Advertisement

Modularity Versus Emergence: How to Cope with Complexity in Whole-Plant Physiology?

  • Lars H. WegnerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Complex, multigenic traits like growth, yield, or photosynthetic carbon assimilation are of central importance for our understanding of plant biology and are highly relevant for plant breeding, agriculture, and other applied plant sciences. Therefore, scientific description of complexity and the elucidation of its molecular basis have recently received increasing interest. Surprisingly though, less attention is given to the classical concepts of ‘modularity’ and ‘emergence’. Modular features of a biological system result from more or less autonomously acting (molecular) components, whereas novel, ‘emergent’ features emanate from their interaction. In the very limited work published on this issue, modularity and emergence were considered as strictly opposing concepts. Here, a new, semi-quantitative, heuristic approach is introduced describing the contribution of individual proteins to a complex trait (‘protein-trait relationships’). On a phenomenological basis, criteria are defined that allow to decide whether a protein is affecting the trait rather in a modular or emergent way, treating them as gradual, rather than mutually exclusive, features. The approach is exemplified by case studies related to photosynthetic carbon assimilation, making use of empirical data that are available from the literature.

Keywords

CO2 Carbon assimilation Rubisco Control theory Growth Plant systems biology Photosynthesis: carbon reactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Rainer Matyssek, Weihenstephan, Germany; Prof. Dr. Sergey Shabala, Hobart, Australia; and Dr. Vadim Volkov, Davis, USA, for discussion and for critical reading of a draft version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Albert R, Acharya BR, Jeon BW, Zañudo JGT, Zhu M, Osman K et al (2017) A new discrete dynamic model of ABA-induced stomatal closure predicts key feedback loops. PLoS Biol 15(9):e2003451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. do Amaral MN, Souza GM (2017) The challenge to translate OMICS data to whole plant physiology: the context matters. Front Plant Sci 8:2146Google Scholar
  3. Anderson PW (1972) More is different. Science 177:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews TJ, Hudson GS, Mate CJ, von Caemmerer S, Evans JR, Arvidsson YB (1995) Rubisco: the consequences of altering its expression and activation in transgenic plants. J Exp Bot 46:1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baluška F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow P (2009) The ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin: revival after more than 125 years. Plant Signal Behav 4:1121–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedau MA (1997) Weak emergence. In: Tomberlin J (ed) Philosophical perspectives. Mind, causation and world, vol 11. Blackwell Malden, MA, US, pp 375–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernardo R (2008) Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci 48:1649–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blatt MR, Wang Y, Leonhardt N, Hills A (2014) Exploring emergent properties in cellular homeostasis using OnGuard to model K+ and other ion transport in guard cells. J Plant Physiol 171:770–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckley TN, Mott KA, Farquhar GD (2003) A hydromechanical and biochemical model of stomatal conductance. Plant Cell Environ 26:1767–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. von Caemmerer S, Quick WP (2000) Rubisco: physiology in vivo. In: Leegood RC, Sharkey TD, von Caemmerer S (eds) Photosynthesis. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 85–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. zu Castell W, Fleischmann F, Heger T, Matyssek R (2015) Shaping theoretic foundations of holobiont-like systems. In: Canovas FM, Lüttge U, Matyssek R (eds) Progress in botany. Springer, Cham, Germany, pp 219–244Google Scholar
  12. Chen Z-H, Hills A, Bätz U, Amtmann A, Lew VL, Blatt MR (2012) Systems dynamic modeling of the stomatal guard cell predicts emergent behaviors in transport, signaling, and volume control. Plant Physiol 159:1235–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper M, van Eeuwijk FA, Hammer GL, Podlich DW, Messina C (2009) Modeling QTL for complex traits: detection and context for plant breeding. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cui J, Li P, Li G, Xu F, Zhao C, Li Y, Shi T et al (2008) AtPID: Arabidopsis thaliana protein interactome database—an integrative platform for plant systems biology. Nucleic Acids Res 36:D999–D1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darvasi A (1998) Experimental strategies for the genetic dissection of complex traits in animal models. Nat Genet 18:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Kroon H, Huber H, Stuefer JF, Van Groenendael JM (2005) A modular concept of phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytol 166:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckardt NA, Snyder GW, Portis AR Jr, Ogren WL (1997) Growth and photosynthesis under high and low irradiance of Arabidopsis thaliana antisense mutants with reduced ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase content. Plant Physiol 113:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fell DA (1992) Metabolic control analysis: a survey of its theoretical and experimental development. Biochem J 286:313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franks PJ, Farquhar GD (2007) The mechanical diversity of stomata and its significance in gas-exchange control. Plant Physiol 143:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fukushima A, Kusano M, Redestig H, Arita M, Saito K (2009) Integrated omics approaches in plant systems biology. Curr Opin Chem Biol 13:532–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gajdanowicz P, Michard E, Sandmann M, Rocha M, Corrêa LGG, Ramírez-Aguilar SJ, Dreyer I, et al (2011) Potassium (K+) gradients serve as a mobile energy source in plant vascular tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:864–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein J (2002) The singular nature of emergent levels: suggestions for a theory of emergence. Nonlinear Dyn Psychol Life Sci 6:293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart Y, Mayo AE, Milo R, Alon U (2011) Robust control of PEP formation rate in the carbon fixation pathway of C4 plants by a bi-functional enzyme. BMC Syst Biol 5:171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hatch MD (1987) C4 photosynthesis: a unique blend of modified biochemistry, anatomy and ultrastructure. Biochimica Biophys Acta (BBA)—Rev Bioenerg 895:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haukioja E, Grubb PJ, Brown V, Bond WJ (1991) The influence of grazing on the evolution, morphology and physiology of plants as modular organisms [and Discussion]. Philos Trans R S Lond B Biol Sci 333:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helikar T, Konvalina J, Heidel J, Rogers JA (2008) Emergent decision-making in biological signal transduction networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(6):1913–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hills A, Chen Z-H, Amtmann A, Blatt MR, Lew VL (2012) OnGuard, a computational platform for quantitative kinetic modeling of guard cell physiology. Plant Physiol 159:1026–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen PR, Michelsen O, Westerhoff HV (1993) Control analysis of the dependence of Escherichia coli physiology on the H(+)-ATPase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8068–8072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kacser H, Burns J (1973) The control of flux. Symp Soc Exp Biol 27:65–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahn D, Westerhoff HV (1991) Control theory of regulatory cascades. J Theor Biol 153:255–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kauffman S, Clayton P (2006) On emergence, agency, and organization. Biol Philos 21:501–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laughlin RB (2005) A different universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas M, Laplaze L, Bennett MJ (2011) Plant systems biology: network matters. Plant Cell Environ 34:535–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lüttge U (2012) Modularity and emergence: biology’s challenge in understanding life. Plant Biol 14:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lüttge U (2013) Whole-plant physiology: synergistic emergence rather than modularity. In: Progress in botany. Springer, pp 165–190Google Scholar
  36. Lüttge U, Hütt M-T (2009) Talking patterns: communication of organisms at different levels of organization—an alternative view on systems biology. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 96:161–174Google Scholar
  37. Maggio A, Zhu J-K, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA (2006) Osmogenetics: Aristotle to Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 18:1542–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nijhout HF, Berg AM, Gibson WT (2003) A mechanistic study of evolvability using the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade. Evol Dev 5:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Noble D (2012) A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation. Interface Focus 2:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohta S, Ishida Y, Usami S (2006) High-level expression of cold-tolerant pyruvate, orthophosphate dikinase from a genomic clone with site-directed mutations in transgenic maize. Mol Breed 18:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pezzulo G, Levine M (2016) Top-down models in biology: explanation and control of complex living systems. J R Soc Interface 13:20160555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Portis AR (1995) The regulation of Rubisco by Rubisco activase. J Exp Bot 46:1285–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Portis AR (2003) Rubisco activase—Rubisco’s catalytic chaperone. Photosynth Res 75:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prokopenko M, Boschetti F, Ryan AJ (2009) An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organization, and emergence. Complexity 15:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quick WP, Schurr U, Fichtner K, Schulze ED, Rodermel SR, Bogorad L, Stitt M (1991a) The impact of decreased Rubisco on photosynthesis, growth, allocation and storage in tobacco plants which have been transformed with antisense rbcS. Plant J 1:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quick WP, Schurr U, Scheibe R, Schulze E-D, Rodermel SR, Bogorad L, Stitt M (1991b) Decreased ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase in transgenic tobacco transformed with ‘antisense’ rbcS. Planta 183:542–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raines CA (2003) The Calvin cycle revisited. Photosynth Res 75:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rest JS, Morales CM, Waldron JB, Opulente DA, Fisher J, Moon S, Bullaughey K, Dedousis D et al (2013) Nonlinear fitness consequences of variation in expression level of a eukaryotic gene. Mol Biol Evol 30:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roelfsema MRG, Hedrich R (2005) In the light of stomatal opening: new insights into ‘the Watergate’. New Phytol 167:665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salvucci ME (1989) Regulation of Rubisco activity in vivo. Physiol Plant 77:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sinclair TR, Purcell LC (2005) Is a physiological perspective relevant in a ‘genocentric’ age? J Exp Bot 56:2777–2782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Souza GM, Lüttge U (2015) Stability as a phenomenon emergent from plasticity–complexity–diversity in eco-physiology. In: Lüttge U, Beyschlag W (eds) Progress in botany, vol 76. Springer, Cham, Germany, pp 211–239Google Scholar
  53. Souza GM, Prado CHBA, Ribeiro RV, Barbosa JPRAD, Goncalves AN, Habermann G (2016) Toward a systemic plant physiology. Theor Exp Plant Physiol 28(4):341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME (2002) Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme. Ann Rev Plant Biol 53:449–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stitt M, Schulze D (1994) Does Rubisco control the rate of photosynthesis and plant growth? An exercise in molecular ecophysiology. Plant Cell Environ 17:465–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Usadel B, Poree F, Nagel A, Lohse M, Czedik-Eysenberg A, Stitt M (2009) A guide to using MapMan to visualize and compare Omics data in plants: a case study in the crop species, maize. Plant Cell Environ 32:1211–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Volkov V (2014) How to integrate biological research into society and exclude errors in biomedical publications? Progress in theoretical and systems biology releases pressure on experimental research. Commun Integr Biol 7:e27966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wagner A (1999) Redundant gene functions and natural selection. J Evol Biol 12:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wegner LH (2014) Root pressure and beyond: energetically uphill water transport into xylem vessels? J Exp Bot 65:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wegner LH (2015a) Interplay of water and nutrient transport: a whole-plant perspective. In: Lüttge U, Beyschlag W (eds) Progress in botany, vol 76. Springer, Cham, Germany, pp 109–141Google Scholar
  61. Wegner LH (2015b) A thermodynamic analysis of the feasibility of water secretion into xylem vessels against a water potential gradient. Funct Plant Biol 42:828–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wegner LH (2017) Cotransport of water and solutes in plant membranes: the molecular basis, and physiological functions. AIMS Biophys 4(2):192–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wu L, Candille SI, Choi Y, Xie D, Jiang L, Li-Pook-Than J, Tang H, Snyder M (2013) Variation and genetic control of protein abundance in humans. Nature 499:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuan JS, Galbraith DW, Dai SY, Griffin P, Stewart CN (2008) Plant systems biology comes of age. Trends Pant Sci 13:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zimmermann U, Steudle E (1978) Physical aspects of water relations of plant cells. Adv Botanical Res 6:45–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Pulsed Power and Microwave Technology (IHM)Eggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations