Next Article in Journal
Reshifting Na+ from Shoots into Long Roots Is Associated with Salt Tolerance in Two Contrasting Inbred Maize (Zea mays L.) Lines
Previous Article in Journal
Inflated Ovary May Increase the Dispersal Ability of Three Species in the Cold Deserts of Central Asia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Calcium Dynamics, WUSCHEL Expression and Callose Deposition during Somatic Embryogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana Immature Zygotic Embryos
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/plants12101951
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Apoplastic and Symplasmic Markers of Somatic Embryogenesis

by
Ewa Kurczynska
* and
Kamila Godel-Jędrychowska
*
Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, ul. Bankowa 9, 40-007 Katowice, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(10), 1951; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101951
Submission received: 8 March 2023 / Revised: 8 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 May 2023 / Published: 11 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stress-Induced Embryogenesis in Plants)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Somatic embryogenesis (SE) is a process that scientists have been trying to understand for many years because, on the one hand, it is a manifestation of the totipotency of plant cells, so it enables the study of the mechanisms regulating this process, and, on the other hand, it is an important method of plant propagation. Using SE in basic research and in practice is invaluable. This article describes the latest, but also historical, information on changes in the chemical composition of the cell wall during the transition of cells from the somatic to embryogenic state, and the importance of symplasmic communication during SE. Among wall chemical components, different pectic, AGP, extensin epitopes, and lipid transfer proteins have been discussed as potential apoplastic markers of explant cells during the acquisition of embryogenic competence. The role of symplasmic communication/isolation during SE has also been discussed, paying particular attention to the formation of symplasmic domains within and between cells that carry out different developmental processes. Information about the number and functionality of plasmodesmata (PD) and callose deposition as the main player in symplasmic isolation has also been presented.

1. Introduction

1.1. Somatic Embryogenesis

The shortest definition of somatic embryogenesis (SE) is the formation of somatic embryos from somatic cells without fertilization [1,2,3]. During SE, somatic cells acquire an embryonic character due to the dedifferentiation of non-zygotic cells, the activation of cell division, and the reprogramming of the cell’s fate (for review, see [4,5,6]). The SE can be divided into several stages: induction, expression, development, maturation, germination, and plant conversion [5]. Many factors regulate SE. Among them are plant growth regulators [7], with auxin as a prominent player and a significant trigger for the acquisition of embryogenic competence within explant cells (e.g., [8,9,10,11]). Genetic and epigenetic changes associated with SE are well documented [11,12,13].
Moreover, changes in cell fate during SE are believed to be a reaction to stress conditions [11]. During such stress, homeostasis, e.g., of the balance between the capacity of and demand for proteins, up- and downregulated genes, and epigenetic changes, is altered, resulting in changes in the developmental process and the entry pathway of SE. It is also postulated that cell wall composition alteration and cell-to-cell signaling regulate SE [14].

1.2. Importance of Information Exchange

In the case of a multicellular organism, the exchange of information between cells is an important factor regulating its development, i.e., the formation of appropriate phenotypes of cells that make up this organism. The information exchange between cells occurs through various mechanisms and at different levels of the organization, including symplast and apoplast. The apoplast is a continuous system of cell walls. The symplast is a continuous system of cell protoplasm and cell membrane connected by plasmodesmata (PD). Cell-to-cell communication is an essential parameter coordinating the development of a multicellular organism, both for animals and plants. Creating spatial patterns and specifying the developmental program of individual cells requires an exchange of information, with this simultaneously being positional information, which is particularly important in plants. In the case of plant organisms, the positional information, i.e., the position of the cell in the organ, determines which path of development a given cell will take, and which set of chemical and physical factors resulting from its vicinity to other cells will affect it. This paper describes the involvement of the cell wall and symplasmic communication as elements of cell-to-cell information exchange during SE.

2. Cell Wall Composition as a Marker of Changes in Cell Fate during SE

The cell wall is a highly dynamic structure of plant cells. It undergoes remodeling under the influence of different signals, including changes during the acquisition of the embryogenic competence of cells during SE. The cell wall consists of cellulose microfibrils embedded in a hydrated matrix of polysaccharides such as hemicelluloses, pectins, and structural proteins [15,16,17,18]. In recent years, new techniques (transcriptome and proteome analysis) have confirmed changes in gene expression associated with wall remodeling during SE [19,20]. For example, it is postulated that the initiation of SE is correlated with an increased level of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and other stress-related factors, as well as genes encoding cell wall remodeling factors, such as expansin, extensin, pectinesterase, and glucanase, which are upregulated, and can play a relevant role during the acquisition of SE [6]. Moreover, some wall components have signaling properties, e.g., arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs) [19] and pectin oligosaccharide fragments [21]. An analysis of the SE of Citrus sinensis showed transcriptome changes, including reverse glycosylating protein (RGP-1), which is involved in polysaccharide metabolism in the early phases of SE [22].
Nowadays, diverse antibodies are used to precisely determine the cellular and subcellular distribution of cell wall components. The results from this type of research will be presented below.

2.1. Pectins

Pectins are a group of widely distributed plant cell wall polysaccharides containing galacturonic acid linked at positions 1 and 4. A detailed description of the structure of pectins and their transformations in the cell wall during developmental processes is well-known and described in many publications [17,23,24]. Some pectic epitopes studied so far indicate that they can be considered as markers of cell transition from somatic to embryogenic states (Table 1).
A pectic epitope recognized by the LM6 antibody (arabinan side chains) was detected in the embryogenic calli of Brachypodium distachyon [25]. Analyses of Daucus carota SE revealed that LM6 pectic epitope was a positive marker of cell reprogramming to the meristematic/pluripotent state, but the LM5 pectic epitope (galactan side chain; Figure 1—an example of localization of this epitope in explant) was postulated as a negative marker [26]. Similar results were described for Trifolium nigrescens explants during SE, where the LM5 galactan epitope was not detected in embryogenic protrusions, but LM6-reactive pectins were abundantly present in the cells of embryogenic swellings [27]. LM6 antibody was also detected during Quercus suber SE. The lowest labeling intensity was observed in the proembryogenic mass compared to the increase in signal intensity observed in somatic embryos [28]. On the other hand, during Arabidopsis thaliana SE, the LM5 epitope was detected within the embryogenic area of the explant [29]. The presence of arabinan and galactan pectin side chains was studied during the microspore embryogenesis of Brassica napus. During this process, diverse amounts of the LM5 and LM6 epitopes were described [30]. Both arabinan and galactan pectin side chains undergo modification under diverse factors [31]. The function of pectin arabinan and galactan side chains is not fully understood. It is postulated that arabinan facilitates wall rehydration and that arabinans function as pectic plasticizers, promoting cell wall flexibility [32]. It is proposed that in the walls of cells undergoing intensive divisions, the presence of arabinans side chains can serve as a marker of cell division, and the presence of galactan pectin side chains is a marker of cell elongation. It can be speculated that both arabinan and galactan may be markers for SE since cell division and growth occur during this process. The observed differences in the data described above may result from the analyses carried out at different time points of SE induction. Further research is needed to identify wall markers of cell transition from a somatic to an embryogenic state.
It is postulated that different pectin esterification levels correlate with the acquisition of embryogenic competence in explant cells [33,34,35]. An analysis of pectins with different levels of esterification indicated that highly esterified pectins were predominant in the walls of cells implementing the SE process. For example, during Quercus alba SE, it was determined that esterified pectins are characteristic for embryogenic cells [36]. In Arabidopsis explants, embryogenic cells are also characterized by the presence of highly esterified pectins [29]. Similar results were described for the embryogenic calli of B. distachyon [25]. During the SE of Q. suber, a spatiotemporal analysis of the presence of pectic epitopes recognized esterified (JIM7, LM20) and de-esterified pectins (JIM5, LM19) in the walls of embryogenic cells; this showed that at the beginning of SE, the proembryogenic masses were characterized by the abundant presence of esterified pectins, and low amounts of de-esterified pectins [28]. On the other hand, during Musa spp. [37] and Cichorium [33] SE, the embryogenic cells were rich in the JIM5 (low esterified pectins) epitope, but the JIM7 epitope (high esterified pectins) was less frequently represented. Moreover, the LM19 and LM20 (esterified and nonesterified pectins, respectively) antibodies characterized the cells in the embryogenic cultures of Brahypodium [25,38].
These small amounts of literature data (small because studies of this kind are carried out to a small extent) indicate some discrepancies, and may suggest that markers of changes in the direction of cell differentiation during SE cannot be identified using pectic epitopes for this purpose. This variation in results may be due to the analysis of different species, different culture conditions, and different sampling times during the culture. It seems that if we do not have, for example, the location of the WOX gene, it is difficult to precisely answer which of these epitopes is a marker of cell transition to the embryogenic state.

2.2. Extensins

Extensins belong to hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins (HRGPs) which are engaged in different developmental processes, including SE ([25,37,39]; Table 1). The JIM11 and JIM20 antibodies (recognize specific arabinosylation motifs of HRGPs) were used to determine extensin localization in explant cells during SE [40]. In the case of Musa spp., JIM11 and JIM20 HRGPs epitopes were found in the early stages of SE in walls of embryogenic cell [40]. An analysis of extensin during Dactylis glomerata SE showed that the JIM12 antibody marks the cells in embryogenic calli [41]. Studies on Phalaenopsis culture revealed that the JIM11 and JIM20 HRGPs could be used as positive markers for cells with embryogenic competence in different orchid callus cultures [42]. For Brachypodium culture, the presence of an extensin that is recognized by the JIM11 antibody was detected, but extensin recognized by the JIM12 antibody was not present in embryogenic cells [25]. In contrast, studies on Actinidia arguta in vitro culture showed that embryogenic and non-embryogenic calli were rich in extensin epitopes recognized by the JIM11, JIM12, and JIM20 antibodies [43]. Because there are little literature data on the role of extensins in the regulation of SE, it is impossible to present a single scenario of their participation in changing the direction of cell differentiation during SE, and thus further research is necessary.

2.3. Arabinogalactan Proteins (AGPs)

The involvement of AGPs in SE, both during the early stages and somatic embryo development, has been widely described (excellent reviews were provided by [44,45]). Therefore, this review will only supplement the information already available, with particular emphasis on the immunolocalization of individual AGP epitopes in explant cells, changing the direction of differentiation to an embryogenic state, and supplemented with the current results on gene expression.
The most frequently analyzed AGP epitopes in their role in SE were JIM8, JIM4, LM2, JIM13, and JIM16 (Table 1). The AGPs recognized by LM2 antibodies were detected at all stages of Q. suber SE. With the progression of SE, an increase in signal intensity was observed in somatic embryos in comparison to the lowest labeling intensity in the proembryogenic mass [28]. Studies of Areca catechu SE indicate that AGPs and cell wall lignification may be key steps for SE [46]. An analysis of the embryogenic callus of B. distahyon revealed that AGP epitopes, which were recognized by the JIM16 and LM2 antibodies, were positive markers of embryogenic cells [25]. For the Fagopyrum tataricum embryogenic callus, it was demonstrated that the AGPs epitope recognized by the LM2 antibody was a positive marker of the embryogenic cells [47]. Studies during the SE of Arabidopsis reported that the JIM16 AGP epitope appeared to be a marker of embryogenic cells [29]. The same studies showed that JIM4, JIM8, and LM2 antibodies were not wall components of embryogenic cells and thus can be considered as negative markers of cells differentiating to an embryogenic state. An analysis of the distribution of AGPs in explant cell walls during D. carota SE revealed that β-linked GlcA (LM2) was a positive marker of cell reprogramming to the meristematic/pluripotent state, and the JIM8 and JIM13 AGPs epitopes were negative markers of embryogenic cells [26]. It is postulated that the JIM8 antibody can be considered as a negative marker of embryogenic cells. Studies on carrot SE showed that this epitope does not coincide with the ability of individual suspension cells to form embryos [48], and that only cells without this epitope develop into somatic embryos [49]. During the microspore embryogenesis of Brassica napus, it was shown that JIM13 was a marker of totipotent cells [30,50].
Undoubtedly, the AGPs are involved in the SE process. However, much more research needs to be conducted in order to obtain a complete picture of AGPs role in redirecting cell differentiation during SE. Together with other components of cell walls, they contribute to wall remodeling and may be involved in changes in the physical properties of the wall. AGPs are tethered to the plasma membrane by the lipid glycosylphosphatidyl inositol anchor (GPI), and, after cleavage, they can be distinguished from the plasma membrane; it is postulated that then AGP is a signaling molecule [51]. Moreover, AGPs are proposed to play a role as pectic plasticizers, which can participate in the loosening of the pectic network [52].
Table
Table 1. Summary of the epitopes investigated in SE.
Table 1. Summary of the epitopes investigated in SE.
EpitopeCharacteristicSpeciesCell Type Marker
Pectin
LM6 Linear pentasaccharide in (1–5)-α-l-arabinans (RG I side chain Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Daucus carotameristematic/pluripotent cells [26]
35S:BBM Arabidopsis thalianaembryogenic cells
Trifolium nigrescensembryogenic swellings [27]
Brassica napusembryogenic microspore, pollen-like structure [30]
Quercus suberproembryogenic masses, somatic embryos [28]
LM5 Linear tetrasaccharide in (1–4)-β-D-galactans (RG I side chain) Arabidopsis thalianacells in embryogenic protrusions [29]
Brassica napusembryogenic microspore, pollen-like structure [30]
Trifolium nigrescensnonembryonic cells [27]
35S:BBM Arabidopsis thalianaexplant cells
Daucus carotanonembryonic cells [26]
JIM7 Highly methyl-esterified HG Quercus alba embryogenic cells [36]
Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Arabidopsis thalianaembryogenic cells [29]
Quercus suberproembryogenic masses [28]
Musa spp.nonembryonic cells [37]
Cichorium hybridnonembryonic cells [33]
JIM5Low methyl-esterified HGMusa spp.embryogenic cells [37]
Cichorium hybrid embryogenic cells [33]
Quercus suberadvanced stages of somatic embryogenesis [28]
LM19Homogalacturonan (HG) domain in pectic polysaccharides, which recognizes a range of HGs with preferential binding to unesterified HGsBrachypodium distachyonembryogenic cells [25,38]
Quercus suberadvanced stages of somatic embryogenesis [28]
LM20HG domain in pectic polysaccharides, which requires methyl esters for recognition of HG and binding to esterified HGsBrachypodium distachyonembryogenic cells [25,38]
Quercus suberproembryogenic masses [28]
Extensin
JIM11 Extensin/HRGP glycoprotein Musa spp.embryogenic cells [40]
Phalaenopsisembryogenic cells [42]
Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Actinidia argutaembryogenic and nonembryonic cells [43]
JIM20 Extensin/HRGP glycoprotein Musa spp.embryogenic cells and nonembrygenc cells [40]
Phalaenopsisembryogenic cells [42]
Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Actinidia argutaembryogenic and nonembryonic cells [43]
JIM12 Extensin/HRGP glycoprotein Dactylis glomerataembryogenic calli [41]
Actinidia argutaembryogenic and nonembryonic cells [43]
Brachypodium distachyonnonembryonic cells [25]
AGP
JIM8 Arabinogalactan Arabidopsis thalianaexplant cells [29]
Daucus carrotanonembryonic cells [26]
JIM4 Arabinogalactan glycoprotein, βGlcA-(1,3)-αGalA-(1,2)-Rha Arabidopsis thalianaexplant cells [29]
LM2 Arabinogalactan protein, carbohydrate epitope containing β-linked GlcA Quercus suberproembryogenic masses, somatic embryos [28]
Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Fagopyrum tataricumembryogenic cells [47]
Arabidopsis thalianaexplant cells [29]
Daucus carrotameristematic/pluripotent cells [26]
JIM13 Arabinogalactan/Arabinogalactan protein, carbohydrate epitope (β)GlcA1->3(α)GalA1->2Rha Daucus carrotanonembryonic cells [26]
Brassica napustotipotent cells [30,49]
JIM16 Arabinogalactan/Arabinogalactan protein Brachypodium distachyonembryogenic calli [25]
Arabidopsis thalianaembryogenic cells [29]

2.4. Lipid Transfer Proteins (LTPs)

One of the wall components neglected in research on wall remodeling during SE is the LTPs. It is postulated that LTPs are involved in cutin transport and polymerization. It was shown that in Cichorium hybrid, Medicago sativa, Picea abies, D. carota, and A. thaliana [52,53,54,55,56], LTPs were an early marker of the induction of SE. An analysis of the gene expression during Triticum aestivum SE indicates that LTPs were also involved during the acquisition of embryogenic character [57]. A transcriptomic analysis of Gossypium hirsutum revealed that embryogenic calli were characterized by the up-regulation of many genes, including LTPs, compared to non-embryogenic calli [58,59]. This analysis indicates that LTPs drive the totipotency of somatic cells, at least in cotton.

2.5. Summary of Wall Components in SE and Future Prospects

SE can start in many different ways, and likely there is more than one molecular mechanism involved in these changes [60]. Accumulating data indicate that changes in cell fate are “visible” in the molecular structure of the cell wall. It can be postulated that it is the universal response of cells that accompanies the changes in their fate. However, it must be taken into account that not necessarily the same epitopes of pectins, AGP, and extensins will be markers of cell transition from the somatic to the embryogenic state for each species and tissue undergoing SE. It is well known that the explants used for SE induction can be various plant fragments, from the zygotic embryo to the root and shoot parts, which are undoubtedly characterized by different constitutive wall chemical components. That is why, in these analyses, special attention should be paid not so much to the current chemical composition of the wall but to the changes that occur in this composition during the transition from somatic to embryogenic cell state.
Moreover, the exposed differences in cell wall markers described so far may be due to the fact that the research was carried out on monocot and dicot plants, for which we know have differing wall chemical compositions [40]. For example, an analysis of the monosaccharide composition of the primary cell walls of 22 angiosperms showed differences in pectin content in dicotyledon and monocotyledon species [61]. Other studies showed that pectins from different monocot and dicot species differ in regard to their macromolecular structures. It was proven that in monocot, such as Ananas comusus and Musa AAA cv. Poyo, cell walls contain pectins richer in rhamnogalacturonan I but less rich in homogalacturonan building blocks compared to the dicot cell wall pectins [62]. The differences found, therefore, result from the systematic position of the species studied.
Further studies are needed, not only at the gene expression level but combined with immunolocalization in cells during SE. The need to supplement molecular analyses with immunochemical tests results from the fact that, for example, biochemical or gene expression methods give us general information about the chemical composition of cell walls and changes in gene expression during SE. However, collecting large amounts of material, generally including a diversity of cell types, is necessary for this type of research. It is therefore impossible to make these analyses only for embryogenic or meristematic cells, which are always in the vicinity of cells that do not participate in SE. Thus, the study of each cell type is missing. Therefore, an analysis using immunohistochemical methods is necessary in order to understand the molecular differences between cell walls and domains of local organization within cell walls [63]. It is not questioned whether immunohistochemical methods allow us to understand the organization and architecture of the wall of an individual cell and determine differences between cell walls associated with the development of cell types [63].

3. Symplasmic Isolation as a Mechanism Controlling Somatic Embryogenesis

One of the ways of exchanging information between cells is PD. Determining which cells and tissues communicate via PD reveals when and where differentiation signals are transmitted. The exchange of information through PD is called symplasmic communication. It is known that proteins (including transcription factors, TF) and different classes of ribonucleic acids (RNA) can pass through PD. Of the 2000 TF identified in Arabidopsis, several hundred are believed to be able to translocate through PD [64]. Other performed studies analyzed 76 TF labeled with mCherry, and 22 of them were translocated through PD [65]. So far, TF and/or RNAs have not been shown to move through PD during SE. However, the demonstration that other proteins, including GFP [66,67], are translocated during SE indicates that the cell-to-cell movement of TF or different classes of RNA may also occur during this process. The movements through PD of mobile TF and different classes of RNAs are well documented. For example, the movement of SHORT-ROOT (SHR) TF is necessary for endodermis specification [68], and CAPRICE (CPC) is vital during the specification of trichoblasts and antrichoblasts [69]. The movement of KNOTTED1 (KN1) TF through PD is polarized because it proceeds from the inner layers of the shoot apical meristem to the L1 layer, which indicates that it participated in maintaining the shoot stem cells [70,71]. The obtained results on different classes of RNAs, e.g., miR165a and miR166b which are involved in the development of vascular tissue in A. thaliana root, also showed their movement through PD [72,73]. All these data indicate that the impact of symplasmic communication on the movement of signaling molecules in the regulation of cell differentiation is not questioned. Unfortunately, as pointed out above, no data show which TF and/or RNAs are translocated through PD during SE, but it seems to be only a matter of time until we find out which signaling molecules move through PD.
Since the molecules mentioned above have a significant impact on cell differentiation, it can be assumed that the regulation of their movement by changing the PD SEL (functional size exclusion limit) [74,75] may affect the regulation of cell differentiation. Changes in symplasmic communication by changing the number of PD and their capacity to translocate signals indicate a precise regulation of this process. This means that PD and symplasmic communication are important in cell differentiation and plant morphogenesis. Classical studies have shown that changes in the gene expression program are correlated with changes in symplasmic communication, expressed by changes in PD number or their permeability. Examples of such a relationship are as follows: (1) Chara vulgaris L.—loss of plasmodesmal connections determines the proper course of spermatogenesis [76]; (2) Onoclea sensibilis fern prothallus—blocking communication via PD results in cell totipotency, and, consequently, the production of a new prothallus by these cells [77].
Due to the existence of PD, it could be assumed that the plant body is a single symplasm, i.e., all cells throughout the plant’s life are connected through functional PD. However, it turns out that the plant body is divided into independent functional subunits called symplasmic domains. The symplasmic domain is an area that may consist of a single cell, many cells, or even an entire organ. Within the symplasmic domain, the cells are connected by functional PD but not connected by functional PD to surrounding tissues. Symplasmic domains can be permanent (e.g., stomata) and temporal, enabling cell, tissue, and proper organ differentiation [67,73,78,79]. Much literature data indicate that symplasmic domains are correlated with developmental processes. Studies conducted so far suggest that the changes in the direction of cell differentiation are accompanied by changes in symplasmic communication, mainly based on symplasmic isolation. It was proven that symplasmic isolation often precedes, or coincides with, initiating cell fate changes, suggesting it is required for cell differentiation [80].
Symplasmic domains were determined for embryogenesis [66,81,82,83,84], androgenesis [85], and somatic embryogenesis [67,86,87,88,89,90].
The most reliable studies of symplasmic communication use the analysis of the movement of fluorochromes, dextrans, or proteins within the explant, and such tests are increasingly undertaken. Unfortunately, information on symplasmic communication changes during embryogenesis is scarce.
The correlation between symplasmic domains and zygotic embryo development has been described for Arabidopsis and Sedum [66,82,83,88,89]. Studies on Arabidopsis showed that the zygotic embryo is a single symplasmic domain during all stages of development, but only for low molecular weight molecules (up to 0,5 kDa). With progress in embryo development, the symplasmic domain correlated (determined based on GFP movement) with organ and tissue differentiation [66,82,83]. It was also shown that the size of the GFP reporter molecules that can pass through PD was lowered during embryo development [66]. Comparisons of GFP (construct of varying sizes) movement in zygotic and somatic embryos of Arabidopsis showed that the symplasmic domains form similarly in both types of embryos. However, there are some qualitative differences such as the timing of establishing domain boundaries and the sizes of molecules that can move between symplasmic domains [88,91].
Studies on symplasmic communication during SE were performed using the example of direct somatic embryogenesis in the tree fern Cyathea delgadii [87]. An analysis using low-molecular-weight fluorochromes showed that the restriction in symplasmic communication preceded the induction of SE. During somatic embryo development, symplasmic domains appeared and they corresponded to the four segments of the somatic embryo [87]. Symplasmic communication during SE was also performed using various fluorescent tracers with different molecular weights, dextrans, and cytoplasm-soluble GFP expressed under the control of an STM promoter in the example of Arabidopsis. These studies showed a correlation between symplasmic isolation and cell fate changes during somatic embryo induction. At the beginning of the SE, the symplasmic communication of explant cells was intensive but decreased in regions undergoing different developmental fates, and embryogenic cells were isolated symplasmically from non-embryogenic ones [67]. In these studies, an analysis of the expression of the WOX2 gene was performed. It showed that it correlated with areas of explant cells isolated symplasmically, which are a source of somatic embryos. Moreover, it was documented that callose biosynthesis is required to initiate SE and is correlated with decreased DR5 auxin response in embryogenic cells [67].

3.1. Callose

As mentioned above, callose is involved in cell differentiation, and thus the cell fate changes. Indeed, callose is postulated to be the main factor controlling the formation of symplasmic domains (Figure 2). Callose (β-1,3-glucan polysaccharide) accumulates in PD in response to developmental and environmental signals (biotic and abiotic factors) (for review, see [92]). Callose in PD constricts the pore, inhibiting intercellular trafficking. Callose is often deposited in PD during different developmental processes as a subset of cells sequestered from their neighbors in order to allow the realization of a specialized developmental program. The amount of callose deposited depends on many factors, mainly on the opposing effect of the activity of two enzymes (callose synthase and callose-degrading β-1,3-glucanases) but also on many proteins related to PD and gene expression [93]. Callose deposition in PD is associated with the organelle–nucleus–plasmodesmata signaling (ONPS) pathway, where the amount of callose affects symplasmic communication by changing the level of expression of different genes [94]. A detailed description of callose turnover in PD is provided by Amsbury et al. [95]. Emerging data indicate that callose is the main “player” in regulating PD permeability. Despite the large number of publications describing the participation of callose in PD regulation, there are, unfortunately, not many studies that examine its role in somatic embryogenesis, specifically for callose deposition and the determination of the embryogenic competence of explant cells. The first information about the relationship between the callose and somatic embryogenesis came from studies in Cichorium and Camellia japonica, which showed that the callose deposition precedes the acquisition of embryogenic features of explant cells [96,97,98,99,100,101]. From that moment, we have seen many results that confirm the regulation of symplasmic communication by callose, including results indicating its significant SE regulation. An analysis of the callose deposition during the SE of Arabidopsis showed that cells that changed the direction of differentiation were isolated by callose [102].
Further research on Arabidopsis SE using the 35S:BBM WOX2:NLS-YFP transgenic line showed that callose deposition in PD preceded WOX2 gene expression in future sites of somatic embryo development [67]. Moreover, blocking callose synthesis suppressed somatic embryo development. The deposition of callose after plasmolyzing treatment was shown for Eleutherococcus senticosus SE [103] and Syagrus oleracea [104], indicating that the physiological and physical isolation of explant cells stimulates the reprogramming of somatic cells of the explant to embryogenically competent cells, which are a source of somatic embryos. In the case of Araucaria angustifolia calli, the involvement of callose as an element of SE regulation is also postulated [105]. Together these data indicate that callose deposition at PD is required for symplasmic isolation and the establishment of cell totipotency during SE.

3.2. PD Number and Symplasmic Communication

The movement of signals through PD is regulated not only by the regulation of PD SEL but also by the number of PD between cells implementing the same or different developmental programs. Analyses performed using TEM and 3D reconstruction methods (Figure 3) and three different explants of A. thaliana for the SE induction showed that the number of PD between cells within the embryogenic symplasmic domain was the highest, followed by that between cells within the meristematic symplasmic domain, but the number of PD on the border of these symplasmic domains was the lowest [88]. During the SE of Pinus nigra, PD were only detected between the cells of embryogenic calli [106]. During D. carota SE, many PD between embryogenic cells were detected in contrast to cells within non-embryogenic calli, where fewer PD were found [107]. Embryogenic cells of Cocos nucifera calli were characterized by a lack of PD in the walls on the border with non-embryogenic cells [108]. In C. nucifera callus, more PD between the meristematic cells than between the embryogenic cells were detected [108]. In Panicum maximum embryogenic culture, PD were detected only between cells realizing the same developmental program but were absent on the border between cells realizing different programs [109]. The same results were obtained for Cichorium spp. [98], Zea mays callus [110], and during the early stages of T. aestivum pollen embryogenesis [111].

3.3. Summary of Symplasmic Isolation during SE and Future Prospects

The contribution of symplasmic isolation to SE regulation seems to be proven. The temporal relationship between callose deposition, followed by expression of the WOX2 gene, and an association of callose deposition with a decreased DR5 auxin response in embryogenic cells seems to be a good scenario combining several important elements of the signaling pathway in SE regulation. Despite much research on somatic embryogenesis, there are still many unanswered questions.
It seems necessary to perform a further search for molecular markers, in the form of characteristic epitopes of cell wall components, in order to understand the role of the cell wall in SE, especially in its early stages when cell proliferation and growth must occur. Obtaining comparable results requires conducting research using transgenic lines in which the appearance of the WOX2 gene expression can be followed, with a simultaneous analysis of the chemical composition of the wall and/or symplasmic communication. A study of the interaction between the changes in cell wall components and PD seems to be an interesting further direction of research, especially in the sense that we know that changes in pectin presence occur close to PD and affect symplasmic communication [112]. Unfortunately, there is no information about such correlations during SE, where symplasmic isolation plays a pivotal role in the direction of cell differentiation.
A challenge in studying the role of PD in SE regulation is their nano-size and the need for in vivo studies. Only such an experimental approach will allow for the analysis of dynamic changes in the movement of signals between cells. Another challenge is the need to construct fusion proteins (not only GFP, which is not a natural protein for plants) to study the movement of possible TF through PD during SE. This analysis would allow the study of naturally occurring signaling molecules that may be potential regulators of cell differentiation. Another challenge is the microscopic analysis using confocal microscopy, which allows for spatial–temporal studies of the signal movement in vivo. Still, it is sensitive to the thickness of the sample, and the explant is not a single layer of cells, which makes such studies difficult.
Although these aspects of SE have not been discussed in this paper, it is worth mentioning that the research on SE at the molecular level is advanced. Some main signal transduction pathways are known, considering the interconnections between stress, hormones, plant genotype, and culture conditions [113]. However, it seems that attempts to identify key physiological, molecular, and genetic triggers that are valid for all SE systems will be hard to establish [60].
Certainly, putting together the existing data describing the contribution of individual factors regulating SE, such as changes in gene expression and epigenetics, transcription factors, the participation of symplasmic isolation, and chemical changes of cell walls, requires further research before we can obtain a comprehensive picture of the factors involved in SE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.K. and K.G.-J.; writing—original draft preparation, E.K. and K.G.-J.; writing—review and editing, E.K. and K.G.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland as part of the statutory activities of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental protection, Plant Cell Biology Group, University of Silesia.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mazri, M.A.; Meziani, R.; Belkoura, I.; Mokhless, B.; Nour, S. A combined pathway of organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis for an efficient large-scale propagation in date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) cv. Mejhoul. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mazri, M.A.; Naciri, R.; Belkoura, I. Maturation and conversion of somatic embryos derived from seeds of olive (Olea europaea L.) cv. Dahbia: Occurrence of secondary embryogenesis and adventitious bud formation. Plants 2020, 9, 1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tahiri, A.; Mazri, M.A.; Kara, Y.; Aabd, N.A.; Bouharroud, R.; Mimouni, A. Propagation of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) through tissue culture: A review. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 98, 10–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, X.; Zhang, X. Regulation of Somatic Embryogenesis in Higher Plants, Critical Reviews. Plant Sci. 2010, 29, 36–57. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sivanesan, I.; Nayeem, S.; Venkidasamy, B.; Kuppuraj, S.P.; Rn, C.; Samynathan, R. Genetic and epigenetic modes of the regulation of somatic embryogenesis: A review. Biol. Futur. 2022, 73, 259–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Elhiti, M.; Stasolla, C. Transduction of signals during somatic embryogenesis. Plants 2022, 11, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shahzad, A.; Sharma, S.; Parveen, S.; Saeed, T.; Shaheen, A.; Akhtar, R.; Ahmad, Z. Historical perspective and basic principles of plant tissue culture. In Plant Biotechnology: Principles and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wójcikowska, B.; Wójcik, A.M.; Gaj, M.D. Epigenetic regulation of auxin-induced somatic embryogenesis in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Revalska, M.; Vassileva, V.; Zechirov, G.; Iantcheva, A. Is the auxin influx carrier LAX3 essential for plant growth and development in the model plants Medicago truncatula, Lotus japonicus and Arabidopsis thaliana? Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015, 29, 786–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tang, L.P.; Zhang, X.S.; Su, Y.H. Regulation of cell reprogramming by auxin during somatic embryogenesis. Abiotech 2020, 1, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fehér, A. Somatic embryogenesis—Stress-induced remodeling of plant cell fate. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gene Regul. Mech. 2015, 1849, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fehér, A. Why somatic plant cells start to form embryos? Somat. Embryog. 2005, 2, 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fehér, A. Callus, dedifferentiation, totipotency, somatic embryogenesis: What these terms mean in the era of molecular plant biology? Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Magnani, E.; Jiménez-Gómez, J.; Soubigou-Taconna, L.; Lepiniec, L.; Fiume, E. Profiling the onset of somatic embryogenesis in Arabidopsis. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cosgrove, D.J. Growth of the plant cell wall. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2005, 6, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Anderson, C.T.; Kieber, J.J. Dynamic construction, perception, and remodeling of plant cell walls. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020, 71, 39–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Levesque-Tremblay, G.; Pelloux, J.; Braybrook, S.A.; Müller, K. Tuning of pectin methylesterification: Consequences for cell wall biomechanics and development. Planta 2015, 242, 791–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cosgrove, D.J. Building an extensible cell wall. Plant Physiol. 2022, 189, 1246–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rocha, D.I.; Dornelas, M.C. Molecular overview on plant somatic embryogenesis. CAB Rev. 2013, 8, 022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, Y.; Xu, X.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, X.; Lin, Y.; Lai, Z. Global scale transcriptome analysis reveals differentially expressed genes involve in early somatic embryogenesis in Dimocarpus longan Lour. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wolf, S. Cell Wall Signaling in Plant Development and Defense. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2022, 73, 323–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ge, X.X.; Chai, L.J.; Liu, Z.; Wu, X.M.; Deng, X.X.; Guo, W.W. Transcriptional profiling of genes involved in embryogenic, non-embryogenic calluses and somatic embryogenesis of Valencia sweet orange by SSH-based microarray. Planta 2012, 236, 1107–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wolf, S.; Greiner, S. Growth control by cell wall pectins. Protoplasma 2012, 249, S169–S175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haas, K.T.; Wightman, R.; Peaucelle, A.; Höfte, H. The role of pectin phase separation in plant cell wall assembly and growth. Cell Surf. 2021, 7, 100054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Betekhtin, A.; Rojek, M.; Milewska-Hendel, A.; Gawecki, R.; Karcz, J.; Kurczynska, E.; Hasterok, R. Spatial Distribution of Selected Chemical Cell Wall Components in the Embryogenic Callus of Brachypodium distachyon. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kuczak, M.; Kurczyńska, E. Cell Wall Composition as a Marker of the Reprogramming of the Cell Fate on the Example of a Daucus carota (L.) Hypocotyl in Which Somatic Embryogenesis Was Induced. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pilarska, M.; Knox, J.P.; Konieczny, R. Arabinogalactan-protein and pectin epitopes in relation to an extracellular matrix surface network and somatic embryogenesis and callogenesis in Trifolium nigrescens Viv. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2013, 115, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pérez-Pérez, Y.; Carneros, E.; Berenguer, E.; Solís, M.-T.; Bárány, I.; Pintos, B.; Gómez-Garay, A.; Risueño, M.C.; Testillano, P.S. Pectin De-methylesterification and AGP Increase Promote Cell Wall Remodeling and Are Required during Somatic Embryogenesis of Quercus suber. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Potocka, I.; Godel, K.; Dobrowolska, I.; Kurczyńska, E. Spatio-temporal localization of selected pectic and arabinogalactan protein epitopes and the ultrastructural characteristics of explant cells that accompany the changes in the cell fate during somatic embryogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 127, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Corral-Martínez, P.; Driouich, A.; Seguí-Simarro, J.M. Dynamic Changes in Arabinogalactan-Protein, Pectin, Xyloglucan and Xylan Composition of the Cell Wall During Microspore Embryogenesis in Brassica napus. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jaskowiak, J.; Kwasniewska, J.; Milewska-Hendel, A.; Kurczynska, E.U.; Szurman-Zubrzycka, M.; Szarejko, I. Aluminum Alters the Histology and Pectin Cell Wall Composition of Barley Roots. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zykwinska, A.; Thibault, J.-F.; Ralet, M.-C. Organization of pectic arabinan and galactan side chains in association with cellulose microfibrils in primary cell walls and related models envisaged. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 1795–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chapman, A.; Blervacq, A.S.; Vasseur, J.; Hilbert, J.L. Arabinogalactan-proteins in Cichorium somatic embryogenesis: Effect of beta-glucosyl Yaiv reagent and epitope localization during embryo development. Planta 2000, 211, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Verdeil, J.-L.; Alemanno, L.; Niemenak, N.; Tranbarger, T.J. Pluripotent versus totipotent plant stem cells: Dependence versus autonomy? Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Konieczny, R.; Świerczyńska, J.; Czaplicki, A.Z.; Bohdanowicz, J. Distribution of pectin and arabinogalactan protein epitopes during organogenesis from androgenic callus of wheat. Plant Cell Rep. 2007, 26, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Corredoira, E.; Cano, V.; Bárány, I.; Solís, M.-T.; Rodríguez, H.; Vieitez, A.-M.; Risueño, M.C.; Testillano, P.S. Initiation of leaf somatic embryogenesis involves high pectin esterification, auxin accumulation and DNA demethylation in Quercus alba. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 213, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, C.; Zhao, L.; Pan, X.; Samaj, J. Developmental localization and methylesterification of pectin epitopes during somatic embryogenesis of banana (Musa spp. AAA). PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Betekhtin, A.; Rojek, M.; Nowak, K.; Pinski, A.; Milewska-Hendel, A.; Kurczynska, E.; Doonan, J.H.; Hasterok, R. Cell wall epitopes and endoploidy as reporters of embryogenic potential in Brachypodium distachyon callus culture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Leszczuk, A.; Kalaitzis, P.; Kulik, J.; Zdunek, A. Review: Structure and modifications of arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs). BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xu, C.; Takáč, T.; Burbach, C.; Menzel, D.; Šamaj, J. Developmental localization and the role of hydroxyproline rich glycoproteins during somatic embryogenesis of banana (Musa spp. AAA). BMC Plant Biol. 2011, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zagorchev, L.; Odjakova, M. Hydroxiproline rich proteins in salt adapted embryogenic suspension cultures of Dactylis glomerata L. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2011, 25, 2321–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, Y.I.; Hsu, S.T.; Yeung, E.C. Orchid protocorm-like bodies are somatic embryos. Am. J. Bot. 2013, 100, 2121–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Popielarska-Konieczna, M.; Sala, K.; Abdullah, M.; Tuleja, M.; Kurczyńska, E. Extracellular matrix and wall composition are diverse in the organogenic and non-organogenic calli of Actinidia arguta. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 39, 779–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Šamaj, J.; Bobák, M.; Blehová, A.; Pretová, A. Importance of cytoskeleton and cell wall in somatic embryogenesis. In Somatic Embryogenesis in Plants; Mujib, A., Šamaj, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bhuyan, S.; Bordoloi, R. Expression of Extracellular Proteins in Somatic Embryogenesis of Plants. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Invent. 2019, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, Z.; Zhang, D.; Shi, P.; Htwe, Y.M.; Huang, Q.Y.L.; Zhou, H.; Liu, L.; Wang, Y. Cell wall lignification may be necessary for somatic embryogenesis of areca palm (Areca catechu). Sci. Hortic. 2023, 307, 111538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Betekhtin, A.; Pinski, A.; Milewska-Hendel, A.; Kurczynska, E.; Hasterok, R. Stability and instability processes in the calli of Fagopyrum tataricum that have different morphogenic potentials. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2019, 137, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Toonen, M.A.J.; Schmidt, E.D.L.; Hendriks, T.; Verhoeven, H.A.; Van Kammen, A.; De Vries, S.C. Expression of the JIM8 cell wall epitope in carrot somatic embryogenesis. Planta 1996, 200, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McCabe, P.F.; Valentine, T.A.; Forsberg, L.S.; Pennell, R.I. Soluble Signals from Cells Identified at the Cell Wall Establish a Developmental Pathway in Carrot. Plant Cell 1997, 9, 2225–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rocha, D.I.; Kurczyńska, E.; Potocka, I.; Steinmacher, D.A.; Otoni, W.C. Histology and Histochemistry of Somatic Embryogenesis. In Somatic Embryogenesis: Fundamental Aspects and Applications; Loyola-Vargas, V., Ochoa-Alejo, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lamport, D.T.A.; Kieliszewski, M.J.; Showalter, M. Salt stress upregulates periplasmic arabinogalactan proteins: Using salt stress to analyse AGP function. New Phytol. 2006, 169, 479–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Blanckaert, A.; Belingheri, L.; Sautiere, P.-E.; Vasseur, J.; Hilbert, J.-L. 9-kDa acidic and basic nsLTPs-like proteins are secreted in the culture-medium conditioned by somatic embryogenesis in Cichorium. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2002, 40, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Poulsen, G.B.; Frugis, G.; Albrechtsen, M.; Mariotti, D. Synthesis of extracellular proteins in embryogenic and non-embryogenic cell cultures of alfalfa. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 1996, 44, 257–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sabala, I.; Elfstrand, M.; Farbos, I.; Clapham, D.; von Arnold, S. Tissue-specific expression of Pa18, a putative lipid transfer protein gene, during embryo development in Norway spruce (Picea abies). Plant Mol. Biol. 2000, 42, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sterk, P.; Booij, H.; Schellekens, G.A.; van Kammen, A.; de Vries, S.C. Cell-specific expression of the carrot EP2 lipid transfer protein gene. Plant Cell 1991, 3, 907–921. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Potocka, I.; Baldwin, T.C.; Kurczynska, E.U. Distribution of lipid transfer protein 1 (LTP1) epitopes associated with morphogenic events during somatic embryogenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Rep. 2012, 31, 2031–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sharma, N.; Chaudhary, C.; Khurana, P. Transcriptome profiling of somatic embryogenesis in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) influenced by auxin, calcium and brassinosteroid. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 98, 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guo, H.; Guo, H.; Zhang, L.; Fan, Y.; Wu, J.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Zeng, F. Dynamic Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Uncharacterized Complex Regulatory Pathway Underlying Genotype-Recalcitrant Somatic Embryogenesis Transdifferentiation in Cotton. Genes 2020, 7, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kumar, S.; Ruggles, A.; Logan, S.; Mazarakis, A.; Tyson, T.; Bates, M.; Grosse, C.; Reed, D.; Li, Z.; Grimwood, J.; et al. Comparative Transcriptomics of Non-Embryogenic and Embryogenic Callus in Semi-Recalcitrant and Non-Recalcitrant Upland Cotton Lines. Plants 2021, 10, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Feher, A.; Pasternak, T.P.; Dudits, D. Transition of somatic plant cells to an embryogenic state. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2003, 74, 201–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cheng, X.; Li, K.; Chen, X.; Jiang, X.; Gai, Y. Comparison of pectin structural monosaccharides in cell wall of dicotyledon and monocotyledon. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2012, 34, 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yapo, B.M. Pectin quantity, composition and physicochemical behaviour as influenced by the purification process. Food Res. Int. 2009, 42, 1197–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Knox, J.P. The use of antibodies to study the architecture and developmental regulation of plant cell walls. Int. Rev. Cytol. 1997, 171, 79–120. [Google Scholar]
  64. Brunkard, J.O.; Runkel, A.M.; Zambryski, P.C. Plasmodesmata dynamics are coordinated by intracellular signaling pathways. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2013, 16, 614–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Rim, Y.; Huang, L.; Chu, H.; Han, X.; Cho, W.K.; Jeon, C.O.; Kim, H.J.; Hong, J.C.; Lucas, W.J.; Kim, J.Y. Analysis of Arabidopsis transcription factor families revealed extensive capacity for cell-to-cell movement as well as discrete trafficking patterns. Mol. Cells 2011, 32, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kim, I.; Cho, E.; Crawford, K.; Hempel, F.D.; Zambryski, P.C. Cell-to-cell movement of GFP during embryogenesis and early seedling development in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 2227–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Godel-Jedrychowska, K.; Kulinska-Lukaszek, K.; Horstman, A.; Soriano, M.; Li, M.; Malota, K.; Boutilier, K.; Kurczynska, E.U. Symplasmic isolation marks cell fate changes during somatic embryogenesis. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 2612–2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wu, S.; Gallagher, K.L. Mobile protein signals in plant development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2011, 14, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kurata, T.; Okada, K.; Wada, T. Intercellular movement of transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2005, 8, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jackson, D.; Veit, B.; Hake, S. Expression of maize KNOTTED1 related homeobox genes in the shoot apical meristem predicts patterns of morphogenesis in the vegetative shoot. Development 1994, 120, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kitagawa, M.; Xu, X.; Jackson, D. Trafficking and localization of KNOTTED1 related mRNAs in shoot meristems. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2022, 15, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Carlsbecker, A.; Lee, J.Y.; Roberts, C.J.; Dettmer, J.; Lehesranta, S.; Zhou, J.; Lindgren, O.; Moreno-Risueno, M.A.; Vatén, A.; Thitamadee, S.; et al. Cell signalling by microRNA165/6 directs gene dose-dependent root cell fate. Nature 2010, 465, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Marzec, M.; Kurczynska, E. Importance of symplasmic communication in cell differentiation. Plant Signal. Behav. 2014, 9, e27931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Oparka, K.J.; Roberts, A.G. Plasmodesmata. A Not so Open-and-Shut Case. Plant Physiol. 2001, 125, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Huang, C.; Heinlein, M. Function of plasmodesmata in the interaction of plants with microbes and viruses. Methods Mol. Biol. 2022, 2457, 23–54. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Kwiatkowska, M.; Maszewski, J. Plasmodesmata between synchronously and asynchronously developing cells of the antheridial filaments of Chara vulgaris L. Protoplasma 1976, 87, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tilney, L.G.; Cooke, T.J.; Connelly, P.S.; Tilney, M.S. The distribution of plasmodesmata and its relationship to morphogenesis in fern gametophytes. Development 1990, 110, 1209–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sager, R.; Bennett, M.; Lee, J.Y. A Tale of Two Domains Pushing Lateral Roots. Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Burch-Smith, T.; Heinlein, M.; Lee, J.Y. Editorial: Plasmodesmata: Recent Progress and New Insights. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 24, 840821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tilsner, J.; Nicolas, W.; Rosado, A.; Bayer, E.M. Staying Tight: Plasmodesmal Membrane Contact Sites and the Control of Cell-to-Cell Connectivity in Plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2016, 67, 337–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schulz, P.; Jensen, W.A. Capsella embryogenesis: The suspensor and the basal cell. Protoplasma 1969, 67, 139–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kim, I.; Hempel, F.D.; Sha, K.; Pfluger, J.; Zambryski, P.C. Identification of a developmental transition in plasmodesmatal function during embryogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 2002, 129, 1261–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stadler, R.; Lauterbach, C.; Sauer, N. Cell-to-cell movement of green fluorescent protein reveals post-phloem transport in the outer integument and identifies symplastic domains in Arabidopsis seeds and embryos. Plant Physiol. 2005, 139, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno, M.; Majcher, D.; Brzezicka, E.; Rojek, J.; Wróbel-Marek, J.; Kurczyńska, E. Development of Embryo Suspensors for Five Genera of Crassulaceae with Special Emphasis on Plasmodesmata Distribution and Ultrastructure. Plants 2020, 9, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Wrobel, J.; Barlow, P.W.; Gorka, K.; Nabialkowska, D.; Kurczynska, E.U. Histology and symplasmic tracer distribution during development of barley androgenic embryos. Planta 2011, 233, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kurczyńska, E.U.; Gaj, M.D.; Ujczak, A.; Mazur, E. Histological analysis of direct somatic embryogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Planta 2007, 226, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Grzyb, M.; Wróbel-Marek, J.; Kurczyńska, E.; Sobczak, M.; Mikuła, A. Symplasmic Isolation Contributes to Somatic Embryo Induction and Development in the Tree Fern Cyathea delgadii Sternb. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020, 61, 1273–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Godel-Jędrychowska, K.; Kurczyńska, E. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the plasmodesmata that accompany cell fate changes during the somatic embryogenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana. Funct. Plant Biol. 2021, 49, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wróbel-Marek, J.; Kurczyńska, E.; Płachno, B.J.; Kozieradzka-Kiszkurno, M. Identification of symplasmic domains in the embryo and seed of Sedum acre L. (Crassulaceae). Planta 2017, 245, 491–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wróbel-Marek, J.; Godel-Jędrychowska, K.; Kurczyńska, E. Analysis of the Distribution of Symplasmic Tracers during Zygotic and Somatic Embryogenesis. In Plasmodesmata. Methods in Molecular Biology; Benitez-Alfonso, Y., Heinlein, M., Eds.; Humana: New York, NY, USA, 2022; p. 2457. [Google Scholar]
  91. Godel-Jędrychowska, K.; Kulińska-Łukaszek, K.; Kurczyńska, E. Similarities and Differences in the GFP Movement in the Zygotic and Somatic Embryos of Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 649806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wu, S.W.; Kumar, R.; Iswanto, A.B.B.; Kim, J.Y. Callose balancing at plasmodesmata. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 26, 5325–5339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dorokhov, Y.L.; Ershova, N.M.; Sheshukova, E.V.; Komarova, T.V. Plasmodesmata conductivity regulation: A mechanistic model. Plants 2019, 8, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Azim, M.F.; Burch-Smith, T.M. Organelles-nucleus-plasmodesmata signaling (ONPS): An update on its roles in plant physiology, metabolism and stress responses. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 58, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Amsbury, S.; Kirk, P.; Benitez-Alfonso, Y. Emerging models on the regulation of intercellular transport by plasmodesmata-associated callose. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 69, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Dubois, T.; Guedira, M.; Dubois, J.; Vasseur, J. Direct Somatic Embryogenesis in Roots of Cichorium: Is Callose an Early Marker? Ann. Bot. 1990, 65, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pedroso, M.C.; Pais, M.S. A scanning electron microscope and x-ray microanalysis study during induction of morphogenesis in Camellia japonica L. Plant Sci. 1992, 87, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Verdus, M.-C.; Dubois, T.; Dubois, J.; Vasseur, J. Ultrastructural changes in leaves of Cichorium during somatic embryogenesis. Ann. Bot. 1993, 72, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Puigderrajols, P.; Mir, G.; Molinas, M. Ultrastructure of early secondary embryogenesis by multicellular and unicellular pathways in cork oak (Quercus suber L.). Ann. Bot. 2001, 87, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Verdeil, J.L.; Huet, C.; Grosdemange, F.; Buffard-Morel, J. Plant regeneration from cultured immature inflorescences of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.): Evidence for somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Rep. 1994, 13, 218–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Grimault, V.; Helleboid, S.; Vasseur, J.; Hilbert, J.-L. Co-localization of beta-1,3-glucanases and callose during somatic embryogenesis in Cichorium. Plant Signal. Behav. 2007, 2, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kurczynska, E.U.; Potocka, I.; Dobrowolska, I.; Kulinska-Lukaszek, K.; Sala, K.; Wrobel, J. Cellular markers for somatic embryogenesis. In Embryogenesis; Sato, K.-I., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 307–332. [Google Scholar]
  103. You, X.L.; Yi, S.J.; Choi, Y.E. Cellular change and callose accumulation in zygotic embryos of Eleutherococcus senticosus caused by plasmolyzing pretreatment result in high frequency of single-cell-derived somatic embryogenesis.   Protoplasma 2006, 227, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  104. de Araújo Silva-Cardoso, I.M.; Gomes, A.C.M.M.; Scherwinski-Pereira, J.E. Cellular responses of oil palm genotypes during somatic embryogenesis involve participation of procambial cells, DNA demethylation, and auxin accumulation. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 41, 1875–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Navarro, B.V.; Elbl, P.; de Oliveira, L.F.; Piovezani, A.R.; dos Santos, A.L.W.; de Souza, D.T.; Demarco, D.; Buckeridge, M.S.; Floh, E.I.S. Cell-to-cell trafficking patterns in cell lines of Araucaria angustifolia (Brazilian pine) with contrasting embryogenic potential. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2022, 148, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Jasik, J.; Salajova, T.; Salaj, J. Developmental anatomy and ultrastructure of early somatic embryos in European black pine (Pinus nigra Arn.). Protoplasma 1995, 185, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Emons, A.M.C. Somatic embryogenesis: Cell biological aspects. Acta Bot. Neerl. 1994, 43, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Verdeil, J.L.; Hocher, V.; Huet, C.; Grosdemange, F.; Escoute, J.; Ferrière, N.; Nicole, M. Ultrastructural Changes in Coconut Calli Associated with the Acquisition of Embryogenic Competence. Ann. Bot. 2001, 88, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Karlsson, S.B.; Vasil, I.K. Growth, Cytology and Flow Cytometry of Embryogenic Cell Suspension Cultures of Panicum maximum Jacq. and Pennisetum purpureum Schum. J. Plant Physiol. 1986, 123, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fransz, P.F.; Schel, J.H.N. An ultrastructural study on the early development of Zea mays somatic embryos. Can. J. Bot. 1991, 69, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bonet, F.J.; Olmedilla, A. Structural changes during early embryogenesis in wheat pollen. Protoplasma 2000, 211, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Knox, J.P.; Benitez-Alfonso, Y. Roles and regulation of plant cell walls surrounding plasmodesmata. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2014, 22, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gulzar, B.; Mujib, A.; Malik, M.Q.; Sayeed, R.; Mamgain, J.; Ejaz, B. Genes, proteins and other networks regulating somatic embryogenesis in plants. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2020, 18, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 01951 g001 550
Figure 1. Localization of pectic epitope recognized by LM5 antibody (A) in 35S:BBM Arabidopsis explants and (B) the same section after staining with TBO (Toluidine blue O), characterizing the state of development (e—embryogenic cells marked in A by dotted lines, ne—non-embryogenic cells; green color indicates the epitope presence in cell walls; red fluorescence indicates chlorophyll; scale bar: 20 µm).
Figure 1. Localization of pectic epitope recognized by LM5 antibody (A) in 35S:BBM Arabidopsis explants and (B) the same section after staining with TBO (Toluidine blue O), characterizing the state of development (e—embryogenic cells marked in A by dotted lines, ne—non-embryogenic cells; green color indicates the epitope presence in cell walls; red fluorescence indicates chlorophyll; scale bar: 20 µm).
Plants 12 01951 g001
Plants 12 01951 g002 550
Figure 2. The callose localization in explant cells of 35S:BBM Arabidopsis during SE. Callose (green color) is deposited in the walls of embryogenic cells (white circle) located at the border with the non-embryogenic cells (scale bar—20 µm).
Figure 2. The callose localization in explant cells of 35S:BBM Arabidopsis during SE. Callose (green color) is deposited in the walls of embryogenic cells (white circle) located at the border with the non-embryogenic cells (scale bar—20 µm).
Plants 12 01951 g002
Plants 12 01951 g003 550
Figure 3. 3D visualization of PD distribution in walls of embryogenic cells (arrows) of Arabidopsis explant (violet—nucleus with nucleolus; blue—cell walls; red dots—PD; scale bar—4 µm).
Figure 3. 3D visualization of PD distribution in walls of embryogenic cells (arrows) of Arabidopsis explant (violet—nucleus with nucleolus; blue—cell walls; red dots—PD; scale bar—4 µm).
Plants 12 01951 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kurczynska, E.; Godel-Jędrychowska, K. Apoplastic and Symplasmic Markers of Somatic Embryogenesis. Plants 2023, 12, 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101951

AMA Style

Kurczynska E, Godel-Jędrychowska K. Apoplastic and Symplasmic Markers of Somatic Embryogenesis. Plants. 2023; 12(10):1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101951

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kurczynska, Ewa, and Kamila Godel-Jędrychowska. 2023. "Apoplastic and Symplasmic Markers of Somatic Embryogenesis" Plants 12, no. 10: 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101951

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop