Cytomixis in plants: facts and doubts
- 265 Downloads
The migration of nuclei between plant cells (cytomixis) is a mysterious cellular phenomenon frequently observable in the male meiosis of higher plants. Cytomixis attracts attention because of unknown cellular mechanisms underlying migration of nuclei and its potential evolutionary significance, since the genetic material is transferred between the cells that form pollen. Although cytomixis was discovered over a century ago, the advance in our understanding of this process has been rather insignificant because of methodological difficulties. The data that allowed for a new insight into this phenomenon were obtained by examining the migrating nuclei with electron and confocal laser microscopy, immunostaining, and fluorescence in situ hybridization. As has been shown, the chromatin migrating between cells is surrounded by an undamaged nuclear membrane. Such chromatin does not undergo heterochromatization and contains normal euchromatin markers. The condensation degree of the migrating chromatin corresponds to the current meiotic stage, and normal structures of synaptonemal complex are present in the migrating part of the nucleus. The cells involved in cytomixis lack any detectable morphological and molecular markers of programmed cell death. It has been shown that individual chromosomes and genomes (in the case of allopolyploids) have no predisposition to the migration between cells, i.e., parts of the nucleus are involved in cytomixis in a random manner. However, the fate of migrating chromatin after it has entered the recipient cell is still vague. A huge amount of indirect data suggests that migrating chromatin is incorporated into the nucleus of the recipient cell; nonetheless, the corresponding direct evidences are still absent. No specific markers of cytomictic chromatin have been yet discovered. Thus, the causes and consequences of cytomixis are still disputable. This review briefs the recent data on the relevant issues, describes the classical and modern methodological approaches to analysis of the intercellular migration of nuclei, and discusses the problems in cytomixis research and its prospects.
KeywordsMicronuclei Meiosis Intercellular channels Nuclear migration Unreduced pollen
Cytomixis is the migration of nuclei or their fragments between plant cells. This phenomenon is most frequently observed in male meiosis and has been so far described in the microsporogenesis of over 400 higher plant species (Pierre and Sousa 2011; Mursalimov et al. 2013b; Gupta et al. 2017). The migration of nuclei between cells attracts attention because of the yet unknown mechanisms allowing the nuclei to pass through the cell wall and a putative evolutionary significance of cytomixis, since the transfer of genetic material between meiocytes can change the karyotype of produced pollen. Cytomixis was described over a century ago (Arnoldy 1900; Gates 1911) and the numerous attempts to clarify this phenomenon commenced after its discovery. However, this issue has not been considerably clarified until recently. First and foremost, this is associated with methodological difficulties. The key problem when analyzing cytomixis is the lack of the methods to trace a meiocyte from the moment it receives additional chromatin to development of a pollen grain and gametes. The causes thereof stem from limited possibilities to intravitally examine plant male meiocytes, because these cells are poorly culturable and do not form gametes in vitro. The cell layers surrounding meiocytes in an intact anther interfere with examination of meiocytes in vivo. In turn, the observations with fixed cells do not allow analyzing the dynamics of intercellular nuclear migration, and the consequences of such migration cannot be evaluated for these killed cells. The situation is complicated by the fact that any specific markers of cytomictic (migrating) chromatin have not been found so far. In the context of these difficulties, most studies into cytomixis are of a descriptive character and their conclusions rely on indirect data. The deficiency in experimental data explains the fact that the researchers still cannot agree on the causes of this phenomenon and its role in plant development.
The mentioned problems together with a considerable interest to this issue suggest discussing the new data on cytomixis obtained by electron and confocal laser scanning microscopies (CLSM) as well as immunostaining and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).
Several reviews on cytomixis have been published earlier. These reviews focused on a phenomenological description of nuclear migration and the prevalence of this phenomenon in different plant species (Lone and Lone 2013; Mandal et al. 2013; Mursalimov et al. 2013a). In its turn, this review is focused on the methodological approaches that at different moments have been used to study this phenomenon and the experimental data obtained recently. In addition, we compared here the cytomixis in plant meiosis with the analogous phenomenon observable in the animal cell. The key facts about cytomixis, the doubts arising when analyzing this phenomenon, and the prospects in cytomixis research are discussed.
The nuclei migrate from cell to cell through CCs rather than plasmodesmata
All components of the nucleus migrating between cells are surrounded by the nuclear membrane
Many researchers still defined cytomixis as the migration of chromatin/chromosomes between cells (De Storme and Mason 2014; Kumar and Singhal 2016a, b; Qiu et al. 2017). However, this definition is not completely correct. Electron microscopy studies have shown that the chromatin migrates between cells within the nucleus together with other nuclear components, namely, the nucleolus, nuclear matrix, etc., surrounded by the nuclear membrane (Fig. 1m, n). Micronuclei formed as a result of cytomixis also have their individual nuclear membrane with a typical bilayer structure and no visible signs of damage (Feijo and Pais 1989; Mursalimov and Deineko 2011; Qiu et al. 2017). Light microscopy data confirm these observations. For example, visualization of the tubulin cytoskeleton allows for a distinct image of the nuclear zone that encompasses the migrating chromatin (Fig. 1i).
Cytomictic chromatin displays no signs of inactivation or damage
The fate of migrating chromatin directly depends on its integrity and functional state. The absence of visual differences between the migrating chromatin and the chromatin of intact nuclei has been repeatedly reported (Feijo and Pais 1989; Li et al. 2009; Risso-Pascotto et al. 2009; Mursalimov and Deineko 2011). On the other hand, some authors directly link cytomixis with elimination of damaged chromatin or whole cells (Giorgetti et al. 2007; Kalinka et al. 2010; Kravets 2011; Kravets 2013). However, reliable experimental data describing the functional state and integrity of migrating chromatin were absent until recently. The analysis of posttranslational histone modification as well as a set of experiments on detection of programmed cell death (PCD) in the tobacco male meiocytes involved in cytomixis has demonstrated that cytomictic chromatin is not subject to inactivation or damage and any PCD markers are undetectable in these cells (Mursalimov et al. 2015, 2017b).
The chromatin migration is a random process
The search of regular patterns in the intercellular migration of individual chromosomes was also for the first time performed in tobacco meiosis (Mursalimov and Deineko 2017). For tobacco karyotyping, a combination of various FISH probes that together make it possible to identify all chromosomes are usually used (Lim et al. 2000; Shibata et al. 2013). For identification of the tobacco chromosomes migrating between meiocytes in cytomixis, a combination of four chromosome-specific markers, NTRS, 5S rDNA, GRS, and HSR60, was used. These markers allowed analyzing the distribution of 15 of the 24 chromosomes of the tobacco haploid genome. The distribution of tobacco S and T genomes was analyzed by genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). The probes for FISH and GISH were hybridized to the nuclei of intact tobacco meiocytes, the migrating nuclei, and the micronuclei formed as a result of cytomixis. Analysis of the distribution of FISH and GISH signals demonstrates that the chromatin migration during cytomixis is not purposeful. Any predisposition to the intercellular migration of individual tobacco chromosomes or genome is absent. Analogous data have been obtained for the male meiosis of polyploid tobacco plants. As has been shown, an increase in the ploidy level does not change the patterns of chromosome distribution in migrating chromatin: migration retains its random character (Mursalimov and Deineko 2017).
Thus, using tobacco plants as a model, it was demonstrated that the chromatin migration during cytomixis is a random process and the migrating chromatin is neither inactivated nor damaged. Assuming that migrating chromatin can be incorporated into the nucleus of recipient cell, cytomixis can be regarded as a mechanism of random recombination rather than a targeted process of the plant karyotype changing.
Is cytomixis a natural process?
Cytomixis has been repeatedly described in various plant species from the moment it was discovered. However, some researches encountering this phenomenon still tend to regard it as an abnormality or even as an artifact that emerged during material preparation rather than a natural process. As a rule, the researchers who are skeptic about a natural character of cytomixis refer to experimental works published half a century ago that describe cytomixis in plant cells as a consequence of a mechanical injury (Tarkowska 1965, 1966, 1973). We believe that it is a high time to clarify once and for all whether cytomixis is an artifact or not. For this purpose, it is first and foremost necessary to analyze the data described in the abovementioned papers. Tarkowska (1973) asserts that “Cytomixis is an abnormal phenomenon of a pathological nature” and “It was possible to induce cytomixis patterns experimentally only by some mechanical stimuli applied in a particular way, such as squashing, piercing with a blunt needle and cutting with a blunt blade.” However, the author provides most unconvincing evidences for these statements. The experiments used for the conclusions on an artificial nature of cytomixis were performed in the following way. Unfixed anthers and other plant tissues were squashed between two glass slides and then placed in a fixing agent. As the author saw it, cytomixis in plant tissues appeared after this particular manipulation (Tarkowska 1965, 1966, 1973). Tarkowska (1973) describes the analyzed cells in the following way: “It appears that cells from which chromatin migrates demonstrate all the symptoms of dying and death. Cells to which chromatin has intruded are usually also dead or in very few instances still alive, yet with obvious signs of disorganization.” As we see it, the results of an experiment when unfixed cells are first crushed and then fixed and examined are rather unconvincing; however, even based on such analysis, it is impossible to make any inferences without the control observations. When describing the control material, Tarkowska (1966, 1973) points that cytomixis could be observed in intact (undamaged) cells as well but explains this by that the samples were prepared insufficiently accurately. Moreover, the author explains the fact that cytomixis had been observed by other researchers with the same insufficient accuracy. In addition, Tarkowska admits that cytomixis is detectable only at the stage of prophase I zygo-pachytene even after squashing of the whole anther at different stages of meiosis. This contradicts Tarkowska’s concept that cytomixis is an artifact, since if cytomixis were caused by cell squashing, it would be observable at all meiotic stages with an equal probability. Note in conclusion that the mentioned papers lack any statistical data that would allow for estimation of how comprehensively the experimental and, what is the most important, control materials were examined.
Thus, it is necessary to recognize that the experimental results by Tarkowska are not reliable and the corresponding conclusions are not correct. Hence, we hope that these papers will not be further used as an argument in the discussion of an unnatural character of cytomixis. It is important to emphasize that the results of Tarkowska have not been confirmed by other researchers; on the contrary, hundreds of published research papers demonstrate that cytomixis is not an artifact (Supplemental Table 1).
Supplemental Table 1 briefs different methodological approaches used for studying cytomixis. Most papers on cytomixis are based on squashed preparations and routine staining with carmine, orsein, hematoxylin, etc. These studies have given the insight into the cytological pattern of cytomixis as well as its rate in various plant species and forms (Silva et al. 2006; Li et al. 2009; Kumar and Srivastava 2013; Malik et al. 2017, etc.). Specific staining has allowed for a more detailed analysis of the chromatin and other cell components (cell wall, cytoskeleton, nucleolus, etc.) in the meiocytes involved in cytomixis (Sidorchuk et al. 2007b, 2016; Barton et al. 2014). Examination of the tissues embedded in solid media has given the insight into the native structure of cells during cytomixis that have not been subject to any mechanism impacts. In particular, cytomixis has been studied in the cells embedded in methacrylates (Fig. 1k), polyethylene glycol (Fig. 1l), and epoxy resin (Fig. 1m). The study of cytomixis in sections has not detected any differences in the cytological pattern as compared with the squashed preparations (Sidorchuk et al. 2007b; Mursalimov et al. 2015). Ultrastructural examination of the tissues embedded in epoxy resin has played a special role in the study of cytomixis. Numerous studies of cytomixis in different plant species were performed by transmission electron microscopy. Ultrastructural analysis has allowed for a comprehensive description of the processes underlying CC formation and the migration of nuclei through these channels (Feijo and Pais 1989; Polowick and Sawhney 1992; Wang et al. 2004; Yu et al. 2004; Mursalimov and Deineko 2011). Unfortunately, we know only one single study that used a scanning electron microscope for examination of cytomixis (Whelan 1974).
A serious disadvantage when analyzing squashed cells and tissue sections is the inability to observe a native three-dimensional structure of the whole cell. This problem can be solved using CLSM. Using this approach, a three-dimensional structure of the meiocytes involved in cytomixis was observed in unsquashed preparations (Fig. 1j). The fixed cells were stained with fluorescent dyes, specific for the cell wall and chromatin, and examined under microchamber conditions. The same approach has made it possible to demonstrate that the CCs are located on the cell wall surface in a nonrandom manner (Mursalimov et al. 2017a).
Noteworthy is the only paper describing the analysis of nuclear migration between living cells with the help of time-lapse microscopy (Zhang et al. 1990). The authors observed a nuclear migration similar to that described in male meiocytes in wheat endosperm cells. The authors not only for the first time observed the migration of nuclei between living plant cells, but also demonstrated that the nucleus can return to the initial cell after migration (Zhang et al. 1990). The observation of cytomixis in living cells is the most important evidence demonstrating that cytomixis is a natural process rather than a consequence of sample processing.
It is difficult to say to what degree the nuclear migration in the endosperm cells is similar to the analogous process in male meiocytes. Cytomixis has been also detected in some other tissues, in particular, meristems and tapetum (Guzicka and Wozny 2005; Kuras et al. 2006; Papini et al. 2010; Mandal and Nandi 2017; Silva et al. 2017), but these were accidental findings; no targeted research has been done. Correspondingly, little is known about the specific features of this process. The nuclear migration in somatic cells has no long-term genetic consequences except for the cases of migration in the meristematic tissue further involved in development of generative organs (Guzicka and Wozny 2005). Presumably, the nuclear migration in somatic cells can lead to a mixoploidy and play an important role in tissue grafting. As is shown, hybrid cells displaying characteristics of both parents can appear in the intergrowth of plant grafts belonging to different species. Moreover, viable hybrid plants can be regenerated from such hybrid cells. It is assumed that the intercellular migration of DNA-containing organelles is actively involved in the grafting process (Stegemann and Bock 2009; Stegemann et al. 2012; Thyssen et al. 2012; Fuentes et al. 2014; Gurdona et al. 2016).
Concluding this section, we cannot but brief the history of our studies into cytomixis. At the very beginning of the work on nuclear migration in tobacco male meiosis, we had natural doubts that squashed preparations could provide a correct data. In order to ascertain that the observed picture was adequate, we selected the method that would almost exclude any injuries of tissues or postmortem changes in them. We used instant cryofixation of whole anthers in liquid propane with subsequent freeze substitution with methanol and 0.1% glutaraldehyde. Then, the specimens were embedded in methacrylates, sectioned, and examined (Deineko, unpublished data). The further research into cytomixis was continued only after a comprehensive analysis of the sections that completely confirmed the results obtained with squashed preparations.
Does chromatin migrate between cells as intact chromosomes/bivalents?
It is evident that for cytomixis to change the karyotype of produced pollen, whole chromosomes (bivalents in prophase I) with their functional centromeric and telomeric regions should migrate between cells. Only in this case, the chromosomes have any chance to become a constant part of the recipient cell nucleus. If chromosomes are fragmented as a result of migration, their fragments can at best become B chromosomes or, more likely, will be eliminated. Currently, any direct evidence that the migrating chromosomes retain their integrity is absent but certain indirect data suggest such possibility.
Analysis of the posttranslational histone modification has shown that the migrating chromatin is phosphorylated in a correct manner matching the current meiotic stage (Mursalimov et al. 2015), which is of a key importance for chromosome condensation, cohesion, and segregation in dividing cells (Manzanero et al. 2000; Houben et al. 2005; Houben et al. 2007; Kawashima et al. 2010). It is shown that the migrating chromatin is phosphorylated in a correct manner before migration, being in the donor cell, and after migration to the recipient cell. For example, the signal of histone H3 phosphorylation at serine 10, which is normally detectable in the pachytene as individual loci and spreads over the entire chromosome length by metaphase I (Manzanero et al. 2000). As has been demonstrated, analogous changes take place in the migrating chromatin. H3S10ph signal in prophase I is detected as individual loci in the migrating nuclei and micronuclei formed as a result of cytomixis (Fig. 1g, l). In metaphase I, the chromatin in cytomictic micronuclei is phosphorylated over its entire length similar to the chromatin in the main nucleus. Thus, the recipient cell “does not see” the difference between its own chromatin and the chromatin that came from another cell, i.e., the content of cytomictic micronuclei is modified in the same manner as the content of the main nucleus. Analysis of the histone H3 phosphorylation at serine 28, threonine 11 and histone H2A at threonine 121 demonstrates that the migrating chromatin in these characteristics also does not differ from the intact chromatin (Mursalimov et al. 2015). This suggests that the normal processes of chromatin condensation and cohesion of chromosomes take place in the cytomictic chromatin, which should lead to bivalent formation.
The bivalent formation in migrating chromatin is confirmed by the data on histone H2AX phosphorylation at serine 139 (γH2AX), which is a marker for the repaired DNA double-strand breaks (Rogakou et al. 1999; Xiao et al. 2009). Analysis of this type of histone modification demonstrates the presence of γH2AX signals in the migrating chromatin in the zygo-pachytene stage. Similar γH2AX signals are also detectable in the intact nuclei (Mursalimov et al. 2015). The presence of γH2AX signals at this meiotic stage is associated with the recombinant processes (Hunter et al. 2001; Chicheportiche et al. 2007; He et al. 2016; Xue et al. 2016). The amount of γH2AX signals does not increase in the migrating chromatin or cytomictic micronuclei as compared with the control. The fact that γH2AX signal is present in the migrating chromatin at this meiotic stage suggests that the recombinant processes similar to those in the intact nuclei take place there. However, recombination is possible only if bivalents have formed. Electron microscopy examination and immunostaining of the synaptonemal complex (SC) proteins ZIP1 and ASY1 in tobacco meiocytes confirm the presence of SC and bivalent formation in the migrating chromatin (Mursalimov et al. 2015). The functional state of centromeres and telomeres in the migrating chromatin has not been checked yet.
Is it possible to label cytomictic chromatin?
Does the intercellular migration of nuclei takes place in animal cells?
Note that the nuclear migration in the nurse cells takes place in the absence of normal cytoskeletal structures (Ogienko et al. 2008) versus the situation with cytomixis, when cytoskeleton abnormalities in the plant cells are absent and the nucleus constantly contact the cytoskeletal structures (Zhang et al. 1990; Barton et al. 2014; Sidorchuk et al. 2016). Correspondingly, it would be incorrect to regard the disturbed anchoring of the nucleus as a cause of cytomixis.
Is cytomixis a norm or pathology?
Researchers have different opinions on the causes and consequences of cytomixis. Some of them regard cytomixis as a normal process for male meiosis with a certain role in the evolution, since it putatively contributes to the change in karyotype of the produced pollen (Ghaffari 2006; Negron-Ortiz 2007; Lavia et al. 2011; Pécrix et al. 2011; Farooq et al. 2014). Other researchers believe that cytomixis is a normal phenomenon but regard it as a specific PCD form implementing selective elimination of damaged meiocytes (Kravets 2011, 2013) or as a mechanism for discharge of “surplus” DNA from the cell (Zhou 2003; Kalinka et al. 2010). The opposite opinion is that the migration of nuclei is a kind of pathology induced by either external or internal factors (Bala and Gupta 2011; Singhal et al. 2011; Kumar and Srivastava 2013; Barton et al. 2014).
The former concept stating that cytomixis is a normal phenomenon changing the pollen karyotype so far has got the maximal number of experimental evidences, whereas the idea that cytomixis is a specific type of PCD has not been proved experimentally. As is mentioned above, any PCD markers are undetectable in the migrating chromatin.
The evidences of the pathological nature of cytomixis are also less than sterling. Some authors consider cytomixis as the abnormal process leading to the pollen sterility. In these works, the nuclear migration was observed in meiosis of hybrid, aneuploid, and polyploid plant forms (Li et al. 2009; Bala and Gupta 2011; Singhal et al. 2011) as well as of the plants exposed to external stress impacts, such as temperature stress and chemicals (Alka et al. 2012; Kumar and Srivastava 2013; Barton et al. 2014). However, when making conclusions on a pathological nature of cytomixis, they do not pay any attention to the fact that a high rate of migrating nuclei in experimental plants is always combined with numerous other abnormalities of the meiotic division as well as that cytomixis is also observable in the control plants not subject to stress impacts and displaying a normal fertility rate (Sidorchuk et al. 2007a). In other words, they observe only an increase in the rate of cytomixis under external or internal stress conditions rather than emergence of a novel process absent in the norm. Obviously, an extremely high rate of cytomixis in an abnormal meiosis attracts much more attention than the relatively rare process of nuclear migration that could be found in untreated plants. Correspondingly, it would be more adequate to regard as pathology a drastic increase in the rate of nuclear migration on the background of general disorganization of meiosis in such experimental plants rather that the migration of nuclei per se.
On the other hand, it is known that disorganization of meiosis not always leads to an increase in the rate of cytomixis. For example, it has been shown using the tobacco plants of different ploidies that the rate of cytomixis in male meiosis proportionally increases with the ploidy level (2n = 0.6%, 3n = 18.6%, and 4n = 38.4%); however, the rate of cytomixis does not increase significantly (n = 1.8%) in haploid tobacco (Mursalimov et al. 2016). Thus, although the meiosis of haploid plants has numerous abnormalities and leads to generation of completely sterile pollen, any increase in the rate of cytomixis is unobservable. On the other hand, the meiosis of tetraploid plants is relatively ordered and gives partially fertile pollen yet the rate of cytomixis in such plants is maximal. This pattern has yet to be explained.
Is cytomixis a cause of changes in the plant karyotype?
Unfortunately, any direct evidence for this is absent. Researchers have several opinions on how cytomixis can influence the karyotype of the produced pollen. We have already mentioned the hypothesis that cytomixis may be the mechanism providing selective elimination of the genome part that is “surplus” (in hybrids and polyploids) or damaged (Zhou 2003; Giorgetti et al. 2007; Kalinka et al. 2010; Kravets 2011, 2013; Aksic et al. 2016). However, this theory has not received sufficient experimental confirmation. On the other hand, many researchers believe that the chromatin migrating between cells in cytomixis does not degrade but rather incorporates into the nucleus of the recipient cell and thus changes its karyotype (Ghaffari 2006; Negron-Ortiz 2007; Lavia et al. 2011; Pécrix et al. 2011; Farooq et al. 2014). Incorporation of additional chromatin into the nucleus is possible either when cytomictic micronuclei directly merge to the nucleus of the recipient cell in prophase I or when additional chromosomes move to the poles in anaphase I and getting into newly formed nuclei. Experimental data accumulated so far confirms that the migrated chromatin can be incorporated into the nucleus of the recipient cell. In particular, emergence of additional chromosome copies in tobacco male meiocytes was demonstrated by FISH (Mursalimov and Deineko 2017). Fusion of the nuclear membrane of cytomictic micronuclei and the nuclear membrane of the recipient cell was demonstrated at an ultrastructural level (Mursalimov and Deineko 2015). A special case is the discovery of direct contacts between the migrating nucleus and the nucleus of the recipient cell. As is shown, the nuclear membrane of a migrating nucleus can fuse with the nuclear membrane of a recipient cell, forming a nuclear bridge (Fig. 2a, white arrow). Nuclear bridge is the channel with a diameter of approximately 250 nm confined by the nuclear membrane and directly connecting the nuclei of two cells. The chromatin putatively migrates between the nuclei through this bridge (Fig. 2a, arrowhead). Note that the nuclear membrane retains its integrity over the entire nuclear bridge. The movement of chromatin through the nuclear bridge between two cells can be regarded as its movement within the nucleus, since the chromatin resides in a confined space limited by the nuclear membrane and finds itself in another nucleus without leaving this space. Conceivably, the chromatin involved in this process is not affected by any damaging factors and, correspondingly, its migration may have certain genetic consequences.
We have already mentioned the cases of binucleated meiocytes formed when a whole nucleus migrates to the recipient cell (Sidorchuk et al. 2007a; Singhal and Kumar 2008; Tsvetova and Elkonin 2013; Sidorchuk et al. 2016). As has been shown, both nuclei display no signs of damage or degradation after formation of a binucleated meiocyte at the stage of zygo-pachytene and progressively continue the meiotic division (Mursalimov and Deineko 2015). Such nuclei do not contact each other and have a normal chromosome structure, the degree of their chromatin condensation matching the current meiotic stage. Development of binucleated meiocytes is observable until the nuclear membrane disappears in metaphase I. After this stage, binucleated meiocytes are undetectable. Multipolar anaphases also are undetectable. In this case, it is probable that a single joint spindle is formed for both nuclei. As a result, this can lead to formation of unreduced pollen. This assumption has not been experimentally confirmed; however, it was shown that the pollen exceeds twofold the size of normal pollen produced by the plants with high rate of cytomixis (Ghaffari 2006; Negron-Ortiz 2007; Lavia et al. 2011; Pécrix et al. 2011; Farooq et al. 2014; Kumar and Singhal 2016a, b; Reis et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2017).
It is much more difficult to determine the fate of donor meiocytes involved in cytomixis that lost part of its chromatin/chromosomes rather than acquired additional material. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to identify the donor cells that lost a small part of their nuclear volume. The donor cells upon completion of cytomixis can be unambiguously identified only when they completely or almost completely lose their nucleus (Sidorchuk et al. 2007a, 2016). In the products of tobacco meiosis, the cells larger than the norm are detectable, whereas smaller-sized cells are absent (Mursalimov and Deineko 2015). This suggests that donor cells can complete their meiotic division only in the case they have lost a small amount of chromatin/chromosomes. Such aneuploid pollen will insignificantly differ in its size from the normal pollen. Evidently, the cells that lost a major part of all chromatin cannot continue meiotic division.
Thus, numerous indirect evidences obtained so far suggest that cytomixis can change the karyotype of the produced pollen. However, we have to acknowledge that all these data are insufficient to assert that cytomixis is an additional mechanism of genetic recombination in the plant meiosis.
Final remarks and future directions
It is expected that the further research into cytomixis will follow two main directions. First, this is an intravital analysis of the cells involved in cytomixis both in vitro and in vivo. The approach implying creation of transgenic plants that produce various forms of fluorescent proteins provides the opportunity of intravital examination of all cell components. This approach in combination with state-of-the-art microscopy methods has a great potential for gaining the insight into cytomixis as well as other aspects in the male meiosis of higher plants. Second, this is analysis of the functional state and chromosome composition of the migrating chromatin in different plant species and forms. It is assumed that the mechanisms and consequences of this process may be species-specific. This analysis is especially relevant to hybrid plant forms, where cytomixis may play a special role in stabilization of the newly formed genomes.
The work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research [16-34-60007 mol_a_dk] and Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science under the program “Molecular genetic bases of regulation of genes expression, morphology, differentiation and cell reprogramming” [0324-2016-0003].
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Arnoldy W (1900) Beiträge zur Morphologie der Gymnospermen. IV. Was sind die ‘Keimbläschen’ oder ‘Hofmeisters-Körperchen. In: der Eizelle der Abietineen? Flora 87, pp 194–204Google Scholar
- Farooq U, Lovleen, Saggoo MIS (2014) Male meiosis and behaviour of sex chromosomes in different populations of Rumex acetosa L. from the Western Himalayas, India. Plant Syst Evol 300(2):287–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-013-0881-z
- Fuchs J, Schubert I (2012) Chromosomal distribution and functional interpretation of epigenetic histone marks in plants. Plant Cytogenetics:231–253Google Scholar
- Ghaffari SM (2006) Occurrence of diploid and polyploid microspores in Sorghum bicolor (Poaceae) is the result of cytomixis. Afr J Biotech 5:1450–1453Google Scholar
- He S, Yan S, Wang P, Zhu W, Wang X, Shen Y, Shao K, Xin H, Li S, Li L (2014) Comparative analysis of genome-wide chromosomal histone modification patterns in maize cultivars and their wild relatives. PLoS One 9(5):e97364. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097364 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Houben A, Demidov D, Rutten T, Scheidtmann KH (2005) Novel phosphorylation of histone H3 at threonine 11 that temporally correlates with condensation of mitotic and meiotic chromosomes in plant cells. Cytogenet Genome Res 109(1-3):148–155. https://doi.org/10.1159/000082394 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Koyanagi M, Brandes RP, Haendeler J, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S (2005) Cell-to-cell connection of endothelial progenitor cells with cardiac myocytes by nanotubes: a novel mechanism for cell fate changes? Circ Res 96(10):1039–1041. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000168650.23479.0c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kravets E (2011) The role of cell selection for pollen grain fertility after treatment of barley sprouts (Hordeum distichum L.) with UV-B irradiation. Acta Biol Slov 54:31–41Google Scholar
- Kuras M, Nowakowska J, Sliwinska E et al (2006) Changes in chromosome structure, mitotic activity and nuclear DNA content from cells of Allium Test induced by bark water extract of Uncaria tomentosa (Willd.) DC. J Ethnopharmacol 107(2):211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.03.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lone FA, Lone S (2013) Cytomixis – a well known but less understood phenomenon in plants. Int J Recent Sci Res 4:347–352Google Scholar
- Mursalimov S, Zagorskaya A, Deineko E (2017b) Evaluation of DNA damage in tobacco male meiocytes involved in cytomixis using comet assay. Protoplasma. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-017-1144-6
- Pierre P, Sousa S (2011) Citomixia em plantas: causas, mecanismos e consequências. Brazilian. J Biosci 9:231–240Google Scholar
- Stegemann S, Bock R (2009) Exchange of genetic material between cells in plant tissue grafts. Science (80- ) 324:649–651. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170397
- Stegemann S, Keuthe M, Greiner S, Bock R (2012) Horizontal transfer of chloroplast genomes between plant species. PNAS 109:2434–2438. doi: DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114076109
- Wang XY, Nie XW, Guo GQ, Pan YF, Zheng GC (Kuo Chang (2002) Ultrastructural characterization of the cytoplasmic channel formation between pollen mother cells of David lily. Caryologia 55(2):161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.2002.10589272
- Wang XY, Yu CH, Li X, et al (2004) Ultrastructural aspects and possible origin of cytoplasmic channels providing intercellular connection in vegetative tissues of anthers Russ J Plant Physiol 51:110–120. doi: 1021–4437/04/5101–0097Google Scholar
- Xiao A, Li H, Shechter D, Ahn SH, Fabrizio l, Erdjument-Bromage H, Ishibe-Murakami S, Wang B, Tempst P, Hofmann K, Patel DJ, Elledge SJ, Allis CD (2009) WSTF regulates the H2A.X DNA damage response via a novel tyrosine kinase activity. Nature 457(7225):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07668 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yu CH, Guo GQ, Nie XW, Zheng GC (2004) Cytochemical localization of pectinase activity in pollen mother cells of tobacco during meiotic prophase and its relation to the formation of secondary plasmodesmata and cytoplasmic channels. Acta Bot Sin 46:1443–1453Google Scholar