title: Cortical microtubules are responsible for gravity resistance in plants.
abstract: Mechanical resistance to the gravitational force is a principal gravity response in plants distinct from gravitropism. In the final step of gravity resistance, plants increase the rigidity of their cell walls. Here we discuss the role of cortical microtubules, which sustain the function of the cell wall, in gravity resistance. Hypocotyls of Arabidopsis tubulin mutants were shorter and thicker than the wild-type, and showed either left-handed or right-handed helical growth at 1 g. The degree of twisting phenotype was intensified under hypergravity conditions. Hypergravity also induces reorientation of cortical microtubules from transverse to longitudinal directions in epidermal cells. In tubulin mutants, the percentage of cells with longitudinal microtubules was high even at 1 g, and it was further increased by hypergravity. The left-handed helical growth mutants had right-handed microtubule arrays, whereas the right-handed mutant had left-handed arrays. Moreover, blockers of mechanoreceptors suppressed both the twisting phenotype and reorientation of microtubules in tubulin mutants. These results support the hypothesis that cortical microtubules play an essential role in maintenance of normal growth phenotype against the gravitational force, and suggest that mechanoreceptors are involved in signal perception in gravity resistance. Space experiments will confirm whether this view is applicable to plant resistance to 1 g gravity, as to the resistance to hypergravity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Graduate School of Science, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan. hoson@sci.osaka-cu.ac.jp
authors.forename: Takayuki
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Hoson
authors.forename: Shouhei
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Matsumoto
authors.forename: Kouichi
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Soga
authors.forename: Kazuyuki
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Wakabayashi
references.citation: Science. 1999 Aug 6;285(5429):882-6
references.pmid: 10436155
references.citation: Adv Space Res. 2003;31(10):2187-93
references.pmid: 14686431
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104(20):8544-9
references.pmid: 17488810
references.citation: Planta. 2006 Nov;224(6):1485-94
references.pmid: 16767457
references.citation: Nat Cell Biol. 2005 Oct;7(10):961-8
references.pmid: 16138083
references.citation: Aust J Plant Physiol. 2000;27(10):967-72
references.pmid: 11806423
references.citation: Planta. 2004 Apr;218(6):1054-61
references.pmid: 14716566
references.citation: Plant J. 1993;3(1):83-110
references.pmid: 11538185
references.citation: Int Rev Cytol. 2003;229:209-44
references.pmid: 14669957
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Jun 29;357(1422):799-808
references.pmid: 12079675
references.citation: Funct Plant Biol. 2005;32(2):175-9
references.pmid: 16044595
references.citation: Biol Sci Space. 2003 Jun;17(1):54-6
references.pmid: 12897462
references.citation: J Plant Res. 2008 Sep;121(5):493-8
references.pmid: 18661197
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Feb 27;104(9):3639-44
references.pmid: 17360695
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2010 Mar;152(3):1284-96
references.pmid: 20097794
references.citation: Plant Cell Physiol. 2000 Apr;41(4):509-14
references.pmid: 10845465
references.citation: J Plant Growth Regul. 2002 Jun;21(2):71-88
references.pmid: 12016507
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2010 Feb;152(2):918-26
references.pmid: 20018592