Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2020 May 14;16(5):e1008807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008807

The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning

Shuang-Xi Xiong 1,#, Qiu-Ye Zeng 2,#, Jian-Qiao Hou 2, Ling-Li Hou 2, Jun Zhu 2, Min Yang 2, Zhong-Nan Yang 2, Yue Lou 2,*
Editor: Anna A Dobritsa3
PMCID: PMC7252695  PMID: 32407354

Abstract

Pollen wall consists of several complex layers which form elaborate species-specific patterns. In Arabidopsis, the transcription factor ABORTED MICROSPORE (AMS) is a master regulator of exine formation, and another transcription factor, TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENT SILENCING VIA AT-HOOK (TEK), specifies formation of the nexine layer. However, knowledge regarding the temporal regulatory roles of TEK in pollen wall development is limited. Here, TEK-GFP driven by the AMS promoter was prematurely expressed in the tapetal nuclei, leading to complete male sterility in the pAMS:TEK-GFP (pat) transgenic lines with the wild-type background. Cytological observations in the pat anthers showed impaired callose synthesis and aberrant exine patterning. CALLOSE SYNTHASE5 (CalS5) is required for callose synthesis, and expression of CalS5 in pat plants was significantly reduced. We demonstrated that TEK negatively regulates CalS5 expression after the tetrad stage in wild-type anthers and further discovered that premature TEK-GFP in pat directly represses CalS5 expression through histone modification. Our findings show that TEK flexibly mediates its different functions via different temporal regulation, revealing that the temporal regulation of TEK is essential for exine patterning. Moreover, the result that the repression of CalS5 by TEK after the tetrad stage coincides with the timing of callose wall dissolution suggests that tapetum utilizes temporal regulation of genes to stop callose wall synthesis, which, together with the activation of callase activity, achieves microspore release and pollen wall patterning.

Author summary

To develop into mature pollen grains, microspores require formation of the pollen wall. To date, pollen wall developmental events, including production and transportation of pollen wall components, synthesis and degradation of the callose wall, and deposition and demixing of primexine, have been studied in Arabidopsis, and a number of anther- or tapetum-specific genes involved in pollen wall formation have been uncovered. However, whether the specific expression patterns of these genes contribute to pollen wall development or patterning remains unclear. Here, we show that TEK, a transcription factor that specifies formation of nexine (the inner layer of the pollen wall exine), represses the expression of the callose synthase CalS5 after the tetrad stage, which accurately fits with the timing of callose wall dissolution causing microspore release. Moreover, we show that premature expression of TEK in the wild-type anthers disturbs callose wall synthesis and pollen wall patterning. This work reveals that a pollen wall regulator must be kept under a strict temporal control to perform its functions, and that these temporal controls are coordinated with other pollen wall developmental events to determine pollen wall formation and patterning.

Introduction

In angiosperms, the male gametophyte (pollen) is surrounded by a pollen wall. The pollen wall usually comprises two main layers, the outer sporophyte-derived exine and the inner gametophyte-derived intine. Distinctive pollen wall patterns vary between species but are conserved within species. In Arabidopsis, the exine creates a reticulate pattern on the pollen surface, containing layers known as sexine and nexine. The major constituent of sexine is sporopollenin, which is the biopolymer of polyhydroxylated aliphatic chains and aromatic rings [15]. Nexine includes arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs) [6], which are hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins [7]. In turn, intine consists of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin and proteins [8]. These features and structural components allow pollen wall to protect pollen from environmental stresses, such as desiccation, UV radiation and microbial attack, as well as allow it to provide species-specific adhesion to stigma [911].

The cellular events involved in pollen wall development have been most thoroughly studied in Arabidopsis [9, 10, 1220]. The development of the pollen wall initiates in the individual microspores of tetrads after male meiosis. The callose wall first covers the plasma membrane of microspores. The domains where the plasma membrane closely contacts the callose wall are required for the formation of apertures. Later, the primexine matrix follows the undulation of the plasma membrane to guide the siting of sporopollenin. In the early tetrad stage, the callose wall, primexine, and plasma membrane participate in the formation of the sexine template. At the late tetrad stage, nexine starts to gradually accumulate in the primexine matrix. After callose wall degradation and microspore release, nexine completes its formation beneath sexine. Following the expansion of microspores, intine forms below the nexine, and pollen coat fills in the exine cavities. Therefore, these pollen wall components precisely appear at specific time points and sequentially assemble to form the elaborate pollen wall.

Pollen wall biosynthesis is a joint effort on the parts of microspores and the tapetum. The tapetum is the innermost sporophytic cell layer adjacent to microsporocytes and microspores [21]. It plays essential roles in pollen wall development because most pollen wall materials, including sporopollenin, lipids and proteins, are produced by, stored in, and transported from the tapetum [22]. Several tapetum-expressed genes are key players in directing the highly sculptured pollen wall in Arabidopsis and are involved in exine patterning [2328], tapetum development and exine formation [2934], sporopollenin biosynthesis [3538], and nexine formation [6, 39]. Mutations in these genes lead to abnormal pollen walls and compromised pollen grains. Recent studies have shown that regulatory networks in the tapetum control pollen wall formation [4044]. Among them, ABORTED MICROSPORES (AMS), a bHLH transcription factor, directly regulates the expression of TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENT SILENCING VIA AT-HOOK (TEK) [39]. Subsequently, TEK, encoding an AT-hook nuclear matrix attachment region (MAR) binding protein, becomes highly expressed in the tapetum to promote nexine formation [39]. The investigations of mutants in which these genes are disrupted have demonstrated that these molecular players are required for the biosynthesis of multilayered pollen walls. However, whether the specific temporal patterns of these regulators contribute to pollen wall development or patterning remains unknown.

Because the AMS transcript is expressed earlier in the tapetum than the TEK transcript (anther stage 5 vs. stage 7, respectively) [39, 45], in order to explore whether the alteration in the temporal pattern of TEK disturbs pollen wall development, we used the AMS promoter to prematurely drive TEK expression. In the Arabidopsis pAMS:TEK-GFP transgenic plants with a wild-type background (hereafter referred to as pat), TEK-GFP was precociously expressed in the tapetal nuclei. We found that pat lines exhibited total male sterility and formed defective pollen walls. Ultrastructural observations showed that the callose wall formation was severely blocked and that the abnormal exine pattern existed in all pat microspores. Expression analysis confirmed that expression of the callose synthase CalS5 is strongly decreased in pat, which could account for the reduced callose synthesis. We showed that, in wild-type anthers, TEK negatively regulates CalS5 expression after the tetrad stage, which coincides with the callose wall degradation. Additionally, we found that the precocious TEK-GFP in pat directly represses the expression of CalS5 via H3K9me2. These results showed that the correct regulation of timing of TEK expression is required for pollen wall exine patterning and is coordinated with other pollen developmental events for the processes of pollen wall formation and pollen grain maturation.

Results

Premature tapetum-specific expression of TEK-GFP protein in pat

To test whether premature expression of TEK can influence pollen wall development, we fused the AMS promoter with the TEK-GFP chimeric gene and introduced this construct (pAMS:TEK-GFP) into the wild-type Arabidopsis Columbia-0 (Col) plants (Fig 1A). Of the 26 transgenic plants, 21 plants exhibited male sterility and 5 plants were fertile. All male-sterile lines carried the transgene, as assessed by the amplification of the chimeric fragment, while fertile plants did not show amplified products (S1A and S1B Fig). Among these male-sterile plants, TEK expression was examined in three independent lines (pat-1, pat-2 and pat-3). Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis showed that the total transcript levels of TEK in these lines were higher than those in the wild type (S1C Fig). Additionally, other cytological observations were performed in the pat-1, pat-2 and pat-3 lines, and the results were similar to each other (S2 and S3 Figs), leading us to uniformly refer to these lines as pat.

Fig 1. Precocious expression of TEK transcripts and TEK-GFP proteins driven by the AMS promoter in pat.

Fig 1

(A) The pAMS:TEK–GFP constructs included a 1500 bp AMS promoter, TEK genomic fragment and GFP coding region. RNA in situ hybridization of TEK transcript in WT (B–E) and pat (G–J) anthers at stages 5–8 was performed using an antisense probe. TEK transcript in WT anthers at stage 6 (F) and pat anthers at stage 7 (K) using a sense probe. MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm. Fluorescence confocal images of the TEK–GFP fusion protein in the anthers of pTEK:TEK-GFP transgenic plants (L-O) and pat (P-S) at stages 5–8. TEK-GFP was specifically located in the tapetal nuclei and expressed at stages 7–8 in pTEK:TEK-GFP transgenic anthers (N and O), while in pat anthers this protein was precociously expressed at stages 6–7 (Q and R). The bright-field images are located at the bottom left, showing that GFP fluorescence was observed only in the tapetal cells. Scale bars, 50 μm.

To determine whether this transgene leads to the ectopic expression of TEK in pat lines, we investigated its spatiotemporal patterns in anthers from wild-type and pat plants. Fourteen distinct stages of anther development have been described in Arabidopsis [21]. RNA in situ hybridization showed that TEK was expressed in the tapetum of the wild-type anthers throughout stages 7–8 (Fig 1B–1E), with the strongest hybridization signal at stage 7 (Fig 1D), in agreement with a previous study [39]. In the pat anthers, however, TEK transcripts were prematurely expressed during stages 5–6, with a strong signal in the tapetum and a relatively weak signal in the microsporocytes (Fig 1G and 1H). From stage 7 to stage 8, the hybridization signal in the tapetum peaked and later decreased after the release of microspores (Fig 1I and 1J), which was the same expression pattern as in the wild type (Fig 1D and 1E). No signal was produced in either wild-type or pat anthers with the sense probe (Fig 1F and 1K). These results indicated that TEK is expressed earlier in pat anthers than in wild-type plants. Additionally, AMS expression level and pattern were not affected in pat anthers, excluding the possibility that male sterility was caused by perturbations in AMS expression (S4 Fig).

To further monitor TEK subcellular localization, we placed the TEK-GFP chimeric gene under its native promoter, and the construct pTEK:TEK-GFP was introduced into wild-type plants. In the pTEK:TEK-GFP transgenic plants, no fluorescence of TEK-GFP was displayed in the microsporocytes and tapetum during stages 5–6 (Fig 1L and 1M). Then, TEK-GFP specifically exhibited fluorescence in the nuclei of tapetal cells during stages 7–8 (Fig 1N and 1O). In the pat transgenic plants, the fluorescence of TEK-GFP was similarly restricted to the nuclei of tapetal cells but was prematurely expressed at stage 6 (Fig 1P and 1Q). The expression signal of TEK-GFP was retained during the tetrad stage (stage 7) (Fig 1R), but only a very weak signal was observed in the tapetum at stage 8 (Fig 1S). These results demonstrated that TEK-GFP protein driven by the AMS promoter is precociously expressed in the tapetal nuclei of pat anthers.

Male sterility is associated with microspore degeneration in pat plants

Compared to the wild-type plants, the pat transformants exhibited normal vegetative growth but developed short siliques and were completely male sterile (Fig 2A and 2B). To examine pollen viability in the anthers, we performed Alexander’s staining to distinguish the aborted pollen grains from mature ones. In wild-type anthers, the mature pollen grains were stained purple (Fig 2C), whereas in pat anthers, pollen remnants were stained green (Fig 2D), suggesting that the pollen grains were aborted in pat. Anther cross-sections further showed that there was no detectable difference between wild-type and pat anthers until stage 6 (Fig 2G and 2L). Compared with the wild type, the callose of tetrads in pat seemed to be reduced at stage 7 (Fig 2H and 2M), which was confirmed by aniline blue staining (Fig 2Q and 2R). At stage 8, the wild-type individual microspores with angular shapes were released from tetrads (Fig 2I). In contrast, the pat microspores were rounder than those of the wild type (Fig 2N). At stage 9, the wild-type microspores became vacuolated, while the pat microspores began to disintegrate (Fig 2J and 2O). At later stages, the wild-type microspores became noticeably enlarged, condensed their cytoplasm, and finally became mature pollen grains (Fig 2K). However, the pat microspores further degenerated, and only pollen remnants remained in the locule (Fig 2P). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed the characteristic reticulate pattern on the surface of wild-type pollen, while a defective pollen wall was observed on the collapsed pat pollen (Fig 2E and 2F). These results showed that the failure of microspore production with disordered pollen wall morphology causes complete male sterility in pat plants.

Fig 2. Male sterility and microspore degeneration in pat plants.

Fig 2

(A) A wild-type (WT) plant has normal fertility. (B) A pat plant has short siliques and no seeds. (C-D) Alexander’s staining of wild-type anthers (C), which contain viable pollen grains, stained purple, and pat anthers (D), which contain remnants of aborted pollen, stained green. Scale bars, 20 μm. (E-F) SEM observation of wild-type pollen grains (E) with reticulate pollen wall patterns and pat pollen grains (F) with irregular pollen wall patterns. Scale bars, 10 μm. (G-P) Semi-thin sections of WT and pat showing anther development during stages 6–12. In the wild-type anther (G-K), mature pollen grains were produced. In the pat anther (L-P), round microspores were released from tetrads (N) and gradually degenerated at later stages (O-P). E, epidermis; En, endothecium; ML, middle layer; T, tapetum; MC, meiocytes; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore; PG, pollen grain; dMsp, degenerated microspore; dPG, degenerated pollen grains. Scale bars, 5 μm. (Q-R) Aniline blue staining of callose from WT and pat. The peripheral callose wall of pat was slightly thinner (R) than that of the wild type (Q). PC, peripheral callose; IC, interstitial callose. Scale bars, 20 μm.

Defective exine development leads to microspore abortion in pat

It is acknowledged that aberrations in exine formation usually cause male sterility; therefore, we investigated the ultrastructure of the exine in pat plants by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). At stage 6, the wild-type microsporocytes underwent meiosis, and the callose wall accumulated around their periphery (Fig 3A and 3F). The accumulation of the callose wall in pat microspores was similar to that in wild-type microspores (Fig 3K and 3P). The tetrad stage is critical for exine formation [46, 47], as the stage during which the exine pattern is programmed through cooperation between the tapetum and microspores. In the wild type, primexine accumulated underneath the callose wall, and the plasma membrane became wavy in early stage 7 (Fig 3B and 3G). In contrast, in pat the callose wall was slightly sparse, the plasma membrane remained straight, and the sporopollenin precursors were located beside the primexine (Fig 3L and 3Q). In the middle of stage 7, the invagination of the wild-type plasma membrane was clearer, and the sporopollenin precursors from the tapetum deposited onto the peak to form the probacular within the primexine matrix (Fig 3C and 3H). In contrast, in pat the callose wall was thinner, and the sporopollenin precursors were randomly inserted into the primexine matrix (Fig 3M and 3R). At late stage 7, the probaculae elongated to the callose wall, and their distal ends fused into tectum, which constituted the pro-sexine in the wild type (Fig 3D and 3I). In pat, the sporopollenin precursors submerged into the primexine matrix, forming irregular shapes (Fig 3N and 3S). When the callose wall thoroughly dissolved at stage 8 in the wild type, nexine developed under the sexine, forming an intact exine with a T shape (Fig 3E and 3J). In pat, the irregular sporopollenin surrounded the microspores without any attachment (Fig 3O and 3T). Finally, the pat microspores degenerated because of the lack of pollen wall protection. These observations indicated that pat microspore abortion is due to abnormalities in exine development.

Fig 3. Reduced callose deposition and defective exine development in pat.

Fig 3

TEM observation of pollen wall development in WT (A–E) and pat (K–O) at stages 6–8, magnified in (F-J) and (P-T), respectively. (P) Stage 6, showing that callose wall was deposited on the surface of pat microsporocytes. (Q) Early stage 7, showing that callose wall became slightly sparse and that sporopollenin precursors surrounded the primexine; (R) Middle stage 7, showing that the callose wall was thinner and sporopollenin precursors randomly inserted into the primexine matrix; (S) showing the irregular sporopollenin precursors submerged into the primexine matrix; (T) showing the defective exine patterning without attachment. CW, callose wall; MC, meiocytes; Pe, primexine; PM, plasma membrane; Pb, probacular; Tc, tectum; Ba, bacular; Ne, nexine; Msp, microspore; SP, sporopollenin precursors. Scale bars, 2 μm.

Decreased CalS5 expression leads to reduced callose synthesis in pat

Since the callose wall plays an important role in determining the exine pattern [48, 49], combined with the aberration of callose deposition in pat at the tetrad stage (Fig 3Q–3S), we explored the expression of some callose-related genes in pat inflorescences. CalS5, encoding a callose synthase (CalS), is required for callose synthesis around microsporocytes [48]. The mutations in CalS5 affect the amount of callose deposition, leading to a disrupted exine pattern [48, 49]. CYCLIN-DEPEDENT KINASE G1 (CDKG1) facilitates callose wall formation via the regulation of CalS5 splicing [50]. AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 17 (ARF17) regulates the expression of CalS5 [43]. qRT-PCR analysis showed that only the CalS5 transcript was greatly downregulated in the pat lines, while the others were not altered (Fig 4A). In addition, because primexine represents a decisive factor in exine ornamentation [24, 26, 27, 51], the expression of genes involved in primexine formation was also detected. We found that while the expression of NO PRIMEXINE AND PLASMA MEMBRANE UNDULATION (NPU) was slightly decreased, the levels of other genes were similar to those in wild type (Fig 4B), consistent with our TEM observation that primexine could still be formed in pat (Fig 3Q–3S).

Fig 4. Reduced callose synthesis in pat is associated with the decreased CalS5 expression.

Fig 4

Expression of genes involved in callose synthesis (A) and genes involved in primexine formation (B) were detected in wild-type and pat plant inflorescences. Error bars represent the SD (n = 3). *** p < 0.001 (t-test). (C) Callose fluorescence quenching assay showed that callose wall fluorescence in pat quenched faster than that in WT. Error bars represent the SD of the mean of 12 biological replicates. ** p < 0.01 (t-test). Scale bars, 20 μm.

To further confirm the reduction of callose synthesis in pat, we used aniline blue to stain callose and performed a callose fluorescence bleaching test. We randomly observed the tetrads from 12 independent tetrad-stage buds in the 12 independent WT and pat lines, recording the quenching time of each set (Fig 4C). In the wild type, the callose wall fluorescence of tetrads gradually quenched under UV. However, the callose wall fluorescence in pat quenched much faster. The average quenching time of callose wall fluorescence in pat was significantly less than in wild type. Therefore, these results showed that the defective callose synthesis in pat correlates with the severely reduced CalS5 expression; this, in turn, may induce other defects in later pollen wall placement and patterning.

Premature TEK-GFP controls CalS5 expression via increasing H3K9me2 presence at the CalS5 gene

Taken together, these results suggest that TEK-GFP proteins are prematurely expressed (Fig 1Q) and that the expression of CalS5 is greatly decreased (Fig 4A). Is there a possibility that premature TEK-GFP affects the CalS5 expression in pat anthers? To determine this, we investigated the CalS5 expression pattern by in situ hybridization. In wild-type anthers, hybridization signals were predominantly observed in microsporocytes at stages 5–6 (Fig 5A and 5B). At stage 7, the signals were highly expressed in both the tapetum and tetrads (Fig 5C). No signal was found in the tapetum or microspores at stage 8 (Fig 5D). In the pat anthers, the signals at stage 5 showed no obvious difference from those in the wild-type anthers (Fig 5F). However, the signals in pat were reduced during stages 6–7 (Fig 5G and 5H and S5 Fig), consistent with the qRT-PCR data (S1C Fig). In tek anthers, the expression patterns of CalS5 at early stages were similar to those in wild-type anthers (Fig 5K–5M). However, hybridization signals were still detected in both the tapetum and microspores at stage 8 (Fig 5N), suggesting that, in the wild-type, TEK specifically suppresses CalS5 expression at this stage. Control hybridizations with the sense probe for CalS5 did not show any signals in wild-type, pat and tek anthers (Fig 5E, 5J and 5O). Thus, considering that TEK-GFP was expressed precociously (Fig 1Q and 1R), we supposed that premature expression of TEK decreased CalS5 expression in the pat anther.

Fig 5. CalS5 expression patterns in the wild-type, pat and tek anthers.

Fig 5

Expression of CalS5 in microspore mother cells, tetrads and tapetum was tested by RNA in situ hybridization in WT (A–D), pat (F-I) and tek anthers (K-N) at stages 5–8 using an antisense probe. According to the stages at which CalS5 reaches its peak with an antisense probe, its transcript was observed with a sense probe in WT anthers at stage 6 (E), pat anthers at stage 5 (J), and tek anthers at stage 8 (O). MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm.

As a putative MAR binding protein, TEK functions in silencing transposable elements (TEs) and repeat-containing genes by regulating histone dimethylation on H3K9 during flowering time regulation in Arabidopsis Landsberg erecta-0 (Ler) [52]. We wondered whether this precocious TEK could repress CalS5 expression via the similar mechanism in pat anthers. To test this hypothesis, we performed a chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay using inflorescences from pat plants. It has been reported that MARs are AT-rich sequences of high affinity [53], and TEK binds MARs through the AT-hook motif [6]. We searched all putative MARs (A-box motif, WADAWAYAWW motif and AATATT motif) throughout the CalS5 promoter and genomic sequence (Fig 6A). Primers were designed including or near the identified motifs to generate fragments of approximately 200 bp (Fig 6A and S6 Fig). Quantitative ChIP-PCR (qChIP-PCR) on putative TEK-GFP-binding sites showed that a genomic region of CalS5 amplified by the primer set P11 was particularly enriched compared to the mock control (without the GFP monoclonal antibody) (Fig 6B). In contrast, a promoter region with the predicted MARs represented by primer set P3 showed no specific enrichment (Fig 6B). To further confirm the qChIP-PCR results in vitro, we performed an electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA). First, the recombinant TEK protein fused to glutathione S-transferase (GST-TEK) was expressed in and purified from Escherichia coli (S7 Fig). Then, this GST-TEK protein and probes containing the P11 fragment (+2147 to +2332) were incubated together, which resulted in a specific band shift. No band shift appeared when only GST and the probe were co-incubated as a negative control. When the unlabeled probes were added, the intensity of shifted bands was gradually reduced in a concentration-dependent manner, confirming the binding specificity (Fig 6C). These results suggested that TEK directly binds to the specific MARs of CalS5 in vivo.

Fig 6. Premature TEK-GFP binds to CalS5 and increases H3K9me2 levels in pat.

Fig 6

(A) Schematic structure of the CalS5 gene. AT-rich sequences present in the promoter and genome regions of CalS5 are marked with red bars, and the corresponding primer pairs were designed to generate fragments of approximately 200 bp each. (B) qChIP-PCR results for several Cals5 regions. ChIP was performed on pat inflorescences with (gray bars) or without (black bars) the GFP monoclonal antibody. Error bars represent SD (n = 2). * p < 0.05 (t-test). (C) EMSA assay was performed with the GST–TEK fusion protein, biotin-labeled probe that spanned the P11 fragment (+2147 to +2332), and a 25-fold, 100-fold and 300-fold excess of unlabeled competitor probes. Unlabeled competitors with the same P11 sequence are able to reduce the visible shift significantly (arrowhead). Glutathione S-transferase (GST) protein was expressed as a negative control. (D) ChIP performed on Col (black bars) or pat (gray bars) inflorescences with H3K9me2 antibody. Fold enrichment calculations from two replicate qPCR assays in three independent ChIP experiments. Error bars represent SD (n = 2). ** p < 0.01 (t-test).

We then performed a ChIP assay to determine whether the repression of CalS5 is associated with the change in H3K9me2. The inflorescences of wild-type and pat plants were collected, and antibody against H3K9me2 was used. qChIP-PCR showed that compared to the mock control, H3K9me2 was specifically enriched in pat plants in the fragment of CalS5 represented by the primer set P11 (Fig 6D and S2 Table). These results suggest that the premature appearance of TEK represses CalS5 expression by modulating H3K9 dimethylation in pat.

Discussion

To successfully grow into pollen grains, microspores require formation of the pollen wall. To date, multiple genes involved in formation of pollen wall layers have been identified and characterized [54]. However, whether the accurate timing of the expression of these genes is associated with pollen wall patterns and formation remains unknown. A previous study reported that the nexine layer is absent in the knockout mutant of TEK [39]. In the present study, we revealed that TEK specifically represses the expression of CalS5 in wild-type anthers after the tetrad stage (Fig 5D and 5N). We further demonstrated that prematurely expressed TEK represses CalS5 expression at the tetrad stage via histone modifications (Figs 1Q, 1R, 4A, 6B and 6D). This disturbs normal callose wall synthesis and exine patterning (Figs 2F, 3K–3T and 4C). Combined with previous studies, these results show that TEK not only activates the genes for nexine formation at the tetrad stage but also represses the expression of CalS5 after the tetrad stage. Thus, these findings suggest that TEK, as a pollen wall regulator, executes its different functions in pollen wall patterning via differential temporal regulation.

In this study, defective callose synthesis resulting from reduced CalS5 expression led to aberrant exine deposition (Fig 3K–3T). This result demonstrates that appropriate callose synthesis is essential for exine patterning during microspore development. Several theories on the biological functions of the callose wall have been advanced. Our TEM observation showed that primexine initially coupled to the contours of the plasma membrane and that the peaks of the undulating plasma membrane determined the sites for sporopollenin accumulation at the early tetrad stage. Meanwhile, almost no sporopollenin precursors derived from the tapetum were transported to primexine passing through the callose wall (Fig 3B and 3G). In contrast, in pat tetrads, the sporopollenin precursors penetrated through the callose wall and aggregated around the primexine (Fig 3L and 3Q). It is likely that the lower callose content in pat does not provide a sufficient barrier for sporopollenin precursors when the primexine matrix is not ready for their deposition. Therefore, in combination with the similar TEM data in cdkg1 tetrads [50], these results seem to support the biological functions of the callose wall proposed by Heslop-Harrison (1964): that the callose wall acts as a chemical barrier to filter the molecules and isolate the haploid microspores in tetrads from the influence of the surrounding diploid tissues, ensuring normal pollen wall patterning [55].

Both primexine formation and membrane undulation are involved in pollen wall ornamentation [56]. Thin or absent primexine is usually found in callose deficient mutants, such as cals5, cdkg1 and arf17 mutants [43, 48, 50], suggesting that callose may provide a surface against which primexine is deposited or act as a source of glucose for primexine formation. In pat anthers, the primexine matrix still thickens normally at stage 7 (Fig 3Q–3S), and the expression of genes required for primexine formation is not affected (Fig 4B), suggesting that the reduced callose wall of pat may affect primexine for exine patterning through other routes. The primexine is described to be a polysaccharide material [15, 26], and the mixture of these polysaccharides is not stable [57]. Recently, it has been reported that polysaccharide materials tend toward demixing in the primexine, leading to spatially modulated phase separation. When primexine separation is in different states, it will form different templates for pollen wall deposition. It is speculated that membrane undulation in the vicinity of the callose wall induces this phase separation, and that components, including sporopollenin polymers and cellulose fibrils, arrest the phase separation [58]. We speculate that the reduced callose wall, straight membrane, and early appearance of sporopollenin precursors in pat may alter the phase-separation process in the primexine, leading to a change in exine patterning.

During pollen wall development, microsporocytes and tapetum work in tandem. Initially, the callose wall is produced by microsporocytes during meiosis, and tetrads are encased by the callose wall, which marks the initiation of the exine pattern [59]. Subsequently, sporopollenin precursors produced from the tapetum are transported to specific places within the primexine [15], forming exine via self-assembly [60]. When the pro-sexine is formed, callase secreted from the tapetum dissolves the callose wall and releases microspores [61], marking the end of the exine patterning process. It has been reported that engineering callase activity to prematurely dissolve the callose wall produces microspores lacking normal pollen walls and causes male sterility in transgenic tobacco [62]. Therefore, the timing of callase secretion is critical for normal pollen wall development. In this study, we found that TEK, a tapetum-specific transcription factor, represses the expression of CalS5 at stage 8 (Fig 5D), which coincides with the timing of callose wall degradation. This result suggests that tapetum not only provides the callase to dissolve the callose wall but also utilizes the temporal regulation of genes to stop callose wall synthesis, which together achieve microspore release and pollen wall patterning. In conclusion, we propose that the temporal control of pollen wall regulators exists in coordination with other processes to establish the intrinsic developmental timing scheme for whole pollen wall building and patterning.

Materials and methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

Arabidopsis thaliana accession Columbia (Col-0) was used for all gene transfer experiments and as wild-type controls. Plants were grown on soil in a growth room under long-day conditions (16 h light/8 h dark) at approximately 22–24°C.

Generation of constructs and transgenic plants

To generate the constructs pAMS:TEK-GFP and pTEK:TEK-GFP, a 771-bp genomic fragment of TEK was amplified from the wild type by KOD Neo Plus polymerase (Toyobo Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan). The PCR product was cloned into a modified GFP-pCAMBIA1300 vector. Then, a 1500-bp AMS promoter and a 920-bp TEK promoter were amplified. These PCR products were individually digested by restriction enzymes (Takara Biotechnology) and ligated into the plasmid. After confirmation by restriction digestion and DNA sequencing, the resulting constructs were transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens GV3101, and the plants were transformed using the floral dip method [63]. The transformants were screened on Plant Nutritional Solution (PNS) media containing 20 mg/L hygromycin B and later transferred into the soil for PCR identification. Primer sequences are presented in S1 Table.

Phenotype characterization

Alexander staining was performed as described [64]. All plants were photographed with a Nikon D700 digital camera. For cross-sections, flower buds from WT and pat were fixed overnight in FAA (ethanol 50% (v/v), acetic acid 5.0% (v/v), and formaldehyde 3.7% (v/v)), dehydrated in a graded ethanol series (50% [×2], 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% [×2]), and embedded in resin with a low viscosity kit (PELCO, USA). Transverse sections of 1 μm in thickness were stained in 0.5% toluidine blue and observed with an Olympus BX51 microscope (Olympus, http://www.olympus-global.com).

Expression analysis

Total RNA extraction was performed using TRIzol (Life Technologies) following the protocol in the user’s manual. cDNAs of wild-type and pat inflorescences were used for the expression analysis of selected genes. Real-time quantitative PCR was performed using gene-specific primers and SYBR Green Master Mix (TOYOBO) on the ABI 7300 platform (Applied Biosystems). The experiments were repeated three times, and the data were averaged. The β-tubulin gene was used as an internal normalization control [65]. Fold changes in gene expression were calculated using the ΔΔCt (cycle threshold) values. The relevant primers are listed in S1 Table.

Fluorescence microscopy

For callose staining, anthers at the tetrad stage were squeezed onto the slide and stained by aniline blue solution (0.1 g/L in 50 mM K3PO4 buffer, pH 7.5) [64]. Aniline blue was observed under UV illumination on an Olympus BX51 fluorescence microscope. The TEK-GFP localization in anthers of pTEK:TEK-GFP and pat lines was detected by a Carl Zeiss confocal laser scanning microscope (LSM 5 PASCAL; Zeiss, http://www.zeiss.com).

RNA in situ hybridization

The probe fragment was amplified from the wild-type cDNA using primers (see S1 Table for primers). The PCR products were cloned into the pBluescript II SK (-) vector (Strata gene; http://www.stratagene.com) and confirmed by sequencing. Plasmid DNA was completely digested with EcoRI or BamHI. Antisense and sense digoxigenin-labeled probes were prepared using T3 or T7 RNA polymerase by the PCR DIG Probe Synthesis Kit (Roche, USA). Images were obtained with an Olympus BX-51 microscope. More details were described previously [45].

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Arabidopsis buds from wild type and pat were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 10 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). Samples were post-fixed in 1% osmium tetroxide and dehydrated in an ethanol/water series (30, 50, 75, 85, 90, 95 and 100%). Then, the samples were dehydrated twice with 100% propylene oxide. Samples were subsequently transferred to 1:1, 1:3 and 3:1 propylene oxide/Spurr’s resin mixtures and kept overnight. Later, samples were embedded in Spurr’s resin and polymerized at 65°C for 48 h. Ultrathin sections (70-nm thick) were cut using diamond knives and stained in a solution of uranyl acetate and lead citrate. The images were viewed on a Hitachi H-600 transmission electron microscope (Hitachi Ltd, http://www.hitachi.com). A scanning electron microscopy assay was performed as described by [33].

Chromatin immunoprecipitation assay

In the T1 generation, the pat transformants were confirmed by PCR identification and all of them showed male sterility. Then, WT pollen was used to cross-fertilize several independent pat stigmas to produce F1 seeds. In the F1 generation, the male-sterile plants were confirmed by PCR to have transgene insertion. Inflorescences from the male-sterile pat plants with transgene insertion were the materials used for the ChIP assay. A total of 0.8–1.0 g inflorescences from wild-type and pat plants were collected and crosslinked in the formaldehyde-containing buffer. After isolating the nuclei and shearing the chromatin with ultrasonication, most DNA fragments had a size between 200–800 bp. After preimmunization with sheared salmon sperm DNA/protein A agarose mix (Millipore, USA) for 1 h, supernatants were incubated at 4°C overnight with monoclonal antibodies (1:125 dilution) against either GFP or dimethylated H3K9. Seventy microliters of magnetic beads coupled with protein G (Invitrogen) were added to precipitate the antibody–protein/DNA complexes. The DNA fragments were eluted after reverse crosslinking at 65°C overnight. The remaining steps for DNA purification were carried out according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Real-time PCR was performed on an ABI PRISM 7300 detection system (Applied Biosystems, USA) with SYBR Green I master mix (TOYOBO, Japan). All PCR experiments were performed under the following conditions: 95°C for 5 min, 40 cycles of 95°C for 10 s and 60°C for 1 min. Under the same conditions, we calculated the ΔCt values and used 2-ΔCt as the fold enrichment. The relevant primers are listed in S1 Table.

Electrophoretic mobility shift assay

To obtain purified TEK protein, the full-length fragment of TEK was amplified and ligated into the pGEX-4T vector (GE Healthcare, http://www.gehealthcare.com) to generate the construct GST-TEK. Expression and purification of the fusion protein were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Corresponding primers (P11-F/P11-R) were used to amplify the probes with 5’ biotin labeling. The competitor probes contained the same DNA sequence but lacked the 5’ biotin labeling. EMSA was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Primer sequences are listed in S1 Table.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Identification of independent pat transgenic plants.

(A) In the T1 generation, the presence of insertion in independent pat transgenic plants was confirmed by PCR. A 694-bp DNA including the AMS promoter and TEK genomic fragment was amplified using primers PAMSJD-F and CTEKJD-R. The plants without the insertion of the target fragment were fertile and were named FP (Fertile Plants). (B) Three independent pat transgenic lines are shown, and they are all male sterile, as confirmed by Alexander’s staining of anthers. Scale bars, 20 μm. (C) Expression of CalS5 and TEK was detected in three independent pat lines by qRT-PCR analysis. Error bars represent the SD (n = 3). *** p < 0.001 (t-test).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Expression analysis of independent pat transgenic plants.

RNA in situ hybridization of TEK transcripts in anthers of pat-1 (A–D), pat-2 (E–H) and pat-3 (I–L) at stages 5–8 using an antisense probe. MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; dMsp, degenerated microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm. Fluorescence confocal images of the TEK–GFP fusion protein in anthers of pat-1 (M-P), pat-2 (Q-T) and pat-3 (U-X) at stages 5–8. Scale bars, 50 μm.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Characterization of independent pat transgenic plants.

Semi-thin sections of pat-1 (A-E), pat-2 (F-J) and pat-3 (K-O) showing anther development from stages 6–12. E, epidermis; En, endothecium; ML, middle layer; T, tapetum; MC, meiocytes; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore; dMsp, degenerated microspore; dPG, degenerated pollen grains. Scale bars, 5 μm. SEM observation of pollen grains in pat-1 (P), pat-2 (Q) and pat-3 (R). Scale bars, 10 μm. The callose fluorescence quenching assay showed that callose wall fluorescence in pat-1 (S), pat-2 (T) and pat-3 (U) quenched faster than that in WT (V). Scale bars, 20 μm. TEM observation of tetrads in pat-1 (W), pat-2 (X) and pat-3 (Y) at stage 7 compared with that in WT (Z). PC, peripheral callose. Scale bars, 2 μm.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Expression pattern of AMS in pat.

RNA in situ hybridization of AMS transcripts in the anthers of WT (A–D) and pat-3 (F–I) at stages 5–8 using an antisense probe. AMS transcript in anthers of WT (E) and pat-3 (J) using a sense probe at stage 6. MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore; dMsp, degenerated microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm. (K) Expression of AMS was detected in three independent pat lines by qRT-PCR analysis. Error bars represent the SD (n = 3).

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Expression pattern of CalS5 in wild-type and independent pat anthers.

Expression of CalS5 in microspore mother cells, tetrads and tapetum was detected by RNA in situ hybridization in anthers of WT (A–C), pat-1 (E-G), pat-2 (I-K) and pat-3 (M-O) at stages 5–7 using an antisense probe. CalS5 transcript in WT (D) and pat anthers (H, L, P) using a sense probe. MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads. Scale bars, 20 μm.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Genomic sequence of CalS5 with the positions of primers used for ChIP.

There are 26 pairs of primers for ChIP marked by blue serial numbers. The text highlighted in yellow indicates the AT-rich sequences. Underlined text indicates the detailed locations of primers.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. SDS-PAGE analysis of recombinant TEK protein.

SDS-PAGE analysis of GST-TEK proteins used for in vitro EMSA analysis. Purified proteins were run on an 8% gradient gel and stained with Coomassie blue. M, protein markers.

(TIF)

S1 Table. List of primers used in this research.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. qRT-PCR data of expression analysis and ChIP assay.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Xiao-Feng Xu, Cheng Zhang, Xiao-Zhen Yao and Hua Jiang for helpful discussion and revision.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the grants from “Chen Guang” project supported by Shanghai Municipal Education Commission and Shanghai Education Development Foundation (15CG50) to YL, the National Science Foundation of China (31600243) to YL and the Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (2017-01-07-00-02-E00039) to JZ. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ahlers F, Lambert J, Wiermann R. Acetylation and silylation of piperidine solubilized sporopollenin from pollen of Typha angustifolia L. Zeitschrift fur Natureforschung C-A Journal of Biosciences. 2003;58(11–12):807–11. 10.1515/znc-2003-11-1210 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blokker P, Yeloff D, Boelen P, Broekman RA, Rozema J. Development of a proxy for past surface UV-B irradiation: a thermally assisted hydrolysis and methylation py-GC/MS method for the analysis of pollen and spores. Analytical Chemistry. 2005;77(18):6026–31. 10.1021/ac050696k . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bubert H, Lambert J, Steuernagel S, Ahlers F, Wiermann R. Continuous decomposition of sporopollenin from pollen of Typha angustifolia L. by acidic methanolysis. Zeitschrift fur Natureforschung C-A Journal of Biosciences. 2002;57(11–12):1035–41. 10.1515/znc-2002-11-1214 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dominguez E, Heredia A. Water hydration in cutinized cell walls: a physico-chemical analysis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1999;1426(1):168–76. 10.1016/s0304-4165(98)00152-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Li FS, Phyo P, Jacobowitz J, Hong M, Weng JK. The molecular structure of plant sporopollenin. Nature Plants. 2019;5(1):41–6. 10.1038/s41477-018-0330-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jia QS, Zhu J, Xu XF, Lou Y, Zhang ZL, Zhang ZP, et al. Arabidopsis AT-hook protein TEK positively regulates the expression of arabinogalactan proteins for Nexine formation. Mol Plant. 2015;8(2):251–60. 10.1016/j.molp.2014.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ellis M, Egelund J, Schultz CJ, Bacic A. Arabinogalactan-proteins: key regulators at the cell surface? Plant Physiology. 2010;153(2):403–19. 10.1104/pp.110.156000 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brett C, Waldron K. Physiology and Biochemistry of Plant Cell Walls. Unwin Hyman; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Blackmore S, Barnes S. Pollen wall development in angiosperms. London: Academic Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Edlund AF, Swanson R, Preuss D. Pollen and stigma structure and function: the role of diversity in pollination. Plant Cell. 2004;16 Suppl(Suppl):S84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Scott RJ, editor Pollen exine—the sporopollenin enigma and the physics of pattern. Seminar series; 1994.
  • 12.Ariizumi T, Toriyama K. Genetic regulation of sporopollenin synthesis and pollen exine development. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2011;62:437–60. 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112312 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dobritsa AA, Kirkpatrick AB, Reeder SH, Li P, Owen HA. Pollen Aperture Factor INP1 Acts Late in Aperture Formation by Excluding Specific Membrane Domains from Exine Deposition. Plant Physiology. 2018;176(1):326–39. 10.1104/pp.17.00720 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fitzgerald MA, Knox RB. Initiation of primexine in freeze-substituted microspores of Brassica campestris. Sexual Plant Reproduction. 1995;8(2):99–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Heslop-Harrison J. Pollen wall development. The succession of events in the growth of intricately patterned pollen walls is described and discussed. Science. 1968;161(3838):230–7. 10.1126/science.161.3838.230 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lou Y, Zhu J, Yang ZN. Molecular Cell Biology of Pollen Walls. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Owen HA, Makaroff CA. Ultrastructure of microsporogenesis and microgametogenesis inArabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. ecotype Wassilewskija (Brassicaceae). Protoplasma. 1995;185(1–2):7–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Paxson-Sowders DM, Owen HA, Makaroff CA. A comparative ultrastructural analysis of exine pattern development in wild-type Arabidopsis and a mutant defective in pattern formation. Protoplasma. 1997;198(1–2):53–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Quilichini TD, Douglas CJ, Samuels AL. New views of tapetum ultrastructure and pollen exine development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ann Bot. 2014;114(6):1189–201. 10.1093/aob/mcu042 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Scott RJ, Spielman M, Dickinson HG. Stamen structure and function. The Plant Cell. 2004;16 Suppl:S46–60. 10.1105/tpc.017012 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sanders PM, Weterings BK. Anther developmental defects in Arabidopsis thaliana male-sterile mutants. Sexual Plant Reproduction. 1999;11(6):297–322. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dickinson HG. The development of pollen. Revue De Cytologie Et De Biologie Vegetales Le Botaniste. 1982;5:5–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aboulela M, Nakagawa T, Oshima A, Nishimura K, Tanaka Y. The Arabidopsis COPII components, AtSEC23A and AtSEC23D, are essential for pollen wall development and exine patterning. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2018;69(7):1615–33. 10.1093/jxb/ery015 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chang HS, Zhang C, Chang YH, Zhu J, Xu XF, Shi ZH, et al. No primexine and plasma membrane undulation is essential for primexine deposition and plasma membrane undulation during microsporogenesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2012;158(1):264–72. 10.1104/pp.111.184853 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Guan YF, Huang XY, Zhu J, Gao JF, Zhang HX, Yang ZN. RUPTURED POLLEN GRAIN1, a member of the MtN3/saliva gene family, is crucial for exine pattern formation and cell integrity of microspores in arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2008;147(2):852–63. 10.1104/pp.108.118026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li WL, Liu Y, Douglas CJ. Role of Glycosyltransferases in Pollen Wall Primexine Formation and Exine Patterning. Plant Physiol. 2017;173(1):167–82. 10.1104/pp.16.00471 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Suzuki T, Narciso JO, Zeng W, van de Meene A, Yasutomi M, Takemura S, et al. KNS4/UPEX1: A Type II Arabinogalactan beta-(1,3)-Galactosyltransferase Required for Pollen Exine Development. Plant Physiol. 2017;173(1):183–205. 10.1104/pp.16.01385 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang S, Lu J, Song XF, Ren SC, You C, Xu J, et al. Cytological and Transcriptomic Analyses Reveal Important Roles of CLE19 in Pollen Exine Formation. Plant Physiology. 2017;175(3):1186–202. 10.1104/pp.17.00439 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ito T, Nagata N, Yoshiba Y, Ohme-Takagi M, Ma H, Shinozaki K. Arabidopsis MALE STERILITY1 encodes a PHD-type transcription factor and regulates pollen and tapetum development. Plant Cell. 2007;19(11):3549–62. 10.1105/tpc.107.054536 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sorensen AM, Krober S, Unte US, Huijser P, Dekker K, Saedler H. The Arabidopsis ABORTED MICROSPORES (AMS) gene encodes a MYC class transcription factor. Plant J. 2003;33(2):413–23. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01644.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wilson ZA, Morroll SM, Dawson J, Swarup R, Tighe PJ. The Arabidopsis MALE STERILITY1 (MS1) gene is a transcriptional regulator of male gametogenesis, with homology to the PHD-finger family of transcription factors. Plant J. 2001;28(1):27–39. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01125.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yang C, Vizcay-Barrena G, Conner K, Wilson ZA. MALE STERILITY1 is required for tapetal development and pollen wall biosynthesis. Plant Cell. 2007;19(11):3530–48. 10.1105/tpc.107.054981 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhang ZB, Zhu J, Gao JF, Wang C, Li H, Li H, et al. Transcription factor AtMYB103 is required for anther development by regulating tapetum development, callose dissolution and exine formation in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2007;52(3):528–38. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03254.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Verma N, Burma PK. Regulation of tapetum-specific A9 promoter by transcription factors AtMYB80, AtMYB1 and AtMYB4 in Arabidopsis thaliana and Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Journal. 2017;92(3). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.de Azevedo Souza C, Kim SS, Koch S, Kienow L, Schneider K, McKim SM, et al. A novel fatty Acyl-CoA Synthetase is required for pollen development and sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009;21(2):507–25. 10.1105/tpc.108.062513 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Grienenberger E, Kim SS, Lallemand B, Geoffroy P, Heintz D, Souza Cde A, et al. Analysis of TETRAKETIDE alpha-PYRONE REDUCTASE function in Arabidopsis thaliana reveals a previously unknown, but conserved, biochemical pathway in sporopollenin monomer biosynthesis. Plant Cell. 2010;22(12):4067–83. 10.1105/tpc.110.080036 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kim SS, Grienenberger E, Lallemand B, Colpitts CC, Kim SY, Souza Cde A, et al. LAP6/POLYKETIDE SYNTHASE A and LAP5/POLYKETIDE SYNTHASE B encode hydroxyalkyl alpha-pyrone synthases required for pollen development and sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell. 2010;22(12):4045–66. 10.1105/tpc.110.080028 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Morant M, Jorgensen K, Schaller H, Pinot F, Moller BL, Werck-Reichhart D, et al. CYP703 is an ancient cytochrome P450 in land plants catalyzing in-chain hydroxylation of lauric acid to provide building blocks for sporopollenin synthesis in pollen. Plant Cell. 2007;19(5):1473–87. 10.1105/tpc.106.045948 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lou Y, Xu XF, Zhu J, Gu JN, Blackmore S, Yang ZN. The tapetal AHL family protein TEK determines nexine formation in the pollen wall. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3855 10.1038/ncomms4855 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ferguson AC, Pearce S, Band LR, Yang C, Ferjentsikova I, King J, et al. Biphasic regulation of the transcription factor ABORTED MICROSPORES (AMS) is essential for tapetum and pollen development in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2017;213(2):778–90. 10.1111/nph.14200 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Xiong SX, Lu JY, Lou Y, Teng XD, Gu JN, Zhang C, et al. The transcription factors MS188 and AMS form a complex to activate the expression of CYP703A2 for sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2016;88(6):936–46. 10.1111/tpj.13284 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Xu J, Ding Z, Vizcay-Barrena G, Shi J, Liang W, Yuan Z, et al. ABORTED MICROSPORES Acts as a Master Regulator of Pollen Wall Formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2014;26(4):1544–56. 10.1105/tpc.114.122986 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yang J, Tian L, Sun MX, Huang XY, Zhu J, Guan YF, et al. AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR17 is essential for pollen wall pattern formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2013;162(2):720–31. 10.1104/pp.113.214940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wang K, Guo ZL, Zhou WT, Zhang C, Zhang ZY, Lou Y, et al. The Regulation of Sporopollenin Biosynthesis Genes for Rapid Pollen Wall Formation. Plant Physiology. 2018;178(1):283–94. 10.1104/pp.18.00219 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhu J, Lou Y, Xu X, Yang ZN. A genetic pathway for tapetum development and function in Arabidopsis. J Integr Plant Biol. 2011;53(11):892–900. 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01078.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gabarayeva NI. Principles and recurrent themes in sporoderm development. Harley MM, Morton CM, Blackmore S, editors. Whistable: Kent: 2000. 1–17 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gabarayeva NI, Grigorjeva VV. Sporoderm and tapetum development in Eupomatia laurina (Eupomatiaceae). An interpretation. Protoplasma. 2014;251(6):1321–45. 10.1007/s00709-014-0631-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dong X, Hong Z, Sivaramakrishnan M, Mahfouz M, Verma DPS. Callose synthase (CalS5) is required for exine formation during microgametogenesis and for pollen viability in Arabidopsis. Plant Journal for Cell & Molecular Biology. 2005;42(3):315–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nishikawa S, Zinkl GM, Swanson RJ, Maruyama D, Preuss D. Callose (beta-1,3 glucan) is essential for Arabidopsis pollen wall patterning, but not tube growth. BMC Plant Biology. 2005;5:22 10.1186/1471-2229-5-22 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Huang XY, Niu J, Sun MX, Zhu J, Gao JF, Yang J, et al. CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE G1 is associated with the spliceosome to regulate CALLOSE SYNTHASE5 splicing and pollen wall formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2013;25(2):637–48. 10.1105/tpc.112.107896 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Paxson-Sowders DM, Dodrill CH, Owen HA, Makaroff CA. DEX1, a novel plant protein, is required for exine pattern formation during pollen development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2001;127(4):1739–49. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Xu Y, Wang Y, Stroud H, Gu X, Sun B, Gan ES, et al. A matrix protein silences transposons and repeats through interaction with retinoblastoma-associated proteins. Curr Biol. 2013;23(4):345–50. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.van Drunen CM, Oosterling RW, Keultjes GM, Weisbeek PJ, van Driel R, Smeekens SC. Analysis of the chromatin domain organisation around the plastocyanin gene reveals an MAR-specific sequence element in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Research. 1997;25(19):3904–11. 10.1093/nar/25.19.3904 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shi ZH, Zhang C, Xu XF, Zhu J, Zhou Q, Ma LJ, et al. Overexpression of AtTTP affects ARF17 expression and leads to male sterility in Arabidopsis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0117317 10.1371/journal.pone.0117317 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Heslop-Harrison J. Cell walls, cell membranes and protoplasmic connections during meiosis and pollen development. Linskens HF, editor. Amsterdam North Holland: 1964. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhou Q, Zhu J, Cui YL, Yang ZN. Ultrastructure analysis reveals sporopollenin deposition and nexine formation at early stage of pollen wall development in Arabidopsis. Science Bulletin. 2015;60(2):273–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Agoda-Tandjawa G, Durand S, Gaillard C, Garnier C, Doublier JL. Properties of cellulose/pectins composites: implication for structural and mechanical properties of cell wall. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2012;90(2):1081–91. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.06.047 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Radja A, Horsley EM, Lavrentovich MO, Sweeney AM. Pollen Cell Wall Patterns Form from Modulated Phases. Cell. 2019;176(4):856–68.e10. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gabarayeva NI, Grigorjeva VV. Exine development in Encephalartos altensteinii (Cycadaceae): ultrastructure, substructure and the modes of sporopollenin accumulation. Review of Palaeobotany & Palynology. 2004;132(3):175–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gabarayeva NI, Grigorjeva VV, Shavarda AL. Mimicking pollen and spore walls: self-assembly in action. Ann Bot. 2019;123(7):1205–18. 10.1093/aob/mcz027 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Stieglitz H. Role of beta-1,3-glucanase in postmeiotic microspore release. Dev Biol. 1977;57(1):87–97. 10.1016/0012-1606(77)90356-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Worrall D, Hird DL, Hodge R, Paul W, Draper J, Scott R. Premature dissolution of the microsporocyte callose wall causes male sterility in transgenic tobacco. Plant Cell. 1992;4(7):759–71. 10.1105/tpc.4.7.759 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Clough SJ, Bent AF. Floral dip: a simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Journal. 1998;16(6):735–43. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1998.00343.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Alexander MP. Differential staining of aborted and nonaborted pollen. Stain Technology. 1969;44(3):117–22. 10.3109/10520296909063335 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhu J, Chen H, Li H, Gao JF, Jiang H, Wang C, et al. Defective in Tapetal development and function 1 is essential for anther development and tapetal function for microspore maturation in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2008;55(2):266–77. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03500.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gregory P Copenhaver, Anna A Dobritsa

28 Oct 2019

Dear Dr Lou,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning' to PLOS Genetics. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review again a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the guest editor. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are 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.

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. For instructions see our guidelines.

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.

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.

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, use the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Anna A. Dobritsa

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Guest editor's comments:

Both reviewers conclude - and I agree with their assessment - that the findings are potentially interesting but you will need more evidence to demonstrate that male sterility in pat plants is indeed caused by the mechanism which you propose: that the premature expression of TEK in tapetum leads to problems with the formation of the callose wall around microspores and that TEK directly represses the callose synthase CalS5 gene by interacting with its regulatory regions and causing the appearance of repressive histone marks. As the analysis of a single transgenic line cannot be considered sufficient in this case (the effects could be caused by the position of the transgene insertion), you would need to perform the critical experiments which led to these conclusions on at least two more independent transgenic lines. This is particularly important because the mechanism that you propose is not consistent with the more accepted idea that microsporocytes themselves synthesize their callose walls. Therefore, you need to ensure that your conclusions, which imply that a lot of CalS5 activity comes from tapetum, are very strongly supported by experimental evidence.

In addition to providing detailed answers to the questions and concerns raised by the reviewers, I would encourage you to provide more evidence of the following:

1. The callose wall defects and the timing of their appearance in pat lines. The callose wall defects are far from obvious. There is little difference in the appearance of the callose wall in WT and in pat in the light-microscopy images (Figs. 1H and 1N, Figs. S2A and S2B). Even in TEM images (Figs. 3L and 3Q), for which you state that the “callose wall was obviously sparse”, this is not at all obvious and requires some strong quantitative support.

2. Timing of TEK expression has to be tested in additional pat lines.

3. Reduction of Cals5 expression has to be verified in additional pat lines, and I would suggest that this should be also demonstrated with methods other than just qRT-PCR.

4. The binding of TEK to the P11 region and the enrichment of H3K9Me2 in this region has to be tested in additional pat lines. Further, the ability of TEK to bind to this region has to be confirmed by an independent method, such as EMSA. Please also provide more information on the position of the P11 region in relation to the CalS5 gene model (e.g. Is it in an intron? In which one?) as well as the details for the qPCR experiments performed in conjunction with the ChIP experiments. Fig. 6A shows 26 regions that were supposedly tested by ChIP-qPCR, yet the graphs in Figs. 6B and C show the results from much fewer regions. What was done on the other regions? Also, to be confident in results of qPCR, they have to be performed very carefully – e.g. all primers have to be tested for their ability to double the amount of DNA at each cycle and Ct values have to be in a certain range to be reliable. Please provide evidence that all the proper controls were done for each tested region and the results were indeed reliable. Please add the supplemental table with all the primers (it seems to be missing from the submission).

5. Fig. 5 describes potentially important results but is presented so inconspicuously that even one of the reviewers missed the fact that the bottom row shows the CalS5 in situ hybridization in the tek mutant, not in pat. I would encourage you to also provide the in situ hybridization data on the Cals5 expression from several pat lines (and perhaps compare it with the CalS5 expression in the TEKpro:TEK-GFP lines) to strengthen your conclusions.

6. Please explain what is shown in the eight unlabeled lanes in Fig. S1A and provide the figure legend for Fig. S1C.

7. Remove the results on MS188 presented in Fig. S3. It is distracting when they are suddenly mentioned in the Discussion without being presented in the Results.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

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

Reviewer #1: The Manuscript ‘The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning’ by Xiong et al. presents a series evidences to state the temporal expression of TEK is essential for pollen exine patterning. Previous studies have revealed that TEK is required for nexine formation and the tek mutant exhibited pollen nexine absence in Arabidosis. Here in this manuscript, the authors performed an earlier than normal expression of TEK (AMS::TEK-GFP, name as pat) in wild type anther and found the premature expression of TEK leads to completely male sterility; they employ cytological and molecular analyses to demonstrated that TEK physically interacts with the P11 site of CalS5 promoter and represses the CalS5 expression via H3K9me2.

Overall, this is an interesting story that provided a mechanism that how the tapetum stop the callose wall synthesis and promote the callose wall degeneration to achieve the microspores release and the pollen wall patterning. The technical quality of the study could however be improved. I summarize my comments and suggestions below:

1. I would suggest to do phenotypic analyses with more than two independent pat alleles, as least in some of the phenotypic analyses. Although fertility and alexander staining anther from 3 alleles were presented in S1, further cytological observations results were provided only in one allele.

2. On a more detailed level, the manuscript lack of experimental details. This is general, but I take several as example:

1) I could not find any indication of Figure S1C, in which relative expression of TEK in only one allele is shown.

2) We all know that different transgenic alleles could possibly cause developmental defects in different levels, as results of different expression level. Therefore, I would suggest the authors to show the relative expression of TEK in pat-1, pat-2, and pat-3, and clearly state the allele used in each following study but not only address ‘pat mutant’.

3) I could not find any indication of which statistical tests were used and which level of confidence are applied in Figure 4 and Figure 6.

3. Given the pat mutant showed reduced CalS5 expression and increased H3K9Me2 in CalS5 promoter, we would expect to see the increased CalS5 expression and decreased H3K9Me2 in tek mutant. I would invite the authors to test these to improve the precision and impact of these analyses.

Reviewer #2: The current work has its foundation in an earlier work by Lou et al (reference no 38 in the manuscript). The earlier paper had demonstrated the role of TEK gene in pollen development, wherein a knockout of the gene led to male sterility. This paper also showed that the TEK gene was directly regulated by AMS gene. In the current work the authors analyze the effects of expressing the TEK gene at stages of anther development earlier to that of its normal expression. This they achieve by expressing the TEK gene under the AMS promoter in transgenic Arabidopsis lines. Although the observations are interesting, the conclusions drawn from the observations seem improper.

My major concern is:

The authors report that under the AMS promoter the TEK gene is expressed precociously in stage 5 and 6 in the pat transgenic lines as is shown in Fig 1. An important observation that there seems to be reduction in TEK expression at stage 8 in the pat lines (compare Fig 1E to 1J) is not discussed. Is the pattern presented in the Figure observed in independent transgenic lines developed by the authors?

This quantitative observation is important to reach conclusions on the observed expression pattern of CalS5 gene in the pat transgenics (Fig 6). It is observed that the main difference in expression of Cals5, between WT and the pat lines lies in stage 8 of anther development. The expression of CalS5 is prominent in S8 in pat lines while there seems to be no expression in wild type (compare Fig 6D and 6I). There is no difference in expression between WT and pat lines in the earlier stages. The authors also record this observation (lines 241 to 246). However, they tend to argue that “Thus, considering that TEK-GFP expressed precociously, we supposed that premature TEK decreases CalS5 expression in pat anther”. The observation however, tends to show that the precocious expression of TEK in stage 5 and 6 does not change the expression pattern of CalS5, which they also mention in the text. However, the down regulation of TEK at stage 8 in pat lines leads to expression of CalS5 gene at this stage Thus, while TEK does seem to down regulate CalS5, the observations tend to show that it happens at a later stage (8) rather than at stages 5 and 6.

The results section concludes by saying “All these results suggested that premature appearance of TEK represses CalS5 expression via modulating the H3K9 demethylation in pat” (Line 271)

However, the initial part of discussion (line 281) the authors mention that “In the present study, we revealed that TEK specifically represses the expression of CalS5 in wild type anther after the tetrad stage (Fig 5I)”, which seems to be correct but not in line with the arguments given in the results section. The authors then discuss that the phenotypic outcome is because of the down regulation of Cals5 in the in the earlier stages which is not supported by the presented observations.

It is suggested that the authors reanalyze their observations and discuss it with more clarity.

Other points are:

i. Introduction on pollen development can be shortened. The introduction could concentrate more on the role of TEK in development of pollen, highlighting the initial study by Lou et al. The reason for asking the present question should also be mentioned in the introduction.

ii. As the TEK gene was driven by the promoter of the AMS gene, the spatial and temporal expression pattern of the AMS gene needs to be introduced. It would have been nice if AMS expression patterns had been shown in WT as well as in the pat transgenic lines, as perturbations in AMS expression can also lead to male sterility as has been observed in the earlier work. Thus it needs to be demonstrated that in the transgenic lines developed there is no changes in the AMS expression pattern.

iii. The manuscript mentions that because AMS is upstream to TEK (line 107), the expression of AMS should be at an earlier stage. A gene being upstream to another gene, does not ensure its expression at an earlier stage. It could express at the same stage but as a cascade.

iv. The details of the constructs used for developing transgenic lines should be presented. Line 130: It is not clear what is meant by lines that did not carry insertion: were they escapes during hygromycin selection or they carried the hptII but lacked the AMS:TEK transgene?

v. Line 138: In the wild type anther TEK expression is observed in S7 and S8 (both in situ and GFP in TEK:TEK-GFP lines) and not from S6-8 as mentioned in the text.

vi. How many independent transgenic lines were analyzed for spatial expression of the different genes by in situ hybridizations? Is the presented pattern observed in all the lines tested or only in a subset?

vii. The reduction in expression of the TEK gene at stage 8, in pat lines as compared to WT should be critically evaluated. The possible reasons for the same should be discussed.

viii. In experiments with qRT-PCR, the number of transgenic lines analyzed should be clearly mentioned. Currently it mentions that experiments were repeated three times. Are these replications from different RNA samples or three times from the same RNA sample.

ix. The evidence or literature showing that β-tubulin is an appropriate gene for normalizations in the stages studied should be mentioned.

x. The Ct values corresponding to the relative values presented in Fig. 4 could be included as a supplementary table. This helps in evaluating the strength of the presented data.

xi. In experiments of qRT-PCR or ChIP, it seems that an inflorescence has been used a sample. This would mean that buds of different stages would be present and thus conclusions from the observations become weak. It is thus important that results of at least three independent transgenic lines are presented to see the general trends.

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes: Fang Chang

Reviewer #2: Yes: Pradeep Kumar Burma

Decision Letter 1

Gregory P Copenhaver, Anna A Dobritsa

3 Mar 2020

* Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. *

Dear Dr Lou,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning' to PLOS Genetics. Your 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 aspects of the manuscript that should be improved.

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by the reviewer 2.

Also, prior to resubmission, please pay special attention to ensuring that the grammar, punctuation, and spelling of your article are at a very high level because PLOS will not offer detailed copyediting in the event of eventual acceptance. Currently, the entire manuscript suffers from poor grammar. The main text, abstract, and author summary should all be easy to read and understand. We strongly recommend that you carefully review your paper with the assistance of a native/fluent English speaker or a professional language editing service before you submit a revised manuscript. We can, on request, offer the names of individuals with whom we have worked whom you could engage to assist you with your text. This would help to ensure optimal

quality and clarity of presentation within your revised manuscript.

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.

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.

[LINK]

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

Yours sincerely,

Anna A. Dobritsa

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

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

Reviewer #1: no more comments

Reviewer #2: Comments on the revised version:

i. The authors have presented results of three independent transgenic lines in the revised manuscript. Although the authors uniformly call the three independent lines as pat lines, I feel that they should be presented as pat-1, pat-2 and pat-3. Further, data from one of the lines say pat-1 is presented in the main text and those of the additional 2 lines in the supplementary.

ii. The gene that has been amplified to check the presence of transgene in supplementary figure 1, should be mentioned in the legends. Why does one of the WT plants in this figure have a similar amplification profile as the transgenic lines?

iii. While the text (line 103) mentions that AMS transcripts are observed in anthers from stage 5, supplementary figure 4 shows results from stage 6 only. If possible the expression at stage 5 should also be included.

iv. I feel lines 126 to 128 should be rewritten as: "Of the 26 transgenic lines, 21 were observed to be male sterile and 5 lines were fertile. All male sterile lines carried the transgene as assessed by amplification of (mention the gene that was amplified) fragment while fertile events did not show amplified product." The lines marked as WT in the amplification profile in supplementary figure 1 are actually not untransformed wild type plants but those that probably were male fertile and also lacked the amplification product. This needs to be clearly mentioned.

v. Lines 129 to 134 should be written with clarity, taking into consideration the first point.

vi. The section on CalS-5 expression in wild type, tek mutant lines and pat transgenic lines should be clearly written. Figure 5 should also include the hybridization profile of one of the pat lines. This will help a reader get a comparative view and understand the conclusion easily.

vii. In the gel retardation assay, the meaning of unlabeled competitor probe is not clear. Is it unlabeled P11 fragment? If yes, then one cannot make any conclusions on biding specificity. Further, the conclusions are drawn based on the second band (from top), without commenting on the band which represents maximum retardation. With the observed % of fragments that are retardation, one would have expected no retardation in 300 fold excess.

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes: FANG CHANG

Reviewer #2: Yes: pradeep kumar burma

Decision Letter 2

Gregory P Copenhaver, Anna A Dobritsa

23 Apr 2020

* Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. *

Dear Dr Lou,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning' to PLOS Genetics. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic.

The Editor has suggested several corrections to the language of the manuscript, which you will find in the attached document. We ask that you please consider this document and make the appropriate changes to the text of your manuscript, at which point we will be prepared to accept the manuscript for publication.

In addition we ask that you:

  • 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.

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.

[LINK]

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

Yours sincerely,

Anna A. Dobritsa

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript 20200317-Dobritsa_editing.docx

Decision Letter 3

Gregory P Copenhaver, Anna A Dobritsa

28 Apr 2020

Dear Dr Lou,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning" 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 accept, 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 one way to make 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,

Anna A. Dobritsa

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

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-19-01564R3

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.

Acceptance letter

Gregory P Copenhaver, Anna A Dobritsa

7 May 2020

PGENETICS-D-19-01564R3

The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning

Dear Dr Lou,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "The temporal regulation of TEK contributes to pollen wall exine patterning" 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,

Matt Lyles

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. Identification of independent pat transgenic plants.

    (A) In the T1 generation, the presence of insertion in independent pat transgenic plants was confirmed by PCR. A 694-bp DNA including the AMS promoter and TEK genomic fragment was amplified using primers PAMSJD-F and CTEKJD-R. The plants without the insertion of the target fragment were fertile and were named FP (Fertile Plants). (B) Three independent pat transgenic lines are shown, and they are all male sterile, as confirmed by Alexander’s staining of anthers. Scale bars, 20 μm. (C) Expression of CalS5 and TEK was detected in three independent pat lines by qRT-PCR analysis. Error bars represent the SD (n = 3). *** p < 0.001 (t-test).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Expression analysis of independent pat transgenic plants.

    RNA in situ hybridization of TEK transcripts in anthers of pat-1 (A–D), pat-2 (E–H) and pat-3 (I–L) at stages 5–8 using an antisense probe. MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; dMsp, degenerated microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm. Fluorescence confocal images of the TEK–GFP fusion protein in anthers of pat-1 (M-P), pat-2 (Q-T) and pat-3 (U-X) at stages 5–8. Scale bars, 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Characterization of independent pat transgenic plants.

    Semi-thin sections of pat-1 (A-E), pat-2 (F-J) and pat-3 (K-O) showing anther development from stages 6–12. E, epidermis; En, endothecium; ML, middle layer; T, tapetum; MC, meiocytes; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore; dMsp, degenerated microspore; dPG, degenerated pollen grains. Scale bars, 5 μm. SEM observation of pollen grains in pat-1 (P), pat-2 (Q) and pat-3 (R). Scale bars, 10 μm. The callose fluorescence quenching assay showed that callose wall fluorescence in pat-1 (S), pat-2 (T) and pat-3 (U) quenched faster than that in WT (V). Scale bars, 20 μm. TEM observation of tetrads in pat-1 (W), pat-2 (X) and pat-3 (Y) at stage 7 compared with that in WT (Z). PC, peripheral callose. Scale bars, 2 μm.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Expression pattern of AMS in pat.

    RNA in situ hybridization of AMS transcripts in the anthers of WT (A–D) and pat-3 (F–I) at stages 5–8 using an antisense probe. AMS transcript in anthers of WT (E) and pat-3 (J) using a sense probe at stage 6. MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads; Msp, microspore; dMsp, degenerated microspore. Scale bars, 20 μm. (K) Expression of AMS was detected in three independent pat lines by qRT-PCR analysis. Error bars represent the SD (n = 3).

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Expression pattern of CalS5 in wild-type and independent pat anthers.

    Expression of CalS5 in microspore mother cells, tetrads and tapetum was detected by RNA in situ hybridization in anthers of WT (A–C), pat-1 (E-G), pat-2 (I-K) and pat-3 (M-O) at stages 5–7 using an antisense probe. CalS5 transcript in WT (D) and pat anthers (H, L, P) using a sense probe. MMC, microspore mother cell; MC, meiocytes; T, tapetum; Tds, tetrads. Scale bars, 20 μm.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Genomic sequence of CalS5 with the positions of primers used for ChIP.

    There are 26 pairs of primers for ChIP marked by blue serial numbers. The text highlighted in yellow indicates the AT-rich sequences. Underlined text indicates the detailed locations of primers.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. SDS-PAGE analysis of recombinant TEK protein.

    SDS-PAGE analysis of GST-TEK proteins used for in vitro EMSA analysis. Purified proteins were run on an 8% gradient gel and stained with Coomassie blue. M, protein markers.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. List of primers used in this research.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. qRT-PCR data of expression analysis and ChIP assay.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers conmments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers conmments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript 20200317-Dobritsa_editing.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES