Indirect Immunofluoreseence: Localization of the Cytoskeleton
The plant cytoskeleton is composed of two structural elements known as microfilaments and microtubules. Microtubules are 24-nm-diameter hollow fibers constructed from α/β heterodimers of the protein tubulin. Microfilaments (or F-actin) are 5–7-nm-diameter homopolymers of 42 kD actin subunits. These two cytoskeletal components play a major role in a wide variety of cellular processes. For example, cytoplasmic streaming is driven by the mechanochemical enzyme myosin moving along actin microfilaments. The complex events of mitosis, including chromosome segregation and cell plate deposition, utilize two poorly understood microtubule-based structures, the spindle and phragmoplast. Intracellular positioning of nuclei and certain organelles is also dependent on microtubules and microfilaments. For a more detailed analysis of cytoskeletal function, the reader is referred to several excellent reviews and a monograph on this topic (Baskin and Cande 1990; Seagull 1989; Lloyd 1987, 1991).
KeywordsDMSO Aldehyde Ketone Trypsin Fluores
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Burnham, CR (1982) Details of the smear technique for studying chromosomes in maize. In Sheridan WF (ed) Maize for Biological Research, University Press, Grand Forks, ND, pp 107–118Google Scholar
- Goodbody KC, Hargreaves AJ, Lloyd CW (1989) On the distribution of microtubule-associated intermediate filament antigens in plant suspension cells. J Cell Sci 93: 427–438Google Scholar
- Lloyd CW (1991) The Cytoskeletal Basis of Plant Growth and Form, Academic Press, London, 322 ppGoogle Scholar
- Traas JA, Burgain S, Dumas de Vaulx R (1989) The organization of the cytoskeleton during meiosis in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): microtubules and F-actin are both necessary for coordinated meiotic division. J Cell Sci 92: 541–550Google Scholar
- Wang H, Cutler AJ, Saleem M, Fowke LC (1989) Microtubules in maize protoplasts derived from cell suspension cultures: effect of calcium and magnesium ions. Eur J Cell Biol 49: 80–86Google Scholar