Rafflesiaceae, which produce the world’s largest flowers, have captivated the attention of biologists for nearly two centuries. Despite their fame, however, the developmental nature of the floral organs in these giants has remained a mystery. Most members of the family have a large floral chamber defined by a diaphragm. The diaphragm encloses the reproductive organs where pollination by carrion flies occurs. In lieu of a functional genetic system to investigate floral development in these highly specialized holoparasites, we used comparative studies of structure, development, and gene-expression patterns to investigate the homology of their floral organs. Our results surprisingly demonstrate that the otherwise similar floral chambers in two Rafflesiaceae subclades,
Rafflesia and
Sapria, are constructed very differently. In
Rafflesia, the diaphragm is derived from the petal whorl. In contrast, in
Sapria it is derived from elaboration of a unique ring structure located between the perianth and the stamen whorl, which, although developed to varying degrees among the genera, appears to be a synapomorphy of the Rafflesiaceae. Thus, the characteristic features that define the floral chamber in these closely related genera are not homologous. These differences refute the prevailing hypothesis that similarities between
Sapria and
Rafflesia are ancestral in the family. Instead, our data indicate that
Rafflesia-like and
Sapria-like floral chambers represent two distinct derivations of this morphology. The developmental repatterning we identified in
Rafflesia, in particular, may have provided architectural reinforcement, which permitted the explosive growth in floral diameter that has arisen secondarily within this subclade.It has been long recognized that parasitism elicits fundamental changes to an organism’s body plan (
1,
2). Similarly, extreme changes in body size can result in dramatic morphological modifications, which in some cases rise to the level of what we term “novelty’” (
3–
5). Either of these circumstances can pose challenges to understanding structural homology. One lineage that exhibits both complications is the holoparasitic plant family Rafflesiaceae, which produces the world’s largest flowers. Despite their fame, however, the developmental basis of these giants has remained a mystery for nearly two centuries (
6,
7). Their floral structure, in particular, is highly modified with respect to most angiosperms, so much so that confusion over their flowers has resulted in Rafflesiaceae-centric terminology to evade statements of homology. This uncertainty has obscured our understanding of their evolutionary origin, which until recently has been unknown (
8–
10).Most members of the family possess a large, bowl-shaped floral chamber [sometimes referred to as a chamber blossom by pollination biologists (
11,
12)]. The floor and walls of this chamber are formed by a perianth tube and the roof is defined by an organ called the diaphragm ( and
Fig. S1 A and C–E). The opening of the diaphragm serves as the entrance for carrion fly pollinators (
13,
14). The chamber is in turn surrounded by a series of attractive sterile organs, termed perianth lobes ( and
Fig. S1 A, C–E, and G–K). The central part of the chamber accommodates the central column, which expands distally to form a disk bearing the reproductive organs ( and
Fig. S1). Like their closest relatives, Euphorbiaceae, the flowers of Rafflesiaceae are typically unisexual (
9). In female flowers, a stigmatic belt forms around the underside of the reproductive disk (
13); in male flowers this is where the stamens are borne.
Open in a separate windowGross morphology, longitudinal sections, and accepted phylogenetic relationships of Rafflesiaceae.
Rafflesia (
A) and
Sapria (
C) exhibit floral chambers, defined by a diaphragm, where the central reproductive column resides. The central column of
Rhizanthes (
B) is exposed because no floral chamber is formed. (Scale bars, ∼2 cm.) Photo credits: (
A) D. Boufford, (
B) C.C.D., (
C) L.A.N.Each of the three genera of Rafflesiaceae produces flowers that vary on this general theme.
Rafflesia and
Sapria have a similar floral architecture, but differ in their perianths:
Rafflesia has one whorl of five perianth lobes () and
Sapria has two whorls (), each with five similar lobes. Because of the striking similarity in floral morphology of these two genera, which represent the bulk of species diversity in the family, their floral chambers have been assumed to have originated once in the common ancestor of Rafflesiaceae (
15) (). The exception is the species-poor clade
Rhizanthes, which lacks the floral chamber found in most Rafflesiaceae (
16) ().
Rhizanthes has 16 similar perianth lobes and does not form a diaphragm or chamber closure as in
Rafflesia and
Sapria. The perianth lobes in
Rhizanthes also differ considerably in morphology: they are much narrower, have elaborate hairy “pads,” and terminate with distinct tail-like appendages ( and
Fig. S1 G–K). Based on its more nested phylogenetic placement within the family, it has been assumed that the morphology of
Rhizanthes is uniquely derived (
15). The unusual floral organs of Rafflesiaceae pose a serious challenge to understanding their homology and, thus, their evolution.Like so many branches in the Tree of Life, Rafflesiaceae are not amenable to traditional genetic manipulation, even less so than most plants. These holoparasites grow vegetatively inside their hosts and lack obvious leaves, stems, and roots. The plants have never been successfully propagated, and do not occur outside of their host range in the rainforests of Southeast Asia. Under these circumstances, only multiple independent lines of inquiry can be used to understand the floral structure and evolution of these charismatic plants, including comparative structural, developmental, and gene-expression data. In terms of this last source of data, the ABC model of floral development provides a predictive framework for understanding the identities of the floral organs of Rafflesiaceae (
17,
18). The model involves three gene activities:
A activity alone specifies sepal identity,
A+B define petals,
B+C confer stamen identity, and
C determines carpel identity. Although it has been recognized that some aspects of the ABC model do not apply to all angiosperms (
19), the specification of petal, stamen, and carpel identity by B- and C-class genes is generally conserved in core eudicots (
20). In general, great care must be taken when using gene-expression patterns as criteria for establishing homology (
21); however, when such correlative data are combined with explicit phylogenetic and developmental data, this approach has been shown to provide critical insights into organ homology (e.g., ref.
22). Along these lines, we cloned homologs of the ABC class genes, which largely belong to the pan-eukaryotic MADS-box (after the four founding members of the family:
MCM1,
AGAMOUS,
DEFICIENS, and
SRF) gene family (
20), from Rafflesiaceae and studied their expression in different floral organs. We complemented these analyses with an investigation of floral organ initiation and development in all three genera in the family.Our analyses surprisingly demonstrate that the otherwise similar floral chambers in
Rafflesia and
Sapria are constructed very differently. In
Rafflesia, the diaphragm is derived from the petal whorl, whereas normal petals are absent. In contrast, in
Sapria the diaphragm is derived from elaboration of a unique ring structure located between the perianth and the stamen whorl. This structure is analogous to sterile organs that have been independently derived in other angiosperms, such as the trumpet in daffodils (
23) and the corona in passionflowers (
24). The structure is not present in the closest relatives of Rafflesiaceae, and is elaborated to varying degrees in all three genera of Rafflesiaceae. Thus, the structures that define these similar floral chambers are not homologous. In
Rhizanthes, which lacks a diaphragm, a derivative of the ring primordium appears to be adnate to the perianth. The development of this organ is more similar to that of
Sapria, and is likely a shared symplesiomorphic feature in these two genera. These differences in construction among the three genera refute the simplistic scenario in which the similarities between
Sapria and
Rafflesia are interpreted as ancestral in the family.
相似文献