Historical Overview on Plant Neurobiology

Abstract

The review tracks the history of electrical long-distance signals from the first recordings of action potentials (APs) in sensitive Dionea and Mimosa plants at the end of the 19^th century to their re-discovery in common plants in the 1950's, from the first intracellular recordings of APs in giant algal cells to the identification of the ionic mechanisms by voltage-clamp experiments. An important aspect is the comparison of plant and animal signals and the resulting theoretical implications that accompany the field from the first assignment of the term “action potential” to plants to recent discussions of terms like plant neurobiology.

For a long time plants were thought to be living organisms whose limited ability to move and respond was appropriately matched by limited abilities of sensing.¹ Exceptions were made for plants with rapid and purposeful movements such as Mimosa pudica (also called the sensitive plant), Drosera (sundews), Dionea muscipula (flytraps) and tendrils of climbing plants. These sensitive plants attracted the attention of outstanding pioneer researchers like Pfeffer,^2,3 Burdon-Sanderson,^4,5 Darwin,⁶ Haberlandt^7–9 and Bose.^10–13 They found them not only to be equipped with various mechanoreceptors exceeding the sensitivity of a human finger but also to trigger action potentials (APs) that implemented these movements.

The larger field of experimental electrophysiology started with Luigi Galvani's discovery of “animal electricity” or contractions of isolated frog legs suspended between copper hooks and the iron grit of his balcony.¹⁴ It soon became clear that the role of the electric current was not to provide the energy for the contraction but to simulate a stimulus that existed naturally in the form of directionally transmitted electrical potentials. Studies by both Matteucci and Du Bois-Reymond¹⁵ recognized that wounding of nerve strands generated the appearance of a large voltage difference between the wounded (internal) and intact (external) site of nerves. This wound or injury potential was the first, crude measurement of what later became known as membrane or resting potential of nerve cells. It was also found that various stimuli reduced the size of the potential (in modern terms: they caused a depolarization), and to describe the propagating phenomenon novel terms such as action potential (AP) and action current were created (reviewed in refs. ¹⁵ and ¹⁶). Rather than relying on such indirect methods, the membrane theory of exicitation proposed by Bernstein in 1912¹⁷ made it desirable to directly measure the value of cell membrane potentials. Such progress soon became possible by the introduction of microelectrodes (KCl-filled glass micropipettes with a tip diameter small enough to be inserted into living cells) to record intracellular, i.e., the real membrane potentials (V_m). The new technique was simultaneously adopted for giant cells (axons) of cephalopods such as Loligo and Sepia¹⁸ and giant internodal cells of Charophytic green algae. In the 1930s Umrath and Osterhout^19–21 not only made the first reliable, intracellular measurements of membrane potentials in plant cells (reporting V_m values between −100 to −170 mV) but the first intracellular recordings of plant APs as well. When this technique was complemented with precise electronic amplifiers and voltage clamp circuits in the 1940s, one could measure ion currents (instead of voltages) and so directly monitor the activity of ion channels. The smart application of these methods led to a new, highly detailed understanding of the ionic species and mechanisms involved in V_m changes, especially APs.^22–27 Whereas the depolarizing spike in animal nerve cells is driven by an increased influx of Na⁺ ions, plant APs were found to involve influx of Ca²⁺ and/or efflux of Cl⁻¹ ions.

The first extracellular recording of a plant AP was initiated by Charles Darwin and performed on leaves of the Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula Ellis) by the animal physiologist Burdon-Sanderson in 1873.^4–6 Ever since APs have often been considered to fulfil comparable roles in plants and nerve-muscle preparations of animals. However, this was never a generally accepted view. While it is commonly assumed that the AP causes the trap closure, this had not been definitely shown (see refs. ²⁸ and ²⁹). Kunkel (1878) and Bose (1907, 1926) measured action spikes also in Mimosa plants where they preceded the visible folding movements of the leaflets.^{12–13,30–31} Dutrochet and Pfeffer^2–3 had already found before that interrupting vascular bundles by incision prevented the excitation from propagating beyond the cut and concluded that the stimulus must move through the vascular bundles, in particular the woody or hadrome part (in modern terms the xylem). Haberlandt⁷ cut or steam-killed the external, nonwoody part of the vascular bundles and concluded that the phloem strands were the path for the excitation, a notion which is confirmed by a majority of recent studies in Mimosa and other plant species. APs have their largest amplitude near and in the phloem and there again in the sieve cells.^{23–24,32–35} Moreover, APs can be recorded through the excised stylets of aphids known to be inserted in sieve tube elements.^36–37 Other studies found that AP-like signals propagate with equal rate and amplitude through all cells of the vascular bundle.³⁸ Starting studies with isolated vascular bundles (e.g., from the fern Adiantum), Bose found increasing amplitudes of heat-induced spikes by repeated stimulation (tetanisation) and incubation in 0.5 % solution of sodium carbonate.^10–13 Since the electrical behavior of isolated vascular strands was comparable to that of isolated frog nerves, Bose felt justified to refer to them as plant nerves.

Although at the time a hardly noticed event, the discovery that normal plants such as pumpkins had propagating APs just as the esoteric “sensitive” plants was a scientific breakthrough with important consequences.^39–40,32 First, it corrected the long-held belief that normal plants are simply less sensitive and responsive than the so-called “sensitive plants” from Mimosa to Venus flytraps. Second, it led to the stimulating belief that so widely distributed electric signals must carry important messages.⁴¹ The ensuing studies made considerable progress in linking electrical signals with respiration and photosynthesis,^40–42 pollination,^43–44 phloem transport^{33,36–37,45} and the rapid, plant-wide deployment of plant defenses.^46–53

The detailed visualization of nerve cells with silver salts by the Spanish zoologist S. Ramon y Cajal, the demonstrated existence of APs in Dionea and Mimosa as well as the discovery of plant mechanoreceptors in these and other plants⁹ at the end of the century was sufficient stimulation to start a search for structures that could facilitate the rapid propagation of these and other excitation signals. Researchers began to investigate easily stainable intracellular plasma strands that run across the lumen of many plant cells, and sometimes even continue over several cells for their potential role as nerve-like, excitation-conducting structures. Such strands were shown to occur in traumatized areas of many roots⁵⁴ and in insectivorous butterworts where they connect the glue-containing hair tips with the basal peptidase-producing glands of the Pinguicula leaves.^55–56 However, after investigating these claims, Haberlandt came to the conclusion that the only nerve-like structures of plants were situated the long phloem cells of the vascular bundles.^7–8 From that time on papers, lectures and textbooks reiterated statements that “plants have no nerves”.

This unproductive expression ignores the work of Darwin, Haberlandt, Pfeffer and Bose together with the fact that in spite of their anatomical differences, nerve cell networks and vascular bundles share the analog function of conducting electrical signals. Similar anatomical differences have not been an obstacle to stating that both plants and animals consist of cells. The mechanistic similarity of excitations (consisting of a transient decline in cell input resistance) in plant and nerve cells was later elegantly demonstrated by the direct comparison of action potentials in Nitella and the giant axon of squids.^57–58 Today, consideration of nerve-like structures in plants involves increasingly more aspects of comparison. We know that many plants can efficiently produce electric signals in the form of action potentials and slow wave potentials (= variation potentials) and that the long-distance propagation of these signals proceeds in the vascular bundles. We also know that plants like Dionea can propagate APs with high efficiency and speed without the use of vascular bundles, probably because their cells are electrically coupled through plasmodesmata. Other analogies with neurobiology include vesicle-operated intercellular clefts in axial root tissues (the so-called plant synapses)⁵⁹ as well as the certain existence and operation of substances like neurotransmitters and synaptotagmins in plant cells (e.g., refs. ⁶⁰ and ⁶¹). The identification of the role(s) of these substances in plants will have important implications. Altogether, modern plant neurobiology might emerge as a coherent science.⁶²

Electrophysiological and other studies of long-distance signals in plants and animals greatly contributed to our knowledge of the living world by revealing important similarities and crucial differences between plants and animals in an area that might directly relate to their different capacities to respond to environmental signals. Even at this stage the results are surprising. Rather than lacking electric signals, higher plants have developed more than just one signal type that is able to cover large distances. In addition to APs that occur also in animals and lower plants,⁶³ higher plants feature an additional, unique, hydraulically propagated type of electric signals called slow wave potentials.⁶⁴