Significance

In plants, microtubules largely determine the direction of cell expansion and the orientation of cell division planes. However, what processes orient the microtubules has remained debated. Here, we used microfabricated wells to confine and deform wallless plant cells in a controlled way to analyze the response of microtubules to cell geometry and surface tension. We demonstrate that microtubules align with cell geometry by default, whereas when surface tension increases (e.g. when turgor pressure increases), they align with the direction of maximal tension. Not only does this explain many observations in plant tissues, but it also provides a simple mechanism at the core of plant morphogenesis, in which microtubules can spontaneously align with tension, in a typical self-organized system.

Abstract

In plant cells, cortical microtubules (CMTs) generally control morphogenesis by guiding cellulose synthesis. CMT alignment has been proposed to depend on geometrical cues, with microtubules aligning with the cell long axis in silico and in vitro. Yet, CMTs are usually transverse in vivo, i.e., along predicted maximal tension, which is transverse for cylindrical pressurized vessels. Here, we adapted a microwell setup to test these predictions in a single-cell system. We confined protoplasts laterally to impose a curvature ratio and modulated pressurization through osmotic changes. We find that CMTs can be longitudinal or transverse in wallless protoplasts and that the switch in CMT orientation depends on pressurization. In particular, longitudinal CMTs become transverse when cortical tension increases. This explains the dual behavior of CMTs in planta: CMTs become longitudinal when stress levels become low, while stable transverse CMT alignments in tissues result from their autonomous response to tensile stress fluctuations.

Continue Reading

Data Availability

All study data are included in the article and supporting information.

Acknowledgments

We thank the MBI, Singapore, for hosting A.C. and O.H. for 6 months, where the original experiments were performed. We also thank our colleagues for constructive discussions about this project and for critical reading of the manuscript. We thank Platim for help with imaging and Gianluca Grenci for the design of the microwell casts at MBI. This work was supported by European Research Council Grant 615739 “MechanoDevo” (to O.H.), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “Plant-Structure Optimization Strategy” GrantJP18H05484) (to S.T.) and MBI seed grant support (to V.V. and T.E.S.).

Supporting Information

Appendix (PDF)
Movie S1.
Stack: Confined protoplast expressing pUbq10::LTI6b-TdTomato in a 15 × 20 μm microwell for 2 hours in 600 mOsm/L mannitol
Movie S2.
Stack: Confined protoplast expressing pUbq10::LTI6b-TdTomato in a 15 × 20 μm microwell for 2 hours in 280 mOsm/L mannitol
Movie S3.
Kinetics of CMT orientation in a protoplast confined in a 12×40 μm microwell after transfer from 800 to 400 mOsm/L mannitol.
Movie S4.
Kinetics of CMT orientation in a protoplast confined in a 12×40 μm microwell after successive transfers from 600 to 280 mOsm/L mannitol. Example 1.
Movie S5.
Kinetics of CMT orientation in a protoplast confined in a 12×40 μm microwell after successive transfers from 600 to 280 mOsm/L mannitol. Example 2.
Movie S6.
Kinetics of CMT orientation in a protoplast confined in a 12×40 μm microwell after successive transfers from 600 to 280 mOsm/L mannitol. Example 3.

References

1
J. Sachs, Über die Anordnung der Zellen in jüngsten Pflanzentheilen (1878), 46–104.
2
L. Errera, Sur une condition fondamentale d’e´ quilibre des cellules vivantes. C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. 103, 822–824 (1886).
3
L. Kny, Über den Einfluß von Zug und Druck auf die Richtung der Scheidewände in sich teilenden Pflanzenzellen. Ber Dtsch. Bot Gesell. 14, 378–391 (1896).
4
A. Guérin, S. Gravelle, J. Dumais, Forces behind plant cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 8891–8893 (2016).
5
T. I. Baskin, Anisotropic expansion of the plant cell wall. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 21, 203–222 (2005).
6
D. J. Cosgrove, Growth of the plant cell wall. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 850–861 (2005).
7
J. Chan, E. Coen, Interaction between autonomous and microtubule guidance systems controls cellulose synthase trajectories. Curr. Biol. 30, 941–947.e2 (2020).
8
A. R. Paredez, C. R. Somerville, D. W. Ehrhardt, Visualization of cellulose synthase demonstrates functional association with microtubules. Science 312, 1491–1495 (2006).
9
V. Mirabet et al., The self-organization of plant microtubules inside the cell volume yields their cortical localization, stable alignment, and sensitivity to external cues. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006011 (2018).
10
M. Cosentino Lagomarsino et al., Microtubule organization in three-dimensional confined geometries: Evaluating the role of elasticity through a combined in vitro and modeling approach. Biophys. J. 92, 1046–1057 (2007).
11
P. Durand-Smet, T. A. Spelman, E. M. Meyerowitz, H. Jönsson, Cytoskeletal organization in isolated plant cells under geometry control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 17399–17408 (2020).
12
C. Ambrose, J. F. Allard, E. N. Cytrynbaum, G. O. Wasteneys, A CLASP-modulated cell edge barrier mechanism drives cell-wide cortical microtubule organization in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 2, 430 (2011).
13
A. Burian et al., A correlative microscopy approach relates microtubule behaviour, local organ geometry, and cell growth at the Arabidopsis shoot apical meristem. J. Exp. Bot. 64, 5753–5767 (2013).
14
J. J. Lindeboom et al., A mechanism for reorientation of cortical microtubule arrays driven by microtubule severing. Science 342, 1245533 (2013).
15
O. Hamant et al., Developmental patterning by mechanical signals in Arabidopsis. Science 322, 1650–1655 (2008).
16
B. Chakrabortty et al., A plausible microtubule-based mechanism for cell division orientation in plant embryogenesis. Curr. Biol. 28, 3031–3043.e2 (2018).
17
P. Green, A. King, A mechanism for the origin of specifically oriented textures in development with special reference to Nitella wall texture. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 19, 421–438 (1966).
18
O. Hamant, D. Inoue, D. Bouchez, J. Dumais, E. Mjolsness, Are microtubules tension sensors? Nat. Commun. 10, 2360 (2019).
19
X. Gao et al., Artificial microniche array with spatially structured biochemical cues. Methods Mol. Biol. 1771, 55–66 (2018).
20
S. Tsugawa et al., Extracting subcellular fibrillar alignment with error estimation: Application to microtubules. Biophys. J. 110, 1836–1844 (2016).
21
Q. Li et al., Extracellular matrix scaffolding guides lumen elongation by inducing anisotropic intercellular mechanical tension. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 311–318 (2016).
22
D. Inoue et al., Sensing surface mechanical deformation using active probes driven by motor proteins. Nat. Commun. 7, 12557 (2016).
23
H. Yan et al., Microtubule self-organisation during seed germination in Arabidopsis. BMC Biol. 18, 44 (2020).
24
A. T. Molines et al., Physical properties of the cytoplasm modulate the rates of microtubule growth and shrinkage. bioRxiv:10.1101/2020.10.27.352716 (10 November 2020).
25
Z. Hejnowicz, A. Rusin, T. Rusin, Tensile tissue stress affects the orientation of cortical microtubules in the epidermis of sunflower hypocotyl. J. Plant Growth Regul. 19, 31–44 (2000).
26
S. Robinson, C. Kuhlemeier, Global compression reorients cortical microtubules in Arabidopsis hypocotyl epidermis and promotes growth. Curr. Biol. 28, 1794–1802.e2 (2018).
27
A. D. Franck et al., Tension applied through the Dam1 complex promotes microtubule elongation providing a direct mechanism for length control in mitosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 832–837 (2007).
28
K. Celler et al., “Microtubules in plant cells: Strategies and methods for immunofluorescence, transmission electron microscopy, and live cell imaging” in Cytoskeleton Methods and Protocols, R. H. Gavin, Ed. (Springer New York, 2016), pp. 155–184.
29
P. Durand-Smet, T. A. Spelman, E. M. Meyerowitz, H. Jönsson, Cytoskeletal organization in isolated plant cells under geometry control. bioRxiv:10.1101/784595 (1 March 2020).
30
J. Derr, R. Bastien, É. Couturier, S. Douady, Fluttering of growing leaves as a way to reach flatness: Experimental evidence on Persea americana. J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 20170595 (2018).
31
S. Takatani et al., Microtubule response to tensile stress is curbed by NEK6 to buffer growth variation in the Arabidopsis hypocotyl. Curr. Biol. 30, 1491–1503.e2 (2020).
32
T. Li et al., Calcium signals are necessary to establish auxin transporter polarity in a plant stem cell niche. Nat. Commun. 10, 726 (2019).
33
C. M. Rounds, E. Lubeck, P. K. Hepler, L. J. Winship, Propidium iodide competes with Ca(2+) to label pectin in pollen tubes and Arabidopsis root hairs. Plant Physiol. 157, 175–187 (2011).
34
W. Herth, E. Schnepf, The fluorochrome, calcofluor white, binds oriented to structural polysaccharide fibrils. Protoplasma 105, 129–133 (1980).
35
R. Rezakhaniha et al., Experimental investigation of collagen waviness and orientation in the arterial adventitia using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 11, 461–473 (2012).

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

The cover image for PNAS Vol.117; No.51
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 117 | No. 51
December 22, 2020
PubMed: 33288703

Classifications

Data Availability

All study data are included in the article and supporting information.

Submission history

Published online: December 7, 2020
Published in issue: December 22, 2020

Keywords

  1. microtubule
  2. cell geometry
  3. cortical tension
  4. protoplast
  5. Arabidopsis

Acknowledgments

We thank the MBI, Singapore, for hosting A.C. and O.H. for 6 months, where the original experiments were performed. We also thank our colleagues for constructive discussions about this project and for critical reading of the manuscript. We thank Platim for help with imaging and Gianluca Grenci for the design of the microwell casts at MBI. This work was supported by European Research Council Grant 615739 “MechanoDevo” (to O.H.), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “Plant-Structure Optimization Strategy” GrantJP18H05484) (to S.T.) and MBI seed grant support (to V.V. and T.E.S.).

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Authors

Affiliations

Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCBL, INRAE, CNRS, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France;
Antoine Chevallier1
Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCBL, INRAE, CNRS, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France;
Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, 117411 Singapore, Singapore;
Division of Biological Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara 630-0192, Japan;
Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCBL, INRAE, CNRS, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France;
Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCBL, INRAE, CNRS, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France;
Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, 117411 Singapore, Singapore;
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117558 Singapore, Singapore;
Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, UMI 3639, 117411 Singapore, Singapore
Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, 117411 Singapore, Singapore;
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117558 Singapore, Singapore;
Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCBL, INRAE, CNRS, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France;

Notes

2
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected].
Author contributions: C.G., V.V., T.E.S., and O.H. designed research; L.C., A.C., F.G., and O.H. performed research; L.C., A.C., S.T., F.G., and O.H. analyzed data; and O.H. wrote the paper with assistance from T.E.S.
1
L.C. and A.C. contributed equally to this work.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Altmetrics

Citations

Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.

Cited by

    Loading...

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to access the full text.

    Single Article Purchase

    Cortical tension overrides geometrical cues to orient microtubules in confined protoplasts
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 117
    • No. 51
    • pp. 32181-32817

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media