial for the stable silencing of high copy number sequences such as transposable elements which make up a large portion of plant genomes (Bennetzen, 2000; Papa et al., 2001; Slotkin and Martienssen, 2007; Feschotte, 2008). The third category of DNA-methyltransferases ensures both the imperfect maintenance of methylation at isolated Cs (‘asymmetrical’ CHH sites) and the de novo transfer of methyl groups on previously unmethylated cytosines in any sequence context (Cao et al., 2000, 2003; Cao and Jacobsen, 2002a; Cao et al.). The enzymes belonging to the CMT and DRM classes are assisted in their functions by small non-coding RNAs which direct them to their target sequences, a process called RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) that is central to the phenomenon of gene silencing (Herr et al., 2005; Kanno et al., 2005; Onodera et al., 2005; Pontier, 2005). Therefore, a dysfunction of any of these three enzyme families would be likely to cause a genomic hypomethylation such as the one occurring in mantled oil palm tissues. The prominent member of each of the three gene families was identified in the oil palm genome and its transcription level was assessed through real-time PCR quantitation (Rival et al., 2008). Surprisingly, a slight but significant increase in transcript accumulation was observed for both maintenance DNA-methyltransferases at the embryogenic callus stage (FGC vs. NCC). This apparent inconsistency between the variations in DNA-methyltransferase gene expression and the changes in DNA methylation rates is comparable to what has been found in tumour tissues, in which genome-wide hypomethylation and local hypermethylation of tumor-suppressor genes can be paradoxically coupled to the overexpression of DNA-methyltransferases (for recent reviews on the subject, see Jones and Baylin, 2007; Esteller, 2008; McCabe et al., 2009). However, in the case of oil palm this situation is partially erased through the regeneration and maturation of the clonal plant, since no differences in DNA-methyltransferase RNA levels were found between normal and mantled inflorescences. Although a post-transcriptional regulation of the DNA methyltransferase genes or an alteration of the enzymatic activities cannot be ruled out, it was concluded that the reduced DNA methylation was most likely a side effect of the mantled somaclonal variation rather than being causal.

The other gene family under investigation is formed by the genes contributing to what was originally named the ABC model (Coen and Meyerowitz, 1991). This model is based upon the hypothesis that the formation of the concentric whorls of floral organs in arabidopsis can be explained by the combined expression of a limited set of genes in partially overlapping cell territories. This model was later validated and completed in different plant models with occasional amendments due to differences in floral architecture between species, and has become the ABCDE model (Kang et al., 1998; Davies et al., 1999; Ambrose et al., 2000; Brunner et al., 2000; Honma and Goto, 2001; Münster et al., 2001; Johansen et al., 2002; Nagasawa et al., 2003; Whipple et al., 2004; Kaufmann et al., 2005; Leseberg et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2010). As a matter of fact, the inactivation of either one of the genes corresponding to the A, B or C functions results in the ‘overflowing’ of the neighbouring organ types beyond the whorl boundaries. Of particular interest for the study of the mantled phenotype of oil palm are the plants that are defective in B-type functions: their petals and stamens are replaced by supernumerary sepals and carpels, respectively (Coen and Meyerowitz, 1991; Zahn et al., 2005). Considering that the oil palm flowers have tepals instead of both sepals and petals, the B-type mutant phenotype is very similar to the sexual organ conversion seen in the mantled flowers. Actually, Adam et al. (2005a) demonstrated at the histological level that both the residual stamens or staminodes of the female flowers and the stamens of the male flowers were transformed into carpelloids and carpels, respectively, in the mantled oil palm regenerants. Abnormal patterns of floral organogenesis have recently been observed in somaclonal variants of grapevine (Vitis vinifera), so the occurrence of such a phenomenon in clonal regenerants of oil palm is plausible (Chatelet et al., 2007).

The functions predicted through the ABCDE model are mostly encoded by genes belonging to the MADS-box superfamily of transcription factors. Since this superfamily is much wider than the relatively small number of organ identity genes, many distinct MADS-box genes have been identified in the oil palm genome by different teams (Adam et al., 2005b; Syed Alwee et al., 2006) but only a small fraction has been assigned to functions in flower development. To date, putative representatives of the B, C and E gene groups have been identified and their status of true orthologues of the genes cloned in the model plants arabidopsis and snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus) has been asserted through both the study of their respective expression patterns in the different floral whorls by in situ hybridization and their ectopic expression in transgenic arabidopsis plants (Adam et al., 2007a, b). Among them, it has been found that the EgDEF1 and EgGLO2 genes are structurally and functionally equivalent to the APETALA3/DEFICIENS and PISTILLATA/GLOBOSA B-group genes of arabidopsis and snapdragon, respectively. From what has been demonstrated in studies based on model species it can be assumed that the protein products of the oil palm genes act through the formation of a tetramer made of the B-group DEF/GLO heterodimer and one protein from each of the A (or C) and E groups, according to the ‘quartet’ theory of floral organ specification (Egea-Cortines et al., 1999; Pelaz et al., 2000; Honma and Goto, 2001; Yang et al., 2003; Melzer et al., 2008; Melzer and Theissen, 2009). If this hypothesis is correct then a misregulation of either one of the B-type genes of oil palm could lead to the mantled phenotype if the relative amount of at least one of the quartet members deviates from the normal 1 : 1 : 2 ratio, possibly affecting the DNA-binding properties of the complex or its role in transcriptional activation. As a matter of fact, a decrease in the mRNA levels of both the EgDEF1 and EgGLO2 genes has been demonstrated in male and female inflorescences displaying the mantled phenotype compared with those from true-to-type palms (Adam et al., 2007b). However, this decrease has not been detected consistently throughout the development of the inflorescences so this preliminary work clearly needs to be continued. Interestingly, Kaufmann et al. (2009) have suggested a possible interplay between the promotion of floral organogenesis and auxin response pathways in arabidopsis. Indeed, these authors demonstrated through the identification of the targets of the E-type SEPALLATA3 protein that the complexes involving this protein mediate auxin-dependent flower development. This hypothesis raises the exciting possibility of a link between an auxin-induced variation emerging during the in vitro propagation of oil palm and the homeotic conversion of floral organs observed in the mantled regenerants, and needs to be explored further.

EPIGENETIC LANDSCAPING AND THE OIL PALM

The concept of ‘epigenetic landscape’ invented by Waddington (1957) has recently been revived in the wake of high-throughput technologies. Originally it designated an ensemble of stimuli and constraints influencing the differentiation of a cell. Today this idea has been revamped and the landscape is now made of a rich stratification of epigenetic mechanisms and of the gene expression changes that they promote. Taking advantage of the NGS (next generation sequencing) methods for the transcriptional analysis of whole genomes, several studies published in recent years have proposed a snapshot of the so-called ‘epigenome’ in model plants such as arabidopsis and rice (Oryza sativa) (Zhang et al., 2007; Cokus et al., 2008; Li et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2008). This image is the reflection of the transcriptional state within a given tissue at a given developmental stage and in a precise physiological context and therefore it is very well suited for comparative purposes.

Several research groups and consortia have recently announced the complete sequencing of the oil palm genome. Indeed, Zieler et al (2010) very recently reported on the generation of whole-genome shotgun sequences of the oil palm genome, using primarily Sanger reads to enable high-quality assemblies. This breakthrough was achieved by a consortium joining Synthetic Genomics Inc. (USA), ACGT Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) and the J. Craig Venter Institute (USA). According to these authors, the genome sequences have been supplemented with a high volume of EST and transcriptome sequencing and the genome has been fully annotated.

In November 2009, The Malaysian Palm Oil Board announced that a consortium co-led by the Advanced Biotechnology and Breeding Centre had sequenced three oil palm genomes from the two related species Elaies oleifera and Elaeis guineensis, including the pisifera and dura varieties of oil palm, which display thin-shelled and thick-shelled fruits, respectively. The consortium included Orion Genomics and MOgene LC based in St Louis, MO and The Genome Center at Washington University, Macrogen Inc. based in South Korea, and GeneWorks Pty Ltd based in Adelaide, Australia. In addition to sequencing and assembling the genomes of the three oil palm varieties, the consortium sequenced the expressed genes (or transcriptome) from multiple tissue types for all three types of oil palm (Wahid, 2009).

In May 2009, a Malaysian consortium created by Sime Darby Bhd, one of the world's largest oil palm company and Synamatix Sdn Bhd, a bio-informatics company had announced the successful sequencing, assembly and annotation of the oil palm genome with 93·8 % completeness.

The diversity and the size of the investments in these joint ventures raise concerns in the oil palm researchers' community about the availability of these genome sequences to the public since issues on intellectual property rights are predictable. For this reason it is likely that the epigenetic landscaping of the oil palm genome will not become feasible for several years. However, in the meantime, it is possible to get a taste of the epigenome on a fraction of the oil palm genome or transcriptome. To obtain a reduction in sequence complexity prior to sequencing, a preliminary filtration or fractionation step can be applied to remove the sequences that are highly redundant and/or methylated as these are assumed to be irrelevant for the study of the differential expression of low-copy genes. Such an enrichment strategy, already suggested for the targeting of oil palm genes by Mayes et al. (2008), has been found to be suitable for the sequencing of the gene-containing fraction from large and repeat-rich genomes such as those of maize (Zea mays) (Palmer et al., 2003; Whitelaw et al., 2003), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) (Bedell et al., 2005) and onion (Allium cepa) (Jakše et al., 2008). So these ‘reduced-representation approaches’ (as they have been called by Paterson, 2006) could have two beneficial effects for oil palm research, by accelerating the sequencing process of the gene-rich part of the genome and by providing the basis for its epigenetic mapping.

Recently Beulé et al. (2010) used subtractive hybridization to eliminate expressed sequences that were common to both normal and mantled male inflorescence tissues. This resulted in the enrichment in either normal- or variant-type-associated sequences, depending on the orientation of the subtraction process. The two corresponding libraries were then constructed and the differential accumulation of their cDNA contents was verified by macroarray hybridization. Eventually, the most differentially expressed phenotype-related transcripts were assessed on a larger range of palm tissues and genotypes using semi-quantitative RT-PCR. This approach led to the identification of six candidate markers, among which one was most strongly expressed in abnormal inflorescences, whereas the remaining five accumulated preferentially in true-to-type inflorescences. However, the analysis of the respective expression patterns of these transcripts in different oil palm tissues offered no clues as to their role in the onset of the somaclonal variation of oil palm, nor did the putative function of two of the corresponding gene products as components of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. In any case, it will be interesting to establish whether the genes corresponding to these candidate markers undergo methylation changes in conjunction with their phenotype-dependent variations in transcriptional levels.

TREADING ON THE MANTLED TRAIL: PERSPECTIVES

Throughout the years, a large amount of data has been gathered about the mantled somaclonal variation of oil palm. Although the many complexities of this abnormality still make it a puzzle, several exciting trails have been uncovered and need to be followed further.

A misregulation of one or both B-type floral organ genes EgDEF1 and EgGLO2 could help explain the morphology of the mantled flowers. For this reason, the magnitude and the time-course of the decrease in the EgDEF1 and EgGLO2 gene expression needs to be quantified accurately using quantitative PCR. Whatever the results of these new experiments, the impact of the decrease in gene expression on the actual protein levels and on the availability of functional tetrameric complexes will have to be assessed. This point is made even more relevant because of the isolation in the oil palm genome of a different sequence with similarities to the GLOBOSA gene, named EgGLO1. Its protein product shares 87·1 % of identical residues with EgGLO2 while the expression patterns of the corresponding genes differ slightly from each other (Adam et al., 2005b, 2007b). As several authors have pointed out in different monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous species (Münster et al., 2001; Zahn et al., 2005; Geuten and Irish, 2010), the occurrence of paralogous genes ensuring the formation of B-type floral organs could reflect a diversification in the roles performed by the protein complex to which their products contribute.

It is of paramount scientific interest to study the epigenetic mechanisms regulating the expression of the floral MADS-box genes, in the course of the normal oil palm flower development as well as in the mantled context. Indeed, several clues point to a general hypersensitivity towards flower malformations residing in the palm family. The occurrence in seed-derived populations of the rare (and supposedly mutant) diwakkawakka variety of oil palm, whose flowers are similar to those of the mantled somaclones (Hartley, 1988), mirrors the observation of mantled phenotype in seed-derived palms from the parent species E. oleifera. Very intriguing also is the plasticity and reversibility of sex differentiation in palms: Corley et al. (1976) demonstrated that gibberellic acid could favour the formation of male inflorescences in the monoecious oil palm, whereas hermaphrodism can be induced in vitro in female flowers of the dioecious date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) after treatment with growth regulators (Masmoudi-Allouche et al., 2008). Moreover, in the latter species, somaclonal variants displaying supernumerary carpels have been observed (Cohen et al., 2004, 2007) The possibility of a ‘hotspot’ within the oil palm genome being the starting point of the mantled somaclonal variation would fit with the observation that variant palms can originate, albeit at varying frequencies, from any of the micropropagation protocols known to date (Eeuwens et al., 2002). Future work aimed at tackling this question will have to include the localization of the floral MADS-box genes in palm genomes, since the identification of a cluster formed by some of these genes could both support the ‘hotspot’ hypothesis in oil palm and contribute to explain the recurrence of abnormal floral phenotypes in different palm species. These reflections imply that the study of the epigenetic mechanisms governing the expression of the floral identity genes in oil palm must take into account their respective genomic environments in order to be informative. The considerable role played by chromatin remodelling (with or without concomitant changes in DNA methylation) in long-range, co-ordinated regulation of gene expression has been well described, especially in the case of floral induction and development (Schubert et al., 2005; Baroux et al., 2007; Adrian et al., 2009; Cazzonelli et al., 2009; Charron et al., 2009). Thus it would be interesting to investigate the possible changes in chromatin condensation associated with the mantled somaclonal phenotype in the vicinity of the floral MADS-box genes. Small non-coding RNA populations of oil palm should be studied in parallel as these molecules can promote changes in both DNA methylation and chromatin conformation (Lippman et al., 2003; Vaucheret, 2006; Poethig, 2009) and as an increasing number of papers illustrate their participation to the regulation of flower development (Park et al., 2002; Baker et al., 2005; Swiezewski et al., 2007; Hultquist and Dorweiler, 2008; Nag et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Nair et al., 2010; Yant et al., 2010).

In addition, the influence of transposable elements in the mantled phenotype should be examined further. It is well known that both the immobilization and the silencing of transposable elements are mediated by a combination of DNA hypermethylation and heterochromatinization and that this repression is frequently alleviated after tissue culture and/or as a consequence of defects in the gene silencing machinery (Grandbastien, 1998; Miura et al., 2001; Slotkin and Martienssen, 2007; Tanurdzic et al., 2008; Reinders et al., 2009; Slotkin et al., 2009). In spite of the fact that transposable elements constitute a large portion of the oil palm genome and are widely distributed among its chromosomes (Castilho et al., 2000; Price et al., 2002), no large-scale phenotype-dependent alterations in transposable elements repartition or methylation were detected by Kubis et al. (2003) in regenerant oil palms. Still, the occurrence of such phenomena in relation to the mantled abnormality cannot be completely excluded since the recent study of Mirouze et al. (2009) demonstrated that different families of transposable elements can be regulated through distinct pathways. In addition, recent experiments undertaken in our group have revealed the insertion of a retrotransposon within one of the candidate marker genes for the abnormality and its coincidence with an altered production of transcripts from this gene (Jaligot et al., unpubl. res.). Provided that a causal relationship is demonstrated between this specific insertion and the mantled somaclonal variation, it is tempting to hypothesize that the epigenetic mechanisms involved could resemble those underlying the retroelement-induced Hose in Hose floral phenotype of primrose (Primula vulgaris) (Li et al., 2010).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research discussed in this paper was part of the EPIDEV (Epigenetic Control of Developmental Gene Expression), a FAST (French-Australian Science and Technology) collaborative research project between the International Science Linkages programme established under the Australian Government's innovation statement Backing Australia's ability – Project FR070100 and French Partenariat Hubert Curien, Project 16079RJ. A.R. was supported through a Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship from the 6th Framework Program of the European Commission (Contract MOIF-CT-2004-509893 VARIOMETH). E.J. was sponsored by a Lavoisier Post Doctoral Grant awarded by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Contract BFE2002/340634B). The Directors and dedicated staff of PalmElit SAS (France), CNRA-LaMé (Côte d'Ivoire), Hacienda La Cabana (Colombia), Malaysian Palm Oil Board, FELDA Agricultural Services, and United Plantations Bhd (Malaysia) are gratefully thanked for their co-operation.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Adam H, Jouannic S, Escoute J, Duval Y, Verdeil JL, Tregear JW. Reproductive developmental complexity in the African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis, Arecaceae) American Journal of Botany. 2005a;92:1836–1852. doi: 10.3732/ajb.92.11.1836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adam H, Jouannic S, Morcillo F, Richaud F, Duval Y, Tregear JW. MADS box genes in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis): patterns in the evolution of the SQUAMOSA, DEFICIENS, GLOBOSA, AGAMOUS, and SEPALLATA subfamilies. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 2005b;62:15–31. doi: 10.1007/s00239-005-0333-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adam H, Jouannic S, Morcillo F, Verdeil JL, Duval Y, Tregear JW. Determination of flower structure in Elaeis guineensis: do palms use the same homeotic genes as other species? Annals of Botany. 2007a;100:1–12. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Adam H, Jouannic S, Orieux Y, et al. Functional characterization of MADS box genes involved in the determination of oil palm flower structure. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007b;58:1245–1259. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erl263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Adrian J, Torti S, Turck F. From decision to commitment: the molecular memory of flowering. Molecular Plant. 2009;2:628–642. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexandre C, Moller-Steinbach Y, Schonrock N, Gruissem W, Hennig L. Arabidopsis MSI1 is required for negative regulation of the response to drought stress. Molecular Plant. 2009;2:675–687. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ambrose BA, Lerner DR, Ciceri P, Padilla CM, Yanofsky MF, Schmidt RJ. Molecular and genetic analyses of the silky1 gene reveal conservation in floral organ specification between eudicots and monocots. Molecular Cell. 2000;5:569–579. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80450-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Andersen JR, Lübberstedt T. Functional markers in plants. Trends in Plant Science. 2003;8:554–560. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2003.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Aufsatz W, Mette M, Matzke A, Matzke M. The role of MET1 in RNA-directed de novo and maintenance methylation of CG dinucleotides. Plant Molecular Biology. 2004;54:793–804. doi: 10.1007/s11103-004-0179-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker CC, Sieber P, Wellmer F, Meyerowitz EM. The early extra petals1 mutant uncovers a role for microRNA miR164c in regulating petal number in Arabidopsis. Current Biology. 2005;15:303–315. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.02.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Baránek M, Křižan B, Ondrušíková E, Pidra M. DNA-methylation changes in grapevine somaclones following in vitro culture and thermotherapy. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2010;101:11–22. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baroux C, Pien S, Grossniklaus U. Chromatin modification and remodeling during early seed development. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 2007;17:473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bedell JA, Budiman MA, Nunberg A, et al. Sorghum genome sequencing by methylation filtration. PLoS Biology. 2005;3:e13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030013. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bennetzen JL. Transposable element contributions to plant gene and genome evolution. Plant Molecular Biology. 2000;42:251–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Besse I, Verdeil JL, Duval Y, Sotta B, Maldiney R, Miginiac E. Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) clonal fidelity: endogenous cytokinins and indoleacetic acid in embryogenic calluscultures. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1992;43:983–989. [Google Scholar]
  16. Beulé T, Camps C, Debiesse S, et al. Transcriptome analysis reveals differentially expressed genes associated with the mantled homeotic flowering abnormality in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) Tree Genetics & Genomes. 2010 doi:10.1007/s11295-010-0323-9. [Google Scholar]
  17. Brunner AM, Rottmann WH, Sheppard LA, et al. Structure and expression of duplicate AGAMOUS orthologues in poplar. Plant Molecular Biology. 2000;44:619–634. doi: 10.1023/a:1026550205851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cao X, Jacobsen SE. Role of the Arabidopsis DRM methyltransferases in de novo DNA methylation and gene silencing. Current Biology. 2002a;12:1138–1144. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)00925-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cao X, Jacobsen SE. Locus-specific control of asymmetric and CpNpG methylation by the DRM and CMT3 methyltransferase genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2002b;99:16491–16498. doi: 10.1073/pnas.162371599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cao X, Springer NM, Muszynski MG, Phillips RL, Kaeppler SM, Jacobsen SE. Conserved plant genes with similarity to mammalian de novo DNA methyltransferases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2000;97:4979–4984. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cao X, Aufsatz W, Zilberman D, et al. Role of the DRM and CMT3 methyltransferases in RNA-directed DNA methylation. Current Biology. 2003;13:2212–2217. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2003.11.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Castilho A, Vershinin A, Heslop-Harrison JS. Repetitive DNA and the Chromosomes in the Genome of Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis) Annals of Botany. 2000;85:837–844. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cazzonelli CI, Millar T, Finnegan EJ, Pogson BJ. Promoting gene expression in plants by permissive histone lysine methylation. Plant Signaling & Behavior. 2009;4:484–488. doi: 10.4161/psb.4.6.8316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chang L, Zhang Z, Han B, et al. Isolation of DNA-methyltransferase genes from strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duch.) and their expression in relation to micropropagation. Plant Cell Reports. 2009;28:1373–1384. doi: 10.1007/s00299-009-0737-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Charron J-BF, He H, Elling AA, Deng XW. Dynamic landscapes of four histone modifications during deetiolation in arabidopsis. The Plant Cell. 2009;21:3732–3748. doi: 10.1105/tpc.109.066845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Chatelet P, Laucou V, Fernandez L, et al. Characterization of Vitis vinifera L. somatic variants exhibiting abnormal flower development patterns. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007;58:4107–4118. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Chinnusamy V, Zhu J-K. Epigenetic regulation of stress responses in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:133–139. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2008.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Clarindo WR, Carvalho CR, Araújo FS, Abreu IS, Otoni WC. Recovering polyploid papaya in vitro regenerants as screened by flow cytometry. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2007;92:207–214. [Google Scholar]
  29. Coen ES, Meyerowitz EM. The war of the whorls: genetic interactions controlling flower development. Nature. 1991;353:31–37. doi: 10.1038/353031a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen Y, Korchinsky R, Tripler E. Flower abnormalities cause abnormal fruit setting in tissue culture-propagated date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology. 2004;79:1007–1013. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cohen Y, Gurevich V, Korchinsky R, Shochat M, Makesh S, Lavi U. Molecular and phenotypic characterization of somaclonal variation in date palm off-types originated from tissue culture. Acta Horticulturae. 2007;738:417–423. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cokus SJ, Feng S, Zhang X, et al. Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature. 2008;452:215–219. doi: 10.1038/nature06745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Corley RHV. Sex differentiation in oil palm: effects of growth regulators. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1976;27:553–558. [Google Scholar]
  34. Corley RHV. How much palm oil do we need? Environmental Science & Policy. 2009;12:134–139. [Google Scholar]
  35. Corley RHV, Lee CH, Law LH, Wong CY. Abnormal flower development in oil palm clones. Planter (Kuala Lumpur) 1986;62:233–240. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cubas P, Vincent C, Coen E. An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature. 1999;401:157–161. doi: 10.1038/43657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Davies B, Motte P, Keck E, Saedler H, Sommer H, Schwarz-Sommer Z. PLENA and FARINELLI: redundancy and regulatory interactions between two Antirrhinum MADS-box factors controlling flower development. EMBO Journal. 1999;18:4023–4034. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.14.4023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Eeuwens CJ, Lord S, Donough CR, Rao V, Vallejo G, Nelson S. Effects of tissue culture conditions during embryoid multiplication on the incidence of ‘mantled’ flowering in clonally propagated oil palm. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2002;70:311–323. [Google Scholar]
  39. Egea-Cortines M, Saedler H, Sommer H. Ternary complex formation between the MADS-box proteins SQUAMOSA, DEFICIENS and GLOBOSA is involved in the control of floral architecture in Antirrhinum majus. EMBO Journal. 1999;18:5370–5379. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.19.5370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Esteller M. Epigenetics in cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358:1148–1159. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra072067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Feschotte C. The contribution of transposable elements to the evolution of regulatory networks. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2008;9:397–405. doi: 10.1038/nrg2337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Finnegan EJ, Kovac KA. Plant DNA methyltransferases. Plant Molecular Biology. 2000;43:189–201. doi: 10.1023/a:1006427226972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Finnegan EJ, Peacock JW, Dennis ES. Reduced DNA methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana results in abnormal plant development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 1996;93:8449–8454. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.16.8449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Finnegan EJ, Genger RK, Peacock JW, Dennis ES. DNA methylation in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. 1998;49:223–247. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.49.1.223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Finnegan EJ, Peacock JW, Dennis ES. DNA methylation, a key regulator of plant development and other processes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 2000;10:217–223. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(00)00061-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Geuten K, Irish V. Hidden variability of floral homeotic B genes in Solanaceae provides a molecular basis for the evolution of novel functions. The Plant Cell. 2010;22:2562–2578. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.076026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Glazier AM, Nadeau JH, Aitman TJ. Finding genes that underlie complex traits. Science. 2002;298:2345–2349. doi: 10.1126/science.1076641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Grandbastien M-A. Activation of plant retrotransposons under stress conditions. Trends in Plant Science. 1998;3:181–187. [Google Scholar]
  49. Guo WL, Wu R, Zhang YF, et al. Tissue culture-induced locus-specific alteration in DNA methylation and its correlation with genetic variation in Codonopsis lanceolata Benth. et Hook. f. Plant Cell Reports. 2007;26:1297–1307. doi: 10.1007/s00299-007-0320-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hartley CWS. The oil palm (Elaeis guineensisJacq.) Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical Company; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  51. Herr AJ, Jensen MB, Dalmay T, Baulcombe DC. RNA polymerase IV directs silencing of endogenous DNA. Science. 2005;308:118–120. doi: 10.1126/science.1106910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ho C-L, Kwan Y-Y, Choi M-C, et al. Analysis and functional annotation of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from multiple tissues of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) BMC Genomics. 2007;8:381. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-8-381. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Honma T, Goto K. Complexes of MADS-box proteins are sufficient to convert leaves into floral organs. Nature. 2001;409:525–529. doi: 10.1038/35054083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hultquist JF, Dorweiler JE. Feminized tassels of maize mop1 and ts1 mutants exhibit altered levels of miR156 and specific SBP-box genes. Planta. 2008;229:99–113. doi: 10.1007/s00425-008-0813-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jacobsen SE, Meyerowitz EM. Hypermethylated SUPERMAN epigenetic alleles in arabidopsis. Science. 1997;277:1100–1103. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5329.1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Jacobsen SE, Sakai H, Finnegan EJ, Cao X, Meyerowitz EM. Ectopic hypermethylation of flower-specific genes in Arabidopsis. Current Biology. 2000;10:179–186. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00324-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jakše J, Meyer JDF, Suzuki G, et al. Pilot sequencing of onion genomic DNA reveals fragments of transposable elements, low gene densities, and significant gene enrichment after methyl filtration. Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 2008;280:287–292. doi: 10.1007/s00438-008-0364-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jaligot E, Rival A, Beulé T, Dussert S, Verdeil JL. Somaclonal variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.): the DNA methylation hypothesis. Plant Cell Reports. 2000;19:684–690. doi: 10.1007/s002999900177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jaligot E, Beulé T, Rival A. Methylation-sensitive RFLPs: characterisation of two oil palm markers showing somaclonal variation-associated polymorphism. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2002;104:1263–1269. doi: 10.1007/s00122-002-0906-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Jaligot E, Beulé T, Baurens FC, Billotte N, Rival A. Search for methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphisms associated with the ‘mantled’ variant phenotype in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Genome. 2004;47:224–228. doi: 10.1139/g03-085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Johansen B, Pedersen LB, Skipper M, Frederiksen S. MADS-box gene evolution–structure and transcription patterns. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2002;23:458–480. doi: 10.1016/s1055-7903(02)00032-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Jones LH. Metabolism of cytokinins by tissue culture lines of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) producing normal and abnormal flowering palms. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 1998;17:205–213. doi: 10.1007/pl00007036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Jones LH, Hanke DE, Eeuwens CJ. An evaluation of the role of cytokinins in the development of abnormal inflorescences in oil palms (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) regenerated from tissue culture. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 1995;14:135–142. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jones PA. DNA methylation errors and cancer. Cancer Research. 1996;56:2463–2463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Jones PA, Baylin SB. The epigenomics of cancer. Cell. 2007;128:683–692. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Jouannic S, Argout X, Lechauve F, et al. Analysis of expressed sequence tags from oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) FEBS letters. 2005;579:2709–2714. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.03.093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Joyce SM, Cassells AC. Variation in potato microplant morphology in vitro and DNA methylation. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2002;70:125–137. [Google Scholar]
  68. Joyce SM, Cassells AC, Mohan Jain S. Stress and aberrant phenotypes in vitro culture. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2003;74:103–121. [Google Scholar]
  69. Jullien PE, Kinoshita T, Ohad N, Berger F. Maintenance of DNA methylation during the Arabidopsis life cycle is essential for parental imprinting. The Plant Cell. 2006;18:1360–1372. doi: 10.1105/tpc.106.041178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaeppler SM, Phillips RL. DNA methylation and tissue culture-induced variation in plants. In vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant. 1993;29:125–130. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kaeppler SM, Kaeppler HF, Rhee Y. Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants. Plant Molecular Biology. 2000;43:179–188. doi: 10.1023/a:1006423110134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kang HG, Jeon JS, Lee S, An G. Identification of class B and class C floral organ identity genes from rice plants. Plant Molecular Biology. 1998;38:1021–1029. doi: 10.1023/a:1006051911291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Kankel MW, Ramsey DE, Stokes TL, et al. Arabidopsis MET1 cytosine methyltransferase mutants. Genetics. 2003;163:1109–1122. doi: 10.1093/genetics/163.3.1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Kanno T, Huettel B, Mette MF, et al. Atypical RNA polymerase subunits required for RNA-directed DNA methylation. Nature Genetics. 2005;37:761–765. doi: 10.1038/ng1580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Kapazoglou A, Tondelli A, Papaefthimiou D, et al. Epigenetic chromatin modifiers in barley. IV. The study of barley Polycomb group (PcG) genes during seed development and in response to external ABA. 2010 doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-10-73. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/10/73. (27 September 2010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Kaufmann K, Melzer R, Theißen G. MIKC-type MADS-domain proteins: structural modularity, protein interactions and network evolution in land plants. Gene. 2005;347:183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2004.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Kaufmann K, Muiño JM, Jauregui R, et al. Target genes of the MADS transcription factor SEPALLATA3: integration of developmental and hormonal pathways in the Arabidopsis flower. PLoS Biology. 2009;7:e1000090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000090. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Kim SY, Zhu T, Sung ZR. Epigenetic regulation of gene programs by EMF1 and EMF2 in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2010;152:516–528. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.143495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Koh LP, Levang P, Ghazoul J. Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009;24:431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Krogan NT, Long JA. Why so repressed? Turning off transcription during plant growth and development. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:628–636. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Kubis SE, Castilho AMMF, Vershinin AV, Heslop-Harrison JS. Retroelements, transposons and methylation status in the genome of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and the relationship to somaclonal variation. Plant Molecular Biology. 2003;52:69–79. doi: 10.1023/a:1023942309092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Laird PW, Jaenisch R. DNA methylation and cancer. Human Molecular Genetics. 1994;3:1487–1495. doi: 10.1093/hmg/3.suppl_1.1487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR. Somaclonal variation – a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 1981;60:197–214. doi: 10.1007/BF02342540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Law JA, Jacobsen SE. Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2010;11:204–220. doi: 10.1038/nrg2719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Lei CP, Jiun KS, Choo CS, Singh R. Analysis of tissue culture-derived regenerants using methylation sensitive AFLP. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. 2006;14:47–55. [Google Scholar]
  86. Leseberg CH, Eissler CL, Wang X, Johns MA, Duvall MR, Mao L. Interaction study of MADS-domain proteins in tomato. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2008;59:2253–2265. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Li J, Dudas B, Webster MA, Cook HE, Davies BH, Gilmartin PM. Hose in Hose, an S locus-linked mutant of Primula vulgaris, is caused by an unstable mutation at the Globosa locus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2010;107:5664–5668. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910955107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Li X, Wang X, He K, et al. High-resolution mapping of epigenetic modifications of the rice genome uncovers interplay between DNA methylation, histone methylation, and gene expression. The Plant Cell. 2008;20:259–276. doi: 10.1105/tpc.107.056879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Lippman Z, May B, Yordan C, Singer T, Martienssen R. Distinct mechanisms determine transposon inheritance and methylation via small interfering RNA and histone modification. PLoS Biology. 2003;1:e67. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000067. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Liu F, Marquardt S, Lister C, Swiezewski S, Dean C. Targeted 3′ processing of antisense transcripts triggers arabidopsis FLC chromatin silencing. Science. 2010;327:94–97. doi: 10.1126/science.1180278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Low E-T, Alias H, Boon S-H, et al. Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue culture ESTs: identifying genes associated with callogenesis and embryogenesis. 2008 doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-8-62. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/62. (27 September 2010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. McCabe MT, Brandes JC, Vertino PM. Cancer DNA methylation: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Clinical Cancer Research. 2009;15:3927–3937. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Masmoudi-Allouche F, Châari-Rkhis A, Kriaâ W, Gargouri-Bouzid R, Jain SM, Drira N. In vitro hermaphrodism induction in date palm female flower. Plant Cell Reports. 2008;28:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00299-008-0611-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Matthes M, Singh R, Cheah SC, Karp A. Variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue culture-derived regenerants revealed by AFLPs with methylation-sensitive enzymes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2001;102:971–979. [Google Scholar]
  95. Matzke MA, Matzke AJM. Planting the seeds of a new paradigm. PLoS Biology. 2004;2:e133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020133. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Mayes S, Hafeez F, Price Z, MacDonald D, Billotte N, Roberts J. Molecular research in oil palm, the key oil crop for the future. In: Moore PH, Ming R, editors. Genomics of Tropical Crop Plants. New York, NY: Springer; 2008. pp. 371–404. [Google Scholar]
  97. Melzer R, Theissen G. Reconstitution of ‘floral quartets’ in vitro involving class B and class E floral homeotic proteins. Nucleic Acids Research. 2009;37:2723–2736. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Melzer R, Verelst W, Theissen G. The class E floral homeotic protein SEPALLATA3 is sufficient to loop DNA in ‘floral quartet’-like complexes in vitro. Nucleic Acids Research. 2008;37:144–157. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Mirouze M, Reinders J, Bucher E, et al. Selective epigenetic control of retrotransposition in Arabidopsis. Nature. 2009;461:427–430. doi: 10.1038/nature08328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Miura A, Yonebayashi S, Watanabe K, Toyama T, Shimada H, Kakutani T. Mobilization of transposons by a mutation abolishing full DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. Nature. 2001;411:212–214. doi: 10.1038/35075612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Morcillo F, Gagneur C, Adam H, et al. Somaclonal variation in micropropagated oil palm: characterization of two novel genes with enhanced expression in epigenetically abnormal cell lines and in response to auxin. Tree Physiology. 2006;26:585–594. doi: 10.1093/treephys/26.5.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Morcillo F, Gallard A, Pillot M, et al. EgAP2-1, an AINTEGUMENTA-like (AIL) gene expressed in meristematic and proliferating tissues of embryos in oil palm. Planta. 2007;226:1353–1362. doi: 10.1007/s00425-007-0574-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Münster T, Ursula Wingen L, Faigl W, Werth S, Saedler H, Theissen G. Characterization of three GLOBOSA-like MADS-box genes from maize: evidence for ancient paralogy in one class of floral homeotic B-function genes of grasses. Gene. 2001;262:1–13. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(00)00556-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Murray F, Kalla R, Jacobsen J, Gubler F. A role for HvGAMYB in anther development. The Plant Journal. 2003;33:481–491. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Nag A, King S, Jack T. miR319a targeting of TCP4 is critical for petal growth and development in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2009;106:22534–22539. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908718106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Nagasawa N, Miyoshi M, Sano Y, et al. SUPERWOMAN1 and DROOPING LEAF genes control floral organ identity in rice. Development. 2003;130:705–718. doi: 10.1242/dev.00294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Nair SK, Wang N, Turuspekov Y, et al. Cleistogamous flowering in barley arises from the suppression of microRNA-guided HvAP2 mRNA cleavage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2010;107:490–495. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909097107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Onodera Y, Haag JR, Ream T, Nunes PC, Pontes O, Pikaard CS. Plant nuclear RNA polymerase IV mediates siRNA and DNA methylation-dependent heterochromatin formation. Cell. 2005;120:613–622. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Palmer LE, Rabinowicz PD, O'Shaughnessy AL, et al. Maize genome sequencing by methylation filtration. Science. 2003;302:2115–2117. doi: 10.1126/science.1091265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Palombi M, Damiano C. Comparison between RAPD and SSR molecular markers in detecting genetic variation in kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa A. Chev) Plant Cell Reports. 2002;20:1061–1066. [Google Scholar]
  111. Pannetier C, Arthuis P, Lievoux D. Néoformation de jeunes plantes d'Elaeis guineensis à partir de cals primaires obtenus sur fragments foliaires cultivés in vitro. Oléagineux. 1981;36:119–122. [Google Scholar]
  112. Papa CM, Springer NM, Muszynski MG, Meeley R, Kaeppler SM. Maize chromomethylase Zea methyltransferase2 is required for CpNpG methylation. The Plant Cell. 2001;13:1919–1928. doi: 10.1105/TPC.010064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Park SY, Murthy HN, Chakrabarthy D, Paek KY. Detection of epigenetic variation in tissue-culture-derived plants of Doritaenopsis by methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism (MSAP) analysis. In vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant. 2008;45:104–108. [Google Scholar]
  114. Park W, Li J, Song R, Messing J, Chen X. CARPEL FACTORY, a Dicer homolog, and HEN1, a novel protein, act in microRNA metabolism in Arabidopsis thaliana. Current Biology. 2002;12:1484–1495. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01017-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Paterson AH. Leafing through the genomes of our major crop plants: strategies for capturing unique information. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2006;7:174–184. doi: 10.1038/nrg1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Pelaz S, Ditta GS, Baumann E, Wisman E, Yanofsky MF. B and C floral organ identity functions require SEPALLATA MADS-box genes. Nature. 2000;405:200–203. doi: 10.1038/35012103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Peraza-Echeverria S, Herrera-Valencia VA, Kay A-J. Detection of DNA methylation changes in micropropagated banana plants using methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism (MSAP) Plant Science. 2001;161:359–367. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9452(01)00421-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Pflieger S, Lefebvre V, Causse M. The candidate gene approach in plant genetics: a review. Molecular Breeding. 2001;7:275–291. [Google Scholar]
  119. Pietsch GM, Anderson NO. Epigenetic variation in tissue cultured Gaura lindheimeri. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2007;89:91–103. [Google Scholar]
  120. Poethig RS. Small RNAs and developmental timing in plants. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 2009;19:374–378. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2009.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Pontier D. Reinforcement of silencing at transposons and highly repeated sequences requires the concerted action of two distinct RNA polymerases IV in Arabidopsis. Genes & Development. 2005;19:2030–2040. doi: 10.1101/gad.348405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Price Z, Dumortier FD, MacDonald D, Mayes S. Characterisation of copia-like retrotransposons in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2002;104:860–867. doi: 10.1007/s00122-001-0818-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Reinders J, Wulff BBH, Mirouze M, et al. Compromised stability of DNA methylation and transposon immobilization in mosaic Arabidopsis epigenomes. Genes & Development. 2009;23:939–950. doi: 10.1101/gad.524609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Remington DL, Purugganan MD. Candidate genes, quantitative trait loci, and functional trait evolution in plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences. 2003;164:S7–S20. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rival A. Somatic embryogenesis in oil palm. In: Jain SM, Gupta PK, Newton RJ, editors. Somatic embryogenesis in woody plants. Dordrecht: Kuwer Academic Publishers; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  126. Rival A, Parveez GKA. Elaeis guineensis oil palm. In: Litz FH, editor. Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  127. Rival A, Beulé T, Barre P, Hamon S, Duval Y, Noirot M. Comparative flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue cultures and seed-derived plants. Plant Cell Reports. 1997;16:884–887. doi: 10.1007/s002990050339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Rival A, Bertrand L, Beulé T, Combes MC, Trouslot P, Lashermes P. Suitability of RAPD analysis for the detection of somaclonal variants in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Plant Breeding. 1998;117:73–76. [Google Scholar]
  129. Rival A, Jaligot E, Beulé T, Finnegan EJ. Isolation and expression analysis of genes encoding MET, CMT, and DRM methyltransferases in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in relation to the ‘mantled’ somaclonal variation. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2008;59:3271–3281. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Ronemus MJ, Galbiati M, Ticknor C, Chen J, Dellaporta SL. Demethylation-induced developmental pleiotropy in arabidopsis. Science. 1996;273:654–657. doi: 10.1126/science.273.5275.654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Roowi SH, Ho C-L, Alwee SSRS, Abdullah MO, Napis S. Isolation and characterization of differentially expressed transcripts from the suspension cells of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in response to different concentrations of auxins. Molecular Biotechnology. 2010;46:1–19. doi: 10.1007/s12033-010-9262-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Schellenbaum P, Mohler V, Wenzel G, Walter B. Variation in DNA methylation patterns of grapevine somaclones (Vitis vinifera L.) 2008 doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-8-78. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/78. (27 September 2010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Schubert D, Clarenz O, Goodrich J. Epigenetic control of plant development by Polycomb-group proteins. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2005;8:553–561. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2005.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Singh R, Zaki NM, Ting N-C, et al. Exploiting an oil palm EST database for the development of gene-derived SSR markers and their exploitation for assessment of genetic diversity. Biologia. 2008;63:227–235. [Google Scholar]
  135. Slotkin RK, Martienssen R. Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2007;8:272–285. doi: 10.1038/nrg2072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Slotkin RK, Vaughn M, Borges F, et al. Epigenetic reprogramming and small RNA silencing of transposable elements in pollen. Cell. 2009;136:461–472. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Somerville C, Somerville S. Plant functional genomics. Science. 1999;285:380–383. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5426.380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Soppe WJJ, Jacobsen SE, Alonso-Blanco C, et al. The late flowering phenotype of fwa mutants is caused by gain-of-function epigenetic alleles of a homeodomain gene. Molecular Cell. 2000;6:791–802. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(05)00090-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Stelly DM, Altman DW, Kohel RJ, Rangan TS, Commiskey E. Cytogenetic abnormalities of cotton somaclones from callus cultures. Genome. 1989;32:762–770. [Google Scholar]
  140. Stokes TL, Kunkel BN, Richards EJ. Epigenetic variation in Arabidopsis disease resistance. Genes & Development. 2002;16:171–182. doi: 10.1101/gad.952102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Swiezewski S, Crevillen P, Liu F, Ecker JR, Jerzmanowski A, Dean C. Small RNA-mediated chromatin silencing directed to the 3′ region of the Arabidopsis gene encoding the developmental regulator, FLC. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2007;104:3633–3638. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611459104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Syed Alwee SSR, Linden CG, Schoot J, et al. Characterization of oil palm MADS box genes in relation to the mantled flower abnormality. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2006;85:331–344. [Google Scholar]
  143. Tanurdzic M, Vaughn MW, Jiang H, et al. Epigenomic consequences of immortalized plant cell suspension culture. PLoS Biology. 2008;6:e302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060302. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Tregear JW, Morcillo F, Richaud F, et al. Characterization of a defensin gene expressed in oil palm inflorescences: induction during tissue culture and possible association with epigenetic somaclonal variation events. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002;53:1387–1396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Vaucheret H. Post-transcriptional small RNA pathways in plants: mechanisms and regulations. Genes & Development. 2006;20:759–771. doi: 10.1101/gad.1410506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Waddington CH. The strategy of the genes; a discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. London: Allen & Unwin; 1957. [Google Scholar]
  147. Wahid M. Sequencing the oil palm genome: the beginning. 2009 Palm oil: balancing ecologics with economics, PIPOC 2009 MPOB International Palm Oil Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. [Google Scholar]
  148. Whipple CJ, Ciceri P, Padilla CM, Ambrose BA, Bandong SL, Schmidt RJ. Conservation of B-class floral homeotic gene function between maize and Arabidopsis. Development. 2004;131:6083–6091. doi: 10.1242/dev.01523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Whitelaw CA, Barbazuk WB, Pertea G, et al. Enrichment of gene-coding sequences in maize by genome filtration. Science. 2003;302:2118–2120. doi: 10.1126/science.1090047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Xiao W, Custard KD, Brown RC, et al. DNA methylation is critical for Arabidopsis embryogenesis and seed viability. The Plant Cell. 2006;18:805–814. doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.038836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Yang Y, Fanning L, Jack T. The K domain mediates heterodimerization of the Arabidopsis floral organ identity proteins, APETALA3 and PISTILLATA. The Plant Journal. 2003;33:47–59. doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7412.2003.01473.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Yant L, Mathieu J, Dinh TT, et al. Orchestration of the floral transition and floral development in arabidopsis by the bifunctional transcription factor APETALA2. The Plant Cell. 2010;22:2156–2170. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.075606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Zahn LM, Leebens-Mack J, DePamphilis CW, Ma H, Theissen G. To B or not to B a flower: the role of DEFICIENS and GLOBOSA orthologs in the evolution of the angiosperms. Journal of Heredity. 2005;96:225–240. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esi033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Zhang X, Clarenz O, Cokus S, et al. Whole-genome analysis of histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation in Arabidopsis. PLoS Biology. 2007;5:e129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050129. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. Zhang X, Shiu S, Cal A, Borevitz JO. Global analysis of genetic, epigenetic and transcriptional polymorphisms in Arabidopsis thaliana using whole genome tiling arrays. PLoS Genetics. 2008;4:e1000032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000032. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Zhao Y-H, Möller M, Yang J-B, et al. Extended expression of B-class MADS-box genes in the paleoherb Asarum caudigerum. Planta. 2010;231:265–276. doi: 10.1007/s00425-009-1048-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Zieler H, Richardson T, Schwartz A, et al. Plant & Animal Genomes XVIII Conference. San Diego, CA: USA; 2010. Whole-genome shotgun sequencing of the oil palm and Jatropha genomes. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Botany are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES