The presence of nuclear fluorescent patterns however, clearly shows that at least some hybrid fluorescent proteins are actively transported into the nucleus Surprisingly, the addition of an extra NLS tag in the pWUS:NLS-eGFP-WUS reporter did not significantly enrich the nuclear localized pattern compared to pWUS:eGFP-WUS. Such a pattern might be expected to occur if WUS has a native NLS motif, which would make the added NLS tag is functionally redundant. The present data however, cannot rule out the possibility that NLS tag is blocked by some aspect of WUS structure. The NLS-eGFP-WUS protein is 8% larger than eGFP-WUS, and this figure is reminiscent of the 15% reduction found in pWUS:NLS-eGFP-WUS meristems, and might suggest that the limited mobility of the NLS construct reflects a size-dependent fractionation process, rather than nuclear trapping. The continued presence of WUS in the cytoplasm however, requires the existence of a nuclear export mechanism to balance out the effects of nuclear import. Although such a function has not been attributed to the WUS protein, the EAR-like motif present in its C-terminus closely resembles a lysine rich NES motif. The same motif is also recognized by TPL, though it is not clear which function predominates in WUS. Even if EAR-like motif functions as a nuclear exit sequence however, draiange planter pot a system based exclusively on nuclear pore transport would likely shift the equilibrium to one extreme state or another rather than be perfectly balanced at an intermediate state.
One clue about how a stable intermediate is achieved comes from the pWUS:eGFP-NES-WUS construct, whose fluorescent pattern is very weak, but is not zero , suggesting that WUS is rapidly degraded in the cytoplasm. This observation also indicates that WUS EAR-like motif has at best a weak NES function, as the added NES tag could only have such a strong impact if the native WUS molecule lacked a strong native NES function.Together these observations indicate that only small fraction of WUS proteins are transported into the nucleus, while those that remain in the cytoplasm are degraded. Rather than being nuclear enriched, this situation is probably more accurately described as cytoplasmic depletion. Interestingly, the WUS subcellular pattern closely parallels a similar situation for Cytidylyltransferase proteins in the Mouse model, where mono-ubiquitination of the NLS motif was demonstrated to prevent nuclear import, and was further associated with higher rates of proteolytic degradation of CCTα in the cytoplasm.On the basis of current evidence, it seems likely that cytokinin responses are necessary for WUS protein stability. This may reflect a common trend for SAM expressed genes, as cytokinin exposure is also known to increase the stability of ACS and ARR1. Evidence of a positive relationship is perhaps best seen in the ahk2/3/4 receptor mutant background, where WUS mRNA is transcribed normally in the complete absence of cytokinin responses , yet the translated GFP reporter is barely detectable . Conversely, when cytokinin responses are induced by pCLV3:GR-LhG4 x ARR1ΔDDK-GR, we see an increase in WUS proteins in the L1 and L2 cells after 48 hours, but little or no WUS transcription in these cells . This suggests that the WUS proteins that move into the L1 and L2 cells are rapidly degraded in the absence of strong cytokinin responses, but become protected following ectopic cytokinin activation. However, the idea of a positive correlation begins to break down when p35S:GRLhG4::p6xOP:CKX3 induction is considered, because this did not obviously reduce pWUS:eGFP-WUS fluorescent levels .
The fact that the peak fluorescence shifted down by one layer might indicate that the response-free zone became larger, but the variability of this construct makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Another potential problem can be found in pCLV3:GR-LhG4 x ARR1ΔDDK-GR x pWUS:eGFP-WUS plants that have been induced with dexamethasone for 48 hours. Although cytokinin responses are homogenously distributed in these meristems, the pWUS:eGFP-WUS pattern does not clearly show strong WUS expression in the peripheral regions where cytokinin induced stability might be expected. The results of cycloheximide and MG132 treatments do not help clarify this situation, as the alternating patterns of stability and instability cannot easily be explained in terms of the cytokinin signaling pathway alone. To do so requires assuming that the cytokinin phosphor-relay system has a previously undetected branch pathway, potentially regulating a protease with equally unusual phospho-dependent activity. However, this model is not much different than the observation that cytokinin influences WUS stability through both protein translation protein pathways, as both models require multiple steps with poorly known intermediates. Attempts to identify the possible intermediates using lists of cytokinin-targeted genes do not clearly help resolve this situation, as a meta-analysis found only five translation related genes, two of which modify mRNA, one that modified tRNA, and two that are involved with ribosomal RNA processing. The same list of cytokinin targets also contains six protease genes , while a single representative from the ubiquitin/proteosome pathway was down-regulated. In the absence of a clearly direct cytokinin-WUS connection, it is quite tempting to speculate that protein stability is a secondary effect of cytokinin responses. If so, stability may be a generic feature of cytokinin responses, which has the potential to affect all proteins simultaneousl.Experiments with auxin on the other hand, suggest a much more direct link with WUS stability. Four hours of exogenous NAA treatment dramatically reduced pWUS:eGFP-WUS fluorescent levels, while comparable treatments with cytokinin took a minimum of 12 hours to show the slightest response in WUS expression.
The auxin–induced degradation was also readily blocked by cycloheximide treatments , indicating that the response requires protein translation. Still, exactly which proteins are translated, and how they affect WUS stability is not clear. Auxin induced degradation may have a functional significance for lateral anlagen though, as the concentration of auxin responses in distinct foci, would help rapidly reprogram the anlagen cells by degrading conflicting developmental proteins. This hypothesis is consistent with the large marginal voids of WUS and CLV3 expression found when cytokinin responses are ectopically induced with the pCLV3:GR-LhG4 x p6xOP:ARR1ΔDDK-GR system , which were often correlated to the presence of leaf primordia and sites of auxin accumulation. Similar marginal voids can also be seen in WT meristems treated with exogenous cytokinin. Although not quite as direct, other research has also shown that WUS transcript levels are indirectly linked to auxin transport. In addition callus tissue studies have found that induction of SAMs does not require cytokinin alone, but instead requires an appropriately high concentration of auxin or a balanced auxin/cytokinin ratio, clearly implying that auxin is a significant part of the process. Considering the overall organization of the SAM, this suggests a model where WUS helps stabilize the mutually exclusive pattern of auxin and cytokinin responses in the PZ and RM by activating the biosynthesis of both hormones and auxin transport genes within the CZ. The lack of hormone responses in the very cells that produce them is consistent with a similar pattern in root development , and given the often symplast-like environment in the SAM, a repressive mechanism may be necessary to prevent hormone response proteins from spreading into the CZ and suppressing biosynthesis. The fields of protein stability and instability brought about by the hormone responses also appears to define the number of WUS producing cells, and eventually, plant pot with drainage the concentration of WUS molecules that reach the CZ, forming an indirect, but stable set of feedback loops that share WUS as an anchor. The CLV3 pathway may represent another feedback loop within this framework, as it is also activated by WUS in the CZ, similar to the postulated activation of hormone biosynthesis genes. Although the intermediate steps are not clear, CLV3 appears to suppress cytokinin-induced proliferation, as seen by the hypersensitive response of clv3-2 mutant to exogenous cytokinin . By doing so, it may potentially function as a third feedback loop, negatively regulating WUS transcription though a mechanism that is slightly more direct than either hormone pathway alone. It would thus be of great interest to learn what proteins regulate WUS transcription in the RM, as the ahk2/3/4 RNA in-situ clearly shows that cytokinin responses are not involved. Intraspecific variation in seed dispersal has important consequences for individual reproductive success, plant population dynamics, community structure and evolution. For example, intraspecific variation in seed dispersal distances , the microhabitat destination of dispersed seeds and the treatment in the mouth and gut affect demography and individual plant fitness through their impacts on the number of seeds dispersed, surviving, germinating and growing as seedlings.
As a prominent example, dispersal kernels that include inter individual variation in dispersal distances are not equal to a population-level dispersal kernel based on mean dispersal distances. Including this intraspecific variation can alter the rate of population spread and the extent of gene flow . Furthermore, individual variation in seed dispersal increases the range of habitats and conditions where seeds are dispersed, increasing the likelihood of the population to persist under unfavourable events . Although poorly studied, intraspecific variation in seed dispersal may also influence community assembly, species richness and responses to anthropogenic changes . See Snell et al. for a thorough review of the consequences of intraspecific variation in dispersal. However, given the historical focus in seed dispersal studies on population means, there are large gaps in our understanding of intraspecific variation in dispersal. We do not know how pervasive detectable variation in seed dispersal is, what the drivers of individual variation are and to what extent drivers have independent versus interactive effects. To date there only have been scattered efforts to summarize the breadth of our understanding of the drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal. The phrase ‘intraspecific variation in the drivers of seed dispersal’ is diffuse and subsumes multiple types of drivers and levels of variation. Decomposing this variation helps structure our thinking about intraspecific variation in dispersal. First, drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal can be categorized as intrinsic variation based on trait expression of individual plants and extrinsic variation based on the ecological context of the plant . Further, intraspecific variation can be divided into variation among individuals and variation within individuals . Most drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal have both an inter individual and an intra individual component . When considering drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal, it is important to clarify what aspects and consequences of dispersal are being affected. Seed dispersal effectiveness, or SDE, depends on both the quantity of seeds dispersed and the quality of dispersal provided to those seeds . While SDE is usually viewed as mean quantity multiplied by mean quality, these means are derived from a sample of individuals that likely differ substantially in both the quantity and the quality of dispersal. Beyond SDE, the probability of long-distance dispersal can vary intraspecifically, which in turn contributes to population spread and gene flow. In this review, we focus mostly on seed movement, largely because that is what we have the most information on. However, we address consequences for seedling establishment or recruitment where relevant information is available. In this paper, we provide a broad but not exhaustive review of the drivers of intraspecific variation in the quantity, and to a lesser extent, the quality components of seed dispersal . We emphasize intrinsic drivers and inter individual variation because of our interest in individual fitness, defined as the contribution of an individual to future generations . However, we also consider intra individual variation in traits because it can scale up to affect inter individual variation in dispersal. Further, intra individual variation is not independent of inter individual variation. Lastly, we consider simple intraspecific variation in traits because much relevant work focuses on population-level trait variation without considering its apportionment into intra and inter individual components. We have several goals with this review. First, we illustrate the breadth of drivers of inter individual variation in seed dispersal. Second, we use diverse examples to illustrate the broad geographic and taxonomic scope of inter individual differences in seed dispersal, to assess how consistently they occur and to explore the range of impacts on seed dispersal processes. Third, we briefly discuss the barriers to fully understanding these drivers and their effects.Crop size varies substantially among individuals and populations within a season and across years . Crop size is probably the most widely studied and best-supported driver of inter individual variation in the quantity of seeds dispersed.