CELLULAR COMPARTMENTS

Plastid Division and Development

Correspondence to: Kevin A. Pyke, k.pyke{at}rhbnc.ac.uk (E-mail), 44-1784-470756 (fax)

	INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

Plastids are an important group of plant cellular organelles and comprise one of the primary features that distinguish plant cells from those of other eukaryotes. Plastids are thought to have arisen as a result of an endosymbiotic event in which an early photosynthetic prokaryote invaded a primitive eukaryotic host (Margulis 1970 ; Gray 1992 ). Subsequently, plastids have evolved to become essential components for plant cell function. The central role of plastids in plant cell biology derives primarily from the chloroplast's ability to supply the cell with fixed carbon and energy as a result of photosynthetic carbon assimilation. Moreover, portions of several major plant metabolic pathways, such as lipid biosynthesis and amino acid metabolism, occur in plastids (Galili 1995 ; Ohlrogge and Browse 1995 ).

All plastids are derived initially from small, undifferentiated plastids termed proplastids, which are found in dividing cells in meristems. During cell differentiation, proplastids differentiate into particular plastid types according to the type of cell in which they reside. By far the best studied of these plastid differentiation pathways is the biogenesis of chloroplasts during leaf mesophyll cell differentiation, and recent reviews have considered the molecular biology and biochemistry of this differentiation process (Barkan et al. 1995 ; Mache et al. 1997 ).

The emphasis on chloroplasts has overshadowed a variety of other plastid differentiation pathways that also occur in specific cell types in plants. These include plastid differentiation during root cell development (Whatley 1983 ), amyloplast differentiation during seed and tuber formation (Thomson and Whatley 1980 ), chromoplast formation in fruits and flowers (Marano et al. 1993 ), and leucoplast formation in petals (Pyke and Page 1998 ). Indeed, although plastids have long been classified into different types by virtue of their storage components and internal structures (Kirk and Tilney-Bassett 1978 ), plastids may better be described as a continuous spectrum of types; precise categorization is often difficult and may not always be biologically meaningful.

	CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID DIVISION

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

Cell Biology of Plastid Division in Higher Plants
Although proplastids are the progenitor plastid type, the cell biology of their division has been studied only sparsely. This is principally because proplastids are small and colorless and because the meristem cells in which they reside are themselves small and difficult to access. Clearly, to ensure that plastid lineages are maintained through the segregation of plastids into each of the two daughter cells, proplastids must divide before meristematic cells do so. Indeed, from studies in several species, it is estimated that meristematic cells contain 10 to 20 proplastids (Juniper and Clowes 1965 ; Cran and Possingham 1972 ; Lyndon and Robertson 1976 ). Furthermore, electron microscopical observation of these proplastids reveals central constrictions that have been interpreted to represent stages in proplastid division (Figure 1A; Chaly and Possingham 1981 ).

View larger version (63K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Dividing and Mature Plastids in Arabidopsis. (A) Dividing proplastid from a cell in the shoot apical meristem. (B) to (D) Division conformations of epidermal cell chloroplasts stained with silver nitrate from young expanding cotyledons. (E) Typical chloroplast in early division, from an expanding leaf mesophyll cell. (F) Confocal topographic view of dumbbell-shaped plastids in the base of petals in the Arabidopsis arc5 mutant. (G) A mature Arabidopsis mesophyll cell showing part of the monolayer of chloroplasts over the internal cell surface with a large hole in the monolayer representing where the cell was previously attached to a neighboring cell. (H) An electron micrograph of arc5 petal chloroplasts showing an electron-dense plastid dividing ring at the narrow isthmus of a chloroplast in division (photograph courtesy of K. Hagley).

Chloroplasts are by far the best studied of the diverse array of plastid types that have been described in different plant cells (Kirk and Tilney-Bassett 1978 ). However, confirmation that chloroplasts could divide inside developing plant cells was only made in the late 1960s (Possingham and Saurer 1969 ). Evidence for chloroplast division arose mainly as a result of improvements in electron microscopy techniques that facilitated the production of images of young chloroplasts with central constrictions (Boasson et al. 1972 ; Platt-Aloia and Thomson 1977 ). These structures were interpreted to be chloroplasts undergoing division by a process of binary fission, and careful ultrastructural analysis subsequently confirmed that dividing chloroplasts can be found in a variety of tissue types (Leech et al. 1981 ). Although the actual division of a chloroplast seems to have been observed rarely, this event has been reported in living cells (Honda et al. 1971 ) and in hanging drops (Ridley and Leech 1970 ).

The population dynamics of chloroplasts have been analyzed in detail in expanding mesophyll cells of young wheat leaves (Boffey et al. 1979 ; Boffey and Leech 1982 ; Dean and Leech 1982 ; Ellis et al. 1983 ; Ellis and Leech 1985 ) and spinach leaves (Possingham and Saurer 1969 ; Saurer and Possingham 1970 ; Cran and Possingham 1972 ; Possingham and Smith 1972 ; Possingham et al. 1975 ). These studies showed a correlation between the existence of dumbbell-shaped dividing chloroplasts in cells and a subsequent increase in chloroplast number per cell. As a result of these studies, it became clear that chloroplast division is an integral part of normal chloroplast development and an important process in plant cell development.

The process of plastid division has been characterized morphologically from careful analysis of light and electron microscopy images (Leech et al. 1981 ; Oross and Possingham 1989 ; Robertson et al. 1996 ). It is initiated by a constriction in the middle of the plastid, which narrows further and, in the later stages of division, can form a thin isthmus that joins the two daughter plastids (Figure 1A to 1E). Once the central constriction is narrowed, the daughter plastids can move independently and can rotate about the isthmus. The internal membranes of the daughter chloroplasts appear to be separated at this time, although in early stages of isthmus formation, thylakoid membranes that still join the two daughter plastids can be seen. This narrow isthmus eventually breaks, and the envelope membranes of the daughter plastids reseal.

Two hypotheses have been postulated concerning the motive force that drives plastid division. Greenspan 1977 initially suggested that daughter plastids could separate as a result of membrane thermodynamics. However, another body of evidence suggests that the constriction process in plastid division is caused by a contractile ring. This electron-dense ring, which is often called the plastid-dividing ring (PD), becomes visible by electron microscopy only in the latter stages of the process. Nevertheless, PDs have been observed in dividing chloroplasts and proplastids from several different species (Figure 1H; Susuki and Ueda 1975 ; Leech et al. 1981 ; Oross and Possingham 1989 ; Robertson et al. 1996 ). Moreover, in some cases PDs appear to form a torus, with one component on the inside of the plastid and one component on the outside (Hashimoto 1986 ).

Identifying the components of the PD would greatly enhance our understanding of the molecular basis of plastid division. Unfortunately, attempts to localize specific proteins to the PD in higher plant chloroplasts have proved inconclusive. However, a similar structure is observed in dividing chloroplasts of algae, and the localization of rhodamine phalloidin fluorescence to the isthmus of dividing plastids of Closterium ehrenbergii implies that actin plays a role in the division process (Hashimoto 1992 ). A role for actin in the division of higher plant plastids has not been established, and even though actin gene families have been well characterized in plants (Meagher 1991 ), no individual actin isomer that is specifically associated with plastid division has been identified.

Although binary fission is the most well-characterized type of chloroplast division, other mechanisms have been reported. For example, chloroplast division by partition involving the growth of a membranous baffle across the center of the chloroplast has been described in several species (Modrusan and Wrischer 1990 ; Miyake and Taniguchi 1995 ). Furthermore, a budding mode of chloroplast division has been reported in a Bryophyllum spp (Kulandaivelu and Gnanam 1985 ). The relative importance of these alternative division morphologies is unclear and requires further study.

Plastid Division in Lower Green Plants
Many studies of plastid division have been conducted in a wide variety of lower green plants, particularly algae (Mita and Kuroiwa 1988 ; Hashimoto 1992 ; Kuroiwa and Uchida 1996 ), ferns (Duckett and Ligrone 1993 ), and mosses (Tewinkel and Volkmann 1987 ; Abel et al. 1989 ; Reski et al. 1992 ; Rother et al. 1994 ). The variety of organisms in which plastid division has been studied has led to a rather confused picture, and the direct relevance of findings in these organisms to the controls of higher plant plastid division is unclear. Certainly the advantages of much clearer observation of plastids in single-celled or simple multicellular organisms are obvious, and these features have facilitated the localization of actin filaments in association with dividing plastids (Mita and Kuroiwa 1988 ; Hashimoto 1992 ).

Genetic analyses are also feasible in some of these organisms. For example, the characterization of a Physcomitrella patens mutant defective in chloroplast division (Abel et al. 1989 ; Rother et al. 1994 ) has shown that cytokinin and blue light can functionally complement the mutation (Reski et al. 1991 ), implying a role for cytokinin and blue light in chloroplast division. However, it is quite feasible that lower plants may use different signaling controls to initiate chloroplast division than do higher plants, particularly because chloroplast division and cell division are more intimately associated in lower plants than they are in higher plants. Indeed, there is no clear evidence for hormonal and/or specific light effects on the higher plant chloroplast division process, although the molecular and genetic technologies that are necessary to address these issues are available.

	MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID DIVISION

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

The ARC Genes
A genetic approach to dissecting chloroplast division and development has always appeared attractive. However, mutations that affect distinct cellular processes but have a pleiotropic effect on chloroplast division have made the interpretation of plastid mutant phenotypes difficult. Despite these potential complexities, the most recent progress in our understanding of plastid division mechanisms in higher plants has come from the use of Arabidopsis and its molecular genetic resources. Microscope-based screens have led to the identification of a collection of Arabidopsis mutants with altered numbers of chloroplasts per cell (Pyke and Leech 1991 , Pyke and Leech 1992 , Pyke and Leech 1994 ; Pyke 1997 ). The characterization of accumulation and replication of chloroplasts (arc) mutants has shown that specific nuclear genes must play specific roles both in the chloroplast division process itself as well as in the control of chloroplast population size within a cell during its development.

Foremost among this collection of mutants is arc6, which contains an average of two enlarged chloroplasts per mesophyll cell instead of the usual >100 chloroplasts per cell (Pyke et al. 1994 ). In addition, proplastids in both shoot and root meristems of arc6 are reduced in number and are larger in size (Robertson et al. 1995 ), although redifferentiation from the resulting large chloroplasts into leucoplasts in petal cells is unaffected (Pyke and Page 1998 ). The perturbations in proplastid division in this mutant result in altered plastid phenotypes in all the cells of the arc6 plant that have been studied to date. Thus, the ARC6 gene product appears to be of major importance to the initiation of both proplastid and chloroplast division. Another mutant, arc12, which is not allelic to arc6 but has a similar chloroplast phenotype, has also been identified recently (E.A. Kinsman and K.A. Pyke, unpublished data).

A particularly novel feature of the arc6 and arc12 phenotypes is the presence of guard cells that lack plastids (Robertson et al. 1995 ). This phenotype appears to be guard cell specific and may result from abnormal plastid segregation during the series of asymmetric cell divisions that occur during stomatal biogenesis (Larkin et al. 1997 ). Because every other cell type in these mutants appears to contain at least one plastid, there must be some mechanism by which proplastids segregate into each daughter cell during cytokinesis. One possibility is that proplastid segregation simply results from breakage of the plastid during cell plate formation.

Two other mutations, arc3 (Pyke and Leech 1992 ) and arc5 (Pyke and Leech 1994 ), appear to specifically affect chloroplast division, resulting in ~15 chloroplasts per leaf mesophyll cell. ARC3 seems to be involved in the initiation of chloroplast division, whereas in arc5 mesophyll cells, chloroplasts enter division but appear to stop when they become centrally constricted, unable to proceed through the separation stage. These arc5 chloroplasts then increase in size, resulting in large mature chloroplasts that retain the dumbbell shape typical of younger smaller chloroplasts (Robertson et al. 1996 ). Green chloroplasts in the base of arc5 petal cells show this phenotype dramatically, with virtually all the chloroplasts in each cell exhibiting the dumbbell-shaped morphology (Figure 1F). Interestingly, a large proportion of the green chloroplasts at the base of petals in wild-type plants is also dumbbell shaped (Pyke and Page 1998 ) and does not appear to complete the separation stage of division. It is therefore tempting to speculate that the ARC5 gene product may be required to complete the separation process and that this gene is expressed in a cell-specific manner.

Other arc mutants show a variety of different types of chloroplast division phenotypes and numbers per mesophyll cell. Both the arc1 mutant (Pyke and Leech 1992 ) and the arc7 mutant (Rutherford 1996 ) have a larger number of smaller chloroplasts per cell than does the wild type, and both have pale leaves that are slow to green. Because both of these mutations are recessive, it seems most likely that the primary lesions are in aspects of chloroplast development per se, rather than division control, and that the increased number of chloroplasts results from compensation to reduced chloroplast growth. The arc10 mutant is of particular interest because its mesophyll cell chloroplasts are highly heterogenous in size within a single cell (Rutherford 1996 ). This size heterogeneity may be caused by the presence of a subpopulation of chloroplasts that does not divide or by some other form of abnormal chloroplast division, such as asymmetric division.

Plastid Division and Bacterial Cell Division
The binary fission process of plastid division is morphologically similar to bacterial cell division. Although the possibility of a similar genetic control for the two processes was suggested several years ago (Possingham et al. 1988 ), such ideas have come to fruition only recently with the development of Arabidopsis molecular genetics. Division of Escherichia coli cells is controlled by a set of genes (Donachie 1993 ), the most important members of which are the fts (for filamentous temperature-sensitive) genes, so called because when mutant bacteria are grown at the permissive temperature, they form filaments. FtsZ is among the more interesting of these genes (Bramhill 1997 ; Erickson 1997 ) because its product is able to form a filamentous ring around the center of the bacterial cell (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991 ; Levin and Losick 1996 ; Ma et al. 1996 ). This ring contracts during cell division to separate the two daughter cells. Links between the FtsZ ring and the bacterial cell membrane appear to be mediated by a membrane protein, termed ZipA, which specifically binds to FtsZ (Hale and de Boer 1997 ).

The structure of FtsZ and its ability to form filaments suggested that it may represent an ancient prokaryotic tubulin-like molecule. This hypothesis has received a boost from the recently solved crystal structure of a bacterial FtsZ, which exhibits close similarity to the structure of tubulin (Lowe and Amos 1998 ). Moreover, an Arabidopsis expressed sequence tag clone showing sequence similarity to bacterial FtsZ has been identified, a finding that has led to the major discovery of FtsZ gene homologs in Arabidopsis (Osteryoung and Vierling 1995 ). One of these Arabidopsis FtsZ genes contains a chloroplast transit peptide that is known to be cleaved during chloroplast uptake experiments. This strongly suggests that FtsZ molecules are present inside higher plant chloroplasts and, by implication, that they are likely to be involved in the chloroplast division process.

Further evidence that Arabidopsis homologs of FtsZ play a role in chloroplast division come from experiments showing that transgenic plants carrying antisense AtFtsZ constructs expressed under the control of a constitutive promoter have fewer enlarged chloroplasts in their mesophyll cells as compared with the wild type (Osteryoung et al. 1998 ). This phenotype is similar to those of the arc6 and arc12 mutants. In addition, an FtsZ knockout in the moss P. patens also results in few enlarged chloroplasts per cell (Strepp et al. 1998 ), although studies using antibiotic inhibitors suggest that there are differences between moss and higher plants in the protein components of the presumed division complex (Kasten and Reski 1997 ).

The sequencing of the Chorella vulgaris chloroplast genome has also contributed evidence that supports the evolutionary conservation of bacterial and chloroplast division processes. For example, the Chorella chloroplast genome contains two adjacent genes, minD and minE, which are arranged in the same order as their homologs in E. coli (Wakasugi et al. 1997 ). The E. coli genes form part of the E. coli minicell locus, which consists of three min genes that are required for the correct positioning of a septal division site in the bacterial cell. min gene homologs have been found in higher plant chloroplast genomes, suggesting either that they have moved to the nuclear genome during evolution or that other nuclear-encoded proteins have taken over their function. A minD homolog has been reported in the Arabidopsis nuclear genome (Osteryoung and Pyke 1998 ).

Overall, these recent developments in the molecular analysis of chloroplast division have shown clearly that a mechanism that has evolved from bacterial cell division most likely operates in higher plant chloroplasts. FtsZ would appear to be a prime candidate for the portion of the PD ring that resides inside the plastid. It may be that in the plant cell, such a system interacts with an actin-based component in the cytosol, but confirmation of this hypothesis must await a clear characterization of a chloroplast FtsZ-based division system and its associated proteins.

	THE CONTROL OF PLASTID DIVISION

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

Cellular Factors Controlling Plastid Population Size
Although considerable progress has been made in determining the molecular mechanisms that underlie plastid binary fission, an understanding of how cells control their plastid numbers is completely lacking. In several plant species, it is clear that the size of a leaf mesophyll cell is a primary determinant of the number of chloroplasts within it (Lamppa et al. 1980 ; Ellis and Leech 1985 ; Pyke and Leech 1992 ). In addition, the increase in chloroplast number during mesophyll cell expansion appears to be strictly regulated such that the relationship between chloroplast number and cell size is constant as the cell enlarges.

A characterization of variation in the chloroplast number –size relationship for large numbers of noncultivated plant species is lacking, although there appear to be no reports of natural species with greatly enlarged chloroplasts that are comparable to those observed in Arabidopsis mutants. A report that leaf cells of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) contain only two or three chloroplasts per cell (Baker and Hardwick 1973 ) has been confirmed, but these chloroplasts are of normal size and the mesophyll cells are very small (Figure 2; N. Salmon and K.A. Pyke, unpublished data). Indeed, analysis of a small number of dicotyledonous species shows that in spite of variation in cell size, plastid size, and plastid number, the total chloroplast area in cells is strictly related to cell size over a 10-fold range of cell sizes from different species (Figure 2).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Chloroplast Cover and Mesophyll Cell Size in Different Dicotyledonous Species. The relationship between mesophyll cell size, measured as plan area, and the total plan area of chloroplasts per mesophyll cell, measured as chloroplast number per cell multiplied by mean chloroplast plan area per cell. The data plotted are for eight different dicotyledonous species and several arc mutants of Arabidopsis. The species are (1) T. cacao, (2) Citrus sinensis, (3) Quercus thureyi, (4) Hedera helix, (5) Gossypium arboreum, (6) Bouganvillea glabra, (7) Arabidopsis arc1 mutant, (8) Lycopersicon esculentum, (9) Arabidopsis arc5 mutant, (10) Arabidopsis arc3-1 mutant, (11) Arabidopsis arc2 mutant, (12) Arabidopsis arc3-2 mutant, and (13) Arabidopsis wild type (Landsberg erecta). Species data are courtesy of N. Salmon.

During the development of mesophyll cells in dicotyledonous leaves, a monolayer of chloroplasts is maintained over a large proportion of the mesophyll cell surface (Figure 1G), and as the cell expands, individual chloroplasts undergo division and subsequent expansion to maintain this coverage. The factors that signal individual chloroplasts to divide in this way are not known, but chloroplast density in relation to the size of the cell seems to be involved.

How the signal is transmitted is also a matter for speculation. It may be that chloroplasts can monitor their packing density within the cell. This is because in most mesophyll cells, chloroplasts are densely packed with an individual chloroplast in contact with several neighbors. Furthermore, signals coordinating plastid division may pass among neighboring chloroplasts along membranous tubule connections that link individual plastids and that appear to be capable of protein transfer (Kohler et al. 1997 ). Alternatively, the degree of compression of a chloroplast may provide a means by which subsequent divisions are initiated. There is also evidence that plastids in cells undergoing rapid expansion appear to initiate divisions, almost to the point where all plastids show dumbbell phenotypes (Leech and Pyke 1988 ; Pyke 1997 ; Pyke and Page 1998 ). This can be interpreted as a rapid decline in plastid density providing a major "on" signal to initiate division.

Another major factor that dictates the number of plastids within a cell is the cell type. Indeed, the differentiation status of a cell can often be characterized by the number and type of plastids that it contains. This is an often-overlooked aspect of plastid division biology, because chloroplast division in mesophyll cells has come to dominate the subject. All other cell types in a plant will contain plastids that are capable of division, yet practically nothing is known about the basic population dynamics of these systems, let alone the cell-specific mechanisms that control them.

Developmental Factors Controlling Plastid Division
Several detailed studies of chloroplast populations during development have suggested that chloroplasts must attain a certain size before they can divide (Boffey and Leech 1982 ; Ellis et al. 1983 ), and it is obvious that newly divided chloroplasts must subsequently increase in size before another round of division can occur. It is possible that chloroplasts can divide only when they are within a "size window," but clarification of this concept will probably require an in vitro chloroplast division system. In P. patens, application of cytokinin appears able to initiate divisions in greatly enlarged chloroplasts (Kasten et al. 1997 ), but such studies are largely missing in higher plant systems.

Although the idea of a chloroplast division cycle is convenient, the close control by the cell of chloroplast divisions, particularly in the context of a chloroplast population, suggests that a free-running chloroplast division cycle does not exist. Although the chloroplast genome does not appear to be directly involved in the control of chloroplast division, there is close interaction between chloroplast DNA replication and chloroplast division. Indeed, it is well established that chloroplast DNA replication results in an increase in chloroplast genome copy number before chloroplast division (Boffey et al. 1979 ; Boffey and Leech 1982 ), with the genome copies segregated into the two daughter chloroplasts.

Although chloroplast division is obviously a normally integrated part of chloroplast development, abolishing divisions, as occurs in some arc mutants, seemingly does not affect continued chloroplast development, and all studies on these greatly enlarged chloroplasts suggest that their development and internal structure are largely normal (Robertson et al. 1995 , Robertson et al. 1996 ). Consequently, it appears that division and development, particularly in terms of chloroplast size, are independent but mutually compensating processes (Pyke 1997 ).

Why Do Cells Contain So Many Small Chloroplasts?
The fact that developing chloroplasts normally divide during mesophyll cell expansion implies that a division event is an integral part of normal chloroplast development and that plant cells have evolved to contain many small chloroplasts rather than a few large ones. Because Arabidopsis arc mutants with just a few enlarged chloroplasts per cell are indistinguishable from wild-type plants in terms of their overall morphology and growth rate, the question arises as to why higher plant chloroplasts need to divide rather than simply to expand.

One potential answer to this question comes from studies of chloroplast positioning in Arabidopsis. These investigations show that plastid positioning within the cell is controlled by light conditions (Trojan and Gabrys 1996 ) and that chloroplasts appear to locate preferentially on cell surfaces exposed to air spaces in the leaf (K.A. Pyke, unpublished data). These features can be visualized easily in separated fixed Arabidopsis mesophyll cells, in which empty patches in the monolayer of chloroplasts tightly appressed to the cell wall represent areas where two cells were originally joined in the leaf anatomy (Figure 1G). Presumably, if a cell had only a few enlarged chloroplasts, the capacity for those chloroplasts to resolve their placement appropriately would be greatly compromised.

	PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE?

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

Although this article has highlighted several recent developments in the understanding of plastid division, it has also revealed the paucity of knowledge about many aspects of the process. The discovery of bacterial cell division gene homologs strongly suggests that higher plant plastid division is based on a system that has evolved from that utilized in prokaryotic cells. It remains to be seen whether novel plastid-specific components of this process have evolved independently in plants.

With the characterization of genes that control aspects of plastid division, efforts to manipulate genetically the size of the plastid compartment will become feasible. It is likely that such efforts will be successful only if the mechanisms that allow compensation between plastid number and plastid size are broken, either by mutation or by other genetic manipulations. Finally, considering the progress that has been made in understanding the biology of higher plant plastid division, it would be pleasing to see plant cells represented in today's biology textbooks with a substantial number of chloroplasts in their cytoplasm.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Katherine Osteryoung for many useful discussions, Anton Page and Karen Hagley for providing electron micrographs, Nicola Salmon for providing unpublished data, and Des DeSouza for critically reading the manuscript.

	REFERENCES

TOP INTRODUCTION CELL BIOLOGY OF PLASTID... MOLECULES INVOLVED IN PLASTID... THE CONTROL OF PLASTID... PLASTID DIVISION—THE FUTURE? REFERENCES

Abel, W.O., Knebel, W., Koop, H.-U., Marienfeld, J.R., Quader, H., Reski, R., Schnepf, E., and Sporlein, B. (1989) A cytokinin-sensitive mutant of the moss Physcomitrella patens, defective in chloroplast division. Protoplasma 152:1-13[CrossRef].

Baker, N.R., and Hardwick, K. (1973) Biochemical and physiological aspects of leaf development in cocoa (Theobroma cacao). I. Development of chlorophyll and photosynthetic activity. New Phytol. 72:1315-1324.

Barkan, A., Voelker, R., Mendel-Hartvig, J., Johnson, D., and Walker, M. (1995) Genetic analysis of chloroplast biogenesis in higher plants. Physiol. Plant. 93:163-170[CrossRef].

Bi, E., and Lutkenhaus, J. (1991) FtsZ ring structure associated with division in Escherichia coli. Nature 354:161-164[CrossRef][Medline].

Boasson, R., Laetsch, W.H., and Price, I. (1972) The etioplast/chloroplast transformation in tobacco: Correlation of ultrastructure, replication and chlorophyll synthesis. Am. J. Bot. 59:217-233[CrossRef].

Boffey, S.A., and Leech, R.M. (1982) Chloroplast DNA levels and the control of chloroplast division in light-grown wheat leaves. Plant Physiol. 69:1387-1391[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Boffey, S.A., Ellis, J.R., Sellden, G., and Leech, R.M. (1979) Chloroplast division and DNA synthesis in light-grown wheat leaves. Plant Physiol. 64:502-505[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Bramhill, D. (1997) Bacterial cell division. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13:395-424.

Chaly, N., and Possingham, J.V. (1981) Structure of constricted proplastids in meristematic plant tissues. Biol. Cell. 41:203-210.

Cran, D.G., and Possingham, J.V. (1972) Variation of plastid types in spinach. Protoplasma 74:345-356[CrossRef].

Dean, C., and Leech, R.M. (1982) Genome expression during normal leaf development. I. Cellular and chloroplast numbers and DNA, RNA and protein levels in tissues of different ages within a seven-day old wheat leaf. Plant Physiol. 69:904-910[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Donachie, W.D. (1993) The cell cycle of Escherichia coli.. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 47:199-230[Medline].

Duckett, J.G., and Ligrone, R. (1993) Plastid-dividing rings in ferns. Ann. Bot. 72:619-627[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Ellis, J.R., and Leech, R.M. (1985) Cell size and chloroplast size in relation to chloroplast replication in light-grown wheat leaves. Planta 165:120-125[CrossRef].

Ellis, J.R., Jellings, A.J., and Leech, R.M. (1983) Nuclear DNA content and the control of chloroplast replication in wheat leaves. Planta 157:376-380.

Erickson, H.P. (1997) FtsZ, a tubulin homologue in prokaryote cell division. Trends Cell Biol. 7:362-367[Medline].

Galili, G. (1995) Regulation of lysine and threonine biosynthesis. Plant Cell 7:899-906[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

Gray, M.W. (1992) The endosymbiont hypothesis revisited. Int. Rev. Cytol. 141:233-357[ISI][Medline].

Greenspan, H.P. (1977) On the dynamics of cell cleavage. J. Theor. Biol. 65:79-99[Medline].

Hale, C.A., and de Boer, P.A.J. (1997) Direct binding of FtsZ to ZipA, an essential component of the septal ring structure that mediates cell division in E. coli.. Cell 88:175-185[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

Hashimoto, H. (1986) Double ring structure around the constricting neck of dividing plastids of Avena sativa.. Protoplasma 135:166-172[CrossRef].

Hashimoto, H. (1992) Involvement of actin filaments in chloroplast division of the alga Closterium ehrenbergii.. Protoplasma 167:88-96.

Honda, S.I., Hongladoram-Honda, T., Kwanyuen, P., and Wildman, S.G. (1971) Interpretations on chloroplast reproduction derived correlations between cells and chloroplasts. Planta 97:1-15.

Juniper, B.E., and Clowes, F.A.L. (1965) Cytoplasmic organelles and cell growth in root caps. Nature 208:864-865[CrossRef].

Kasten, B., and Reski, R. (1997) B-lactam antibiotics inhibit chloroplast division in a moss (Physcomitrella patens) but not in a tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). J. Plant Physiol. 150:137-140.

Kasten, B., Buck, F., Nuske, J., and Reski, R. (1997) Cytokinin affects nuclear- and plastome-encoded energy-converting plastid enzymes. Planta 201:261-272[CrossRef][Medline].

Kirk, J.T.O., and Tilney-Bassett, R.A.E. (1978). The Plastids. (Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press).

Kohler, R.H., Cao, J., Zipfel, W.R., Webb, W.W., and Hanson, M.R. (1997) Exchange of protein molecules through connections between higher plant plastids. Science 276:2039-2042[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Kulandaivelu, G., and Gnanam, A. (1985) Scanning electron microscope evidence for a budding mode of chloroplast multiplication in higher plants. Physiol. Plant. 63:299-302[CrossRef].

Kuroiwa, T., and Uchida, H. (1996) Organelle division and cytoplasmic inheritance. Bioscience 46:827-835.

Lamppa, G.K., Elliot, L.V., and Bendich, A.J. (1980) Changes in chloroplast number during pea leaf development. Planta 148:437-443.

Larkin, J.C., Marks, M.D., Nadeau, J., and Sack, F. (1997) Epidermal cell fate and patterning in leaves. Plant Cell 9:1109-1120[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

Leech, R.M., and Pyke, K.A. (1988). Chloroplast division in higher plants with particular reference to wheat. In The Division and Segregation of Organelles, S.A. Boffey and D. Lloyd, eds (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), pp. 39–62.

Leech, R.M., Thomson, W.W., and Platt-Aloia, K.A. (1981) Observations of the mechanism of chloroplast division in higher plants. New Phytol. 87:1-9[CrossRef].

Levin, P.A., and Losick, R. (1996) Transcription factor Spo0A switches the localization of the cell division protein FtsZ from a medial to a bipolar pattern in Bacillus subtilis.. Genes Dev. 10:478-488[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Lowe, J., and Amos, L.A. (1998) Crystal structure of the bacterial cell-division protein FtsZ. Nature 391:203-206[CrossRef][Medline].

Lyndon, R.F., and Robertson, E.S. (1976) The quantitative ultrastructure of the pea shoot apex in relation to leaf initiation. Protoplasma 87:387-402[CrossRef].

Ma, X., Ehrhardt, D.W., and Margolin, W. (1996) Co-localization of cell division proteins FtsZ and FtsA to cytoskeletal structures in living Escherichia coli.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:12998-13003[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Mache, R., Zhou, D.-X., Lerbs-Mache, S., Harrak, H., Villain, P., and Gauvin, S. (1997) Nuclear control of early plastid development. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 35:199-203[ISI].

Marano, M.R., Serra, E.C., Orellano, E.G., and Carrrillo, N. (1993) The path of chromoplast development in fruits and flowers. Plant Sci. 94:1-17[CrossRef].

Margulis, L. (1970). Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Meagher, R.B. (1991) Divergence and differential expression of actin gene families in higher plants. Int. Rev. Cytol. 125:139-163[ISI][Medline].

Mita, T., and Kuroiwa, T. (1988) Division of plastids by a plastid-dividing ring in Cyanidium caldarium.. Protoplasma 146(suppl. 1):133-152[CrossRef][ISI].

Miyake, N.H., and Taniguchi, T. (1995) Ultrastructural changes of chloroplasts in peanut mesophyll protoplasts treated with electric fields. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 64:131-138.

Modrusan, Z., and Wrischer, M. (1990) Studies on chloroplast division in young leaf tissues of some higher plants. Protoplasma 154:1-7.

Ohlrogge, J., and Browse, J. (1995) Lipid biosynthesis. Plant Cell 7:957-970[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

Oross, J.W., and Possingham, J.V. (1989) Ultrastructural features of the constricted region in dividing plastids. Protoplasma 150:131-138.

Osteryoung, K.W., and Pyke, K.A. (1998) Plastid division: Evidence for a prokaryotically derived mechanism. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 1:475-479[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].

Osteryoung, K.W., and Vierling, E. (1995) Conserved cell and organelle division. Nature 376:473-474[Medline].

Osteryoung, K.W., Stokes, K.D., Rutherford, S.M., Percival, A.L., and Lee, W.Y. (1998) Chloroplast division in higher plants requires members of two functionally divergent gene families with homology to bacterial ftsZ. Plant Cell 10:1991-2004[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Platt-Aloia, K., and Thomson, W.W. (1977) Chloroplast development in young sesame plants. New Phytol. 78:599-605[CrossRef].

Possingham, J.V., and Saurer, W. (1969) Changes in chloroplast number per cell during leaf development in spinach. Planta 86:186-194[CrossRef].

Possingham, J.V., and Smith, J.W. (1972) Factors affecting chloroplast replication in spinach. J. Exp. Bot. 23:1050-1059[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Possingham, J.V., Cran, D.G., Rose, R.J., and Loveys, B.R. (1975) Effects of green light on the chloroplasts of spinach leaf discs. J. Exp. Bot. 26:33-42[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Possingham, J.V., Hashimoto, H., and Oross, J. (1988). Factors that influence plastid division in higher plants. In The Division and Segregation of Organelles, S.A. Boffey and D. Lloyd, eds (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1–20.

Pyke, K.A. (1997) The genetic control of plastid division in higher plants. Am. J. Bot. 84:1017-1027[Abstract].

Pyke, K.A., and Leech, R.M. (1991) A rapid image analysis screening procedure for identifying chloroplast-number mutants in mesophyll cells of Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant Physiol. 96:1193-1195[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Pyke, K.A., and Leech, R.M. (1992) Nuclear mutations radically alter chloroplast division and expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant Physiol. 99:1005-1008[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Pyke, K.A., and Leech, R.M. (1994) A genetic analysis of chloroplast division in Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant Physiol. 104:201-207[Abstract].

Pyke, K.A., and Page, A.M. (1998) Plastid ontogeny during petal development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 116:797-803[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Pyke, K.A., Rutherford, S.M., Robertson, E.J., and Leech, R.M. (1994) arc6, a fertile Arabidopsis mutant with only two mesophyll cell chloroplasts. Plant Physiol. 106:1169-1177[Abstract].

Reski, R., Wehe, M., Hadeler, B., Marienfield, J.R., and Abel, W.O. (1991) Cytokinin and light quality interact at the molecular level in the chloroplast mutant PC22 of the moss Physcomitrella.. J. Plant Physiol. 138:236-243.

Reski, R., Wehe, M., Kasten, B., Reutter, K., Marienfield, J.R., and Abel, W.O. (1992) The molecular analysis of chloroplast division. Cryptogam. Bot. 3:18-22.

Ridley, S.M., and Leech, R.M. (1970) Division of chloroplasts in an artificial environment. Nature 227:463-465[Medline].

Robertson, E.J., Pyke, K.A., and Leech, R.M. (1995) arc6, an extreme chloroplast division mutant of Arabidopsis also alters proplastid proliferation and morphology in shoot and root apices. J. Cell Sci. 108:2937-2944[Abstract].

Robertson, E.J., Rutherford, S.M., and Leech, R.M. (1996) Characterization of chloroplast division using the Arabidopsis mutant arc5. Plant Physiol. 112:149-159[Abstract].

Rother, S., Hadeler, B., Orsini, J.M., Abel, W.O., and Reski, R. (1994) Fate of a mutant macrochloroplast in somatic hybrids. J. Plant Physiol. 143:72-77.

Rutherford, S. (1996). The Genetic and Physical Analysis of Mutants in Chloroplast Number and Size in Arabidopsis thaliana. PhD Dissertation (York, UK: University of York).

Saurer, W., and Possingham, J.V. (1970) Studies on the growth of spinach leaves (Spinacea oleracea). J. Exp. Biol. 21:151-158.

Strepp, R., Scholz, S., Kruse, S., Speth, V., and Reski, R. (1998) Plant nuclear gene knockout reveals a role in plastid division for the homolog of the bacterial cell division protein FtsZ, an ancestral tubulin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:4368-4373[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Susuki, K., and Ueda, R. (1975) Electron microscopic observations on plastid division in root meristematic cells of Pisum sativum L. Jpn. Bot. Mag. 88:319-321.

Tewinkel, M., and Volkmann, D. (1987) Observations on dividing plastids in the protonema of the moss Funaria hygrometrica Sibth. Planta 172:309-320.

Thomson, W.W., and Whatley, J.M. (1980) Development of non-green plastids. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31:375-394[ISI].

Trojan, A., and Gabrys, H. (1996) Chloroplast distribution in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) depends on light conditions during growth. Plant Physiol. 111:419-425[Abstract].

Wakasugi, T., Nagai, T., Kapoor, M., Sugita, M., Ito, M., Ito, S., Tsudzuki, J., Nakashima, K., Tsudzuki, T., Susuki, Y., Hamada, A., Ohta, T., Inamura, A., Yoshinaga, K., and Sugiura, M. (1997) Complete nucleotide sequence of the chloroplast genome from the green alga Chlorella vulgaris: The existence of genes possibly involved in chloroplast division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:5967-5972[Abstract/Free Full Text].

Whatley, J.M. (1983) The ultrastructure of plastids in roots. Int. Rev. Cytol. 85:175-220.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Gillard, V. Devos, M. J.J. Huysman, L. De Veylder, S. D'Hondt, C. Martens, P. Vanormelingen, K. Vannerum, K. Sabbe, V. A. Chepurnov, et al. Physiological and Transcriptomic Evidence for a Close Coupling between Chloroplast Ontogeny and Cell Cycle Progression in the Pennate Diatom Seminavis robusta Plant Physiology, November 1, 2008; 148(3): 1394 - 1411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-y. Miyagishima, H. Kuwayama, H. Urushihara, and H. Nakanishi Evolutionary linkage between eukaryotic cytokinesis and chloroplast division by dynamin proteins PNAS, September 30, 2008; 105(39): 15202 - 15207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Nishi, K. Hu, J. M. Murray, and D. S. Roos Organellar dynamics during the cell cycle of Toxoplasma gondii J. Cell Sci., May 1, 2008; 121(9): 1559 - 1568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T. Fujiwara, H. Hashimoto, Y. Kazama, T. Abe, S. Yoshida, N. Sato, and R. D. Itoh The Assembly of the FtsZ Ring at the Mid-Chloroplast Division Site Depends on a Balance Between the Activities of AtMinE1 and ARC11/AtMinD1 Plant Cell Physiol., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 345 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W. Yoder, D. Kadirjan-Kalbach, B. J. S. C. Olson, S.-y. Miyagishima, S. L. DeBlasio, R. P. Hangarter, and K. W. Osteryoung Effects of Mutations in Arabidopsis FtsZ1 on Plastid Division, FtsZ Ring Formation and Positioning, and FtsZ Filament Morphology in Vivo Plant Cell Physiol., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 775 - 791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Maple and S. G. Moller Plastid Division: Evolution, Mechanism and Complexity Ann. Bot., April 1, 2007; 99(4): 565 - 579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. T. Horner, R. A. Healy, G. Ren, D. Fritz, A. Klyne, C. Seames, and R. W. Thornburg Amyloplast to chromoplast conversion in developing ornamental tobacco floral nectaries provides sugar for nectar and antioxidants for protection Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2007; 94(1): 12 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lopez-Juez Plastid biogenesis, between light and shadows J. Exp. Bot., January 1, 2007; 58(1): 11 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-y. Miyagishima, J. E. Froehlich, and K. W. Osteryoung PDV1 and PDV2 Mediate Recruitment of the Dynamin-Related Protein ARC5 to the Plastid Division Site PLANT CELL, October 1, 2006; 18(10): 2517 - 2530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Forth and K. A. Pyke The suffulta mutation in tomato reveals a novel method of plastid replication during fruit ripening J. Exp. Bot., June 1, 2006; 57(9): 1971 - 1979. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Aldridge, J. Maple, and S. G. Moller The molecular biology of plastid division in higher plants J. Exp. Bot., April 1, 2005; 56(414): 1061 - 1077. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T. Fujiwara, A. Nakamura, R. Itoh, Y. Shimada, S. Yoshida, and S. G. Moller Chloroplast division site placement requires dimerization of the ARC11/AtMinD1 protein in Arabidopsis J. Cell Sci., May 1, 2004; 117(11): 2399 - 2410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Tang, H. Xia, M. Cao, X. Zhang, W. Zeng, S. Hu, W. Tong, J. Wang, J. Wang, J. Yu, et al. A Comparison of Rice Chloroplast Genomes Plant Physiology, May 1, 2004; 135(1): 412 - 420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

M. d. l. L. Gutierrez-Nava, C. S. Gillmor, L. F. Jimenez, A. Guevara-Garcia, and P. Leon CHLOROPLAST BIOGENESIS Genes Act Cell and Noncell Autonomously in Early Chloroplast Development Plant Physiology, May 1, 2004; 135(1): 471 - 482.