4.8 Article

Land Plants Acquired Active Stomatal Control Early in Their Evolutionary History

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1030-1035

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.04.044

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Gatsby Charitable Foundation
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  3. University of Sheffield
  4. Australian Research Council
  5. Royal Society
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F001177/1, BB/D010020/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BB/F001177/1, BB/D010020/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stomata are pores that regulate plant gas exchange [1]. They evolved more than 400 million years ago [2, 3], but the origin of their active physiological responses to endogenous and environmental cues is unclear [2-6]. Recent research suggests that the stomata of lycophytes and ferns lack pore closure responses to abscisic acid (ABA) and CO2. This evidence led to the hypothesis that a fundamental transition from passive to active control of plant water balance occurred after the divergence of ferns 360 million years ago [7, 8]. Here we show that stomatal responses of the lycophyte Selaginella [9] to ABA and CO2 are directly comparable to those of the flowering plant Arabidopsis [10]. Furthermore, we show that the underlying intracellular signaling pathways responsible for stomatal aperture control are similar in both basal and modern vascular plant lineages. Our evidence challenges the hypothesis that acquisition of active stomatal control of plant carbon and water balance represents a critical turning point in land plant evolution [7, 8]. Instead, we suggest that the critical evolutionary development is represented by the innovation of stomata themselves and that physiologically active stomatal control originated at least as far back as the emergence of the lycophytes (circa 420 million years ago) [11].

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available