The astute student however, will note that this interpretation is not quite universal, as some researchers further postulate the existence of a fourth “Organizing Center” inserted between the CZ and RM tissues. Although not shown in Figure 2.0, the OC is equivalent to the rounded apex of L3, pushing the remaining part of the RM somewhat deeper into the stem. Until better genetic evidence is available though, only CZ, PZ, and RM will be used for the remainder of this dissertation. While the numbering system shown in Figure 12 does provide a useful set of spatial coordinates, it is also somewhat misleading as it implies that the SAM is static structure, unchanging over time. This could not be further from the truth. Instead, it must be remembered that the SAM is a site of plant growth, and as a result its cells are in a state of constant flux as they divide, grow, and differentiate. For example, the repeated perpendicular divisions that occur in L1 and L2 actually cause these layers to expand sideways, where the displaced cells eventually bend around the curve of the apical dome and become part of the cylindrical stem surface. The motion is reminiscent of the path taken by water droplets in an umbrella-shaped fountain, though the individual plant cells move considerably slower. If growth by lateral displacement is followed to its logical extremes, it is important to note that all of the founding cells will be pushed off to the sides over time, while new ones take their place in the middle. No single cell in the SAM is a permanent resident. The overall shape and size of an SAM is perhaps more analogous to a standing wave,growing pot where stability is the illusion caused by a dynamic equilibrium. Maintaining that wave is of course a difficult challenge, as the inputs to that equilibrium must be precisely matched to its outputs at all times.

Failure todo so would quickly rob the plant of its ability to grow, with obvious consequences for survival. Exactly how this balance is maintained is not fully understood, but the motion of the cells makes at least one part of the process perfectly clear: the cells must change their identity as they are moved from one place to another. Those that start in the CZ for example, switch to PZ gene expression patterns as they move further away from the middle, and may later adopt leaf and flower identities as they are incorporated into mature organs.The ability of a cell to determine its location within the SAM structure is thus of paramount importance, yet it must do so in the absence of any stationary reference point. So far as currently understood, each cell solves this problem in exactly the same way a person would do so: it talks to its neighbors. Based on what the individual cell sees and what its neighbors report seeing, it is possible to work out exactly where the cell is located in the overall plant structure. Of course in actual plant tissues such communication occurs largely through to the exchange of proteins, hormones, and RNA molecules, though increasingly evidence suggests that mechanical forces in the cell wall may also contribute some information [2]. Some molecules can travel further distances than others, some are modified en-route in order to become functional, and still others move from cell to cell in precise patterns, much like the knight in a game of chess. When these molecules are produced in different areas of the plant, the surrounding cells can estimate their relative locations to each other simply by reading the chemical bar-code in their local milieu, and then develop accordingly. At the present time, only a few such routes of chemical communication have been identified, two of which are plant hormones: auxin and cytokinin. Auxin is best known for increasing the volume of cells, though it also has roles in apical dominance and tropism growth patterns. Cytokinin meanwhile is known for stimulating cell division, in addition to other roles in senescence and pathogen responses.

Together the function of the two hormones would appear to complement each other very well in terms of overall growth, yet within the SAM they appear to mix about as well as oil and water. Cells that respond to auxin often don’t respond to cytokinin, and vice versa. Why this should be so is not well understood, but studies of root vasculature development suggest that their mutual exclusion is actually used to generate spontaneous patterns that help guide plant development. In callus tissue, the two hormones are often found to have response patterns arranged in a polka-dot like arrays, where each hormone “dot” is surrounded by a circular field belonging to the other. The SAM is organized around a single such dot, where cytokinin responses occur in the RM, and auxin responses occur in the PZ which often occur in discrete foci corresponding to new lateral organs. The CZ cells in contrast, do not appear to be sensitive to either hormone, but instead express both auxin and cytokinin biosynthesis genes . The production of cytokinin in the L1 and L2 is also consistent with the distribution of bioactive cytokinin concentrations observed with immunological techniques and with GFP reporter systems. This suggests a stable arrangement of three mutual exclusion zones within the SAM, which closely correspond to the known CZ, PZ, and RM tissues. Root apical meristems in contrast, appear to be based on the reciprocal arrangement, as roots have an auxin response dot in the middle surrounded by cytokinin responses in the overarching root cap, concentrated in the root cap columella cells.Another potential communication system that has been extensively studied involves a potential feedback loop between the CZ and RM cells, thought to be carried out by WUS and CLV3. WUS is a homeodomain transcription factor produced exclusively within the RM, but is capable of moving 2-5 cell diameters away from its center of origin.

WUS has also been shown to activate transcription of CLAVATA3 in the overlying CZ cells by directly binding to the CLV3 promoter. CLV3 in turn, is thought to be a small secreted oligopeptide that is modified with a few arabinose sugars. The mature glycoprotein then travels through the apoplast to reach leucine-rich receptor kinases in the RM, such as CLV1 or BARELY ANY MERISTEM1, thereby triggering a signaling cascade that ultimately suppresses WUS transcription. Many of the intermediate biochemical steps however, have not yet been fully identified, which makes it difficult to fully reject the feedback loop null hypothesis. There is also evidence of a more complex set of feedback loops, as WUS has been found to regulate components of the cytokinin signal transduction pathway , and exogenous cytokinin are able to stimulate WUS transcription. Altered cytokinin signalling pathways have also been shown to affect CLV3 expression patterns. WUSCHEL-LIKE HOMEOBOX5 , which is closely related to WUS, is known to participate in auxin pathways within the root, while the generation of SAMs from callus or root tissue has repeatedly been shown to require a pre-incubation on auxin rich media, where it may actually stimulate auxin transport . Micro RNA molecules may also be involved, as a variant of AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 10 that was resistant to miR160a was able to increase WUS and CLV3 expression patterns. Clearly, there is a lot going on. To help clarify how such cross-talk contributes to SAM structure, the research presented in this dissertation explores two closely related subjects. The first is the regulation of CLV3, which was studied by resolving the promoter structure of this gene in chapter 3. The results suggest that CLV3 is regulated in part by auxin responses,square pot while activation and/or repression is likely to be controlled complicated set of cis-motifs in the 3’ enhancer region. The presence of these 3’ motifs in a known transposon also suggests a novel origin of the WUS/CLV3 feedback loop. Chapter 4 meanwhile, explores the possibility that WUS and cytokinin responses form a second feedback loop necessary for SAM structure. This was done by narrowing down the possible cellular and biochemical routes by which cytokinin could affect WUS transcription, translation, and protein movement. The results however, suggest that the two pathways are atlargely independent of each other, though cytokinin responses may increase WUS stability in the RM. Unexpectedly, the data also found that the absence of cytokinin responses in the CZ is a critical part of SAM structure. The cytokinin response-free cells were also found to have an enhanced protein degradation mechanism, which may help shape the WUS protein gradient. Interestingly, WUS proteins were found to be rapidly degraded following auxin treatments, suggesting a model in which the SAM structure is defined by cytokinin-induced stability in the RM, and auxin-induced protein degradation in the surrounding CZ and PZ cells.The WUS-CLV3 feedback loop has long been an attractive model to explain how SAM structure is maintained in a dynamically changing cellular environment. Simply by combining activation of CLV3 with the repression of WUS, computer simulations have repeatedly shown that this is sufficient to maintain constant population of cells with CZ and RM identity. However, despite the simplicity of this model, the molecular mechanisms that carry out the feedback loop have instead revealed a number of potential complications. On the forward path for example, WUS is known to be a bi-functional transcription factor, activating and repressing several hundred different target genes.

Currently it is not currently known exactly how WUS switches from activator to repressor, but it has been shown to directly bind to DNA motifs in AGAMOUS and CLV3 regulatory regions, where it activates their transcription. Additional binding sites on repressed targets such as KANADI1, YABBY3, ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 have also been identifie. Complicating this model of is the observation that CLV3 activation requires both WUS and SHOOTMERISTEMLESS in leaf tissues, suggesting that the presence of WUS alone is not sufficient. In addition WUS has also found to directly interact with the GRAS domain transcription factor HAMl, as well as the potent transcriptional repressor TOPLESS. TPL itself further has been shown to assemble a protein complex with Sin3 ASSOCIATED PROTEIN and HISTONE DEACETYLASE 19 [49, 50], suggesting a potential link between WUS and chromatin modification. In order to discriminate between the two models, this study began by attempting to identify the cis-regulatory environment around the CLV3 locus. The CLV3 expression pattern was firstcarefully recorded with a GFP reporter, which in contrast to previously published RNA in-situ’s, found layer-specific differences in CLV3 transcriptional output. The regulatory regions of CLV3 were then annotated by mapping predicted transcription factor binding sites and computationally significant cis-motifs, which were further resolved with phylogenetic footprinting. This analysis found that CLV3 has a very simple 5’ promoter, containing an auxin responsive element, suggestive of ubiquitous expression. The 3’ enhancer in contrast, contained at least 3 large cis-regulatory modules, two of which were found within a naturally occurring transposon, while the 3rd included several known WUS binding sites. On the basis of promoter deletion experiments, all three cis-regulatory modules were found to be required for CLV3 activation. The existence of the transposon in turn, has several implications for the evolution of the WUS-CLV3 feedback loop and Brassicaceae plant anatomy. Previous reports of the CLV3 expression pattern have consistently found it localized to the apex of the SAM, where it is often used as an indicator of CZ cell identity. Within this region, the expression pattern is somewhat variable, as previous RNA in-situ revealed a narrow inverted cone-shape, while GFP and GUS reporters often produce more indistinct rounded shape 3-4 cell layers deep. In contrast, the present study found a slightly more complex pattern when viewed as a longitudinal section. In perfectly centered sections, the pCLV3:mGFP5-ER reporter often appears in an inverted cone shape, but the expression zone is noticeably broader than the previous RNA in-situ results . As the section plane is displaced from the central axis and becomes more tangential, a conspicuous gap is frequently visible, where the L2 cells have less fluorescence than those immediately above and below. This suggests a bi-partite expression pattern where a flat, circular domain occurs specifically in the L1, and a second spherical domain occurs underneath in the L3 cells . In order to identify the CLV3 regulatory structure, this work began by annotating all known regulatory motifs on an 8kb genomic sequence centered on At2g27250.