|
|
||||||||
|
American Society of Plant Biologists
Helical Microtubule Arrays and Spiral GrowthDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology John Innes Centre Norwich NR4 7UH, UK clive.lloyd{at}bbsrc.ac.uk Asymmetric cell shape depends on the ability of oriented layers of cellulose microfibrils to channel the nondirectional drive of turgor pressure. Tough microfibrils encircling the cell resist increases in girth and redirect the swelling force to a direction perpendicular to the alignment of the microfibrils. This transformation of an isotropic force into directional growth is crucial for setting up the main axis that allows an organism to project its photosynthetic and reproductive organs into the environment. But what controls the orientation of the microfibrils in the first place? Cortical microtubules beneath the plasma membrane are thought to guide the directed extrusion of new microfibrils from cellulose-synthesizing machinery embedded in the plasma membrane. Newly laid cellulose microfibrils often are aligned above microtubules, which look like tracks for the cellulose-synthesizing enzymes. However, the molecular details of this hypothetical transmembrane system are scant, and there are now sufficient examples of the lack of coalignment to raise questions about the basic microtubule-microfibril paradigm. Before we can arrive at new models to explain phenomena as broad as "cell shape," we need to answer more fundamental questions. Where are the microtubules formed? How do they move and link up to form a dynamic entity that covers the inner face of the plasma membrane? How can arrays form and reform so rapidly, and what controls their stability? Several recent articles have provided a quantum leap in our understanding: one group of articles begins to show how the plant cell's unique cortical microtubule array is constructed, and the other shows that mutations in the microtubule's subunit proteintubulinaffect the orientation of the entire microtubule array, resulting in changes in the direction of spiral growth. MICROTUBULES BEGET MICROTUBULES
To understand how microtubules can be organized over large areas of plasma membrane, it is important to know where tubulin polymerization is initiated and how microtubules then self-organize into an ordered array. In animals, the microtubules are nucleated from a defined sitethe centrosomethat consists of amorphous material gathered around conspicuous centrioles. The distal, growing ("plus") ends of microtubules radiate from the centrosome, and the focused nucleating material concomitantly organizes the microtubule array, a fact reflected in the term "microtubule-organizing center." In acentriolar plant cells, nucleation and organization occur separately during interphase, and there has been considerable discussion regarding where the amorphous material is located. The nuclear surface seems to initiate microtubules for relatively brief periods during late G2 and transiently after cytokinesis, but studies on living cells have failed to find activity during interphase (Yuan et al., 1994
An important clue to understanding how the array is initiated has been provided by the finding that plant microtubules are severed from their nucleation sites by katanin. This ATPase is located in centrosomes in animals, where it is believed to cut microtubules free of their nucleation sites at the minus ends (McNally et al., 1996
Another implication of these studies is that the nucleation sites become scattered over the expanding cell's cortex; thus, it is important to find markers.
Drawing this information together, it appears that katanin is required first to release microtubules nucleated at the surface of the postcytokinetic nucleus and then to repeat this procedure once nucleating material has been transported to, or been activated at, the cortex. Wasteneys (2002) CONVERTING DYNAMIC MICROTUBULES TO WHOLE-CELL ASSEMBLIES
Once formed, the cortical array gives the semblance of stability, but dynamic studies have shown that microtubules rapidly turn over tubulin subunits and are capable of reforming an array in a new direction (Yuan et al., 1994
One factor recently shown to stabilize microtubules is MICROTUBULE ORGANIZATION1 (MOR1), which belongs to an evolutionarily conserved group of high molecular mass microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) that includes human TOGp and Xenopus XMAP215. The temperature-sensitive mor1 mutant of Arabidopsis has cells that expand sideways instead of elongating, and as a result, the plants are extremely squat (Whittington et al., 2001
In the absence of discrete microtubule-organizing centers, it is important to know how individual microtubules become organized into a whole-cell array. The crucial step in converting unitary microtubules to sheets of approximately parallel elements is cross-linking by bridges. MAP65 was discovered initially as a microtubule-bundling protein by Jiang and Sonobe (1993)
One of the MAP65 genes, NtMAP65-1, has been cloned by Smertenko et al. (2000) HELICAL MICROTUBULES AND SPIRAL GROWTH The interphase microtubule array can appear very highly ordered, with microtubules sharing the same orientation over hundreds of micrometers. This degree of ordering means that cellular arrays can be classified easily as transverse, longitudinal, or oblique. In the oblique array, microtubules wind helically around the cell cortex, like the stripes on a barber's pole. The second set of articles throws surprising new light on the connection between this configuration and the spiral growth of plants. (A helix is a coil formed by winding a line around a uniform tube whose radius does not change [e.g., a Slinky, a spring, a corkscrew]. A spiral is a line that winds with a changing radius around a fixed point [e.g., a flat watch spring]. "Spiral growth" should more properly be described as helical growth.)
The three different configurations of the cortical array tend, with notable exceptions, to correlate with the growth status of the cells. In the root, elongating cells tend to have transverse arrays, and as they stop expanding, they tend to assume longitudinal patterns. In maize roots, the zones of transverse and longitudinal microtubules are separated by cells with left-handed oblique helices (Liang et al., 1996
Subsequently, this group provided further molecular details regarding microtubular involvement. Thitamadee et al. (2002) -tubulin genes that affect the intradimer interface of the protein. One explanation suggested by this finding is that the helical sign of the microtubule array is a larger reflection of the chirality of the microtubules: the way in which the slight stagger between tubulin subunits in adjacent protofilaments imparts a helical structure to the microtubule itself. It is not known whether these mutant tubulins alter the basic microtubule lattice, thereby changing the helical sign in which the protein subunits appear to wind around the microtubule wall. If this proves correct, then imaginative explanations will be required for how the helical nature of the microtubule itself is negotiated into the helical sign of microtubules in an array. It is not easy to imagine how, but another explanation could involve microtubule dynamics, because the helical sign of the cortical microtubule array can be affected by agents that stabilize (such as taxol and MOR1) and destabilize (the herbicide propyzamide) microtubules (Furutani et al., 2000HOW DOES THE LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT HAND DOETH?
An intriguing finding from the spiral and lefty mutants is that the microtubular helices are of the opposite sign to the direction of spiral growth. How does this occur? Although there may be several layers of cellulose microfibrils in the cell wall, it is believed that the innermost layers, adjacent to the plasma membrane, exert the strongest influence on the direction of growth. When, as in the wild type, the microtubules (and presumably the cellulose microfibrils) are wrapped transversely around the cell, turgor pressure is converted to a directional force perpendicular to the restraining "hoops" (more likely a flat-pitched helix) of cellulose. Cellulose microfibrils lying side by side within a layer are held together by cross-linking glycans. To expand, these cross-links are cut, allowing the cellulose microfibrils to be teased apart under pressure and the cell to expand perpendicularly to them. According to Furutani et al. (2000)
The observations of Furutani et al. (2000)
These elegant experiments on the cellulosic wall, conducted before the discovery of microtubules, were interpreted in terms of the multinet growth hypothesis, which stated that the angle of helically deposited wall lamellae is altered during subsequent cell expansion (Roelofsen and Houwink, 1953 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The importance of the articles reviewed here is that we are now beginning to understand how microtubules build the arrays necessary for an organized cell wall to support axial growth. Because cortical microtubules do not always parallel the nascent cellulose microfibrils, it is clear that there is not an obligatory one-to-one relationship. The loosening of this stricture, from time to time, has encouraged the thought that microtubules are not necessary for organized cellulose deposition, that cellulose patterns are self-organizing, and that this feeds back across the membrane to the alignment of microtubules. Although we are no nearer to understanding the circumstances under which microtubule-microfibril parallelism can be uncoupled, the elongation mutants mor1 and bot1/fra2 reaffirm the basic importance of microtubules for proper wall organization. In the previous issue of The Plant Cell, Burk and Ye (2002)
Another important outcome from the spiral studies is that the cell wall and its cytoskeletal scaffolding are seen to be expressions of a basically helical structure. This has important implications for any model that tries to unify microtubules and the synthetic machinery for cellulose. By showing images of both the cell wall and the microtubular cytoskeleton, Burk and Ye (2002) References Barroso, C., Chan, J., Allan, V., Doonan, J., Hussey, P., and Lloyd, C.W. (2000). Two kinesin-related proteins associated with the cold stable cytoskeleton of carrot cells: Characterization of a novel kinesin, DcKRP120-2. Plant J. 24, 859868.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] Bichet, A., Desnos, T., Turner, S., Grandjean, O., and Hofte, H. (2001). BOTERO1 is required for normal orientation of cortical microtubules and anisotropic cell expansion in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 25, 137148.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Burk, D.H., Liu, B., Zhong, R., Morrison, W.H., and Ye, Z.-H. (2001). A katanin-like protein regulates normal cell wall biosynthesis and cell elongation. Plant Cell 13, 807827. Burk, D.H., and Ye, Z.-H. (2002). Alteration of oriented deposition of cellulose microfibrils by mutation of a katanin-like microtubule severing protein. Plant Cell 14, in press.
Chan, J., Jensen, C.G., Jensen, L.C.W., Bush, M., and Lloyd, C.W. (1999). The 65-kDa carrot microtubule-associated protein forms regularly arranged filamentous cross-bridges between microtubules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1493114936. Chan, J., Rutten, T., and Lloyd, C.W. (1996). Isolation of microtubule-associated proteins from carrot cytoskeletons: A 120 kDa MAP decorates all four microtubule arrays and the nucleus. Plant J. 10, 251259.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Erhardt, M., Stoppin-Mellet, V., Campagne, S., Canaday, J., Mutterer, J., Fabian, T., Sauter, M., Muller, T., Peter, C., Lambert, A.-M., and Schmit, A.C. (2002). The plant Spc98p homologue colocalizes with Frei, E., and Preston, R.D. (1961). Cell wall organization and wall growth in the filamentous green algae Cladophora and Chaetomorpha. II. Spiral growth and spiral structure. Proc. R. Soc. B 155, 5581. Furutani, I., Watanabe, Y., Prieto, R., Masukawa, M., Suzuki, K., Naoi, K., Thitamadee, S., Shikanai, T., and Hashimoto, T. (2000). The SPIRAL genes are required for directional control of cell elongation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 127, 44434453.[Abstract] Granger, C.L., and Cyr, R.J. (2001). Spatiotemporal relationships between growth and microtubule orientation as revealed in living root cells of Arabidopsis thaliana transformed with green-fluorescent-protein gene construct GFP-MBD. Protoplasma 216, 201214.[ISI][Medline] Hussey, P.J., and Hawkins, T.J. (2001). Plant microtubule-associated proteins: The HEAT is off in temperature-sensitive mor1. Trends Plant Sci. 6, 389392.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] Iwata, K. (1995). Regulation of the orientation of cortical microtubules in Spirogyra cells. J. Plant Res. 108, 531534.[CrossRef]
Iwata, K., Tazawa, M., and Itoh, I. (2001). Turgor pressure regulation and the orientation of cortical microtubules in Spirogyra cells. Plant Cell Physiol. 42, 594598. Jiang, C.-J., and Sonobe, S. (1993). Identification and preliminary characterization of a 65 kDa higher-plant microtubule-associated protein. J. Cell Sci. 105, 891901.[Abstract]
Joshi, H.C., and Palevitz, B.A. (1996). Lambert, A.-M., and Lloyd, C.W. (1994). The higher plant microtubule cycle. In Microtubules, J.S. Hyams and C.W. Lloyd, eds (New York: Alan R. Liss), pp. 327341. Lancelle, S.A., Callaham, D.A., and Hepler, P.K. (1986). A method for rapid freeze fixation of plant cells. Protoplasma 131, 153165.[CrossRef] Liang, B.M., Dennings, A.M., Sharp, R.E., and Baskin, T.I. (1996). Consistent handedness of microtubule helical arrays in maize and Arabidopsis primary roots. Protoplasma 190, 815.[CrossRef] Lloyd, C., and Hussey, P. (2001). Microtubule-associated proteins in plants: Why we need a MAP. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 4047.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] McClinton, R.S., Chandler, J.S., and Callis, J. (2001). cDNA isolation, characterization, and protein intracellular localization of a katanin-like p60 subunit from Arabidopsis thaliana. Protoplasma 216, 181190.[Medline]
McNally, F.J., Okawa, K., Iwamatsu, A., and Vale, R.D. (1996). Katanin, the microtubule-severing ATPase, is concentrated at centrosomes. J. Cell Sci. 109, 561567.
Mollinari, C., Kleman, J.-P., Jiang, W., Hunter, T., and Margolis, R.L. (2002). PRC1 is a microtubule binding and bundling protein essential to maintain the mitotic spindle midzone. J. Cell Biol. 157, 11751186. Panteris, E., Apostolakos, P., Graf, R., and Galatis, B. (2000). Gamma-tubulin colocalizes with microtubule arrays and tubulin paracrystals in dividing vegetative cells of higher plants. Protoplasma 210, 179187.[CrossRef] Popov, A.V., Severin, F., and Karsenti, E. (2002). XMAP215 is required for the microtubule-nucleating activity of centrosomes. Curr. Biol. 12, 13261330.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] Preston, R.D. (1982). The case for multinet growth in growing walls of plant cells. Planta 155, 356363. Roelofsen, P.A., and Houwink, A.L. (1953). Architecture and growth of the primary wall in some plant hairs and in the Phycomyces spo-rangiosphore. Acta Bot. Neerl. 2, 218225. Smertenko, A., Saleh, N., Igarashi, H., Mori, H., Hauser-Hahn, I., Jiang, C.J., Sonobe, S., Lloyd, C.W., and Hussey, P.J. (2000). A new class of microtubule-associated proteins in plants. Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 750753.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] Stoppin-Mellet, V., Gaillard, J., and Vantard, M. (2002). Functional evidence for in vitro microtubule severing by the plant katanin homolog. Biochem. J. 365, 337342.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] Thitamadee, S., Tuchihara, K., and Hashimoto, T. (2002). Microtubule basis for left-handed helical growth in Arabidopsis. Nature 417, 193196.[CrossRef][Medline] Tournebize, R., Popov, A., Kinoshita, K., Ashford, A.J., Rybina, S., Pozniakovsky, A., Mayer, T.U., Walczak, C.E., Karsenti, E., and Hyman, A.A. (2000). Control of microtubule dynamics by the antagonistic activities of XMAP215 and XKCM1 in Xenopus egg extracts. Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 1319.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vasquez, R.J., Gard, D.L., and Cassimeris, L. (1994). XMAP from Xenopus eggs promotes rapid plus end assembly of microtubules and rapid microtubule polymer turnover. J. Cell Biol. 127, 985993.
Wasteneys, G.O. (2002). Microtubule organization in the green kingdom: Chaos or self-order? J. Cell Sci. 115, 13451354. Whittington, A.T., Vugrek, O., Wei, K.J., Hasenbein, N.G., Sugimoto, K., Rashbrooke, M.C., and Wasteneys, G.O. (2001). MOR1 is essential for organizing cortical microtubules in plants. Nature 411, 610613.[CrossRef][Medline] Wymer, C., and Lloyd, C. (1996). Dynamic microtubules: Implications for cell wall patterns. Trends Plant Sci. 1, 222228.[CrossRef]
Yasuhara, H., Muraoka, M., Shogaki, H., Mori, H., and Sonobe, S. (2002). TBMP200, a microtubule bundling polypeptide isolated from telophase tobacco BY-2 cells is a MOR1 homologue. Plant Cell Physiol. 43, 595603.
Yuan, M., Shaw, P.J., Warn, R.M., and Lloyd, C.W. (1994). Dynamic reorientation of cortical microtubules, from transverse to longitudinal, in living plant cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 60506053. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | THE PLANT CELL | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY | |
|---|---|---|---|