Research Evolution of symbiosis in the legume genus Aeschynomene Cl
emence Chaintreuil1, Jean-Francßois Arrighi1, Eric Giraud1, Lucie Mich
e2, Lionel Moulin1, Bernard Dreyfus1, Jos
e-Antonio Munive-Hern
andez3, Mar
ıa del Carmen Villegas-Hernandez4 and Gilles B
ena1,5 1 IRD/CIRAD/UM2/Supagro, Laboratoire des Symbioses Tropicales et M
editerran
eennes, F-34398, Montpellier, France; 2CNRS/IRD/Aix-Marseille Universit
e, Institut M
editerran
een de Biodiversit
e et d’Ecologie Marine et Continentale, 13397, Marseille, France; 3Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Laboratorio de Ecolog
ıa Molecular Microbiana, Mexico, Mexico; 4 Instituto Polit
ecnico Nacional, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biol
ogicas, Mexico, Mexico; 5University Mohammed V Adgal, Laboratoire de Microbiologie et Biologie Mol
eculaire, Rabat, Morocco Summary Author for correspondence: Gilles B
ena Tel: +33 4 67 59 38 01 Email: gilles.bena@ird.fr Received: 21 May 2013 Accepted: 24 June 2013 New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 doi: 10.1111/nph.12424 Key words: Aeschynomene, Bradyrhizobium, evolution, Nod factor-independent nodulation, phylogeny, rhizobia, stem nodulation.  Legumes in the genus Aeschynomene form nitrogen-fixing root nodules in association with Bradyrhizobium strains. Several aquatic and subaquatic species have the additional capacity to form stem nodules, and some of them can symbiotically interact with specific strains that do not produce the common Nod factors synthesized by all other rhizobia. The question of the emergence and evolution of these nodulation characters has been the subject of recent debate.  We conducted a molecular phylogenetic analysis of 38 different Aeschynomene species. The phylogeny was reconstructed with both the chloroplast DNA trnL intron and the nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS/5.8S region. We also tested 28 Aeschynomene species for their capacity to form root and stem nodules by inoculating different rhizobial strains, including nodABCcontaining strains (ORS285, USDA110) and a nodABC-lacking strain (ORS278).  Maximum likelihood analyses resolved four distinct phylogenetic groups of Aeschynomene. We found that stem nodulation may have evolved several times in the genus, and that all Aeschynomene species using a Nod-independent symbiotic process clustered in the same clade.  The phylogenetic approach suggested that Nod-independent nodulation has evolved once in this genus, and should be considered as a derived character, and this result is discussed with regard to previous experimental studies. Introduction The Leguminosae (Fabaceae) is the third largest family of flowering plants with c. 730 genera and over 19 400 species worldwide (Mabberly, 1997; Lewis et al., 2005). Legume species are particularly diverse, both in size and in ecological habitat, and include small herbs from temperate regions as well as large tropical rainforest trees. They are agriculturally and economically important, being second only to the Poaceae (e.g. cereals). In addition to the most cultivated crops, such as soybean (Glycine max), common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), peas (Pisum sativum), and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), that are harvested for grain or oil, legumes are also valued for timber, fuel, forage and medicines. This economic importance of the Leguminosae is mainly the result of the ability of many of its species to form a symbiotic association with soil bacteria, commonly known as rhizobia. This symbiosis usually results in the formation of root nodules, in which the rhizobia reduce atmospheric nitrogen to ammonium. This allows the plant to grow well and produce proteinrich seeds in the absence of nitrogen fertilizer in soils. Among the three subfamilies of the Leguminosae (Caesalpinioideae, Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust Mimosoideae, and Papilionoideae), nodulation by rhizobia is rare in caesalpinioids, more common in mimosoids, and very common in papilionoids (Sprent, 2007). In all three subfamilies, nitrogen-fixing nodules are almost exclusively located on roots. However, in a very few tropical legumes that are hydrophytic and that belong to the three papilionoid genera, Aeschynomene, Sesbania, and Discolobium, (Eaglesham & Szalay, 1983; Alazard, 1985; Eaglesham et al., 1990; Ladha et al., 1992; Loureiro et al., 1994), and to the mimosoid genus Neptunia (Schaede, 1940), nodulation by rhizobia can also occur on stems. Stem nodulation was observed for the first time on Aeschynomene aspera (Heagerup, 1928), and later well documented in Sesbania rostrata (Dreyfus & Dommergues, 1981; Goormachtig et al., 2004) and Neptunia plena (James et al., 1992). Meanwhile, stem nodulation was reported on several other species of Aeschynomene (Alazard, 1985; Becker et al., 1988), and this genus contains most of the stem-nodulated species described so far. The stem nodulation phenotype in these various legumes is, in fact, represented by a number of different ontogenies. James et al. (1992) considered that genuine stem nodules should be New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 1247 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist 1248 Research stem (Loureiro et al., 1995) rather than a connection to adventitious roots. Other species, such as Aeschynomene afraspera, Aeschynomene indica and S. rostrata, differ in their ability to readily develop stem nodules even under nonsubmerged conditions (Boivin et al., 1997). A unique feature that is found only in stem-nodulating Aeschynomene spp. is their capacity to symbiotically interact with photosynthetic bradyrhizobia (Evans et al., 1990; Giraud & Fleischman, 2004). It has been shown in Aeschynomene sensitiva that the photosynthetic activity of these bradyrhizobia facilitates ex planta survival and infectivity, and thus it could affect their biological nitrogen fixation during stem nodulation (Giraud et al., 2000). Based on the stem and/or root nodulation ability of Bradyrhizobium isolates, three cross-inoculation groups of Aeschynomene spp. were initially defined by Alazard (1985). Group I (representative species A. americana) formed root nodules and/or adventitious root nodules on the stem, and was associated with ‘classical’ Bradyrhizobium strains in group A (Fig. 1). Species of group II (A. afraspera) formed profuse stem nodules under nonsubmerged conditions with both nonphotosynthetic vascularly connected to the stem, as observed in Aeschynomene and Discolobium (Loureiro et al., 1994, 1995; James et al., 2001). If this criterion is considered to be the main one by which the term ‘stem nodules’ is used accurately, then Neptunia, which has been shown to form ‘stem nodules’ that are connected by their vascular tissue to the bases of adventitious roots (James et al., 1992; Subba Rao et al., 1995), should thus be considered as root nodules. Similarly, Goormachtig et al. (2004) also considered that stem nodules on S. rostrata were, in fact, adventitious root nodules, especially as their development is morphologically equivalent to the development of lateral root base nodules. Environmental conditions also play a major role in stem nodulation. The stem nodules of Discolobium pulchellum and Discolobium leptophyllum are compulsorily aquatic, requiring permanent submergence in water or in flooded soil (Loureiro et al., 1994; James et al., 2001). Several Aeschynomene species (Aeschynomene elaphroxylon, Aeschynomene crassicaulis, Aeschynomene americana) also form nodules on the stem (at the base or all the way up the stem) only under waterlogged conditions (Boivin et al., 1997). However, only one of these species, Aeschynomene fluminensis, has ‘flooded’ stem nodules with a vascular system connected to the (b) Aeschynomene symbiotic bacterial group (a) A USDA110 * Outgroup R. palustris Strains with nod genes USDA336 USDA110@ ORS354 B. japonicum B. elkanii B. diazoefficiens group A & B ORS285, ORS278, Btai1 groups C & D A. americana I A. schimperi A. crassicaulis elaphroxylon A. montevidensis Φ A. pfundii facalta histrix cristata Φ uniflora Root nodulation ORS336,ORS354 * Strains with nod genes ORS285 * Strains with nod genes but still able to nodulate Aechynomene group III when these genes are disrupted D ORS278, Btai1 * Strains without nod genes STM1844 group E Group III nodulating bacteria clade A. A. A. A. A. B C Bradyrhizobia clade Aeschynomene species inoculation group E STM3844 * Strains without nod genes II A. nilotica A. fluminensis ♣ A. afraspera A. aspera Φ Stem and root nodulation III A. A. A. A. A. A. rudis pratensis scabra virginica Φ filosa Φ tambacoudensis A. A. A. A. A. A. evenia indica sensitiva denticulata ciliata deamii Φ Stem and root nodulation Fig. 1 Evolutionary relationships among strains (a) and bacterial group of specificity and nodulation group defined among the various Aeschynomene species (b). The phylogenetic tree of strains is drawn after Mich
e et al. (2010). (a) @, The USDA110 strain has recently been reclassified as a new species, Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens (Delamuta et al., 2013). Symbiotic bacteria are clustered (panel b) according to their possession (or not) of nodulation genes, photosynthetic ability, stem and root nodulation ability. The lack of nod genes in strains ORS278, Btai1 and STM3843 has been demonstrated after full genome sequencing (Giraud et al., 2007; Mornico et al., 2012). Green color, photosynthetic strains. *, representative strains of the group; Φ, species for which the inoculation group has been determined in this study; ♣, Aeschynomene fluminensis is the only species of the group that produces stem nodules only under flooded conditions. New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (group A and B) and photosynthetic (group C) Bradyrhizobium. Group III (A. indica) formed sparse stem nodules under nonsubmerged conditions with photosynthetic strains (groups C and D). Since then, this system has become more complicated, as A. fluminensis has been shown to form stem nodules with photosynthetic strains but only in aquatic conditions (Loureiro et al., 1995). Moreover, new nonphotosynthetic isolates able to form stem nodules on group III Aeschynomene spp. have been discovered (Mich
e et al., 2010). Most surprisingly, sequencing of the whole genome of two group D Bradyrhizobium strains (ORS278 and BTAi1) showed that they did not contain the canonical nodABC-genes (nod) genes required for the synthesis of Nod factors (NFs), the signal molecules produced by all other rhizobia that had always been suggested as compulsory for the initiation of symbiotic nodules on legumes (Giraud et al., 2007). This result was further confirmed by a comparative genomic study of six additional strains (groups D and E) that were representative of the phylogenetic diversity of Bradyrhizobium isolated from group III plants (Fig. 1) (Mornico et al., 2012). It has finally been shown that group C strains, which form nodules on both Aeschynomene groups II and III, contain the canonical nodABC genes and produce NFs (Chaintreuil et al., 2001; Renier et al., 2011). Deletion of the nodB gene in one of these strains (ORS285) blocked nodulation of A. afraspera (group II), but did not affect nodulation of A. indica or A. sensitiva (group III), thus proving that ORS285 is able to use both Nod-dependent and Nod-independent symbiotic processes, depending on the host plant (Bonaldi et al., 2011). The genus Aeschynomene contains 161 (http://www.theplantlist. org) to 180 species (Klitgaard & Lavin, 2005), half of them described from the New World, mainly South and Central America, and the other half have been found across the tropical regions of Africa, Southeast Asia, Australia and the Pacific Islands (Rudd, 1955; Verdcourt, 1971). The genus includes both herbaceous and shrubby species, annuals and perennials, some of them growing up to 8 m in height and with a basal stem width of 0.5 m (e.g. A. elaphroxylon). Half of the species are hydrophytes growing in marshes, temporary or permanent ponds, rice fields, waterlogged meadows, and along streams and riverbanks. The remaining species are more xeric and are found in savannas or dry forests. Botanically, the genus Aeschynomene belongs to the tribe Aeschynomeneae, which has now been classified together with the Dalbergieae tribe in a monophyletic group referred to as the dalbergioid legumes, a large, mostly pantropical, group of papilionoids characterized by the presence of the Aeschynomeneae type of root nodule (Lavin et al., 2001; Sprent, 2001). Rudd (1955) published a revision of the American species of Aeschynomene, but no attempt has been made to include Old World species in this classification. The genus Aeschynomene was originally divided by Vogel (1838) into two sections: Aeschynomene L. sect. Aeschynomene, also referred to as Eu-Aeschynomene, which comprises c. 50 species with a pantropical distribution, and Aeschynomene sect. Ochopodium Vogel with > 100 pantropical species (Polhill, 1981; Rudd, 1981; Klitgaard & Lavin, 2005). This division, also retained by (Rudd, 1955), is well supported, based on morphological differences; that is, section Aeschynomene Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust Research 1249 is characterized by medifixed stipules, whereas section Ochopodium has basifixed stipules. The section Ochopodium is more closely related to the genus Machaerium than to sect. Aeschynomene and to Dalbergia (Lavin et al., 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2007). Consequently, the genus Aeschynomene does not appear to be monophyletic, but this topic n eeds to be further developed using additional species from both the New and Old Worlds. The delimitation of section Aeschynomene is also problematic, as it is morphologically closely related to other genera, such as Soemmeringia, Cyclocarpa, Kotschya, Smithia, Geissaspis, Bryaspis and Humularia (Rudd, 1981). Such close relationships were more recently confirmed by DNA sequence analysis (Lavin et al., 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2007). The aim of this study was first to conduct a molecular phylogenetic analysis including 38 species of Aeschynomene originating from both the New and Old World. By using two genomic and chloroplastic markers, ncDNA (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2) and the cpDNA (trnL) locus, respectively, we reconstructed the phylogenetic relationship among these Aeschynomene accessions, together with related species and genera. We also estimated the withinspecies diversity of four Aeschynomene species (A. americana, A. indica, A. sensitiva, and Aeschynomene villosa) in order to infer its possible influence on the phylogenetic reconstruction, and to link it with the geographic distribution of the accessions. We then tested most species for their ability to form root and stem nodules with various rhizobial strains, harboring nod genes or not, and consequently constructed a putative evolution of the various nodulation types found in the genus. Taxonomical and nodulation issues are discussed in the light of this phylogenetic and nodulation character-based evolution construction. Materials and Methods Sampling materials This study included 38 neotropical or Old World different Aeschynomene species (Table 1), and from one to 11 accessions per species. Whenever possible, we included several individuals from the same species, sampled from the widest possible geographical area. Seventy-one different accessions were included in total, both from our experiments and via sequences retrieved from Lavin et al. (2001) and Ribeiro et al. (2007). Table 1 lists all taxa included in the study, their sources and geographic origin, their nodulation characteristics (when tested), and EMBL accession numbers. Several related genera (15) were also included in the analyses, as previous studies had suggested their close relationship and/or their phylogenetic intermingling with the genus Aeschynomene. All of these sequences, except for four from Smithia abyssinica and Kotschya lutea, were retrieved from GenBank and were originally published in Lavin et al. (2001) and Ribeiro et al. (2007). Plant DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing Total genomic DNA was isolated using the modified CTAB extraction method (Doyle & Doyle, 1987) from new leaves of New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist 1250 Research Table 1 Characteristics of the species and samples included in the study Species Aeschynomene abyssinica Aeschynomene afraspera Aeschynomene afraspera Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene americana Aeschynomene aspera Aeschynomene bella Aeschynomene brasiliana var brasiliana Aeschynomene brasiliana Aeschynomene brevifolia Aeschynomene ciliata Aeschynomene crassicaulis Aeschynomene cristata Aeschynomene deamii Aeschynomene denticulata Aeschynomene evenia Aeschynomene elaphroxylon Aeschynomene falcata Aeschynomene falcata Aeschynomene fascicularis Aeschynomene filosa Aeschynomene fluitans Aeschynomene fluminensis Aeschynomene fluminensis Aeschynomene histrix Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica clone a Aeschynomene indica clone b Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene indica Aeschynomene martii Aeschynomene montevidensis Country and locality of origin Zimbabwe Senegal Senegal Costa Rica Guadeloupe (West Indies) French Guiana, Remire Mexico Panama Venezuela Sri Lanka Tanzanie Brazil, S~ao Paulo Brazil Madagascar Colombia Senegal, Niokolokoba Democratic Republic of Congo Mexico, Tlacotalpan, Veracruz Brazil USA Floride Senegal Brazil South Africa Venezuela, M
erida Mexico Zambia Colombia Brazil French Guiana, Kourou USA Louisana Voucher number Stem nodule/root nodule a GenBank accession ORS278 ITS/5.8S trnL intron Sequence references ORS285 USDA110 CPI 52331B USDA PI 544341 USDA PI 544080 USDA PI 544113 USDA PI 544122 IRRI No. 13020 ILRI 18422 V. Stranghetti 765 CIAT7589 CPI 52335 IRRI No. 13078 / / / / +/+ +/+ / / /+ /+ /+ /+ KC54029 FM242584 FM242585 FM242591 FM242586 KC560746 FM211217 FM211218 FM211224 FM211219 TS TS TS TS TS / / /+ FM242587 FM211220 TS / / / / / / / +/+ /+ /+ /+ /+ FM242588 FM242589 FM242590 FM242623 KC540628 EF451087 FM211221 FL211222 FM211223 FM211257 KC560747 EF451126 KC540627 KC540626 FM242624 FM242594 KC560748 KC560749 FM211258 FM211227 TS TS TS TS TS Ribeiro et al. (2007) TS TS TS TS /+ FM242625 KC560760 TS / +/+ +/+ / +/+ / / / +/+ +/+ / KC540625 FM211238 TS IRRI No. 13003 USDA PI 572567 +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ / / USDA PI 322289 USDA PI 364378 Lavin 5730 / / / / FM242626 KC163288 KC540624 FM242596 FM242597 AF189025 FM211260 FM211228 KC560751 FM211229 FM211230 AF208929 +/+ +/+ / / / / +/+ +/+ / /+ /+ /+ KC540623 KC540622 FM242627 FM242598 FM242599 KC560752 KC560753 FM211261 FM211231 FM211232 TS TS TS TS TS Lavin et al. (2001) TS TS TS TS TS NLU3 U59892 AF208927 Carulli 58 AF068141 IRRI No. 12146 CPI 87516 CPI 52338 IRRI No. 11009 /+ /+ USA North Carolina Senegal India Zambia USDA PI196206 USDA PI225551 +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ / / / FM242601 KC560764 FM211233 FM211234 FM211235 Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) TS TS TS Zambia USDA PI225551 +/+ +/+ / KC560765 FM211235 TS +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ / / / / / / FM242603 EF451088 FM211236 FM211242 FM211254 FM211255 FM211256 FM211266 EF451127 TS TS TS TS TS TS Ribeiro et al. (2007) KC540621 KC560754 TS Australia Senegal, Kaolack Senegal, Kaolack Senegal Senegal Zimbabwe Brazil, Minas Gerais, Mato Verde Uruguay New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com IRRI No. 13015 V.C. Souza 5455 M. Zabaleta. Montevideo / / FM242621 Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 1251 Table 1 (Continued) Species Country and locality of origin Aeschynomene pfundii Senegal Brazil, Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Colombia Zimbabwe, National Botanic Gardens Zimbabwe Aeschynomene pratensis Aeschynomene purpusii Brazil Mexico, Oaxaca Aeschynomene rudis USA, Florida Aeschynomene rudis Mexico, Laguna, Veracruz Brazil Mexico, Juan Campestre, Veracruz Mexico, Tenango, Morelos Mexico Senegal Guadeloupe, Pointe-a-Pitre Senegal French Guiana French Guiana French Guiana Guadeloupe, Belle Plaine Guadeloupe, Pointe-a -Pitre Senegal Aeschynomene nilotica Aeschynomene paniculata Aeschynomene parviflora Aeschynomene pfundii Aeschynomene rudis Aeschynomene rudis Aeschynomene scabra Aeschynomene scabra Aeschynomene schimperi Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene sensitiva Aeschynomene tambacoundensis Aeschynomene uniflora Aeschynomene villosa Aeschynomene villosa Aeschynomene villosa Aeschynomene villosa Aeschynomene virginica Dem. Republic of Congo Mexico Mexico Mexico South America USA Virginia Voucher number IRRI No. 14040 P.O. Moraes. J.A. Lombardi 2689 Stem nodule/root nodule a GenBank accession ORS278 / USDA110 ITS/5.8S trnL intron +/+ +/+ KC560767 EF451086 KC560756 EF451125 TS Ribeiro et al. (2007) KC540620 AF189026 KC560755 AF208930 TS Lavin et al. (2001) /+ FM242629 FM211263 TS IRFL 2854 Matt Lavin. Montana IRRI No. 13006 Lavin 5325 Matt Lavin. Montana USDA PI 296044 IRRI No. 12156 IRRI No. 13158 / / +/+ +/+ / FM242630 FM211264 AF208928 +/+ +/+ / FM242631 FM211265 TS Lavin et al. (2001) TS +/+ +/+ / FM242604 FM211237 TS +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ / / FM242609 FM242615 FM211243 FM211249 TS TS +/+ +/+ / FM242605 FM211239 TS +/+ / +/+ +/+ / +/+ / /+ / FM242632 FM242633 FM242606 FM211267 KC560757 FM211240 TS TS TS +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ / / / / / FM242607 FM242610 FM242611 FM242612 FM242613 FM211241 FM211244 FM211245 FM211246 FM211247 TS TS TS TS TS +/+ +/+ / FM242614 FM211248 TS +/+ +/+ / FM242634 FM211269 TS / / /+ FM242635 KC560759 TS / / / / +/+ / / / / +/+ /+ /+ /+ /+ / FM242616 FM242617 FM242618 FM242619 KC560766 FM211250 FM211251 FM211252 FM211253 FM211272 TS TS TS TS TS EF451089 EF451128 Ribeiro et al. (2007) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Ribeiro et al. (2007) Lavin et al. (2001) Ribeiro et al. (2007) Adesmia lanata Brazil, Minas Gerais Argentina USDA PI 420300 Matt Lavin Montana J.A. Lombardi 3725 Lavin 8256 Bryaspis lupulina Sierra Leone Dawe 424 AF204234 AF208932 Dalbergia brasiliensis Brazil, S~ao Paulo In^es Cordeiro EF451076 EF451115 Dalbergia congestiflora El Salvador, Santa Ana, Metapan Brazil, Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Hughes 1253 AF068140 AF208924 J.P. Lemos Filho S.n. EF451068 EF451107 Aeschynomene vogelii Dalbergia villosa Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust Sequence references ORS285 AF208901 New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist 1252 Research Table 1 (Continued) Species Country and locality of origin Discolobium psoraleifolium Argentina, Formosa, Discolobium pulchellum Bolivia, Santa Cruz: Chiquitos, M
exico, Oaxaca, San Pedro Totalapan Malawi Diphysa ormocarpoides Geissaspis descampsii Kotschya aeschynomenoides Kotschya lutea Kotschya ochreata Machaerium acutifolium Machaerium nyctitans Machaerium opacum Ormocarpopsis itremoensis Ormocarpum keniense Pictetia marginata Sauv. Poecilanthe parviflora Smithia abyssinica Smithia ciliata Soemmeringia semperflorens Weberbauerella brongniartioides Zornia sp. Malawi Guinea French Guinea Brazil, Minas Gerais, Nova Ponte Brazil, Minas Gerais, Igarap
e Brazil, Minas Gerais, S~ao Goncßalo do Rio Preto Madagascar, Fianarantsoa Kenya, Meru Cuba, Hogu
ın, Sierra Nipe Brazil, Rio de Janeiro Ethiopia Nepal Brazil, Roraima Per
u, Arequipa, Lomas de Mollendo M
exico, Zacatecas, Fresnillo Stem nodule/root nodule a GenBank accession ORS278 ITS/5.8S trnL intron Cristobal & Krapovickas 2167 Frey et al. 531 AF189058 AF208964 Lavin et al. (2001) AF189059 AF208963 Saynes V. 1286 (MEXU) AF068168 AF208912 Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Voucher number ORS285 USDA110 Hilliard & Burtt 4305 Salubeni 3060 (E) AF208931 AF208934 KC560762 KC560761 AF208935 E. Tameir~ao Neto 2190 EF451090 EF451129 C.V. Mendoncßa 455 J.A. Lombardi 4068 EF451082 EF451121 EF451097 EF451137 DuPuy 2363 AF068149 AF208918 Faden 74/958 AF068155 AF208917 Lavin 7108 AF068176 AF208910 Lima s.n. AF187089 AF208897 ILRI 8360 Stainton 4048 (E) Lewis 1600 KC560763 KC560758 AF208933 AF189027 AF208937 Dillon 3909 AF189028 AF208909 Lavin 5039 AF183500 AF208903 Armour 8400 Sequence references Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) TS Lavin et al. (2001) Ribeiro et al. (2007) Ribeiro et al. (2007) Ribeiro et al. (2007) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) TS Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) Lavin et al. (2001) TS, this study. Results of the inoculation tests: +/+, nodules on stems and roots; /+, nodules only on roots; / , complete lack of nodulation. a plants germinated from seeds and which were grown in our glasshouse. The chloroplast DNA trnL intron (Bakker et al., 2000) and the nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS/5.8S region (Baldwin et al., 1995) were chosen for phylogenetic analyses because they have been shown to be informative within and among closely related legume genera (Lavin et al., 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2007). The trnL (UAA) intron was amplified and sequenced using primers B49317 and A49855 (Taberlet et al., 1991). Primer pairs used for PCR to amplify and sequence the ITS region flanked the end of the 18S RNA gene ITS18 and the beginning of the 26S RNA gene ITS26 (Kass & Wink, 1997; Beyra-M & Lavin, New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com 1999; Delgado-Salinas et al., 1999). The PCR products were purified using a Quiaquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sequencing was performed by Macrogen inc. (Seoul, Korea) using a ABI Prism 377 DNA sequencer. Bacterial strains and culture growth conditions For both root and stem inoculation, three rhizobial strains were used: the nod gene-lacking photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium strain ORS278, the nod gene-containing photosynthetic Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Bradyrhizobium strain ORS285, and the ‘classical’ nonphotosynthetic Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens strain USDA110. All strains were grown aerobically in Yeast Mannitol (YM) medium (Vincent, 1970) on a gyratory shaker (170 rpm) at 37°C, under a light : dark cycle (16 h : 8 h) for photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium. Root and stem inoculation Aeschynomene seeds were surface-sterilized and dormancy was broken with 96% H2SO4 for 10–45 min, depending on the seed size for each species, and then rinsed six times in sterile distilled water to remove all traces of acid. To allow germination, seeds were placed in sterile water for 24 h at 30°C. They were then transferred either to Gibson tubes to test for root nodulation, or to glasshouse pots (plastic pots 8 cm in diameter) containing 500 g of sterilized sandy soil for stem nodulation. Inoculations of plants by the different rhizobial strains were performed both at the root level (via inoculation in hydroponic conditions, owing to the semiaquatic habit of the tested plants) and at the stem level (via inoculation of nonsubmerged stems by their careful ‘painting’ with the inocula), as already described (Giraud et al., 2000). Roots of plants grown in tubes were observed for root nodule formation 2–3 wk after inoculation. Stems of plants grown in the glasshouse were observed for stem nodulation 2–4 wk after inoculation. Sequences alignment and phylogenetic analyses Multiple alignments were performed for the trnL sequences with ClustalX, version 1.63b (Larkin et al., 2007), and alignments were manually corrected using GeneDoc (Nicholas et al., 1997). Phylogenetic reconstruction was performed using a maximum likelihood approach. The best model of molecular evolution for the trnL alignment was chosen using jmodeltest (Darriba et al., 2012). Most probable trees were obtained using Phyml (Guindon et al., 2009) by implementing previously estimated parameters. Statistical tests for branch supports were estimated using nonparametric bootstraps calculated on 100 replicates, implemented in Phyml. Owing to the very high amount of nucleotide divergence among the ITS sequences, a confident alignment, including all taxa, could not be achieved easily with the former approach. We therefore conducted a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using the software package Bali-Phy (Suchard & Redelings, 2006). Alignment uncertainties are taken into account by integrating the overall alignments in proportion to their posterior probabilities conjointly with phylogeny topology estimations. Because of the slowness of the analysis with the entire data set, we performed a first run with only 17 sequences of the 63 in the data set. These sequences were chosen according to a rough alignment obtained with ClustalX followed by NJ clustering. Each cluster was checked for the high (and alignable) similarity among sequences falling in it, and one sequence per clade was chosen. We implemented a Tamura-Nei model of molecular evolution (Tamura & Nei, 1993) with the RS07 (Redelings & Suchard, 2007) insertion/deletion model. Five independent runs were Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust Research 1253 performed with this data subset, with 30 000 iterations each. Following the Bali-Phy user’s guide, we estimated the SD across runs of the posterior probabilities for each run and averaged the values across splits. We also used the potential scale reduction factor to check that different runs had similar posterior distributions. The consensus alignment of the 17 sequences was then used in a second step as a guideline for the alignment of the other sequences. Based on this alignment, we estimated three different models of molecular evolution corresponding to the three ITS1, 5.8S and ITS2 regions that clearly displayed very different amounts of mutation accumulation, and reconstructed the phylogeny using these three models implemented in MrBayes software (Ronquist et al., 2012). Node supports were estimated with the posterior probabilities obtained in the MCMC analysis. In both phylogenies, the two sequences from Andira galeaottiana and Vatairea sp. were chosen as outgroups, based on both traditional classification (Polhill, 1981) and the results of previous DNA phylogenies (Hu et al., 2000; Lavin et al., 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2007). The topologies of the two phylogenetic trees being roughly similar, we concatenated the two data sets and reconstructed a combined tree. ITS sequences were missing for five species (Smithia ciliata, Kotschya aeschynomenoides, Kotschya ochreata, Aeschynomene purpusii, and Geissaspis descampsii), and these were indicated as missing data in the data matrix. We used MrBayes software (Ronquist et al., 2012) and applied different models of molecular evolution on each dataset partition. The four models (three for ITS and one for trnL) applied to the full dataset were used in an MCMC phylogenetic search. Searches were performed three times to check that the same equilibrium and final topology were achieved each time. In order to study the evolution of the genus, we mapped onto the concatenated ITS-trnL phylogeny the two nodulation characters, that is, stem and Nod-independent nodulation abilities. We applied an unordered and equally weighted scheme, considering that transitions in either direction between the different states of character were equally likely, with no a priori assumptions concerning the ancestral state of the clade. Data deposition Sampled species, their localities, voucher specimens, and GenBank data base accession numbers for trnL intron and ITS sequences are listed in Table 1. Results ITS and trnL sequences We sequenced 65 different plant accessions (see Table 1) from Aeschynomene and other genera in this study. Together with other sequences retrieved from the databank, in total we analyzed the sequences for 71 Aeschynomene accessions and 24 from other related species. In contrast to almost the whole set of analyzed accessions for which single PCR products were obtained after amplifying the ITS and trnL markers, the electrophoregrams New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com 1254 Research obtained for the ITS sequences from some A. indica accessions displayed several double peaks. As these double peaks were common and at the same position as these accessions, we cloned and sequenced the PCR product for the accession USDA PI225551, and two different sequences were subsequently obtained. A similar situation was also previously observed for an accession of Aeschynomene evenia (IRFL 6945), for which two different ITS sequences were obtained (Arrighi et al., 2013). Therefore, for these two species (A. indica and A. evenia), as the two sequences obtained were very similar each time they were analyzed (six Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms over 617 bp for both), and also fell into the same clade (data not shown), we decided to consider only one copy of ITS for each species for the subsequent phylogenetic analysis. The Aeschynomene ITS region obtained for 70 accessions ranged in length from 597 bp (Aeschynomene filosa) to 623 bp (A. americana). The trnL regions were sequenced for 63 Aeschynomene accessions, and eight other sequences were retrieved from GenBank. Sequences ranged from 436 bp (A. villosa and Aeschynomene parviflora) to 477 bp (A. afraspera and A. nilotica). Five Aeschynomene species were represented by > two accessions: A. americana (six accessions), A. indica (11), A. sensitiva (seven), Aeschynomene rudis (four) and A. villosa (four). The within-species nucleotide divergence among sequences was low, ranging from 0 to 1% for the ITS sequences. Divergence was even lower for trnL sequences, with a maximum value of 0.4% (two mutations over the 456 bp sequence length for A. indica). Phylogenetic analyses always clustered all accessions from the same species in the same clade (data not shown). Consequently, we only kept one accession per species in all subsequent analyses. Alignments and phylogenetic analysis The trnL aligned matrix included 39 sequences, each from a different Aeschynomene species, and 31 other species from 22 different genera. The ITS analyses resulted in a 786 bp long matrix, with 38 Aeschynomene sequences and 27 from other genera. The two phylogenies being very similar, we combined the two data sets into a single phylogenetic analysis (the two single locus trees are given and described in Supporting Information Figs S1, S2). For this, we reconstructed a Maximum Likelihood Phylogeny (Fig. 2). Four Aeschynomene clades were found, each supported with high posterior probabilities from the MrBayes analysis. Clade 1 grouped together 10 Aeschynomene species, all from subgenus Ochopodium, in a sister clade to the two Machaerium and Dalbergia genera. Other Aeschynomene species fell into the same monophyletic branch, but were mixed with other genera. The first emerging clade 2 grouped four Aeschynomene species, clade 3 grouped 12 species, and finally clade 4 grouped together 12 Aeschynomene species plus five other genera in a clade with an unresolved basal branching. Several species from each of the two genera Smithia and Kotschya were grouped together, suggesting a true evolutionary relationship among them within each genus. A close relationship among Aeschynomene bella, Aeschynomene abyssinica and Geissaspis descampii was observed, but this was based on a single trnL sequence of G. descampii retrieved from New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Genbank and thus should be verified with alternative sequences and vouchers. The grouping of Bryaspis lupulina with several Aeschynomene species in an unresolved, well supported clade is also notable. It is worth noting that the two stem-nodulating Discolobium species, which were included in the phylogeny, formed another clade that clearly belongs to the Dalbergia tribe, but it is not related to the genus Aeschynomene. Evolution of symbiotic features among Aeschynomene groups Fifty-six Aeschynomene accessions were tested for stem and root nodulation using three different strains, USDA110, ORS285 and ORS278, which permitted the distinction of the three inoculation groups defined by Alazard (1985) (cf. Fig. 1). Our tests did not reveal any within-species variation for nodulation phenotype when several accessions were used (Table 1). Among the 26 Aeschynomene species tested, 10 were nodulated only by strain USDA110, and formed only root nodules, and thus these Aeschynomene species were classified as belonging to the inoculation group I. Four species formed root nodules with USDA110, and root and stem nodules with the nod gene-containing strain ORS285, and thus belonged to the inoculation group II. Aeschynomene fluminensis could form stem nodules with ORS285, but no stem nodules in nonsubmerged conditions, which is in accordance with the previous observations of Loureiro et al. (1995), who showed that this species could form stem nodules with photosynthetic bacteria, but only under flooded conditions. Interestingly, among the Aeschynomene species, only A. crassicaulis and Aeschynomene fluitans possess the notable characteristic of having a floating stem with nodules developed on it (Fig. 2). For A. crassicaulis, we confirmed it could be nodulated only by the nonphotosynthetic strain USDA 110, and that flooding was compulsory for stem nodulation, as reported previously by Boivin et al. (1997). Finally, 12 species formed root and stem nodules with ORS285, but also with the nod gene-lacking strain ORS278, and were thus defined as belonging to inoculation group III. We mapped the two symbiotic characters, stem nodulation and Nod-independent nodulation, onto the combined data set phylogeny. For other genera for which we did not perform any nodulation tests, and for which no published information is available with regard to their stem nodulation, we considered them as classical root-nodulating species. Similarly, none of them were considered as able to nodulate with strains lacking nod genes, even if we could not firmly exclude this option (see the Discussion section). Based on an unweighted scheme, and no a priori assumptions about ancestral states, the concatenated phylogeny suggested at least three independent emergences of the stem nodulation ability, leading to A. fluminensis, clade 3, and a group of four species within clade 4 (Fig. 2). The evolutionary pattern of the history of the Nod gene-independent character appears to be relatively simple, as all the Aeschynomene species that can form an efficient symbiosis with the nod gene-lacking strain clustered in a single clade, thus revealing a unique emergence of this ability. Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Research 1255 Andira galeottiana Vatairea sp. Poecilanthe parviflora Apoplanesia paniculata Amorpha fruticosa Discolobium psoraleifolium Discolobium genus Discolobium pulchellum Adesmia lanata Chaetocalyx blanchetiana Amicia glandulosa Zornia sp. Weberbauerella brongniartioides Dalbergia villosa Dalbergia brasiliensis Dalbergia genus Dalbergia congestiflora Machaerium nyctitans Machaerium acutifolium Machaerium genus Machaerium opacum A.martii A.fascicularis A.purpusii A.histrix I Clade 1 Group I A.paniculata A.vogelii Subgenus A.brasiliana A.brevifolia Ochopodium A.brasiliana var. brasiliana A.falcata I Pictetia marginata Diphysa ormocarpoides Ormocarpum coeruleum Ormocarpopsis itremoensis Ormocarpum keniense A. americana I Clade 2 A. villosa I A.fluminensis II Group I & II A.parviflora A.montevidensis I A.deamii A.filosa A.tambacoundensis A.pratensis A.sensitiva A.ciliata A.denticulata A.evenia (1) Clade 3 A.indica (2) group A.scabra Group III A.rudis (3) III A.virginica Soemmeringia semperflorens Smithia abyssinica Smithia ciliata A.bella 1 2 : Posterior probability > 0.95 : 0.75 > Pp > 0.95 Nod-independent nodulation Stem nodulation Clade 4 Group I & II + Bryaspis genus 3 A.abyssinica Geissaspis descampsii Kotschya aeschynomenoides Kotschya lutea Kotschya ochreata Bryaspis lupulina A. crassicaulis I A. pfundii I A.elaphroxylon I A. uniflora I (4) A.cristata I A. schimperi I A. aspera II A. afraspera II (5) A. nilotica II (6) A. fluitans 4 5 6 0.06 Fig. 2 ITS+trnL combined data set phylogeny. The phylogenetic reconstruction was done using Phyml (Guindon et al., 2009) (see the main text for details). Open squares indicate a posterior probability (PP) of this node > 0.95 in the Phyml analysis. Closed squares indicate a PP between 0.75 and 0.95. Groups (I, II, III) are related to Aeschynomene nodulation group (see Fig. 1). The red star indicates clade 3 within which clusters are all Nod gene-independent Aeschynomene species (i.e. group III, framed in a gray box bordered with a complete line). The group II Aeschynomene species are framed in the two gray boxes bordered with a dotted line. Species that were tested for nodulation and that were classified as belonging to groups I or II are indicated with a I or II following their name (all species from group III were tested). A crossed green circle indicates the emergence of the stem nodulation ability in a parsimonious character reconstruction evolution. The number (1–6) following a species name refers to illustrations of stem nodulation. Picture 4 (Aeschynomene uniflora) illustrates an example of group I species forming adventitious root nodules with strain USDA110 on stems under flooded conditions. A red circle frames sparse nodulation in pictures 1–3. Discussion All the aquatic Aeschynomene species fall into a single clade, but delineation of the genus requires revision The genus Aeschynomene is complex, containing between 160 and 180 different species, possibly more, and is still increasing in size, as suggested by the recently described new species Aeschynomene sousae and Aeschynomene sabulicola (Queiroz & Cardoso, 2008; Delgado-Salinas & Sotuyo, 2012). As shown in previous studies (Lavin et al., 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2007), the genus Aeschynomene is polyphyletic in the two phylogenies we obtained, with species falling into two well-separated clades. The fact that the ITS and trnL sequences are retrieved from nuclear and chloroplastic genomes, respectively, reinforces the confidence we have in a true evolutionary split between the two clades. Although the aim of this Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust study was not to redefine the borders of the genus, the phylogenies strongly suggest that the subgenus Ochopodium (clade 1 in our phylogeny) should be elevated to the genus rank, as a sister clade of Machaerium. Moreover, since A. aspera L., the type species of the genus Aeschynomene, falls into clade 4, the subgenus Ochopodium could not retain the name ‘Aeschynomene’ and would thus require renaming. All the other Aeschynomene species fall into the same main branch. The first two emerging clades (2 and 3) mostly contain American species (with the exception of Aeschynomene tambacoundensis, which is endemic to West Africa, and A. indica, which has a pantropical distribution), whereas clade 4 includes African species and one Asian species (A. aspera). America thus appears to be the center of origin of the genus, with a secondary center of diversification in Africa. All these Aeschynomene species within this main branch (i.e. clades 2–4) share the same aquatic or semiaquatic habitat. Other New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com 1256 Research New Phytologist related genera (Kotschya, Smithia, Geissaspis, Soemmeringia, and Bryaspis) can also be found in humid habitats, although they are not described as hydrophytes (Lewis et al., 2005). This ability to grow in or at the border of ponds (either permanent or temporary) has apparently been acquired before the diversification of all these species and genera, and might play a role in the ability of some Aeschynomene species to make stem nodules (see next paragraph). The intermingling of the different genera makes their true delimitation unclear. Bryaspis and Soemmeringia include two and one species, respectively, whereas the others contain from three (Geissaspis) to 30 (Kotschya) different species. We cannot rule out the possibility that the molecular phylogenies, based on two sequences, might give false, or uncertain, evolutionary reconstructions. In addition, misidentification, as well as other factors that could have confused the phylogenetic pattern (i.e. lineage sorting, ancestral polymorphism) might have interfered in our results. Nevertheless, and in spite of these possibilities, whether several Aeschynomene species should be transferred to another existing genus, or conversely, whether several other genera should be included within a larger genus Aeschynomene remains an open question that should be explored further. A hydrophytic ecology thus appears to be an essential requirement for the evolution of the ability to form stem nodules, but it is not on its own sufficient for it, and so it would appear to be also related to factors other than environmental ones, such as bacterial ecology, or to specific recognition mechanisms between the bacteria (rhizobia) and the host plants. Stem nodulation in the genus Aeschynomene might have evolved in a two-step process, first with a genetic predisposition (at the base of the clade) to produce adventitious root initials all along the stem. Previous studies have shown that rhizobia colonize the stem via epidermal fissures (cracks) generated by the emergence of adventitious root primordia (Sprent, 1989; Boogerd & van Rossum, 1997) A second, still unknown, mutation that would have appeared several times will have led to the various clades in which the true stem-nodulating species fall. This is possibly linked to the ability of protruding root primordia to pierce the epidermal layer and thus to form at their base a large annular cavity in which the bacteria can easily multiply (Boivin et al., 1997; Giraud et al., 2000). Deciphering the genetic mutation(s) that drive stem nodulation in each species would help in confirming this two-step hypothesis. The stem nodulation character has emerged, or been maintained, several times in the aquatic Aeschynomene species The phylogeny of Aeschynomene suggests that Nod gene-independent nodulation is a derived character The scarcity of stem nodulation among the legume genera has been underlined previously, being reported in only four different genera (Aeschynomene, Discolobium, Neptunia, and Sesbania; Boivin et al., 1997), with ‘genuine’ stem nodules only recognized in the first two genera, as defined in the Introduction. The distribution of stem-nodulating species, with or without genuine stem nodules, throughout the Leguminosae (Lavin et al., 2001; Wojciechowski et al., 2004; the present study) strongly suggests that the ability to form these structures on stems has evolved independently several times. Contrary to the three other stem-nodulating genera, stem nodulation in the genus Aeschynomene is widespread, which leaves open the possibility of analyzing its evolution at a much narrower evolutionary level. Excluding clade 1 (Ochopodium) from the analysis, the most parsimonious reconstruction of evolution suggests that the ‘stem nodulation ability’ has possibly emerged three times during the diversification of the genus. The true number of transition and/ or reversions is obviously difficult to assess, especially as the probability of occurrence of each event is most certainly unequal. In addition, its distribution among all these species clearly shows that this character is not stable, with several emergences or losses occurring alternately within a short period (at least in evolutionary terms). Interestingly, clades 2–4 include the hydrophytic Aeschynomene species, and as all stem-nodulated Aeschynomene are hydrophytes, it suggests an influence of waterlogged/flooded conditions on the emergence of the stem nodulation characteristic. All the other genera within clade 4 grow along riverbanks or ponds (Lewis et al., 2005), but none have been reported to form stem nodules. New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com All Aeschynomene species that are able to form an efficient symbiosis with bacteria lacking nodulation genes, and thus not producing NFs, fall into a single clade. Moreover, this clade does not include any other species that compulsorily require NFs to interact efficiently with symbiotic rhizobia. The most parsimonious and simplest view of evolution leads to a single emergence of the capacity to interact with bacteria without the production of NF. Consequently, Nod gene-independent nodulation should be viewed as a derived and more recent character compared with NF-mediated nodulation, as previously suggested by Okubo et al. (2012). However, this evolutionary scenario might not be so simple. Recently, Madsen et al. (2010) showed that Lotus japonicus double mutants, affected in some determinants of the NF perception and signaling pathway, were occasionally able to form functional nodules when the plants were inoculated with a compatible rhizobial strain unable to produce NF. In such cases, nodules could be formed after a bacterial intercellular infection of the root (i.e. without the formation of infection threads). Based on these results, the authors suggested that direct intercellular infection may constitute an ancient invasion path, and that the most highly evolved state envisaged would be the root hair infection mode that requires NF receptors, which is in direct contradiction with our phylogenetic conclusions based upon the genus Aeschynomene. The uncertainty as to whether NF independence is an ancestral or derived character cannot be dispelled easily. The symbiosis between actinorhizal plants and Frankia, which is considered to have emerged before the Rhizobium–legume symbiosis, does not involve the synthesis of NFs by the bacteria, but it does recruit some common determinants of the Nod-dependent signaling pathway described in model legumes (Normand et al., 2007; Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Gherbi et al., 2008). Following on from these hypotheses, Okubo et al. (2012) raised several possible scenarios, including both Nod gene-independent and Nod gene-dependent ancestries, and even an hypothesis in which the Aeschynomene ancestor was not nodulated, but later acquired the Nod gene-independent symbiotic pathways. It should also be stressed that, as underlined by Madsen et al. (2010), the two alternative invasion modes, Nod geneindependent or Nod gene-dependent, are not mutually exclusive. The question of whether NF independence is ancestral, derived, or mixed ability remains open, and illustrates how experimental vs phylogenetic approaches might give conflicting results. This question is closely akin to that posed by Masson-Boivin et al. (2009) who, among several outstanding questions to be explored, asked if ‘symbiosis evolved from primitive (e.g. NFindependent, crack entry) to sophisticated (NF, infection thread) strategies’, although it should also be recognized that the NFindependent symbiosis should not necessarily always be viewed as being more primitive than the NF-dependent one, as, in evolution, simplest does not necessarily mean less evolved. Deciphering the details of the NF-independent strategy will be the next step for elucidating which of these alternative evolutionary possibilities is the correct one. As suggested by Arrighi et al. (2012), it might be achieved through the use of A. evenia as a model legume, as it displays all the characteristics required for genetic and molecular analyses (i.e. it is a short-perennial and autogamous diploid species with a relatively small genome). Nod-independent nodulation occurrence and evolution We cannot fully reject the possibility that the Nod gene-independent nodulation process was retained in genera and clades other than Aeschynomene, especially those that are infected following a crack entry process, except that it has never been demonstrated or proven before. The intercellular infection process observed in Aeschynomene species is supposedly found in > 25% of legumes (Sprent, 2007). We may then consider that within these thousands of species, among which a majority have never been studied in terms of their nodulating symbiosis, many of them might be able to use a Nod gene-independent interaction mechanism with their symbiotic rhizobial partners. At present, no specific genetic markers exist, in either the plant or the bacterial symbionts, to easily detect such ability, or to study its frequency and distribution along a wide taxonomic and phylogenetic sampling. The only alternative currently available is to search for the presence, or not, of nod genes within bacterial symbionts isolated from nodules, which is not trivial, except through full genome sequencing. Moreover, one plant species might be able to interact with Nod gene-producing bacteria, but still be able to interact in a Nod gene-independent manner, such as observed for the group III Aeschynomene species, thus making it even more complex to analyze the system. On the other hand, it is worth noting that all rhizobial strains sampled so far, either with or without nod genes, which can make efficient nodules with group III Aeschynomene species, fall into a single clade (Fig. 1). This pattern suggests that the ability to form nodules without NF, rather than being driven solely by the plant, Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust Research 1257 has also been dependent on a specific single bacterial evolution/ mutation. Aeschynomene species in group III only form an efficient symbiosis with group D and E bacterial isolates, and reciprocally, nod gene-lacking strains are strictly specific to group III Aeschynomene species. This reciprocal specificity is reminiscent of the gene-for-gene interaction in phytopathology (Flor, 1942), and opens up opportunities for a coevolution process. The current associations might thus have resulted from both the bacterial acquisition of a Nod gene-independent specific recognition mechanism (e.g. one linked to an unknown receptor), and a specific mutation in the plant ancestor, that together would have mediated the high specificity observed in this interaction. The scarcity of Nod gene-independent symbiotic interactions among legumes could then be explained by the requirement for such a joint evolution of the two symbiotic partners. Obviously several questions remain, such as the nature of the evolutionary pressures that would have driven the concordant evolution between the two partners during the emergence of Nod gene-independent nodulation, as well as the role of photosynthesis in the diversification of the symbiotic bacteria. All these questions, plus the genetic and physiological investigations underlying them, will pave the way for many fascinating new studies. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to M. Boursot for help with the glasshouse experiments, and P. Tisseyre for management of strain collection. We would like to thank F. Crozier and S. Gonzalez from ‘Herbier de Guyane’ (Cayenne, IRD) for their help in sampling Aeschynomene plants in French Guiana and J. L. Contreras (Universidad Aut
onoma de Puebla, M
exico) for help with sampling in Mexico. We also thank M. Zabaleta (University of Montevideo, Uruguay), L. G. Santos (CIAT, Colombia), A. Jorge (ILRI, Ethiopia) and S. Norton (AusPGRIS, Australia) for providing various seeds. We are extremely grateful to E. James for a remarkable re-reading and correction of the manuscript. We finally thank three anonymous reviewers for very helpful and interesting comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Alazard D. 1985. Stem and root nodulation in Aeschynomene spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 50: 732–734. Arrighi JF, Cartieaux F, Brown SC, Rodier-Goud M, Boursot M, Fardoux J, Patrel D, Gully D, Fabre S, Chaintreuil C et al. 2012. Aeschynomene evenia, a model plant for studying the molecular genetics of the Nod-independent rhizobium–legume symbiosis. Molecular Plant–Microbe Interactions 25: 851– 861. Arrighi JF, Cartieaux F, Chaintreuil C, Brown SC, Boursot M, Giraud E. 2013. Genotype delimitation in the Nod-independent model legume Aeschynomene evenia. PLoS ONE 8: e63836. Bakker FT, Culham A, Gomez-Martinez R, Carvalho J, Compton J, Dawtrey R, Gibby M. 2000. Patterns of nucleotide substitution in angiosperm cpDNA trnL (UAA)-trnF (GAA) regions. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17: 1146– 1155. Baldwin BG, Sanderson MJ, Porter JM, Wojciechowski MF, Campbell CS, Donoghue MJ. 1995. The ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA: a valuable New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com 1258 Research source of evidence on angiosperm phylogeny. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 247–277. Becker M, Ladha JK, Ottow JCG. 1988. Stem nodulating legumes as green manure for lowland rice. Journal of Crop Science 13: 121–127. Beyra-M A, Lavin M. 1999. Monograph of Pictetia (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae) and review of the Aeschynomeneae. Systematic Botany Monographs 56: 1–93. Boivin C, Ndoye I, Molouba F, De Lajudie P, Dupuy N, Dreyfus B. 1997. Stem nodulation in legumes: diversity, mechanisms, and unusual characteristics. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 16: 1–30. Bonaldi K, Gargani D, Prin Y, Fardoux J, Gully D, Nouwen N, Goormachtig S, Giraud E. 2011. Nodulation of Aeschynomene afraspera and A. indica by photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium Sp. Strain ORS285: the Nod-dependent versus the Nod-independent symbiotic interaction. Molecular Plant–Microbe. Interactions 24: 1359–1371. Boogerd FC, van Rossum D. 1997. Nodulation of groundnut by Bradyrhizobium: a simple infection process by crack entry. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 21: 5–27. Chaintreuil C, Boivin C, Dreyfus B, Giraud E. 2001. Characterization of the common nodulation genes of the photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium sp. ORS285 reveals the presence of a new insertion sequence upstream of nodA. FEMS Microbiology Letters 194: 83–86. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2012. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772. Delamuta JRM, Ribeiro RA, Orme~ no-Orrillo E, Melo IS, Mart
ınez-Romero E, Hungria M. 2013. Polyphasic evidence supporting the reclassification of Bradyrhizobium japonicum Group Ia strains as Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. doi: 10. 1099/ijs.0.049130-0. Delgado-Salinas A, Sotuyo S. 2012. A new species of Aeschynomene (Papilionoideae: Dalbergieae) from Oaxaca, Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 83: 329–333. Delgado-Salinas A, Turley T, Richman A, Lavin M. 1999. Phylogenetic analysis of the cultivated and wild species of Phaseolus (Fabaceae). Systematic Botany 23: 438–460. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical Bulletin 19: 11–15. Dreyfus BL, Dommergues YR. 1981. Nitrogen fixing nodules induced by Rhizobium on the stem of the tropical legume Sesbania rostrata. FEMS Microbiology Letters 10: 313–317. Eaglesham AR, Ellis J, Evan WR, Fleishmann DE, Hungria M, Hardy RWF. 1990. The first photosynthetic N2-fixing Rhizobium. In: Gresshoff PM, Stacey RL, Newton E, eds. Nitrogen fixation: achievements and objectives. New York, NY, USA: Chapman & Hall, 805–811. Eaglesham ARJ, Szalay AA. 1983. Aerial stem nodules on Aeschynomene spp. Plant Science Letters 29: 265–272. Evans WR, Fleischman DE, Calvert HE, Pyati PV, Alter GM, Rao NS. 1990. Bacteriochlorophyll and photosynthetic reaction centers in Rhizobium strain BTAi 1. Applied and Environment Microbiology 56: 3445–3449. Flor HH. 1942. Inheritance of pathogenicity in Melampsora lini. Phytopathology 32: 653–669. Gherbi H, Markmann K, Svistoonoff S, Estevan J, Autran D, Giczey G, Auguy F, Peret B, Laplaze L, Franche C et al. 2008. SymRK defines a common genetic basis for plant root endosymbioses with arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi, rhizobia, and Frankia bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105: 4928–4932. Giraud E, Fleischman D. 2004. Nitrogen-fixing symbiosis between photosynthetic bacteria and legumes. Photosynthesis Research 82: 115–130. Giraud E, Hannibal L, Fardoux J, Vermeglio A, Dreyfus B. 2000. Effect of Bradyrhizobium photosynthesis on stem nodulation of Aeschynomene sensitiva. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 14795–14800. Giraud E, Moulin L, Vallenet D, Barbe V, Cytryn E, Avarre JC, Jaubert M, Simon D, Cartieaux F, Prin Y et al. 2007. Legumes symbioses: absence of Nod genes in photosynthetic Bradyrhizobia. Science 316: 1307–1312. Goormachtig S, Capoen W, Holsters M. 2004. Rhizobium infection: lessons from the versatile nodulation behaviour of water-tolerant legumes. Trends in Plant Science 9: 518–522. New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Guindon S, Delsuc F, Dufayard JF, Gascuel O. 2009. Estimating maximum likelihood phylogenies with PhyML. Methods in Molecular Biology 537: 113–137. Heagerup O. 1928. En hygrofil baelgplante (Aeschynomene aspera L.) med bakterieknolde paa staenglen. Dansk Botanisk Arkiv 14: 1–9. Hu JM, Lavin M, Wojciechowski MF, Sanderson MJ. 2000. Phylogenetic systematics of the tribe Millettieae (Leguminosae) based on chloroplast trnK/ matK sequences and its implications for evolutionary patterns in Papilionoideae. American Journal of Botany 87: 418–430. James EK, Loureiro FM, Pott A, Pott VJ, Martins CM, Franco AA, Sprent JI. 2001. Flooding-tolerant legume symbioses from the Brazilian Pantanal. New Phytologist 150: 723–738. James EK, Sprent JI, Sutherland JM, Mcinroy SG, Minchin FR. 1992. The structure of nitrogen-fixing root-nodules on the aquatic mimosoid legume Neptunia plena. Annals of Botany 69: 173–180. Kass E, Wink M. 1997. Molecular phylogeny and phylogeography of Lupinus (Leguminosae) inferred from nucleotide sequences of the rbcL gene and ITS 1 + 2 regions of rDNA. Plant Systematics and Evolution 208: 139–167. Klitgaard BB, Lavin M. 2005. Dalbergieae. In: Lewis GP, Schrire BD, Mackinder BA, Lock JM, eds. Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing, 306–335. Ladha JK, Garcia M, Pareek RP, Rarivoson G. 1992. Relative contributions to nitrogenase (acetylene reducing) activity of stem and root-nodules in Sesbania rostrata. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 38: 577–583. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R et al. 2007. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23: 2947–2948. Lavin M, Pennington RT, Klitgaard BB, Sprent JI, de Lima HC, Gasson PE. 2001. The dalbergioid legumes (Fabaceae): delimitation of a pantropical monophyletic clade. American Journal of Botany 88: 503–533. Lewis G, Schrire B, Mackinder B, Lock M. 2005. Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing. Loureiro MF, Defaria SM, James EK, Pott A, Franco AA. 1994. Nitrogen-fixing stem nodules of the Legume, Discolobium pulchellum Benth. New Phytologist 128: 283–295. Loureiro MF, James EK, Sprent JI, Franco AA. 1995. Stem and root nodules on the tropical wetland legume Aeschynomene fluminensis. New Phytologist 130: 531–544. Mabberly DJ. 1997. The plant book. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Madsen LH, Tirichine L, Jurkiewicz A, Sullivan JT, Heckmann AB, Bek AS, Ronson CW, James EK, Stougaard J. 2010. The molecular network governing nodule organogenesis and infection in the model legume Lotus japonicus. Nature Communications 1: 10. Masson-Boivin C, Giraud E, Perret X, Batut J. 2009. Establishing nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with legumes: how many rhizobium recipes? Trends in Microbiology 17: 458–466. Mich
e L, Moulin L, Chaintreuil C, Contreras-Jimenez JL, Munive-Hernandez JA, Del Carmen Villegas-Hernandez M, Crozier F, B
ena G. 2010. Diversity analyses of Aeschynomene symbionts in Tropical Africa and Central America reveal that nod-independent stem nodulation is not restricted to photosynthetic bradyrhizobia. Environmental Microbiology 12: 2152–2164. Mornico D, Mich
e L, B
ena G, Nouwen N, Verm
eglio A, Vallenet D, Smith C, Giraud E, M
edigue C, Moulin L. 2012. Comparative genomics of Aeschynomene symbionts: insights into the ccological lifestyle of Nod-independent photosynthetic Bradyrhizobia. Genes 3: 35–61. Nicholas KB, Nicholas HB, Deerfield DWI. 1997. GeneDoc: analysis and visualization of genetic variation. Embnew.news 4: 14. Normand P, Lapierre P, Tisa LS, Gogarten JP, Alloisio N, Bagnarol E, Bassi CA, Berry AM, Bickhart DM, Choisne N et al. 2007. Genome characteristics of facultatively symbiotic Frankia sp. strains reflect host range and host plant biogeography. Genome Research 17: 7–15. Okubo T, Fukushima S, Minamisawa K. 2012. Evolution of Bradyrhizobium– Aeschynomene mutualism: living testimony of the ancient world or highly evolved state? Plant and Cell Physiology 53: 2000–2007. Polhill RM. 1981. Papilionoideae. In: Polhill RM, Raven PH, eds. Advances in legume systematics I. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing, 191–208. Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Queiroz LP, Cardoso DB. 2008. A new species of Aeschynomene L. (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) from a continental sand dune area in nothern Brazil. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 157: 749–753. Redelings BD, Suchard MA. 2007. Incorporating indel information into phylogeny estimation for rapidly emerging pathogens. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 40. Renier A, Maillet F, Fardoux J, Poinsot V, Giraud E, Nouwen N. 2011. Photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium Sp strain ORS285 synthesizes 2-O-methylfucosylated lipochitooligosaccharides for nod gene-dependent interaction with Aeschynomene plants. Molecular Plant–Microbe. Interactions 24: 1440–1447. Ribeiro RA, Lavin M, Lemos-Filho JP, Filho CVM, Dos Santos FR, Lovato MB. 2007. The genus Machaerium (Leguminosae) is more closely related to Aeschynomene Sect. Ochopodium than to Dalbergia: inferences from combined sequence data. Systematic Botany 32: 762–771. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Hohna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61: 539–542. Rudd VE. 1955. The American species of Aeschynomene. Contributions of the United States National Herbarium 32: 1–172. Rudd VE. 1981. Aeschynomeneae. In: Polhill RM, Raven PH, eds. Advances in legume systematics. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing, 347–354. Schaede R. 1940. Die Knollchen der adventiven wasserwurzeln von Neptunia oleracea und ihre Bakteriensymbiose. Planta 31: 1–21. Sprent JI. 1989. Which steps are essentials for the formation of functional legume nodules. New Phytologist 111: 129–153. Sprent JI. 2001. Nodulation in legumes. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing. Sprent JI. 2007. Evolving ideas of legume evolution and diversity: a taxonomic perspective on the occurrence of nodulation. New Phytologist 174: 11–25. Subba Rao NS, Mateos PF, Baker D, Pankratz HS, Palma J, Dazzo FB, Sprent JI. 1995. The unique root-nodule symbiosis between Rhizobium and the aquatic legume, Neptunia natans (L-F) Druce. Planta 196: 311–320. Research 1259 Suchard MA, Redelings BD. 2006. BAli-Phy: simultaneous Bayesian inference of alignment and phylogeny. Bioinformatics 22: 2047–2048. Taberlet P, Gielly L, Pautou G, Bouvet J. 1991. Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Molecular Biology 17: 1105–1109. Tamura K, Nei M. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10: 512–526. Verdcourt B. 1971. Aeschynomene. In: Gillet JB, Polhill RM, Verdcourt B, eds. Flora of Tropical East Africa, Leguminosae, Papilionoideae. Royal Botanic Gardens, London, UK: Kew Publishing, 364–406. Vincent JM. 1970. A manual for the practical study of the root-nodule bacteria. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific pub. Vogel JRT. 1838. De Hedysareis Brasiliae. Linnaea 12: 51–111. Wojciechowski MF, Lavin M, Sanderson MJ. 2004. A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analysis of the plastid matK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. American Journal of Botany 91: 1846–1862. Supporting Information Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article. Fig. S1 trnL maximum likelihood phylogeny. Fig. S2 ITS maximum likelihood phylogeny. Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office. New Phytologist is an electronic (online-only) journal owned by the New Phytologist Trust, a not-for-proit organization dedicated to the promotion of plant science, facilitating projects from symposia to free access for our Tansley reviews. Regular papers, Letters, Research reviews, Rapid reports and both Modelling/Theory and Methods papers are encouraged. We are committed to rapid processing, from online submission through to publication ‘as ready’ via Early View – our average time to decision is <25 days. There are no page or colour charges and a PDF version will be provided for each article. The journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit www.newphytologist.com to search the articles and register for table of contents email alerts. If you have any questions, do get in touch with Central Oice (np-centraloice@lancaster.ac.uk) or, if it is more convenient, our USA Oice (np-usaoice@ornl.gov) For submission instructions, subscription and all the latest information visit www.newphytologist.com Ó 2013 The Authors New Phytologist Ó 2013 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (2013) 200: 1247–1259 www.newphytologist.com