How to watch plant cells build a cell wall without killing them

Plant cells without a cell wall are fragile, so it's hard to image its construction.

See full article...

 

[iquanyin]

fascinating. tiny life!

 

[randomcat]

watching the microscopic video gave me an overwhelming urge to order a batch of sea-monkeys

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

Every time I see anything about cell biology, I get super impressed all over again. Each cell is a machine of insane complexity, orders of magnitude more intricate than anything humans have ever made. And we have billions of them in every human.

The Space Shuttle at one point was considered the most complex machine ever made, and I'd argue that maybe modern microprocessors are even more intricate, but they're just not even close to a single cell in a single creature.

 

[Flailsafe]

What's the bright mouse-movement-like zig zag that keeps showing up, such as at 1:09?

Did miss something?

Edit: oh is it a tracer of the celluose fibers mentioned?

 

[jdearr]

Unbelievably cool to see that the searching and joining mechanism at the cell-wall level could grow into the searching tendrils of pole beans or melons, for example. Just a fascinating look through the microscopic.

 

[85mm]

With all the work evolution has put into optimising this process, is the final idea of engineering a more efficient cell realistic, or is it funding bait?

 

[Rene Gollent]

With all the work evolution has put into optimising this process, is the final idea of engineering a more efficient cell realistic, or is it funding bait?

In many cases the solutions evolution arrives at are essentially "good enough"; unless there's a fitness function forcing a better outcome there's no reason to assume the evolved system is optimal.

 

[org]

Also I think a big part of why it might be possible is that our definition of "a more efficient cell" is different from evolution's. You might optimize algae to be more efficient at fixing carbon, for example, at the expense of disease resistance.

In a way it's what we've been doing for thousands of years with agricultural varietals. They are a lot more efficient (at producing edible calories) than the original species. But they wouldn't survive for a second without us.

 

[MrTom]

Looks like a bunch of worms.

 

[Fatesrider]

The next steps, the team indicates, will include recording the process in 3D with fluorescent tags attached to other chemicals and enzymes.

I do have to wonder how much, if at all, those chemicals and enzymes effect the process?

After all, NORMALLY these processes happen without those other chemicals and enzymes. So it seems reasonable to inquire about whether or how those foreign agents are impacting the process. That they got it to work in the first place was pretty good. But was what was observed IDENTICAL to what happens without the other chemicals and enzymes used to allow the observed effects?

A subtle effect could be speeding up, or slowing down, the processes. Is there some way to determine if the way the observations were made haven't in some way altered the thing being observed? (And no, I don't expect they used cells from Schrödinger's Cat's favorite tree to do this.)

Just curious about that, since the article didn't mention any possible impacts the method of observation might have had on the cells, other than it was hard to do.

 

[aturing]

This is Nobel Prize level work, coming from Rutgers University in New Jersey and funded by the Biden administration’s sane & sensible federal government.

With Trump taking a wrecking ball to the National Science Foundation, we will now have to wait for the rest of this story to be discovered & published by scientists in other countries…

 

[daveishereagain]

With all the work evolution has put into optimising this process, is the final idea of engineering a more efficient cell realistic, or is it funding bait?

As I've said here many times, understanding how the universe works has its own intrinsic and self-evident 'worth'.
Basic research has a way of providing paths not even contemplated with the original intent.

Edit- and more to the point (as pointed out above), evolution is far from 'optimal' but constricted to finding a niche for the life form/species to flourish and ending there. If it were optimal, extinction would not be a thing.

 

[ColdWetDog]

With all the work evolution has put into optimising this process, is the final idea of engineering a more efficient cell realistic, or is it funding bait?

Yes to both. Sort of. They have lots and lots of work to do before they can think about 'optimizing' the process. Lots of expensive work. So one traditionally puts a paragraph in a paper / grant proposal that says it will a) cure cancer b) cure baldness c) address some socially important objective.

You don't expect the people with the money to be wowed by just neat science.

 

[Nalyd]

Finally we may have the technology to create lab-grown vegetable matter, ridding us of the heinous need to subjugate and slaughter living plants!

 

[niwax]

Yes to both. Sort of. They have lots and lots of work to do before they can think about 'optimizing' the process. Lots of expensive work. So one traditionally puts a paragraph in a paper / grant proposal that says it will a) cure cancer b) cure baldness c) address some socially important objective.

You don't expect the people with the money to be wowed by just neat science.

Then again, since we were fundamentally very wrong about how cell walls formed before, there might be some very direct applications in understanding why certain things work. Say a weed killer that we couldn’t explain but that worked miraculously well - except all our attempts at making it more potent by preventing cell formation seemed to make it worse. (Example entirely made up)

There are a ton of these in everything involving biology. As much as we have an incredible understanding of things I’d never thought possible, tuning any product from fertilizer to cancer drugs is still guesswork.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

Living big in a tiny house

 

[nartreb]

I do have to wonder how much, if at all, those chemicals and enzymes effect the process?

After all, NORMALLY these processes happen without those other chemicals and enzymes. So it seems reasonable to inquire about whether or how those foreign agents are impacting the process. That they got it to work in the first place was pretty good. But was what was observed IDENTICAL to what happens without the other chemicals and enzymes used to allow the observed effects?

A subtle effect could be speeding up, or slowing down, the processes. Is there some way to determine if the way the observations were made haven't in some way altered the thing being observed? (And no, I don't expect they used cells from Schrödinger's Cat's favorite tree to do this.)

Just curious about that, since the article didn't mention any possible impacts the method of observation might have had on the cells, other than it was hard to do.

You're misreading the article. The "other chemicals and enzymes" they would like to observe next are things naturally present in the cell, that researchers presume are involved in the synthesis, transport, and assembly of cellulose. Plus things like pectin that we know end up in the cell wall somehow (but we don't know how or when), plus enzymes and whatnot that we think might be involved in the transport of pectin.
It seems quite possible that our guesses about which molecules are involved in these processes will be wrong. There might be whole classes of enzymes we've never noticed before. We won't know until we do the experiments. This is exciting stuff.

Great work, and an excellent writeup by Krywko as usual.

I do have one cavil: I think it's worth explaining where plant protoplasts come from. As far as I know, they are not found in nature. Scientists create them by enzymatically removing the cell walls of normal plant cells, usually to gain easier access to the membrane. (Or sometimes to make it easier to fuse cells together, or sometimes it's a first step toward selecting particular cells from within plant tissue.)

This means there may be some differences between cell wall formation as observed outside a protoplast and as it occurs in the wild. Cell walls don't generally start from zero. The presence of existing cell walls as a template may be important. But I'm optimistic. After cell division there is a wall-less membrane between the two new cells, where a new wall seems to built from scratch along the membrane (not extended from existing walls). I won't be surprised if spatial constraints (narrow space between the two cell membranes) make a difference to the dynamics of cellulose assembly, but there should be more than enough similarity to let us learn a lot.

 

[Uncivil Servant]

In many cases the solutions evolution arrives at are essentially "good enough"; unless there's a fitness function forcing a better outcome there's no reason to assume the evolved system is optimal.

After a certain age, I'd think the phrase "knees and back" would be the obvious counterpoint to any idea that evolved systems are optimal, and yet it's still such a difficult point for people to get.

 

[Uncivil Servant]

Finally we may have the technology to create lab-grown vegetable matter, ridding us of the heinous need to subjugate and slaughter living plants!

Yes, but what about all the Naugas and Rayons and Polyester farms? Why won't anyone think of the poor polyester farmer in all of this?

 

[Chuckstar]

In many cases the solutions evolution arrives at are essentially "good enough"; unless there's a fitness function forcing a better outcome there's no reason to assume the evolved system is optimal.

Also, that it’s really one huge optimization function being applied across all of an organism’s traits. In total, organisms are much more highly optimized than if you were to just analyze any one trait.

 

[WalterFrank]

Scientists used some fancy imaging tech. It lets them capture the process in real-time without messing with the cells. Basically, they got to watch how cellulose is made without harming the plant.

 

[RZetopan]

In many cases the solutions evolution arrives at are essentially "good enough"; unless there's a fitness function forcing a better outcome there's no reason to assume the evolved system is optimal.

The human eye, relative to the cephalopod and mantis shrimp versions, and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve are both examples of relatively poor “designs” that evolution produced.

https://animalsfyi.com/octopus-eyes-and-vision/*
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-mantis-shrimp-world-eyesbut.html
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/s...nintelligent-design-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve

*This article is dated. While octopodes lack color vision in their eyes, recent research indicates that their skin can actually sense colors.

 

[Veritas super omens]

As I've said here many times, understanding how the universe works has its own intrinsic and self-evident 'worth'.
Basic research has a way of providing paths not even contemplated with the original intent.

Edit- and more to the point (as pointed out above), evolution is far from 'optimal' but constricted to finding a niche for the life form/species to flourish and ending there. If it were optimal, extinction would not be a thing.

Optimal of course meaning optimal in a certain set of conditions.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Finally we may have the technology to create lab-grown vegetable matter, ridding us of the heinous need to subjugate and slaughter living plants!

But if it is "growing" isn't it living? Isn't it better to eat one cow and save billions and billions of grass and grain lives?

 

[DovePig]

But if it is "growing" isn't it living? Isn't it better to eat one cow and save billions and billions of grass and grain lives?

Only if it's a spherical cow grazing on Sun's radiation in vacuum...

 

[gallahad]

Put on some dubstep and play that video in winamp and you've got a party

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

What's the bright mouse-movement-like zig zag that keeps showing up, such as at 1:09?

Did miss something?

Edit: oh is it a tracer of the celluose fibers mentioned?

It is just the center of the short cellulose fiber highlighted, and traced to show its random movement.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

Scientists used some fancy imaging tech. It lets them capture the process in real-time without messing with the cells. Basically, they got to watch how cellulose is made without harming the plant.

That's not at all what happened. These are loose plant cells placed on something like a petri dish or a microscope slide. The imaging tech is just an existing type of microscope, and they have absolutely messed with the cells to attach fluorescent molecules to the cellulose, as was very clearly described in this article, which you apparently didn't read.

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

Well, that is one previously unanswered question what is partially walled off ...

Seeing this process unfold led to a few unanswered questions. “Cells assemble walls from very small pieces that somehow find each other. Is it an energy-driven process that uses energy to proceed in a specific direction, or a stochastic process based on random collisions?” Lam wondered. “We don’t know, but we will find out.”

My initial reaction was that it looks like random diffusion with a smidgen of energy gain in building fibers as almost always. But that is mostly a reaction to how different it looks from previous guesses which are based on e.g. flagella extrusion:

Also, that it’s really one huge optimization function being applied across all of an organism’s traits. In total, organisms are much more highly optimized than if you were to just analyze any one trait.

No, we know from population genetics that it is very piecemeal with some loci being subjected to either negative (fixating) selection, positive (adaptive) selection or drifting. The selfish gene (or genes, in polygenic traits) is the vehicle of selection, not the organism, the group or the species (or at least, though theoretically possible it has never been observed).

In fact in mice 95 % of loci are drifting, merely "good enough for survival". It is even all what quasispecies populations of some viruses and cancer cells - and as we recently learned, pre-genetic code evolution populations - are subjected to, a mutational flat fitness landscape with little optimization. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2410311121 Yet these populations can be highly successful which flu infections, cancers and modern cells can attest to.

 

[Chuckstar]

Well, that is one previously unanswered question what is partially walled off ...

My initial reaction was that it looks like random diffusion with a smidgen of energy gain in building fibers as almost always. But that is mostly a reaction to how different it looks from previous guesses which are based on e.g. flagella extrusion:



No, we know from population genetics that it is very piecemeal with some loci being subjected to either negative (fixating) selection, positive (adaptive) selection or drifting. The selfish gene (or genes, in polygenic traits) is the vehicle of selection, not the organism, the group or the species (or at least, though theoretically possible it has never been observed).

In fact in mice 95 % of loci are drifting, merely "good enough for survival". It is even all what quasispecies populations of some viruses and cancer cells - and as we recently learned, pre-genetic code evolution populations - are subjected to, a mutational flat fitness landscape with little optimization. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2410311121 Yet these populations can be highly successful which flu infections, cancers and modern cells can attest to.

This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. There’s only a single optimization function — survival until reproduction. Evolution balances all traits simultaneously across that function. I don’t know what you think some drive-by link proves, except maybe that you don’t understand how evolution works.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. There’s only a single optimization function — survival until reproduction. Evolution balances all traits simultaneously across that function. I don’t know what you think some drive-by link proves, except maybe that you don’t understand how evolution works.

You're both right in your own ways, but you're talking past each other.

 

[Chuckstar]

You're both right in your own ways, but you're talking past each other.

I’ve only made one point that they tried to refute. If I’m right, I’m not talking past anyone, just defending my point.