| Literature DB >> 32153599 |
Lucius Wilhelminus Franciscus Muthert1, Luigi Gennaro Izzo1, Martijn van Zanten2, Giovanna Aronne1.
Abstract
Root tropisms are important responses of plants, allowing them to adapt their growth direction. Research on plant tropisms is indispensable for future space programs that envisage plant-based life support systems for long-term missions and planet colonization. Root tropisms encompass responses toward or away from different environmental stimuli, with an underexplored level of mechanistic divergence. Research into signaling events that coordinate tropistic responses is complicated by the consistent coincidence of various environmental stimuli, often interacting via shared signaling mechanisms. On Earth the major determinant of root growth direction is the gravitational vector, acting through gravitropism and overruling most other tropistic responses to environmental stimuli. Critical advancements in the understanding of root tropisms have been achieved nullifying the gravitropic dominance with experiments performed in the microgravity environment. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on root tropisms to different environmental stimuli. We highlight that the term tropism must be used with care, because it can be easily confused with a change in root growth direction due to asymmetrical damage to the root, as can occur in apparent chemotropism, electrotropism, and magnetotropism. Clearly, the use of Arabidopsis thaliana as a model for tropism research contributed much to our understanding of the underlying regulatory processes and signaling events. However, pronounced differences in tropisms exist among species, and we argue that these should be further investigated to get a more comprehensive view of the signaling pathways and sensors. Finally, we point out that the Cholodny-Went theory of asymmetric auxin distribution remains to be the central and unifying tropistic mechanism after 100 years. Nevertheless, it becomes increasingly clear that the theory is not applicable to all root tropistic responses, and we propose further research to unravel commonalities and differences in the molecular and physiological processes orchestrating root tropisms.Entities:
Keywords: Arabidopsis; Cholodny-Went; directional growth; gravitropism; microgravity
Year: 2020 PMID: 32153599 PMCID: PMC7047216 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01807
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Schematic representation of a longitudinal cross section of an Arabidopsis root apex, indicating the four distinct developmental zones: the meristematic zone (MZ; pink), the transition zone (TZ; purple), also known as distal elongation zone (DEZ), the elongation zone (EZ; blue), and the differentiation zone (DZ; green). The root cap is indicated in gray and consists of the columella root cap (COL) and the lateral root cap (LRC) that, together with the MZ, surround the quiescent center (QC). Known or suspected sensor and action regions are indicated alongside the root. Tropisms within parentheses are likely not sensu stricto tropisms. BL, blue light; RL, red light. *Specific localization in the cortex of the EZ. **Suspected localizations.
Root tropism sensor regions, signaling mechanism, and action regions in Arabidopsis thaliana.
| Tropism | Sensor region | Signalling | Action region | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Columella S1 and S2[1] | Cholodny-Went[2] | Basal TZ[3] |
|
| TZ or EZ[4] | Likely not C-W[5] | Apical TZ[4] | |
|
| EZ[6] | Likely not C-W[7] | EZ cortex[6, 3] | |
|
|
| Likely EZ or root cap[8, 9, 10] | Likely not C-W[11] | EZ[10] |
|
| Possibly root cap[12, 13] | Unknown | EZ[12] | |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | Cholodny-Went[14] | Likely EZ* [15, 16] | |
|
| Strongest in root cap[17] | C-W [18] | EZ [17] | |
|
|
| Unknown | Unknown | TZ[19] |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | EZ[19] | |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | Possibly C-W[20] | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | I.a. Ca2+ [21] | Unknown |
*Despite a lack of direct reporting, the action region of halotropism is likely in the EZ, as it is a Cholodny-Went tropism.
†Likely not a sensu stricto tropism.
[1](Blancaflor et al., 1998), [2](Geisler et al., 2014), [3](Krieger et al., 2016), [4](Wolverton et al., 2002), [5](Wolverton et al., 2011), [6](Dietrich et al., 2017), [7](Shkolnik et al., 2016), [8](Sakamoto and Briggs, 2002), [9](Briggs and Christie, 2002), [10](Mullen et al., 2002), [11](Kimura et al., 2018), [12](Kiss et al., 2003b), [13](Salisbury et al., 2007), [14](Galvan-Ampudia et al., 2013), [15](van den Berg et al., 2016), [16](Yokawa et al., 2014), [17](Massa and Gilroy, 2003), [18](Lee et al., 2020), [19](Wolverton et al., 2000), [20](Eysholdt-Derzsó and Sauter, 2017), [21](Rodrigo-Moreno et al., 2017).
Secondary messengers and phytohormones (potentially) involved in Arabidopsis thaliana root tropisms. With the following abbreviations: inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (InsP3), phospholipase Dζ2 (PLDζ2), phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PtdIns3P), and phosphatidic acid (PA).
| Tropism | Secondary messengers | Phytohormones | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Ca2+ [1] , InsP3 [2], NO[3], pH[1] , PLDζ2[4], PtdIns3P[5], ROS[6] | Auxin[7], gibberellic acid[8] |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Ca2+ [9], PLDζ2[4], ROS[6] | ABA[10], auxin?[11, 12], brassinosteroids[13], cytokinin[14], ethylene?[15] | |
|
|
| Ca2+?[16], Flavonoids[17] | Cytokinin[18] |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Ca2+?[19], Flavonoids[20], H2O2?[19], PLDζ2[21] | Unknown | |
|
| Ca2+ [22], pH[22], ROS[22, 23] | Auxin[24], ethylene[25] | |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | Unknown | |
|
| Unknown | Auxin?[26], ethylene[26] | |
|
| Ca2+ [27], K+ [27], superoxide (O2 -)[27] | Unknown | |
†Likely not a sensu stricto tropism.
[1](Monshausen et al., 2011), [2](Perera et al., 2006), [3](París et al., 2018), [4](Taniguchi et al., 2010), [5](Joo et al., 2005), [6](Krieger et al., 2016), [7](Sato et al., 2015), [8](Löfke et al., 2013), [9](Takano et al., 1997), [10](Dietrich et al., 2017), [11](Shkolnik et al., 2016), [12](Kaneyasu et al., 2007), [13](Miao et al., 2018), [14](Saucedo et al., 2012), [15](Rowe et al., 2016), [16](Pedmale et al., 2010), [17](Silva-Navas et al., 2016), [18](Silva-Navas et al., 2016), [19](Shabala et al., 2015), [20](Petrella et al., 2018), [21](Galvan-Ampudia et al., 2013), [22](Monshausen et al., 2009), [23](Kurusu et al., 2013), [24](Lee et al., 2020), [25](Yamamoto et al., 2008), [26](Eysholdt-Derzsó and Sauter, 2017), [27](Rodrigo-Moreno et al., 2017).
The compounds thought to be involved on the basis of little or only indirect evidence, or with controversy, are followed by a question mark.