4.7 Review

New and old roles of plasmodesmata in immunity and parallels to tunneling nanotubes

期刊

PLANT SCIENCE
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 13-20

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.01.006

关键词

Plasmodesmata; Tunneling nanotubes; Plant immunity; Cell-to-cell communication

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-0954931]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [5P30RR031160-03]
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health [8 P30 GM103519-03]
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0954931] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1062520] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective cell-to-cell communication is critical for the survival of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. In multicellular plants, direct cell coupling across the cell wall boundaries is mediated by long membrane-lined cytoplasmic bridges, the plasmodesmata. Exciting recent discoveries suggest that the occurrence of such membrane-lined intercellular channels is not unique to plant lineages but more prevalent across biological kingdoms than previously assumed. Striking functional analogies exist among those channels, in that not only do they all facilitate the exchange of various forms of macromolecules, but also they are exploited by some opportunistic pathogens to spread infection from one host cell to another. However, host cells may have also evolved strategies to offset such exploitation of the critical cellular infrastructure by the pathogen. Indeed, recent studies support an emerging paradigm that cellular connectivity via plasmodesmata plays an important role in innate immune responses. Preliminary hypotheses are proposed as to how various regulatory mechanisms integrating plasmodesmata into immune signaling pathways may have evolved. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据