GLO-Roots: an imaging platform enabling multidimensional characterization of soil-grown root systems

  1. Rubén Rellán-Álvarez
  2. Guillaume Lobet
  3. Heike Lindner
  4. Pierre-Luc Pradier
  5. Jose Sebastian
  6. Muh-Ching Yee
  7. Yu Geng
  8. Charlotte Trontin
  9. Therese LaRue
  10. Amanda Schrager-Lavelle
  11. Cara H Haney
  12. Rita Nieu
  13. Julin Maloof
  14. John P Vogel
  15. José R Dinneny  Is a corresponding author
  1. Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico
  2. University of Liège, Belgium
  3. Carnegie Institution for Science, United States
  4. United States Department of Agriculture, United States
  5. Stanford University, United States
  6. University of California, Davis, United States
  7. Harvard Medical School, United States
  8. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, United States

Abstract

Root systems develop different root types that individually sense cues from their local environment and integrate this information with systemic signals. This complex multi-dimensional amalgam of inputs enables continuous adjustment of root growth rates, direction and metabolic activity that define a dynamic physical network. Current methods for analyzing root biology balance physiological relevance with imaging capability. To bridge this divide, we developed an integrated imaging system called Growth and Luminescence Observatory for Roots (GLO-Roots) that uses luminescence-based reporters to enable studies of root architecture and gene expression patterns in soil-grown, light-shielded roots. We have developed image analysis algorithms that allow the spatial integration of soil properties, gene expression and root system architecture traits. We propose GLO-Roots as a system that has great utility in presenting environmental stimuli to roots in ways that evoke natural adaptive responses and in providing tools for studying the multi-dimensional nature of such processes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rubén Rellán-Álvarez

    Unidad de Genómica Avanzada, Laboratorio Nacional de Genómica para la Biodiversidad, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Irapuato, Mexico
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Guillaume Lobet

    PhytoSystems, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Heike Lindner

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pierre-Luc Pradier

    Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jose Sebastian

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Muh-Ching Yee

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Yu Geng

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Charlotte Trontin

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Therese LaRue

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Amanda Schrager-Lavelle

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Cara H Haney

    Department of Genetics, Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Rita Nieu

    Western Regional Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Albany, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Julin Maloof

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. John P Vogel

    Department of Energy, Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. José R Dinneny

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    jdinneny@carnegiescience.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Rellán-Álvarez et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 12,369
    views
  • 2,324
    downloads
  • 193
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Rubén Rellán-Álvarez
  2. Guillaume Lobet
  3. Heike Lindner
  4. Pierre-Luc Pradier
  5. Jose Sebastian
  6. Muh-Ching Yee
  7. Yu Geng
  8. Charlotte Trontin
  9. Therese LaRue
  10. Amanda Schrager-Lavelle
  11. Cara H Haney
  12. Rita Nieu
  13. Julin Maloof
  14. John P Vogel
  15. José R Dinneny
(2015)
GLO-Roots: an imaging platform enabling multidimensional characterization of soil-grown root systems
eLife 4:e07597.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07597

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07597

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Masanori Izumi, Sakuya Nakamura ... Shinya Hagihara
    Research Article

    Plants distribute many nutrients to chloroplasts during leaf development and maturation. When leaves senesce or experience sugar starvation, the autophagy machinery degrades chloroplast proteins to facilitate efficient nutrient reuse. Here, we report on the intracellular dynamics of an autophagy pathway responsible for piecemeal degradation of chloroplast components. Through live-cell monitoring of chloroplast morphology, we observed the formation of chloroplast budding structures in sugar-starved leaves. These buds were then released and incorporated into the vacuolar lumen as an autophagic cargo termed a Rubisco-containing body. The budding structures did not accumulate in mutants of core autophagy machinery, suggesting that autophagosome creation is required for forming chloroplast buds. Simultaneous tracking of chloroplast morphology and autophagosome development revealed that the isolation membranes of autophagosomes interact closely with part of the chloroplast surface before forming chloroplast buds. Chloroplasts then protrude at the site associated with the isolation membranes, which divide synchronously with autophagosome maturation. This autophagy-related division does not require DYNAMIN-RELATED PROTEIN 5B, which constitutes the division ring for chloroplast proliferation in growing leaves. An unidentified division machinery may thus fragment chloroplasts for degradation in coordination with the development of the chloroplast-associated isolation membrane.

    1. Plant Biology
    Koji Kato, Yoshiki Nakajima ... Ryo Nagao
    Research Article

    Photosynthetic organisms exhibit remarkable diversity in their light-harvesting complexes (LHCs). LHCs are associated with photosystem I (PSI), forming a PSI-LHCI supercomplex. The number of LHCI subunits, along with their protein sequences and pigment compositions, has been found to differ greatly among the PSI-LHCI structures. However, the mechanisms by which LHCIs recognize their specific binding sites within the PSI core remain unclear. In this study, we determined the cryo-electron microscopy structure of a PSI supercomplex incorporating fucoxanthin chlorophyll a/c-binding proteins (FCPs), designated as PSI-FCPI, isolated from the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana CCMP1335. Structural analysis of PSI-FCPI revealed five FCPI subunits associated with a PSI monomer; these subunits were identified as RedCAP, Lhcr3, Lhcq10, Lhcf10, and Lhcq8. Through structural and sequence analyses, we identified specific protein–protein interactions at the interfaces between FCPI and PSI subunits, as well as among FCPI subunits themselves. Comparative structural analyses of PSI-FCPI supercomplexes, combined with phylogenetic analysis of FCPs from T. pseudonana and the diatom Chaetoceros gracilis, underscore the evolutionary conservation of protein motifs crucial for the selective binding of individual FCPI subunits. These findings provide significant insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the assembly and selective binding of FCPIs in diatoms.