Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27180193›Full record

ArticleProtoplasma2017

Quantifying the plant actin cytoskeleton response to applied pressure using nanoindentation.

Rémi Branco, Eliza-Jane Pearsall, Chelsea A Rundle, Rosemary G White, Jodie E Bradby, Adrienne R Hardham

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Protoplasma, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Automatic extraction of actin networks in plants.PLoS computational biology · 2023
    Article
  3. Cytoskeletal organization in isolated plant cells under geometry control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  4. Mechanics of mystery.Protoplasma · 2017
    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

6 authors.

Rémi BrancoPlant Science Division, Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Eliza-Jane PearsallElectronic Materials Engineering, Research School of Physics and Engineering, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Chelsea A RundlePlant Science Division, Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Rosemary G WhiteCSIRO Agriculture, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Jodie E BradbyElectronic Materials Engineering, Research School of Physics and Engineering, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Adrienne R HardhamPlant Science Division, Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Adrienne.hardham@anu.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of potentially pathogenic microbes through recognition by plants and animals of both physical and chemical signals associated with the pathogens is vital for host well-being. Signal perception leads to the induction of a variety of responses that augment pre-existing, constitutive defences. The plant cell wall is a highly effective preformed barrier which becomes locally reinforced at the infection site through delivery of new wall material by the actin cytoskeleton. Although mechanical stimulation can produce a reaction, there is little understanding of the nature of physical factors capable of triggering plant defence. Neither the magnitude of forces nor the contact time required has been quantified. In the study reported here, mechanical stimulation with a tungsten microneedle has been used to quantify the response of Arabidopsis plants expressing an actin-binding protein tagged with green fluorescent protein (GFP) to reveal the organisation of the actin cytoskeleton. Using confocal microscopy, the response time for actin reorganisation in epidermal cells of Arabidopsis hypocotyls was shown to be 116 ± 49 s. Using nanoindentation and a diamond spherical tip indenter, the magnitude of the forces capable of triggering an actin response has been quantified. We show that Arabidopsis hypocotyl cells can detect a force as small as 4 μN applied for as short a time as 21.6 s to trigger reorganisation of the actin cytoskeleton. This force is an order of magnitude less than the potential invasive force determined for a range of fungal and oomycete plant pathogens. To our knowledge, this is the first quantification of the magnitude and duration of mechanical forces capable of stimulating a structural defence response in a plant cell.

Indexed as

PressureActin CytoskeletonActinsArabidopsisBiomechanical PhenomenaHypocotylMicroscopy, ConfocalNanotechnologyTime FactorsActinsApplied forceArabidopsisGFP-tagged cell componentMechanical stimulationSpeed of plant response

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.