The making of the architecture of the plant cell wall: How cells exploit geometry

Cell wall deposition is a key process in the formation, growth, and differentiation of plant cells. The most important structural components of the wall are long cellulose microfibrils, which are synthesized by synthases embedded in the plasma membrane. A fundamental question is how the microfibrils become oriented during deposition at the plasma membrane. The current textbook explanation for the orientation mechanism is a guidance system mediated by cortical microtubules. However, too many contraindications are known in secondary cell walls for this to be a universal mechanism, particularly in the case of helicoidal arrangements, which occur in many situations. An additional construction mechanism involves liquid crystalline self-assembly [A. C. Neville (1993) Biology of Fibrous Composites: Development Beyond the Cell Membrane (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.)], but the required amount of bulk material that is able to equilibrate thermally is not normally present at any stage of the wall deposition process. Therefore, we have asked whether the complex ordered texture of helicoidal cell walls can be formed in the absence of direct cellular guidance mechanisms. We propose that they can be formed by a mechanism that is based on geometrical considerations. It explains the genesis of the complicated helicoidal texture and shows that the cell has intrinsic, versatile tools for creating a variety of textures. A compelling feature of the model is that local rules generate global order, a typical phenomenon of life.

Declines of biomes and biotas and the future of evolution

Although panel discussants disagreed whether the biodiversity crisis constitutes a mass extinction event, all agreed that current extinction rates are 50–500 times background and are increasing and that the consequences for the future evolution of life are serious. In response to the on-going rapid decline of biomes and homogenization of biotas, the panelists predicted changes in species geographic ranges, genetic risks of extinction, genetic assimilation, natural selection, mutation rates, the shortening of food chains, the increase in nutrient-enriched niches permitting the ascendancy of microbes, and the differential survival of ecological generalists. Rates of evolutionary processes will change in different groups, and speciation in the larger vertebrates is essentially over. Action taken over the next few decades will determine how impoverished the biosphere will be in 1,000 years when many species will suffer reduced evolvability and require interventionist genetic and ecological management. Whether the biota will continue to provide the dependable ecological services humans take for granted is less clear. The discussants offered recommendations, including two of paramount importance (concerning human populations and education), seven identifying specific scientific activities to better equip us for stewardship of the processes of evolution, and one suggesting that such stewardship is now our responsibility. The ultimate test of evolutionary biology as a science is not whether it solves the riddles of the past but rather whether it enables us to manage the future of the biosphere. Our inability to make clearer predictions about the future of evolution has serious consequences for both biodiversity and humanity.