Why plants make puzzle cells, and how their shape emerges

  1. Aleksandra Sapala
  2. Adam Runions
  3. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
  4. Mainak Das Gupta
  5. Lilan Hong
  6. Hugo Hofhuis
  7. Stéphane Verger
  8. Gabriella Mosca
  9. Chun-Biu Li
  10. Angela Hay
  11. Olivier Hamant
  12. Adrienne HK Roeder
  13. Miltos Tsiantis
  14. Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz
  15. Richard S Smith  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Germany
  2. Cornell University, United States
  3. Université de Lyon, France
  4. Stockholm University, Sweden
  5. University of Calgary, Canada

Abstract

The shape and function of plant cells are often highly interdependent. The puzzle-shaped cells that appear in the epidermis of many plants are a striking example of a complex cell shape, however their functional benefit has remained elusive. We propose that these intricate forms provide an effective strategy to reduce mechanical stress in the cell wall of the epidermis. When tissue-level growth is isotropic, we hypothesize that lobes emerge at the cellular level to prevent formation of large isodiametric cells that would bulge under the stress produced by turgor pressure. Data from various plant organs and species support the relationship between lobes and growth isotropy, which we test with mutants where growth direction is perturbed. Using simulation models we show that a mechanism actively regulating cellular stress plausibly reproduces the development of epidermal cell shape. Together, our results suggest that mechanical stress is a key driver of cell-shape morphogenesis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Aleksandra Sapala

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Adam Runions

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mainak Das Gupta

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lilan Hong

    Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hugo Hofhuis

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stéphane Verger

    Laboratoire Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3643-3978
  8. Gabriella Mosca

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chun-Biu Li

    Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8009-6265
  10. Angela Hay

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Olivier Hamant

    Laboratoire de Reproduction de développement des plantes, Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, ENS Lyon, Claude Bernard University Lyon, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6906-6620
  12. Adrienne HK Roeder

    Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6685-2984
  13. Miltos Tsiantis

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz

    Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Richard S Smith

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    For correspondence
    smith@mpipz.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9220-0787

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation (SystemsX.ch iPhD grant 2010/073)

  • Richard S Smith

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (031A492)

  • Richard S Smith

Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0008/2013)

  • Chun-Biu Li
  • Olivier Hamant
  • Adrienne HK Roeder
  • Richard S Smith

European Commission (Marie Skłodowska-Curie individual fellowship (Horizon 2020 703886))

  • Adam Runions

Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant RGPIN-2014-05325)

  • Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz

European Research Council (ERC-2013-CoG-615739 'MechanoDevo')

  • Olivier Hamant

Max Planck Society (Core grant and open-access funding)

  • Miltos Tsiantis
  • Richard S Smith

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (031A494)

  • Richard S Smith

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2018, Sapala 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

  • 16,114
    views
  • 1,791
    downloads
  • 208
    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. Aleksandra Sapala
  2. Adam Runions
  3. Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
  4. Mainak Das Gupta
  5. Lilan Hong
  6. Hugo Hofhuis
  7. Stéphane Verger
  8. Gabriella Mosca
  9. Chun-Biu Li
  10. Angela Hay
  11. Olivier Hamant
  12. Adrienne HK Roeder
  13. Miltos Tsiantis
  14. Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz
  15. Richard S Smith
(2018)
Why plants make puzzle cells, and how their shape emerges
eLife 7:e32794.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32794

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32794

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Saugat Poudel, Jason Hyun ... Bernhard O Palsson
    Research Article

    The Staphylococcus aureus clonal complex 8 (CC8) is made up of several subtypes with varying levels of clinical burden; from community-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus USA300 strains to hospital-associated (HA-MRSA) USA500 strains and ancestral methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) strains. This phenotypic distribution within a single clonal complex makes CC8 an ideal clade to study the emergence of mutations important for antibiotic resistance and community spread. Gene-level analysis comparing USA300 against MSSA and HA-MRSA strains have revealed key horizontally acquired genes important for its rapid spread in the community. However, efforts to define the contributions of point mutations and indels have been confounded by strong linkage disequilibrium resulting from clonal propagation. To break down this confounding effect, we combined genetic association testing with a model of the transcriptional regulatory network (TRN) to find candidate mutations that may have led to changes in gene regulation. First, we used a De Bruijn graph genome-wide association study to enrich mutations unique to the USA300 lineages within CC8. Next, we reconstructed the TRN by using independent component analysis on 670 RNA-sequencing samples from USA300 and non-USA300 CC8 strains which predicted several genes with strain-specific altered expression patterns. Examination of the regulatory region of one of the genes enriched by both approaches, isdH, revealed a 38-bp deletion containing a Fur-binding site and a conserved single-nucleotide polymorphism which likely led to the altered expression levels in USA300 strains. Taken together, our results demonstrate the utility of reconstructed TRNs to address the limits of genetic approaches when studying emerging pathogenic strains.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Masaaki Uematsu, Jeremy M Baskin
    Tools and Resources

    Plasmid construction is central to life science research, and sequence verification is arguably its costliest step. Long-read sequencing has emerged as a competitor to Sanger sequencing, with the principal benefit that whole plasmids can be sequenced in a single run. Nevertheless, the current cost of nanopore sequencing is still prohibitive for routine sequencing during plasmid construction. We develop a computational approach termed Simple Algorithm for Very Efficient Multiplexing of Oxford Nanopore Experiments for You (SAVEMONEY) that guides researchers to mix multiple plasmids and subsequently computationally de-mixes the resultant sequences. SAVEMONEY defines optimal mixtures in a pre-survey step, and following sequencing, executes a post-analysis workflow involving sequence classification, alignment, and consensus determination. By using Bayesian analysis with prior probability of expected plasmid construction error rate, high-confidence sequences can be obtained for each plasmid in the mixture. Plasmids differing by as little as two bases can be mixed as a single sample for nanopore sequencing, and routine multiplexing of even six plasmids per 180 reads can still maintain high accuracy of consensus sequencing. SAVEMONEY should further democratize whole-plasmid sequencing by nanopore and related technologies, driving down the effective cost of whole-plasmid sequencing to lower than that of a single Sanger sequencing run.