Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8lnk4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-17T13:18:35.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2025

Daichi Yoshida
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
Itsuki Kunita
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, University of the Ryukyus, Nakagami-gun, Okinawa, Japan
Masashi Toda
Affiliation:
Research and Education Institute for Semiconductors and Informatics, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
Haruko Ueda
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan Graduate School of Natural Science, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Takumi Higaki*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan International Research Organization for Advanced Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Takumi Higaki; Email: thigaki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract

Plants develop characteristic shoot architectures by extending branches at specific angles. Primary shoots bend in response to gravity and then adjust the orientation through an organ-straightening process to achieve a mechanically favorable shape. However, how plants integrate branch structure with the shoot architecture remains uncertain. Here, we examined the lateral branch morphology of Arabidopsis thaliana mutants for myosin XI motor proteins through a combination of three-dimensional reconstruction and temporal imaging. The wild type and myosin xif mutant formed S-shaped branches and gradually adjusted the branch angle upwards. The myosin xik mutant exhibited straighter and drooping branches and maintained branch angles. The myosin xif xik double mutant formed branches with irregular directional changes with fluctuating angles. These results suggest that MYOSIN XIk and XIf are required for the establishment of branch morphology through upward bending, stabilizing growth direction, and maintaining curvature.

Information

Type
Original Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Figure 1. Representative images of Arabidopsis thaliana wild type (Col-0) and myosin xif, xik, and xif xik (xifk) mutants. (a–d) Photographs captured with the target pattern (red) for three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. Images of the rotating plant were captured using a fixed camera to obtain plant images from various angles, and the plant architecture was reconstructed in 3D using the volume intersection method (Kunita et al., 2021). Wild type (Col-0) (a), myosin xif (B), xik (c), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (d) are shown. (e–h) 3D reconstructions of the aboveground parts of (a–d). (i–l) 3D views of a single lateral branch extracted from (e–h).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of lateral branch angles in Arabidopsis relative to the primary stem. (a–d) Spatial distribution of lateral branch angles in the wild type (Col-0) (a) and myosin xif (b), xik (c), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (d). Each branch is represented by a distinct color (N = 11). (e) Mean angles of lateral branches relative to the primary stem. Box plots show the angles of lateral branches relative to the primary stem. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.03 (Mann–Whitney U-test, N = 11 individuals).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of lateral branch straightness in Arabidopsis. (a–d) Spatial distribution of lateral branch straightness in the wild type (Col-0) (a) and myosin xif (b), xik (c), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (d). Each branch is represented by a distinct color (N = 11). (e) Mean straightness of lateral branches. Box plots show the straightness of lateral branches. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.03 (Mann–Whitney U-test, N = 11 individuals).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Temporal changes in lateral branch angles in Arabidopsis wild type (Col-0) and myosin XI mutants. (a–d) Spatial distribution of lateral branches plotted using one branch per individual plant from three different individuals in the wild type (Col-0) (a) and myosin xif (b), xik (c), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (d). Color intensity represents the number of observation days (Days 1, 2, and 3). (e–h) Temporal evolution of branch angle in the wild type (Col-0) (e) and myosin xif (f), xik (g), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (h). These plots represent the mean values of the results shown in (a–d). Color intensity represents the replicate number (#1, 2, and 3).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Temporal changes in lateral branch straightness in Arabidopsis wild type (Col-0) and myosin XI mutants. (a–d) Spatial distribution of lateral branches plotted using one branch per individual plant from three different individuals in the wild type (Col-0) (a) and myosin xif (b), xik (c), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (d). Color intensity represents the number of observation days (Days 1, 2, and 3). (e–h) Temporal evolution of branch straightness in the wild type (Col-0) (e) and myosin xif (f), xik (g), and xif xik (xifk) mutants (h). These plots represent the mean values of the results shown in (a–d). Color intensity represents the replicate number (#1, 2, and 3).

Supplementary material: File

Yoshida et al. supplementary material

Yoshida et al. supplementary material
Download Yoshida et al. supplementary material(File)
File 721.6 KB

Author comment: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR1

Comments

Prof. Olivier Hamant

Editor-in-Chief

Quantitative Plant Biology

30 November 2024

Dear Prof. Hamant,

Please find attached our manuscript titled “Four-dimensional morphological analysis of lateral branches in Arabidopsis thaliana,” which we would like to be considered for publication as an Original Research Article in Quantitative Plant Biology in the Special Collection on ‘Plant Morphogenesis: Quantitative Aspects and Emerging Novel Concepts.’

Our study investigates the roles of myosin XI motor proteins (MYOSIN XI-F and XI-K) in regulating the morphology of lateral branches in Arabidopsis thaliana. Using a combination of three-dimensional reconstruction and temporal imaging, we developed a comprehensive four-dimensional framework to analyze branch morphology in wild-type and myosin XI mutant plants. Specifically, we introduced and quantified two critical metrics: branch angle and straightness.

Our findings reveal distinct roles for MYOSIN XI-F and XI-K in establishing and maintaining branch morphology. The wild type and the myosin xif mutant formed S-shaped branches, characterized by upward adjustment in branch angles over time. In contrast, the myosin xik mutant formed straight and drooping branches with minimal angle adjustments, whereas myosin xif xik double mutants showed irregular directional changes with fluctuating angles. These results suggest that MYOSIN XI-K is essential for gravitropic response to upward bending, whereas both MYOSIN XI-F and XI-K are required for organ-straightening processes to stabilize growth direction and maintain curvature.

We believe that these findings will resonate with the readership of Quantitative Plant Biology, particularly researchers interested in plant morphogenesis, biomechanics, and quantitative analyses of shoot architecture. Our study provides a novel, integrative framework to analyze lateral branch development, thereby advancing our understanding of how plants coordinate growth and structural stability at the whole-plant level.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere, is not under consideration by another journal, and has been approved by all authors for submission to Quantitative Plant Biology. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Please address all correspondence to:

Takumi Higaki

Graduate School of Science and Technology

Kumamoto University, 2-39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-ku

Kumamoto, 860-8555

Japan

Phone: +81-96-342-3975

E-mail: thigaki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Takumi Higaki, PhD

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I have collaborated with some of the authors on a related project within the past three years.

Comments

- Title and Abstract

I felt there was a misalignment between the title and the abstract. Based on the overall flow of the manuscript, it seems that the primary focus is not on technological development but rather on elucidating the functions of MYOSIN. I recommend revising the title to explicitly include “MYOSIN” to better reflect the main focus of the study.

Clarification on i and Vstem(i)

The manuscript states that “I is the number of branching points,” but regarding Vstem(i), does this refer to voxels in the vicinity of the i-th branching point used for calculations? I could not find where this was explicitly explained. Could you clarify this point?

- Branch Angle and Gravity

While the relative angle of side branches to the main stem is indeed important, considering the relationship between side branches and gravity, the angle relative to the gravity vector would also seem equally important. Would it be possible to include the angle between the side branches and the gravity vector in addition to the relative angle to the main stem? This may highlight differences more prominently, especially since xifk mutants appear to exhibit variability in the angle of the main stem.

- Figure 2 and Figure 3

In Figures 2 and 3, N = 11 is indicated. Does this refer to the number of individuals or the number of branches? If it refers to branches, how many individuals are these 11 branches derived from?

- Relationship Between Straightness, Curvature, and Torsion

What is the relationship between straightness, curvature, and torsion? Providing clarification on this point would improve the reader’s understanding of these metrics.

- Time Series Analysis

Regarding the time-series analysis, the graphs of angle and straightness alone were somewhat difficult to interpret. To enhance reader comprehension, it would be beneficial to include either 2D projections of the actual shapes of side branches with overlays, 3D visualizations such as movies or CG models, or schematic diagrams.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper by Yoshida et al. establishes a method for accurately measuring the complex three-dimensional shape of lateral branches over time in Arabidopsis thaliana and applies it to compare the branch shapes of myosin XI mutants and wild-type plants. The relatively simplicity of the setup for these measurements is a notable strength, as it suggests the potential for widespread adoption in various research settings. The method provides valuable insights into the morphological differences between the myosin XI mutants and wild-type plants. The authors conclude in abstract that “These results suggest that the branch morphology is established by the MYOSIN XIk-dependent gravitropic response for upward bending and the MYOSIN XIf- and XIk-dependent organ straightening to stabilize growth direction and maintain curvature.” However, the evidence provided does not fully support the conclusion that XIk plays a role in the gravitropic response. While the data indicate that XIk may have a function distinct from XIf, the current results do not definitively link this role to the gravitropic response. It would be helpful to further refine the interpretation of these findings to clarify the role of XIk in branch morphology.

Major comment

1. The conclusion that XIk is involved in the gravitropic response does not seem to be adequately discussed in the Results or Discussion sections. In order to support the claim made in the Abstract, a more thorough discussion of the interpretation of the data is needed. However, based on the data presented in this paper, it would be difficult to draw a definitive conclusion about XIk’s involvement in the gravitropic response. Even when examining the time-series data of lateral branch growth, the differences in branch angles do not appear to be solely due to the gravitropic response. Instead, it seems that multiple processes may be involved, and the differences could be interpreted as the result of the interplay between these processes. I suggest considering a more cautious phrasing of this conclusion, since this aspect does not appear to be the central focus of the paper.<br />

Minor comment<br />

1. Regarding the color of the lines in the graph, it appears that the color for the Day 1 data in Fig. 4D, replicate #3, may be incorrect. Please check and confirm.<br />

2. Regarding the measurement of straightness, the method describes measuring the ratio of the straight-line distance between the tip and base of the lateral branch to the actual distance. In this case, a single value should be obtained for each lateral branch. However, in Fig. 3, the change in straightness according to the distance from the base of the lateral branch is shown. Does this mean that, similar to the measurement of angle, the straightness was measured in 20mm sectors?<br />

3. Regarding the time-series data of lateral branch growth in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, is there no difference in the growth rate of the lateral branches (or main stem) between the genotypes? Differences in growth rate could potentially influence branch morphology, so it might be helpful to provide comparison data on growth rates.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This manuscript by Yoshida et al., examined quantitatively the lateral branch morphology of Arabidopsis thaliana mutants for myosin XI motor proteins through a combination of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and temporal imaging. The authors previously succeeded in combining 3D reconstruction and temporal imaging to analyze the lateral branch morphology of Arabidopsis shoots which is difficult to analyzing in two-dimensional imaging. In this manuscript, the authors demonstrated that 1) the wild type and myosin xif mutant formed S-shaped branches and gradually adjusted the branch angle upwards, 2) the myosin xik mutant exhibited more straight and drooping branches and maintained branch angles, and 3) the myosin xif xik double mutant formed branches with irregular directional changes with fluctuated angles. Considering these results with previous reports, the authors suggest that the MYOSIN XIk-dependent gravitropic response for upward bending and the MYOSIN XIf- and XIk-dependent organ straightening establish the branch morphology, thereby stabilizing growth direction and maintain curvature.

In this work, the experiments are appropriately performed, and the data are suitably analyzed and interpreted. Introduction, Results and Discussion sections are well-written. The authors’ method to examine quantitatively the lateral branch morphology is very sophisticated and would be also useful for studying the genetic and environmental regulation of the lateral branch morphology with the other morphology mutants and the other accessions in Arabidopsis.

Minor points:

1. The authors removed the cauline leaves (the leaves near the base of the lateral branches) for temporal imaging. It would be better mention that the removal of the cauline leaves does not affect the angle of their branch base.

2. L.161 (Figure 1 legend); “xifk double mutant” should be replaced with “xif xik (xifk) double mutant” as described in the other figure legends.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR5

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

The manuscript by Yoshida D., et al. showed that the MYOSIN XIk plays distinct roles in regulating lateral branch angles and straightness by three-dimensional reconstruction system and temporal imaging. In addition, authors concluded that the MYOSIN XIf also functions in the control of lateral branch straightness. However, I don’t understand which results of three-dimensional reconstruction system and temporal imaging indicated distinct roles of MYOSIN XIf in lateral branch straightness. In three-dimensional reconstruction, it seems that there are no effects of the xif mutation on lateral branch angle and straightness (Fig. 2E and 3E), compared Col-0 and xif, and xik and xifk. In addition, in temporal imaging analysis, it is quite difficult to conclude without statistical analysis because data from only 3 individuals were variable (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). I cannot read the effects of xif on lateral branch straightness from those data in Fig. 5 (lane 226 to 229). Please, show more samples of data, and the results of their statistical analysis. Furthermore, primary inflorescence stems of wild type and xi single mutants grow straight, whereas primary stems in the xifk double mutant failed to grow straight. Therefore, lateral branches of the xifk double mutant are subject to different mechanical stress from those of wild type and xi single mutants. If so, the xifk double mutant cannot be compared with wild type and xi single mutants.

Minor points:

(1) In genetic analysis, whether mutant alleles are null or not is quite important. Please, describe the information about alleles of myosin XI mutants in Materials and Methods.

(2) Fig. 2E and Fig.3E, is there a significant difference between xik single and xifk double mutant? To validate the role of XIf in lateral branch elongation, statistical analysis between wild type and xif, and between xik and xifk mutants is required.

(3) The title of this manuscript should be changed because it is unclear what the four-dimensional morphological analysis showed in this manuscript.

(4) Lane 279, translocation of LAZY1-likw proteins from amyloplasts to the plasma membrane was detected in columella cells of the root, not in endodermal cells.

Recommendation: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR6

Comments

Dear authors,

Now we have received the feedback of the four reviewers. Most of their comments require a moderate to major revision of the manuscript. Please follow the reviewers instructions to prepare your revised manuscript. While resubmitting your manuscript please highlight all the changes included in the manuscript text and other sections along with a point-by-point response letter.

Thank you for submitting your work to QPB.

We are looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Decision: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R0/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R1/PR8

Comments

Professor Olivier Hamant

Editor-in-Chief

Quantitative Plant Biology

14 March 2025

Dear Professor Hamant,

Thank you for your critical evaluation of our manuscript, originally titled “Four-dimensional morphological analysis of lateral branches in Arabidopsis thaliana” (QPB-2024-0062). We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the helpful comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Please find enclosed the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to re-submit for consideration. We have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments in the following pages.

We appreciate the critical appraisal of our manuscript and have addressed all of the comments and questions as constructively as possible. We hope that the revised paper will be acceptable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology.

Please address all correspondence to:

Dr. Takumi Higaki

Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto 860-8555, Japan

Tel:+81 96-342-3975; E-mail: thigaki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Takumi Higaki

---

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

- Title and Abstract

I felt there was a misalignment between the title and the abstract. Based on the overall flow of the manuscript, it seems that the primary focus is not on technological development but rather on elucidating the functions of MYOSIN. I recommend revising the title to explicitly include “MYOSIN” to better reflect the main focus of the study.

[Response] We agree with the reviewer and modified the manuscript title to include “MYOSIN XI”.

- Clarification on i and Vstem(i)

The manuscript states that “I is the number of branching points,” but regarding Vstem(i), does this refer to voxels in the vicinity of the i-th branching point used for calculations? I could not find where this was explicitly explained. Could you clarify this point?

[Response] We agree with this comment and have clarified the definition (lines 137-140) as follows:

Previous definition:

“The primary stem was defined as the shortest path connecting manually designated endpoints at the base and tip.”

Revised definition:

“The primary stem vector, V_stem (i), was calculated as the vector connecting the average coordinates of consecutive voxels along the primary stem, from branching points i - 1 to i and from i to i + 1. To calculate the angle with the vertical vector, V_stem (i) was set as (0,0,1).”

- Branch Angle and Gravity

While the relative angle of side branches to the main stem is indeed important, considering the relationship between side branches and gravity, the angle relative to the gravity vector would also seem equally important. Would it be possible to include the angle between the side branches and the gravity vector in addition to the relative angle to the main stem? This may highlight differences more prominently, especially since xifk mutants appear to exhibit variability in the angle of the main stem.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for these helpful comments. The angle plot of the lateral branch relative to the gravity vector and the angle plot relative to the primary stem showed essentially the same pattern. We have provided the angle of lateral branches relative to the gravity vector as Supplementary Figs. S1 and S3, and added explanation of this information in the revised manuscript (lines 174, 176, 185–186, 236–237, 276, and 297–301).

- Figure 2 and Figure 3

In Figures 2 and 3, N = 11 is indicated. Does this refer to the number of individuals or the number of branches? If it refers to branches, how many individuals are these 11 branches derived from?

[Response] In the original figure, N = 11 referred to the number of individuals. For clarity, we have revised the legends for Figures 2 and 3 to explicitly state “N = 11 individuals.”

- Relationship Between Straightness, Curvature, and Torsion

What is the relationship between straightness, curvature, and torsion? Providing clarification on this point would improve the reader’s understanding of these metrics.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment. While curvature and torsion are important aspects of branch shape characterization, our study specifically focused on straightness as a key descriptor for evaluation of the phenotype of myosin XI mutants. A more comprehensive analysis incorporating these additional metrics would require different methodological approaches and is beyond the scope of this study. Future investigations could further explore these relationships in greater detail.

- Time Series Analysis

Regarding the time-series analysis, the graphs of angle and straightness alone were somewhat difficult to interpret. To enhance reader comprehension, it would be beneficial to include either 2D projections of the actual shapes of side branches with overlays, 3D visualizations such as movies or CG models, or schematic diagrams.

[Response] To enhance reader comprehension, we have included representative three-dimensional images of branches over time as Supplementary Figure S2 in the revised manuscript. We believe this addition provides a clearer visualization of the time-series changes.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

This paper by Yoshida et al. establishes a method for accurately measuring the complex three-dimensional shape of lateral branches over time in Arabidopsis thaliana and applies it to compare the branch shapes of myosin XI mutants and wild-type plants. The relatively simplicity of the setup for these measurements is a notable strength, as it suggests the potential for widespread adoption in various research settings. The method provides valuable insights into the morphological differences between the myosin XI mutants and wild-type plants. The authors conclude in abstract that “These results suggest that the branch morphology is established by the MYOSIN XIk-dependent gravitropic response for upward bending and the MYOSIN XIf- and XIk-dependent organ straightening to stabilize growth direction and maintain curvature.” However, the evidence provided does not fully support the conclusion that XIk plays a role in the gravitropic response. While the data indicate that XIk may have a function distinct from XIf, the current results do not definitively link this role to the gravitropic response. It would be helpful to further refine the interpretation of these findings to clarify the role of XIk in branch morphology.

Major comment

1. The conclusion that XIk is involved in the gravitropic response does not seem to be adequately discussed in the Results or Discussion sections. In order to support the claim made in the Abstract, a more thorough discussion of the interpretation of the data is needed. However, based on the data presented in this paper, it would be difficult to draw a definitive conclusion about XIk’s involvement in the gravitropic response. Even when examining the time-series data of lateral branch growth, the differences in branch angles do not appear to be solely due to the gravitropic response. Instead, it seems that multiple processes may be involved, and the differences could be interpreted as the result of the interplay between these processes. I suggest considering a more cautious phrasing of this conclusion, since this aspect does not appear to be the central focus of the paper.

[Response] We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we toned down the interpretation of the roles of MYOSIN XIk and XIf in lateral branch morphogenesis in the Abstract (lines 34–36) and Discussion (lines 270–271, 294–295, and 307–309).

Minor comment

1. Regarding the color of the lines in the graph, it appears that the color for the Day 1 data in Fig. 4D, replicate #3, may be incorrect. Please check and confirm.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for noting the error in the line color. We corrected the relevant color in Figure 4D in the revised manuscript.

2. Regarding the measurement of straightness, the method describes measuring the ratio of the straight-line distance between the tip and base of the lateral branch to the actual distance. In this case, a single value should be obtained for each lateral branch. However, in Fig. 3, the change in straightness according to the distance from the base of the lateral branch is shown. Does this mean that, similar to the measurement of angle, the straightness was measured in 20mm sectors?

[Response] We agree with this comment and have clarified the definition of straightness in the revised manuscript (lines 143–145) as follows:

Previous definition:

“Straightness was calculated as the ratio of the straight-line distance from the branching point to the branch tip to the total path length ”

Revised definition:

“Straightness at the th voxel on the lateral branch was calculated as the ratio of the straight-line distance d(j) from the branching point to the th voxel to the trace path length L(j) from the branching point.”

3. Regarding the time-series data of lateral branch growth in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, is there no difference in the growth rate of the lateral branches (or main stem) between the genotypes? Differences in growth rate could potentially influence branch morphology, so it might be helpful to provide comparison data on growth rates.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for these helpful comments. In our experimental system, there is no clear definition that distinguishes between floral organs and stems at the branch tip, so it is difficult to calculate the exact elongation rate from the image. However, as shown in Figures 4 and 5, the individual differences within each genotype were indicated to be greater than the difference between genotypes. Therefore, no significant difference in the elongation rate of lateral branches between genotypes was apparent. We have explained this in the Results in the revised manuscript (lines 223–226).

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author

This manuscript by Yoshida et al., examined quantitatively the lateral branch morphology of Arabidopsis thaliana mutants for myosin XI motor proteins through a combination of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and temporal imaging. The authors previously succeeded in combining 3D reconstruction and temporal imaging to analyze the lateral branch morphology of Arabidopsis shoots which is difficult to analyzing in two-dimensional imaging. In this manuscript, the authors demonstrated that 1) the wild type and myosin xif mutant formed S-shaped branches and gradually adjusted the branch angle upwards, 2) the myosin xik mutant exhibited more straight and drooping branches and maintained branch angles, and 3) the myosin xif xik double mutant formed branches with irregular directional changes with fluctuated angles. Considering these results with previous reports, the authors suggest that the MYOSIN XIk-dependent gravitropic response for upward bending and the MYOSIN XIf- and XIk-dependent organ straightening establish the branch morphology, thereby stabilizing growth direction and maintain curvature.

In this work, the experiments are appropriately performed, and the data are suitably analyzed and interpreted. Introduction, Results and Discussion sections are well-written. The authors’ method to examine quantitatively the lateral branch morphology is very sophisticated and would be also useful for studying the genetic and environmental regulation of the lateral branch morphology with the other morphology mutants and the other accessions in Arabidopsis.

Minor points:

1. The authors removed the cauline leaves (the leaves near the base of the lateral branches) for temporal imaging. It would be better mention that the removal of the cauline leaves does not affect the angle of their branch base.

[Response] As suggested by the reviewer, we added the recommended explanation to the Plant Materials section of the Materials and Methods in the revised manuscript (line 101).

2. L.161 (Figure 1 legend); “xifk double mutant” should be replaced with “xif xik (xifk) double mutant” as described in the other figure legends.

[Response] As suggested, we revised the legends for Figures 1, 4, and 5 to standardize the definition of the double mutant.

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author

The manuscript by Yoshida D., et al. showed that the MYOSIN XIk plays distinct roles in regulating lateral branch angles and straightness by three-dimensional reconstruction system and temporal imaging. In addition, authors concluded that the MYOSIN XIf also functions in the control of lateral branch straightness. However, I don’t understand which results of three-dimensional reconstruction system and temporal imaging indicated distinct roles of MYOSIN XIf in lateral branch straightness. In three-dimensional reconstruction, it seems that there are no effects of the xif mutation on lateral branch angle and straightness (Fig. 2E and 3E), compared Col-0 and xif, and xik and xifk. In addition, in temporal imaging analysis, it is quite difficult to conclude without statistical analysis because data from only 3 individuals were variable (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). I cannot read the effects of xif on lateral branch straightness from those data in Fig. 5 (lane 226 to 229). Please, show more samples of data, and the results of their statistical analysis.

[Response] We acknowledge the limitations in sample size and have performed a statistical analysis to strengthen our conclusions. Given that increasing the sample size is currently not feasible, in the revised manuscript we moderated our interpretation of the roles of MYOSIN XIk and XIf in lateral branch morphogenesis in the Abstract (lines 35–36) and Discussion (lines 270–271, 294–295, and 307–309).

Furthermore, primary inflorescence stems of wild type and xi single mutants grow straight, whereas primary stems in the xifk double mutant failed to grow straight. Therefore, lateral branches of the xifk double mutant are subject to different mechanical stress from those of wild type and xi single mutants. If so, the xifk double mutant cannot be compared with wild type and xi single mutants.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for these helpful comments. The angle plot of the lateral branch relative to the gravity vector and the angle plot relative to the primary stem showed essentially the same pattern. We have provided the angle of lateral branches relative to the gravity vector as Supplementary Figs. S1 and S3, and added explanation of this information in the revised manuscript (lines 174, 176, 185–186, 236–237, 276, and 297–301).

Minor points:

(1) In genetic analysis, whether mutant alleles are null or not is quite important. Please, describe the information about alleles of myosin XI mutants in Materials and Methods.

[Response] As suggested by the reviewer, we have clarified that the myosin XI mutants used are null mutants in the Materials and Methods of the revised manuscript (line 93).

(2) Fig. 2E and Fig.3E, is there a significant difference between xik single and xifk double mutant? To validate the role of XIf in lateral branch elongation, statistical analysis between wild type and xif, and between xik and xifk mutants is required.

[Response] No statistically significant differences were detected between the myosin xik single mutant and the xif xik (xifk) double mutant for any of the measured features (Mann–Whitney U test). The p-values were as follows: Fig. 2E, P = 0.30; Fig. S1, P = 0.48; and Fig. 3E, P = 0.90. In the revised manuscript, we have moderated our interpretation of the roles of MYOSIN XIk and XIf in lateral branch morphogenesis in the Abstract (lines 35–36) and Discussion (lines 270–271, 294–295, and 307–309).

(3) The title of this manuscript should be changed because it is unclear what the four-dimensional morphological analysis showed in this manuscript.

[Response] We agree with this comment by the reviewer. We modified the title of the revised manuscript.

(4) Lane 279, translocation of LAZY1-likw proteins from amyloplasts to the plasma membrane was detected in columella cells of the root, not in endodermal cells.

[Response] Consistent with the reviewer’s comment, we deleted “in endodermal cells” in the revised manuscript (lines 287–289).

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R1/PR9

Conflict of interest statement

I have collaborated with some of the authors on a related project within the past three years.

Comments

In light of the authors’ responses and revisions, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology.

However, I would like to point out one minor issue: in Supplementary Figure S1 (panels B and C), there appear to be unintended wavy lines over “xif” and “xik”, which should be corrected.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R1/PR10

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors have carefully addressed the concerns raised in the first round of review. The revised manuscript includes clearer explanations. These changes have strengthened the manuscript considerably, making it more accessible and accurate.

I have no further major concerns and recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Recommendation: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R1/PR11

Comments

Dear authors,

Now we have the feedback from two reviewers about your manuscript QPB-2024-0062.R1.

In the light of the your responses and revisions, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology. However, I would like to point out one minor issue raised by Reviewer 1: in Supplementary Figure S1 (panels B and C), there appear to be unintended wavy lines over “xif” and “xik”, which should be corrected.

Thank you for fixing the above issue and I am looking forward to receiving the corrected version of your manuscript.

Decision: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R1/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R2/PR14

Conflict of interest statement

No

Comments

All concerns have been addressed.

Review: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R2/PR15

Conflict of interest statement

I collaborated with some of authors.

Comments

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and confirmed that the authors have appropriately addressed the comments.

Recommendation: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R2/PR16

Comments

Dear Dr. Higaki,

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. I and both reviewers agreed that all the comments have been properly addressed. Therefore, I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in QPB. Congratulations!

Thank you again for submitting your nice work to QPB.

Decision: Four-dimensional phenotyping reveals MYOSIN XI-dependent establishment of branch morphology through upward- and stably-directed growth in Arabidopsis — R2/PR17

Comments

No accompanying comment.