|
|
||||||||
|
Latrunculin B Has Different Effects on Pollen Germination and Tube GrowthBryan C. Gibbona, David R. Kovara, and Christopher J. Staigeraa Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Correspondence to: Christopher J. Staiger, at 1392 Lilly Hall of Life Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1392., cstaiger{at}bilbo.bio.purdue.edu (E-mail), 765-496-1496 (fax)
The actin cytoskeleton is absolutely required for pollen germination and tube growth, but little is known about the regulation of actin polymer concentrations or dynamics in pollen. Here, we report that latrunculin B (LATB), a potent inhibitor of actin polymerization, had effects on pollen that were distinct from those of cytochalasin D. The equilibrium dissociation constant measured for LATB binding to maize pollen actin was determined to be 74 nM. This high affinity for pollen actin suggested that treatment of pollen with LATB would have marked effects on actin function. Indeed, LATB inhibited maize pollen germination half-maximally at 50 nM, yet it blocked pollen tube growth at one-tenth of that concentration. Low concentrations of LATB also caused partial disruption of the actin cytoskeleton in germinated maize pollen, as visualized by light microscopy and fluorescent-phalloidin staining. The amounts of filamentous actin (F-actin) in pollen were quantified by measuring phalloidin binding sites, a sensitive assay that had not been used previously for plant cells. The amount of F-actin in maize pollen increased slightly upon germination, whereas the total actin protein level did not change. LATB treatment caused a dose-dependent depolymerization of F-actin in populations of maize pollen grains and tubes. Moreover, the same concentrations of LATB caused similar depolymerization in pollen grains before germination and in pollen tubes. These data indicate that the increased sensitivity of pollen tube growth to LATB was not due to general destabilization of the actin cytoskeleton or to decreases in F-actin amounts after germination. We postulate that germination is less sensitive to LATB than tube extension because the presence of a small population of LATB-sensitive actin filaments is critical for maintenance of tip growth but not for germination of pollen, or because germination is less sensitive to partial depolymerization of the actin cytoskeleton.
Pollen from higher plants is a unique multicellular structure that carries the male germ unit to the ovule (reviewed in
Pollen is a rich source of actin, which accounts for 2 to 20% of the total soluble protein in this tissue (
Previous investigations of actin-dependent processes in plants have relied on the use of cytochalasins, which affect actin polymerization by binding to the barbed (fast-growing) end of the actin filament and thereby prevent actin subunits from associating or dissociating (reviewed in
Latrunculins, a class of macrolide toxins isolated from the red sea sponge Latrunculia magnifica, have marked effects on actin organization ( In this study, LATB treatments revealed that requirements for F-actin differ during key stages of pollen development and morphogenesis. Growth of the maize pollen tube was much more sensitive to LATB than was germination, suggesting that tip growth is extremely sensitive to alteration of F-actin levels or to changes in the ratio of F-actin to G-actin. We measured F-actin levels in pollen and found that the F-actin levels increased slightly upon pollen germination, whereas the amounts of total actin protein remained constant. We also show directly that LATB depolymerized F-actin in pollen and that grains and growing pollen tubes were equally sensitive to LATB treatment. The addition of LATB to solutions of F-actin resulted in rapid depolymerization in vitro, and the decrease in F-actin at steady state was used to determine that LATB has a high affinity for pollen actin. The potent effect of LATB on pollen tube growth is contrasted with the effects of CD and shows that the use of multiple inhibitors can help to reveal novel features of biological processes.
LATB Inhibits Pollen Germination and Tube Growth
Examination of the effect of LATB on pollen tube growth rate showed that the addition of LATB substantially slowed the growth of the pollen tubes; after 30 min of treatment, the average length of the pollen tubes was markedly less than untreated pollen grown for the same period (data not shown). In addition to being shorter, the LATB-treated pollen tubes appeared distorted in comparison with untreated pollen tubes. In Figure 2B the effect of LATB treatment over a range of concentrations is illustrated. The average results from four experiments are shown. Pollen tube growth was extremely sensitive to LATB, the half-maximal inhibition occurring at ~5 nM. Although growth was markedly inhibited, cytoplasmic streaming was still observed in many tubes exposed to 10 to 30 nM LATB (data not shown). Nonetheless, the streaming was not normal with respect to the size and number of particles moving but resembled the patterns observed after recovery from LATB treatment (see below; Table 1 and Table 2). Streaming was not observed at higher concentrations of inhibitor. CD was less potent than LATB for inhibiting pollen tube growth, requiring ~500 nM for half-maximal inhibition (Figure 2B)approximately the same CD concentration required for half-maximal inhibition of pollen germination.
To verify that the differential sensitivity of pollen germination and pollen tube growth to LATB treatment was not unique to maize pollen, we measured germination frequency and growth rates for Tradescantia pollen. The response of this pollen to LATB was similar to that observed for maize pollen. Germination was inhibited half-maximally at 40 nM LATB. Tradescantia pollen grew at a faster rate (13.5 µm/min) than did maize pollen (7.9 µm/min), but, like maize, tube elongation was half-maximally inhibited at 7 nM. As these results indicate, the differential response of pollen germination and pollen tube extension to LATB treatment is a general phenomenon. The disruption of germination and pollen tube growth by LATB was partially reversible. Ungerminated maize pollen was treated with LATB for 1 hr and then washed with several changes of medium and allowed to recover for 3 hr. Only a small proportion of the pollen grains could initiate growth to form a long pollen tube under these conditions (Table 1). Because the experiments described earlier had revealed cytoplasmic streaming in many pollen tubes treated with similar concentrations of LATB, we analyzed the recovery of growing pollen tubes after treatment with LATB to clarify the effect of washing out the inhibitor. In untreated growing pollen tubes, cytoplasmic particles moved toward the tip down one side of the tube, reversed direction several micrometers behind the tip, and moved away from the tip on the opposite side of the tube. When growing pollen was treated with concentrations of LATB that stopped growth, and the drug was subsequently washed out, streaming typically resumed. At the lowest concentration of LATB tested (10 nM), growth resumed in a substantial portion of the population (Table 2). At higher concentrations of LATB (30 to 100 nM), despite the observation of vigorous streaming, growth did not resume. The streaming pattern in nongrowing pollen tubes that had recovered from LATB treatment was frequently aberrant, following two abnormal patterns. The most frequently observed pattern looked normal except that the streaming extended to the extreme tip of the pollen tube. The second pattern had a transverse rotation of organelles around the cortical cytoplasm of the pollen tube. Occasionally, the two patterns were observed in the same tube, in which case the transverse cortical rotation generally occurred near the tip, but the longitudinal movement of material was observed subapically. Maize pollen was unable to recover from treatment with 300 nM LATB.
LATB Disrupts Microfilament Organization
The effect of LATB treatment on actin microfilaments in pollen tubes is shown in Figure 4. The effects of low concentrations of LATB were visible within 5 min, and marked changes in the organization of actin in the tip region were quite obvious. The initial effect of LATB was to cause the microfilament bundles to extend into the extreme apex of the pollen tube (Figure 4E and Figure 4F); moreover, the collar of fine actin filaments behind the tip was eliminated (Figure 4E and Figure 4F). Some tubes showed more pronounced disorganization in the tip region, with several microfilament bundles becoming aligned transverse to the growth axis (Figure 4G). After 15 min of LATB treatment, the proportion of filaments observed in the transverse orientation had increased substantially (Figure 4H and Figure 4I). The most brightly stained transverse filaments were often located in the region occupied by the collar of actin filaments in untreated cells (Figure 4I). After 30 min of LATB treatment, some cells continued growing slowly. In these tubes, the actin filament organization was similar to that in the untreated control tubes (Figure 4J). Most tubes, however, ceased growing and had primarily transversely oriented microfilaments (Figure 4K). Pollen tubes treated with 30 nM LATB showed a pronounced disruption of the actin cytoskeleton. Some cells had transversely arranged microfilaments (Figure 4L), but most had large aggregates of phalloidin-stained material in the cortical cytoplasm, with only a few short bundles of filaments (Figure 4M). Treatment with 1 µM LATB resulted in the loss of nearly all filamentous staining, and only aggregates of actin remained in the cytoplasm (Figure 4N and Figure 4O). Actin filament organization after 3 hr of recovery from treatment with LATB is shown in Figure 5. A representative tube treated with 30 nM LATB for 30 min is shown in Figure 5A. The actin organization was similar to that in the tubes shown in Figure 4L and Figure 4M, which received the same treatment. The actin staining in pollen tubes that had resumed growth after the inhibitor had been washed out was similar to that in the controls, but the diameter of the recovered pollen tubes was frequently much smaller (Figure 5B). Many of the pollen tubes that did not resume growing had aberrant actin arrangements that were consistent with the streaming patterns observed after recovery. Some pollen tubes had bundles of actin filaments that extended to the extreme tip (Figure 5C), whereas others had cortical transverse "hoops" of actin at the tip (Figure 5D). These patterns were never observed in untreated pollen tubes.
LATB Reduces the Amount of F-Actin in Pollen
To quantify the amount of total actin protein, we coated the soluble extracts, as well as known amounts of purified maize pollen actin, onto the wells of a microtiter plate. Purified pollen actin was used to generate a standard curve for determining the amount of actin in the extracts. Actin was detected by using anti-actin antiserum and an alkaline phosphataseconjugated secondary antibody with p-nitrophenyl phosphate as the substrate. The immunoassay revealed that the total actin protein concentrations in pollen did not change over time, nor did they change when pollen was treated with 30 nM LATB (Figure 6B). Actin represented ~5% of total extractable protein, which corresponds to a cytosolic concentration of ~127 µM after correcting for the loss of actin in the cellular debris and using the assumptions for estimating cytoplasmic volume stated in Methods. To measure F-actin in pollen, we fixed ~5-mg samples of grains or tubes with 3-maleimidobenzoic acid N-hydroxysuccinimide ester (MBS), permeabilized the samples, and incubated them with saturating concentrations of Alexa 488phalloidin. Bound phalloidin was extracted with methanol and analyzed by fluorometry. Figure 6C shows that the concentration of F-actin increased slightly after germination relative to ungerminated pollen. The quantity of extracted Alexa 488phalloidin was determined by comparison with standard curves of known Alexa 488phalloidin concentrations, and the concentration of F-actin in the samples was calculated as described in Methods. F-actin in ungerminated pollen was calculated to be 11.2 ± 2.6 µM (n = 10) and increased to 12.7 ± 3.4 µM (n = 5) and 13.1 ± 3.5 µM (n = 10) at 30 and 60 min, respectively. F-actin concentrations at 30 or 60 min after germination were not significantly different from those in ungerminated pollen (t test; P > 0.05). Pollen that was treated with LATB showed substantial reductions in the quantity of bound fluorescent phalloidin, consistent with a reduction in F-actin content (Figure 6D). To verify that the difference in sensitivity to LATB observed between germination and growth was not due to differential stability of the actin cytoskeleton, we measured the F-actin in ungerminated pollen and pollen tubes that had been growing for 30 min. The amount of F-actin that depolymerized at LATB concentrations that inhibited tip growth (10 nM) was small. However, as Figure 6D clearly shows, the sensitivity of ungerminated grains or growing pollen tubes to LATB was not different.
The concentration of F-actin and the proportion of F-actin to total actin were low. Therefore, we measured the quantity of profilin, the major G-actin binding protein in pollen, by using an immunoassay with an antiserum raised against recombinant maize profilin 3 (
LATB Binds Pollen Actin in Vitro
Increasing concentrations of actin were polymerized in the absence or presence of 0.8 or 1 µM LATB. The Kd values for LATB binding to actin were determined by measuring the shift in the critical concentration (Cc) for actin polymerization at steady state equilibrium. The Cc is the actin concentration at which filaments begin to form, and it can be estimated from plots of actin concentration versus light scattering. Figure 8 shows the data from single representative experiments for pollen actin (Figure 8A) and rabbit skeletal muscle
The data presented here demonstrate that LATB bound with high affinity to pollen G-actin and had differential effects on pollen germination and pollen tube growth. The shift in Cc values for actin assembly was used to calculate a Kd of 74 nM for LATB binding to purified maize pollen G-actin in vitro. The concentration of LATB required for half-maximal inhibition of pollen germination was 40 to 50 nM, whereas pollen tube extension was much more sensitive, requiring only 5 to 7 nM LATB for half-maximal inhibition. To understand the effects of LATB on actin in pollen, we used a fluorometric assay to quantify F-actin and an immunoassay to quantify total actin protein. The amounts of total actin protein did not change after germination or when pollen was treated with LATB. In contrast, treatment with LATB caused a dose-dependent decrease of F-actin in pollen. Furthermore, ungerminated pollen grains and growing pollen tubes were equally sensitive to the inhibitor. These data are consistent with high-affinity binding of LATB to maize pollen G-actin, thereby causing partial depolymerization of F-actin and inhibition of tip growth. These findings suggest that pollen germination and tip growth have different requirements for F-actin, with tip growth being highly sensitive to perturbation of the F-actin pool.
Cytochalasins have been used to show that pollen germination and tube growth depend on the actin cytoskeleton (
The most surprising finding was that pollen tube growth was 10-fold more sensitive to LATB than was germination. Treatment with only 5 nM LATB caused 50% inhibition of growth; this is similar to the concentration of LATB that causes 50% inhibition of photopolarization in Pelvetia embryos (
One possible explanation for the difference in sensitivity to LATB is that the amount of total actin protein in pollen tubes is less than in ungerminated pollen grains. However, the amount of total actin protein, as measured by an immunoassay, did not change after germination or during treatment with LATB. The actin protein concentration of 127 µM in ungerminated maize pollen is four- to fivefold higher than has been reported for ungerminated lily pollen (
Because the amount of total actin protein did not change, we considered an alternative model in which F-actin levels are reduced upon the transition from germination to tip growth. F-actin levels, measured by quantifying phalloidin binding sites, revealed a slight but not statistically significant increase when pollen germinated. The concentration of F-actin in pollen was estimated to be ~11 to 13 µM, or ~10% of the total actin pool. In nonplant systems, F-actin typically accounts for 20 to 50% of the total actin pool (
Treatment of pollen with LATB resulted in a dose-dependent decrease in F-actin. At the lowest concentration tested (10 nM), there was only a modest decrease in the F-actin concentration. Given that the Kd of LATB for pollen actin is 74 nM, one can estimate the quantity of G-actin bound when pollen is incubated with the inhibitor. The equilibrium situation can be described by Equation 1:
Assuming that the volume of medium containing LATB is large relative to the cytoplasmic volume of the pollen, the molar quantity of LATB bound to actin in the cell is small relative to the total molar quantity of LATB in the medium, and [LATB] does not change significantly. If LATB is freely permeable across the membrane, then [LATB] = [LATB]internal and the change in [actin] = [actin]total - [LATB:actin], where [LATB:actin] is the concentration of LATB bound to actin in the pollen grain. Substitution of these terms into Equation 1 and solving for [LATB:actin] yields Equation 2:
If we assume that actin is in equilibrium with actin binding proteins, such as profilin or actin depolymerizing factor, and that the effect of LATB is additive, then at the new equilibrium, the G-actin that is bound must come from the F-actin pool. Therefore, the actin available to interact with the inhibitor (i.e., [actin]total) in ungerminated pollen would be ~12 µM, and only 0.8 µM actin would be depolymerized in the presence of 5 nM LATB. This is an estimate of the maximum amount of depolymerization because at the lowest concentrations of inhibitor our assumption that [LATB] does not change may not be true, which would result in less destruction of actin. This analysis shows that at low concentrations a small shift (<10%) in the F-actin concentration would be expected, and this was consistent with our observations. Alternatively, the small amount of depolymerization we observed could result from the binding of LATB to the large pool of profilinactin. Importantly, however, when we tested the sensitivity of F-actin in ungerminated pollen grains and growing pollen tubes to LATB-induced depolymerization, no differences were observed. These data clearly show that slight depolymerization of F-actin occurs under conditions that stop growth and that F-actin is equally sensitive to depolymerization by LATB before and after germination.
The differences in sensitivity to LATB, but not to CD, suggest that germination and pollen tube extension proceed by distinct mechanisms. An analogous situation is observed in root hairs; hair initiation occurs by a mechanism that is independent of calcium, whereas root hair growth occurs by a calcium-dependent tip growth process (
The function of actin in pollen tube extension is widely believed to be solely the delivery of secretory vesicles to the tip (reviewed in In conclusion, we found differential sensitivity of pollen germination and tube growth to treatment with LATB, the pollen tube growth being extremely sensitive to perturbation by the inhibitor. The effect of LATB was caused by depolymerization of F-actin, as shown by fluorescence microscopy and quantitative fluorescent-phalloidin binding. The strict dependence of pollen tube growth on F-actin was not observed in prior studies that used cytochalasins. These results demonstrate the value of careful evaluation of the physiological and biochemical activities of inhibitors to elucidate the role of the actin cytoskeleton in plant cells. Furthermore, direct measurements of actin dynamics are warranted to facilitate understanding of the potential differences in cytoskeletal behavior at key developmental stages.
Reagents
Inhibition of Pollen Germination and Tube Growth The recovery of pollen tubes from LATB treatment was monitored after extensive washing. Pollen was germinated for 20 min before LATB treatment, and the tubes were exposed to the inhibitor for 30 min. After treatment with LATB, the inhibitor was washed out with five changes (1 mL each) of fresh GM over 30 min. The recovery of streaming or pollen tube growth, measured 1.5 and 3 hr after the washes were begun, was classified into five groups: growing, streaming along the growth axis, streaming in the cortex transverse to the growth axis, a mixture of these two streaming patterns, and no recovery of growth or streaming. For each treatment, 30 to 100 cells were counted in duplicate dishes.
Phalloidin Staining
Generation of Anti-Actin Polyclonal Antiserum
Quantification of Actin and Profilin in Pollen The extracts were diluted to 2 µg/mL in coating buffer, and 50 ng was applied to duplicate wells of a microtiter plate. Purified maize pollen actin or profilin was used as a standard and was applied at 0.2 to 10 ng per well. The proteins were allowed to bind overnight at 4°C, washed once with PBS plus Tween-20 (PBST; 0.05 M phosphate, 145 mM NaCl, 0.05% [v/v] Tween-20, pH 7.4), and blocked for 1 hr with 2.5% (w/v) BSA in PBS at 37°C. The blocking solution was removed, and the wells were washed with one change of PBST. The wells were incubated for 2 hr at room temperature with a 1:1000 dilution of the appropriate polyclonal antibody. The wells were washed three times with PBST and incubated with a 1:2000 dilution of alkaline phosphataseconjugated antirabbit IgG (Sigma) for 1 hr at 4°C. The wells were washed three times with PBST, and the substrate p-nitrophenyl phosphate was added at 1 mg/mL in diethanolamine buffer (50 mM diethanolamine, 0.5 mM MgCl2, pH 9.8). The reaction was stopped after 20 min with 3 M NaOH, and the optical density at 405 nm was measured with a microplate reader (Molecular Devices, Menlo Park, CA). No color development above background was observed in wells containing pollen extracts exposed to secondary antibody alone. A standard curve was plotted with the known samples, and the amount of actin in the crude extracts was estimated by extrapolating the measured optical density to the standard curve. The total intracellular actin concentration was calculated from these measurements, as described for F-actin.
F-actin was measured indirectly by measuring phalloidin binding sites in fixed pollen (
Actin Binding
Equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd) values for LATB binding to maize pollen and muscle actin were calculated by measuring the shift in the critical concentration (Cc) for actin assembly in the presence of LATB. The Cc is the lowest concentration at which a solution of actin forms filaments. Similar measurements were performed previously to determine Kd values for profilin binding to plant actin (
where [LATB:actin] is equal to the difference in Cc for actin alone and the apparent Cc of actin in the presence of LATB, and [LATB]free is the total concentration of LATB minus [LATB:actin].
We thank Haiyun Ren and Sharon Ashworth for help harvesting pollen, Dave Kniola for care of plants in the greenhouse, and our colleagues in the laboratories of David Asai, Joann Otto, and Peter Hollenbeck for helpful comments. The confocal microscope was partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BIR 9512962), and additional microscopy facilities were supported by a grant from the Showalter Fund to C.J.S. This work was supported by Grant No. 97-35304-4876 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative Grants Program to C.J.S. and a National Science Foundation Plant Genetics Traineeship (Grant No. 9355012 GEF) to B.C.G. This study was performed by B.C.G. in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. requirements of the Purdue Genetics Program. Received June 28, 1999; accepted September 25, 1999.
Andersland, J.M., Jagendorf, A.T., and Parthasarathy, M.V. (1992) The isolation of actin from pea roots by DNase I affinity chromatography. Plant Physiol. 100:1716-1723 Asada, T., and Collings, D. (1997) Molecular motors in higher plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2:29-37.
Ayscough, K.R., Stryker, J., Pokala, N., Sanders, M., Crews, P., and Drubin, D.G. (1997) High rates of actin filament turnover in budding yeast and roles for actin in establishment and maintenance of cell polarity revealed using the actin inhibitor latrunculin-A. J. Cell Biol. 137:399-416
Bedinger, P. (1992) The remarkable biology of pollen. Plant Cell 4:879-887 Bibikova, T.N., Blancaflor, E.B., and Gilroy, S. (1999) Microtubules regulate tip growth and orientation in root hairs of Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant J. 17:657-665[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Blikstad, I., Markey, F., Carlsson, L., Persson, T., and Lindberg, U. (1978) Selective assay of monomeric and filamentous actin in cell extracts, using inhibition of deoxyribonuclease I. Cell 15:935-943[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline].
Brown, S.S., and Spudich, J.A. (1979) Cytochalasin inhibits the rate of elongation of actin filament fragments. J. Cell Biol. 83:657-662 Casella, J.F., Flanagan, M.D., and Lin, S. (1981) Cytochalasin D inhibits actin polymerization and induces depolymerization of actin filaments formed during platelet shape change. Nature 293:302-305[CrossRef][Medline].
Collings, D.A., Wasteneys, G.O., and Williamson, R.E. (1995) Cytochalasin rearranges cortical actin of the alga Nitella into short, stable rods. Plant Cell Physiol. 36:765-772
Cooper, J.A. (1987) Effects of cytochalasin and phalloidin on actin. J. Cell Biol. 105:1473-1478 Cooper, J.A., and Pollard, T.D. (1982) Methods to measure actin polymerization. Methods Enzymol. 85:182-210. Coué, M., Brenner, S.L., Spector, I., and Korn, E.D. (1987) Inhibition of actin polymerization by latrunculin A. FEBS Lett. 213:316-318[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. de Ruijter, N.C.A., and Emons, A.M.C. (1999) Actin-binding proteins in plant cells. Plant Biol. 1:26-35. Fox, J.E.B., and Phillips, D.R. (1981) Inhibition of actin polymerization in blood platelets by cytochalasins. Nature 292:650-652[CrossRef][Medline]. Franke, W.W., Herth, W., VanDerWoude, W.J., and Morré, D.J. (1972) Tubular and filamentous structure in pollen tubes: Possible involvement as guide elements in protoplasmic streaming and vectorial migration of secretory vesicles. Planta 105:317-341[CrossRef][Web of Science]. Geitmann, A., Wojciechowicz, K., and Cresti, M. (1996) Inhibition of intracellular pectin transport in pollen tubes by monensin, brefeldin A and cytochalasin D. Bot. Acta 109:373-381[Web of Science]. Gibbon, B.C., Ren, H.Y., and Staiger, C.J. (1997) Characterization of maize (Zea mays) pollen profilin function in vitro and in live cells. Biochem. J. 327:909-915.
Gibbon, B.C., Zonia, L.E., Kovar, D.R., Hussey, P.J., and Staiger, C.J. (1998) Pollen profilin function depends on interaction with proline-rich motifs. Plant Cell 10:981-993. (a printed correction appears in Plant Cell 11, 1603)
Goddette, D.W., and Frieden, C. (1986) Actin polymerization. The mechanism of action of cytochalasin D. J. Biol. Chem. 261:15974-15980 Goodbody, K.C., and Lloyd, C.W. (1994) Immunofluorescence techniques for analysis of the cytoskeleton. In Harris N., Oparka K.J., eds. Plant Cell Biology: A Practical Approach. Oxford, UK, IRL Press. 221243.pp. Groweiss, A., Shumeli, U., and Kashman, Y. (1983) Marine toxins from Latrunculia magnifica.. J. Org. Chem. 48:3512-3516[CrossRef]. Gupta, G.D., and Heath, I.B. (1997) Actin disruption by latrunculin B causes turgor-related changes in tip growth of Saprolegnia ferax hyphae. Fungal Genet. Biol. 21:64-75[CrossRef][Medline]. Hable, W.E., and Kropf, D.L. (1998) Roles of secretion and the cytoskeleton in cell adhesion and polarity establishment in Pelvetia compressa zygotes. Dev. Biol. 198:45-56[Web of Science][Medline]. Haugwitz, M., Noegel, A.A., Karakesisoglou, J., and Schleicher, M. (1994) Dictyostelium amoebae that lack G-actinsequestering profilins show defects in F-actin content, cytokinesis and development. Cell 79:303-314[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Herth, W., Franke, W.W., and VanDerWoude, W.J. (1972) Cytochalasin stops tip growth in plants. Naturwissenschaften 59:38-39. Howard, T.H., and Oresajo, C.O. (1985) A method for quantifying F-actin in chemotactic peptide activated neutrophils: Study of the effect of tBOC peptide. Cell Motil. 5:545-557[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Karakesisoglou, I., Schleicher, M., Gibbon, B.C., and Staiger, C.J. (1996) Plant profilins rescue the aberrant phenotype of profilin-deficient Dictyostelium cells. Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 34:36-47[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Kemeny, D.M. (1997) Enzyme-linked immunoassays. In Johnstone A.P., Turner M.W., eds. Immunochemistry: A Practical Approach. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. 147175.pp. Kost, B., Spielhofer, P., and Chua, N.H. (1998) A GFPmouse talin fusion protein labels plant actin filaments in vivo and visualizes the actin cytoskeleton in growing pollen tubes. Plant J. 16:393-401[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Kulikova, A.L. (1986) Quantity and forms of actin in conducting tissues of Heracleum sosnowskyi.. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 33:481-487.
Lin, J.-J., and Dickinson, D.B. (1984) Ability of pollen to germinate prior to anthesis and effect of desiccation on germination. Plant Physiol. 74:746-748
Liu, X., and Yen, L.-F. (1992) Purification and characterization of actin from maize pollen. Plant Physiol. 99:1151-1155 Love, J., Brownlee, C., and Trewavas, A.J. (1997) Ca2+ and calmodulin dynamics during photopolarization in Fucus serratus zygotes. Plant Physiol. 115:249-261[Abstract]. Mascarenhas, J.P., and LaFountain, J. (1972) Protoplasmic streaming, cytochalasin B, and growth of the pollen tube. Tiss. Cell 4:11-14. Miller, D.D., de Ruijter, N.C.A., Bisseling, T., and Emons, A.M.C. (1999) The role of actin in root hair morphogenesis: Studies with lipochito-oligosaccharide as a growth stimulator and cytochalasin as an actin perturbing drug. Plant J. 17:141-154. O'Driscoll, D., Hann, C., Read, S.M., and Steer, M.W. (1993) Endocytic uptake of fluorescent dextrans by pollen tubes grown in vitro. Protoplasma 175:126-130[CrossRef][Web of Science].
Picton, J., and Steer, M.W. (1981) Determination of secretory vesicle production rates by dictyosomes in pollen tubes of Tradescantia using cytochalasin D. J. Cell Sci. 49:261-272 Ren, H., Gibbon, B.C., Ashworth, S.L., Sherman, D.M., Yuan, M., and Staiger, C.J. (1997) Actin purified from maize pollen functions in living plant cells. Plant Cell 9:1445-1457[Abstract].
Schiefelbein, J.W., and Somerville, C. (1990) Genetic control of root hair development in Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant Cell 2:235-243
Southwick, F.S., Dabiri, G.A., Paschetto, M., and Zigmond, S.H. (1989) Polymorphonuclear leukocyte adherence induces actin polymerization by a transduction pathway which differs from that used by chemoattractants. J. Cell Biol. 109:1561-1569
Spector, I., Shochet, N.R., Kashman, Y., and Groweiss, A. (1983) Latrunculins: Novel marine toxins that disrupt microfilament organization in cultured cells. Science 219:493-495 Spector, I., Shochet, N.R., Blasberger, D., and Kashman, Y. (1989) LatrunculinsNovel marine macrolides that disrupt microfilament organization and affect cell growth. I. Comparison with cytochalasin D. Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 13:127-144[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Speranza, A., and Calzoni, G.L. (1989) Cytochalasin B affects protein secretion in germinating pollen of Malus domestica Borkh. J. Plant Physiol. 133:719-726. Staiger, C.J., Gibbon, B.C., Kovar, D.R., and Zonia, L.E. (1997) Profilin and actin depolymerizing factor: Modulators of actin organization in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2:275-281[CrossRef][Web of Science]. Staiger, C.J., Gibbon, B.C., and Ren, H. (1999) Plant actin isolation and characterization. In Gelvin S.B., Schillerpoort R.A., eds. Plant Molecular Biology Manual, Supplement IV. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 117.pp. Tang, X.J., Lancelle, S.A., and Hepler, P.K. (1989) Fluorescence microscopic localization of actin in pollen tubes: Comparison of actin antibody and phalloidin staining. Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 12:216-224[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Taylor, L.P., and Hepler, P.K. (1997) Pollen germination and tube growth. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 48:461-491[CrossRef][Web of Science]. Tiwari, S.C., and Polito, V.S. (1990) An analysis of the role of actin during pollen activation leading to germination in pear (Pyrus communis L.): Treatment with cytochalasin D. Sex. Plant Reprod. 3:121-129. Turkina, M.V., Kulikova, A.L., Sokolov, O.I., Bogatyrev, V.A., and Kursanov, A.L. (1987) Actin and myosin filaments from the conducting tissues of Heracleum sosnowskyi.. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 25:689-696. Turkina, M.V., Kulikova, A.L., Koppel, L.A., Akatova, L.Z., and Butenko, R.G. (1995) Actin and heat-stable actin binding proteins in wheat callus culture. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 42:303-309. Vidali, L., and Hepler, P.K. (1997) Characterization and localization of profilin in pollen grains and tubes of Lilium longiflorum.. Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 36:323-338[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Wymer, C.L., Bibikova, T.N., and Gilroy, S. (1997) Cytoplasmic free calcium distributions during the development of root hairs of Arabidopsis thaliana.. Plant J. 12:427-439[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]. Yeh, J., and Haarer, B.K. (1996) Profilin is required for the normal timing of actin polymerization in response to thermal stress. FEBS Lett. 398:303-307[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline].
Zonia, L., Tup
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | THE PLANT CELL | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY | |
|---|---|---|---|