In 2016 Gagliano et al. reported evidence for associative learning in plants (Gagliano et al., 2016). A subsequent attempt to replicate this finding by the present author was not successful (Markel, 2020). Gagliano et al. attribute this lack of replication to differences in the experimental set-ups used in the original work and the replication attempt (Gagliano et al., 2020). Here, based on a comparison of the two set-ups, I argue that these differences are unable to explain the lack of replication in Markel, 2020.
If reproducible, the evidence for associative learning in plants reported in Gagliano et al., 2016 would require scientists to rethink the evolutionary history of learning because associative learning has only been consistently reported in metazoa. While learning does not imply phenomenological consciousness (Nagel, 1974), its possible discovery in plants nonetheless raises interesting questions about philosophy of mind (Bronfman et al., 2016), in addition to questions regarding the molecular mechanisms and evolutionary history of learning (Ginsburg and Jablonka, 2010).
The primary criticism of my replication attempt (Markel, 2020) is that light was not shown to be a reliable unconditioned stimulus (Gagliano et al., 2020). It is true that the plants in Markel, 2020 did not always grow towards the last presentation of light, which reduced the power to detect associative learning. However, Gagliano et al., 2016 does not emphasize how surprising it is that plants would always grow towards a one hour presentation of light preceded by presentations in the opposite direction. Most experiments with phototropism involve light exposure from only one side and for substantially longer periods of time (3 hr in Schumacher et al., 2018 and Haga and Kimura, 2019 3–6 hr in Sullivan et al., 2016 or 24 hr in Goyal et al., 2016). Relatively few experiments have been reported on phototropism in etiolated Pisum sativum seedlings. However, in wild-type etiolated Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings, phototropic bending is barely initiated after 1 hr of exposure (Sullivan et al., 2016). Moreover, circumnutation means that it is unlikely that phototropic bending would result in the growth of Pisum sativum into the predicted arm of the maze many hours later.
Furthermore, in phototropism experiments blue light illumination is generally presented horizontally to maximize the phototropic bending, but in the Y-maze configuration the angle of illumination comes primarily from above: if the LEDs are attached on the outside edges of the Y-maze, as in Markel, 2020, the angle of the light at soil level is less than 40° from vertical. If the lights are attached in the center of each arm of the Y-maze, the angle is less than 25° from vertical. This oblique light is unlikely to cause a phototropic response as rapid or as strong as that caused by horizontal light (see, for example, figure 1 in Sullivan et al., 2016). For technical reasons, neither Gagliano et al., 2016 nor Markel, 2020 measured the rate of phototropic bending.
Gagliano et al. mention that they also encountered conditions in which light was not an effective unconditioned stimulus, citing specifically their second experiment with various circadian phases. However, Markel, 2020 was performed in the same circadian phase as their first experiment, so circadian phase is not a candidate explanation for the less consistent phototropic growth.
Gagliano et al. also mention that their plants were ~20 cm apart (a detail not included in the 2016 paper; moreover, in supplementary video 1 for this paper the spacing between the plants appears to be less than 20 cm, though greater than the compact spacing used in Markel, 2020). Regardless, the LED within each Y-maze provides the vast majority of the light to the seedlings, as can be seen from the internal illumination of the 'dark' arms of the Y-mazes in all panels of Figure 1. Moreover, because all the lights were on simultaneously, the higher level of background light in Markel, 2020 was only present when the larger amount of light from Y-maze internal reflection was also present.
I have used a technique called histogram matching (Chang and Wong, 1978) to compare images of the experimental chamber in Gagliano et al., 2016 (using a frame extracted from supplementary video 1; Figure 1A) and Markel, 2020 (using a photograph; Figure 1B). This technique adjusts the intensity histograms of images (the distribution of pixel intensity from 0 to 255 in the case of 8-bit images such as these) in a way that allows relative comparisons of brightness, contrast, and intensity to be made between images acquired with different settings. This technique is well suited to this particular case because there is a common standard of brightness (LEDs emitting 14 μmol m−2 s−1 at wavelengths between 430 and 505 nm). The unedited images in Figure 1A and B show a large apparent difference in background brightness. However, histogram-matched images in Figure 1C and D suggest that most of the apparent difference in brightness between the two studies is due to differences in settings and hardware of the cameras used to capture the images.
Nevertheless, the closer proximity of plants used in the replication attempt (Markel, 2020) resulted in a higher level of background light. The chambers used in the replication attempt were also smaller than those used in Gagliano et al., 2016, but all were maintained at the same temperature and humidity conditions. The difference in chamber size is unlikely to be important except insofar as it resulted in changes to plant spacing. Despite considerable effort to match the experimental details of the 2016 experiment, the replication attempt did not find evidence for associative learning in pea plants. Of course, this does not rule out the existence of such learning, and I sincerely hope that future research demonstrates the phenomenon to be reproducible.
Optimal histogram matching by monotone gray level transformationCommunications of the ACM 21:835–840.https://doi.org/10.1145/359619.359625
The evolution of associative learning: a factor in the Cambrian ExplosionJournal of Theoretical Biology 266:11–20.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.06.017
Physiological characterization of phototropism in Arabidopsis seedlingsMethods in Molecular Biology 1924:3–17.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9015-3_1
No external funding was received for this work.
- Christian S Hardtke, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- Daeyeol Lee, Johns Hopkins University, United States
- Received: August 3, 2020
- Accepted: September 3, 2020
- Version of Record published: September 10, 2020 (version 1)
© 2020, Markel
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
In Arabidopsis thaliana, winter is registered during vernalization through the temperature-dependent repression and epigenetic silencing of floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). Natural Arabidopsis accessions show considerable variation in vernalization. However, which aspect of the FLC repression mechanism is most important for adaptation to different environments is unclear. By analyzing FLC dynamics in natural variants and mutants throughout winter in three field sites, we find that autumnal FLC expression, rather than epigenetic silencing, is the major variable conferred by the distinct Arabidopsis FLC haplotypes. This variation influences flowering responses of Arabidopsis accessions resulting in an interplay between promotion and delay of flowering in different climates to balance survival and, through a post-vernalization effect, reproductive output. These data reveal how expression variation through non-coding cis variation at FLC has enabled Arabidopsis accessions to adapt to different climatic conditions and year-on-year fluctuations.
Receptor endocytosis is important for signal activation, transduction, and deactivation. However, how a receptor interprets conflicting signals to adjust cellular output is not clearly understood. Using genetic, cell biological, and pharmacological approaches, we report here that ERECTA-LIKE1 (ERL1), the major receptor restricting plant stomatal differentiation, undergoes dynamic subcellular behaviors in response to different EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR (EPF) peptides. Activation of ERL1 by EPF1 induces rapid ERL1 internalization via multivesicular bodies/late endosomes to vacuolar degradation, whereas ERL1 constitutively internalizes in the absence of EPF1. The co-receptor, TOO MANY MOUTHS is essential for ERL1 internalization induced by EPF1 but not by EPFL6. The peptide antagonist, Stomagen, triggers retention of ERL1 in the endoplasmic reticulum, likely coupled with reduced endocytosis. In contrast, the dominant-negative ERL1 remained dysfunctional in ligand-induced subcellular trafficking. Our study elucidates that multiple related yet unique peptides specify cell fate by deploying the differential subcellular dynamics of a single receptor.