Are red algae plants?

For 200 years prior to the 1938 publication of H. F. Copeland, all authorities (with one exception) classified red algae (Rhodophyta) within Kingdom Plantae or its equivalent. Copeland's reclassification of red algae within Kingdom Protista or Protoctista drew from an alternative tradition, dating to Cohn in 1867, in which red algae were viewed as the earliest or simplest eukaryotes. Analyses of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence data initially favoured Copeland's reclassification. Many more rRNA gene (rDNA) sequences are now available from the eukaryote lineages most closely related to red algae, and based on these data, the hypothesis that red algae and green plants are sister groups cannot be rejected. An increasing body of sequence, intron-location and functional data from nuclear- and mitochondrially encoded proteins likewise supports a sister-group relationship between red algae and green plants. Submerging Kingdoms Plantae, Animalia and Fungi into Eukarya would provide a more natural framework for the eventual resolution of whether red algae are plants or prorists.     

European genomics: think big or small?

With the first draft of the human genome completed, Michael Gross looks at some of the plans to study a variety of European populations to exploit the new information.     

Are clonal plants more tolerant to grazing than co-occurring non-clonal plants in inland dunes?

Clonal traits such as clonal integration and storage functions of rhizomes or stolons may provide clonal plants with additional advantages against grazing over non-clonal plants. Here, we hypothesize that clonal species have a larger capacity for compensatory growth than co-occurring non-clonal species. In inland dunes in northern China, individual plants of two rhizomatous clonal species (Bromus ircutensis and Psammochloa villosa) and two non-clonal ones (Artemisia intramongolica and Astragalus melilotoides) were subjected to 0% (control), 50% (moderate) and 90% (heavy) shoot removal. Compared with control, heavy clipping greatly increased the relative growth rate in Bromus and Psammochloa, but decreased that in Artemisia and Astragalus. Heavy clipping affected above-ground dry weight and the number of modules more negatively in Artemisia and Astragalus than in Bromus and Psammochloa. These results support the hypothesis and suggest that clonal species are more tolerant to grazing than co-occurring non-clonal species in inland dunes.     

How do plants achieve tolerance to phosphorus deficiency? Small causes with big effects

Genotypic differences in phosphorus (P) uptake from P-deficient soils may be due to higher root growth or higher external root efficiency (micrograms of P taken up per square centimeter of root surface area). Both factors are highly interrelated because any additional P provided by externally efficient roots will also stimulate root growth. It will be necessary to separate both factors to identify a primary mechanism to formulate hypotheses on pathways and genes causing genotypic differences in P uptake. For this purpose, a plant growth model was developed for rice (Oryza sativa) grown under highly P-deficient conditions. Model simulations showed that small changes in root growth-related parameters had big effects on P uptake. Increasing root fineness or the internal efficiency for root dry matter production (dry matter accumulated per unit P distributed to roots) by 22% was sufficient to increase P uptake by a factor of three. That same effect could be achieved by a 33% increase in external root efficiency. However, the direct effect of increasing external root efficiency accounted for little over 10% of the 3-fold increase in P uptake. The remaining 90% was due to enhanced root growth as a result of higher P uptake per unit root size. These results demonstrate that large genotypic differences in P uptake from a P-deficient soil can be caused by rather small changes in tolerance mechanisms. Such changes will be particularly difficult to detect for external efficiency because they are likely overshadowed by secondary root growth effects.     

Extracellular small RNAs: what, where, why?

miRNAs (microRNAs) are a class of small RNA that regulate gene expression by binding to mRNAs and modulating the precise amount of proteins that get expressed in a cell at a given time. This form of gene regulation plays an important role in developmental systems and is critical for the proper function of numerous biological pathways. Although miRNAs exert their functions inside the cell, these and other classes of RNA are found in body fluids in a cell-free form that is resistant to degradation by RNases. A broad range of cell types have also been shown to secrete miRNAs in association with components of the RISC (RNA-induced silencing complex) and/or encapsulation within vesicles, which can be taken up by other cells. In the present paper, we provide an overview of the properties of extracellular miRNAs in relation to their capacity as biomarkers, stability against degradation and mediators of cell-cell communication.     

Are personality differences in a small iteroparous mammal maintained by a life-history trade-off?

Despite increasing interest, animal personality is still a puzzling phenomenon. Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain intraindividual consistency and interindividual variation in behaviour, which have been primarily supported by qualitative data and simulations. Using an empirical approach, I tested predictions of one main life-history hypothesis, which posits that consistent individual differences in behaviour are favoured by a trade-off between current and future reproduction. Data on life-history were collected for individuals of a natural population of grey mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus). Using open-field and novel-object tests, I quantified variation in activity, exploration and boldness for 117 individuals over 3 years. I found systematic variation in boldness between individuals of different residual reproductive value. Young males with low current but high expected future fitness were less bold than older males with high current fecundity, and males might increase in boldness with age. Females have low variation in assets and in boldness with age. Body condition was not related to boldness and only explained marginal variation in exploration. Overall, these data indicate that a trade-off between current and future reproduction might maintain personality variation in mouse lemurs, and thus provide empirical support of this life-history trade-off hypothesis.     

RhoGAP: the next big thing for small mice?

The size of an organism is determined by the number and size of its constituent cells. The insulin/IGF-1 signaling systems have been long recognized to play a critical role in the determination of body size. Now the generation of mice deficient for a RhoGAP suggests that this small G protein might also regulate the growth of animals.     

Why get big in the cold? Towards a solution to a life-history puzzle

The temperature–size rule (TSR), which states that body size increases at lower developmental temperatures, appears to be a near-universal law for ectotherms. Although recent studies seem to suggest that the TSR might be adaptive, the underlying developmental mechanisms are thus far largely unknown. Here, we investigate temperature effects on life-history traits, behaviour and physiology in the copper butterfly Lycaena tityrus in order to disentangle the mechanistic basis for the above rule. In L. tityrus the larger body size produced at a lower temperature was proximately due to a greater increase in mass, which was caused by both behavioural and physiological mechanisms: a much-increased food intake and a higher efficiency in converting ingested food into body matter. These mechanisms, combined with temperature-induced changes at the cellular level, may provide general explanations for the TSR. Body fat and protein content increased in butterflies reared at the higher temperature, indicating favourable growth conditions. As predicted from protandry theory, males showed reduced development times, caused by higher growth rates compared to females. The latter was itself related to a higher daily food consumption, while the total food consumption (due to the females’ longer developmental period) and assimilation was higher in females and may underly the sexual body size dimorphism.     

Are amphipod invaders a threat to regional biodiversity?

The impact of invasions on local biodiversity is well established, but their impact on regional biodiversity has so far been only sketchily documented. To address this question, we studied the impact at various observation scales (ranging from the microhabitat to the whole catchment) of successive arrivals of non-native amphipods on the amphipod assemblage of the Loire River basin in France. Amphipod assemblages were studied at 225 sites covering the whole Loire catchment. Non-native species were dominant at all sites in the main channel of the Loire River, but native species were still present at most of the sites. We found that the invaders have failed to colonize most of tributaries of the Loire River. At the regional scale, we found that since the invaders first arrived 25 years ago, the global amphipod diversity has increased by 33% (from 8 to 12 species) due to the arrival of non-native species. We discuss the possibility that the lack of any loss of biodiversity may be directly linked to the presence of refuges at the microhabitat scale in the Loire channel and in the tributaries, which invasive species have been unable to colonize. The restoration of river quality could increase the number of refuges for native species, thus reducing the impact of invaders.     

Are there multiple circadian clocks in plants?

We have reported that Arabidopsis might have genetically distinct circadian oscillators in multiple cell-types.¹ Rhythms of CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN2 (CAB2) promoter activity are 2.5 h longer in phytochromeB mutants in constant red light and in cryptocrome1 cry2 double mutant (hy4-1 fha-1) in constant blue light than the wild-type.² However, we found that cytosolic free Ca²⁺ ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) oscillations were undetectable in these mutants in the same light conditions.¹ Furthermore, mutants of CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1 (CCA1) have short period rhythms of leaf movement but have arrhythmic [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations. More important, the timing of cab1-1 (toc1-1) mutant has short period rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity (∼21 h) but, surprisingly, has a wild-type period for circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼24 h). In contrast, toc1-2, a TOC1 loss-of-function mutant, has a short period of both CAB2 and [Ca²⁺]_cyt rhythms (∼21 h). Here we discuss the difference between the phenotypes of toc1-1 and toc1-2 and how rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations might be regulated differently.Key words: circadian rhythms, TOC1, multiple oscillators, CAB2, Ca²⁺ signalling, arabidopsis, circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations, aequorin, luciferase, central oscillatorThe plant circadian clock controls a multitude of physiological processes such as photosynthesis, organ and stomatal movements and transition to reproductive growth. A plant clock that is correctly matched to the rhythms in the environment brings about a photosynthetic advantage that results in more chlorophyll, more carbon assimilation and faster growth.³ One of the first circadian clock mutants to be described in plants was the short period timing of cab1-1 (toc1-1), which was identified using the rhythms of luciferase under a CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN2 (CAB2) promoter as a marker for circadian period.⁴Circadian rhythms of both CAB2 promoter activity and cytosolic-free Ca²⁺ ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) oscillations depend on the function of a TOC1, CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1 and LATE ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL (TOC1/CCA1/LHY) negative feedback loop.⁵ In tobacco seedlings, CAB2:luciferase (CAB2:luc) rhythms and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations can be uncoupled in undifferentiated calli.⁶ In Arabidopsis, we reported that toc1-1 has different periods of rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity (∼21 h) and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼24 h). The mutant allele toc1-1 has a base pair change that leads to a full protein that has an amino acid change from Ala to Val in the CCT domain (CONSTANS, CONSTANS-LIKE and TOC1).⁷ On the other hand, the mutant toc1-2 has short period of both rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼21 h).^1,7 This allele has a base pair change that results in changes to preferential mRNA splicing, resulting in a truncated protein with only 59 residues.⁷ Thus, the mutated CCT domain in toc1-1 might lead to the uncoupling of rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations while the absence of TOC1 in toc1-2 causes the shortening of the period of both rhythms. Indeed, zeitlupe-1 (ztl-1) mutants, that have higher levels of TOC1, have long periods of both rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations.¹ The biochemical function of the CCT domain is unknown but it is predicted to play an important role in protein-protein interactions⁸ and nuclear localization.⁹One model to explain the period difference of CAB2:luc expression and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation is that the toc1-1 mutation has uncoupled two oscillators in the same cell. Uncoupled oscillators are a predicted outcome of certain mutations in the recently described three-loop mathematical model.^10–11 However, both rhythms of TOC1 and CCA1/LHY expression, which would be in uncoupled oscillators accordingly to the model, are described as short-period in toc1-1.⁵ Thus, we have favored the model in which CAB2:luc expression and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation are reporting cell-types with different oscillators that are affected differently by toc1-1.It is possible that TOC1 could interact with a family of cell-type specific proteins. The interaction of TOC1 with each member of the family could be affected differently by the mutation in the CCT domain (Fig. 1). Two-hybrid assays have shown that TOC1 interacts with PIF proteins (PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR3 and PIF4) and related PIL proteins (PIF3-LIKE PROTEIN 1, PIL2, PIL5 and PIL6).⁸ In fact, TOC1 interaction with both PIF3 and PIL1 is stronger when the N-terminus receiver domain is taken out and the CCT domain is left intact.⁸ Thus, it is possible that TOC1 and different PIF/PIL proteins interact to regulate the central oscillator. This interaction could be impaired by the Ala to Val change in the toc1-1 mutation, leading to the period shortening. However, lines misexpressing PIF3, PIL1 and PIL6 showed no changes in their circadian rhythms.^12–16Open in a separate windowFigure 1Models of how the toc1-1 mutation might differently affect cell-type specific circadian oscillators. The single mutant toc1-1 have 21 h rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and 24 h-rhythms of [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations. The toc1-1 mutation is a single amino acid change in the CCT domain. The CCT domain is involved in protein-protein interaction and/or nuclear localization. We have proposed that circadian oscillators with different periods are present in different cell-types. The luminescence generated by CAB2 promoter-drived luciferase (from the CAB2:luc) is probably originated in the epidermis and mesophyll cells. In this model, we propose that the mutation on the CCT domain impairs the mutated TOC1 interaction with the hypothetical protein Z in these cells-types. In contrast, in other cell-types, the mutated TOC1 still interacts with other hypothetical proteins (W), despite the mutation in the CCT domain. In those cell-types, the circadian oscillator could still run with a 24 h period for [Ca²⁺]_cyt rhythms (from the 35S:AEQ construct). One possible identity for Z and W are the members of the PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR (PIF) related PIF3-LIKE (PIL) family.One possible explanation for the absence of alterations in the period of circadian rhythms in lines misexpressing PIF/PIL is that they only have roles in certain cell-types. As an example, PIL6 and PIF3 are involved with flowering time and hypocotyl growth in red light^12–15 while PIL1 and PIL2 are involved with hypocotyl elongation in shade-avoidance responses.¹⁶ Both hypocotyl growth and flowering time require cell-type specific regulation: vascular bundle cells in the case of the flowering time¹⁷ and the cells in the shoot in the case of the hypocotyl elongation.¹⁶ If TOC1 interaction with certain PIF/PIL is indeed cell-type specific, the mutated CCT domain found in the toc1-1 mutant could affect the clock in different ways, depending on the type of PIF/PIL protein expressed in each cell-type. Therefore, a question that arises is: which cell-types are sensitive to the toc1-1 mutation?There is evidence that CAB2 and CATALASE3 (CAT3) are regulated by two oscillators that respond differently to temperature signals.¹⁸ These genes might be regulated by two distinct circadian oscillators within the same tissues or a single cell.¹⁸ Interestingly, the spatial patterns of expression of CAB2 and CATALASE3 overlap in the mesophyll of the cotyledons.¹⁸ Furthermore, rhythms of CAB2 and CHALCONE SYNTHASE (CHS) promoter activity have different periods and they are equally affected by toc1-1 mutation.¹⁹ Whereas CAB2 is mainly expressed in the mesophyll cells, CHS is mainly expressed in epidermis and root cells.¹⁹ However, rhythms of AEQUORIN luminescence, which reports [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation, were insensitive to toc1-1 mutation and appear to come from the whole cotyledon.²⁰ One cell-type which is found in the whole cotyledon but is distinct from either mesophyll or epidermis cells is the vascular tissue and associated cells.Another approach to determine which cell-types are insensitive to toc1-1 mutation is to compare the toc1-1 and toc1-2 phenotypes. The period of circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations is not the only phenotype that is different in toc1-1 and toc1-2 mutants. Rhythms in CAB2 promoter activity in constant red light are short period in toc1-1 but arrhythmic in toc1-2.^21,22 COLD, CIRCADIAN RHYTHM AND RNA BINDING 2/GLYCINE-RICH RNA BINDING PROTEIN 7 (CCR2/GRP7) is also arrhythmic in toc1-2 but short period in toc1-1 in constant darkness.^7,22 When the length of the hypocotyl was measured for both toc1-1 and toc1-2 plants exposed to various intensities of red light, only toc1-2 had a clear reduction in sensitivity to red light. Therefore, toc1-2 has long hypocotyl when maintained in constant red light while hypocotyl length in toc1-1 is nearly identical to that in the wild-type.²² These differences may allow us to separate which cell-types are sensitive to the toc1-1 mutation and which not.Hypocotyl growth is regulated by a large number of factors such as light, gravity, auxin, cytokinins, ethylene, gibberellins and brassinosteroids.²³ There is also a correlation between the size of the hypocotyl in red light and defects in the circadian signaling network.^24,25 The fact that toc1-1 has different hypocotyl sizes from toc1-2 suggests that circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations could be involved in the light-dependent control of hypocotyl growth. Circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations might encode temporal information to control cell expansion and hypocotyl growth.^26–28 toc1-1 have short-period rhythms of hypocotyl elongation, which indicates that the cells in the hypocotyl have a 21 h oscillator.²⁹ However, toc1-1 might also have a wild-type hypocotyl length in continuous red light because cells which generate the signal to regulate hypocotyl growth might have 24 h oscillators.The toc1-1 mutation was the first to be directly associated with the plant circadian clock, revitalizing the field of study.⁴ Now, by either uncoupling two feedback loops or by distinct TOC1 protein-protein interaction in different cell-types, toc1-1 has shown new properties of the circadian clock that may deepen our understanding of this system.