Spatial and temporal changes in multiple hormone groups during lateral bud release shortly following apex decapitation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seedlings

Although the co-ordination of promotive root-sourced cytokinin (CK) and inhibitory shoot apex-sourced auxin (IAA) is central to all current models on lateral bud dormancy release, control by those hormones alone has appeared inadequate in many studies. Thus it was hypothesized that the IAA : CK model is the central control but that it must be considered within the relevant timeframe leading to lateral bud release and against a backdrop of interactions with other hormone groups. Therefore, IAA and a wide survey of cytokinins (CKs), were examined along with abscisic acid (ABA) and polyamines (PAs) in released buds, tissue surrounding buds and xylem sap at 1 and 4 h after apex removal, when lateral buds of chickpea are known to break dormancy. Three potential lateral bud growth inhibitors, IAA, ABA and cis-zeatin 9-riboside (ZR), declined sharply in the released buds and xylem following decapitation. This is in contrast to potential dormancy breaking CKs like trans-ZR and trans-zeantin 9-riboside 5'phosphate (ZRMP), which represented the strongest correlative changes by increasing 3.5-fold in xylem sap and 22-fold in buds. PAs had not changed significantly in buds or other tissues after 4 h, so they were not directly involved in the breaking of bud dormancy. Results from the xylem and surrounding tissues indicated that bud CK increases resulted from a combination synthesis in the bud and selective loading of CK nucleotides into the xylem from the root.

Auxin dynamics after decapitation are not correlated with the initial growth of axillary buds

One of the first and most enduring roles identified for the plant hormone auxin is the mediation of apical dominance. Many reports have claimed that reduced stem indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) levels and/ or reduced basipetal IAA transport directly or indirectly initiate bud growth in decapitated plants. We have tested whether auxin inhibits the initial stage of bud release, or subsequent stages, in garden pea (Pisum sativum) by providing a rigorous examination of the dynamics of auxin level, auxin transport, and axillary bud growth. We demonstrate that after decapitation, initial bud growth occurs prior to changes in IAA level or transport in surrounding stem tissue and is not prevented by an acropetal supply of exogenous auxin. We also show that auxin transport inhibitors cause a similar auxin depletion as decapitation, but do not stimulate bud growth within our experimental time- frame. These results indicate that decapitation may trigger initial bud growth via an auxin-independent mechanism. We propose that auxin operates after this initial stage, mediating apical dominance via autoregulation of buds that are already in transition toward sustained growth.

Long-distance signalling and a mutational analysis of branching in pea

Four ramosus mutants with increased branching at basal and aerial nodes have been used to investigate the genetic regulation of bud outgrowth in Pisum sativum L. (garden pea). Studies of long-distance signalling, xylem sap cytokinin concentrations, shoot auxin level, auxin transport and auxin response are discussed. A model of branching control is presented that encompasses two graft-transmissible signals in addition to auxin and cytokinin. Mutants rms1 through rms4 are not deficient in indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) or in the basipetal transport of this hormone. Three of the four mutants, rms1, rms3 and rms4, have very reduced cytokinin concentrations in xylem sap from roots. This reduction in xylem sap cytokinin concentration appears to be caused by a property of the shoot and may be part of a feedback mechanism induced by an aspect of bud outgrowth. The shoot-to-root feedback signal is unlikely to be auxin itself, as auxin levels and transport are not correlated with xylem sap cytokinin concentrations in various intact and grafted mutant and wild-type plants. Rms1 and Rms2 act in shoot and rootstock to regulate the level or transport of graft-transmissible signals. Various grafting studies and double mutant analyses have associated Rms2 with the regulation of the shoot-to-root feedback signal. Rms1 is associated with a second unknown graft-transmissible signal that is postulated to move in the direction of root-to-shoot. Exogenous auxin appears to interact with both of the signals regulated by Rms1 and Rms2 in the inhibition of branching after decapitation. The action of Rms3 and Rms4 is less apparent at this stage, although both appear to act largely in the shoot.

Rapid increases in cytokinin concentration in lateral buds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) during release of apical dominance

We examined the role of cytokinins (CKs) in release of apical dominance in lateral buds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Shoot decapitation or application of CKs (benzyladenine, zeatin or dihydrozeatin) stimulated rapid bud growth. Time-lapse video recording revealed growth initiation within 2 h of application of 200 pmol benzyladenine or within 3 h of decapitation. Endogenous CK content in buds changed little in the first 2 h after shoot decapitation, but significantly increased by 6 h, somewhat later than the initiation of bud growth. The main elevated CK was zeatin riboside, whose content per bud increased 7-fold by 6 h and 25-fold by 24 h. Lesser changes were found in amounts of zeatin and isopentenyl adenine CKs. We have yet to distinguish whether these CKs are imported from the roots via the xylem stream or are synthesised in situ in the buds, but CKs may be part of an endogenous signal involved in lateral bud growth stimulation following shoot decapitation. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed report of CK levels in buds themselves during release of apical dominance.

Long-distance signaling and the control of branching in the rms1 mutant of peal

The ramosus (rms) mutation (rms1) of pea (Pisum sativum) causes increased branching through modification of graft-transmissible signal(s) produced in rootstock and shoot. Additional grafting techniques have led us to propose that the novel signal regulated by Rms1 moves acropetally in shoots and acts as a branching inhibitor. Epicotyl interstock grafts showed that wild-type (WT) epicotyls grafted between rms1 scions and rootstocks can revert mutant scions to a WT non-branching phenotype. Mutant scions grafted together with mutant and WT rootstocks did not branch despite a contiguous mutant root-shoot system. The primary action of Rms1 is, therefore, unlikely to be to block transport of a branching stimulus from root to shoot. Rather, Rms1 may influence a long-distance signal that functions, directly or indirectly, as a branching inhibitor. It can be deduced that this signal moves acropetally in shoots because WT rootstocks inhibit branching in rms1 shoots, and although WT scions do not branch when grafted to mutant rootstocks, they do not inhibit branching in rms1 cotyledonary shoots growing from the same rootstocks. The acropetal direction of transport of the Rms1 signal supports previous evidence that the rms1 lesion is not in an auxin biosynthesis or transport pathway. The different branching phenotypes of WT and rms1 shoots growing from the same rms1 rootstock provides further evidence that the shoot has a major role in the regulation of branching and, moreover, that root-exported cytokinin is not the only graft-transmissible signal regulating branching in intact pea plants.

MAX4 and RMS1 are orthologous dioxygenase-like genes that regulate shoot branching in Arabidopsis and pea

Shoot branching is inhibited by auxin transported down the stem from the shoot apex. Auxin does not accumulate in inhibited buds and so must act indirectly. We show that mutations in the MAX4 gene of Arabidopsis result in increased and auxin-resistant bud growth. Increased branching in max4 shoots is restored to wild type by grafting to wild-type rootstocks, suggesting that MAX4 is required to produce a mobile branch-inhibiting signal, acting downstream of auxin. A similar role has been proposed for the pea gene, RMS1. Accordingly, MAX4 and RMS1 were found to encode orthologous, auxin-inducible members of the polyene dioxygenase family.

Transport and metabolism of xylem cytokinins during lateral bud release in decapitated chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seedlings

Although cytokinins (CKs) are widely thought to have a role in promoting shoot branching, there is little data supporting a causative or even a correlative relationship between endogenous CKs and timing of bud outgrowth. We previously showed that lateral bud CK content increased rapidly following shoot decapitation. However, it is not known whether roots are the source of this CK. Here, we have used shoot decapitation to instantaneously induce lateral bud release in chickpea seedlings. This treatment rapidly alters rate and direction of solvent and solute (including CK) trafficking, which may be a passive signalling mechanism central to initiation of lateral bud release. To evaluate changes in xylem transport, intact and decapitated plants were infiltrated with [H-3]zeatin riboside ([H-3]ZR), a water-soluble blue dye or [H-3]H2O by injection into the hypocotyl. All three tracers were recovered in virtually all parts of the shoot within I h of injection. In intact plants, solute accumulation in the lateral bud at node 1 was significantly less than in the adjacent stipule and nodal tissue. In decapitated plants, accumulation of [H-3]ZR and of blue dye in the same bud position was increased 3- to 10-fold relative to intact plants, whereas content of [H-3]H2O was greatly reduced indicating an increased solvent throughput. The stipule and cut stem, predicted to have high evapotranspiration rates, also showed increased solute content accompanied by enhanced depletion of [H-3]H2O. To assess whether metabolism modifies quantities of active CK reaching the buds, we followed the metabolic fate of [H-3]ZR injected at physiological concentrations. Within 1 h, 80-95% of [H-3]ZR was converted to other active CKs (mainly zeatin riboside-5'phosphate (ZRMP) and zeatin (Z)), other significant, but unconfirmed metabolites some of which may be active (O-acetylZR, O-acetylZRMP and a compound correlated with sites of high CK-concentrations) and inactive catabolites (adenosine, adenine, 5'AMP and water). Despite rapid metabolic degradation, the total active label, which was indicative of CK concentration in buds, increased rapidly following decapitation. It can be inferred that xylem sap CKs represent one source of active CKs appearing in lateral buds after shoot decapitation.

Narrating the guillotine: Punishment technology as myth and symbol

The work of Michel Foucault sees modern penal technology its ann expression of power that operates through and is motivated by a dry instrumental reason. This article draws upon Durkheim and Bakhtin to advance a radically alternative approach. It is suggested that such technology is invested with sacred and profane symbolism and is understood via emotionally charged, dramatically compelling narrative frames. Tensions between official and unauthorized discourses can be understood through a center/periphery model of culture. In an extended case study of the guillotine, it is shown dial the apparatus was initially legitimated as an expression of a sacred revolutionary code. Such a discourse was subsequently destabilized by popular medical debates that raised the specter of pain after decapitation. While inconclusive, these new motifs mobilized Gothic and grotesque themes that confronted the rationalist aesthetics of the guillotine. A situation of Bakhtinian hetoroglossia eventuated. Uncertainty, the uncanny and fable entered a discursive field of increasing complexity.

The state of history and the empire of metaphysics [Review]

One of the curious things about this challenging book is that its ostensible subject— the Saxon medical and political scientist Hermann Conring (1606–1681)— is not mentioned in the title. Constantin Fasolt argues that we cannot know what Conring really thought or meant in his writings, which means that his topic cannot be Conring as such and must instead be that which occludes our knowledge of him, the titular limits of history. Given that we do in fact learn a good deal about Conring from Fasolt’s book, we can only hope that the decapitation of its subject will be rectified in a subsequent edition, or perhaps by the restorative work of librarians putting together subject headings. And yet Fasolt’s decision is understandable, for Conring is indeed a stalking-horse for a much bigger quarry: historiography and the historical consciousness. By “history” Fasolt understands a way of imposing intelligibility on the world, which is founded on the twin assumptions that the past is gone and unchangeable, and that the meaning of texts can be determined by placing them in their historical contexts (ix). In challenging this mode of intelligibility, Fasolt is not attempting to improve professiona history—it’s already as good as it can be—but to displace it. He regards his work as a declaration of “independence from historical consciousness” (32). At the same time, Fasolt insists that he is not simply jumping from historiography to philosophy, or attempting to preempt history with ontology (37-39). That has been tried by Nietzsche and Heidegger, who have been tainted by Nazism (Fasolt thinks unfairly). It has also been attempted by modern philosophers from Gadamer to Foucault and Charles Taylor who, in failing to address the “violence” that its mode of intelligibility does to the world, have not succeeded in outflanking history. Perhaps, Fasolt wonders, it is only the personal experience of those who have been subject to this violence—the experience of those who have been subject to historical examination—that can break the spell of history. Fasolt’s disclaimer notwithstanding, in the course of these remarks I shall argue that he is indeed jumping from history to philosophy, or attempting to outflank history by subjecting it to a particular metaphysical understanding. I shall do so in part by sketching the recent intellectual history of this move—a historical examination that I hope inflicts as little violence as possible on Fasolt’s argument.