Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article
Botany Department, Box 355325, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA 98195-5325
The shoot apical
meristem (SAM), at the tip of the plant stem, has two roles; it is the
source of the new cells that are needed for stem growth, and it is the
site of small cellular outgrowths, called leaf primordia (LP), that
develop into the leaves (1). These LPs occur in predictable positions,
with the site of the next primordium (I1) being
specified by the location of the most recently appearing primordia
(e.g., P1, P2). The ordered
arrangement of LPs around the circumference of the SAM is known as
phyllotaxy (2). A major question in plant development is what events
occur at the I1 position, so that the primordium
develops at this spot rather than elsewhere on the SAM. Two recent
papers now provide some of the answers. In this issue of PNAS, Pien
et al. (3) have demonstrated that a localized induction in
the SAM of the wall-loosening protein expansin is sufficient to induce
a primordium and set into motion all of the events needed to produce a
mature leaf. Reinhardt et al. (4) obtained similar results,
but used instead a localized application of the plant hormone auxin.
Together, these two papers are starting to answer some of the main
questions about LP formation.
Expansins are a family of small (25-27 kDa) proteins that are
localized in the cell wall (5). They have no known enzymatic activity
(6), but have the ability to break hydrogen bonds between cell wall
polysaccharides when activated by an acidic environment (7). The
expansins are primarily localized in the expanding regions of plants
and are believed to be responsible for the cell wall loosening that is
required for plant cell expansion (5). In 1997 Fleming et
al. (8) applied a cucumber expansin to the surface of tomato SAMs,
and a primordia-looking outgrowth developed at that spot. This
outgrowth did not result in a recognizable leaf, however. They believed
that the problem was that the expansin did not penetrate beyond the
outer (L1) layer of the SAM (9); it was well known (1) that the LPs are
formed from cells from least three cell layers in the SAM (the L2 and
L3 layers in addition to the L1).
Pien et al. (3) have used an imaginative approach to
overcome the penetration problem. They introduced a cucumber expansin gene into tobacco plants combined with the tetracycline-inducible promoter system. Application of anhydrotetracycline (Ahtet) induced the
expression of expansin in those cells to which Ahtet was applied. When
Ahtet was applied to a small region of the SAM expansin was induced in
L1-L3 layers. Induction of expansion at the I2
location, where a LP would normally arise only after one appeared at
the I1 location, resulted in a LP at that spot.
An up-regulation of expansin, then, is sufficient to cause a leaf to be
formed at the SAM, even at a spot where its development would normally
be strongly inhibited. When LPs form in vivo, there can also
be an up-regulation of expansin. In tomato apices (10) one expansin gene, LeExp18, is up-regulated in LP coincident with the
origin of the primordium. Likewise, in deep-water rice, the
OsEXP1 expansin gene is expressed primarily in the youngest
LP (11). The LP, once induced by Ahtet, continued to develop into a
complete, normal leaf, even though the expansin was induced for only
the first day (3). This finding indicates that initiating a LP is
sufficient to set into motion the complete developmental pathway
leading to a mature leaf. Some targeted signal that activates these
specific expansin genes in a particular set of SAM cells could be
controlling the location of leaf formation. However, the subsequent
growth of the leaf still is influenced by expansin. When Ahtet was
applied to one side of a P2 primordium, there was
a subsequent increase in the size of the leaf blade on that side.
But expansin is not the only exogenous factor that can induce the
formation of LPs. The auxin hormone indoleacetic acid (IAA) has a
similar effect. The site of IAA synthesis in plants is uncertain, but
is believed to be in young leaves and perhaps the apical meristem (12).
IAA then moves by polar auxin transport (PAT), a process that involves
symmetrical uptake of IAA into cells coupled with asymmetrical efflux
of auxin from only one end of the cell (13). This results in a
one-directional movement of auxin. Inhibitors of PAT such as
naphthylphthalamic acid or 2,4,5-triiodobenzoic acid are known to alter
the phyllotaxy (14) or to completely prevent the formation of LPs (4).
Mutants of Arabidopsis that are blocked in PAT, such as
pin1, likewise fail to produce LPs (15). Reinhardt et
al. (4) found that application of IAA to a localized position on
naphthylphthalamic acid-treated tomato stem apices that normally would
form no LPs, resulted in the induction of LPs that subsequently grew
into fairly normal leaves. If IAA was applied to the
I2 position on normal apices, a primordium would
appear there, instead of the normal I1 position.
It is not too surprising that auxin and expansin might have
similar effects on LP initiation. Enlargement of plant cells is constrained by a resistant cell wall composed of cellulose
microfibrils, crosslinked by other polysaccharides such as xyloglucans
(16). The wall prevents the osmotic uptake of water into the cells
until the wall is loosened; i.e., until crosslinks in the wall are
cleaved (5). In many cases where auxin promotes cell enlargement, it does so by inducing cells to excrete protons into the cell walls, and
the lowered apoplastic pH activates expansins that break the crosslinks
between the cellulose microfibrils (17). The hydrostatic pressure of
the cell contents, the turgor pressure, then expands the loosened
walls. The rate of cell enlargement can depend on both the amount of
expansin present and the apoplastic pH. This is shown by results
obtained with tobacco BY2 cells (18). Addition of expansin caused these
cells to expand, indicating that the endogenous expansin
was nonoptimal. But expansion also was induced when the walls were
acidified by the fungal toxin fusicoccin., indicating that the
apoplastic pH was also suboptimal. Most cells may have suboptimal
levels of both expansin and wall pH and therefore limited potential for
enlargement; such a situation may exist in the SAM. But if there is an
increase in either expansin or a lowering of the apoplastic pH in
response to auxin the set of cells may grow and form a LP.
In meristematic regions in plants growth consists of an increase
in volume coupled with division, so as to result in additional cells of
approximately the size of the original cells. There has long been a
controversy as to whether growth starts by an increase in cell size,
which triggers division, or whether division occurs first, followed by
restoration of the original cell size (19). The fact that the first
visible sign of a new LP is a periclinal division in the L1 or L2 layer
has suggested that division comes first (1). However,
The SAM consists of two zones. The cells of the central zone
(CZ), which occupy the center of the SAM, are undifferentiated and
divide to produce cells in the peripheral zone (PZ), a ring of cells
below the CZ (21). Cells in the CZ are unable to form primordia. LPs
only occur in the PZ. The Reinhardt et al. paper (4) shows
that any PZ cell has the capacity to participate in LP formation,
because LPs formed on the naphthylphthalamic acid-treated apices
wherever auxin was applied. But what determines LP location normally? A
series of surgical experiments have shown that the existing primordia
inhibit the cells around them, and that the next LP, at
I1, occurs where this inhibitory effect in minimal (1). A hotly debated issue is the identity of the inhibitory influence of the existing primordia.
One possibility is that the inhibitor produced by existing LPs is
a flavonoid (22), which inhibits PAT. In some fashion PAT would seem to
be involved in LP formation, because inhibition of PAT by either
naphthylphthalamic acid (4) or the pin1 mutant (15) can
completely block LP formation. Polarly transported auxin is not needed
for the maintenance of the CZ, or the progression of cells from the CZ
to the peripheral zone, because both processes occur normally in the
pin1 mutants (23). PIN1, itself, is up-regulated in developing LPs (23). The initiation of a LP may simply require that
sufficient auxin accumulates in a set of cells so as to set off the
necessary cell enlargement. This accumulation of auxin requires active
PAT, which will occur only when the level of the PAT inhibitor from the
existing primordia drops below some threshold. The site of the minimum
of the inhibitor will have a maximum of PAT and will accumulate auxin.
In a feed-forward loop, as auxin accumulates it induces more
PIN1 and thus more auxin accumulation. As yet unknown is
whether in LP formation auxin acts simply by causing cell wall
acidification, or whether it is also capable of up-regulating the
endogenous expansin gene.
An alternative to the concept of a chemical inhibitor of LP
formation is the idea that the location of the next LP is determined by
the physical interactions between the cells. The ability of any cell to
enlarge will depend to a considerable extent on the forces exerted on
it by its neighbors. For example, an epidermal cell at
I1 will be compressed by the cells below in L2
and L3, whereas the external wall will be under tension because of the curvature of the apex (24). Green and coworkers (24, 25) have espoused
the idea that the location of I1 is located at
the site of maximum shear stress and minimum of tension. There can be
little doubt that the physical forces play some role, but the demonstration (3, 4) that LPs can be induced in normally inappropriate
positions by either expansin or auxin is difficult to reconcile with
this theory. It is more likely that the site of LP initiation requires
a "hot-spot" of auxin coupled with the compatible set of stresses
on the cells (Fig. 1).
Commentary
Unlocking the mysteries of leaf primordia formation
![]()
Article
Top
Article
References
irradiated wheat seeds, which could not undergo any cell
division, upon germination formed one new primordium at the SAM by the
bulging out of a set of L1 cells (20). Both the location and size of
the primordium were similar to that of the untreated plants. This
finding supports the idea that cell enlargement is the first step in
primordium formation. The results of Pien et al. provide
additional support for this position. Expansins are well known to be
involved in cell enlargement, but are not known to promote mitosis
without cell enlargement (5). The fact that LPs can be induced by added
expansins provides strong support for the idea that the initial step in
primordium formation is enhanced expansion of a specific set of cells
in the SAM.

View larger version (60K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
An hypothesis to explain the location where a new LP arises. This
occurs by the growth in volume of a set of cells that have sufficient
expansin and auxin, and where the physical stresses exerted by
neighboring cells are permissive. Existing primordia influence the
location by generating incompatible physical stresses close to
themselves, and by release of inhibitors of PAT. At a sufficient
distance from existing primordia the PAT inhibitors would be low enough
to permit auxin to move, by PAT, to the cells that will form the
primordium.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
See companion article on page 11812.
* E-mail: cleland{at}u.washington.edu.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Steeves, T. A. & Sussex, I. M. (1989) Patterns in Plant Development (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.) |
| 2. | Jean, R. V. (1994) Phyllotaxis: A Systemic Study in Plant Morphogenesis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.). |
| 3. |
Pien, S.
, Wyrzykowska, J.
, McQueen-Mason, S.
, Smart, C.
& Fleming, A.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
98,
11812-11817 |
| 4. |
Reinhardt, D.
, Mandel, T.
& Kuhlemeier, C.
(2000)
Plant Cell
12,
507-518 |
| 5. |
Cosgrove, D. J.
(1998)
Plant Physiol.
118,
333-339 |
| 6. | McQueen-Mason, S. & Cosgrove, D. J. (1995) Plant Physiol. 107, 87-100[Abstract]. |
| 7. |
McQueen-Mason, S.
& Cosgrove, D. J.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
91,
6574-6578 |
| 8. |
Fleming, A. J.
, McQueen-Mason, S.
, Mandel, T.
& Kuhlemeier, C.
(1997)
Science
276,
1415-1418 |
| 9. | Fleming, A. J. , Caderas, D. , Wehrli, E. , McQueen-Mason, S. & Kuhlemeier, C. (1999) Planta 208, 166-174[CrossRef]. |
| 10. |
Reinhardt, D.
, Wittwer, F.
, Mandel, T.
& Kuhlemeir, C.
(1988)
Plant Cell
10,
1427-1437 |
| 11. | Cho, H.-T. & Kende, H. (1998) Plant J. 15, 805-812[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 12. | Bandurski, R. S. , Cohen, J. D. , Slovin, J. P. & Reinecke, D. M. (1995) in Plant Hormones: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology, ed. Davies, P. J. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands), pp. 39-65. |
| 13. | Lomax, T. L. , Muday, G. K. & Rubery, P. H. (1995) in Plant Hormones: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology, ed. Davies, P. J. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands), pp. 509-530. |
| 14. | Meicenheimer, R. D. (1981) Am. J. Bot. 68, 1139-1154[CrossRef][ISI]. |
| 15. |
Gälweiler, L.
, Guan, C.
, Müller, A.
, Wisman, E.
, Mendgen, K.
, Yephremov, A.
& Palme, K.
(1998)
Science
282,
2226-2230 |
| 16. | Carpita, N. C. & Gibeaut, D. M. (1993) Plant J. 3, 1-30[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 17. |
Rayle, D. L.
& Cleland, R. E.
(1992)
Plant Physiol.
99,
1271-1274 |
| 18. |
Link, B. M.
& Cosgrove, D. J.
(1998)
Plant Physiol.
118,
907-916 |
| 19. | Jacobs, T. (1997) Plant Cell 9, 1021-1029[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 20. | Foard, D. E. (1971) Can. J. Bot. 49, 1601-1603. |
| 21. | Bowman, J. L. & Eshed, Y. (2000) Trends Plant Sci. 5, 110-115[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 22. |
Brown, D. E.
, Rashotte, A. M.
, Murphy, A. S.
, Normanly, J.
, Tague, B. W.
, Peer, W. A.
, Taiz, L.
& Muday, G. K.
(2001)
Plant Physiol.
126,
524-535 |
| 23. | Vernoux, T. , Kronenberger, J. , Grandjean, O. , Laufs, P. & Traas, J. (2000) Development (Cambridge, U.K.) 127, 5157-5165[Abstract]. |
| 24. | Selker, J. M. L. , Steucek, G. L. & Green, P. B. (1992) Dev. Biol. 153, 29-43[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 25. |
Green, P. B.
(1999)
Am. J. Bot.
86,
1059-1076 |
Companion article to this Commentary:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||