| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
What's this? |
Invited Special Paper |
Institute of Plant Biology, Wroc
aw University, Kanonia 6/8, 50-328 Wrocaw, Poland
Received for publication April 1, 2003. Accepted for publication April 29, 2004.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Key Words: geometry • growth • mechanical integration • mechanical stress • shoot apical meristem
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
) or zones of specific gene expression (Bowman and Eshed, 2000
; Brand et al., 2001
; Traas and Doonan, 2001
). While SAM structure and zonations have been thoroughly studied in various plant species, the mechanisms integrating cell behavior to maintain these spatial features (Erickson, 1976
; Silk and Erickson, 1979
) are still poorly understood.
Plant cell protoplasts are connected by plasmodesmata throughout the plant body, including the SAM, and form a continuum called the symplasm. Another basic component of the plant body is the apoplasm (Erickson, 1986
; Romberger et al., 1993
). It is the system of cell walls glued side by side with middle lamellas. The apoplasm also embodies the "water free-space" of older literature that includes lumens of tracheary elements filled with water. From our perspective the most important system is the cell wall apoplasm. Another fraction of non-symplasmic (extraprotoplasmic) space is an "inner gas space," which is usually excluded from the apoplasm. The two continuum systems, apoplasm and symplasm, are the obvious means of integration of cell activities over the SAM. Their role in chemical cell-to-cell signaling is well documented (as recently reviewed by Traas and Doonan, 2001
), and this mode of signaling is undoubtedly one of the ways in which plant cell activities are integrated. However, the symplasm and the apoplasm are also "conductors" of electrophysiological signals (action and variation potentials; e.g., Tr
bacz et al., 1997
). Moreover, the cell wall apoplasm, as a load-bearing mechanical structure, may play a role in mechanical integration of cell activities. Mechanical stress and strain (the elastic, i.e., reversible, or irreversible deformation) are putative signaling factors in this integration mode. The fact that meristematic cells are stuck together and therefore that a growing cell may force the expansion of its neighbor walls (Trewavas and Knight, 1994a
) can itself be a mechanical signal informing the cell of its neighborhood behavior. Other putative signals of a physical character are mechanical stresses in meristematic cell walls (Hussey, 1971
, 1973
; Selker et al., 1992
; Dumais and Steele, 2000
). Mechanical stress is unique among other mechanical factors, because it is strongly affected by the geometry of a surface in which it operates (Wainwright et al., 1976
; Niklas, 1992
). Stresses in cell walls result from the superposition of stresses caused by the turgor pressure, which can be regarded as primary stresses, and the secondary tissue stresses, which are a function of turgor and an overall plant body structure and growth (Hejnowicz et al., 2000
). Tissue stresses are on the one hand a type of pre-stresses, i.e., stresses that exist before external force is applied. On the other hand they are a special type of tensegral stresses (Stamenovi
et al., 1996
; Ingber, 2003
), which is a term coined for internal stresses within the cell (the cytoskeleton). Tissue stresses are transmitted via apoplasm and participate in the regulation of plant organ growth (Sinnott, 1960
; Hejnowicz and Sievers, 1992
, 1996
). The significance of the mechanical integration is supported by the observation that plant cellular structures are sensitive to mechanical signals like stress or strain (e.g., Trewavas and Knight, 1994b
; Fisher and Schopfer, 1998
). For example, mechanical stress or elastic strain affect the orientation of cortical microtubules (Hejnowicz et al., 2000
), which tend to align in the direction of maximal stress operating in cell walls. The significance of mechanical factors in morphogenesis has been documented and modeled in the development of animals (e.g., Murray et al., 1988
; Held, 1992
; Harrison, 1993
; Beloussov, 1997
; Beloussov et al., 1997
). However, as pointed out by Green (1996)
, the possibility of mechanical integration of cells building the SAM has been only infrequently addressed.
The objective of the present paper is to review mainly mechanical aspects of SAM growth and to discuss the possible role that mechanical factors could play in the integration of cell activities in the SAM. Chemical (molecular) aspects of integration are only briefly discussed as these topics have been treated thoroughly in a number of reviews (Bowman and Eshed, 2000
; Brand et al., 2001
; Traas and Doonan, 2001
). The paper starts with a description of the structure and geometry of SAM. Then the nature of shoot apex growth and of putative growth regulating factors in the physical sense is discussed. Finally, mechanical aspects of the two fundamental processes taking place at the SAM are addressed, i.e., the self-perpetuation of the meristem and the initiation of leaf primordia. A broad definition of the SAM is used throughout the text and includes the apical dome and the region where the youngest leaf primordia emerge.
|
STRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF THE SHOOT APICAL MERISTEM |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Erickson, 1959
), which is the ratio of radial distances from the dome vertex to two successively initiated leaves (the distance from the older leaf primordium over the younger). Changes in SAM shape and size can occur also in seasonal cycles (Gifford, 1950
; Romberger, 1963
; Steeves and Sussex, 1989
). Spectacular seasonal changes are characteristic of some conifers, such as spruce (e.g., Owens and Molder, 1976
). In their apices the two SAM activities (the self-perpetuation and the leaf initiation) are to some extent separated in time (Figs. 1–6). The apical dome enlarges greatly at first, but virtually no leaf primordia are initiated (Figs. 2–4). Afterwards, a large number of primordia are initiated using up the undifferentiated surface produced earlier (Figs. 5–6).
|
), Linum usitatissimum L. (Linaceae) (Williams, 1975
), or Sedum maximum Sut. (Crassulaceae) (Kwiatkowska and Florek-Marwitz, 1999
), the apex dome gradually increases in size during the early shoot ontogeny. A main switch-point in shoot apex development, i.e., the change from the vegetative to reproductive phase of development, is accompanied by additional changes in meristem size and shape, which are in general more abrupt than the previous ones. The changes may take place both when the SAM becomes the inflorescence meristem, as in Nerium oleander L. (Apocynaceae) (Williams et al., 1982
), and when it changes into the floral primordium, as in Ranunculus repens v. glabratus DC (Ranunculaceae) (Meicenheimer, 1979
).
Cytohistological zonation and domains of gene expression within the SAM
The SAM interior is usually divided into zones of cells differing in the wide range of their properties, including rates of growth (Clowes, 1961
; Romberger et al., 1993
). Widely accepted cytohistological zonation (Fig. 7) applies to the SAM of seed plants. The central meristem zone comprises slowly growing cells located at the distal portion of the apical dome. The fast growing rib meristem zone is located proximal to the central meristem zone. Because its cells grow predominantly in an axial direction, they form characteristically elongated ladder-like cell files. The peripheral meristem zone surrounds the central meristem zone and the rib meristem. It is also composed of fast growing cells.
|
for the SAM of cycads. Foster (1943)
recognized the zonation around the central mother cells (Fig. 7). These cells are more vacuolated and larger than other SAM cells. Their walls are thickened. The most distal portion of the dome is the initiation or apical-initial zone (Fig. 7).
A number of genes have been shown to control the maintenance and size of the SAM dome and its cytohistological zones (Bowman and Eshed, 2000
; Brand et al., 2001
; Traas and Doonan, 2001
). The borders of gene expression domains within the SAM are clear-cut. Mutual inhibition of expression of these genes in adjacent domains contributes to the meristem zonation (Brand et al., 2001
). The maintenance of the indeterminate character of cells of the Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Brassicaceae) apical dome is controlled by the SHOOTMERISTEMLESS (STM) gene, which is expressed throughout the SAM except for the sites of leaf initiation. The STM gene is negatively regulated by ASYMMETRIC LEAVES1, which in turn is expressed at primordium initiation sites. Similar relationships have been reported between the KNOX genes and PHANTASTICA or ROUGH SHEATH2 for Antirrhinum majus L. (Scrophulariaceae) and Zea mays L. (Poaceae) apices, respectively (Tsiantis et al., 1999
; Byrne et al., 2000
).
The expression pattern of some genes within the STM expression domain is related to the cytohistological zonation (Traas and Doonan, 2001
). The most distal part of the central meristem zone is the expression domain of CLAVATA3 (CLV3) (Brand et al., 2000
). Cells expressing CLV3 are regarded as stem cells (Mayer et al., 1998
; Brand et al., 2000
). The CLV3 domain most likely coincides with the apical-initial zone, while the concept of the ultimate stem cells closely corresponds to the older concept of initial cells or initials (Foster, 1943
; Clowes, 1961
). CLAVATA1 (CLV1) and WUSCHEL (WUS) are expressed in other portions of the central meristem zone. The maintenance and the size of this zone are collectively regulated by CLV1, 3, and WUS genes. The WUS gene is expressed in the proximal portion of the central meristem zone, possibly coinciding with what Foster (1943)
would call the central mother cells. The WUS gene expressing cells are often referred to as an "organizing center" of the SAM (Mayer et al., 1998
; Lenhard and Laux, 1999
). This center is believed to specify the overlying cells (the putative apical-initial zone) as the stem cells. Lenhard and Laux (1999)
draw an analogy between the organizing center defined by WUS and the quiescent center of the root apical meristem (Clowes, 1961
), which also specifies the surrounding cells as stem (initial) cells.
The UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS (UFO) gene is expressed in a cup-shaped domain that corresponds to the peripheral meristem zone and the rib meristem (Lee et al., 1997
; Brand et al., 2001
). Within the UFO domain, the CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON2 (CUC2) domain is located at the putative leaf primordia boundaries (Brand et al., 2001
; Traas and Doonan, 2001
). The site of the leaf primordium initiation is in turn distinguished by the expression of genes encoding a number of enzymes involved in carbohydrate metabolism (Pien et al., 2001a
) and by LeExp18 gene encoding expansin (Reinhardt et al., 1998
). The earliest specification of the future primordium initiation site comes from the expression pattern of PINHEAD/ZWILLE (PNH) (Lynn et al., 1999
). The PNH gene is expressed in provascular tissue before the STM is down-regulated at the initiation site. This expression is regarded as a source of positional information for the site of leaf primordium initiation.
Initial cells and tunica/corpus organization of the SAM interior
The ultimate stem cells of the SAM, i.e., the initial cells, have to be located at the pole of the apical dome. The SAM of the majority of ferns and horse-tails is distinguished by the apical cell (apical initial) located at the dome pole (Clowes, 1961
; Bierhorst, 1977
). This cell divides unequally (Fig. 8) and as a consequence its unique tetrahedral shape (Fig. 9) and location within the dome are preserved. Divisions in the progeny of the apical initial are equal and result in daughter cells that do not differ in size or shape (Fig. 9).
|
ska, 2000
). The impermanence of initial cells is supported also indirectly by the study of sectorial chimeras (Ruth et al., 1985
; Klekowski, 1988
). In angiosperms, initial cells are arranged in two or more layers. This is related to the tunica/corpus organization that is typical for this taxonomic group (Fig. 13). The tunica comprises one or more layers of protodermal or subprotodermal cells (denoted as L1, L2, etc., respectively), while corpus cells are not arranged in layers. Each tunica layer and corpus have their own initial cells (Fig. 12). The tunica/corpus organization is superimposed and independent of the cytohistological zonation (Lyndon, 1998
).
The protodermal tunica layer (L1) of the Arabidopsis SAM is distinguished by the expression of Arabidopsis thaliana MERISTEM LAYER1 (ATML1) and PROTODERMAL FACTOR2 (PDF2) genes (Lu et al., 1996
; Abe et al., 2003
). Expression of these genes is restricted to the L1 and epidermis throughout the shoot development (vegetative and reproductive phases). The ATML1 and PDF2 genes are involved in the maintenance of L1 cells and in the regulation of expression of cell layer specific genes (Abe et al., 2003
).
Quantification of the SAM shape
To study morphogenesis, i.e., changes and perpetuation of shape (Thompson, 1942
; Sinnott, 1960
), one needs tools to quantify the shape. In the case of the apical dome, the first approximation of the shape quantification is the measurement of its various dimensions, such as height, width (diameter), or basal dome area (Gregory and Romberger, 1972a
, b
; Laufs et al., 1998
). However, because a specification of shape can be a subject of optical illusion (Silk, 1984
), it is advisable to quantify the shape. The dome outline as it appears in a median longitudinal section can often be approximated by a parabola (Meicenheimer, 1979
). This approximation allows one to compare outlines of various domes based on the coefficients that specify the parabola. The outline of the apical dome has been described also in terms of polar coordinates (Kelly and Cooke, 2003
). Both the parabola approximation and polar coordinates are useful for nearly axisymmetric domes (those with rotational symmetry). However, if the dome is not axisymmetric, we need to compute local shape variables instead of approximating the overall shape with a single equation (Dumais and Kwiatkowska, 2002
). The quantification of the local shape variables is necessary also if a change in shape during the leaf initiation is to be measured.
Besides the curvature radius and the curvature proper (the reciprocal of the curvature radius), two important variables quantifying the surface shape are curvature directions and Gaussian curvature (Struik, 1988
). The curvature directions are the directions in which the curves lying on the examined surface attain their extremal (maximal or minimal) curvatures (Figs. 14–16). Gaussian curvature in turn measures the overall surface curvature and shows to what extent the surface is different from a plane. It is the product of extremal curvatures. Gaussian curvature is positive if the surface is convex (Fig. 14) or concave, i.e., the two curvatures are of the same sign. Such a surface would tear if forced to be flat without folds, and edges formed during the tearing would become separated. If the two curvatures are of opposite signs the surface curvature is negative. Such a surface folds during flattening, and if it tears the edges are superimposed, as in the case of the saddle shape surface (Fig. 15). Every surface that can be flattened without any tearing or folding has a zero Gaussian curvature (at least one curvature is zero). Such is the curvature of a cylinder (it can be flattened when cut along its axis), or a ridge-like surface (Fig. 16) like that of a leaf midrib. Data on curvature can be provided by the reconstruction of SAM shape from serial cross sections (Williams, 1975
), a stereoscopic reconstruction from scanning electron micrographs (Dumais and Kwiatkowska, 2002
; Fig. 20), or by confocal laser scanning microscopy (Laufs et al., 1998
).
|
|
; Figs. 17–20). In this species, leaf primordia are large in comparison with the apical dome and the plastochronic changes in shape and size of the SAM are prominent. New leaf primordia can be recognized and delineated at the earliest stages of their formation when they first appear as regions of increased Gaussian curvature (like Ln+3 in Fig. 19). If the curvature quantification were not employed, this place would be an incipient leaf primordium, meaning the region where the next primordium will be formed (e.g., Snow and Snow, 1931
; Lyndon, 1968
). Curvature quantification in A. arvensis shows that the shape of the SAM dome flank (the surface of the peripheral meristem zone) depends on the age of an adjacent leaf primordium (Figs. 18, 19). The youngest leaf primordia are not separated from the dome by a leaf axil. Instead, the surface between the primordium and the dome summit is ridge-shaped (e.g., between Ln+2 and the dome summit in Fig. 18). The curvature along the ridge is nearly zero (Fig. 18). Older leaf primordia are separated from the apical dome by a leaf axil (e.g., Ln+1 in Figs. 17–20). The axil is saddle-shaped and has a negative Gaussian curvature. It is concave in the meridional direction, and convex in the latitudinal direction (Fig. 18). Sectors of dome flanks contacting this saddle-shaped region have positive Gaussian curvature (Fig. 19).
It is worthwhile to note that surfaces between layers of meristematic cells composing the SAM have the Gaussian curvature different from that of the outer SAM surface. In particular, the Gaussian curvature of the surface between the first tunica layer (L1) and deeper SAM cells is higher in the convex regions of SAM dome with the positive curvature, like the dome summit. In turn, the curvature of such an inner surface at saddle-shaped regions, like the leaf axil, is still lower than that of the outer SAM surface. Because the curvature of both the inner and outer surfaces is negative, the latter has a higher absolute value. These facts cannot be overlooked because the deeper SAM layers contribute to the shoot morphogenesis (Lyndon, 1998
) and the distribution of mechanical stresses depends on the curvature of the surface under consideration (Ugural, 1999
; Dumais and Steele, 2000
; Steele, 2000
).
Relationships between the histological zonation of the dome and its geometry
Some features of the cytohistological zones, such as the cell shape, arrangement (the cellular pattern), and division rates, may be a direct consequence of the dome shape (Niklas and Mauseth, 1980
). The cellular pattern can be described in geometric terms like cell volumes and ratios between two of the three cell dimensions (e.g., length to width), as well as the numbers of longitudinal files of cells radiating from the top of the SAM dome. The geometry of the dome is in turn described by its surface curvature. All these parameters are related by several equations. Niklas and Mauseth (1980)
showed that various cellular patterns can be modeled with only two assumptions: (a) growth induces a basipetal flow of cells from the dome top and (b) the number of cell divisions necessary to generate the specific morphology is minimized. In particular, computer simulations show that if the number of cell files radiating from the dome top is allowed to change while other cellular pattern parameters are kept constant the pattern resembling histological zonation is generated. In the model of the SAM dome in longitudinal section, the zone of central mother cells, the peripheral zone, and the rib meristem become apparent as regions differing in cell shape and "cell density." The cellular parameters in these regions are close to empirical data known for cacti (Mauseth and Niklas, 1979
; Niklas and Mauseth, 1980
). Moreover, the shape of zones depends on the dome surface curvature, as in real apices. Therefore the geometric constraints of the dome and its cells are postulated to work in combination with genetic factors (Niklas and Mauseth, 1980
).
|
TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE SHOOT APEX GROWTH |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). Meristematic plant cells grow predominantly in a symplastic3 mode (Priestley, 1930
), "observing" the rules of continuum mechanics. Symplastically growing cells preserve their physical contacts. When the cells expand and divide they do not slide along their walls with respect to each other (Fig. 21) (in contrast to animal cells) because adjacent cells are stuck along their common middle lamella. The only departure from the rule of "not sliding" is the intrusive growth occurring exclusively on the cell edges, where local sliding occurs (Figs. 22–23). This growth is typical for cambium initials and some of their derivatives (Romberger et al., 1993
), such as differentiating vessel members of early wood (Fig. 22) or secondary xylem fibers (Fig. 23).
|
, 1966
; Bierhorst, 1977
; Puawska, 1986
; Silk et al., 1989
; Zagórska-Marek and Turzaska, 2000
). The symplastic mode of growth is also crucial for the quantification of growth of the SAM, as we can interpret the symplastic growth as a deformation of the cell wall system in which the continuum condition is observed (Niklas, 1977
; Silk and Erickson, 1979
; Gandar, 1983a
, b
; Silk, 1984
). In the course of such a continuum deformation the system is "kept in one piece," which is exactly as it happens during the symplastic growth of a plant organ. During the continuum deformation or growth, material points within the cell wall system are displaced. The displacement rates of neighboring points are a continuous and differentiable function of position. They are the basis for the computation of growth rates. Growth rates in a region must accommodate the displacement of cells caused by growth in other regions. For example, there must be a latitudinal growth in the surface cell whenever there is a radial growth in cells located more centrally at the same level (this latitudinal growth has to compensate for the increase in radius if cells move away from the center).
Although in the case of growth the empirical data are finite, the symplastically growing cells observe the continuum condition and the displacement due to growth can be treated as differentiable. Thus in principle, any finite growth may be thought of as a result of the integration of the differentiable growth (Skalak et al., 1982
).
The tensor of growth rates
The continuum deformation and plant organ growth have two significant features in common. They observe the continuum condition and they may also be anisotropic, meaning that the rates of deformation are different in different directions (e.g., Fig. 21). The continuum and anisotropic deformation and growth are both fully described by a tensor (Silk and Erickson, 1979
; Hejnowicz and Romberger, 1984
; Silk, 1984
), which is a mathematical operator performing such a function. To characterize an anisotropic growth at a given point we need to know displacement rates in any direction. The tensor operates on the field of these rates. The information about growth could not be provided by a number only (scalar) as could a volumetric growth rate at a given point. Even if a number were assigned to a direction, as in vectors, this would specify growth only in this particular direction and not in others. Tensor as a physical entity, not an operator, is a generalized vector in the sense that it assigns a number (e.g., a growth rate) to any given direction at a given point. While vector implies the existence of a direction in which the considered physical quantity acts, tensor specifies directions to which extremal values of a quantity described by the tensor are assigned. These are the principal directions of the tensor. They are always mutually orthogonal. The specification of principal directions is the most significant feature of the tensor, and the principal directions could not be explained without using the tensor.
For the study of plant organ growth the tensor of growth rates (for simplicity further referred to as growth tensor [GT]) has been defined (Hejnowicz and Romberger, 1984
). This concept applies in particular to shoot and root apices. Like the strain rate tensor, which describes the deformation of a beam, plate, or shell, GT describes local changes in linear dimension of a plant organ, which take place due to growth. They are expressed as relative elemental rates of expansion of a line segment: RERG(l) (Erickson, 1966
, 1976
; Silk, 1984
). The growth tensor is the special kind of the derivative in curvilinear coordinates (covariant derivative) of the velocity (displacement rate) vector field.
Principal directions of growth
Principal directions of GT are called principal directions of growth (PDGs) (Hejnowicz and Romberger, 1984
). These are the mutually orthogonal directions in which growth rates attain their extremal values, i.e., principal values of GT. Obviously, PDGs are defined only if growth is anisotropic. For isotropic growth all the directions are "principal." For an anisotropic growth in three dimensions, generally three principal directions exist (Hejnowicz, 1989
). One is the direction of the highest growth rate of all the directions in space (PDGmax). Another is the direction of the lowest growth rate in space (PDGmin). If the distribution of growth rates is not axisymmetric (i.e., not transversely isotropic), the third principal direction (saddle type extreme) appears. It is the direction of the highest growth rate in a plane normal to the PDGmax, and simultaneously the direction of the lowest growth rate in a plane normal to the PDGmin. If the distribution of growth rates is axisymmetric, growth is isotropic in one of the planes. Then only two extremal values exist. If the principal values of GT are known, the relative growth rate in area or volume, as well as the growth anisotropy, can be computed. Other important information we can obtain from PDGs is the change in the angular distance between two line segments, like cell wall edges, taking place during growth. Such a change has to take place if growth is anisotropic and the segments are not oriented along PDGs (Fig. 24). If the growth is steady in time, line segments, which are aligned in these particular directions, preserve their relative orientation (Fig. 25).
|
|
; Hernández et al., 1991
; Tiwari and Green, 1991
). Dumais and Kwiatkowska (2002)
used the cross to represent the principal directions of strain rate.
|
Periclines and anticlines
Trajectories of periclinal PDGs are called periclines. In the case of an axisymmetric dome-like surface two kinds of periclines can be distinguished— meridional (longitudinal) and latitudinal (transverse) (Fig. 31). For an organ with bilateral symmetry longitudinal and transverse periclines are distinguished. Anticlines are trajectories perpendicular to periclines. They cross the organ surface at right angles. The course of anticlines within the organ depends on the course of periclines. Because the whole organ surface is nonplanar (although locally it may be planar), the arrangement of periclines and anticlines resembles a curvilinear orthogonal system of coordinates (Figs. 32–34).
|
|
Natural coordinate system for SAM domes
In a median longitudinal section of the dome, meridional periclines and anticlines can be recognized (the reason periclines and anticlines are manifested in the cell wall arrangement will be explained further below in "Tensorial factors ...: Principal directions of growth [PDGs] and planes of cell divisions"). If the dome growth is nearly steady in time periclines approximate the outlines of cell clones, while anticlines approximate walls separating groups of cells within a cell clone (Figs. 35– 36). Such a network of periclines and anticlines was used as a framework to describe directions of SAM growth already by Julius Sachs (see Romberger et al., 1993
). Schüepp (1926
, 1966)
also used the periclines/anticlines network in his analysis of the SAM dome growth performed on median longitudinal sections. Based on the increase of "patches" delineated by periclines and anticlines (Fig. 35) and the changes of patch shapes as one moves along a chosen pericline, Schüepp deduced directions of maximal growth over the dome section.
|
; e.g., Fig. 35). The third dimension can be added to the system by rotation around the axis u = 0, v = 0. This coordinate system is orthogonal and curvilinear. It has been defined for various growing plant structures, like a SAM dome, a root apical meristem, a growing fruit (e.g., an apple), or a stem segment (Hejnowicz, 1984
). The natural coordinate system generally applicable to SAM domes is confocal (Hejnowicz, 1955
; Romberger et al., 1993
). In the confocal coordinate system (Fig. 35) all the periclines and anticlines surround the focal point (focus), which is the system singularity (arrow in Fig. 35). Periclines form arches above it, while anticlines form arches below. The dome axis is composed of two overlapping coordinate lines: the narrowest and innermost pericline v = 0 (the u portion of the axis from the base of the dome to just above the focal point); and the innermost, "folded" upward, anticline u = 0 (the v portion of the axis from beneath the focal point upward). The root apical meristem with the quiescent center (Clowes, 1961
) is the clearest example of the apical meristem with confocal coordinates. In this case the focal point is located in the quiescent center, where growth rates are the lowest in all directions (Nakielski and Barlow, 1995
). In the case of the SAM dome, the focal point is located at the putative position of the organizing center.
The natural coordinate system has been a framework for growth modeling with the aid of the GT operating on the velocity (displacement rate) field V(u,v). Adopting the natural coordinate system greatly simplifies the modeling by using the GT (Hejnowicz, 1984
, 1989
). It is sufficient to specify displacement rates du/dt and dv/dt along the axis. For instance if in a paraboloidal coordinate system du/dt > 0 (along the u portion of the axis), the dome increases in length (or along periclines). If simultaneously dv/dt = 0 (along the v portion), the diameter (specified by vsurf) remains constant. It means that the distance from the top of the dome to the focal point is constant, and the width of the dome at the level of focal point is constant. Then the dome will not only remain paraboloidal but its diameter will be constant (maintained) during growth, analogously to the elongation of a cylinder keeping its diameter. If in turn dv/dt > 0 and it is a function of v only, then the dome remains paraboloidal but increases its diameter. If du/dt is a function of both u and v, the dome not only increases in length but also changes its shape in the sense that it departs from a paraboloidal geometry. Displacement rate du/dt may be various functions of u, which allows us to model different distribution of growth along periclines. For instance, if du/dt = cu (where c = constant) the periclinal RERG is constant. If in turn we assume that along the axis, from the focal point to u = a, du/dt = 0, then the portion of the dome above the anticline u = a is not growing in a periclinal direction. Instead of the specification along the axis, the specification of du/dt may be done for the surface. It is possible because the growth along the u portion of the axis is strictly related to the periclinal growth on the surface. This, however, is not possible for the v portion of the axis.
Growth simulations have been performed mostly for root apical meristems (e.g., Hejnowicz, 1989
; Nakielski and Barlow, 1995
). For SAM domes only preliminary results have been obtained (Nakielski, 1982
, 1987
).
|
TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE REGULATION OF THE SHOOT APEX GROWTH AND CELL DIVISIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). In the case of linear reversible deformation, strain is proportional to the applied stress. In three dimensions and in the case of anisotropic materials, however, this simple proportionality relationship becomes especially complex. Then the strain is related to stress by means of the higher (fourth) order tensor, which characterizes mechanical properties of a material ("elasticity tensor"). There is no relationship between the value of an irreversible strain (growth) and stress, but the value of strain rate is a function of stress (Ugural, 1999
). An analogue of Hooke's law for the irreversible strain is the proportionality of strain rate and stress value exceeding a yield threshold such as in the Lockhart equation (Lockhart, 1965
).
Classical rules of cell division
Despite the expansion of cells in all the SAM regions, the overall shapes, sizes, and arrangement of cells are maintained. This is so because adequate cell divisions compensate the effect of cell expansion, although the sequence of divisions is not determined. Cell sizes are maintained as the frequency of cell divisions is related to cell expansion rates in the process of "cell size homeostasis" (Jacobs, 1997
). The characteristic cell geometry is maintained due to the proper orientation of cell division planes. This orientation is to some extent predictable, which has been recognized long ago by the plant biologists Hofmeister, Errera, and Sachs (Sinnott, 1960
). Hofmeister's rule states that if an organ grows in different directions, cell division planes are perpendicular to the direction of the fastest growth. According to the Errera's rule, new walls follow the shortest path that will halve the parental cell. The Sachs' rule states that the new cell wall meets side walls at a right angle. It has also been recognized that during the formation of new cell walls the four-way junctions are usually avoided, i.e., cell plates tend to avoid aligning with cross walls between neighbors (Sinnott and Bloch, 1941
; Korn, 1980
; Lloyd, 1991a
, b
; Cooke and Lu, 1992
). As a result three walls typically meet at a cell edge. Mechanical stress in cytoskeleton elements building the phragmosome may play a role in the avoidance of four-way junctions in vacuolated cells, as tensile elements were shown to seek a minimal path (Flanders et al., 1990
; Lloyd, 1991a
, b
). Similar mechanism may function also in meristematic cells (Lloyd, 1991b
). It will be shown below that Hofmeister's, Errera's, and Sachs' rules represent a single rule that relates the division planes to the GT.
Principal directions of stress and planes of cell divisions
According to Linthilhac (Lintilhac, 1974
; Lintilhac and Vesecky, 1980
, 1984
; Lynch and Lintilhac, 1997
) meristematic cells divide in shear free planes, which are the planes defined by two principal directions of stress (i.e., normal to the third principal direction4). The relationships between the principal directions of stress and division planes have been shown in the experiment, where isolated plant protoplasts were embedded in an agar-solidified medium and the medium was brought under compressive stress. The protoplasts divided in planes perpendicular to one of the principal directions of the applied stress (Lynch and Lintilhac, 1997
). Earlier support for the Lintilhac's hypothesis has been provided by photoelastic modeling (Linthilhac and Vesecky, 1980
). In this modeling implemented for the study of the initiation of the lateral shoot meristem, the stress was applied to the gelatin models of apical shoot portions as they appear in median longitudinal sections. Trajectories of principal stress directions mimicked the orientation of cell walls known for axillary shoot meristems at the earliest stages of their formation (the "arcuate shell zone"). This observation led to the conclusion that the characteristic cellular pattern in a shell zone may be understood as a response to the stress distribution in the leaf primordium axil.
Lintilhac postulates that cells recognize principal stress directions by measuring slight dimensional changes, i.e., measuring strain rather than the stress itself, just as the known stress transducers measure strain (Lynch and Lintilhac, 1997
). This is in agreement with the earlier postulate of Green (Gertel and Green, 1977
). Both reversible and irreversible strains have been proposed also as means by which stresses in cell walls can be sensed (Hejnowicz et al., 2000
). One should, however, recognize that stress can be measured directly in the same way that a piano-tuner "measures" sounds.
Principal directions of growth (PDGs) and planes of cell divisions
Hejnowicz (1984)
postulated that meristematic plant cells divide in planes defined by PDGs, i.e., normal to one of the PDGs. A surface element normal to the PDG is in a principal plane. The support for Hejnowicz's postulate comes from the observation that in the case of pronounced anisotropy of growth, cell division planes are perpendicular to anticlines or periclines that are PDG trajectories. This is further supported by comparison with computer-simulated orientation of PDGs (Hejnowicz, 1989
; Nakielski and Barlow, 1995
). The tendency to orient new cell walls in a plane perpendicular to one of the PDGs is more pronounced when growth anisotropy is high (Hejnowicz, 1984
). If growth is nearly isotropic, planes of cell divisions are no longer related to PDGs (because they are not obvious) and appear to be oriented more randomly.
The relationship between the planes of cell division and PDGs is a generalization of the rules of cell divisions formulated by Hofmeister, Errera, and Sachs (Hejnowicz, 2002
). The Hofmeister's rule, which states that cell division planes are perpendicular to the direction of the fastest growth, captures exactly the relationship between PDGmax and division planes. However, such a generalization explains also the cases in which division walls are opposite to what the Hofmeister's rule implies, i.e., the cell walls are perpendicular to the minimum rather than the maximum PDG. This is observed in the formation of cortex initial cells in the Arabidopsis root. Also if division planes are normal to PDGmax, new walls usually follow the shortest path that will halve the elongating parental cell, which is the Errera's rule. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, in which the new walls follow the longest of possible paths, such as in cambial fusiform initials. This case can again be explained by the fact that new walls are normal to the PDGmax, but the cell is elongated in the direction of PDGmin. Finally, the rule that the new cell wall meets side walls at right angle (the Sachs' rule) may also result from the fact that division planes are normal to PDGs when the existing walls follow the PDGs. The PDGs are mutually orthogonal. Thus consecutively formed walls that are normal to different PDGs will also meet at right angles.
The alignment of cell walls normal to PDGs is apparent in meristems that maintain their structure (the shape and cellular pattern), i.e., grow steadily in time, such as some apical domes or the root apical meristem. If the growth is not steady, which means that the orientation of PDGs at a given point may change in time, the newly formed cell walls, but not necessarily the older walls, should be perpendicular to PDGs. Moreover, an alignment of walls at their formation does not have to be preserved in the pattern of older walls, even if growth is steady. The two parts of a parental cell wall oriented along the PDG are located on the opposite sides of a newly formed edge. In the course of growth following the division, they tend to reorient to equilibrate angles between the three walls meeting at the edge (Thompson, 1942
; Lloyd, 1991a
; Cooke and Lu, 1992
). Therefore a zigzag line is formed along a periclinal cell file. Cooke and Lu (1992)
studied cell wall pattern in planar structures. In fern prothalli if growth is nearly isotropic (isodiametric expansion) the reorientation of walls is such that eventually they tend to meet at equal angles. The cells are supposed to attain a state of local mechanical equilibrium (Cooke and Lu, 1992
). In regions of strongly anisotropic growth (preferential elongation) this tendency is much less pronounced. Cooke and Lu (1992)
explain this phenomenon by the tendency of cell walls to align with the global pattern of mechanical stresses. The tendency is realized during growth after the cell divisions.
There is an evidence that the relationship between PDGs and division planes postulated by Hejnowicz (1984)
is not always observed (Green and Poethig, 1982
). At the base of a detached mature leaf of Graptopetalum paraguayense E. Walther (Crassulaceae), a shoot is formed de novo from a residual meristem. This process involves considerable changes in growth and symmetry. As a consequence groups of protodermal cells of the residual meristem are highly sheared. In some of these cells the new wall is aligned at approximately 45° to both the principal directions of strain (strain cross arms). The latter correspond to the PDGs. This is the maximum possible departure. Therefore, Green and Poethig (1982)
ruled out the principal directions of strain as a direct factor in orienting new walls. However, in the Green and Poethig study (1982)
the strain crosses were calculated for 24 h, i.e., for a time much longer than that needed for a cell division. It is not obvious that actual PDGs at the moment of the cell division were the same as those indicated by the strain cross. One should remember that the region studied shows a dramatic change of growth pattern.
The relationship between principal directions of stress and principal directions of growth rate
Whether the alignment of new cell walls is stress- or growth-mediated remains an open question, but the two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the mechanical properties of a material are isotropic, the principal directions of strain (growth) are the same as the principal directions of stress (Ugural, 1999
). Plant cell walls are usually anisotropic. However, because isotropy is a "special case" of anisotropy, the difference between the principal directions of stress and strain in the wall plane cannot be large, especially if the wall is in the plane normal to one of the PDGs (Hejnowicz, 1984
). This does not necessarily mean that the direction of maximum stress is the same as the direction of maximum strain. In particular, it is postulated that the maximal principal growth rate direction may be the direction of the minimal principal stress (tension) in the wall, i.e., perpendicular to the direction of the maximal tension. The direction of maximal tension is the direction in which cell walls are reinforced. The reinforcement of primary cell walls (Green and Brooks, 1978
; Green, 1988
) is the major physical constraint of the SAM growth. The anisotropic distribution of cellulose microfibrils in primary cell walls leads to anisotropic growth: maximal cell wall extension is normal to the wall reinforcement. It seems to be particularly significant in the outer walls of protodermal SAM cells (Green and Selker, 1991
), as these walls are the thickest of all the SAM cell walls.
If principal directions of stress and strain in the SAM indeed nearly coincide, the rules of cell division could be derived from the relationships between cell division planes and either stress or growth (strain) principal directions, and the hypotheses of Hejnowicz and Lintilhac coincide. Nevertheless, there are most likely also other factors involved in the control of cell division planes. Korn (1980)
hypothesizes that the shapes of cells are a consequence of the characteristic patterns of cell edge growth and of cell partition rather than physical forces. If the latter exert some influence on the cellular pattern, it is small and secondary with respect to the biological effects. Green and Poethig (1982)
in turn postulate that divisions in plant cells "respond" to outlines of mother cells, which may be sheared in the course of growth. Whatever is the status of stress- or growth-mediated regulation of cell division planes, we still need some other factors to explain cell division behavior where the growth and/or stress are isotropic and no principal directions are present.
|
SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL DOME |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Hejnowicz et al., 1977
). In particular, the dome summit is a region of isotropic growth (geometric necessity; Green, 1969
) independently of whether it is the region of minimum or maximum growth rate in area (RERG(area)) or even volume (RERG(vol)). The maximum RERG(area) at the summit is the way in which dome-shaped structures such as Chara rhizoids or root hairs are growing (Hejnowicz et al., 1977
; Shaw et al., 2000
). It is therefore crucial to discover the pattern of growth of SAM domes. The dome growth, which is unsteady in time because of the considerable plastochronic changes, can be quantified only directly, from the sequential in vivo observations. This quantification faces considerable technical obstacles because of the complexity of growth and the changing SAM geometry. As a result, our knowledge of SAM growth is still incomplete, although this gap may soon be closed if techniques using confocal microscopy (Grandjean et al., 2004
) are complemented with adequate computational approaches.
The few existing sequential in vivo observations of an individual SAM (Newman, 1956
; Soma and Ball, 1963
; Hussey, 1971
; Williams and Green, 1988
; Williams, 1991
; Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
) have been limited for technical reasons to the apex surface. The obtained data are, nevertheless, informative because the protodermal layer of SAM cells is supposed to play a key role in growth regulation (Tiwari and Green, 1991
). Sequential SAM observations provide data to compute the principal directions and principal values of strain or strain rate (Goodall and Green, 1986
). They generally correspond to the PDGs and principal values of the GT in the SAM surface.
The SAM surface expansion has been quantified for the vegetative apex of Anagallis arvensis (Green et al., 1991
; Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
) with the aid of a sequential replica method (Williams and Green, 1988
). In this method replicas of the meristem surface are taken at regular time intervals with a dental impression polymer. The SAM is only temporarily exposed and no leaves have to be removed to take a mold. The molds are further used to prepare epoxy resin casts, which can be viewed in scanning electron microscopy, while the SAM itself remains intact. Morphogenesis and growth rates of the SAM are not affected by the protocol for up to several days (Green et al., 1991
; Dumais and Kwiatkowska, 2002
). As already mentioned the apex of A. arvensis produces relatively large primordia, which results in considerable plastochronic changes in its dome shape. Phyllotaxis in this species is usually decussate or spiral Fibonacci (with consecutive leaf primordia initiated at the divergence angle of approximately 137°). The expansion of the dome surface in A. arvensis exhibits both meridional and circumferential gradients of the rate and anisotropy (Figs. 37–43). As a rule, the expansion rate of the dome summit (the central meristem zone surface) is slower than that of the flanks. In apices exhibiting the decussate arrangement of leaf primordia, this feature persists despite the reorganization of the main axes of the SAM dome during the plastochron (Green et al., 1991
). The summit is also characterized by nearly isotropic expansion. The expansion of the flanks (the peripheral meristem zone surface) is in turn always anisotropic and not uniform. In A. arvensis shoots with spiral Fibonacci phyllotaxis both the expansion rates and expansion anisotropy of the flanks are related to the age of the leaf primordium contacting the dome (Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
). The sector of the flanks adjacent to the most recently initiated primordium expands almost as slowly as the dome summit (adjacent to Ln+2 in Fig. 40, or Ln+3 in Fig. 42). Its expansion is anisotropic, with the PDGmax in the latitudinal direction (the same sectors in Figs. 41, 43). Sectors contacting older primordia (such as Ln+1 in Figs. 40–41 or Ln+2 in Figs. 42–43), which are separated from the dome by the leaf axil, expand faster and more anisotropically, with the PDGmax in the meridional direction. Adjacent cells, which form the axil, expand only along the primordium margin, i.e., latitudinally or circumferentially (along Ln+2 in Fig. 43). The growth gradient across the axil is the sharpest of gradients over the SAM surface.
Expansion of the SAM flanks changes during the plastochron (Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
). We may assume that the plastochron begins when a new leaf primordium becomes discernible by its elevated Gaussian curvature. In the developmental sequence shown in Figs. 37–43 the plastochron starts in the Fig. 38. During the first half of the plastochron the flank portion adjacent to a leaf primordium axil (e.g., near the axil of Ln+2 in Fig. 42) is the fastest expanding portion of the SAM flanks. During the second half of the plastochron an additional region of fast expansion appears at the initiation site of the next primordium (Ln+4 initiation site in Fig. 40). At the beginning of the following plastochron, the cycle is repeated but regions of various expansion are rotated around the apex by the divergence angle.
Rates and planes of cell divisions within the SAM dome
The information on the rates of cell divisions within the dome has been provided by numerous indirect observations, such as cytohistological examination (e.g., Newman, 1965
), cell counts (e.g., Lyndon, 1968
), colchicine treatment (e.g., Rolinson, 1976
), radio-labeling experiments (e.g., Clowes, 1959
), and confocal microscopy examination of the SAM interior (Laufs et al., 1998
). It is widely accepted that in the vegetative SAM dome, unlike in the root apical meristem with its quiescent center, all the cells are dividing though with various rates (Clowes, 1959
, 1961
). The central meristem zone, in particular the organizing center, is characterized by cell division rates low in comparison with the peripheral and rib meristem zones. Furthermore, the rates of cell division in various parts of the apical dome are related to the plastochron stage (Lyndon, 1968
, 1970
). Relatively low division rate in the central portion of the apical dome is characteristic for most of the seed plants. It occurs also in horse-tails, although the difference in division rates between the central and peripheral portion of the dome in these plants is often less pronounced than in seed plants (Gifford and Kurth, 1983
). In a number of fern shoot apices no differences in cell division rates were observed (e.g., Gifford and Polito, 1981
; reviewed in Lyndon, 1998
).
The distribution of variously oriented divisions over the SAM dome volume depends on the taxonomic group (e.g., Newman, 1961
; Lyndon, 1998
). The apical cells of ferns and horse-tails divide not less frequently than neighboring cells. Their divisions are anticlinal and unequal (Fig. 8). In gymnosperms the initial cells divide both periclinally and anticlinally (Fig. 10). Therefore there is no layering in the apex or the tunica is not permanent. In numerous conifers the periclinal divisions are almost absent in other protodermal cells, i.e., those located further from the dome pole (Foster, 1939
; Fig. 11). In apical domes of angiosperms, a tunica (one or more layers) is formed because of the complete domination of anticlinal divisions in protodermal and sometimes also sub-protodermal cells (Figs. 12–13). In turn, divisions of various orientations typically occur in the corpus, which is thus growing in all directions.
|
MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME PERIPHERY |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
), in which primordium formation seems to be representative for numerous dicotyledons. The region where the leaf primordium is formed differs from the surroundings by its nearly isotropic expansion and elevated expansion rates (Ln+3 in Figs. 40–41). This expansion pattern resembles the surface expansion modeled by Hart and Trainor (1989)
, who showed that a flat disk changes into a convex surface of revolution as a result of isotropic expansion with the maximum at the disk center. Once formed, the primordium starts to expand laterally (Ln+2 in Figs. 40–41 or Ln+3 in Figs. 42–43). The net expansion of the primordium surface is lower than just after the initiation. The cells expand almost exclusively in the latitudinal direction. Thus the primordium attains an oval shape. The lateral expansion continues also after the formation of the leaf axil begins and the primordium becomes separated from the apex dome.
The examination of the SAM surface at the site of leaf primordium formation also provides the information on the partitioning of the SAM surface into the dome and the new primordium. Theoretically, the leaf initiation can arise from an increase in cell division rates in a small and localized group of cells. This would result in the formation of the entire primordium by the progeny of these cells. Then the partitioning of the SAM would have taken place already at the earliest stages of leaf initiation. In fact this is how fern fronds and horse-tail macrophylls are formed (Sinnott, 1943
; Bierhorst, 1977
). An alternative mode of leaf formation is the gradual incorporation into the growing primordium of adjacent cells from the dome flanks. It should result in the contribution of cells other than "founder cells" in the primordium formation. However, it is possible that the contribution of these incorporated cells is limited to the leaf base. This second mode of primordium formation presumably applies to some seed plants. This view is supported by observations of the expansion of the SAM surface. New cells were often shown to be incorporated to the emerging leaf primordium in A. arvensis (Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
). Interestingly, this process is halted by the appearance of the leaf axil, i.e., a crease of negative Gaussian curvature along the adaxial margin of the young primordium. Cells forming the bottom of the axil are arrested in this peculiar position (Hussey, 1971
; Green et al., 1991
; Hernández et al., 1991
; Tiwari and Green, 1991
; Kwiatkowska and Dumais, 2003
) and prevent other cells from crossing the crease. At this stage, but not earlier, the partitioning of the SAM into the dome and a new primordium is settled.
Growth of the peripheral meristem zone during the leaf primordium formation
In ferns and horse-tails the macrophyll primordium grows due to the activity of a single initial cell distinguished from surrounding cells by its unequal divisions and its characteristic shape (Sinnott, 1943
; Bierhorst, 1977
). In seed plants a number of cells dividing equally and therefore of undistinguishable shape participate in the primordium formation. Indirect observations of the leaf primordium formation in seed plants show that the emergence of a new primordium at the SAM dome periphery is accompanied by local increase in cell division rates (e.g., Laufs et al., 1998
) and a change in the orientation of cell division planes (Lyndon, 1983
; Lyndon and Cunninghame, 1986
). A special role in this process is ascribed to periclinal divisions in the peripheral meristem cells taking place at the initiation site (Lyndon, 1983
, 1994
, 1998
). Numerous studies of periclinal chimeras (reviewed by Tilney-Bassett, 1963
, 1986
; Poethig, 1989
; Szymkowiak and Sussex, 1996
) show that in angiosperms the progeny of the outer three layers of SAM cells (outer and inner tunica plus corpus cells) contributes to the leaf primordium. The protodermal layer, i.e., the first tunica layer, usually gives rise only to the epidermis, meaning that during the entire leaf development it divides exclusively anticlinally. The inner tunica layer and corpus divide anticlinally and periclinally, and their progeny form the remaining leaf volume. The exact contribution of these two parts to the leaf is not fixed and varies both among species, within an individual plant, and even within an individual leaf (Tilney-Bassett, 1986
). In Juniperus chinensis L. (Cupressaceae), a conifer, up to four meristematic cell layers have been shown to contribute to leaf formation (Korn, 2002
). As in most angiosperms, also in juniper, the progeny of protodermal SAM cells give rise only to the leaf epidermis.
Biomechanical aspects of leaf primordium formation
While cell divisions, in particular periclinal divisions, are known to participate in the growth of leaf primordium, the role of the divisions during the leaf initiation stage is not obvious. The divisions themselves have been shown not to be a prerequisite for the leaf initiation (Foard, 1971
). Ionizing radiation, which prevents cell divisions but not cell expansion, did not inhibit leaf initiation process in wheat seedlings. The restriction of the periclinal divisions to the initiation site has been questioned by Lyndon (1998)
. Also, the examination of the histone H4 gene expression pattern within the SAM shows that the site of incipient leaf primordium initiation is in fact not the most actively proliferating region of the SAM (Reinhardt et al., 1998
). It is rather the region of an elevated expression of the expansin gene LeExp18. Expansin is known to loosen the cell wall (Cosgrove, 2000
), which may result in increased wall expansion. Therefore, Reinhardt et al. (1998)
proposed that the local upregulation of expansin, leading to increased cell expansion, triggers leaf primordium initiation. It has been confirmed in experiments with exogenous expansin applied at the SAM flanks (Fleming et al., 1997
, 1999
) and with the stimulated local elevation of expansin expression (Pien et al., 2001b
). Increased cell division rates are therefore rather the consequence of the need to subdivide the increased volume. All these postulates and observations are in accordance with the view that both growth and morphogenesis are brought not by the rates and orientation of cell divisions, but rather by the differential expansion of cell walls (Reinhardt and Kuhlemeier, 2002
). Cell wall expansion in turn depends on the structure and mechanical properties of the wall.
Although the progeny of the protodermal SAM cells makes only a small contribution to the formation of the whole leaf volume, the protodermal cells are most likely involved in growth regulation (Green and Lang, 1981
). Outer walls of these cells were shown to have an important role in the control of growth directions in general (Green and Poethig, 1982
; Kutschera, 1989
) and in the leaf initiation process (Green, 1986
, 1999
). This is so because the superficial walls are single walls, the thickest of all SAM cell walls, and unlike others are covered with a thin layer of cuticle.
Green, Steele, and collaborators (Green et al., 1996
; Green, 1999
; Steele, 2000
) postulate that leaf initiation is a buckling of the SAM surface. They assume that the SAM behaves as a shell formed by the tunica cells. Buckling is an out-of-plane deflection of the shell surface caused by in-plane compressive stresses (Ugural, 1999
; Dumais and Steele, 2000
). The buckling hypothesis allowed Green and collaborators (Green et al., 1996
; Green, 1999
; Steele, 2000
) to model the de novo formation of phyllotactic patterns and their propagation. According to the model, the wavelength of the undulation formed by buckling depends on the resistance of the SAM surface to bending (Dumais and Steele, 2000
; Steele, 2000
). The more flexible the tunica (e.g., if the tunica has thinner walls) the shorter the wavelength is. The shorter wavelength would be manifested in relatively smaller primordia. The postulated relationship between the tunica thickness and undulation wavelength has been shown by Steele (2000)
. A critical feature of the buckling model is the presence of compressive stresses in the SAM surface some time before the primordium initiation. The compressive stresses may result from the excessive expansion of the outer cell layer (such that the expansion does not fit the growth of remaining meristematic cells) or may be a pure consequence of the SAM geometry (Selker et al., 1992
; Dumais and Steele, 2000
; Steele, 2000
). Direct evidence for the circumferential compressive stresses at the initiation sites of lateral organs (florets) was presented by Dumais and Steele (2000)
for the sunflower capitulum. Their experimental data were further supported by modeling of stress distribution in the surface of young capitulum. This model showed the presence of compressive stresses on the flanks of the capitulum during the earliest developmental stage. At this stage the capitulum shape closely resembles the shape of the vegetative SAM. However, there is a discrepancy in earlier reports on stresses in the meristem surface (reviewed in Dumais and Steele, 2000
). Therefore more experimental data are needed to test the buckling model.
|
CONCLUDING REMARKS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
It is not yet fully understood how the activities of SAM cells are integrated to maintain its structure and fulfill its functions. A role for chemical cell-to-cell signaling in this integration is known, but other factors should not be overlooked. First, even purely geometric features of the SAM dome and its cells seem to participate in the formation of the SAM zones. Second, SAM cells are affected by mechanical factors such as stresses (in different directions) or strains (elastic and plastic, in different directions), implying that mechanics may play a role in integration. This type of integration is considered in the present paper.
Shoot apical meristem cells grow symplastically, i.e., "observe" rules of continuum mechanics. Their growth is also generally anisotropic, although it is always isotropic at the surface of the dome summit. The continuum character of meristem growth and the anisotropy are the manifestation of the tensorial nature of this process, which bears crucial consequences. First, the growth (rate) tensor implies the occurrence of the principal directions of growth (PDGs), i.e., the directions in which growth rate attains its extremal values (maximum, minimum, and saddle type extreme). Only when growth is isotropic are all the directions "principal." The PDGs are manifested in the orientation of cell division planes. Moreover, the tensorial field of growth can be fully controlled only by factors of the same nature, i.e., tensorial factors. This requirement is not fulfilled by fields of chemical signals or of gene product concentrations, because these fields are scalar (concentration) or vectorial (gradient) in nature. A mechanical stress in turn is a tensor.
The borders of gene expression domains are clear-cut. The growth rates of a region cannot be determined by a gene expression in the region, except for the case of a region located centrally. This is so because growth rates in a region must accommodate the displacement of cells caused by growth in other regions. For example, there must be a latitudinal growth in the surface cell whenever there is a radial growth in cells located more centrally at the same level (this latitudinal growth has to compensate for the increase in radius if cells move away from the center). The observed growth pattern could possibly be fully explained, if chemical factors integrating cell growth behavior were complemented by tensorial mechanical components. A special role has to be played by the field of mechanical stress in cell walls because the stress "drives" the irreversible (plastic) strain, which is basic for organ growth. Anisotropic physical constraints of the SAM growth, like the reinforcement of primary cell walls, fulfill the tensorial requirement for factors controlling growth, as the constraints also define a tensor. The mechanical stress field or the mechanical properties of SAM cell walls are therefore good candidates to participate in the integration of growth behavior of cells building the SAM. This view is further supported by the observations that plant cells, unlike human beings, are able to perceive tensor quantities, "recognizing" their principal directions (as manifested in cell division planes or orientation of cortical microtubules). The factors that change the mechanical properties of the cell wall such as expansin, would act through the "constraining" tensor (the fourth-order tensor relating strain to stress in anisotropic materials). However, finding the exact relationships between mechanical fields and growth of the SAM remains an open challenge.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
aw University, Poland) for numerous inspiring discussions on SAM functioning and growth. The author's research on SAM growth is supported by a research grant number 3P04C 015 22 from the Polish Committee for Scientific Research. 
3 According to Erickson (1986)
the adjective symplastic should be used exclusively in reference to the mode of growth, while symplasm (-ic) and apoplasm (-ic) should refer to functional domains in the plant body. Then a confusion is avoided between symplastic growth, the main features of which result from the existence of apoplast, and symplastic transport taking place within the symplast.
4 One direction defines a plane to which it is normal. Since principal directions are mutually orthogonal, if a plane is normal to one of them it has to include the other two directions, and it is therefore the principal plane.
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSTRUCTURE AND GEOMETRY OF...TENSORIAL NATURE OF THE...TENSORIAL FACTORS IN THE...SELF-PERPETUATION OF THE APICAL...MORPHOGENESIS AT THE DOME...CONCLUDING REMARKSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Beloussov L. V. 1997 Mechanical stresses in animal development: patterns and morphogenetic role. In W. Alt, A. Deutsch, and G. Dunn [eds.], Dynamics of cell and tissue motion, 221–228. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland
Beloussov L. V. J. Bereiter-Hahn P. B. Green 1997 Morphogenetic dynamics in tissues: expectations of developmental and cell biologists. In W. Alt, A. Deutsch, and G. Dunn [eds.], Dynamics of cell and tissue motion, 215–220. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland
Bierhorst D. W. 1977 On the stem apex, leaf initiation and early leaf ontogeny in filicalean ferns. American Journal of Botany 64: 125-152[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Bowman J. L. Y. Eshed 2000 Formation and maintenance of the shoot apical meristem. Trends in Plant Science 5: 110-115[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Brand U. J. C. Fletcher M. Hobe E. M. Meyerowitz R. Simon 2000 Dependence of stem cell fate in Arabidopsis on a feedback loop regulated by CLV3 activity. Science 289: 617-619
Brand U. M. Hobe R. Simon 2001 Functional domains in plant shoot meristems. BioEssays 23: 134-141[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Byrne M. E. R. Barley M. Curtis J. M. Arroyo M. Dunham A. Hudson R. A. Martienssen 2000 Asymmetric leaves1 mediates leaf patterning and stem cell function in Arabidopsis. Nature 408: 967-971[CrossRef][Medline]
Clowes F. A. L. 1959 Adenine incorporation and cell division in shoot apices. New Phytologist 58: 16-19[CrossRef]
Clowes F. A. L. 1961 Apical meristems. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK
Cooke T. J. B. Lu 1992 The independence of cell shape and overall form in multicellular algae and land plants: cells do not act as building blocks for constructing plant organs. International Journal of Plant Sciences 153: S7-S27[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Cosgrove D. J. 2000 Loosening of plant cell walls by expansins. Nature 407: 321-326[CrossRef][Medline]
Dumais J. D. Kwiatkowska 2002 Analysis of surface growth in shoot apices. Plant Journal 31: 229-241[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Dumais J. C. S. Steele 2000 New evidence for the role of mechanical forces in the shoot apical meristem. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 19: 7-18[Medline]
Erickson R. O. 1959 Patterns of cell growth and differentiation in plants. In J. Brachet and A. E. Mirsky [eds.], The cell: biochemistry, physiology, morphology, 497–535. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA
Erickson R. O. 1966 Relative elemental rates and anisotropy of growth in area: a computer programme. Journal of Experimental Botany 17: 390-403
Erickson R. O. 1976 Modeling of plant growth. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 27: 407-434[Web of Science]
Erickson R. O. 1986 Symplastic growth and symplasmic transport. Plant Physiology 82: 1153
Fisher K. P. Schopfer 1998 Physical strain-mediated microtubule reorientation in the epidermis of gravitropically or phototropically stimulated maize coleoptiles. Plant Journal 15: 119-123[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Flanders D. J. D. J. Rawlins P. J. Shaw C. W. Lloyd 1990 Nucleus-associated microtubules help to determine the division plane of plant epidermal cells: avoidance of four-way junctions and the role of cell geometry. Journal of Cell Biology 110: 1111-1122
Fleming A. J. D. Caderas E. Wehrli S. McQueen-Mason C. Kuhlemeier 1999 Analysis of expansin-induced morphogenesis on the apical meristem of tomato. Planta 208: 166-174[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Fleming A. J. S. McQueen-Mason T. Mandel C. Kuhlemeier 1997 Induction of leaf primordia by the cell wall protein expansin. Science 276: 1415-1418
Foard D. E. 1971 The initial protrusion of a leaf primordium can form without concurrent periclinal cell divisions. Canadian Journal of Botany 49: 1601-1603
Foster A. S. 1939 Problems of structure, growth and evolution in the shoot apex of seed plants. Botanical Review 5: 454-470
Foster A. S. 1943 Zonal structure and growth of the shoot apex in Microcycas calocoma (Miq.) A. DC. American Journal of Botany 30: 56-73[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gandar P. W. 1983a Growth in root apices. I. The kinematic description of growth. Botanical Gazette 144: 1-10[CrossRef]
Gandar P. W. 1983b Growth in root apices. II. Deformation and rate of deformation. Botanical Gazette 144: 11-19[CrossRef]
Gertel E. T. P. B. Green 1977 Cell growth pattern and wall microfibrillar arrangement. Plant Physiology 60: 247-254
Gifford E. M., Jr. 1950 The structure and development of the shoot apex in certain woody Ranales. American Journal of Botany 37: 595-611[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gifford E. M., Jr. E. Kurth 1983 Quantitative studies of the vegetative shoot apex of Equisetum scirpoides. American Journal of Botany 70: 74-79[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gifford E. M., Jr. V. S. Polito 1981 Mitotic activity at the shoot apex of Azolla filiculoides. American Journal of Botany 68: 1050-1055[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Goodall C. R. P. B. Green 1986 Quantitative analysis of surface growth. Botanical Gazette 147: 1-15
Grandjean O. T. Vernoux P. Laufs K. Belcram Y. Mizukami J. Traas 2004 In vivo analysis of cell division, cell growth, and differentiation at the shoot apical meristem in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 16: 74-87
Green P. B. 1962 Mechanism for plant cellular morphogenesis. Science 138: 1404-1405
Green P. B. 1969 Cell morphogenesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 20: 365-394
Green P. B. 1986 Plasticity in shoot development: a biophysical view. In D. H. Jennings and A. J. Trewavas [eds.], Plasticity in plants, 211–232. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 40, Cambridge, UK
Green P. B. 1988 A theory for inflorescence development and flower formation based on morphological and biophysical analysis in Echeveria. Planta 175: 153-169[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Green P. B. 1996 Expression of form and pattern in plants—a role for biophysical fields. Cell and Developmental Biology 7: 903-911[CrossRef]
Green P. B. 1999 Expression of pattern in plants: combining molecular and calculus-based biophysical paradigms. American Journal of Botany 86: 1059-1076
Green P. B. K. E. Brooks 1978 Stem formation from a succulent leaf: its bearing on theories of axiation. American Journal of Botany 65: 13-26[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Green P. B. R. O. Erickson P. A. Richmond 1970 On the physical basis of cell morphogenesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 175: 712-731[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Green P. B. A. Havelange G. Bernier 1991 Floral morphogenesis in Anagallis: scanning-electron-micrograph sequences from individual growing meristems before, during, and after the transition to flowering. Planta 185: 502-512[Web of Science]
Green P. B. J. M. Lang 1981 Toward a biophysical theory of organogenesis: birefrigerence observations on regenerating leaves in the succulent, Graptopetalum paraguayense E. Walther. Planta 151: 413-426[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Green P. B. R. S. Poethig 1982 Biophysics of the extension and initiation of plant organs. In S. Subtelny and P. B. Green [eds.], Developmental order: its origin and regulation, 485–509. Alan R. Liss, New York, New York, USA
Green P. B. J. M. L. Selker 1991 Mutual alignments of cell walls, cellulose, and cytoskeletons: their role in meristems. In C. W. Lloyd [ed.], The cytoskeletal basis of plant growth and form, 303–322. Academic Press, London, UK
Green P. B. C. S. Steele S. C. Rennich 1996 Phyllotactic patterns: a biophysical mechanism for their origin. Annals of Botany 77: 515-527
Gregory R. A. J. A. Romberger 1972a The shoot apical ontogeny of the Picea abies seedling. I. Anatomy, apical dome diameter, and plastochron duration. American Journal of Botany 59: 587-597[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gregory R. A. J. A. Romberger 1972b The shoot apical ontogeny of the Picea abies seedling. II. Growth rates. American Journal of Botany 59: 598-606[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Harrison L. G. 1993 Kinetic theory of living pattern. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA
Hart T. N. L. E. H. Trainor 1989 Geometrical aspects of surface morphogenesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology 138: 271-296[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hejnowicz Z. 1955 Growth distribution and cell arrangement in apical meristems. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 24: 583-608
Hejnowicz Z. 1984 Trajectories of principal directions of growth, natural coordinate system in growing plant organ. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 53: 301-316[Web of Science]
Hejnowicz Z. 1989 Differential growth resulting in the specification of different types of cellular architecture in root meristems. Environmental and Experimental Botany 29: 85-93[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hejnowicz Z. 2002 Anatomy and histogenesis of vascular plants [Anatomia i histogeneza ro
lin naczyniowych]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, Poland (in Polish)
Hejnowicz Z. B. Heinemann A. Sievers 1977 Tip growth: patterns of growth rate and stress in the Chara rhizoid. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie 81: 409-424[Web of Science]
Hejnowicz Z. J. A. Romberger 1984 Growth tensor of plant organs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 110: 93-114[CrossRef]
Hejnowicz Z. A. Rusin T. Rusin 2000 Tensile tissue stress affects the orientation of cortical microtubules in the epidermis of sunflower hypocotyl. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 19: 31-44[Medline]
Hejnowicz Z. A. Sievers 1992 Tissue tension—a factor in the regulation of cell wall growth. In Y. Masuda [ed.], Plant cell walls as biopolymers with physiological functions, 67–72. Yamam Science Foundation, Osaka, Japan
Hejnowicz Z. A. Sievers 1996 Acid-induced elongation of Reynoutria stems requires tissue stresses. Physiologia Plantarum 98: 345-348[CrossRef]
Held L. I., Jr. 1992 Models for embryonic periodicity. Karger, Basel, Switzerland
Hernández L. F. A. Havelange G. Bernier P. B. Green 1991 Growth behavior of single epidermal cells during flower formation: sequential scanning electron micrographs provide kinematic patterns for Anagallis. Planta 185: 139-147[Web of Science]
Hussey G. 1971 Cell division and expansion and resultant tissue tension in the shoot apex during the formation of a leaf primordium in the tomato. Journal of Experimental Botany 22: 702-714
Hussey G. 1973 Mechanical stress in the shoot apices of Euphorbia, Lycopersicon, and Pisum under controlled turgor. Annals of Botany 37: 57-64
Ingber D. E. 2003 Tensegrity I. Cell structure and hierarchical systems biology. Journal of Cell Science 116: 1157-1173
Jacobs T. 1997 Why do plant cells divide?. Plant Cell 9: 1021-1029[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kelly W. J. T. J. Cooke 2003 Geometrical relationships specifying the phyllotactic pattern of aquatic plants. American Journal of Botany 90: 1131-1143
Klekowski E. J. 1988 Mutation, developmental selection, and plant evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA
Korn R. W. 1980 The changing shape of plant cells: transformations during cell proliferation. Annals of Botany 46: 649-666
Korn R. W. 2002 Chimeric patterns in Juniperus chinensis ‘Torulosa Variegata’ (Cuppressaceae) expressed during leaf and stem formation. American Journal of Botany 89: 758-765
Kutschera U. 1989 Tissue stresses in growing plant organs. Physiologia Plantarum 77: 157-163[CrossRef]
Kwiatkowska D. J. Dumais 2003 Growth and morphogenesis at the vegetative shoot apex of Anagallis arvensis L. Journal of Experimental Botany 54: 1585-1595
Kwiatkowska D. J. Florek-Marwitz 1999 Ontogenetic variation of phyllotaxis and apex geometry in vegetative shoots of Sedum maximum (L.) Hoffm. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 68: 85-95[Web of Science]
Laufs P. O. Grandjean C. Jonak K. Kieu J. Traas 1998 Cellular parameters of the shoot apical meristem in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10: 1375-1389
Lee I. D. S. Wolfe O. Nilsson D. Weigel 1997 A LEAFY co-regulator encoded by UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS. Current Biology 7: 95-104[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lenhard M. T. Laux 1999 Shoot meristem formation and maintenance. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 2: 44-50[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lintilhac P. M. 1974 Differentiation, organogenesis, and the tectonics of cell wall orientation. III. Theoretical consideration of cell wall mechanics. American Journal of Botany 61: 230-237[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lintilhac P. M. T. B. Vesecky 1980 Mechanical stress and cell wall orientation in plant. I. Photoelastic derivation of principal stresses. With a discussion of a concept of axillarity and the significance of the "arcuate shell zone.". American Journal of Botany 67: 1477-1483[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lintilhac P. M. T. B. Vesecky 1984 Stress-induced alignment of division plane in plant tissues grown in vitro. Nature 307: 363-364[CrossRef]
Lloyd C. W. 1991a How does the cytoskeleton read the laws of geometry in aligning the division plane of plant cells?. Development Supplement 1: 55-65
Lloyd C. W. 1991b Cytoskeletal elements of the phragmosome establish the division plane in vacuolated higher plant cells. In C. L. Lloyd [ed.], The cytoskeletal basis of plant growth and form, 245–257. Academic Press, London, UK
Lockhart J. A. 1965 An analysis of irreversible plant cell elongation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 8: 264-275[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lu P. R. Porat J. A. Nadeau S. O'Neill 1996 Identification of a meristem L1 layer-specific gene in Arabidopsis that is expressed during embryonic pattern formation and defines a new class of homeobox genes. Plant Cell 8: 2155-2168[Abstract]
Lynch T. M. P. M. Lintilhac 1997 Mechanical signals in plant development: a new method for single cell studies. Developmental Biology 181: 246-256[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lyndon R. F. 1968 Changes in volume and cell number in the different regions of the shoot apex of Pisum during a single plastochron. Annals of Botany 32: 371-390
Lyndon R. F. 1970 Rates of cell division in the shoot apical meristem of Pisum. Annals of Botany 34: 1-17
Lyndon R. F. 1983 The mechanism of leaf initiation. In J. E. Dale and F. L. Milthorpe [eds.], The growth and functioning of leaves, 3–24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, UK
Lyndon R. F. 1994 Control of organogenesis at the shot apex. New Phytologist 128: 1-18[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lyndon R. F. 1998 The shoot apical meristem. Cambridge University Press, Cambrigde, UK
Lyndon R. F. M. E. Cunninghame 1986 Control of shoot apical development via cell division. In D. H. Jennings and A. J. Trewavas [eds.], Plasticity in plants, 233–255. Society for Experimental Biology, Cambridge, UK
Lynn K. A. Fernandez M. Aida J. Sedbrook M. Tasaka P. Masson M. K. Barton 1999 The PINHEAD/ZWILLE gene acts pleiotropically in Arabidopsis development and has overlapping functions with the ARGONAUTE1 gene. Development 126: 469-481[Abstract]
Mauseth J. D. K. J. Niklas 1979 Constancy of relative volumes of zones in shoot apical meristems in Cactaceae: implication concerning meristem size, shape, and metabolism. American Journal of Botany 66: 933-939[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Mayer K. F. X. H. Schoof A. Haecker M. Lenhard G. Jürgens T. Laux 1998 Role of WUSCHEL in regulating stem cell fate in the Arabidopsis shoot meristem. Cell 95: 805-815[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Meicenheimer R. D. 1979 Relationships between shoot growth and changing phyllotaxy of Ranunculus. American Journal of Botany 66: 557-569[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Murray J. D. P. K. Maini R. T. Tranquillo 1988 Mechanochemical models for generating biological pattern and form in development. Physics Reports 171: 59-84[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Nakielski J. 1982 Geometry of shoot apical dome and distribution of growth rates. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 51: 389-402[Web of Science]
Nakielski J. 1987 Spatial variations of growth within domes having different patterns of principal growth directions. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 56: 611-623[Web of Science]
Nakielski J. P. W. Barlow 1995 Principal directions of growth and the generation of cell patterns in wild-type and gib-1 mutant roots of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in vitro. Planta 196: 30-39[Web of Science]
Newman I. V. 1956 Pattern in meristems of vascular plants. I. Cell partition in living apices and in the cambial zone in relation to the concepts of initial cells and apical cells. Phytomorphology 6: 1-19
Newman I. V. 1961 Pattern in the meristems of vascular plants. II. A review of shoot apical meristems of gymnosperms, with comments on apical biology and taxonomy, and a statement of some fundamental concepts. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 86: 9-59
Newman I. V. 1965 Pattern in the meristems of vascular plants. III. Pursuing the patterns in the apical meristem where no cell is a permanent cell. Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 59: 185-214
Niklas K. J. 1977 Applications of finite element analyses to problems in plant morphology. Annals of Botany 41: 133-153
Niklas K. J. 1992 Plant biomechanics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Niklas K. J. J. D. Mauseth 1980 Simulations of cell dimensions in shoot apical meristems: implications concerning zonate apices. American Journal of Botany 67: 715-732[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Owens J. N. M. Molder 1976 Bud development in Sitka spruce. I. Annual growth cycle of vegetative buds and shoots. Canadian Journal of Botany 54: 313-325[Web of Science]
Pien S. J. Wyrzykowska A. Fleming 2001a Novel marker genes for early leaf development indicate spatial regulation of carbohydrate metabolism within the apical meristem. Plant Journal 25: 663-674[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Pien S. J. Wyrzykowska S. McQueen-Mason C. Smart A. Fleming 2001b Local expression of expansin induces the entire process of leaf development and modifies leaf shape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 11812-11817
Poethig S. 1989 Genetic mosaics and cell lineage analysis in plants. TIG 5: 273-277
Priestley J. H. 1930 Studies in the physiology of cambial activity. II. The concept of sliding growth. New Phytologist 29: 96-140[CrossRef]
Puawska Z. 1986 The sequence of cell divisions in the I tunica layer of Actinidia arguta Planch in light of the development of twin cell complexes. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 55: 171-179[Web of Science]
Reinhardt D. C. Kuhlemeier 2002 Plant architecture. EMBO reports 3: 846-851[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Reinhardt D. F. Wittwer T. Mandel C. Kuhlemeier 1998 Localized upregulation of a new expansin gene predicts the site of leaf formation in the tomato meristem. Plant Cell 10: 1427-1437
Richards F. J. 1948 The geometry of phyllotaxis and its origin. Symposia of the Society of Experimental Biology 2: 217-244
Rolinson A. E. 1976 Rates of cell division in the vegetative shoot apex of rice (Oryza sativa L). Annals of Botany 40: 939-945
Romberger J. A. 1963 Meristems, growth, and development in woody plants. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1293, Beltsville, Maryland, USA
Romberger J. A. Z. Hejnowicz J. F. Hill 1993 Plant structure: function and development. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Ruth J. E. J. Klekowski O. L. Stein 1985 Impermanent initials of the shoot apex and diplontic selection in a juniper chimera. American Journal of Botany 72: 1127-1135[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Schüepp O. 1926 Meristeme. Handbuch der Pflanzenanatomie Ab. I. Teil 2: Histologie, Verlag von Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin, Gemany
Schüepp O. 1966 Meristeme. Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Selker J. M. L. G. L. Steucek P. B. Green 1992 Biophysical mechanisms for morphogenetic progressions at the shoot apex. Developmental Biology 153: 29-43[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shaw S. L. J. Dumais S. R. Long 2000 Cell surface expansion in polarly growing root hairs of Medicago truncatula. Plant Physiology 124: 959-969
Silk W. K. 1984 Quantitative descriptions of development. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 35: 479-518[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Silk W. K. R. O. Erickson 1979 Kinematics of plant growth. Journal of Theoretical Biology 76: 481-502[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Silk W. K. E. M. Lord K. J. Eckard 1989 Growth patterns inferred from anatomical records: empirical tests using longisections of roots of Zea mays L. Plant Physiology 90: 708-713
Sinnott E. W. 1943 Cell division as a problem of pattern in plant development. Torreya 43: 29-34
Sinnott E. W. 1960 Plant morphogenesis. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA
Sinnott E. W. R. Bloch 1941 The relative position of cell walls in developing plant tissues. American Journal of Botany 28: 607-617[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Skalak R. G. Dasgupta M. Moss E. Otten P. Dullemeijer H. Vilmann 1982 Analytical description of growth. Journal of Theoretical Biology 94: 555-577[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Snow M. R. Snow 1931 Experiments on phyllotaxis. I. The effect of isolating a primordium. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 221: 1-43[CrossRef]
Soma K. E. Ball 1963 Studies of the surface growth of the shoot apex of Lupinus albus. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 16: 13-45
Stamenovi D. J. J. Fredberg N. Wang J. P. Butler D. E. Ingber 1996 A microstructural approach to cytoskeletal mechanics based on tensegrity. Journal of Experimental Biology 181: 125-136
Steele C. R. 2000 Shell stability related to pattern formation in plants. Journal of Applied Mechanics 67: 237-247[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Steeves T. A. I. M. Sussex 1989 Patterns in plant development. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA
Struik D. L. 1988 Lectures on classical differential geometry. Dover, New York, New York, USA
Szymkowiak E. J. I. M. Sussex 1996 What chimeras can tell us about plant development. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 47: 351-376[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Thompson D'A. 1942 On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Tilney-Bassett R. A. E. 1963 The structure of periclinal chimeras. 1. The analysis of periclinal chimeras. Heredity 18: 265-285[Web of Science]
Tilney-Bassett R. A. E. 1986 Plant chimeras. Edward Arnold, London, UK
Tiwari S. C. P. B. Green 1991 Shoot initiation on a Graptopetalum leaf: sequential scanning electron microscopic analysis for epidermal division patterns and quantitation of surface growth (kinematics). Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 2302-2319[Web of Science]
Traas J. J. H. Doonan 2001 Cellular basis of shoot apical meristem development. International Review of Cytology 208: 161-206[Web of Science][Medline]
Trewavas A. J. M. Knight 1994a The regulation of shape and form by cytosolic calcium. In D. Ingram and A. Hudson [eds.], Shape and form in plant and fungal cells, 221–233. Academic Press, London, UK
Trewavas A. M. Knight 1994b Mechanical signalling, calcium and plant form. Plant Molecular Biology 26: 1329-1341[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Trbacz K. M. Stolarz H. Dziubiska T. Zawadzki 1997 Electrical control of plant development. In H. Greppin, C. Penel, and P. Simon [eds.], Travelling shot on plant development, 165–182. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Tsiantis M. R. Schneeberger J. F. Golz M. Freeling J. A. Langdale 1999 The maize rough sheath2 gene and leaf development programs in monocot and dicot plants. Science 284: 154-156
Ugural A. C. 1999 Stresses in plates and shells. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Wainwright S. A. W. D. Biggs J. D. Currey J. M. Gosline 1976 Mechanical design in organisms. Edward Arnold, London, UK
Williams M. H. 1991 A sequential study of cell divisions and expansion patterns on a single developing shoot apex of Vinca major. Annals of Botany 68: 541-546
Williams M. H. P. B. Green 1988 Sequential scanning electron microscopy of a growing plant meristem. Protoplasma 147: 77-79[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Williams R. F. 1975 The shoot apex and leaf growth. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA
Williams R. F. R. A. Metcalf L. W. Gust 1982 The genesis of form in oleander (Nerium oleander L). Australian Journal of Botany 30: 677-687[CrossRef]
Zagórska-Marek B. M. Turzaska 2000 Clonal analysis provides evidence for transient initial cells in shoot apical meristems of seed plants. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 19: 55-64[Medline]
CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Kwiatkowska and A.-L. Routier-Kierzkowska Morphogenesis at the inflorescence shoot apex of Anagallis arvensis: surface geometry and growth in comparison with the vegetative shoot J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2009; 60(12): 3407 - 3418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Szczesny, A.-L. Routier-Kierzkowska, and D. Kwiatkowska Influence of clavata3-2 mutation on early flower development in Arabidopsis thaliana: quantitative analysis of changing geometry J. Exp. Bot., February 1, 2009; 60(2): 679 - 695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Kwiatkowska Flowering and apical meristem growth dynamics J. Exp. Bot., February 5, 2008; (2008) erm290v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
