Historical Overview on Plant Neurobiology

The review tracks the history of electrical long-distance signals from the first recordings of action potentials (APs) in sensitive Dionea and Mimosa plants at the end of the 19^th century to their re-discovery in common plants in the 1950''s, from the first intracellular recordings of APs in giant algal cells to the identification of the ionic mechanisms by voltage-clamp experiments. An important aspect is the comparison of plant and animal signals and the resulting theoretical implications that accompany the field from the first assignment of the term “action potential” to plants to recent discussions of terms like plant neurobiology.Key Words: action potentials, slow wave potentials, plant nerves, plant neurobiology, electrical signaling in plants and animailsFor a long time plants were thought to be living organisms whose limited ability to move and respond was appropriately matched by limited abilities of sensing.¹ Exceptions were made for plants with rapid and purposeful movements such as Mimosa pudica (also called the sensitive plant), Drosera (sundews), Dionea muscipula (flytraps) and tendrils of climbing plants. These sensitive plants attracted the attention of outstanding pioneer researchers like Pfeffer,^2,3 Burdon-Sanderson,^4,5 Darwin,⁶ Haberlandt^7–9 and Bose.^10–13 They found them not only to be equipped with various mechanoreceptors exceeding the sensitivity of a human finger but also to trigger action potentials (APs) that implemented these movements.The larger field of experimental electrophysiology started with Luigi Galvani''s discovery of “animal electricity” or contractions of isolated frog legs suspended between copper hooks and the iron grit of his balcony.¹⁴ It soon became clear that the role of the electric current was not to provide the energy for the contraction but to simulate a stimulus that existed naturally in the form of directionally transmitted electrical potentials. Studies by both Matteucci and Du Bois-Reymond¹⁵ recognized that wounding of nerve strands generated the appearance of a large voltage difference between the wounded (internal) and intact (external) site of nerves. This wound or injury potential was the first, crude measurement of what later became known as membrane or resting potential of nerve cells. It was also found that various stimuli reduced the size of the potential (in modern terms: they caused a depolarization), and to describe the propagating phenomenon novel terms such as action potential (AP) and action current were created (reviewed in refs. ¹⁵ and ¹⁶). Rather than relying on such indirect methods, the membrane theory of exicitation proposed by Bernstein in 1912¹⁷ made it desirable to directly measure the value of cell membrane potentials. Such progress soon became possible by the introduction of microelectrodes (KCl-filled glass micropipettes with a tip diameter small enough to be inserted into living cells) to record intracellular, i.e., the real membrane potentials (V_m). The new technique was simultaneously adopted for giant cells (axons) of cephalopods such as Loligo and Sepia¹⁸ and giant internodal cells of Charophytic green algae. In the 1930s Umrath and Osterhout^19–21 not only made the first reliable, intracellular measurements of membrane potentials in plant cells (reporting V_m values between −100 to −170 mV) but the first intracellular recordings of plant APs as well. When this technique was complemented with precise electronic amplifiers and voltage clamp circuits in the 1940s, one could measure ion currents (instead of voltages) and so directly monitor the activity of ion channels. The smart application of these methods led to a new, highly detailed understanding of the ionic species and mechanisms involved in V_m changes, especially APs.^22–27 Whereas the depolarizing spike in animal nerve cells is driven by an increased influx of Na⁺ ions, plant APs were found to involve influx of Ca²⁺ and/or efflux of Cl⁻¹ ions.The first extracellular recording of a plant AP was initiated by Charles Darwin and performed on leaves of the Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula Ellis) by the animal physiologist Burdon-Sanderson in 1873.^4–6 Ever since APs have often been considered to fulfil comparable roles in plants and nerve-muscle preparations of animals. However, this was never a generally accepted view. While it is commonly assumed that the AP causes the trap closure, this had not been definitely shown (see refs. ²⁸ and ²⁹). Kunkel (1878) and Bose (1907, 1926) measured action spikes also in Mimosa plants where they preceded the visible folding movements of the leaflets.^{12–13,30–31} Dutrochet and Pfeffer^2–3 had already found before that interrupting vascular bundles by incision prevented the excitation from propagating beyond the cut and concluded that the stimulus must move through the vascular bundles, in particular the woody or hadrome part (in modern terms the xylem). Haberlandt⁷ cut or steam-killed the external, nonwoody part of the vascular bundles and concluded that the phloem strands were the path for the excitation, a notion which is confirmed by a majority of recent studies in Mimosa and other plant species. APs have their largest amplitude near and in the phloem and there again in the sieve cells.^{23–24,32–35} Moreover, APs can be recorded through the excised stylets of aphids known to be inserted in sieve tube elements.^36–37 Other studies found that AP-like signals propagate with equal rate and amplitude through all cells of the vascular bundle.³⁸ Starting studies with isolated vascular bundles (e.g., from the fern Adiantum), Bose found increasing amplitudes of heat-induced spikes by repeated stimulation (tetanisation) and incubation in 0.5 % solution of sodium carbonate.^10–13 Since the electrical behavior of isolated vascular strands was comparable to that of isolated frog nerves, Bose felt justified to refer to them as plant nerves.Although at the time a hardly noticed event, the discovery that normal plants such as pumpkins had propagating APs just as the esoteric “sensitive” plants was a scientific breakthrough with important consequences.^39–40,32 First, it corrected the long-held belief that normal plants are simply less sensitive and responsive than the so-called “sensitive plants” from Mimosa to Venus flytraps. Second, it led to the stimulating belief that so widely distributed electric signals must carry important messages.⁴¹ The ensuing studies made considerable progress in linking electrical signals with respiration and photosynthesis,^40–42 pollination,^43–44 phloem transport^{33,36–37,45} and the rapid, plant-wide deployment of plant defenses.^46–53The detailed visualization of nerve cells with silver salts by the Spanish zoologist S. Ramon y Cajal, the demonstrated existence of APs in Dionea and Mimosa as well as the discovery of plant mechanoreceptors in these and other plants⁹ at the end of the century was sufficient stimulation to start a search for structures that could facilitate the rapid propagation of these and other excitation signals. Researchers began to investigate easily stainable intracellular plasma strands that run across the lumen of many plant cells, and sometimes even continue over several cells for their potential role as nerve-like, excitation-conducting structures. Such strands were shown to occur in traumatized areas of many roots⁵⁴ and in insectivorous butterworts where they connect the glue-containing hair tips with the basal peptidase-producing glands of the Pinguicula leaves.^55–56 However, after investigating these claims, Haberlandt came to the conclusion that the only nerve-like structures of plants were situated the long phloem cells of the vascular bundles.^7–8 From that time on papers, lectures and textbooks reiterated statements that “plants have no nerves”.This unproductive expression ignores the work of Darwin, Haberlandt, Pfeffer and Bose together with the fact that in spite of their anatomical differences, nerve cell networks and vascular bundles share the analog function of conducting electrical signals. Similar anatomical differences have not been an obstacle to stating that both plants and animals consist of cells. The mechanistic similarity of excitations (consisting of a transient decline in cell input resistance) in plant and nerve cells was later elegantly demonstrated by the direct comparison of action potentials in Nitella and the giant axon of squids.^57–58 Today, consideration of nerve-like structures in plants involves increasingly more aspects of comparison. We know that many plants can efficiently produce electric signals in the form of action potentials and slow wave potentials (= variation potentials) and that the long-distance propagation of these signals proceeds in the vascular bundles. We also know that plants like Dionea can propagate APs with high efficiency and speed without the use of vascular bundles, probably because their cells are electrically coupled through plasmodesmata. Other analogies with neurobiology include vesicle-operated intercellular clefts in axial root tissues (the so-called plant synapses)⁵⁹ as well as the certain existence and operation of substances like neurotransmitters and synaptotagmins in plant cells (e.g., refs. ⁶⁰ and ⁶¹). The identification of the role(s) of these substances in plants will have important implications. Altogether, modern plant neurobiology might emerge as a coherent science.⁶²Electrophysiological and other studies of long-distance signals in plants and animals greatly contributed to our knowledge of the living world by revealing important similarities and crucial differences between plants and animals in an area that might directly relate to their different capacities to respond to environmental signals. Even at this stage the results are surprising. Rather than lacking electric signals, higher plants have developed more than just one signal type that is able to cover large distances. In addition to APs that occur also in animals and lower plants,⁶³ higher plants feature an additional, unique, hydraulically propagated type of electric signals called slow wave potentials.⁶⁴     

Plant defenses against parasitic plants show similarities to those induced by herbivores and pathogens

Herbivores and pathogens come quickly to mind when one thinks of the biotic challenges faced by plants. Important but less appreciated enemies are parasitic plants, which can have important consequences for the fitness and survival of their hosts. Our knowledge of plant perception, signaling and response to herbivores and pathogens has expanded rapidly in recent years, but information is generally lacking for parasitic species. In a recent paper we reported that some of the same defense responses induced by herbivores and pathogens—notably increases in jasmonic acid (JA), salicylic acid (SA), and a hypersensitive-like response (HLR)—also occur in tomato plants upon attack by the parasitic plant Cuscuta pentagona (field dodder). Parasitism induced a distinct pattern of JA and SA accumulation, and growth trials using genetically-altered tomato hosts suggested that both JA and SA govern effective defenses against the parasite, though the extent of the response varied with host plant age. Here we discuss similarities between the induced responses we observed in response to Cuscuta parasitism to those previously described for herbivores and pathogens and present new data showing that trichomes should be added to the list of plant defenses that act against multiple enemies and across kingdoms.Key words: Cuscuta, induced defenses, parasitic plant, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, phytohormones, hypersensitive response, trichomes, defense signalingSeveral thousand species of plants are parasitic, stealing water and nutrients from other plants through a specialized feeding structure, the haustorium.¹ Haustoria are thought to be modified roots that grow into tissues and fuse with the vascular system of their photosynthetic hosts.¹ Considering that these parasites include some of the world''s most devastating agricultural pests² and are influential, fascinating components of natural communities,^1,3 surprisingly little is known about host defenses induced by parasitic plants. To address this shortcoming, we used a metabolomics approach to track biochemical changes induced in tomato shoots by invasion of C. pentagona haustoria.⁴We found that parasitism induced large increases in both JA and SA beginning about 24 hr after formation of haustoria began, but that production of JA and SA was largely separated in time. Host production of JA was transitory and reached a maximum at 36 hr, whereas SA peaked 12 hr later and remained elevated 5 d later. We also found that C. pentagona grew larger on mutant tomato plants in which the SA (NahG) or JA (jasmonic acid-insensitive1) pathways were disrupted, suggesting that these hormones can act independently to reduce parasite growth. Taken together, these findings suggest the staggered production of JA and SA may be an adaptive response to parasitism—by sequentially activating the JA and SA pathways, tomato plants may minimize the potential for cross-talk between these sometimes antagonistic pathways^5,6 and utilize both signaling molecules.^6,7 Thus, defenses against C. pentagona contain elements characteristic of responses to both herbivores (primarily JA-mediated⁸) and pathogens (primarily SA-mediated⁹)—though it should be noted that some herbivores induce SA¹⁰ and some pathogens JA.¹¹ It is worth noting that parasitism induced predominately cis-JA, the same jasmonate isomer induced by herbivore feeding.¹² Host responses to Cuscuta seem to most resemble that of known plant responses to some pathogens in which a similar sequence of JA and SA production is required to limit disease.¹³C. pentagona also triggered a hypersensitive-like response (HLR) localized around the points of parasite attachment. Using a trypan blue staining technique, we verified host cell death in these parasite-induced lesions. The deposition of eggs by some insect herbivores can elicit the formation of necrotic tissue,¹⁴ but localized cell death is most widely associated with the hypersensitive response (HR) of plants to pathogens. This complex early defense response can restrict the growth and spread of viruses, fungi and bacteria.⁹ Our work adds to existing evidence¹⁵ that the Cuscuta-induced HLR can play a similar role by preventing or limiting the growth of the parasite.An interesting discovery was that the first attachment by C. pentagona elicited almost no response from young 10-day-old hosts, whereas a subsequent attachment after 10 days induced the wholesale changes discussed above (we also found changes in abscisic acid and free fatty acids). Trials in which we varied the age of the host and parasite indicated that host age, rather than a priming effect on defenses, determined the magnitude of response. We have previously observed that Cuscuta spp. in natural populations germinate very early in the growing season, and hypothesized that this tactic promotes successful parasitism by ensuring the presence of young hosts; recent field work seems to corroborate this.¹⁶ As with the response to Cuscuta parasitism, levels of host plant defenses against insects¹⁷ and pathogens¹⁸ are known to be vary with host age.In an earlier paper we reported that tomato plants parasitized by C. pentagona released greater amounts of volatiles than did unparasitized control plants.¹⁹ The production and release of volatiles is a hallmark of plant responses to feeding by herbivores.²⁰ Herbivore-induced volatiles serve as an indirect plant defense by attracting herbivores'' natural enemies,²¹ repelling herbivores,²² or acting as intra-plant signals that prime systemic responses.²³ Although less well documented, pathogen attack can also induce emissions of volatile compounds,²⁴ some of which are antimicrobial and may serve as a direct defense against infection.²⁵ The same volatile compounds induced by Cuscuta (e.g., 2-carene, α-pinene, limonene, β-phellandrene) were also induced by caterpillar feeding and application of JA.¹⁹ Like herbivores, the JA induced by C. pentagona may regulate the emissions of plant volatiles. Whether or how parasitic plant-induced volatiles might function in defense is unknown, but they presumably could affect host plant choice by Cuscuta seedlings, which use plant volatiles to locate and select hosts.²⁶Following on from our previous studies we examined the potential role of host trichomes in resistance to parasitism by C. pentagona. Plant trichomes have been long appreciated as the first line of defense against insect herbivores^27,28 and more recently pathogens.²⁹ We hypothesized that trichomes could also defend against parasitic plants based on our observations that (1) tomato trichomes become denser with age (Fig. 1), notably on hypocotyls which is the first area contacted by Cuscuta seedlings, and (2) these trichomes can act as a physical barrier to C. pentagona seedlings. To test this hypothesis we allowed seedlings of C. pentagona to attach to 25-day-old tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum ‘Halley 3155’) in a climate controlled growth chamber. Of 20 trials conducted, in six (30%) the parasite seedling was completely blocked by trichomes and was unable to reach the host stem—the parasite perished in each of these. Type I glandular trichomes, which are several millimeters long with a glandular tip,³⁰ were primarily responsible for the blocking effect. Thus, trichomes can defend against parasitic plants in a manner analogous to herbivores by physically obstructing their movement. Interestingly, the effectiveness of trichomes is also dependent on age of the host since those on younger tomato plants (<20 days old) are too sparse to impede Cuscuta seedlings (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1A newly germinated Cuscuta pentagona seedling encircles and attaches to the hypocotyl of a 10-day-old tomato seedling; the early development of haustoria are visible as nod-like swellings. The trichomes on hypocotyls of young tomato seedlings are not dense enough to affect C. pentagona seedlings, but the increased density of trichomes on 25-day-old plants can act as a physical barrier that blocks parasite seedlings (inset).Considering that the majority of plant defenses are mediated by only a small number of master regulators (e.g., JA, SA, ethylene),⁷ it is not surprising that plant responses to parasitic plants share commonalities with those induced by herbivores and pathogens. These few molecules mediate complex, interacting signaling networks that can be variously activated and modified by plants to tune defenses against a seemingly endless variety of attackers.⁷ Our finding that JA and SA act to defend plants from attack by other plants, further support these phytohormones as ‘global’ defense signals. It is also apparent that constitutive defenses, such as trichomes, can be effective against diverse antagonists (e.g., herbivores and parasitic plants). These new insights into host defenses against parasitic plants suggest many avenues of needed research including the molecular events induced by parasitic plant attack, the parasite-derived cues that elicit responses, and the ways in which JA and SA act to reduce parasite growth. Finally, our findings suggest it might be possible to manipulate induced responses or host plant age by varying planting date to control parasitic plants in agriculture.     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

Müllerian mimicry in aposematic spiny plants

Müllerian mimicry is common in aposematic animals but till recently, like other aspects of plant aposematism was almost unknown. Many thorny, spiny and prickly plants are considered aposematic because their sharp defensive structures are colorful and conspicuous. Many of these spiny plant species (e.g., cacti and Agave in North American deserts; Aloe, Euphorbia and acacias with white thorns in Africa; spiny plants in Ohio; and spiny members of the Asteraceae in the Mediterranean basin) have overlapping territories, and also similar patterns of conspicuous coloration, and suffer from the evolutionary pressure of grazing by the same large herbivores. I propose that many of these species form Müllerian mimicry rings.Key words: aposematic coloration, defense, evolution, herbivory, müllerian mimicry, spines, thornsAposematic (warning) coloration is a biological phenomenon in which poisonous, dangerous or otherwise unpalatable organisms visually advertise these qualities to other animals. The evolution of aposematic coloration is based on the ability of target enemies to associate the visual signal with the risk, damage or non-profitable handling, and later to avoid such organisms as prey. Typical colors of aposematic animals are yellow, orange, red, purple, black, white or brown and combinations of these.^1–5 Many thorny, spiny and prickly plant species were proposed to be aposematic because their sharp defensive structures are usually colorful (yellow, orange, red, brown, black, white) and/or associated with similar conspicuous coloration.^5–22 Animal spines also have similar conspicuous coloration and were proposed to be aposematic.^1,5,17,23Several authors have proposed that mimicry of various types helps in plant defense, e.g.,^9,24–34 More specifically, Müllerian mimicry was already proposed to exist in several defensive plant signaling systems. The first was for several spiny species with white-variegated leaves.^8,10 The second was for some tree species with red or yellow poisonous autumn leaves.³⁵ The third cases are of a mixture of Müllerian and Batesian mimicry, of thorn auto-mimicry found in many Agave species.⁸Here I propose that many species of visually aposematic spiny plants of the following taxa: (1) Cactaceae, (2) the genus Agave, (3) the genus Aloe, (4) African thorny members of the genus Euphorbia, (5) African acacias with white thorns, (6) spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio, (7) spiny Near Eastern plants with white variegation on their leaves, (8) Near Eastern members of the Asteraceae with yellow spines, form Müllerian mimicry rings of spiny plants.To consider the existence of Müllerian mimicry rings in aposematic organisms, two factors are needed: (1) a similar signal, and (2) an overlapping distribution in respect to the territory of predators in animals, or herbivores in plants. I will show below that for the plant taxa proposed here to form Müllerian mimicry rings, both criteria operate.The accumulating data about the common association of plant defenses by spines with visual conspicuousness, along with the fact that many such species overlap in their habitat, raises the possibility of the broad phenomenon of existence of Müllerian mimicry rings in plants. Even from the limited number of publications proposing visual aposematism in spiny plants, the operation of vegetal Müllerian mimicry rings seems to be obvious. The phenomenon can now be traced to both the Old World (Asia, Africa and Europe) and the New World (North America). The best-studied cases include Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia,⁶ African acacias with white thorns,^12,15 Near Eastern spiny plants with white variegation on their leaves,^7,11 aposematic spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio,¹⁶ and many spiny Mediterranean species of the Asteraceae with yellow spines.²²In the four spiny taxa (Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia) that were the first to be proposed as visually aposematic⁶ there is a very strong morphological similarity. In cacti, there are two types of conspicuousness of spines that are typical of many plant species: (1) colorful spines, and (2) white spots, or white or colorful stripes, associated with spines on the stems. These two types of aposematic coloration also dominate the spine system of Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia. The fact that many species of three of these four spiny taxa (Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia) are also poisonous^36–38 further indicates their potential to form Müllerian mimicry rings.I propose that each of these groups for itself and some of these groups (e.g., Cactaceae and the genus Agave in North America; Aloe, Euphorbia and acacias in east and south Africa) that have overlapping distribution and share at least some of the herbivores, form Müllerian mimicry rings.The first Müllerian mimicry ring is of cacti and Agave that have an overlapping distribution over large areas in North America.^37,39 The large herbivores in North America disappeared not so long ago in evolutionary time scales and seem to have shaped the spiny defense of these plant taxa.⁴⁰The second Müllerian mimicry ring is of the spiny and thorny members of the African genera Aloe, Euphorbia and certain acacias with very conspicuous white thorns, which partly overlap in distribution and share various large mammalian herbivores.^12,15,36,41The third Müllerian mimicry ring is the outcome of the common presence of aposematic coloration in spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio,¹⁶ with color patterns in thorns and spines similar to those of Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia described in Lev-Yadun.⁶The next case of potential operation of Müllerian mimicry ring of spiny plants with overlapping territories that suffer from the same large herbivores, but on a much smaller geographical scale, has recently been proposed for several spiny species with white-variegated leaves,⁷ and later for more than 20 spiny species in the flora of Israel that have white markings associated with their spines.¹¹The last case of a probable Müllerian mimicry ring was described by Ronel et al.²² who while studying the spine system of Near Eastern spiny members of the Asteraceae, found 29 spiny species with yellow spines, and additional such species are expected to occur. Since some of these species and others with yellow spines also grow in southern Europe, it is clear that the same phenomenon is also common there.I conclude that Müllerian mimicry rings seem to be very common in plants, and that it is probable that many other spiny plants that form Müllerian mimicry rings are waiting to be studied. Such defensive rings are probably also formed by poisonous plants that share similar colors or odors.     

New evidence for a multi-functional role of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in defense against herbivores

A diverse, often species-specific, array of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) are commonly emitted from plants after herbivore attack. Although research in the last 3 decades indicates a multi-functional role of these HIPVs, the evolutionary rationale underpinning HIPV emissions remains an open question. Many studies have documented that HIPVs can attract natural enemies, and some studies indicate that neighboring plants may eavesdrop their undamaged neighbors and induce or prime their own defenses prior to herbivore attack. Both of these ecological roles for HIPVs are risky strategies for the emitting plant. In a recent paper, we reported that most branches within a blueberry bush share limited vascular connectivity, which restricts the systemic movement of internal signals. Blueberry branches circumvent this limitation by responding to HIPVs emitted from neighboring branches of the same plant: exposure to HIPVs increases levels of defensive signaling hormones, changes their defensive status, and makes undamaged branches more resistant to herbivores. Similar findings have been reported recently for sagebrush, poplar and lima beans, where intra-plant communication played a role in activating or priming defenses against herbivores. Thus, there is increasing evidence that intra-plant communication occurs in a wide range of taxonomically unrelated plant species. While the degree to which this phenomenon increases a plant’s fitness remains to be determined in most cases, we here argue that withinplant signaling provides more adaptive benefit for HIPV emissions than does between-plant signaling or attraction of predators. That is, the emission of HIPVs might have evolved primarily to protect undamaged parts of the plant against potential enemies, and neighboring plants and predators of herbivores later co-opted such HIPV signals for their own benefit.Key words: intra-plant signaling, plantplant communication, eavesdropping, systemic wound signals, plant defense, tri-trophic interactionsPlants often emit a unique blend of volatiles in response to herbivore attack. The emission of these herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) is an active response to herbivore feeding, producing a blend of volatiles that is distinct from those emitted following mechanical injury alone.¹ Their emission can be variable; while some compounds follow a diurnal pattern with increasing amounts during the time of high photosynthesis,^2,3 others are emitted primarily at night.⁴ In some cases, the HIPV blend produced also differs depending on the species of herbivore feeding on the plant.⁵ This specificity is thought to be due to chemicals in the herbivore’s regurgitant, such as the fatty-acid amino-acid conjugate volicitin, that activate the emission of volatiles in plants.^6,7 Furthermore, HIPVs are emitted not only from the site of damage, but also at times from systemically undamaged parts of the plant.⁸ This and other systemic responses are, however, restricted within a plant such that only parts of the plant that share vascular connections with the damaged tissue receive wound signals and have the potential to respond.^9,10The ecological role of HIPVs has been a subject of fascination and the evolutionary advantage gained for plants by emitting HIPVs remains an unresolved topic of discussion. While some HIPV compounds, and some of their precursors, have sufficient volatility that their release is essentially inevitable after synthesis,¹¹ most tend to be tightly regulated. Assuming that HIPV emissions evolved as a result of trophic interactions among plants, herbivores, and natural enemies, there are four general ecological roles that HIPVs may play: (1) a direct negative effect on the herbivore, (2) a signal to alert natural enemies of the herbivore, (3) a warning signal to nearby undamaged plants, and (4) a systemic warning signal within the damaged plant (Fig. 1). The first two potential roles involve the manipulation of animal behavior, while the last two may alter plant “behavior”.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) play multiple roles in interactions among plants, herbivores, and natural enemies (possible interactions are depicted by arrows). Some of them benefit the HIPV-emitting plant (Emitter); these positive interactions include repellent effects on herbivores, attraction of natural enemies of herbivores, activation or priming of defenses in unwounded parts within the emitting plant (within-plant signaling), and growth inhibitory effects on neighboring plants (Receiver) through allelopathy. On the other hand, HIPVs may negatively affect the emitting plant by attracting herbivores or natural enemies (e.g., certain parasitoids) that result in increased damage. Finally, neighboring plants may “eavesdrop” from the emitting plant by responding to HIPVs (between-plant signaling). This latter interaction may be negative to the emitter if it is outcompeted by neighbors who receive wound signals, but beneficial to the receiving plant. Drawing by Robert Holdcraft.Scents can have a demonstrable effect on animal behavior. With respect to plant-herbivore interactions, scents can provide information about the status of a plant to herbivores and their natural enemies. For example, HIPVs may repel adults moths searching for oviposition sites,³ which has been interpreted from the perspective of either a plant minimizing damage or, perhaps more realistically, an adult moth searching for an undamaged, high quality resource for her offspring. Conversely, HIPV-emitting plants may increase their chance of being injured if herbivores are attracted to these volatiles.¹² The more commonly accepted role of HIPVs in manipulating animal behavior is to attract natural enemies of the herbivores. This tri-trophic “cry for help”¹³ has a potential evolutionary benefit for both the plant emitting the volatiles and the natural enemies responding to this emission.^14–16 Although this idea makes sense in an evolutionary perspective, only a few studies have documented the occurrence of this phenomenon in natural systems.¹⁷ Indeed, the effectiveness of a cry for help depends on the presence of a helper and, equally importantly, the ability of the helper to increase plant fitness. In the case of predator attraction, the herbivore may be removed from the plant and consumed, thereby reducing damage for the emitting plant.¹⁸ However, insect herbivores infected by parasitoids, which also use HIPV cues to locate hosts,¹⁹ may also consume less plant material²⁰ but may also in some cases consume more plant material than unparasitized insect herbivores.²¹ Since there is currently no evidence that plants can modify HIPV blends to attract selectively predators versus parasitoids, an answered cry for help may not reliably decrease the total amount of damage to an emitting plant. Thus, the fact that natural enemies respond to HIPVs does not imply that these volatiles evolved for this purpose or that there is an adaptive advantage for a plant to use HIPVs to attract natural enemies. Rather, natural enemies of insect herbivores may have learned to co-opt the HIPV signal emitted by plants and, by doing so, increased their fitness irrespective of the ultimate fitness outcome to the plant.Though more controversial, scents can also have an effect on plant behavior.²² Early work suggested that HIPVs from wounded willows,²³ poplars²⁴ and sugar maples²⁴ could trigger defense responses from other neighboring conspecifics. More recent studies have shown that this signaling can occur between different species of plants.²⁵ While these results are intriguing, they appear to have little adaptive function from the perspective of an emitting plant, which could be facilitating the fitness of potential resource competitors. Further, unless the individual within the same plant species shared some degree of kinship,²⁶ an emitting plant would also be at a disadvantage by providing an HIPV wound signal to a conspecific that, in theory, occupies the same competitive niche space. On the other hand, unwounded conspecific should benefit from being able to ‘eavesdrop’ by detecting HIPVs from wounded plants as they share the same herbivore complex and thus are vulnerable to attack. Moreover, from a heterospecific receiver’s perspective, the benefits of eavesdropping can be confounded by the potential of mounting defenses against a signal generated by incompatible herbivores feeding on a different plant species.²⁷ So, eavesdropping may be adaptive for a receiving plant if it realizes increased fitness relative to a conspecific that did not receive the signal. The emitting plant derives no apparent adaptive benefit of using HIPVs to warn neighboring plants. However, the emitting plant may benefit if their HIPVs have inhibitory allelopathic activity on neighboring plants.²⁸Our recent work¹ highlighted another scenario by which an HIPV-emitting plant would derive a direct benefit from the emissions: when HIPVs act as systemic wound signals within damaged plants. We showed that branches of blueberry shrubs lack effective vascular connections and thus cannot transmit wound signals among branches via the vasculature. To compensate, HIPVs can be transmitted among branches and, in so doing, overcome the vascular constraints of the branching life history strategy. Exposure to HIPVs increased levels of defensive signaling hormones in undamaged branches, changed their defensive chemical status, and made them more resistant to herbivores.¹ This idea that HIPVs may function in intra-plant communication to activate or prime defenses in other parts of the emitting plant against future attack was first suggested separately by Farmer²⁹ and Orians.⁹ The hypothesis was first tested with mechanically clipped wild sagebrush,³⁰ and it was further tested with insect herbivores of wild lima bean³¹ and hybrid poplar.³² Under this scenario, the emitting plant derives a direct benefit from the HIPVs, providing an unambiguous fitness advantage.So, what is the most beneficial factor to a plant for emitting volatiles in response to herbivore feeding? In terms of maximizing the potential benefit and minimizing the potential risk to the emitting plant, the function of HIPVs in mediating systemic wound signaling clearly provides the greatest potential adaptive advantage. Thus, we propose that the primary adaptive benefit for the evolution of HIPVs is to signal and protect unwounded parts of the attacked plant with high risk of infestation against herbivores. Later, these volatiles provided cues that led to adaptive fitness advantages for neighboring plants and natural enemies of herbivores, which may or may not benefit the HIPV-emitting plant. Indeed, ecologically adaptive advantages have emerged and contribute to a diverse, multi-functional chemical ecology mediated by HIPVs.     

Emerging roles in plant defense for cis-jasmone-induced cytochrome P450 CYP81D11

Cis-jasmone is a volatile organic compound emitted constitutively by flowers or leaves of several plant species where it acts as an attractant for pollinators and as a chemical cue for host localization (or avoidance) for insects.^1–3 It is also released by some plant species after feeding damage inflicted by herbivorous insects and in this case might serve as a chemical cue for parasitoids to guide them to their prey (so called “indirect defense”).^4,5 Moreover, we have recently shown that plants can perceive cis-jasmone and that it acts as a signaling molecule in A. thaliana, inducing a discrete and distinctive suite of genes, of which a large subset is putatively involved in metabolism and defense responses.⁶ Cytochrome P450s feature prominently in these functional subsets and of these the highest fold change upon cis-jasmone treatment occurred with the cytochrome CYP81D11 (At3g28740).⁶ Hence this gene was chosen for a more thorough analysis of the potential biological relevance of the cis-jasmone induced defense response. Although the precise function of CYP81D11 remains to be determined, we could previously demonstrate its involvement in the indirect defense response in Arabidopsis, as plants exposed to cis-jasmone ceased to be attractive to the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi when this P450 was inactivated by T-DNA insertion mutagenesis.⁶ Here we report additional experiments which give further support to a role of CYP81D11 in the direct or indirect defense response of A. thaliana.Key words: cis-Jasmone, Cytochrome P450, indirect defense, tritrophic interactions, volatile signaling     

Serine/threonine protein phosphatases: Multi-purpose enzymes in control of defense mechanisms

Depending on the threat to a plant, different pattern recognition receptors, such as receptor-like kinases, identify the stress and trigger action by appropriate defense response development.^1,2 The plant immunity system primary response to these challenges is rapid accumulation of phytohormones, such as ethylene (ET), salicylic acid (SA), and jasmonic acid (JA) and its derivatives. These phytohormones induce further signal transduction and appropriate defenses against biotic threats.^3,4 Phytohormones play crucial roles not only in the initiation of diverse downstream signaling events in plant defense but also in the activation of effective defenses through an essential process called signaling pathway crosstalk, a mechanism involved in transduction signals between two or more distinct, “linear signal transduction pathways simultaneously activated in the same cell.”⁵     

Crucial roles of sucrose and microRNA399 in systemic signaling of P deficiency: A tale of two team players?

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been recognized as important regulators in plant response to nutrient deficiencies. Of particular interest is the discovery that miR399 functions systemically in the maintenance of phosphate (Pi) homeostasis in response to external Pi fluctuation. Recent studies have further implicated both miR399 and sugars (mainly sucrose) as potential signal molecules in the shoot-to-root communication of phosphorus (P) status. Given that both miR399 and sucrose are transported via the phloem, their potential interaction (or cross-talk) along the signaling pathway is especially appealing for further exploration. In this mini-review, we highlight recent progress in unraveling crucial roles of both sucrose and miR399 in P-deficiency signaling. In particular, we further discuss recent findings that photosynthetic carbon (C) assimilation and subsequent partitioning, by overriding signaling of low external Pi, act as checkpoints upstream of miR399 for the onset of a systemic P-deficiency status.Key words: sucrose, microRNA399, systemic signaling, P deficiencyPhosphorus (P) is an essential macronutrient for plant growth and development. Phosphate (Pi) availability is a limiting factor for crop productivity in many parts of the world''s arable land.¹ Because P fertilizer is a non-renewable resource and its mining is becoming ever more expensive, P has been recently highlighted as “the disappearing nutrient” of strategic importance in a recent NEWS FEATURE in the Nature.²Plant acclimation to P deficiency is a highly coordinated process with an extensive re-programming of biochemical and metabolic pathways. Altered carbon allocation between shoots and roots is a hallmark of most P-deficient plants resulting in a higher root-to-shoot ratio. In this process, sucrose, the main form of carbon (C) source from shoots to roots, has also been implicated to act as a secondary messenger for shoot-to-root signaling of P status to regulate gene expression and Pi uptake in roots.³ Sucrose has been found to be either required for or to enhance P deficiency-regulated gene expression in several plant species.^4–6 In recent years, microRNAs (miRNAs) have been recognized as crucial regulators in plant response to P deficiency. The mode of miRNA action is strictly based on the degree of sequence complementarity with target gene(s). It has been demonstrated that miR399 serves as a systemic signaling molecule in regulating systemic Pi homeostasis.^7–9 Both sucrose and miR399 are phloemmobile.^10–14 Several excellent reviews have been published recently to elucidate the roles of sucrose, miR399 and other aspects of P signaling.^3,14–18 However, a paradox arises between the seemingly ubiquitous role of sucrose in signaling various nutrient deficiencies, including those of nitrogen (N) and P, and the stringent specificity of plant responses to a particular nutrient deficiency. Here, we summarize recent advances in understanding the roles of both sucrose and miR399, as modulated by light regime and phloem transport, and discuss how plants may adopt C as a “common currency”, primarily in the form of sucrose, to initiate specific responses to P deficiency by regulating miRNA399 expression.     

Plant responses to drought and rewatering

Plants would be more vulnerable to water stress and thereafter rewatering or a cycled water environmental change, which occur more frequently under climatic change conditions in terms of the prediction scenarios. Effects of water stress on plants alone have been well-documented in many reports. However, the combined responses to drought and rewatering and its mechanism are relatively scant. As we know, plant growth, photosynthesis and stomatal aperture may be limited under water deficit, which would be regulated by physical and chemical signals. Under severe drought, while peroxidation may be provoked, the relevant antioxidant metabolism would be involved to annihilate the damage of reactive oxygen species. As rewatering, the recoveries of plant growth and photosynthesis would appear immediately through growing new plant parts, re-opening the stomata, and decreasing peroxidation; the recovery extents (reversely: pre-drought limitation) due to rewatering strongly depend on pre-drought intensity, duration and species. Understanding how plants respond to episodic drought and watering pulse and the underlying mechanism is remarkably helpful to implement vegetation management practices in climatic changing.Key words: drought stress, peroxidation, photosynthesis, relative growth rate, pre-drought limitation, rewatering, signals, stomatal conductanceUnder the climatic changing context, drought has been, and is becoming an acute problem most constraining plant growth, terrestrial ecosystem productivity, in many regions all over the world, particularly in arid and semi-arid area.^1–3 Based on the fourth assessment report by IPCC, global surface average temperature will have a 1.1–6.4°C range increase by the end of this century.³ It is indicated that a warming above 3°C would eliminate thoroughly fixed carbon function of global terrestrial vegetation, shift a net carbon source. With global warming, it is expected that water deficit would be escalated by increasing evapotranspiration, increasing the frequency and intensity of drought with an increase from 1% to 30% in extreme drought land area by 2100;³ which would offset the beneficial effect from the elevated CO₂ concentration, further limiting the structure and function of the terrestrial ecosystem. The global climate models may forecast the precipitation regimes including its distribution and amount, but the complicated responses of terrestrial ecosystem to climate change may adversely affect the predict accuracy.^1,4Plant would response to water stress by dramatically complex mechanisms from genetic molecular express, biochemical metabolism through individual plant physiological processes to ecosystem levels^2,5,6 which may mainly includes six aspects: (1) drought escape via completing plant life cycle before severe water deficit. E.g., earlier flowering in annuals species before the onset of severe drough;⁷ (2) drought avoidance via enhancing capacity of getting water. E.g., developing root systems or conserving it such as reduction of stomata and leaf area/canopy cover;^8,9 (3) drought tolerance mainly via improving osmotic adjustment ability and increasing cell wall elasticity to maintain tissue turgidity;¹⁰ (4) drought resistance via altering metabolic path for life survives under severe stress (e.g., increased antioxidant metabolism);^11,12 (5) drought abandon by removing a part of individual, e.g., shedding elder leaves under water stress;² (6) drought-prone biochemical-physiological traits for plant evolution under long-term drought condition via genetic mutation and genetic modification.^13–15 The processes may be involved in multi-aspects simultaneously in responses of plants to drought stress and thereafter rewatering.In the field context, there is always interval occurrence in drought and/or rewetting events, particular under climatic change conditions predicting more frequent drought and flooding events.³ The water cycle change may greatly impact plant growth, photosynthesis and many key metabolic functions, thereby ecosystem productivity and agricultural achievement.^5,16–18 Actually, sporadic precipitation would become a critical issue for maintaining ecosystem structural stability and even it''s surviving in arid and semi-arid area. For example, a small rainfall pulse can induce a rapid response in a desert ecosystem, which quickly triggers plant growth so that the plants can survive.¹⁹ Thus, to highlight how plant and terrestrial ecosystem cope with adverse abnormal climatic change variables is, and always will be crucial research issue in practical management of plant growth and vegetation productivity. Here, we try to provide a brief insight into how plant responses to the pre-drought and rewatering in terms of the plant growth, gas exchange and key related-physiological processes such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) metabolism. Finally a regulation path schematic is presented to try to explain the involved processes.     

Plant defense pathways subverted by Agrobacterium for genetic transformation

The soil phytopathogen Agrobacterium has the unique ability to introduce single-stranded transferred DNA (T-DNA) from its tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid into the host cell in a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Following its entry into the host cell cytoplasm, the T-DNA associates with the bacterial virulence (Vir) E2 protein, also exported from Agrobacterium, creating the T-DNA nucleoprotein complex (T-complex), which is then translocated into the nucleus where the DNA is integrated into the host chromatin. VirE2 protects the T-DNA from the host DNase activities, packages it into a helical filament and interacts with the host proteins, one of which, VIP1, facilitates nuclear import of the T-complex and its subsequent targeting to the host chromatin. Although the VirE2 and VIP1 protein components of the T-complex are vital for its intracellular transport, they must be removed to expose the T-DNA for integration. Our recent work demonstrated that this task is aided by an host defense-related F-box protein VBF that is induced by Agrobacterium infection and that recognizes and binds VIP1. VBF destabilizes VirE2 and VIP1 in yeast and plant cells, presumably via SCF-mediated proteasomal degradation. VBF expression in and export from the Agrobacterium cell lead to increased tumorigenesis. Here, we discuss these findings in the context of the “arms race” between Agrobacterium infectivity and plant defense.Key words: Arabidopsis, defense response, proteasomal degradation, bacterial infection, F-box proteinAgrobacterium infection of plants consists of a chain of events that usually starts in physically wounded tissue which produces Plant defense pathways subverted by Agrobacterium for genetic transformation small phenolic molecules, such as acetosyringone (AS).¹ These phenolics serve as chemotactic agents and activating signals for the virulence (vir) gene region of the Ti plasmid.^2,3 The vir gene products then process the T-DNA region of the Ti plasmid to a single-stranded DNA molecule that is exported with several Vir proteins into the host cell cytoplasm, in which it forms a the T-DNA nucleoprotein complex (T-complex).^4,5 The plant responds to the coming invasion by expressing and activating several defense-related proteins,⁵ such as VBF⁶ and VIP1,⁷ aimed at suppressing the pathogen. However, the Agrobacterium has evolved mechanisms to take advantage of these host defense proteins.⁸ Some of the unique strategies for achieving this goal include (1) the use of VIP1 to bind the T-complex—via the VIP1 interaction with the T-DNA packaging protein VirE2,^9,10—and assist its nuclear import⁷ and chromatin targeting,¹¹ and (2) the use of VBF to mark VIP1 and its associated VirE2 for proteasomal degradation, presumably for uncoating the T-complex prior to the T-DNA integration into the plant genome.^6,12 Here, we examine these subversion strategies in the context of “arms race” between Agrobacterium and plants.     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Challenges to understand plant responses to wind

Understanding plant response to wind is complicated as this factor entails not only mechanical stress, but also affects leaf microclimate. In a recent study, we found that plant responses to mechanical stress (MS) may be different and even in the opposite direction to those of wind. MS-treated Plantago major plants produced thinner more elongated leaves while those in wind did the opposite. The latter can be associated with the drying effect of wind as is further supported by data on petiole anatomy presented here. These results indicate that plant responses to wind will depend on the extent of water stress. It should also be recognized that the responses to wind may differ between different parts of a plant and between plant species. Physiological research on wind responses should thus focus on the signal sensing and transduction of both the mechanical and drought signals associated with wind, and consider both plant size and architecture.Key words: biomechanics, leaf anatomy, phenotypic plasticity, plant architecture, signal transduction thigmomorphogenesis, windWind is one of the most ubiquitous environmental stresses, and can strongly affect development, growth and reproductive yield in terrestrial plants.^1–3 In spite of more than two centuries of research,⁴ plant responses to wind and their underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This is because plant responses to mechanical movement themselves are complicated and also because wind entails not only mechanical effects, but also changes in leaf gas and heat exchange.^5–7 Much research on wind has focused primarily on its mechanical effect. Notably, several studies that determine plant responses to mechanical treatments such as flexing, implicitly extrapolate their results to wind effects.^8–10 Our recent study¹¹ showed that this may lead to errors as responses to wind and mechanical stimuli (in our case brushing) can be different and even in the opposite direction. In this paper, we first separately discuss plant responses to mechanical stimuli, and other wind-associated effects, and then discuss future challenges for the understanding of plant responses to wind.It is often believed that responses to mechanical stress (thigmomorphogenesis) entail the production of thicker and stronger plant structures that resist larger forces. This may be true for continuous unidirectional forces such as gravity, however for variable external forces (such as wind loading or periodic flooding) avoiding such mechanical stress by flexible and easily reconfigurable structures can be an alternative strategy.^12–14 How plants adapt or acclimate to such variable external forces depends on the intensity and frequency of stress and also on plant structures. Reduced height growth is the most common response to mechanical stimuli.^15,16 This is partly because such short stature increases the ability of plants to both resist forces (e.g., real-locating biomass for radial growth rather than elongation growth), and because small plants experience smaller drag forces (Fig. 1). Some plant species show a resistance strategy in response to mechanical stress by increasing stem thickness^1,10 and tissue strength.⁷ But other species show an avoidance strategy by a reduction in stem or petiole thickness and flexural rigidity in response to MS.^11,15–18 These different strategies might be associated with plant size and structure. Stems of larger plants such as trees and tall herbs are restricted in the ability to bend as they carry heavy loads^7,10,19 (Fig. 1). Conversely short plants are less restricted in this respect and may also be prone to trampling for which stress-avoidance would be the only viable strategy.^18,20 Systematic understanding of these various responses to mechanical stress remains to be achieved.Open in a separate windowFigure 1A graphical representation of how wind effects can be considered to entail both a drying and a mechanical effect. Adaptation or acclimation to the latter can be through a force resistance strategy or a force avoidance strategy, the benefit of which may depend on the size and architecture of plants as well as the location of a given structure within a plant.Wind often enhances water stress by reducing leaf boundary layers and reduces plant temperature by transpiration cooling. The latter effect may be minor,¹¹ but the former could significantly affect plant development. Anten et al. (2010) compared phenotypic traits and growth of Plantago major that was grown under mechanical stimuli by brushing (MS) and wind in the factorial design. Both MS and wind treatments reduced growth and influenced allocation in a similar manner. MS plants, however, had more slender petioles and narrower leaf blades while wind exposed plants exhibited the opposite response having shorter and relatively thicker petioles and more round-shaped leaf blades. MS plants appeared to exhibit stress avoidance strategy while such responses could be compensated or overridden by water stress in wind exposure.¹¹ A further analysis of leaf petiole anatomy (Fig. 2) supports this view. The vascular fraction in the petiole cross-section was increased by wind but not by MS, suggesting that higher water transport was required under wind. Our results suggest that drying effect of wind can at least to some extent override its mechanical effect.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Representative images of petiole cross-sections of Plantago major grown in 45 days in continuous wind and/or mechanical stimuli (A–D). Petiole cross-section area (E) and vascular bundle fraction in the cross-section of petiole (F). mean + SD (n = 12) are shown. Significance levels of ANOVA; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns p > 0.05.Physiological knowledge on plant mechanoreception and signal transduction has been greatly increased during the last decades. Plants sense mechanical stimuli through membrane strain with stretch activated channels²¹ and/or through some linker molecules connecting the cell wall, plasma membrane and cytoskeleton.^4,22,23 This leads to a ubiquitous increase in intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration. The increased Ca²⁺ concentration is sensed by touch induced genes (TCHs),^24,25 which activates downstream transduction machineries including a range of signaling molecules and phytohormones, consequently altering physiological and developmental processes.²⁶ Extending this knowledge to understand plant phenotypic responses to wind however remains a challenge. As responses to wind have been found to differ among parts of a plant (e.g., terminal vs. basal stem) and also across species, physiological studies should be extended to the whole-plant as integrated system rather than focusing on specific tissue level. Furthermore to understand the general mechanism across species, it is required to study different species from different environmental conditions. Advances in bioinformatics, molecular and physiological research will facilitate cross-disciplinary studies to disentangle the complicated responses of plants to wind.     

Mutualism between tree shrews and pitcher plants: Perspectives and avenues for future research

Three species of Nepenthes pitcher plants from Borneo engage in a mutualistic interaction with mountain tree shrews, the basis of which is the exchange of nutritional resources. The plants produce modified “toilet pitchers” that produce copious amounts of exudates, the latter serving as a food source for tree shrews. The exudates are only accessible to the tree shrews when they position their hindquarters over the pitcher orifice. Tree shrews mark valuable resources with feces and regularly defecate into the pitchers when they visit them to feed. Feces represent a valuable source of nitrogen for these Nepenthes species, but there are many facets of the mutualism that are yet to be investigated. These include, but are not limited to, seasonal variation in exudate production rates by the plants, behavioral ecology of visiting tree shrews and the mechanism by which the plants signal to tree shrews that their pitchers represent a food source. Further research into this extraordinary animal-plant interaction is required to gain a better understanding of the benefits to the participating species.Key words: Nepenthes, tree shrew, nitrogen sequestration, mutualism, animal-plant interactionsThe pitcher plant genus Nepenthes comprises approximately 120 species, with the centre of diversity lying in the perhumid tropics of Southeast Asia. All species are vines or subscandent shrubs that produce highly modified leaf organs (“pitchers”) which typically attract, trap, retain and digest arthropods for nutritional benefit. The pitchers of almost all Nepenthes species share the same physical components,¹ including the pitcher cup, the peristome and the lid. The pitcher cup usually consists of two main sections: an upper zone which is often covered with wax crystals and anisotropically-oriented semilunate cells^2,3 that assist in the capture and retention of prey; and a lower portion, which contains fluid and is lined with digestive glands.^2,3 The peristome is a ridge of hardened tissue that lines the orifice. Its anisotropic, wettable surface plays a key role in prey capture.^4,5 In most species, the lid is a broad, flat structure which overhangs the orifice and prevents the entry of rainwater which, if unimpeded, can cause the pitchers to overflow, thereby losing digestive enzymes and the products of their activities. The lid is often brightly coloured, has many nectar glands on its surfaces and plays an important role in prey attraction.²The degree of development and/or modification of each pitcher component varies substantially among (and even within) Nepenthes species^2,6,7 and recent research has demonstrated that unique modifications to pitcher structure possessed by several species play important roles in specialized nutrient acquisition strategies.^8–12 One such species, Nepenthes lowii, demonstrates a remarkable nitrogen sequestration strategy, in which mountain tree shrews (Tupaia montana) defecate into its pitchers while feeding on exudates secreted by glands on the inner surface of the pitcher lid. Feces accounts for 57–100% of foliar nitrogen in this species¹³ and N. lowii “toilet pitchers” are ineffective arthropod traps. The large orifices and reflexed, concave lids of N. lowii pitchers induce T. montana to sit astride the pitcher whilst feeding, facilitating fecal deposition.Chin et al.¹⁴ found that two other montane species from Borneo, Nepenthes rajah and Nepenthes macrophylla, also trap tree shrew feces. Detailed analysis of trap geometry revealed that these two species and N. lowii share a unique arrangement of trap characteristics that was not detected by earlier studies on the genus. This involves the production of pitchers with very large orifices, large, concave lids that are reflexed approximately 90° away from the orifice and lid glands that produce copious exudates.¹⁴ The distance from the front of the pitcher orifice to the inner surface of the lid precisely matches the head + body length of T. montana, resulting in the tree shrews'' food source being positioned behind the pitcher orifice and ensuring that the animals'' hindquarters are positioned over the orifice while they feed on the lid gland exudates.Thus, N. lowii, N. macrophylla and N. rajah are all engaged in a mutualism with T. montana, the basis of which is the exchange of nutritional resources that are scarce in these species'' habitats. The interaction with T. montana is facilitated by trap geometry, but all three Nepenthes species produce pitchers that differ substantially in structure, apart from the shared characteristics outlined above.¹⁴ Through a series of modifications to trap structure and geometry—none of which appears to have compromised their ability to trap arthropod prey—N. rajah and N. macrophylla benefit from a highly specialised nitrogen sequestration strategy that is not available to congeners other than N. lowii.Although Clarke et al.¹³ demonstrated that N. lowii derives nutritional benefit from T. montana feces, there are many facets of the association that have yet to be investigated and the discoveries of Chin et al.¹⁴ give rise to a number avenues for further research, several of which are discussed below.The behavioral ecology of T. montana with respect to Nepenthes has not been studied in detail. We do not know whether individual tree shrews defend valuable pitchers against other animals or whether such resources are shared. However, video footage, showing T. montana scent-marking a toilet pitcher of N. lowii after feeding from it, supports the former scenario (Clarke et al.¹³ and Suppl. video). It is not known whether or how, the plants signal to tree shrews that their pitchers provide a nutritional resource (or even how valuable that resource is—the composition and nutritional value of the lid gland exudates has not been determined). When newly-formed pitchers first open, their tissues generally remain soft for several days while they undergo rapid expansion during the final stages of development.¹ During this period, the pitchers are incapable of supporting a tree shrew without suffering significant damage, yet few pitchers of N. lowii, N. macrophylla or N. rajah that we observed exhibited signs of such damage. One possible explanation for this is that the plants signal the tree shrews to indicate whether or not individual pitchers are “open for business.” This might be achieved using variations in color: Tupaia spp. are dichromatic, with sensitivity maxima at ca. 440 and 550–560 nm¹⁵ and the pitchers of all three feces-trapping Nepenthes species utilize combinations of green, red, yellow, orange and purple pigments, which change as individual pitchers age.¹ In N. lowii, the inner surfaces of the feces-trapping pitchers are uniformly dark purple when mature, but when they first open, they are unevenly covered with purple, pink and green patches. The production of copious lid gland exudates in N. lowii appears to commence after the pitchers have hardened and the uniform dark purple color has developed on the inner surfaces.The study by Chin et al.¹⁴ was based on a series of three field trips to northern Borneo that were conducted in March, April and May 2009. The first of these two visits took place during the wet season and heavy rain fell on most days throughout these months. In contrast, May was unusually dry. During this period, many N. rajah plants exhibited signs of stress due to lack of water, including wilting or senescence of developing pitchers and inflorescences. This coincided with an apparent (but unquantified) decline in the number of pitchers that received tree shrew feces: whereas such pitchers were relatively easy to locate during our visits in March and April, they were rare during May. Furthermore, most pitchers that received copious amounts of feces in March and April received none in May. The reasons for this are unknown and may involve changes in the foraging behaviour of T. montana or perhaps a reduction in the quantity and/or quality of the lid gland secretions. Through video recordings, we found that T. montana still visited pitchers of N. rajah during May (Chin et al.¹⁴), but very few fecal pellets were deposited inside them. Tree shrews mark valuable resources using feces,¹⁶ so it is feasible that during periods of decreased nectar production, T. montana alters its foraging behavior to utilize alternative food resources, resulting in decreased rates of defecation into N. rajah pitchers.N. lowii, N. rajah and N. macrophylla are virtually confined to montane habitats above 1,800 m altitude, but the geographical range of T. montana extends well beyond that of the “toilet pitchers” and includes a number of sites that are substantially lower than 1,800 m.¹⁷ Given this, why are the toilet pitchers not found at lower altitudes? Large, fleshy fruits with small seeds (such as figs) comprise a major component of the diet of T. montana,¹⁸ but plants that produce these are relatively scarce in alpine and upper montane equatorial habitats.¹⁹ This could limit the distribution of toilet pitchers in two ways. First, the lack of fleshy fruits at high altitudes might make toilet pitchers a valuable resource for T. montana in upper montane habitats. Furthermore, the density of arthropods at high altitudes is considerably less than in the lowlands.²⁰ This exerts selective pressure on Nepenthes to adopt non-carnivorous nutrient acquisition strategies.¹³ Accordingly, the production of very large, specialized pitchers that receive a steady input of feces may provide a net benefit for the plants, but only at high altitudes. Second, at lower altitudes, fleshy fruits (and arthropods) are more abundant and at these sites the benefits of producing toilet pitchers may be reduced or even negated, hence their absence from smaller mountains.Through their unique pitcher characteristics and trap geometries, a number of Nepenthes species derive supplementary nutrition from a wide variety of arthropod groups, leaf litter and animal feces.^{6,10,13,14,21,22} It is arguable that no other plant family has such a complex and diverse array of interactions with animals. Recent discoveries add to a growing body of evidence to suggest that Nepenthes demonstrate adaptive radiation with regard to nutrient sequestration strategies (see Chin et al.¹⁴ for a more detailed discussion). The findings of Chin et al.¹⁴ provide the strongest support for this hypothesis to date; in addition, they provide the first plausible explanation for the extraordinary size of N. rajah pitchers. This iconic species is the world''s largest carnivorous plant and was first described 150 years ago. The population studied by Chin et al.¹⁴ grows at a site on Mount Kinabalu that has been visited by tourists since 2001 and has been regularly examined by scientists and Sabah Parks staff for more than 30 years. Despite this, the association between N. rajah and T. montana remained undetected until we employed remote survey methods to record pitcher visitors. To date, this technique has been used on just five species of Nepenthes^4,5,13,14 and in each case, remarkable insights into the interactions between animals and Nepenthes have been gained. The potential for further discoveries using this method is therefore high and through new and innovative experimental methodologies now being employed, we anticipate many more exciting discoveries in the near future.     

Piriformospora indica mycorrhization increases grain yield by accelerating early development of barley plants

Root colonization by the basidiomycete fungus Piriformospora indica induces host plant tolerance against abiotic and biotic stress, and enhances growth and yield. As P. indica has a broad host range, it has been established as a model system to study beneficial plant-microbe interactions. Moreover, its properties led to the assumption that P. indica shows potential for application in crop plant production. Therefore, possible mechanisms of P. indica improving host plant yield were tested in outdoor experiments: Induction of higher grain yield in barley was independent of elevated pathogen levels and independent of different phosphate fertilization levels. In contrast to the arbuscular mycorrhiza fungus Glomus mosseae total phosphate contents of host plant roots and shoots were not significantly affected by P. indica. Analysis of plant development and yield parameters indicated that positive effects of P. indica on grain yield are due to accelerated growth of barley plants early in development.Key words: mycorrhiza, barley development, Piriformospora indica, phosphate uptake, grain yield, pathogen resistanceThe wide majority of plant roots in natural ecosystems is associated with fungi, which very often play an important role for the host plants'' fitness.¹ The widespread arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis formed by fungi of the phylum Glomeromycota is mainly characterized by providing phosphate to their host plant in exchange for carbohydrates.^2,3 Fungi of the order Sebacinales also form beneficial interactions with plant roots and Piriformospora indica is the best-studied example of this group.⁴ This endophyte was originally identified in the rhizosphere of shrubs in the Indian Thar desert,⁵ but it turned out that the fungus colonizes roots of a very broad range of mono- and dicotyledonous plants,⁶ including major crop plants.^7–9 Like other mutualistic endophytes, P. indica colonizes roots in an asymptomatic manner¹⁰ and promotes growth in several tested plant species.^6,11,12 The root endophyte, moreover, enhances yield in barley and tomato and increases in both plants resistance against biotic stresses,^7,9 suggesting that application in agri- and horticulture could be successful.     

A new callose function: Involvement in differentiation and function of fern stomatal complexes

Callose in polypodiaceous ferns performs multiple roles during stomatal development and function. This highly dynamic (1→3)-β-D-glucan, in cooperation with the cytoskeleton, is involved in: (a) stomatal pore formation, (b) deposition of local GC wall thickenings and (c) the mechanism of stomatal pore opening and closure. This behavior of callose, among others, probably relies on the particular mechanical properties as well as on the ability to form and degrade rapidly, to create a scaffold or to serve as a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials and to produce fibrillar deposits in the periclinal GC walls, radially arranged around the stomatal pore. The local callose deposition in closing stomata is an immediate response of the external periclinal GC walls experiencing strong mechanical forces induced by the neighboring cells. The radial callose fibrils transiently co-exist with radial cellulose microfibrils and, like the latter, seem to be oriented via cortical MTs.Key words: callose, cytoskeleton, fern stomata, guard cell wall thickening, stomatal function, stomatal pore formationCallose represents a hemicellulosic matrix cell wall component, usually of temporal appearance, which is synthesized by callose synthases, enzymes localized in the plasmalemma and degraded by (1→3)-β-glucanases.^1–4 It consists of triple helices of a linear homopolymer of (1→3)-β-glucose residues.^5–7 The plant cell is able to form and degrade callose in a short time. On the surface of the plasmolyzed protoplast a thin callose surface film may arise within seconds.⁸ Callose is the only cell wall component that is implicated in a great variety of developmental plant processes, like cell plate formation,^9–11 microspore development,^12–14 trafficking through plasmodesmata,^15,16 formation and closure of sieve pores,¹⁶ response of the plant cells to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses,^4,5 establishment of distinct “cell cortex domains”,¹⁷ etc.Despite the widespread occurrence of callose, its general function(s) is (are) not well understood (reviewed in refs. ⁴ and ⁵). It may serve as: a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials, as in developing cell plates;⁹ a cell wall-strengthening material, as in cotton seed hairs and growing pollen tubes;¹⁸ a sealing or plugging material at the plasma membrane of pit fields, plasmodesmata and sieve plate pores;¹⁶ a mechanical obstruction to growth of fungal hyphae or a special permeability barrier, as in pollen mother cell walls and muskmelon endosperm envelopes.^4,19,20 The degree of polymerization, age and thickness of callose deposits may cause variation in its physical properties.⁵Evidence accumulated so far showed that a significant number of ferns belonging to Polypodiales and some other fern classes forms intense callose deposits in the developing GC wall thickenings.^21–28 This phenomenon has not been observed in angiosperm stomata, although callose is deposited along the whole surface of the young VW and in the VW ends of differentiating and mature stomata (our unpublished data; reviewed in refs ²⁹ and ³⁰).Stomata are specialized epidermal bicellular structures (Fig. 1A) regulating gas exchange between the aerial plant organs and the external environment. Their appearance in the first land plants was crucial for their adaptation and survival in the terrestrial environment. The constituent GCs have the ability to undergo reversible changes in shape, leading to opening and closure of the stomatal pore (stomatal movement). The mechanism by which GCs change shape is based on: (a) the particular mechanical properties of GC walls owed to their particular shape, thickening, fine structure and chemical composition and (b) the reversible changes in vacuole volume, in response to environmental factors, through fairly complicated biochemical pathways.^30–33Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Diagrammatic representation of an elliptical stoma. (B–E) Diagram to show the process of stomatal pore formation in angiosperms (B and C) and Polypodiales ferns (D and E). The arrows in (B) indicate the forming stomatal pore. DW, dorsal wall; EPW, external periclinal wall; GC, guard cell; IPW, internal periclinal wall; ISP, internal stomatal pore; PE polar ventral wall end; VW, ventral wall.The present review is focused on the multiple-role of callose in differentiating and functioning fern stomata, as they are substantiated by the available information, including some unpublished data, and in particular in: stomatal pore formation, deposition of GC wall thickenings and opening and closure of the stomatal pore. The mode of deposition of fibrillar callose deposits in GC walls and the mechanism of their alignment are also considered.     

Calcium signaling during the plant-plant interaction of parasitic Cuscuta reflexa with its hosts

The plant parasite Cuscuta reflexa induces various responses in compatible and incompatible host plants. The visual reactions of both types of host plants including obvious morphological changes require the recognition of Cuscuta ssp. A consequently initiated signaling cascade is triggered which leads to a tolerance of the infection or, in the case of some incompatible host plants, to resistance. Calcium (Ca²⁺) release is the major second messenger during signal transduction. Therefore, we have studied Ca²⁺ spiking in tomato and tobacco during infection with C. reflexa. In our recently published study¹ Ca²⁺ signals were monitored as bioluminescence in aequorin-expressing tomato plants after the onset of C. reflexa infestation. Signals at the attachment sites were observed from 30 to 48 h after infection. In an assay with leaf disks of aequorin-expressing tomato which were treated with different C. reflexa plant extracts it turned out that the substance that induced Ca²⁺ release in the host plant was closely linked to the parasite''s haustoria.Key words: cuscut, odder, calcium signaling, plant parasitismThe genera Cuscuta, also known as dodder, includes 170 parasitic species with a worldwide distribution. Members of Cuscuta ssp. belong to the 1% of angiospermic plants that live as holoparasites and depend on nutrients, water and carbohydrates from other host plants.² Cuscuta spp. lack roots or leaves but possess specific penetrating organs, the so called haustoria, which are fully developed 5–6 days after the first contact, when an interaction between parasite and host is established.As for all dicotyledonous plants, the typical Cuscuta spp. life cycle starts with the germination of seeds. At the stage of a rootless seedling, Cuscuta ssp. has just a few days to find and successfully invade a host plant. Although Cuscuta ssp. seedlings appear to coil indiscriminately around any vertical elongated object, they seem to have an efficient “sense of smell” to recognize potential “victims” and are therefore able to infest host plants more rapidly and efficiently.³ As soon as a host is reachable, Cuscuta ssp. starts to wind around the host shoot and initiates the attachment process as well as the development of haustoria.^2,4 Already at this initial phase of infection (12–48 h post attachment) the host plant senses the parasite and initiates an onset of several signals which are only partially known. Amongst the several induced genes are for example those encoding AGPs (Arabinogalactan Proteins), proteins promoting the parasite''s adherence.⁵ Also proteins are produced which might be important for nutrient and water uptake⁶ or which modify the host cell wall.⁷In this addendum article, we focus on signals which occur in host plants within the early infection stage prior to a vascular bundle connection and refer to our article about Ca²⁺ signalling in C. reflexa infected tomato plants.⁸ Besides phytohormones or other initial signalling molecules, such cellular calcium signals might be involved in controlling the expression of important genes for developmental or resistance related processes.In our approach, Cuscuta reflexa shoots of ∼25 cm length were wrapped around transgenic constitutively aeqourin-expressing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana) plants. With a highly sensitive ccd-camera we then monitored the two interacting organisms. The Ca²⁺-signals which are released by the host-plant could be detected as light-emission. The first cytosolic calcium signals were observed 24–48 h after the parasite attachment when the haustoria formation was already initiated. Light, indicating a cytosolic calcium influx was clearly visible directly where the parasite started to penetrate host tissue via its haustoria (Fig. 1) and often appeared several times within 1–6 h. As the light signals per recorded picture were collected for 10 min it is not clear if the duration of such cytosolic calcium influx comprises 10 ms or 10 min. An additional experiment in our study was the usage of a Cuscuta reflexa haustorium extract which was applied to aequorin expressing tomato leaf discs. Here it turned out that the Ca²⁺-ion influx happened steadily and slowly, because signals were only visible when summed up from 2 h recording. The finding that both boiled haustoria extract and control extract, made from Cuscuta reflexa shoots without haustoria, are inactive, suggests that a protein which is expressed during the infection process might be the direct or indirect trigger of such Ca²⁺-signals. These results overcome furthermore the theory that Calcium signals are induced by pressure, which might also be a step during Cuscuta ssp. infection.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Cuscuta reflexa infection induces calcium-signals in aequorin-expressing tomato. Left: Bright field; middle: light emission representing Ca²⁺-signals at the infection site ∼30 h post onset of the parasite; signals were monitored with a ccd camera. Right: overlay.The fact that calcium fluxes act as a second messenger in several stress responses such as cold shock, wind, touch, osmotic stress,⁹ phytohormone signalling pathways,¹⁰ plant—symbiotic interactions^10–12 or also plant pathogen interaction^13–15 complicates the interpretation of the signals that are induced by Cuscuta reflexa. One possibility could be that visible Ca²⁺-signals are part of a signalling pathway where also SA (salicylic acid) or/and JA (jasmonic acid) play an important role. Recently, Runyon et al.¹⁶ could show that tomato plants infected with Cuscuta pentagona respond with a strong induction of JA and SA 24–36 h post infections. This time frame correlates with our described calcium signals and it has been previously described that calcium fluxes might be a part of the JA- and SA-signalling cascade.The tomato—dodder interaction, however, represents an exception among dicotyledonous plants because tomato generates a hypersensitive response which is part of a successful resistance reaction.^7,16 In this particular case characteristic components of C. reflexa must be sensed by its host plant. These factors indicate “non-self” for the host plant, probably following a model comparable to the MAMP concept where characteristic molecular patterns of a pathogen are recognized in host plants via pattern recognition receptors and subsequently trigger defence responses.^17,18 But sensing and signalling in host plants takes place not only in the case of an “incompatible” interaction. The developmental phenomenons of a dodder—plant interaction in a “compatible” interaction are nearly a miracle. In this case, the parasite is completely tolerated and achieves the attachment and the penetration of the host plant. It interferes in developmental processes and manipulates its host to develop vascular tissues, to build up chimerical cell walls and interspecific symplastic cell connections.^16,17 Finally, it is connected to the host plant and starts to withdraw nutrients and carbohydrates^19,20 by mimicking endogenous sinks. Such a tolerated interaction reminds of an interaction of plants with bacterial or fungal symbionts, where also Ca²⁺-signals have been described and well characterized.^11,12 In the case of Cuscuta ssp.—host interaction a lot of further studies have to be done to discover all important steps of signalling cascades.     

Plant Neurobiology as a Paradigm Shift Not Only in the Plant Sciences

Plants are complex living beings, extremely sensitive to environmental factors, continuously adapting to the ever changing environment. Emerging research document that plants sense, memorize, and process experiences and use this information for their adaptive behavior and evolution. As any other living and evolving systems, plants act as knowledge accumulating systems. Neuronal informational systems are behind this concept of organisms as knowledge accumulating systems because they allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses to changes in environment. Therefore, it should not be surprising that neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants. The journal, Plant Signaling & Behavior, was launched as a platform for exchanging information and fostering research on plant neurobiology in order to allow our understanding of plants in their whole integrated, communicative, and behavioral complexity.

I always go by official statistics because they are very carefully compounded and, even if they are false, we have no others …∼ Jaroslav Hašek, 1911

Key Words: plant neurobiology, sensory biology, behavior, biological complexity, evolution, signal integrationThis quotation of writer and mystificator Jaroslav Hašek is from his electorial speech aimed to get a seat in the Austro-Hungarian parliament for his imaginary political party ‘Moderate Progress within the Limits of the Law’ in 1911. It indicates how statistics can be misused for manipulation of public opinion, sometimes allegedly for general good. This quotation is partially relevant also for recent biology which is passing through a critical cross-road from reductionist-mechanistic concepts and methodologies towards the post-genomic, holistic, systems-based analysis of integrated and communicative hierarchic networks known as life processes.There is a message hidden in this Hašek''s aphorism. All those mathematical models, scientific theories and concepts, however appealing, harmonious and long-standing … but which do not correspond to reality …; inevitably will be ‘killed by ugly’ facts generated by scientific progress, and finally replaced by new models, theories, and concepts.¹Despite the indisputable success of the reductionistic approach in providing many discoveries regarding single cells and their components, it is increasingly clear that promises of ‘mechanistic’ genocentric biology were just chimeras and that living organisms are much more complex than the sum of their constituents. Ernst Mayr, in his final opus, almost a testament published at his age of 100, strongly opposed the belief that the reductionism at the molecular level could help to explain the complexity of life. He stressed that the concept of biological “emergence”, which deals with the occurrence of unexpected features in complex living systems, is not fully accessible using only physical and chemical approaches.²Themes of hierarchy, continuity, and order dominated biology before the turn of the century, but these have in many cases been replaced by images of the workshop. Examples include such terms as ‘machineries’, ‘mechanistic understanding’, ‘mechanistic explanation’, ‘motors’, ‘machines’, ‘clocks’ etc. This shift may well reflect the characteristic style of our age. These concepts, although useful for mining of details, do not reveal the true complexity of life and can be misleading. Even a one-celled organism is made up of ‘millions’ of subcellular parts. Concerning the great complexity of unicellular creatures Ilya Prigogine (1973) wrote: “… but let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organism.”³ Moreover, eukaryotic cell proved to be, in fact, ‘cells within cell’,^4–8 while there are numerous supracellular situations, the most dramatic one is represented by plants when all cells are interconnected via plasmodesmata into supracellular organism.⁶ All this collectively indicate that the currently valid ‘Cell Theory’ dogma is approaching its replacement with a new updated concept of a basic unit of eukaryotic life.^6–8All those mathematical models, scientific theories and concepts, however appealing, harmonious and long-standing … but which do not correspond to reality …; inevitably will be ‘killed by ugly’ facts generated by scientific progress, and finally replaced by new models, theories, and concepts.Furthermore, genomes are much more complex and dynamic as we ever anticipated.^9,10 They often have as much as 99% of non-coding DNA sequences,¹¹ which is not ‘junk DNA’ but rather DNA which is part of multitask networks integrating coding DNA.¹² In genomes exposed to stress (like mutations), changes are scored preferentially in non-coding sequences which regain a new balance by complex changes in genome composition and activity.^9,10,13,14 There are several definitions regarding what is gene¹¹ and molecular biologists and genetics are learning to be careful not to make strong conclusions from under-expression, knocking-out, or overexpression of any particular gene. It is increasingly clear that mutations in single genes are accompanied with altered expressions of other genes and non-coding DNA sequences too, and even subtle re-arrangements of chromatin structure and genome architecture are possible. The dynamic genome actively regains the lost balance, also via extensive re-shufflings of non-coding DNA.After complete sequencing of numerous genomes, it is clear that our understanding of what constitutes life and what distinguishes living biological systems from non-living chemical - biochemical systems is not much better than our understanding before the start of the genomics era some 60 years ago. Yet, it is also obvious that living systems, whether single cells or whole complex organisms like animals and plants, are not machines and automata which respond to external signals via a limited set of predefined responses and automatic reflexes. While humans and other animals, even insects, are already out of this ‘mechanistic’ trap^15,16 which can be traced back to Descartes,¹⁷ plants are still considered to act only in predetermined automatic fashions, as mechanical devices devoid of any possibility for choice and planning of their activities. In contrast to machines, life systems are based on wet chemistry, being systems of hierarchical and dynamic integration, communication and emergence.^1,18Recently, a critical mass of data has accumulated demanding reconsideration of this mechanistic view of plants.^19,20 Plants are complex living beings, extremely sensitive to environmental factors and continuously adapting to the ever changing environment.²¹ In addition, plants respond to environmental stimuli as integrated organisms. Often, plants make important decisions, such as onset or breakage of dormancy and onset of flowering, which implicate some central or decentralized command center. Moreover, roots and shoots act in an integrated manner allowing dynamic balance of above-ground and below-ground organs. The journal, Plant Signaling & Behavior, was launched as a platform for exchange of information about the integration of discrete processes, including subcellular signalling integrated with higher-level processes. Signal integration and communication results in adaptive behavior of whole supracellular organisms, encompassing also complex, and still elusive, plant-plant, plant-insect, and plant-animal communications. Coordinated behavior based on sensory perception is inherent for neurobiological systems.²² Therefore, plants can be considered for neuronal individuals. Moreover, plants are also able to share knowledge perceived from environment with other plants, communicating both private and public messages.^23,24 This implicates social learning and behavioral inheritance in plants too.After complete sequencing of numerous genomes, it is clear that our understanding of what constitutes life and what distinguishes living biological systems from non-living chemical - biochemical systems is not much better than our understanding before the start of genomics era some 60 years ago.

Behavior

1. An activity of a defined organism: observable activity when measurable in terms of quantitative effects of the environment whether arising from internal or external stimuli.
2. Anything that an organism does that involves action and response to stimulation.

(Webster Third New International Dictionary 1961).Neuronal informational systems allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses. Therefore, it should not be surprising that neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants.Some of our colleagues assert that plants do not exhibit any integrated neuronal principles.²⁵ They maintain that plants do not show complex experience- or learning-based behavior. Plants, they aver, act rather as machines manifesting predefined reflexes. Yet recent studies indicate that even prokaryotic bacteria exhibit cognitive behavior^26,27 and posses linguistic communication and rudimentary intelligence.^28–30 Therefore, it should not be too surprising that plants also show features of communication and even plant-specific cognition.^{19,20,31,32–35} As any other living systems, plants act as ‘knowledge accumulating systems’.¹ In fact, in order to adapt, all organisms continuously generate hypotheses about their environment via well formulated ‘questions’ which are solved by an increasing set of possible ‘answers’ in order to adapt.¹ Neuronal informational systems are behind this concept of organisms as ‘knowledge accumulating systems’ because they allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses.²² As a consequence, neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants.Reductionistic approaches will continue to “atomize” biological systems. Nevertheless, the avalanche of new data will be in need of functional integration, winning adherents to the idea that plants have integrated signaling and communicative systems that endowed them with complex and adaptive behavior. We trust that Plant Signaling & Behavior, will become an important platform for exchange of these ideas. With progress of sciences, plants show more and more similarities to animals despite obviously plant-specific evolutionary origins, cellular basis, and multicellularity. We can just mention sexuality and sex organs, embryos, stem cells, immunity, circadian rhythms, hormonal and peptide signaling, sensory perception and bioelectricity including action potentials, communication and neurobiological aspects of signal integration. The whole picture strongly suggest that convergent evolution is much more important^36,37 than currently envisioned in evolutionary theories.Reductionistic approaches will continue to “atomize” biological systems. Nevertheless, the avalanche of new data will be in need of functional integration, winning adherents to the idea that plants have integrated signaling and communicative systems that endowed them with complex and adaptive behavior.We have started with Jaroslav Hašek and we close with him as well. His quotation from 1911 is also a warning for future that we should stay open-minded. We should not slip into dogmatic ‘traps’ which have been so characteristic for the mechanistic and genocentric biology. Mathematics and computational biology are important tools, and surely will play decisive role in systems biology in the future. But they can be easily misinterpreted, and even misused. Plant systems biology, and the whole biology in general, must overcome dogmas of mechanistic genocentric biology. We hope that characterizing plants in their whole behavioral and communicative complexity will allow us to better understand what is life and how it emerged from chemical and biochemical complex systems.