Opposite polarity programs regulate asymmetric subsidiary cell divisions in grasses
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This manuscript characterizes the localization and function of two proteins promoting division asymmetry in developing stomata of the grass Brachypodium distachyon. The authors demonstrate that the opposing polarity domains of these proteins are linked to cell division orientation. While both proteins have been studied previously in other systems, there was no prior evidence of cooperative functions in a single cell type, as shown here. With further clarification of some of the localization findings, this study will be of strong interest to plant cell biologists and those interested in asymmetric cell division generally.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Plant Biology (eLife)
Abstract
Grass stomata recruit lateral subsidiary cells (SCs), which are key to the unique stomatal morphology and the efficient plant-atmosphere gas exchange in grasses. Subsidiary mother cells (SMCs) strongly polarise before an asymmetric division forms a SC. Yet apart from a proximal polarity module that includes PANGLOSS1 (PAN1) and guides nuclear migration, little is known regarding the developmental processes that form SCs. Here, we used comparative transcriptomics of developing wild-type and SC-less bdmute leaves in the genetic model grass Brachypodium distachyon to identify novel factors involved in SC formation. This approach revealed BdPOLAR, which forms a novel, distal polarity domain in SMCs that is opposite to the proximal PAN1 domain. Both polarity domains are required for the formative SC division yet exhibit various roles in guiding pre-mitotic nuclear migration and SMC division plane orientation, respectively. Nonetheless, the domains are linked as the proximal domain controls polarisation of the distal domain. In summary, we identified two opposing polarity domains that coordinate the SC division, a process crucial for grass stomatal physiology.
Article activity feed
-
-
Author Response
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Grasses develop morphologically unique stomata for efficient gas exchange. A key feature of stomata is the subsidiary cell (SC), which laterally flanks the guard cell (GC). Although it has been shown that the lateral SC contributes to rapid stomatal opening and closing, little is known about how the SC is generated from the subsidiary mother cell (SMC) and how the SMC acquires its intracellular polarity. The authors identified BdPOLAR as a polarity factor that forms a polarity domain in the SMC in a BdPAN1-dependent manner. They concluded that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR exhibit mutually exclusive localization patterns within SMCs and that formative SC division requires both. Further mutant analysis showed that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR act in SMC nuclear migration and the proper placement of the cortical …
Author Response
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Grasses develop morphologically unique stomata for efficient gas exchange. A key feature of stomata is the subsidiary cell (SC), which laterally flanks the guard cell (GC). Although it has been shown that the lateral SC contributes to rapid stomatal opening and closing, little is known about how the SC is generated from the subsidiary mother cell (SMC) and how the SMC acquires its intracellular polarity. The authors identified BdPOLAR as a polarity factor that forms a polarity domain in the SMC in a BdPAN1-dependent manner. They concluded that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR exhibit mutually exclusive localization patterns within SMCs and that formative SC division requires both. Further mutant analysis showed that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR act in SMC nuclear migration and the proper placement of the cortical division site marker BdTANGLED1, respectively. This study reveals a unique developmental process of grass stomata, where two opposing polarity factors form domains in the SMC and ensure asymmetric cell division and SC generation.
The findings of this study, if further validated, are novel and interesting. However, I feel that the data presented in the current manuscript do not fully support some crucial conclusions. The lack of dual-color images is the weakest point of this study. If it is technically impossible to add them, alternative analyses are needed to validate the main conclusions.
- Is BdPOLAR-mVenus functional? Although the authors interpret that weak BdPOLAR-mVenus expression partially rescued the bdpolar mutant phenotype in Fig. S4D, the localization pattern visualized by BdPOLAR-mVenus may not be completely reliable with this partial rescue activity.
This is indeed a valid point. The partial complementation of weakly expressing translational reporters (Figure 3–figure supplement 1D) and the weak effect of BdPOLAR-mVenus overexpression lines (Figure 3–figure supplement 1J) at least suggest partial functionality which is strongly dependent on dosage. Yet the localization pattern and the temporal dynamics might indeed not fully reflect the spatiotemporal dynamics of the endogenous BdPOLAR. This criticism is, however, true for any transgenic reporter line–even when fully complementing–as the requirement for dosage, stability, and turnover likely varies strongly between different protein classes and functions.
Nonetheless, we have added a sentence on p. 7, which mentions this potential caveat.
- Regardless of the functionality of the tagged protein, the authors need to provide more information on their localization. For example, is there a difference in polarity pattern depending on expression level? Does overexpressed BdPOLAR-mVenus invade the BdPAN1 zone? In such cases, might the loss of BdPOLAR polarity in the bdpan1 mutant be a side effect of overexpression, not PAN1 exclusion? Does BdPOLAR expression (no tag) show a dose-dependent effect, similar to the mVenus-tagged protein?
The difference in polarity patterns in bdpan1 mutants and wild-type does not depend on expression level. BdPOLAR-mVenus was crossed into bdpan1 and mutant and wild-type siblings in the F2 generation were analyzed. This means that the data presented in Fig. 3E and F show exactly the same transgene insertion line in wt and bdpan1 and were imaged with the same setting for comparability. Therefore, the difference in localization is not due to different expression levels but indeed reflects a PAN1-dependent effect.
To address if BdPOLAR without a tag is also sensitive to dosage, we have generated an untagged complementation line that includes the untagged, genomic locus of BdPOLAR including promoter (-3.1kb) and terminator (+1.1kb). Yet, even though this construct is much better at rescuing the mutant, we still see remaining defects in T0 lines (Figure 3–figure supplement 1K) suggesting that even without a tag we cannot fully recapitulate wild-type functionality. Yet, to actually measure protein levels of untagged BdPOLAR, we would need to raise an antibody against BdPOLAR, which we think is clearly out of the scope of this study.
- A major conclusion of this study was that the polarity domains of BdPOLAR and BdPAN1 are mutually exclusive. However, not all the cells in the figures were consistent with this statement. For example, the BdPOLAR signals at the GMC/SMC interphase appear to match BdPAN1 localization (compare 0:03 s in Video 1 and 0:20 s in Video 2 [top cell]). The 3D rendered image in Fig. 2F shows that BdPOLAR is excluded near the GMC on the front side of the SMC, where BdPAN1 is not localized. Some cells did not exhibit polarization (Fig. 3A, bottom left; Fig. 3E, bottom left). The most convincing data are the dual-color images of these two proteins. Otherwise, a sophisticated image analysis is required to support this conclusion.
We agree that dual-color image analysis would have provided the most convincing data. As mentioned in our answers to the reviewing editor and reviewer 1, we have generated a dual marker line (BdPAN1p:BdPAN1-CFP; BdPOLARp:BdPOLAR-mCitrine), yet the BdPAN1-CFP signal (compared to mCitrine signal) was too weak to visualize the proximal BdPAN1 domain.
This issue was also raised by reviewer 1 and deemed an essential revision. To determine how BdPOLAR and BdPAN1 relate spatially to each other, we have added data in Figure 2E where we manually traced mature SMC outlines to determine BdPOLAR-mVenus and BdPAN1-mCitrine occupancy along the SMC’s circumference. This confirmed that the polarization is indeed opposite yet not perfectly reciprocal (see details above, Essential Revisions #1).
Finally, we realized that the 3D image renderings were more confusing than helpful and we removed them from the revised version.
- Another central conclusion was that BdPOLAR was excluded at the future SC division site, marked with BdTANGLED1. However, these data are also not very convincing, as such specific exclusion cannot be seen in some figure panels (e.g., Fig. 3A, bottom left; Fig. 3E, all three cells on the left). If dual-color imaging is not feasible, a quantitative image analysis is needed to support this conclusion.
As for point 3, this was also criticized by reviewer 1 and deemed an essential revision by the reviewing editor.
To determine whether the absence of BdPOLAR signal and the presence of BdTAN1 signal colocalize, we again manually traced mature SMC outlines to determine BdPOLAR-mVenus and BdTAN1-mCitrine occupancy along the SMC’s circumference. We plotted the relative average fluorescence intensity in Figure 4G-I nicely showing that BdTAN1 indeed resides in the BdPOLAR gaps above and below the GMC (again, details above, Essential Revisions #2).
- I could not find detailed imaging conditions and data processing methods. Are Figs. 2B and 2E max-projection or single-plane images? If they are single-plane images, which planes of the SMC are observed? In addition, how were Figs. 2C and 2F rendered? (e.g., number of images, distance intervals, processing procedures). This information is important for data interpretations.
We agree that we might not have provided sufficient imaging condition details and have added more details regarding image acquisition in the method part (p. 20). We always use a consistent depth and show the midplane of SMCs. As mentioned above, we removed Figs. 2C and 2F and the supplemental movies as these data did not seem to be helpful.
- [Minor point] The authors should clearly describe where BdPAN1 is expressed and localized. Is it expressed in the GMC and localized at the GMC/SMC interface? Alternatively, is it expressed and localized in the SMC?
BdPAN1 is expressed throughout the epidermis but starts to strongly accumulate at the GMC/SMC interface. According to the literature (Cartwright et al 2009 with immunostainings against ZmPAN1 and Sutimantanapi et al. 2014 with PAN1 and PAN2 reporter) and our own observations (Fig. S3), this accumulation occurs in the SMC rather than in the GMC. In Fig. S3A, third panel, second GMC from the top, for example, one can see that the early PAN1 polarity domain expands beyond the GMC/SMC interface suggesting that it is indeed forming in SMCs rather than in GMCs. We have specified this in the text more clearly now (p. 5).
-
eLife assessment
This manuscript characterizes the localization and function of two proteins promoting division asymmetry in developing stomata of the grass Brachypodium distachyon. The authors demonstrate that the opposing polarity domains of these proteins are linked to cell division orientation. While both proteins have been studied previously in other systems, there was no prior evidence of cooperative functions in a single cell type, as shown here. With further clarification of some of the localization findings, this study will be of strong interest to plant cell biologists and those interested in asymmetric cell division generally.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Polarization in cells and organs is often dictated by opposing polarity domains. In grass subsidiary cells, several proteins (including PAN1) were previously found to polarize in a discrete patch prior to asymmetric division. Zhang et al. identify POLAR via transcriptional profiling of Bdmute, a mutant that lacks subsidiary cells The authors effectively show that Bdpolar mutants have defective subsidiary cells. A distinctive and exciting localization pattern of POLAR is demonstrated, which is opposite to PAN1. This localization pattern is further contextualized by showing that PAN1 and MUTE are both required for POLAR's distinctive localization; however, PAN1 polarization is unaffected in both polar and mute. The integration of MUTE, POLAR, and PAN1 is particularly important as it integrates how polarity …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Polarization in cells and organs is often dictated by opposing polarity domains. In grass subsidiary cells, several proteins (including PAN1) were previously found to polarize in a discrete patch prior to asymmetric division. Zhang et al. identify POLAR via transcriptional profiling of Bdmute, a mutant that lacks subsidiary cells The authors effectively show that Bdpolar mutants have defective subsidiary cells. A distinctive and exciting localization pattern of POLAR is demonstrated, which is opposite to PAN1. This localization pattern is further contextualized by showing that PAN1 and MUTE are both required for POLAR's distinctive localization; however, PAN1 polarization is unaffected in both polar and mute. The integration of MUTE, POLAR, and PAN1 is particularly important as it integrates how polarity proteins and fate factors interact with each other.
Bdpolar mutants have defects in subsidiary cells that lead to defects in stomatal function. The authors carefully and quantitatively compare the phenotypes of pan1 and polar and conclude distinct roles for the two proteins based on differences in phenotypes including nuclear polarization, division site specification, and repeated rounds of cell division. The discovery and localization of POLAR are very exciting, but the comparison between single alleles of pan1 and polar and the extrapolation requires scrutiny. In particular, the data on division site specification in pan1 seem inconsistent with the % defective subsidiary cells and nuclear migration defects. However, these are addressable and given the exciting nature of the localization and pathway determination, the paper's impact stands.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Grasses develop morphologically unique stomata for efficient gas exchange. A key feature of stomata is the subsidiary cell (SC), which laterally flanks the guard cell (GC). Although it has been shown that the lateral SC contributes to rapid stomatal opening and closing, little is known about how the SC is generated from the subsidiary mother cell (SMC) and how the SMC acquires its intracellular polarity. The authors identified BdPOLAR as a polarity factor that forms a polarity domain in the SMC in a BdPAN1-dependent manner. They concluded that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR exhibit mutually exclusive localization patterns within SMCs and that formative SC division requires both. Further mutant analysis showed that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR act in SMC nuclear migration and the proper placement of the cortical division site …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Grasses develop morphologically unique stomata for efficient gas exchange. A key feature of stomata is the subsidiary cell (SC), which laterally flanks the guard cell (GC). Although it has been shown that the lateral SC contributes to rapid stomatal opening and closing, little is known about how the SC is generated from the subsidiary mother cell (SMC) and how the SMC acquires its intracellular polarity. The authors identified BdPOLAR as a polarity factor that forms a polarity domain in the SMC in a BdPAN1-dependent manner. They concluded that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR exhibit mutually exclusive localization patterns within SMCs and that formative SC division requires both. Further mutant analysis showed that BdPAN1 and BdPOLAR act in SMC nuclear migration and the proper placement of the cortical division site marker BdTANGLED1, respectively. This study reveals a unique developmental process of grass stomata, where two opposing polarity factors form domains in the SMC and ensure asymmetric cell division and SC generation.
The findings of this study, if further validated, are novel and interesting. However, I feel that the data presented in the current manuscript do not fully support some crucial conclusions. The lack of dual-color images is the weakest point of this study. If it is technically impossible to add them, alternative analyses are needed to validate the main conclusions.
1. Is BdPOLAR-mVenus functional? Although the authors interpret that weak BdPOLAR-mVenus expression partially rescued the bdpolar mutant phenotype in Fig. S4D, the localization pattern visualized by BdPOLAR-mVenus may not be completely reliable with this partial rescue activity.
2. Regardless of the functionality of the tagged protein, the authors need to provide more information on their localization. For example, is there a difference in polarity pattern depending on expression level? Does overexpressed BdPOLAR-mVenus invade the BdPAN1 zone? In such cases, might the loss of BdPOLAR polarity in the bdpan1 mutant be a side effect of overexpression, not PAN1 exclusion? Does BdPOLAR expression (no tag) show a dose-dependent effect, similar to the mVenus-tagged protein?
3. A major conclusion of this study was that the polarity domains of BdPOLAR and BdPAN1 are mutually exclusive. However, not all the cells in the figures were consistent with this statement. For example, the BdPOLAR signals at the GMC/SMC interphase appear to match BdPAN1 localization (compare 0:03 s in Video 1 and 0:20 s in Video 2 [top cell]). The 3D rendered image in Fig. 2F shows that BdPOLAR is excluded near the GMC on the front side of the SMC, where BdPAN1 is not localized. Some cells did not exhibit polarization (Fig. 3A, bottom left; Fig. 3E, bottom left). The most convincing data are the dual-color images of these two proteins. Otherwise, a sophisticated image analysis is required to support this conclusion.
4. Another central conclusion was that BdPOLAR was excluded at the future SC division site, marked with BdTANGLED1. However, these data are also not very convincing, as such specific exclusion cannot be seen in some figure panels (e.g., Fig. 3A, bottom left; Fig. 3E, all three cells on the left). If dual-color imaging is not feasible, a quantitative image analysis is needed to support this conclusion.
5. I could not find detailed imaging conditions and data processing methods. Are Figs. 2B and 2E max-projection or single-plane images? If they are single-plane images, which planes of the SMC are observed? In addition, how were Figs. 2C and 2F rendered? (e.g., number of images, distance intervals, processing procedures). This information is important for data interpretations.
6. [Minor point] The authors should clearly describe where BdPAN1 is expressed and localized. Is it expressed in the GMC and localized at the GMC/SMC interface? Alternatively, is it expressed and localized in the SMC? -
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
In this manuscript, the authors characterize the localization and function of two proteins, BdPOLAR and BdPAN1 in the asymmetric cell divisions required for stomatal patterning in Brachypodium distachyon (Bd). The authors clearly demonstrate these proteins are required for normal stomatal complex formation. Most excitingly, the authors reveal that these proteins occupy two opposing polar domains during stomatal formation, particularly the localization of BdPOLAR defines a novel polar domain that is dependent on BdPAN1 for its unique accumulation. The authors clearly link the functions of these proteins to cell division orientation and division potential and show an impact on stomatal function. The data presented here are clearly described and well documented and the figures are clear and well constructed. …
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
In this manuscript, the authors characterize the localization and function of two proteins, BdPOLAR and BdPAN1 in the asymmetric cell divisions required for stomatal patterning in Brachypodium distachyon (Bd). The authors clearly demonstrate these proteins are required for normal stomatal complex formation. Most excitingly, the authors reveal that these proteins occupy two opposing polar domains during stomatal formation, particularly the localization of BdPOLAR defines a novel polar domain that is dependent on BdPAN1 for its unique accumulation. The authors clearly link the functions of these proteins to cell division orientation and division potential and show an impact on stomatal function. The data presented here are clearly described and well documented and the figures are clear and well constructed. Their results support a broadly interesting hypothesis whereby polarization of cell fate-dependent and -independent factors pattern stomata in this grass. It will be very interesting to see how/if similar or other new polarity domains function in other developmental contexts in plants where control of cell division orientation is critical for cell fate and tissue function.
The authors' careful and elegant experiments clearly demonstrate a fascinating new avenue for exploration into plant cell polarity and cell division control. Their results will be of interest to scientists interested in development and cell biology across species, as well as those broadly interested in plant biology topics. Developmental patterning of the stomata in grasses is an elegant system to address important basic biological questions about the regulation of cellular asymmetries, cell division, and cell morphology. Additionally, the function of stomata is critical to the productivity and survival of plants, including in carbon intake (for photosynthesis). Understanding the developmental framework underlying pore formation provides insights into plant patterning processes and, importantly, provides a toolbox from which plant biologists can work to engineer improved crop plant performance in a rapidly changing climate.
-
-