Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Plant Science logoLink to Frontiers in Plant Science
. 2013 Jul 12;4:234. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00234

Perspectives for using genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors in plants

Sisse K Gjetting 1, Alexander Schulz 1, Anja T Fuglsang 1,2,*
PMCID: PMC3709170  PMID: 23874345

Abstract

Genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors have long proven to be excellent tools for quantitative live imaging, but sensor applications in plants have been lacking behind those in mammalian systems with respect to the variety of sensors and tissue types used. How can this be improved, and what can be expected for the use of genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors in plants in the future? In this review, we present a table of successful physiological experiments in plant tissue using fluorescent biosensors, and draw some conclusions about the specific challenges plant cell biologists are faced with and some of the ways they have been overcome so far.

Keywords: plant bioimaging, genetically encoded biosensors, fluorescence microscopy, calcium sensor, phosphatidylinositol sensor, pH sensors

Introduction

Genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors are increasingly used as the preferred method to visualize and analyse ion fluxes, signaling components, and metabolites, covering an expanding palette of cellular processes. While fluorescent proteins as such are mainly used for localization and expression studies, genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors in addition allow real time studies of cell metabolism with a similar high spatial and temporal resolution. Cell-specific promoters allow biosensor expression in the target cell of choice in contrast to chemical probes that are inherently dependent on efficient delivery into the cells.

The huge interest and progress in the field is reflected in a large number of recent reviews on fluorescent proteins and genetically encoded sensors, e.g., (Fehr et al., 2004; Lalonde et al., 2005; VanEngelenburg and Palmer, 2008; Frommer et al., 2009; Chudakov et al., 2010; Okumoto, 2010; Mehta and Zhang, 2011; Miyawaki, 2011; Newman et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2011; Okumoto et al., 2012). Several reviews describe plant specific uses, e.g., (Dixit et al., 2006; Frommer et al., 2009; Swanson et al., 2011; Choi et al., 2012; Ehrhardt and Frommer, 2012; Okumoto, 2012; Okumoto et al., 2012). In addition, http://biosensor.dpb.carnegiescience.edu/ provides a database of selected available biosensors.

In the present context, the term genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors refers to fluorescent proteins coupled with a sensing mechanism that causes a change in fluorescence intensity upon ligand binding. Most sensors can be grouped within two major types of fluorescent biosensors: (1) single fluorescent protein sensors, which can carry the sensing mechanism within the fluorescent protein, such as e.g., pHluorins, or where sensing is coupled to a ligand binding domain. Other options using single fluorescent proteins include protein-protein interactions reported by fluorescent protein reconstitution (biFC) or detection of protein translocation. One notable exception of specific plant relevance is the DII-Venus auxin sensor, where degradation of the fluorescent protein is utilized as sensing mechanism. (2) FRET-based sensors, where ligand binding causes a conformational change of the sensor leading to a change in FRET ratio between two fluorescent proteins, usually CFP/YFP variants. Within these groups many sensor platform designs are possible, which are described in detail elsewhere, see e.g., (Okumoto et al., 2012).

There is general consensus that the field is expanding and far from saturated with respect to sensor targets, the quality and variety of the fluorescent proteins, spatiotemporal resolution, compartmentation, and to imaging techniques. This paper discusses the perspectives for using genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors in plants, summarizing the specific challenges plant cell biologists are faced with and the ways they have been overcome so far. Although, due to space restrictions, this review focuses on fluorescent biosensors, the aspects discussed apply to luminescent biosensors as well. What are the expectations for fluorescent biosensors in plants in the future? Can they help in assigning a function to the many orphan receptor-like kinases or create complete flux maps of metabolite and ions in Arabidopsis and other model organisms as suggested by (Okumoto et al., 2012)? We will point to some challenges that need to be addressed, if biosensors are to be used more widely.

Why are genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors less used in plants than in mammalian cells?

The variety of genetically encoded fluorescent sensors is explored primarily in mammalian systems. Although these sensors offer highly attractive advantages for plant cell imaging, reports on physiological measurements in plants have been comparatively few, which might indicate that using these tools for live physiological experiments in plants is not trivial.

Table 1 below is a compilation of genetically encoded fluorescent sensors used for physiological experiments in plants. Several important insights into plant cell biology have been gained from their use. Notably, applications of the Ca2+-sensing Cameleons have given substantial insight into the role of calcium in stomatal opening (Allen et al., 1999a,b) as well as the role of calcium gradients in growing pollen tubes (Michard et al., 2008), root hairs of Arabidopsis (Monshausen et al., 2007), Nod factor-induced nuclear calcium transients in M. truncatula root hair cells (Capoen et al., 2011) and visualization of Ca2+-dynamics in response to auxin during root gravitropism (Monshausen et al., 2011). Also pH sensors have been useful in plants. The pHluorin sensors have been used to document in detail cytosolic pH gradients and oscillations in growing pollen tubes (Michard et al., 2008), and cell wall pH has been measured by use of pHluorins (Gao et al., 2004) or apo-pHusion (Gjetting et al., 2012) secreted to the apoplast.

Table 1.

Genetically encoded fluorescent sensors used for physiological experiments in plants, subdivided by sensor function.

Sensor name FPs Kd/pKa λmaxex./em. Plant species, tissue Localization Stimulus/response References
CAMELEONS AND OTHER CALCIUM SENSORS
YC2.1 ECFP-EYFP 100 nM, 4.3 μM (biphasic) ECFP: 434/477 EYFP: 514/427 A.t. guard cells Cytosol ABA pathogen elicitors CO2 Allen et al., 1999a,b, 2000, 2001, 2002; Hugouvieux et al., 2001; Klusener et al., 2002; Young et al., 2006; Siegel et al., 2009; Miyawaki et al., 1999
L. longiflorum, N. tabacum, pollen tubes Cytosol, nucleus Watahiki et al., 2004
nupYC2.1 M. truncatula root hairs, wt and symbiotic. defect. mutants Cytosol, nucleus Nod factor, mycorrhiza, Mastoparan, JA Miwa et al., 2006a,b; Sun et al., 2007; Kosuta et al., 2008; Sieberer et al., 2009; Capoen et al., 2011
YC3.1 ECFP-EYFP 1.5 μM N. tabacum, pollen tube Cytosol Michard et al., 2008, 2011, Miyawaki et al., 1999
A.t. pollen grain, pollen tubes, papilla cells Cytosol Iwano et al., 2004
YC3.6 ECFP-cpVENUS 250 nM A.t. roots Cytosol Glu, ATP, Al3+ Haruta et al., 2008; Rincon-Zachary et al., 2010, Nagai et al., 2004
A.t., N. tabacum, pollen tubes Cytosol Iwano et al., 2009
A.t. guard cells Cytosol Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) Weinl et al., 2008; Munemasa et al., 2011
A.t. rosette leaves Cytosol Butyrate, ABA, MeJA Islam et al., 2010
A.t. roots, root hairs Cytosol Touch, gravitropism, barrier, IAA Monshausen et al., 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011
A.t. roots, cotyledons PM, nucleus, cytosol Krebs et al., 2012
YC4.6 ECFP-VENUS 58 nM 14.4 μM A.t. pollen tubes ER Iwano et al., 2009 Nagai et al., 2004
D3cpv-KVK-SKL ECFP-cpVENUS A.t. leaves, guard cells Peroxisomes Ca2+ Costa et al., 2010 Palmer et al., 2006
D3cpv 0.6 μM A.t. Roots, cotyledons Tonoplast Krebs et al., 2012
pH SENSORS
pHluorin (ratiometric) GFP pKa 6.9 N. tabacum, pollen tubes Cytosol Certal et al., 2008; Michard et al., 2008 Miesenbock et al., 1998
A.t. roots, N. benthamiana Apoplast, cytosol Fusicoccin salt, mannitol Moseyko and Feldman, 2001; Plieth et al., 2001; Gao et al., 2004
PE-pHluorin PR-pHluorin GFP pKa 6.6 Ex 395/475 PE:Em 480/512 PR:Em 515 A.t. protoplasts PSB-D, PSB-L Cytosol, vacuole, mitochondria, chloroplast endomembr. compartments Shen et al., 2013
Pt-GFP Pt-GFP pKa 7.3 (7.8) 475/390 (ex) 508 (em) A.t. roots, leaves guard cells Cytosol Schulte et al., 2006
GFP H148D GFP pKa 7.8 A.t. roots, root hairs Cytosol Gravitropism touch, barrier Fasano et al., 2001; Monshausen et al., 2007, 2009, Elsliger et al., 1999
pHusion apo-pHusion mRFP1-EGFP pKa 5.8 (6.0) EGFP: 488/507 mRFP1: 584/607 A.t. leaf mesophyll, roots Cytosol, apoplast IAA Gjetting et al., 2012
REDOX SENSORS
Cyt-RoGFP1 Cyt-GRX1- RoGFP1 c-RoGFP1/2 Per-RoGFP1 Pla-RoGFP2 MitRoGFP1+2 GFP Mid point potential RoGFP1: 288 mV RoGFP2: 272 mV RoGFP1: λmax oxidized: 396 nm λmax reduced: 468 nm A.t. leaf discs, leaf epidermis, roots Cytosol, peroxisomes, plastids, mitochondria Dark, (age), inhibitors/abiotic, stress Jiang et al., 2006; Schwarzlander et al., 2009; Rosenwasser et al., 2010 Hanson et al., 2004
RoGFP1 c-RoGFP1/2 Px-RoGFP2 Cp-RoGFP2 ER-RoGFP2 RoGFP2: λmax oxidized: 398 nm λmax reduced: 492 nm N. tabacum, leaf epidermis, leaf discs Cytosol, peroxisomes, plastids, ER Inhibitors/abiotic stress Schwarzlander et al., 2008, 2009
H2O2: HyPer HyPer-KSRM cpYFP Ex. 420/500 Em. 516 N. tabacum leaves, A.t. leaves pre-/post-bolting, guard cells Cytosol, peroxisomes Ca2+ Costa et al., 2010 Belousov et al., 2006
OTHER SENSORS
Chloride: Clomeleon ECFP-EYFP ECFP: 434/477 A.t. roots Cytosol Salt stress, Mg2+, Ca2+, La3+, A9C (anion chan. block.) Lorenzen et al., 2004; Plieth and Saleh, 2013, Kuner and Augustine, 2000
Glucose: FlipGlu600 μ, 2 m, 170 n ECFP-EYFP 600 μM, 2 mM, 170 nM EYFP: 514/427 A.t. silencing mutants and wildtype, roots, leaves Cytosol Glucose flux and levels Deuschle et al., 2006; Chaudhuri et al., 2008, 2011
Sucrose: FlipSuc90 μ ECFP-EYFP 88 μM A.t. silencing mutants, roots Cytosol Chaudhuri et al., 2008
Glutamine: D157N ECFP-Venus 6 mM (8.5 mM) Venus:515/528 A.t. silencing mutants roots Cytosol Yang et al., 2010
PtdIns3P, 4P, (4,5)P2: YFP-2xFYVE mRFP-PHFAPP1 YFP-PHFAPP1/PLC∂1 EYFP/mRFP1 EYFP: 514/427 mRFP1: 584/607 Protoplasts (cowpea, BY2). M. truncatula roots, A.t. seedlings Localization (PM, golgi, cell plate) PPIs dynamics Vermeer et al., 2006; Vermeer et al, 2009; van Leeuwen et al., 2007
Auxin: DII-VENUS Venus Venus: 515/528 A.t. leaves, roots Nucleus Gravitropism Brunoud et al., 2012
Open in a new tab

Details of the sensors: Dissociation constants, (Kd), pKa-values (of the pH sensors), with in vivo values in brackets, type of FP used, tissue, species, and potentially applied stimulus are given, as well as references to the original plant experiments. A.t. refers to Arabidopsis thaliana. References to Kd/pKa values and spectral properties of the sensors are shown in bold.

Looking closer at these experiments, some obvious similarities are seen. It can be argued that successful experiments are often carried out in single cell systems, such as guard cells, root hairs and pollen tubes, where complex cell-to-cell communication is limited. These experiments are all studies of ion signaling, that can be directly correlated with a growth or turgor response, making them attractive experimental setups. Although this is a trend, indeed, several experiments have been successfully carried out in intact tissue, very often in roots, (Fasano et al., 2001; Rincon-Zachary et al., 2010; Monshausen et al., 2011; Gjetting et al., 2012) where autofluorescence is negligible and access is not hindered by the waxy cuticle. Sensors that were successfully used for physiological measurements in intact tissue were often developed specifically for use in plants (e.g., the auxin sensor, DII-Venus, and the apoplastic pH-sensor apo-pHusion). Secondly, it is noted that overall only few sensor platforms and targets were used, again reflecting the fact that many sensors are originally designed for mammalian purposes. Thirdly, sensors were most often expressed in the cytosol, which is the default expression if not specifically targeted to other compartments, and finally most experiments were carried out in Arabidopsis or tobacco, which may not be surprising, since these are easy to manipulate. These observations emphasize some specific challenges that have to be addressed in order to broaden the palette of successful sensor applications in plants.

Plant-specific features that limit the applicability of genetically encoded fluorescent sensors

Autofluorescence from chloroplasts and cell walls

Plants are complex, multicellular organisms to work with, and fluorescent probes do not always penetrate multiple cell layers, largely due to the barrier formed by the waxy cuticle and the cell wall. Therefore, genetically encoded sensors are ideally suited for plant cell imaging. However, in plants autofluorescence is a major challenge, particularly in photosynthesizing tissue (chlorophyll ex. 420–460 nm/em. 600–700 nm) and from the cell wall (various components are excited by UV to blue wavelengths, emitting mainly blue light), which can be addressed by the choice of fluorophores in sensor design, or may be circumvented, when lower photon counts/densities can be tolerated, by the use of bioluminescent proteins, such as Aequorin (Mehlmer et al., 2012), where excitation is caused by a chemical reaction instead of light, thus avoiding excitation of autofluorescence.

Precautions for mounting procedures and studying externally applied chemical stimuli

Genetically encoded sensors as such are non-invasive, but their application to study cellular responses to chemical stimuli requires a perfusion setup and immobilization for microscopy, which can potentially harm the cells. The cuticle covering aerial tissues is an entrance barrier for many compounds, and sometimes even for the ligand itself, making in vivo calibrations difficult when using such sensors. Efficient immobilization methods ensure that no movement of the specimen takes place, while at the same time allowing for perfusion of the chemical stimulus and plant growth. It was, however, recently shown that the commonly used method to immobilize Arabidopsis tissue with a medical adhesive severely impairs cell viability of root cells (Gjetting et al., 2012), making alternative methods necessary. An alternative could be the newly developed root chip (Grossmann et al., 2011) or more simply mounting roots on agarose (Gjetting et al., 2012). Another common method used e.g., for cross-fixing pollen tubes on polylysine slides (Michard et al., 2008) was also shown to disrupt Arabidopsis root cells. In general, the act of handling living tissue under a microscope will inevitably cause disturbance of the tissue and induce various stress responses and tropisms. This of course affects live imaging methods of genetically encoded fluorescent sensors as well as other methods.

Gene silencing may be caused by choice of promoter or tandem fluorescent proteins

Gene silencing has often been mentioned as a particular problem for plant expression of genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors, particularly when used in tandem repeats, or driven by the 35S promoter (Miyawaki et al., 1997; Deuschle et al., 2006; Krebs et al., 2012). This problem was solved in one case by replacing the 35S-promoter of viral origin with the plant-derived UBQ10 promoter in Arabidopsis (Krebs et al., 2012), or by expressing the sensor in transgene silencing mutants (Deuschle et al., 2006). The use of silencing mutants however, is not optimal, since their general growth pattern is changed, and may influence the measurements in unpredictable ways. In our lab, the 35S-promoter did not provoke inhibitory gene silencing when driving the expression of either FRET-based sensors or ratiometric pH sensors (Gjetting et al., 2012 and unpublished results). Transgene silencing in root tips and seedlings was reported to cause a reduction in fluorescence intensity and thus undetectable FRET changes after 10–15 days of growth (Deuschle et al., 2006; Chaudhuri et al., 2011). In contrast, we were able to monitor pH changes in leaves of 1–2 months old plants which were not subject to silencing (Gjetting et al., 2012).

The apoplast

This plant-specific extracellular compartment plays a major role in transport regulation, but obviously only plant scientists are interested in developing tools to study its dynamics. Sensors for apoplastic measurements must deal with the low pH values, which are disruptive to many fluorescent proteins, and also be able to measure large differences in ion or solute concentration in the much less buffered apoplast. Apoplastic pH sensors have been used to measure salt stress (Schulte et al., 2006) and the effect of externally applied auxin (Gjetting et al., 2012), but the targeting of sensor protein to the apoplast results in accumulation in the ER, which should be taken into account when measuring the ratio. However, this accumulated protein could potentially be used as an internal pH reference or even as a tool to study pH in the endomembrane system as well. Another issue with apoplastic measurements relate to the structure of GFP in that an oxidizing environment, such as the cell wall and ER can impair proper folding of the fluorescent protein. The use of superfolder GFP (sfGFP) variants may in time be helpful in plants for solving this problem (Aronson et al., 2011).

Improvement of sensor applications in plants

Increasing sensor target range to include, e.g., hormones and kinases

There are many possibilities to expand the range of sensor targets in plants. Developing sensors for central, plant-specific signaling events, like hormone action or activity of plant-specific receptor-like kinases would be major landmarks. An example is a recently developed auxin sensor, which is a fusion of the YFP variant Venus to the Aux/IAA auxin-interaction domain DII (Brunoud et al., 2012), targeted to the nucleus. Using this sensor, auxin distribution was mapped during gravity sensing and lateral shoot formation in Arabidopsis. For mammalian cells, e.g., a variety of GFP-based biosensors exist for kinases, GTPases, phosphatidylinositols (PtdIns) (Kimber et al., 2002; Yoshizaki et al., 2006; Zhang and Allen, 2007). Such sensors (PtdIns) have only recently emerged in the plant community (Munnik and Nielsen, 2011), probably because plants use different signaling components that cannot be targeted by sensors developed for mammalian systems.

pH measurements in acidic compartments

Sensors in plants have so far mainly been expressed in the cytosol, although several other compartments have also been explored (see Table 1). Indeed, targeted sensors are desirable, e.g., to study cell wall pH-dynamics (Gao et al., 2004; Gjetting et al., 2012). Sensor secretion to the apoplast involves accumulation of protein in transit in the endomembrane system, which is a problem to be considered carefully. This may be the reason that some researchers prefer pH-sensitive, small molecular weight fluorescent probes for surface pH measurements in Arabidopsis (Bibikova et al., 1998; Monshausen et al., 2011; Geilfus and Muhling, 2012). However, an apoplastic sensor, stably expressed in cells throughout the tissue, and not just the surface is preferable e.g., in roots to study details of the extracellular pH signature of gravitropic responses and auxin signaling (Swarup et al., 2005). The localization of pH sensors in the acidic compartment of the apoplast or vacuole is also hindered by the sensitivity of GFP to acidity (Tsien, 1998). The pH sensor ptGFP, derived from the Orange Seapen, Ptilosarcus gurneyi showed increased acid stability compared with avGFP derived pHluorins. PtGFP fluorescence could be fully restored after exposure to pH 3.5, and partially restored down to pH 2.5 and may therefore be more suitable for acidic measurements. In contrast, pHluorins were completely denatured at pH 3.5 (Schulte et al., 2006). Recently, a pHluorin-derived sensor, based on a solubility-modified GFP (sm-GFP) was targeted to the vacuole, and to other endomembrane compartments and used to determine pH of the different compartments (Shen et al., 2013).

Variety of FPs and technology

Expanding the variety of sensor fluorescent proteins, e.g., by the development of different FRET donor/acceptors would facilitate the study of several ions/metabolites simultaneously, e.g., the commonly linked signaling cascade of intracellular calcium/apoplastic pH, as well as same ion fluxes in several compartments or complex protein-protein interactions. Multiplexed FRET (Piljic and Schultz, 2008) and fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM)-FRET (Grant et al., 2008) are becoming more feasible as the variety of spectral variants increases. In N. benthamiana leaves a FRET-FLIM assay was used to detect known protein interactions using a FRET pair of the GFP variant TSapphire as donor, and mOrange as acceptor (Bayle et al., 2008). A similar approach was used to detect a flavonoid metabolon in Arabidopsis protoplasts (Crosby et al., 2011). These examples are not using genetically encoded sensors as such, and are based on transient expression in single cell systems, but further illustrate the possibilities of using fluorescent protein technology in plants and may be useful for sensor construction at a later stage.

Identification of new genes and gene function

Genetically encoded sensors may also be used to identify the role of genes of unknown function. A new class of glucose efflux transporters, SWEETs was identified by FRET-based glucose sensors (Chen et al., 2010), and repeated with a sucrose sensor, identifying a subclade of SWEET efflux transporters involved in sucrose transport, indicating a role in phloem loading (Chen et al., 2011). Another promising sensor application known from animal systems, addressed the functional identification of unknown signaling components. This idea was elegantly adapted to Arabidopsis, where the luminescent calcium sensor Aequorin was used to identify an extracellular signaling peptide, AtRALF1, (rapid alkalinization factor) by its ability to induce a cytosolic Ca2+-increase (Haruta et al., 2008). The effect of this peptide was subsequently analysed in detail in Arabidopsis roots expressing the Cameleon sensor YC3.6.

Concluding remarks

The use of genetically encoded sensors in plants faces some specific challenges not shared with the mammalian world, which need to be addressed by plant scientists. Nevertheless, the continuous development and refinement of fluorescent proteins, sensor design and bioimaging techniques make genetically encoded sensors very promising tools for elucidating metabolic networks and signaling events in plant cells in the future.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allen G. J., Chu S. P., Harrington C. L., Schumacher K., Hoffmann T., Tang Y. Y., et al. (2001). A defined range of guard cell calcium oscillation parameters encodes stomatal movements. Nature 411, 1053–1057 10.1038/35082575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen G. J., Chu S. P., Schumacher K., Shimazaki C. T., Vafeados D., Kemper A., et al. (2000). Alteration of stimulus-specific guard cell calcium oscillations and stomatal closing in Arabidopsis det3 mutant. Science 289, 2338–2342 10.1126/science.289.5488.2338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen G. J., Kuchitsu K., Chu S. P., Murata Y., Schroeder J. I. (1999a). Arabidopsis abi1-1 and abi2-1 phosphatase mutations reduce abscisic acid-induced cytoplasmic calcium rises in guard cells. Plant Cell 11, 1785–1798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen G. J., Kwak J. M., Chu S. P., Llopis J., Tsien R. Y., Harper J. F., et al. (1999b). Cameleon calcium indicator reports cytoplasmic calcium dynamics in Arabidopsis guard cells. Plant J. 19, 735–747 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1999.00574.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen G. J., Murata Y., Chu S. P., Nafisi M., Schroeder J. I. (2002). Hypersensitivity of abscisic acid-induced cytosolic calcium increases in the Arabidopsis farnesyltransferase mutant era1-2. Plant Cell 14, 1649–1662 10.1105/tpc.010448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aronson D. E., Costantini L. M., Snapp E. L. (2011). Superfolder GFP is fluorescent in oxidizing environments when targeted via the Sec translocon. Traffic 12, 543–548 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2011.01168.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayle V., Nussaume L., Bhat R. A. (2008). Combination of novel green fluorescent protein mutant TSapphire and DsRed variant mOrange to set up a versatile in planta FRET-FLIM assay. Plant Physiol. 148, 51–60 10.1104/pp.108.117358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Belousov V. V., Fradkov A. F., Lukyanov K. A., Staroverov D. B., Shakhbazov K. S., Terskikh A. V., et al. (2006). Genetically encoded fluorescent indicator for intracellular hydrogen peroxide. Nat. Methods 3, 281–286 10.1038/nmeth866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bibikova T. N., Jacob T., Dahse I., Gilroy S. (1998). Localized changes in apoplastic and cytoplasmic pH are associated with root hair development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 125, 2925–2934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunoud G., Wells D. M., Oliva M., Larrieu A., Mirabet V., Burrow A. H., et al. (2012). A novel sensor to map auxin response and distribution at high spatio-temporal resolution. Nature 482, 103–106 10.1038/nature10791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Capoen W., Sun J., Wysham D., Otegui M. S., Venkateshwaran M., Hirsch S., et al. (2011). Nuclear membranes control symbiotic calcium signaling of legumes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 14348–14353 10.1073/pnas.1107912108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Certal A. C., Almeida R. B., Carvalho L. M., Wong E., Moreno N., Michard E., et al. (2008). Exclusion of a proton ATPase from the apical membrane is associated with cell polarity and tip growth in Nicotiana tabacum pollen tubes. Plant Cell 20, 614–634 10.1105/tpc.106.047423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chaudhuri B., Hormann F., Frommer W. B. (2011). Dynamic imaging of glucose flux impedance using FRET sensors in wild-type Arabidopsis plants. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 2411–2417 10.1093/jxb/erq444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chaudhuri B., Hormann F., Lalonde S., Brady S. M., Orlando D. A., Benfey P., et al. (2008). Protonophore- and pH-insensitive glucose and sucrose accumulation detected by FRET nanosensors in Arabidopsis root tips. Plant J. 56, 948–962 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03652.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen L. Q., Hou B. H., Lalonde S., Takanaga H., Hartung M. L., Qu X. Q., et al. (2010). Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468, 527–532 10.1038/nature09606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen L. Q., Qu X. Q., Hou B. H., Sosso D., Osorio S., Fernie A. R., et al. (2011). Sucrose efflux mediated by SWEET proteins as a key step for phloem transport. Science 335, 207–211 10.1126/science.1213351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Choi W. G., Swanson S. J., Gilroy S. (2012). High-resolution imaging of Ca2+, redox status, ROS and pH using GFP biosensors. Plant J. 70, 118–128 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.04917.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chudakov D. M., Matz M. V., Lukyanov S., Lukyanov K. A. (2010). Fluorescent proteins and their applications in imaging living cells and tissues. Physiol. Rev. 90, 1103–1163 10.1152/physrev.00038.2009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Costa A., Drago I., Behera S., Zottini M., Pizzo P., Schroeder J. I., et al. (2010). H2O2 in plant peroxisomes: an in vivo analysis uncovers a Ca2+-dependent scavenging system. Plant J. 62, 760–772 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04190.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crosby K. C., Pietraszewska-Bogiel A., Gadella T. W., Jr., Winkel B. S. (2011). Forster resonance energy transfer demonstrates a flavonoid metabolon in living plant cells that displays competitive interactions between enzymes. FEBS Lett. 585, 2193–2198 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.05.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Deuschle K., Chaudhuri B., Okumoto S., Lager I., Lalonde S., Frommer W. B. (2006). Rapid metabolism of glucose detected with FRET glucose nanosensors in epidermal cells and intact roots of Arabidopsis RNA-silencing mutants. Plant Cell 18, 2314–2325 10.1105/tpc.106.044073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dixit R., Cyr R., Gilroy S. (2006). Using intrinsically fluorescent proteins for plant cell imaging. Plant J. 45, 599–615 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02658.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ehrhardt D. W., Frommer W. B. (2012). New technologies for 21st century plant science. Plant Cell 24, 374–394 10.1105/tpc.111.093302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Elsliger M. A., Wachter R. M., Hanson G. T., Kallio K., Remington S. J. (1999). Structural and spectral response of green fluorescent protein variants to changes in pH. Biochemistry 38, 5296–5301 10.1021/bi9902182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fasano J. M., Swanson S. J., Blancaflor E. B., Dowd P. E., Kao T. H., Gilroy S. (2001). Changes in root cap pH are required for the gravity response of the Arabidopsis root. Plant Cell 13, 907–921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fehr M., Ehrhardt D. W., Lalonde S., Frommer W. B. (2004). Minimally invasive dynamic imaging of ions and metabolites in living cells. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 345–351 10.1016/j.pbi.2004.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Frommer W. B., Davidson M. W., Campbell R. E. (2009). Genetically encoded biosensors based on engineered fluorescent proteins. Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 2833–2841 10.1039/b907749a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gao D., Knight M. R., Trewavas A. J., Sattelmacher B., Plieth C. (2004). Self-reporting Arabidopsis expressing pH and Ca2+ indicators unveil ion dynamics in the cytoplasm and in the apoplast under abiotic stress. Plant Physiol. 134, 898–908 10.1104/pp.103.032508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Geilfus C. M., Muhling K. H. (2012). Transient alkalinization in the leaf apoplast of Vicia faba L. depends on NaCl stress intensity: an in situ ratio imaging study. Plant Cell Environ. 35, 578–587 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02437.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gjetting K. S., Ytting C. K., Schulz A., Fuglsang A. T. (2012). Live imaging of intra- and extracellular pH in plants using pHusion, a novel genetically encoded biosensor. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 3207–3218 10.1093/jxb/ers040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Grant D. M., Zhang W., McGhee E. J., Bunney T. D., Talbot C. B., Kumar S., et al. (2008). Multiplexed FRET to image multiple signaling events in live cells. Biophys. J. 95, L69–L71 10.1529/biophysj.108.139204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Grossmann G., Guo W. J., Ehrhardt D. W., Frommer W. B., Sit R. V., Quake S. R., et al. (2011). The RootChip: an integrated microfluidic chip for plant science. Plant Cell 23, 4234–4240 10.1105/tpc.111.092577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hanson G. T., Aggeler R., Oglesbee D., Cannon M., Capaldi R. A., Tsien R. Y., et al. (2004). Investigating mitochondrial redox potential with redox-sensitive green fluorescent protein indicators. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 13044–13053 10.1074/jbc.M312846200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Haruta M., Monshausen G., Gilroy S., Sussman M. R. (2008). A cytoplasmic Ca2+ functional assay for identifying and purifying endogenous cell signaling peptides in Arabidopsis seedlings: identification of AtRALF1 peptide. Biochemistry 47, 6311–6321 10.1021/bi8001488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hugouvieux V., Kwak J. M., Schroeder J. I. (2001). An mRNA cap binding protein, ABH1, modulates early abscisic acid signal transduction in Arabidopsis. Cell 106, 477–487 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00460-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Islam M. M., Hossain M. A., Jannat R., Munemasa S., Nakamura Y., Mori I. C., et al. (2010). Cytosolic alkalization and cytosolic calcium oscillation in arabidopsis guard cells response to ABA and MeJA. Plant Cell Physiol. 51, 1721–1730 10.1093/pcp/pcq131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Iwano M., Entani T., Shiba H., Kakita M., Nagai T., Mizuno H., et al. (2009). Fine-tuning of the cytoplasmic Ca2+ concentration is essential for pollen tube growth. Plant Physiol. 150, 1322–1334 10.1104/pp.109.139329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Iwano M., Shiba H., Miwa T., Che F. S., Takayama S., Nagai T., et al. (2004). Ca2+ dynamics in a pollen grain and papilla cell during pollination of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 136, 3562–3571 10.1104/pp.104.046961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jiang K., Schwarzer C., Lally E., Zhang S., Ruzin S., Machen T., et al. (2006). Expression and characterization of a redox-sensing green fluorescent protein (reduction-oxidation-sensitive green fluorescent protein) in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 141, 397–403 10.1104/pp.106.078246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kimber W. A., Trinkle-Mulcahy L., Cheung P. C., Deak M., Marsden L. J., Kieloch A., et al. (2002). Evidence that the tandem-pleckstrin-homology-domain-containing protein TAPP1 interacts with Ptd(3, 4)P2 and the multi-PDZ-domain-containing protein MUPP1 in vivo. Biochem. J. 361, 525–536 10.1042/0264-6021:3610525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Klusener B., Young J. J., Murata Y., Allen G. J., Mori I. C., Hugouvieux V., et al. (2002). Convergence of calcium signaling pathways of pathogenic elicitors and abscisic acid in Arabidopsis guard cells. Plant Physiol. 130, 2152–2163 10.1104/pp.012187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kosuta S., Hazledine S., Sun J., Miwa H., Morris R. J., Downie J. A., et al. (2008). Differential and chaotic calcium signatures in the symbiosis signaling pathway of legumes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 9823–9828 10.1073/pnas.0803499105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Krebs M., Held K., Binder A., Hashimoto K., Den Herder G., Parniske M., et al. (2012). FRET-based genetically encoded sensors allow high-resolution live cell imaging of Ca2+ dynamics. Plant J. 69, 181–192 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04780.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kuner T., Augustine G. J. (2000). A genetically encoded ratiometric indicator for chloride: capturing chloride transients in cultured hippocampal neurons. Neuron 27, 447–459 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00056-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lalonde S., Ehrhardt D. W., Frommer W. B. (2005). Shining light on signaling and metabolic networks by genetically encoded biosensors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8, 574–581 10.1016/j.pbi.2005.09.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lorenzen I., Aberle T., Plieth C. (2004). Salt stress-induced chloride flux: a study using transgenic Arabidopsis expressing a fluorescent anion probe. Plant J. 38, 539–544 10.1111/j.0960-7412.2004.02053.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mehlmer N., Parvin N., Hurst C. H., Knight M. R., Teige M., Vothknecht U. C. (2012). A toolset of aequorin expression vectors for in planta studies of subcellular calcium concentrations in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 1751–1761 10.1093/jxb/err406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mehta S., Zhang J. (2011). Reporting from the field: genetically encoded fluorescent reporters uncover signaling dynamics in living biological systems. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 80, 375–401 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060409-093259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Michard E., Dias P., Feijo J. (2008). Tobacco pollen tubes as cellular models for ion dynamics: improved spatial and temporal resolution of extracellular flux and free cytosolic concentration of calcium and protons using pHluorin and YC3.1 Cameleon. Sex Plant Reprod. 21, 169–181 10.1007/s00497-008-0076-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Michard E., Lima P. T., Borges F., Silva A. C., Portes M. T., Carvalho J. E., et al. (2011). Glutamate receptor-like genes form Ca2+ channels in pollen tubes and are regulated by pistil D-serine. Science 332, 434–437 10.1126/science.1201101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Miesenbock G., De Angelis D. A., Rothman J. E. (1998). Visualizing secretion and synaptic transmission with pH-sensitive green fluorescent proteins. Nature 394, 192–195 10.1038/28190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Miwa H., Sun J., Oldroyd G. E., Downie J. A. (2006a). Analysis of Nod-factor-induced calcium signaling in root hairs of symbiotically defective mutants of Lotus japonicus. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 19, 914–923 10.1094/MPMI-19-0914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Miwa H., Sun J., Oldroyd G. E., Downie J. A. (2006b). Analysis of calcium spiking using a Cameleon calcium sensor reveals that nodulation gene expression is regulated by calcium spike number and the developmental status of the cell. Plant J. 48, 883–894 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02926.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Miyawaki A. (2011). Proteins on the move: insights gained from fluorescent protein technologies. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 656–668 10.1038/nrm3199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Miyawaki A., Griesbeck O., Heim R., Tsien R. Y. (1999). Dynamic and quantitative Ca2+ measurements using improved Cameleons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 2135–2140 10.1073/pnas.96.5.2135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Miyawaki A., Llopis J., Heim R., McCaffery J. M., Adams J. A., Ikura M., et al. (1997). Fluorescent indicators for Ca2+ based on green fluorescent proteins and calmodulin. Nature 388, 882–887 10.1038/42264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Monshausen G. B., Bibikova T. N., Messerli M. A., Shi C, Gilroy S. (2007). Oscillations in extracellular pH and reactive oxygen species modulate tip growth of Arabidopsis root hairs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 20996–21001 10.1073/pnas.0708586104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Monshausen G. B., Bibikova T. N., Weisenseel M. H., Gilroy S. (2009). Ca2+ regulates reactive oxygen species production and pH during mechanosensing in Arabidopsis roots. Plant Cell 21, 2341–2356 10.1105/tpc.109.068395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Monshausen G. B., Messerli M. A., Gilroy S. (2008). Imaging of the Yellow Cameleon 3.6 indicator reveals that elevations in cytosolic Ca2+ follow oscillating increases in growth in root hairs of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 147, 1690–1698 10.1104/pp.108.123638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Monshausen G. B., Miller N. D., Murphy A. S., Gilroy S. (2011). Dynamics of auxin-dependent Ca2+ and pH signaling in root growth revealed by integrating high-resolution imaging with automated computer vision-based analysis. Plant J. 65, 309–318 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04423.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Moseyko N., Feldman L. J. (2001). Expression of pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 24, 557–563 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00703.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Munemasa S., Hossain M. A., Nakamura Y., Mori I. C., Murata Y. (2011). The Arabidopsis calcium-dependent protein kinase, CPK6, functions as a positive regulator of methyl jasmonate signaling in guard cells. Plant Physiol. 155, 553–561 10.1104/pp.110.162750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Munnik T., Nielsen E. (2011). Green light for polyphosphoinositide signals in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 14, 489–497 10.1016/j.pbi.2011.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Nagai T., Yamada S., Tominaga T., Ichikawa M., Miyawaki A. (2004). Expanded dynamic range of fluorescent indicators for Ca2+ by circularly permuted yellow fluorescent proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 10554–10559 10.1073/pnas.0400417101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Newman R. H., Fosbrink M. D., Zhang J. (2011). Genetically encodable fluorescent biosensors for tracking signaling dynamics in living cells. Chem. Rev. 111, 3614–3666 10.1021/cr100002u [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Okumoto S. (2010). Imaging approach for monitoring cellular metabolites and ions using genetically encoded biosensors. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21, 45–54 10.1016/j.copbio.2010.01.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Okumoto S. (2012). Quantitative imaging using genetically encoded sensors for small molecules in plants. Plant J. 70, 108–117 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.04910.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Okumoto S., Jones A., Frommer W. B. (2012). Quantitative imaging with fluorescent biosensors: advanced tools for spatiotemporal analysis of biodynamics in cells. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 663–706 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Palmer A. E., Giacomello M., Kortemme T., Hires S. A., Lev-Ram V., Baker D., et al. (2006). Ca2+ indicators based on computationally redesigned calmodulin-peptide pairs. Chem. Biol. 13, 521–530 10.1016/j.chembiol.2006.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Palmer A. E., Qin Y., Park J. G., McCombs J. E. (2011). Design and application of genetically encoded biosensors. Trends Biotechnol. 29, 144–152 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Piljic A., Schultz C. (2008). Simultaneous recording of multiple cellular events by FRET. ACS Chem. Biol. 3, 156–160 10.1021/cb700247q [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Plieth C., Saleh L. (2013). A9C sensitive Cl(-)-accumulation in A. thaliana root cells during salt stress is controlled by internal and external calcium. Plant Signal. Behav. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Plieth C., Sattelmacher B., Trewavas A., Hansen U., Knight M. (2001). Engineering plants expressiong calcium and pH indicators in the cytoplasm and the apoplast. Plant Nutri. 92, 252–253 10.1007/0-306-47624-X_121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rincon-Zachary M., Teaster N. D., Sparks J. A., Valster A. H., Motes C. M., Blancaflor E. B. (2010). Fluorescence resonance energy transfer-sensitized emission of yellow Cameleon 3.60 reveals root zone-specific calcium signatures in Arabidopsis in response to aluminum and other trivalent cations. Plant Physiol. 152, 1442–1458 10.1104/pp.109.147256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Rosenwasser S., Rot I., Meyer A. J., Feldman L., Jiang K., Friedman H. (2010). A fluorometer-based method for monitoring oxidation of redox-sensitive GFP (roGFP) during development and extended dark stress. Physiol. Plant 138, 493–502 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2009.01334.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Schulte A., Lorenzen I., Bottcher M., Plieth C. (2006). A novel fluorescent pH probe for expression in plants. Plant Methods 2, 7 10.1186/1746-4811-2-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Schwarzlander M., Fricker M. D., Muller C., Marty L., Brach T., Novak J., et al. (2008). Confocal imaging of glutathione redox potential in living plant cells. J. Microsc. 231, 299–316 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2008.02030.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Schwarzlander M., Fricker M. D., Sweetlove L. J. (2009). Monitoring the in vivo redox state of plant mitochondria: effect of respiratory inhibitors, abiotic stress and assessment of recovery from oxidative challenge. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1787, 468–475 10.1016/j.bbabio.2009.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Shen J., Zeng Y., Zhuang X., Sun L., Yao X., Pimpl P., et al. (2013). Organelle pH in the Arabidopsis endomembrane system. Mol. Plant. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1093/mp/sst079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sieberer B. J., Chabaud M., Timmers A. C., Monin A., Fournier J., Barker D. G. (2009). A nuclear-targeted Cameleon demonstrates intranuclear Ca2+ spiking in Medicago truncatula root hairs in response to rhizobial nodulation factors. Plant Physiol. 151, 1197–1206 10.1104/pp.109.142851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Siegel R. S., Xue S., Murata Y., Yang Y., Nishimura N., Wang A., et al. (2009). Calcium elevation-dependent and attenuated resting calcium-dependent abscisic acid induction of stomatal closure and abscisic acid-induced enhancement of calcium sensitivities of S-type anion and inward-rectifying K channels in Arabidopsis guard cells. Plant J. 59, 207–220 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03872.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Sun J., Miwa H., Downie J. A., Oldroyd G. E. (2007). Mastoparan activates calcium spiking analogous to Nod factor-induced responses in Medicago truncatula root hair cells. Plant Physiol. 144, 695–702 10.1104/pp.106.093294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Swanson S. J., Choi W. G., Chanoca A., Gilroy S. (2011). In vivo imaging of Ca2+, pH, and reactive oxygen species using fluorescent probes in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 62, 273–297 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Swarup R., Kramer E. M., Perry P., Knox K., Leyser H. M., Haseloff J., et al. (2005). Root gravitropism requires lateral root cap and epidermal cells for transport and response to a mobile auxin signal. Nat. Cell Biol. 7, 1057–1065 10.1038/ncb1316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tsien R. Y. (1998). The green fluorescent protein. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 509–544 10.1146/annurev.biochem.67.1.509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. VanEngelenburg S. B., Palmer A. E. (2008). Fluorescent biosensors of protein function. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12, 60–65 10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. van Leeuwen W., Vermeer J. E., Gadella T. W., Jr., Munnik T. (2007). Visualization of phosphatidylinositol 4, 5-bisphosphate in the plasma membrane of suspension-cultured tobacco BY-2 cells and whole Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant J. 52, 1014–1026 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03292.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Vermeer J. E., Thole J. M., Goedhart J., Nielsen E., Munnik T., Gadella T. W., Jr. (2009). Imaging phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate dynamics in living plant cells. Plant J. 57, 356–372 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03679.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Vermeer J. E., van Leeuwen W., Tobena-Santamaria R., Laxalt A. M., Jones D. R., Divecha N., et al. (2006). Visualization of PtdIns3P dynamics in living plant cells. Plant J. 47, 687–700 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02830.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Watahiki M. K., Trewavas A. J., Parton R. M. (2004). Fluctuations in the pollen tube tip-focused calcium gradient are not reflected in nuclear calcium level: a comparative analysis using recombinant yellow Cameleon calcium reporter. Sex. Plant Reprod. 17, 125–130 10.1007/s00497-004-0224-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Weinl S., Held K., Schlucking K., Steinhorst L., Kuhlgert S., Hippler M., et al. (2008). A plastid protein crucial for Ca2+-regulated stomatal responses. New Phytol. 179, 675–686 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02492.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Yang H., Bogner M., Stierhof Y. D., Ludewig U. (2010). H-independent glutamine transport in plant root tips. PLoS ONE 5:e8917 10.1371/journal.pone.0008917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Yoshizaki H., Aoki K., Nakamura T., Matsuda M. (2006). Regulation of RalA GTPase by phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase as visualized by FRET probes. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 34, 851–854 10.1042/BST0340851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Young J. J., Mehta S., Israelsson M., Godoski J., Grill E., Schroeder J. I. (2006). CO2 signaling in guard cells: calcium sensitivity response modulation, a Ca2+-independent phase, and CO(2) insensitivity of the gca2 mutant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 7506–7511 10.1073/pnas.0602225103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhang J., Allen M. D. (2007). FRET-based biosensors for protein kinases: illuminating the kinome. Mol. Biosyst. 3, 759–765 10.1039/b706628g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Plant Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES