Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25755656›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2015

Mechanosensitive control of plant growth: bearing the load, sensing, transducing, and responding.

Bruno Moulia, Catherine Coutand, Jean-Louis Julien

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Wood and the Activity of Dead Tissue.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2021
    Review
  16. Evidence for the involvement ofPlant signaling & behavior · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. AtPiezo Plays an Important Role in Root Cap Mechanotransduction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  19. Cellular transduction of mechanical oscillations in plants by the plasma-membrane mechanosensitive channel MSL10.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bruno MouliaNRA, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France ; Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Catherine CoutandNRA, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France ; Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Jean-Louis JulienNRA, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France ; Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, UMR 547 PIAF Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As land plants grow and develop, they encounter complex mechanical challenges, especially from winds and turgor pressure. Mechanosensitive control over growth and morphogenesis is an adaptive trait, reducing the risks of breakage or explosion. This control has been mostly studied through experiments with artificial mechanical loads, often focusing on cellular or molecular mechanotransduction pathway. However, some important aspects of mechanosensing are often neglected. (i) What are the mechanical characteristics of different loads and how are loads distributed within different organs? (ii) What is the relevant mechanical stimulus in the cell? Is it stress, strain, or energy? (iii) How do mechanosensing cells signal to meristematic cells? Without answers to these questions we cannot make progress analyzing the mechanobiological effects of plant size, plant shape, tissue distribution and stiffness, or the magnitude of stimuli. This situation is rapidly changing however, as systems mechanobiology is being developed, using specific biomechanical and/or mechanobiological models. These models are instrumental in comparing loads and responses between experiments and make it possible to quantitatively test biological hypotheses describing the mechanotransduction networks. This review is designed for a general plant science audience and aims to help biologists master the models they need for mechanobiological studies. Analysis and modeling is broken down into four steps looking at how the structure bears the load, how the distributed load is sensed, how the mechanical signal is transduced, and then how the plant responds through growth. Throughout, two examples of adaptive responses are used to illustrate this approach: the thigmorphogenetic syndrome of plant shoots bending and the mechanosensitive control of shoot apical meristem (SAM) morphogenesis. Overall this should provide a generic understanding of systems mechanobiology at work.

Indexed as

biomechanicscurvaturemechanobiologymechanotransductionstressthigmomorphogenesisturgor pressurewind

Identifiers

PMID25755656
PMCPMC4337334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.