Annals of Botany 94: 9±32, 2004

doi:10.1093/aob/mch109, available online at www.aob.oupjournals.org

INVITED REVIEW

Eukaryotic Cells and their Cell Bodies: Cell Theory Revised

F R A N T I SÏ E K BA L U SÏ K A 1 , 2 * , D I E T E R V O L K M A N N 1 and P E T E R W . B A R L O W 3 , ²
1Institute
of Cellular and Molecular Botany, University of Bonn, Kirschallee 1, 53175 Bonn, Germany; 2Institute of
Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences, DuÂbravska cesta 14, 842 23 Bratislava, Slovakia; 3School of Biological Sciences,
University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK

Received: 9 January 2004 Returned for revision: 20 February 2004 Accepted: 2 March 2004 Published electronically: 20 May 2004

d Background Cell Theory, also known as cell doctrine, states that all eukaryotic organisms are composed of

cells, and that cells are the smallest independent units of life. This Cell Theory has been in¯uential in shaping
the biological sciences ever since, in 1838/1839, the botanist Matthias Schleiden and the zoologist Theodore
Schwann stated the principle that cells represent the elements from which all plant and animal tissues are
constructed. Some 20 years later, in a famous aphorism Omnis cellula e cellula, Rudolf Virchow annunciated
that all cells arise only from pre-existing cells. General acceptance of Cell Theory was ®nally possible only
when the cellular nature of brain tissues was con®rmed at the end of the 20th century. Cell Theory then rapidly
turned into a more dogmatic cell doctrine, and in this form survives up to the present day. In its current version,

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

however, the generalized Cell Theory developed for both animals and plants is unable to accommodate the
supracellular nature of higher plants, which is founded upon a super-symplasm of interconnected cells into
which is woven apoplasm, symplasm and super-apoplasm. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of
multinucleate coenocytes and syncytia found throughout the eukaryote superkingdom posing serious problems
for the current version of Cell Theory.
d Scope To cope with these problems, we here review data which conform to the original proposal of Daniel

Mazia that the eukaryotic cell is composed of an elemental Cell Body whose structure is smaller than the cell
and which is endowed with all the basic attributes of a living entity. A complement to the Cell Body is the Cell
Periphery Apparatus, which consists of the plasma membrane associated with other periphery structures.
Importantly, boundary stuctures of the Cell Periphery Apparatus, although capable of some self-assembly, are
largely produced and maintained by Cell Body activities and can be produced from it de novo. These boundary
structures serve not only as mechanical support for the Cell Bodies but they also protect them from the hostile
external environment and from inappropriate interactions with adjacent Cell Bodies within the organism.
d Conclusions From the evolutionary perspective, Cell Bodies of eukaryotes are proposed to represent vestiges of

hypothetical, tubulin-based `guest' proto-cells. After penetrating the equally hypothetical actin-based `host'
proto-cells, tubulin-based `guests' became specialized for transcribing, storing and partitioning DNA molecules
via the organization of microtubules. The Cell Periphery Apparatus, on the other hand, represents vestiges of
the actin-based `host' proto-cells which have become specialized for Cell Body protection, shape control, moti-
lity and for actin-mediated signalling across the plasma membrane. ã 2004 Annals of Botany Company

Key words: Actin, Cell Body, Cell Periphery Apparatus, Cell Theory, coenocytes, cytoskeleton, nucleus, plasma
membrane, plasmodesmata, polarity, syncytia, tubulin.

M U L TI CE L L U LA R I T Y V E RS U S 2003). However, those who are aware of the most recent

S U P R A CE L L U LA R I T Y advances in plant cell biology (see also Rustom et al., 2004)
Supracellular plants do not ®t with the classical Cell Theory are convinced that Cell Theory, as it now stands, is
absolutely incompatible with a cell-based organization of
`. . . something truly fundamental is missing in our image of higher plants (Fig. 1) and requires an update (Box 1).
the cell . . .' Daniel Mazia (1987) Indeed, formulation of organismal theory of plant develop-
The cell doctrine is ®rmly embedded in all biological ment, in which it is stated that it is not the cell but the whole
disciplines and acts as a general paradigm of organismal and multicellular organism that is the primary unit of plant life
tissue construction and function (Wolpert, 1995; (Kaplan, 1992; Sitte, 1992; Barlow, 1994; Korn, 1999;
Mazzarello, 1999; Nurse, 2000). Mainstream biologists Niklas, 2000; Wojtaszek, 2001; Tsukaya, 2002), has
take this concept for granted and use it to underpin precipitated a crisis for Cell Theory as applied to plants.
sophisticated reductionistic approaches by which to under- Organismal theory is an idea whose formulation and
stand the molecular basis of cellular development (Pollard, reformulation occurs with each successive generation of
biologists (e.g. Sinnott, 1960; and before him all the way
back to de Bary, 1864; see also Barlow, 1982). Furthermore,
* For correspondence. E-mail baluska@uni-bonn.de
² PWB dedicates his contribution to this paper to his friend and mentor,
after a hundred years of discussion, the endosymbiotic
Professor Paul E. Polani FRS, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, concept of cell organization and evolution is now ®nally
1 January 2004. widely accepted (Margulis, 1993; McFadden, 1999; Martin
Annals of Botany 94/1, ã Annals of Botany Company 2004; all rights reserved
10 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
the division wall at cytokinesis, and secondarily across
selected, already established walls (Ehlers and Kollmann,
2001). Their mode of development attests to the necessity of
direct cell±cell communication during plant development.
These complex, communicative and contractile channels
(Blackman et al., 1999; Zambryski and Crawford, 2000;
BalusÏka et al., 2001b) are not only lined with the plasma
membrane but are also traversed by endoplasmic reticulum.
This latter feature, together with the well-known continuity
between endoplasmic reticulum elements and nuclear
envelopes, means that all nuclei of a given plant are
potentially in direct contact and are part of a structurally
integrated supracellular network of nuclei interconnected
via endoplasmic reticulum elements (Lucas et al., 1993). It
F I G . 1. The supracellular nature of higher plants is incompatible with the is not possible to interpret this phenomenon correctly using
current version of Cell Theory. Plant cells are not physically separated. cell doctrine as it stands now because this is based on the
Cytoplasms of `cells' are interconnected via plasmodesmata and belief that cells are physically separated and structurally
endoplasmic reticulum into supracellular assemblies bounded by a
plasma membrane. Enclosed within discrete cytoplasmic domains are
independent. In fact, recent advances in animal cell biology
unitary complexes of nucleus and perinuclear microtubules. Each also reveal that cells are also not isolated from each other in
complex we term a Cell Body in accordance with Daniel Mazia's some situations (Rustom et al., 2004). We are, however, still

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

conception of this structure. Cortical microtubules are not shown in this far away from understanding how individual nuclei of a
highly simpli®ed scheme.
supracellular network of plant nuclei might communicate
with each other via the intervening cytoplasmic channels.
A consequence of the fact that the cytoplasms of plant
cells are interconnected via plasmodesmata is that the
individuality of the cell is given up in favour of an integrated
et al., 2001; Gray et al., 2001; Cavalier-Smith, 2002a). The
and corporate cytoplasm that bene®ts the whole organism.
implication of this concept is that present-day eukaryotic
This supracellular, or organismal, approach towards multi-
cells represent assemblages of `cells within a cell'. Other
even more obvious examples of `cells within a cell' are the cellularity seems to have allowed sessile plants to adapt to
sperm cells of higher plants (Mogensen, 1992; Palevitz and life on land and to evolve even within hostile environments.
Tiezzi, 1992; Southworth, 1992), endosperm of higher The continuity of cellular units allows potentially unre-
plants (Olsen, 2001; Brown et al., 2004) and spores within stricted exchange of information throughout the plant body,
yeast mother cells (Knop and Strasser, 2000; Nickas et al., the informational signals being used to rapidly coordinate
2003; Shimoda, 2004). Interestingly in this respect, and genome transcription that can either neutralize or take
relevant to our further argumentation, is that sperm cells of advantage of environmental challenges (BalusÏka et al.,
higher plants do not contain any F-actin but do have 2004). Thus, whereas animals and humans are perhaps truly
prominent microtubules (Palevitz and Tiezzi, 1992), sug- multicellular organisms, higher plants are composed of
gesting that the actin cytoskeleton is neither essential for communicative cytoplasms.
eukaryotic cellular life nor for cell divisions (Palevitz and The current crisis of the Cell Theory in plants (Kaplan
Tiezzi, 1992; for a similar conclusion on somatic plant cells and Hagemann, 1991; Kaplan, 1992; Korn, 1999;
see BalusÏka et al., 2001c; Vantard and Blanchoin, 2002). Wojtaszek, 2001) is quite paradoxical if we consider that
Concerning the last-mentioned point, genetic and pharma- Robert Hooke in 1665 and Nehemiah Grew in 1682
cological evidence convincingly document that it is the discovered cells from observations on higher plant tissues
microtubular cytoskeleton which is essential for cell (Wolpert, 1995; Harris, 1999; Nurse, 2000). It took more
division and the formation of multicellular organisms (for than 250 years until the Cell Theory was de®nitely accepted
plant cells see Mayer et al., 1999; Mayer and JuÈrgens, for animals and humans, neurons being the last type of cell
2002). to be de®nitely de®ned as such (Mazzarello, 1999). Plants
All these problems with Cell Theory were forecast by also served as useful objects for the discovery of the
Thomas Henry Huxley in 1853, who was convinced that nucleus, the plasma membrane, cell cycle and cytokinesis
cells were not anatomically independent but that they were (Harris, 1999; see also Boxes 2±4). Thus, plants seem
interconnected into supracellular assemblages (Richmond, always to have been at the forefront of Cell Theory, even
2001). Therefore, for Huxley, cells could not be the now when it needs updating in order to accommodate the
elementary units of life. In fact, current advances in plant supracellular nature of higher plants. Numerous examples of
cell biology reveal that this view is correct for all higher multinucleate cells (Fig. 2) in almost all eukaryotic
plants (Fig. 1). Strictly speaking, higher plants are organisms, direct cytoplasmic continuity in some animal
supracellular organisms because almost all the cells of a cells (Rustom et al., 2004), as well as the ability to form the
given plant organism are interconnected via cell-to-cell plasma membrane de novo (Shimoda, 2004)Ðall these
channels known as plasmodesmata (Lucas et al., 1993; suggest that the Cell Theory is in crisis elsewhere too, and
Zambryski and Crawford, 2000) that form primarily across that it is not solely a plant-speci®c problem.
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 11
1994; Solari et al., 1995; Shemer and Podbilewicz, 2000,
2003; Taylor, 2002). There are also examples of fusions
between different animal cell types: neurons and bone
marrow-derived stem cells can both form stable hetero-
karyons (Kozorovitskiy and Gould, 2003; Weimann et al.,
2003). Moreover, huge multinucleate syncytia can be
induced by viruses such as HIV and measles (Sylwester
et al., 1993; Cathomen et al., 1998). Intriguingly, animal
syncytia behave like single cells, mimicking their polar
integrity and showing pseudopod extensions and actin-
based motility (Lewis and Albrecht-Buehler, 1987;
Sylwester et al., 1993). In plants, syncytia are formed by
means of the enlargement of plasmodesmata, dissolution of
F I G . 2. Cell Bodies are obvious in multinucleate coenocytes and the original cell walls and consequent merging of neigh-
syncytia, structures which have been reported in almost all major bouring cytoplasmic domains (Fink, 1999). In some cases,
taxonomic groups of eukaryotes. Importantly, perinuclear radiating arrays syncytium formation is the normal mode of plant cellular
of Cell Body microtubules are critical for the regular spacing of nuclei
and Cell Bodies in the multinucleate cytoplasmic community. development, like articulated laticifers (Mahlberg and
Sabharwal, 1966); in other cases, it is a response to a
challenge from organisms that burrow into plant tissue and
Unique organization of microtubules and Golgi apparatus in convert it into the nutritive syncytial nurse cells of insect

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

multinuclear syncytia±coenocytes of animals and lower and nematode galls (Jones and Northcote, 1972).
plants resembles situations in supracellular plants A major hallmark of plant cells is that they organize their
microtubules from sites upon a nuclear surface (Lambert,
There are several well-known examples where not only
1993; Mizuno, 1993; BalusÏka et al., 1996, 1997a; Schmit,
plant cells but also several animal cell types do not conform 2003). Often they also organize microtubules at the cell
to the traditional view of cells as the smallest unit of life. cortex from the secondary microtubule organizing centres
Mention can be made of the many examples of multi- (MTOCs) which have been derived from primary MTOCs
nucleate coenocytes and syncytia throughout the eukaryotic that lie on the nuclear surface (BalusÏka et al., 1997a). In the
kingdom (Fig. 2). Coenocytes are formed as a result of the case of those animal cells which embark upon coenocytic or
uncoupling of mitosis from cytokinesis. Whereas mitosis is syncytial developmental pathways, the typical centrosome-
a conservative and persistent living process, cytokinesis based organization of their microtubules is abandoned and
appears to be less conservative, more sporadic, and can even the whole nuclear surface starts to organize microtubules, as
be absent; this results in situations where numerous nuclei is known from plant cells (Tassin et al., 1985a; Sylwester
come to be present within the con®nes of a `mother' cell. et al., 1993; Lu et al., 2001; Mulari et al., 2003). In this way,
Besides the already mentioned yeast spores (Shimoda, the animal coenocyte or syncytium is similar to the
2004), good examples of coenocytic plants are the multi- individual plant `cell', suggesting that this type of animal
nucleate algae (Woodcock, 1971; Goff and Coleman, 1987; `cell', too, may be a supracellular continuum of many nuclei
McNaughton and Goff, 1990) and also the male and female and cytoplasms.
gametophyte tissues of higher plants (Brown and Lemmon, The above suggestion can be followed using another line
1992, 2001; McCormick, 1993; Reiser and Fischer, 1993; of evidence involving the Golgi apparatus. For animal cells,
Russell, 1993; Brown et al., 1994a, b, 1996; Huang and it is well known that localization of the Golgi complex is
Sheridan, 1994, 1996; Smirnova and Bajer, 1998; Otegui dependent on microtubules while, at the same time, the
and Staehelin, 2000, 2003; Ranganath, 2003). In animals, Golgi complex acts as a microtubule-organizing organelle
well-studied examples of the coenocytic state are found in (Tassin et al., 1985b; Kronenbusch and Singer, 1987; Ho
oogenesis and in the early embryogeny of Drosophila et al., 1989; Cole et al., 1996; Bloom and Goldstein, 1998;
(St Johnson and NuÈsslein-Volhard, 1992; Foe et al., 2000; Burkhardt, 1998; Chabin-Brion et al., 2001). But in the case
Mazumdar and Mazumdar, 2002). The simplest coenocyte of the animal cell syncytium, the Golgi apparatus undergoes
would be a cell with two or four nuclei, as occurs in plants in a dramatic reorganization and acquires features that corres-
the anther tapetum and in the liver of many rodents pond to what is found in supracellular higher plants where
(D'Amato, 1977). There are also several examples of numerous small Golgi stacks are closely associated with
coenocytes elicited by mutations that prevent cytokinesis endoplasmic reticulum export sites (Boevink et al., 1998;
(Sipiczki et al., 1993; Adam et al., 2000). Brandizzi et al., 2002). For instance, during myogenesis in
A syncytium, another multinucleate form, derives from animals, similarly to cells devoid of microtubules (Cole
uninucleate cells that have fused together. Examples of et al., 1996), perinuclear Golgi apparatus re-arranges into
homotypic cell fusion and hence of homokaryotic multi- numerous small Golgi stacks that are closely associated with
nucleate syncytium formation in animal systems are the endoplasmic reticulum exit sites (Ralston, 1993; Lu
myotubes, which are essential for muscle differentiation, et al., 2001; Ralston et al., 2001). Golgi mini-stacks and
multinucleate osteoclasts, which are active in bone resorp- microtubules organized around nuclei were also reported for
tion and homeostasis, and the syncytiotrophoblast, which is maturing mouse oocytes (Moreno et al., 2002). Thus, the
characteristic of the mammalian placenta (Cross et al., plant microtubular and Golgi apparatus organizations are
12 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
directly related to their supracellular nature in both plants domains of varying strength, each maintained by precisely
and animals. regulated activities of perinuclear radiating microtubules
(Goff and Coleman, 1987; McNaughton and Goff, 1990;
Brown and Lemmon, 1992, 2001; Bresgen et al., 1994;
Coenocytic and syncytial nuclei organize cytoplasmic
Brown et al., 1994a, b, 1996; BalusÏka et al., 1996; Pickett-
domains via radiating microtubules and they obey the
Heaps et al., 1999; Bruusgaard et al., 2003).
cytonuclear rule
One characteristic feature of the majority of syncytia and
coenocytes is that their nuclei are regularly spaced within THE CELL BODY CONCEPT
the cytoplasm (Goff and Coleman, 1987; McNaughton and
Cell Body represents the smallest autonomous and
Goff, 1990; Bresgen et al., 1994; Bruusgaard et al., 2003)
self-reproducing unit of eukaryotic life
and this is apparently due to the assembly of perinuclear
radiating microtubules (Woodcock, 1971; Brown and `The Cell Body pervades the whole interphase cell and
Lemmon, 1992, 2001; Brown et al., 1994a, b, 2004; condenses into a mitotic apparatus during mitosis' Daniel
Huang and Sheridan, 1994, 1996; Otegui and Staehelin, Mazia (1993)
2000, 2003). Each individual nucleus of both syncytia and The supracellular nature of higher plants, as well as of
coenocytes controls a cytoplasmic domain (Fig. 2), the size coenocytes and syncytia found in almost all eukaryotes,
of which depends on the DNA content and volume of that implies that it is not the cell but some subcellular structure
nucleus. These nucleo-cytoplasmic domains, despite lack- which represents the elementary unit of eukaryotic life. In
ing any obvious physical borders, behave like independent fact, such ideas have often been expressed in the past. The

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

structural entities (Goff and Coleman, 1987; McNaughton cytoskeleton was unknown in these early times, and so these
and Goff, 1990; Brown and Lemmon, 1992, 2001; Brown ideas were doomed to be forgotten (Harris, 1999). But
et al., 1994a, b, 1996; Reinsch and GoÈnczy, 1998; Pickett- already the very early studies on plant microtubules
Heaps et al., 1999). Distinct nucleo-cytoplasmic domains revealed that these structures controlled the spatial distri-
are organized also in animal syncytial myotubes (Hall and bution of chromosomes during mitosis (Ledbetter and
Ralston, 1989; Bruusgaard et al., 2003), where the individ- Porter, 1963) and of whole nuclei during interphase
ual nuclei even maintain their own transcription and (Kiermayer, 1968; Woodcock, 1971). These features were
translation domains (Rotundo and Gomez, 1990; Ralston also con®rmed for animal cells (Slautterback, 1963;
and Hall, 1992). Individual nuclei of multinucleate muscle Aronson, 1971). However, the close connections between
®bres exert control also over distinct cell surface domains DNA and tubulin molecules throughout the cell cycle as
(Rossi and Rotundo, 1992). Thus, characteristic cytogenetic well as in postmitotic eukaryotic cells became obvious only
patterns could theoretically be set up within a coenocytic later (see Box 4), providing a completely new perspective
structure without the need for any de®ning cell membranes upon what came to be known as the cytoskeleton.
or wall boundaries, the cytoplasmic domains being patrolled Daniel Mazia was the ®rst to realise that a close
by the microtubules radiating from the nuclear surface. connection between DNA and tubulin molecules would
In plants, there are numerous studies showing that have an immediate impact upon Cell Theory. He was also
radiating perinuclear microtubules are essential for the the ®rst to suggest that the nucleus with its associated
regular spacing of nuclei (Goff and Coleman, 1987; microtubules formed a composite structure which he called
McNaughton and Goff, 1990; Brown and Lemmon, 1992, Cell Body (Mazia, 1993; Epel and Schatten, 1998).
2001; Brown et al., 1994a, b, 1996, 2004; BalusÏka et al., Although this concept was left almost unnoticed, we
1996, 1997a, b, 1998; Pickett-Heaps et al., 1999). An revealed that it is obviously also valid for plant cells
important feature is that the whole nuclear surface is active (BalusÏka et al., 1997a, 1998). Importantly, Cell Body
in the initiation and maintenance of minus-ends of represents the smallest unit of life which is capable of self-
microtubules, while dynamic plus-ends exert pushing/ organization, self-reproduction and of responsiveness to
pulling forces when contacting the cell boundary, or when diverse external stimuli (Mazia, 1993; BalusÏka et al., 1997a,
approaching plus-ends of microtubules radiating from other 1998, 2000b, 2001a; Epel and Schatten, 1998).
adjacent nuclei. This phenomenon allows each nucleus to This new perspective improves our understanding of
actively conquer and maintain its own unique cytoplasmic several, at ®rst sight unrelated, phenomena like the C-value
space which does not encroach upon the spaces controlled enigma and the related nucleotypic effect of DNA
by neighbouring nuclei (Strasburger, 1893; Hertwig, 1903; molecules, irrespective of their encoded informational
Trombetta, 1939; Pickett-Heaps et al., 1999; Gregory, content (Bennett, 1972; Gregory, 2001a, b). Cell Body
2001a, b). concept also provides insight into cancer which results from
The nuclear spacing is often in the form of regular impaired genome±centrosome stability (Lingle et al., 1998;
hexagonal arrays, this feature being indicative of the Anderson et al., 2001; Brinkley, 2001; Maser and DePinho,
isomorphic space-claiming force of individual nuclei-MT 2002; Nigg, 2002). The association between DNA and
complexes. Interestingly, correct patterning and polarity are tubulin allows an unprecedent expansion of genome size
expressed throughout animal syncytia and plant coenocytes (Gregory, 2001a, b) because it enables a high ®delity of
(St Johnston and NuÈsslein-Volhard, 1992; Boisnard-Lorig segregation, motility and propagation of large DNA-based
et al., 2001; Sùrensen et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2004). This structures like mitotic chromosomes and even whole nuclei
is perhaps an expression of precisely regulated `cell-like' (Mazia, 1984, 1987; Inoue and Salmon, 1995; Reinsch and
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 13
GoÈnczy, 1998; Adames and Cooper, 2000; Compton, 2000; are considered as vestiges of originally free-living pro-
Tran et al., 2001; McIntosh et al., 2002; Kusch et al., 2003). eukaryotic cells. A legacy of these ancient symbiotic
This unique molecular coupling between DNA and tubulin interactions is that eukaryotic cells continue to show tight
allows DNA-based structures, including individual chromo- links between nuclei, centrosomes and microtubules in the
somes and whole nuclei, to express motility and exploratory form of Cell Bodies. This legacy may also be re¯ected in the
behaviour. epixenosomes, unique bacterial ectosymbionts located at
the cell periphery of hypotrich ciliates (Petroni et al., 2000).
These organelles consist of tubulin-based tubules and DNA/
Nucleus as the most ancient endosymbiont of eukaryotic cell
basic proteins complexes resembling eukaryotic chromatin
The Cell Body concept permits an understanding of (Jenkins et al., 2002) and possessing some of the charac-
cellular organization of eukaryotes from an evolutionary teristics of the predecessors of eukaryotic Cell Bodies.
perspective. As happens in science, after a long time in It is well-known that coenocytic and syncytial organisms,
oblivion, the endosymbiotic theory of Constantin such as, for example, slime-molds and Acetabularia,
Mereshkowsky has ®nally, after almost 100 years of propagate from uninucleate spores. This feature might
discussion, become widely accepted for both of these also be relevant for the surprising observation that naked
organelles (Mereshkowsky, 1905, 1910; Margulis, 1993; nucleo-cytoplasmic aggregates released from cut siphonous
Rizzotti, 2000; Martin et al., 2001; Cavalier-Smith, 2002a). algae can regenerate de novo the lost plasma membrane
Current advances in molecular and cellular biology have (O'Neil and La Claire II, 1984; Pak et al., 1991; Kim et al.,
provided conclusive evidence that eukaryotic cells are 2001; Kim and Klotchkova, 2001; Ram and Babbar, 2002).
composite structures that incorporate ancient and originally This ability can be used for propagation, in this case via the

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

free-living cells (Gray et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2001; formation of nucleated but envelope-less protoplasts which,
Timmis et al., 2004). This feature is especially obvious in after their release, form a plasma membrane de novo (Kim
plant cells containing both mitochondria and plastids and Klotchkova, 2001). In yeast cells, too, the plasma
(McFadden, 1999). Even peroxisomes seem to have membrane is formed de novo during spore formation
endosymbiotic origins (de Duve, 1996; Katz, 1999). (Shimoda, 2004). Similarly, the nuclei of syncytial osteo-
In contrast, the evolutionary origin of nuclei remains clasts can form uninucleate cells by means of a budding
obscure and serves as a matter of hot debate (Margulis, process during which individual nuclei (in reality, Cell
1993; Lake and Rivera, 1994; Margulis et al., 2000; Martin Bodies) are enclosed within a regenerating plasma mem-
et al., 2001; Cavalier-Smith, 2002a; Dolan et al., 2002). In brane (Solari et al., 1995). It is important to mention in this
his original theory, Mereshkowsky proposed that nuclei respect that cytokinetic plant cells also form a plasma
were also of endosymbiotic origin (Mereshkowsky, 1905, membrane de novo. This involves the active participation of
1910; Martin et al., 2001). Now, in the last 10 years, the ®rst daughter Cell Bodies following their division at mitosis. Use
strong data have been published in line with this idea that is made of the Cell Body-based radiating microtubules
the nucleus could be the vestige of an originally free-living (BalusÏka et al., 1996) to position new plasma membrane
proto-cell (Gupta et al., 1994; Gupta and Golding, 1996; (Pickett-Heaps et al., 1999; Brown and Lemmon, 2001)
Horiike et al., 2001; Dolan et al., 2002; Hartman and arising from homotypic fusions of endosomes containing
Fedorov, 2002). Several authors consider as almost accepted internalized cell wall pectins (F. BalusÏka, unpubl. data).
that the nucleus is of endosymbiotic origin, the only This process resembles a large-scale repair of a damaged
disputed point being the identity of the `guest' and `host' cell periphery, which is also based on homotypic fusions of
proto-cells (Margulis et al., 2000; Horiike et al., 2001; endosomes and lysosomes (McNeil and Terasaki, 2001;
Dolan et al., 2002; Hartman and Fedorov, 2002). Such an Reddy et al., 2001; McNeil et al., 2003). In a similar
origin of the nucleus would also explain the unexpected fashion, the ®nal stage of animal cytokinesis is based on
®nding of RNA-to-protein translation within the nucleus de novo fomation of the plasma membrane (Bowerman and
(Hentze, 2001). Intriguingly, this nuclear translation seems Severson, 1999) via the interdigitating microtubules known
to be dependent upon ongoing DNA-to-RNA transcription, as the midbody. Closure of the midbody requires the
a situation resembling that which occurs in prokaryotes presence of a mother centriole to close the intercellular
(Iborra et al., 2001; Pederson, 2001). bridge (Doxsey, 2001; Khodjakov and Rieder, 2001; Piehl
If the nucleus is the most ancient example of a `cell within et al., 2001). Interestingly, centrosomes and their micro-
cell', then the Cell Body concept is in the right position to tubules drive cytokinesis in brown algae (Nagasato and
explain why there is a subcellular unit of eukaryotic life, Motomura, 2002).
composed of nucleus and perinuclear microtubules, capable Several features of centrosomes suggest that these
of autonomous existence reproducing itself once per cell structures might be considered as highly reduced vestiges
cycle. The Cell Body concept can also cope with the well- of a putative endosymbiont which, having reduced its
known fact that the nucleus±microtubule complex often content and structure, retains only the centrosomes and
divides independently of the cell in which it resides, thus microtubules (Margulis, 1993). This idea receives support
resulting in the coenocytic condition found in all eukar- from recent data on nucleomorphs (Cavalier-Smith and
yotes. Looking at this problem from the opposite end, the Beaton, 1999; Keeling et al., 1999; Gilson, 2001) where the
supracellular nature of higher plants, as well as the existence extreme reduction of endosymbiotic cells has led to the
of coenocytes and syncytia throughout the eukaryotic evolution of certain almost vanishingly small organisms.
superkingdom, can be understood much better if nuclei Other data document that, in some situations, centrosomes
14 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
can behave independently of nuclei and chromosomes
(Balczon et al., 1995; Fukasawa et al., 1996; Piehl et al.,
2001; Rieder et al., 2001; Burakov et al., 2003; Malone
et al., 2003). In fact, centrosomes emerge as a real command
centres for cellular control (Doxsey, 2001), an idea forecast
by Theodore Boveri in 1888 (Boveri, 1888; Mazia, 1987).
F I G . 3. Hypothetical formation of a eukaryotic cell from two proto-cells
Cell Body: cell within a cell differing in their life-style. A more active and motile tubulin-based proto-
cell with a rigid surface (blue, 1) is hypothesized to penetrate a rather
If the case is strong for the endosymbiotic origin of the static, large and actin-based proto-cell with a soft surface (green, 2). The
eukaryotic nucleus, then the question is this: how could tubulin-based proto-cell became transformed into the nucleus within the
primitive proto-cells have accomplished such a fusion? ancient predecessor of the eukaryotic cell (3). Later, during phylogenesis,
Unfortunately, these fusion events took place in such phagocytosis of other prokaryotic cell types allowed the acquisition of
plastids (P) and mitochondria (M) to form the contemporary eukaryotic
ancient times that they are nearly beyond scienti®c imagin- cells (4).
ation based on any human experience. Consequently,
proposed scenarios, models and answers can only be
speculations and visions (Forterre and Philippe 1999;
their predator/prey interactions, as these are inherently
Woese, 2002; Brooke and Holland, 2003). Nevertheless,
associated with endosymbiosis (Guerrero, 1991; Kooijman
analysis of extant cells can give some clues.
et al., 2003), as part of the search for food. During further
Phagocytosis is often considered as the only possibility of
phylogenesis, some of the large actin-based proto-cells

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

acquiring endosymbionts (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a).
might eventually have succeeded in sealing off their
However, it is not necessary to rely on this quite complex
penetrated surfaces, thus trapping within themselves the
process for the earliest merging of two ancient pro-
raptor tubulin-based proto-cells. Some of the trapped `guest'
eukaryotic cells. In any case, phagocytosis is not helpful
in solving this mystery as these primitive proto-cells would proto-cells may have escaped from the `digestive' activities
have lacked the complex and signalling-competent actin- of the `host' proto-cells, allowing them to persist within the
based cytoskeleton which is necessary for the phagocytosis- `host' cells. In fact, predator/prey relationships are obvious
like uptake of a `guest' cell by a `host' cell. Importantly, elsewhere in eukaryotic life and result in secondary and
phylogenetic analysis of small GTPases suggests that tertiary endosymbiotic events, accomplished in the present-
phagocytosis developed relatively late in eukaryotic evolu- day eukaryotic kingdom by phagocytosis (Cavalier-Smith,
tion, after the nucleus and secretory pathway were already 2002b; Bhattacharya et al., 2003). For instance, predator/
well-established (JeÂkely, 2003). prey endosymbiosis events represent the major force
There are, however, other possible scenarios, among shaping algal evolution (Bhattacharya et al., 2003). Of
which the most preferable is that two fundamentally course, this fusion between the two types of proto-cell may
different types of proto-cells merged by a more direct also have occurred entirely accidentally within their shared
mechanism, whereby a small tubulin-based proto-cell with a environment.
rigid surface penetrated a large actin-based proto-cell with a After the tubulin-based `guest' cells became symbionts
soft surface (Fig. 3). In fact, there is a nice example of this within the `host' cells, they might have progressively
process when predatory bacteria of the genus Daptobacter accumulated `host' DNA via horizontal transfer of DNA
invade the cells of its bacterial prey in the genus (Doolittle, 1998; Jain et al., 1999; Timmis et al., 2004). This
Chromatium (Guerrero, 1991). This quasi-sexual encounter process allowed acquisition of a single ancient nucleus
of sperm-like and egg-like proto-cells is suggested, there- which then became specialized for storage and segregation
fore, to be the basis of contemporary eukaryotic life. On the of DNA while the rest of the cellular functions were taken
other hand, it is important to keep in mind that these ancient over by the actin-based `host' proto-cells. In strong support
proto-cells have no more to do with currently living of this endosymbiotic concept of nuclear origin, it has been
prokaryotic cells than they do with extant eukaryotic cells; found that there are two basic types of genes within
the only common point is that all contemporary cells, eukaryotic nuclei, suggesting that the nuclear genome is, in
whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic, are descendants of these fact, a chimeric mixture of genes having two distinct origins
hypothetical proto-cells. For the sake of argument, we (Ribeiro and Golding, 1998; Rivera et al., 1998).
propose that these two types of proto-cells were contem- Summarizing the above: we hypothesize that the
poraries and developed in parallel. eukaryotic lineage started with a predator/prey-based and
In order to attain an active life-style based on physical penetration-mediated fusion between a small, motile
forces prior to the hypothetical fusion event suggested tubulin-based swimmer having a rigid surface, and a
above, one proto-cell line had already invented actin large, less motile and actin-based amoeba-like prey with a
polymerization while the other proto-cell was structurally soft surface (Fig. 3). This hypothethical scenario of a
based upon polymerized ancient tubulin. This would be in receptive `host' and a raptor `guest' would have great
accord with the notion that forces based on polymerization implications for understanding the cytoskeleton of both
are very ancient whereas motor molecules are a much later ancient and current eukaryotic cells. The actin- and tubulin-
acquisition of eukaryotic life (Mitchison, 1995). Merging of based cytoskeletons are proposed to have evolved inde-
these two types of proto-cells apparently occurred due to pendently in the two proto-cell lines. The bringing together
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 15
of actin and tubulin within the same cell resulted in a
new quality due to the fact that these at ®rst unique
pro-eukaryotic cells were equipped with a more complex
cytoskeleton. This feature endowed these ancient pro-
eukaryotes with tremendous advantages, resulting in an
explosive evolution of early eukaryotic life. It might also
have allowed these new cells to survive the most critical
phases of evolution in which extremely harsh conditions
could cause bottlenecks for the predecessor proto-cell
populations yet allow the pro-eukaryotes to ¯ourish. This
scenario also gives a possibility of understanding the
cytoskeleton of eukaryotic cells from a completely new
prespective. F I G . 4. Sexual reproduction of current eukaryotic organisms is based on
similar sequences of events with the tubulin-based sperm cells
penetrating the actin-based oocytes. Sperms of most higher plants (A) are
Tubulin-based ¯agellate sperm cells, lacking F-actin, non-¯agellated, and thus lack active tubulin-based motility, as is the case
penetrate into large actin-based egg cells to generate plant in most other eukaryotic organisms (B). However, this is a secondary
Cell Bodies trait associated with the adaptation of plants to life on land. This has
enforced a `dry' mode of pollination in contrast to the motile `wet' mode
A hypothetical penetration or fusion event between two of gamete penetration still found in lower plants and some primitive
ancient proto-cells can explain not only the origin of the gymnosperms (cycads, Gingko).

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

eukaryotic nucleus but can also serve as a useful paradigm
for understanding sexual reproduction of present-day
multicellular organisms where, invariably, two haploid
cells fuse together to form a diploid zygote (Fig. 4). The
proto-cell fusion event is also reminiscent of the ancient
Chinese Yin/Yang concept. The tubulin-based sperm cell is
small and motile (Yang), whereas the large, actin-based egg
cell (Yin) is non-motile and lacks a centrosome. These
structural features, as well as the mode of sexual cell fusion, F I G . 5. Pollen (A) and pollen tubes (B) of higher plants constitute a
might resemble the ancient fusion event which may have good example of `cells within a cell', a mode of organization which is
given rise to the pro-eukaryotic cell. not compatible with the current version of Cell Theory. The sperm cell is
Higher plants seem not to ®t completely into this scheme immobile and lacks F-actin, but it contains abundant microtubules (blue).
as they do not have obvious motile sperm cells equipped In contrast, the vegetative nucleus forms an active Cell Body with
radiating perinuclear microtubules and assembles a dense F-actin cap
with ¯agellae (Fig. 4A). However, plant sperms lost their (not shown) which drives tip-growth of the pollen tube.
¯agellae only secondarily (Poort et al., 1996) as a result of
their adaptation to life on land. In this situation, actin-driven
tip growth of pollen tubes (A È stroÈm et al., 1995; Raudaskoski
Nevertheless, lower plants do still possess ¯agellate
et al., 2001; Laitiainen et al., 2002) provides the actual sperm cells (Li et al., 1989; Vaughn et al., 1993; Renzaglia
vehicle for the tubulin-based sperm cells' transport (Fig. 5) and Garbary, 2001; Sil¯ow and Lefebvre, 2001; Sakaushi
towards the egg within the female gametophyte (Sil¯ow and
et al., 2003), and these cells closely resemble the motile
Lefebvre, 2001). Tip growth in plants is represented not sperm cells of other eukaryotic organisms, not only with
only by pollen tubes but also by root hairs, where it is driven respect to their tubulin-based ¯agellae but also on account
by actin polymerization and is tubulin-independent
of the importance of centrin for their MTOCs (Vaughn et al.,
(Bibikova et al., 1999; Gibbon et al., 1999; BalusÏka et al., 1993; Hart and Wolniak, 1998). For instance, the most
2000a; Raudaskoski et al., 2001; Vidali et al., 2001; ancient gymnosperm species, cycads and Ginkgo biloba,
Foissner et al., 2002; Laitiainen et al., 2002; SÏamaj et al., release from their pollen tubes multi¯agellated sperm cells
2002). which actively swim towards the egg cells using tubulin-
Sperm cells of higher plants have not only lost their based ¯agellae (Li et al., 1989; Renzaglia and Garbary,
¯agellae, but they are also devoid of F-actin (Pierson et al., 2001; Sil¯ow and Lefebvre, 2001).
1986; Heslop-Harrison et al., 1988; Palevitz and Tiezzi,
1992). In fact, higher plant sperm is the only known
example of a plant cell that lacks F-actin. On the other hand, CE LL BOD Y V ER SU S C E L L P E R I P H E R Y
sperm cells are equipped with a prominent tubulin-based APPARATUS
cytoskeleton in the form of bundled microtubules (Pierson
Tubulin-based mitosis versus actin-based cytokinesis from
et al., 1986; Palevitz and Liu, 1992; Palevitz and Tiezzi,
the Cell Body perspective: divisions of `guest' and `host'
1992) whose assembly is directed by g-tubulin (Palevitz
cells?
et al., 1994). From the cytoskeletal point of view, the sperm
cell resembles a mitotic spindle (mitotic Cell Body) which It is undisputable that mitosis and cytokinesis, although
represents the most basic form of Cell Body (Mazia, 1993; tightly coupled in most cells, can often be uncoupled,
BalusÏka et al., 1998). suggesting that these two processes are actually independ-
16 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
ent, even though they usually cooperate to bring about cell separate the daughter cells (Bi et al., 1998; Tolliday et al.,
division. The very nature of these processes implies that 2003). This, in turn, suggests that the coenocyte-like higher
they are based on different principles. It is obvious that plants perhaps evolved their apparent multicellularity by
mitosis represents the division of the tubulin-based `guest' processes that resulted from the loss (or the non-acquistion
cell (now in the form of Cell Body), whereas cytokinesis by evolution) of myosin II and compact centrosomes.
corresponds to the division of the actin-based `host' cell. Moreover, remains of MTOCs might have become trapped
It is well known that nuclear division (Cell Body division within cell-to-cell channels which failed to constrict due to
or mitosis) is an extremely conservative process driven the absence of myosin II. Intriguingly, centrin and plant-
solely by the microtubular cytoskeleton (Pickett-Heaps, speci®c myosin VIII are found at contractile cell-to-cell
1969; Hyman and Karsenti, 1996). In contrast, cytokinesis, plasmodesmatal channels in plants (Blackman et al., 1999;
which divides the cytoplasm as well as the cell boundary BalusÏka et al., 2001b). This ®nding is potentially very
complex, is less conservative (Ueda and Nagasaki, 2004), relevant because centrioles are known to be essential for the
and is driven mainly by the actin cytoskeleton, although it ®nal stage of animal cytokinesis (Khodjakov and Rieder,
also requires the cooperation of microtubules (Hyman and 2001; Piehl et al., 2001).
Karsenti, 1996; Glotzer, 1997; Hales et al., 1999; Karsenti
and Vernos, 2001; Guertin et al., 2002). Moreover, mitosis
Actin-based Cell Periphery Complex versus tubulin-based
not only precedes cytokinesis temporally but also instructs
Cell Body: Yin and Yang principles imply sexual nature of
cytokinesis spatially (Glotzer, 2004). This more conserved
the cytoskeleton
nature of mitosis and less conserved nature of cytokinesis,
combined with the many examples of mitosis not followed Vasiliev (1987) was the ®rst to propose that eukaryotic

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

by cytokinesis, suggests that mitosis is much more import- cells are based on a symbiosis-like coexistence of two co-
ant for eukaryotic life. Importantly, the plasma membrane operating, yet competing domains: an actin-based cell
can form de novo during cytokinesis, and this process is then periphery termed actinoplast, and a tubulin-based tubulo-
instructed and regulated by Cell Bodies (for sporulation in plast (see also Figs 3, 4), an idea that clearly foreshadows
yeast see Knop and Strasser, 2000; Nickas et al., 2003; Mazia's Cell Body concept. These two cellular domains
Shimoda, 2004). segregate completely during mitosis when the tubulin-based
The coenocyte-like nature of higher plants deviates from mitotic spindle, or naked Cell Body, is divested of actin and
this scheme slightly because here cytokinesis is based more the cells revert to the primitive nature that is characteristic
on microtubules than on actin ®laments (Staehelin and of the early eukaryotic cells (Fig. 6). As discussed above,
Hepler, 1996; Assaad, 2001; BalusÏka et al., 2001c; this feature is also a characteristic of sperm cells of higher
Bednarek and Falbel, 2003). Owing to the evolutionary plants. In contrast, plant cells entering into interphase
loss of the compact centrosomes and the acquisition of deploy their microtubules at the cell periphery (BalusÏka
abundant cortical micortubules (Mazia, 1987; BalusÏka et al., et al., 1997a) while actin and diverse actin-binding proteins
1997a), plant cytokinesis has undergone dramatic changes accumulate within their nuclei and participate in the
during the evolution of supracellular higher plants. For organization of nuclear structure and chromatin activities
example, cytokinesis in lower plants is either partially or (like DNA transcription) as well as in the maturation and
fully actin-dependent (McIntosh et al., 1995; Sawitzky and transport of RNA molecules (Olave et al., 2002; Pederson
Grolig, 1995; HoÈftberger and LuÈtz-Meindl, 1999; and Aebi, 2002; Kandasamy et al., 2003; Kraus et al., 2003;
Karyophyllis et al., 2000), whereas in higher plants it is Shumaker et al., 2003).
directed preferentially by the microtubular Cell Body. Obviously, both actin and tubulin are important for the
Under stress situations, however, plant cells sometimes organization of eukaryotic cells and therefore it is not
revert to a cleavage-like cytokinesis resembling animal surprising that both these proteins are among the most
cytokinesis (Herth and Meyer, 1978; Sonobe, 1990; Cleary, conserved of eukaryotic proteins. Strikingly, tight parallels
2001). It is as though the basic and ancient cytokinetic exist between this symbiotic-like organization of the actin-
process is still embedded in contemporary plant cells and based Cell Periphery Apparatus and the tubulin-based Cell
can reassert itself as a default upon severe challenge when Body, both assemblies being the vestiges of an ancient
all other division systems are prone to failure. hypothetical actin-based `host' cell and a tubulin-based
On the other hand, animal cells experimentally made `guest' cell (Fig. 3). As mentioned above, this sequence of
devoid of centrosomes also fail to complete a true events is recapitulated during the sexual reproduction of
cytokinesis, leaving the daughter cells coupled by cyto- eukaryotic organisms when, invariably, fusion between a
plasmic bridges (Doxsey, 2001; Khodjakov and Rieder, tubulin-based sperm cell and an actin-based oocyte gives
2001; Piehl et al., 2001) resembling plasmodesmata. rise to a new multicellular organism (Fig. 4). After fusion of
Interestingly in this respect, in higher plants, centriole and the tubulin-based sperm cell with the actin-based oocyte,
centrosome-based centrin localize to both plasmodesmata followed by the fusion of their haploid nuclei (Cell Bodies),
(Blackman et al., 1999) and cytokinetic cell plates (Del the centrosome-less oocyte acquires the sperm centrosome
Vecchio et al., 1997; Harper et al., 2000). Moreover, plant which then takes control of the spatial arrangement of
cells lack myosin II (Reichelt and Kendrick-Jones, 2000). microtubules in the fertilized zygote.
The signi®cance of this is that, in animal as well as yeast This sexual background to the current cytoskeleton, and
mutant cells devoid of class II myosins, there are aberrations the joining of the two ancient and Yin-Yang-like cyto-
in the ®nal phases of their cytokinesis, with a failure to skeletal systems into one cell, may explain the extreme
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 17
amount of the cytoplasmic space. If one of them is less
effective in this activity, then unequal daughter cells of a
division are the result; the weaker Cell Body has a smaller
in¯uence and gains a correspondingly smaller cytoplasmic
space (Pickett-Heaps et al., 1999; Brown and Lemmon,
2001).
A nice example of this situation is the ®rst mitotic
division of a pollen nucleus to produce a large vegetative
cell, which supports pollen tube growth, and a small
generative cell designed to form sperm cells devoid of F-
actin. Such rudimentary Cell Bodies of the sperm cells are
inactive and are fully dependent upon the metabolic
F I G . 6. During mitosis, all microtubules (blue) retract from the actin-rich activities of the vegetative nucleus and pollen tube.
(green) cell periphery and participate in the assembly of the mitotic Another example of such a `tug-of-war' between Cell
spindle, which represents the most basic form (or transformation) of the Bodies having different strengths is the ®rst division of the
Cell Body. In this state, the Cell Body is specialized for the segregation
of large amounts of chromosomal DNA (red). Mitosis is one of the most fertilized zygote, which is often asymmetric and thereby
conserved process found within the eukaryotic superkingdom. de®nes the anterior±posterior body axis of most multi-
cellular organisms (Wallenfang and Seydoux, 2000; Lyczak
et al., 2002; Wodarz, 2002). Smaller cells typically give rise
rapidity of the prokaryotic±eukaryotic switch and the to the posterior/shoot poles of multicellular organisms, and

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

consequent lack of fossil records of `transition' organisms then ultimately they become specialized for the develop-
(Dacks and Doolittle, 2001). The actin cytoskeleton ment of sexual organs and organs of movement. The larger
remained associated preferentialy with the ¯exible cell cells produce, again via asymmetric division, anterior/root
boundary which thereby drives an actin-based motility poles specialized for the uptake of nutritive substances and
(Pantaloni et al., 2001), whereas the microtubular cyto- for neuronal-like activities (for plants see JuÈrgens, 2000,
skeleton evolved, together with DNA and associated 2003; BalusÏka et al., 2004).
proteins, into the Cell Body. Both basic types of cyto-
skeleton exert mechanical forces via polymerization
and depolymerization of their respective polymers, resem- Centering of tubulin-based Cell Body and its modulation via
bling the force generation of present-day prokaryotic life, actin-based Cell Periphery Apparatus
which is also based on actin-like and tubulin-like proteins Recently, we reviewed data reporting that the actin-based
(van den Ent et al., 2001a, b; Ben-Yehuda and Losick, cell periphery participates in the positioning of the Cell
2002; Carballido-LoÂpez and Errington, 2003; Daniel and Body by means of interactions between the dynamic plus-
Errington, 2003). On the other hand, more advanced force- ends of microtubules, which emanate from the Cell Body,
generating systems, such as molecular motors which use and the actin-rich Cell Periphery Apparatus (BalusÏka et al.,
actin- and tubulin-based polymers as tracks, are true 2000b, 2001a). In the most typical situation, the Cell Body
eukaryotic inventions accomplished only as a consequence settles at the geometrical centre of the cell as a result of a
of the increased complexity of eukaryotic cells (Mitchison, centripetal pushing force directed from the cell periphery.
1995; Vale, 2003). Interestingly, not only present-day Dynamic microtubules lacking association with centro-
cellular parasites but also endosomes and phagosomes somes and nuclei, but equipped with microtubular motors,
(Merri®eld et al., 1999; Taunton et al., 2000; Zhang et al., are also capable of this centering phenomenon if the minus-
2002; Fehrenbacher et al., 2003; Southwick et al., 2003) use ends of microtubules focus upon cellular inclusions, such as
actin polymerization as a driving force for their motilities melanophores, while their plus-ends radiate towards the cell
(Machesky, 1999; Maly and Borisy, 2001; Pantaloni et al., periphery (Rodionov and Borisy, 1997). Centrosomes
2001; Pollard and Borisy, 2003). released from their inherent nuclear association use the
Actin- and tubulin-based cytoskeletal systems can sup- same mechanism for positioning and centring (Rieder et al.,
port cellular and subcellular movements independently of 2001; Euteneuer and Schliwa, 1992; Burakov et al., 2003).
each other. Cellular fragments containing portions of cell Cell Bodies make use of interactions with the cell
periphery and an actin polymerization machinery, but periphery-enriched actin cytoskeleton (Pruyne and
lacking nuclei and microtubules, are still capable of Bretscher, 2000) to maintain their positions (Burakov
autonomous directional motility (Albrecht-Buehler, 1980; et al., 2003). Dynamic microtubules explore the surround-
Euteneuer and Schliwa, 1984; Malawista and Chevance de ing perinuclear cytoplasmic space (Holy et al., 1997;
Bois¯eury, 1984; Verkhovsky et al., 1998; Maly and Borisy, Faivre-Moskalenko and Dogterom, 2002). The property of
2001). On the other hand, tubulin-based Cell Bodies are also microtubule instability, which is affected by reaching the
inherently motile. The characteristic motility of Cell Bodies cell boundary, is crucial for this explorative behaviour
within eukaryotic cells (BalusÏka et al., 2001a) strongly (Komarova et al., 2002). It allows mitotic spindles and
implicates the independent nature of this part of the interphase nuclei to perform rotations in the cytoplasm,
eukaryotic cell. As mentioned above, perinuclear micro- these movements also being navigated by the actin
tubules, capable of both pushing and pulling forces, act as cytoskeleton which accumulates under the plasma mem-
effective instruments to allow Cell Bodies to claim a certain brane (Reinsch and GoÈnczy, 1998; Adames and Cooper,
18 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
2000; Tran et al., 2001; Burakov et al., 2003; Kusch et al.,
2003). The identity of critical molecules that link the plus-
ends of microtubules with the actin cytoskeleton at the cell
cortex has recently been illuminated in yeast and animal
cells (Goode et al., 2000; Pruyne and Bretscher, 2000;
Glynn et al., 2001; Ishizaki et al., 2001; Gundersen, 2002;
Kodama et al., 2003). Interestingly, plant cells express a
homologue of Kar9p (Gardiner and Marc, 2003) which is
responsible for linking Cell Body microtubules to the actin-
rich cell cortex (Segal et al., 2002).
Accumulations of actin at distinct cell periphery domains
attract and stabilize nearby microtubules, and these ultim-
ately polarize the Cell Body (BalusÏka et al., 2000b, 2001a).
The centring and polarizing properties of Cell Bodies are
essential not only for division of unicellular yeast cells
(Pruyne and Bretscher, 2000) but also for cell-to-cell
communication, as evidenced by actin-based synaptic
contacts both in animal and plant cells (Dustin and
Colman, 2002; BalusÏka et al., 2003a, b, c; Barlow et al.,
2004). In plants, polar transport of auxin is inherently linked

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

to the overall polarity of the Cell Bodies (BalusÏka et al.,
2003a, b, c; Barlow et al., 2004). This in turn leads to a
preferred orientation of mitotic division. Cell Bodies of F I G . 7. The Cell Body organizes the exocytic secretory pathway (blue),
animal cells are also polarized via immunological synapses which is composed of endoplasmic reticulum (ER), Golgi apparatus (GA)
and secretory vesicles (SV). In contrast, the Cell Periphery Apparatus
(Sancho et al., 2002). In fact, in what seems to be part of a organizes the endocytic secretory pathway (green), which is composed of
cellular `arms race', active Cell Bodies organizing lyso- endocytic vesicles (EV), recycling vesicles (RV), early endosomes (EE)
some-based secretion of lytic substances can be considered and late endosomes (LE).
to behave as some sort of `killer machines' (Bossi et al.,
2002; Clark et al., 2003).
From the Yin/Yang perspective, mitosis might be viewed Importantly, the outwardly directed exocytic pathway is
as a phase in which the two types of cytoskeleton are phylogenetically older than the inwardly directed endo-
separated from each other, and revert back to the ancient cytotic pathway (JeÂkely, 2003), which is organized by the
con®guration of the cytoarchitecture (Fig. 6). Mitotic Cell Periphery Apparatus (Fig. 7). The endocytic pathway
segregation of DNA-based mitotic chromosomes is organ- starts at the plasma membrane (Conner and Schmid, 2003)
ized and driven solely via microtubules, which retract from with actin-dependent internalization steps (Engquist-
all cellular areas and are then free to build up the spindle Goldstein and Drubin, 2003), and proceeds deeper into the
apparatus. Conversely, the actin cytoskeleton retracts from cytoplasm via different types of endosomes (Fig. 7) pro-
the cell's interior and associates preferentially with the Cell pelled by comet-like actin tails (Merri®eld et al., 1999;
Periphery Apparatus (Fig. 5). When mitotis and cytokinesis Taunton et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2002; Fehrenbacher et al.,
are both concluded, tubulin and actin-based cytoskeletons 2003; Southwick et al., 2003). This pathway, which is
interpenetrate again and form the integrated cytoskeletal evolutionarily speaking a more recent one, is a vestige of the
network of eukaryotic cells (Goode et al., 2000; Kodama activities of the ancient actin-based `host' proto-cell which
et al., 2003). represents a transformation of its actin-based plasma
membrane. These internalization pathways, including
primitive versions of phagocytic and endocytic pathways,
Cell Body-based exocytosis versus Cell Periphery-based
allowed the symbiotic acquisition of further organelles of
endocytosis
eukaryotic cells; these acquired organelles were the fore-
From a phylogenetical perspective, the Cell Body concept runners of the present-day mitochondria and plastids
gives us some clues to speculate on how it came about that (McFadden, 1999; Gray et al., 2001). Nowadays these
eukaryotic cells developed two quite contrasting pathways endocytotic pathways are hijacked by viruses and bacteria,
for vesicular membrane traf®cking. The secretory pathway allowing them to intrude into eukaryotic cells (Brock et al.,
is organized by the Cell Body: it starts at the nuclear 2003; Stamm et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2003) and then, after
envelope (VorõÂsÏek, 2000; Matynia et al., 2002), continues entering the cell, to exploit the actin cytoskeleton for their
via endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus, and intracellular, as well as cell-to-cell, migration (Goldberg,
culminates with secretory vesicles fusing with the plasma 2001; Fehrenbacher et al., 2003; Stamm et al., 2003).
membrane (Fig. 7). Secretion is tightly coupled with nuclear Using the actin cytoskeleton, the most primitive eukar-
organization (Nanduri and Tartakoff, 2001) and is under the yotic cells exploited this second, endocytotic pathway of
spatial control of the Cell Body microtubules (Bloom and vesicular traf®cking not only for cellular nutrition (Conner
Goldstein, 1998; MuÈsch, 2004). and Schmid, 2003) but also for complex cell-to-cell
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 19
signalling pathways which have now become a prevalent of nuclear pores (Ryan et al., 2003), the sorting out of the
feature of multicellular organisms (Gundel®nger et al., nuclear envelope as a specialized domain of endoplasmic
2003; Stevens, 2003). The best examples here are adhesion reticulum (Hetzer et al., 2002; Mattaj, 2004), nucleocyto-
domains specialized for vesicular cell-to-cell communica- plasmic transport (GoÈrlich and Kutay, 1999), targetting of
tion in neuronal, immunological and plant synapses (Dustin nuclear proteins (Narayanan et al., 2003), as well as
and Colman, 2002; Barlow et al., 2004). Moreover, besides centrosome activity (Di Fiore et al., 2003; Keryer et al.,
the endosymbiotic acquisition of the power-houses of 2003), kinetochore function (Arnaoutov and Dasso, 2003),
eukaryotic cellsÐthe mitochondria and chloroplasts nuclear chromatin- and chromosome-driven polymerization
(McFadden, 1999; Gray et al., 2001) ± there were secondary of microtubules (Carazo-Salas et al., 1999; Ohba et al.,
endosymbiotic events in which one primitive eukaryote 1999; Wilde et al., 2001; Kalab et al., 2002) and spindle
enclosed a second eukaryote (Cavalier-Smith and Beaton, checkpoints (Li et al., 2003). Because Ran GTPases also
1999; Douglas et al., 2001; Gilson, 2001; Cavalier-Smith, regulate DNA synthesis (Moore, 2001; Yamaguchi and
2002b). This reveals that there is an inherent tendency for Newport, 2003) and cell-cycle progression (Moore, 2001),
endosymbiosis which has operated throughout the evolution this class of small GTPases emerges as a central organizing
of biological systems. component of the Cell Body, linking together DNA- and
tubulin-based structures.
Small GTP-binding proteins from the Cell Body perspective:
the unique status of Ran family
I N H E R E N T D N A ± T U B U L I N IN T E R A CT I O N S
Besides the nucleus, cytoskeleton and vesicle traf®cking

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

`Happy marriage' or `master±slave' relationships?
machinery, all eukaryotic cells are characterized by the Ras
superfamily of small GTPases that are key regulators of The evolutionary transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes,
both cytoskeletal dynamics and vesicular traf®ckings. The which is still one of the greatest puzzles for contemporary
phylogenetic analysis of small GTPases reveals that the biology, was marked by the unprecedented molecular
most ancient eukaryotic cells were equipped with a coupling of tubulin with DNA. In prokaryotes, DNA is
secretory machinery but, as mentioned above, lacked the associated with membranes which thereby allow its repli-
molecules which would support endocytosis and phagocy- cation and partitioning, whereas eukaryotes use exclusively
tosis (JeÂkely, 2003). The nuclear envelope is part of the microtubules to partition huge amounts of DNA with high
exocytic pathway (VorõÂsÏek, 2000; Matynia et al., 2002; ®delity. Recently, DNA segregation in bacteria was shown
Shimoda, 2004) that is organized along Cell Body micro- to rely on polymerization of actin-like ParM protein
tubules radiating from the nuclear envelope towards the cell (Mùller-Jensen et al., 2003) This suggests that DNA has
periphery. It is probable that the symbiotic origin of the an inherent tendency to enslave cytoskeletal molecules,
nucleus (Gupta et al., 1994; Gupta and Golding, 1996; irrespective of its association with either prokaryotic or
Horiike et al., 2001; Hartman and Fedorov, 2002) is eukaryotic cellular organization.
inherently linked with the acquisition of this pathway. The association of DNA with nuclear proteins, especially
Most small GTPases localize to the membranes of histones (Malik and Henikoff, 2003), as well as the
eukaryotic cells where they act as biological switches, association of chromatin with tubulin-based microtubules,
activating or terminating biological processes. Particular are the most characteristic features of eukaryotic cells
subcellular localizations of these membranous targets are (BalusÏka et al., 1997a). Double-stranded (but not the single-
speci®ed by post-translational modi®cations with farnesyl, stranded) DNA binds to the microtubule-associated protein
palmitoyl, myristolyl and geranylgeranyl lipid groups tau, which somehow protects the DNA double helix (Hua
(Takai et al., 2001; Vernoud et al., 2003). Members of the and He, 2003; Hua et al., 2003). This latter feature together
Ras family are predominantly localized to the plasma with those processes that drive mitosis indicate that DNA is
membrane where they activate stimulus±responsive serine/ perhaps the dominant partner in this molecular relationship.
threonine kinases (Takai et al., 2001; Vernoud et al., 2003), This would imply some kind of molecular slavery relation-
while members of the Rho family organize a cytoskeleton in ship between tubulin and DNA, the latter playing the role of
association with phagocytic and endocytic membranes master.
(Ridley, 2001; Etienne-Manneville and Hall, 2002). Importantly, this `master±slave' relationship allows the
Members of the Rab family organize endocytic pathways Cell Bodies to exhibit exploratory properties in space and
(Zerial and McBride, 2001) while Arf members localize time (Kirschner and Gerhart, 1998; West-Eberhard, 1998;
preferentially to endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus BalusÏka et al., 2001a). These properties are essential for
(Pasqualato et al., 2002; Spang, 2002). Interestingly, cell driving cellular polarities (Pruyne and Bretscher, 2000;
fusion is regulated by the plasma membrane-associated BalusÏka et al., 2001a) as well as for pattern formation,
GTPase ARF6 (Chen et al., 2003; Taylor, 2003). morphogenesis and development of complex multicellular
Of all the known families of small GTPases, only the Ran organisms (BalusÏka et al., 2003b). Due to the abandonment
family members lack lipid attachment modules. They are of the inherent association between DNA and membranes,
thus not localized to membranes but are, instead, abundant which is the hallmark of prokaryotes, eukaryotic DNA
within the nucleus. Ran GTPases shuttle to the cytoplasm became free to engage in extensive proliferation. Using
and organize diverse nuclear features and processes, such as specialized nuclear proteins that direct tubulin polymeriza-
nuclear architecture (Clarke and Zhang, 2001), the assembly tion (Oegema et al., 1997; Wittmann et al., 2000; Du et al.,
20 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
2001; Keryer et al., 2003; Rabitsch et al., 2003; Raemaekers known components of MTOCs, and they are part of a
et al., 2003; Schatz et al., 2003; for a review see BalusÏka ubiquitous microtubule nucleator complex with a molecular
et al., 1997a), DNA enslaved the microtubular cytoskeleton mass of about 280 kDa (Moritz and Agard, 2001). SPC98p
(see also Box 2) and exploited it as the vehicle to move large has also been identi®ed in plant cells (Erhardt et al., 2002)
DNA assemblages, such as mitotic chromosomes or even where it localizes to three distinct sites: intranuclear dots,
whole nuclei. Cell Bodies clearly manifest this master±slave the nuclear surface, and at sites near the plasma membrane
relationship. (Seltzer et al., 2003). All this conforms very well with the
The inherent relationship between eukaryotic DNA and Cell Body concept as elaborated in this review.
microtubules is so strong that even the extremely reduced
nucleomorphs, which have undergone up to 1000-fold
reduction of their genomic DNA mass (Cavalier-Smith and OUTLOOK
Beaton, 1999; Gilson, 2001), still retain genes for a-, b- and Genome evolution is associated with a huge variation in
g-tubulins, although they lack most other proteins typical of nuclear DNA amounts. Eukaryotic organisms at either the
eukaryotic cells (Keeling et al., 1999). As mentioned, a very same or different levels of complexity differ considerably in
strong argument for an inherent association between DNA their DNA amounts. The genome of Amoeba, for example,
molecules and tubulins can be found in the unique nature of is about 200 times larger than the human genome, repre-
epixenosomes, which are ectosymbionts located on the senting one of the most astonishing examples of the C-value
surface of marine ciliates (Petroni et al., 2000). They might enigma (Gregory, 2001a). In the plant genus Luzula, whose
be considered to be highly reduced symbiotic Cell Bodies species are dif®cult to distinguish morphologically from one
consisting only of DNA and tubulins (Jenkins et al., 2002). another, diploid DNA values vary 15-fold and chromosome

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

numbers 10-fold (species with low chromosome numbers
having higher DNA amounts) (Barlow and Nevin, 1976).
MAZIA'S VISION OF FLEXIBLE LINEAR
Not many molecular biologists are aware of the fact that
CENTROSOMES IN PLANT CELLS: GAMMA-
coding DNA comprises only <10 % of the whole genome,
TUBULIN, EB1 AND SPC98P HOLD THE KEY
the rest of the DNA being of unknown function (Cavalier-
One outstanding mystery of higher plant cells, which has Smith and Beaton, 1999). Importantly, the non-coding DNA
perplexed scientists for many years, is the apparent absence has an effect on cell size via its so-called nucleotypic
of corpuscular centrosomes. This failure to identify any in¯uence (Bennett, 1972; Gregory, 2001a, b), although
de®nite centrosome in the cells of higher plants stimulated there is no plausible explanation for this phenomenon
Mazia to propose, in an entirely speculative manner, the (Gregory, 2001a).
concept of a `¯exible' linear centrosome which should be Fortunately, the Cell Body concept is poised to explain
able to modify its three-dimensional arrangement (Mazia, these enigmas. DNA-binding proteins stored within nuclei
1987). He was proposing a `¯exible string' composed of often regulate tubulin polymerization (BalusÏka et al.,
discrete units which are, in a way similar to DNA, capable 1997a), while the dynamism of cytoplasmic microtubules
of folding and hence attaining secondary and tertiary orders regulates the access to the nucleus of proteins sequestered
of structural organization. within the cytoplasm (for transcription factors see Oegema
At the time of Mazia's suggestion, g-tubulin was not et al., 1997; Wittmann et al., 2000; Du et al., 2001; Keryer
known (Oakley and Oakley, 1989), and no MTOC et al., 2003; Rabitsch et al., 2003; Raemaekers et al., 2003;
component had been identi®ed in plant cells, despite the Schatz et al., 2003; for a review see BalusÏka et al., 1997a).
fact that the concept of a MTOC had already been proposed This, in turn, regulates the binding of these proteins to the
for them (Pickett-Heaps, 1969). Now, however, numerous DNA, irrespective of its coding capacity, and in¯uences the
data are accumulating that indicate that plant g-tubulins, assembly of the nuclear matrix (BalusÏka and Barlow, 1993;
together with other proteins, correspond to the putative BalusÏka et al., 1995a, b, 1997b).
discrete units which represent the ¯exible linear centrosome Dynamic microtubules also stabilize the nucleocytoplas-
of higher plant cells (Liu et al., 1993; Joshi and Palevitz, mic ratio (Trombetta, 1939), this being a measure of the
1996; Canaday et al., 2000; Panteris et al., 2000; ef®ciency with which the microtubules of the Cell Body
Dibbayawan et al., 2001; Drykova et al., 2003; Horio and patrol the cytoplasmic domain surrounding the nucleus.
Oakley, 2003; Kumagai et al., 2003; Schmit, 2003; DNA can independently increase or diminish in amount,
Shimamura et al., 2004). In addition to g-tubulin, very and a given nucleocytoplasmic ratio can be maintained so
recent advances have identi®ed the tubulin plus-end binding long as the microtubules radiating from the nucleus
protein EB1 (Rehberg et al., 2002; Rogers et al., 2002) dominate the surrounding cytoplasmic domain in proportion
which, in plant cells, also marks the mobile minus-ends to nuclear volume. As mentioned above, nucleomorphs are
(Chan et al., 2003). These ®ndings strengthen Mazia's view not relict nuclei, as generally assumed (Cavalier-Smith and
of a ¯exible and dispersed centrosome in plant cells (Chan Beaton, 1999; Gilson, 2001), but are relict Cell Bodies. This
et al., 2003; Lloyd and Chan, 2004). This interpretation is is evidenced by their expression of tubulin genes, although
supported by the situation known from Dictyostelium this does not lead to the formation of microtubules (Keeling
discoideum where EB1 is an integral part of the centrosome, et al., 1999). Similarly, epixenosomes represent another
is independent of microtubules (Rehberg et al., 2002), and example of highly reduced Cell Bodies composed only of
emerges from centrosomes on tips of growing microtubules tubulins and DNA (Jenkins et al., 2002). Importantly, the
(Piehl et al., 2004). SPC98p and SPC97p are other well- miniaturized genomes of nucleomorphs do not scale with
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 21
the cell size of their hosts (Gilson, 2001). Because exciting in that they reveal the need for the Cell Body
nucleomorphs lack non-coding DNA, which in most concept, especially because of the unique power of this
eukaryotic genomes is much more abundant than coding concept to explain the role of non-coding DNA as a central
DNA (Gregory, 2001a, b), one could propose that the non- player responsible for the linkage between the DNA-based
coding DNA is relevant for the Cell Body on account of its nuclear chromatin with the tubulin-based cytoskeleton. This
interaction with tubulin molecules via diverse tubulin/DNA- feature allows the Cell Body to couple genomic information
associated proteins, of which NuMa is the most instructive (encoded within DNA sequences and handed over to RNA
example (Levesque et al., 2003; Tulu et al., 2003). molecules) with epigenetic information (embodied within
Recently, a putative plant homologue of NuMa was reported the inherent physical properties of DNA structures, which
for Arabidopsis (Gardiner and Marc, 2003). can store and propagate this information via complex DNA±
In the framework of the Cell Body concept, the non- protein and protein±protein templating processes) (Gregory
coding DNA could control nuclear structure via its ability to and Herbert, 1999; Zuckerkandl, 2002). The crucial ques-
control both internal nuclear architecture and the availabil- tion to answer is what molecules accomplish the inherent
ity of nuclear proteins that have tubulin-polymerizing DNA/tubulin-based cytoskeleton interactions. The ®rst
activity (BalusÏka et al., 1997a). This would be in a full clues are emerging in this respect. First, linker histone H1
agreement with the proposition that non-coding DNA acts was reported to exert a dual function, acting as some kind of
as nucleoskeletal DNA (Cavalier-Smith and Beaton, 1999). microtubule-associated protein which stabilizes preformed
On the other hand, the dynamic properties of cytoplasmic microtubules (Multigner et al., 1992; Saoudi et al., 1995;
microtubules can make a direct impact on nuclear architec- Kaczanowski and Jerzmanowski, 2001). Second, micro-
ture. They can either exert pushing forces on the nuclear tubule-associated protein tau binds to double-stranded, but

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

surface or sequester, within the cytoplasm, proteins critical not single-stranded, DNA and does so reversibly in the
for structuring the nuclear chromatin and for regulating presence of histones (Hua et al., 2003). It also apparently
genome expression. In support of these notions, we have protects the double helix structure from damaging free
reported elsewhere upon the close relationships between radicals (Hua and He, 2003).
nuclear size, chromatin structure and dynamicity of Cell Bodies can sense electric and magnetic ®elds, and
cytoplasmic microtubules (BalusÏka and Barlow, 1993; use them as cues for the orientation of mitotic divisions
BalusÏka et al., 1995a, b, 1997b). (Denegre et al., 1998; Zhao et al., 1999; Song et al., 2002;
Thus, the Cell Body concept not only predicts that DNA
Valles, 2002). Relevant in this respect are the microtubules
regulates tubulin assembly within the cytoplasm but also
which, in this sensory context, have even been proposed to
that the assembled microtubules control the availablity of
act like the `nerves' of cells (Albrecht-Buehler, 1998) due to
nuclear proteins, sequestered within the cytoplasm, for the
their ability to perceive and transmit light (Albrecht-
decondensation of chromatin which controls DNA replica-
Buehler, 1992, 1994, 1998). The orientated self-organ-
tion and transcription (Oegema et al., 1997; Du et al., 2001;
ization of microtubules is, in some circumstances, also
Wittmann et al., 2000; Keryer et al., 2003; Rabitsch et al.,
2003; Raemaekers et al., 2003; Schatz et al., 2003; for a dependent upon gravitational ®elds (Tabony and Job, 1992;
review see BalusÏka et al., 1997a). From the point of view of Papaseit et al., 1999, 2000; Tabony et al., 2001). Moreover,
the Cell Body, there is no difference between coding DNA dynamic microtubules can sense another critical physical
and non-coding DNA; both are predicted to interact, directly parameter of environment: temperature. This may be via
or indirectly, with the sequestered nuclear proteins. Ca2+ liberated from cell walls (Plieth et al., 1999) and from
However, uncovering those proteins which interact directly the endocytotic components of the Cell Periphery
with the non-coding skeletal DNA (Cavalier-Smith and Apparatus. Sensing the physical environment is inherently
Beaton, 1999) will require concentrated activity from combined with the ability of microtubules to organize into
molecular biologists. Unfortunately, this will take some radial arrays of the Cell Body that scan the plasma
time because current scienti®c efforts are focusing solely on membrane boundaries of the cytoplasm, exerting either a
the genetic coding properties of DNA. pushing or a pulling force on any object or boundary to
The importance of non-coding DNA for interactions with which they are attached. Thus, the combination of all these
the tubulin-based cytoskeketon is well known from properties allows the microtubular mitotic spindle (specia-
centromeres (repetitive non-coding DNA sequences), lized form of the Cell Body optimized for its multiplication)
which organize, via associations of numerous DNA binding not only to act as an ideal tool for separating large amounts
proteins, kinetochores that are specialized for the attach- of DNA molecules with high ®delity but also to endow the
ment of mitotic chromomes to microtubules of the mitotic otherwise passive DNA-storing nuclei with sensory and
spindle (De Wulf et al., 2003). Recent advances in studies exploratory properties (Kirschner and Mitchison, 1986;
on centromeres and kinetochores reveal a lack of DNA Kirschner and Gerhardt, 1998). Clearly, microtubules are
sequence speci®city for the establishment and maintenance central for these abilities of Cell Bodies to, ®rst, sense
of centromere DNA identity, as well as kinetochore physical properties of their environment and, second, to use
assembly (Sullivan et al., 2001; Amor and Choo, 2002). this information directly in morphogenesis (Kirschner and
Clearly, the centromere±kinetochore complex is assem- Mitchison, 1986; Hyman and Karsenti, 1996; Papaseit et al.,
bled and maintained via self-propagating epigenetic mech- 1999). These two phenomena are especially critical for
anisms based on chromatin structures, but independent of sessile higher plants (BalusÏka et al., 1997a, 1998;
DNA sequences (Amor and Choo, 2002). These ®ndings are Wasteneys, 2002).
22 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
CONCLUSIONS Amor DJ, Choo KHA. 2002. Neocentromeres: role in human disease,
evolution, and centromere study. American Journal of Human
In conclusion, the Cell Body concept proposed here is useful Genetics 71: 695±714.
for understanding eukaryotic cells in their whole complex- Arnaoutov A, Dasso M. 2003. The Ran GTPase regulates kinetochore
ity. This concept not only explains how eukaryotic cells function. Developmental Cell 5: 99±111.
Aronson JF. 1971. Demonstration of a colcemid-sensitive attractive force
came to be formed from their proto-cellular predecessors, acting between the nucleus and a cell center. Journal of Cell Biology
and in particular how the eukaryotic nucleus was formed 51: 579±583.
and why it is so intimately linked with centrosomes and Assaad F. 2001. Plant cytokinesis. Exploring the links. Plant Physiology
microtubules, but it also explains why mitosis and 126: 509±516.
È stroÈm H, Sorri O, Raudaskoski M. 1995. Role of microtubules in the
A
cytokinesis can be accomplished independently of each movement of the vegetative nucleus and generative cell in tobacco
other. Moreover, this concept reveals the fundamentally pollen tubes. Sexual Plant Reproduction 8: 61±69.
sexual nature of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton, and explains Balczon R, Bao L, Zimmer WE, Brown K, Zinkowski RP, Brinkley
differences between exocytosis and endocytosis from an BR. 1995. Dissociation of centrosome replication events from cycles
evolutionary point of view. Last, but not least, the Cell Body of DNA synthesis and mitotic division in hydroxyurea-arrested
Chinese hamster ovary cells. Journal of Cellular Biology 130: 105±
concept allows, for the ®rst time, an explanation of the C- 115.
value enigma from the perspective of nucleotypic DNA± BalusÏka F, Barlow PW. 1993. The role of the microtubular cytoskeleton
tubulin interactions. in determining nuclear chromatin structure and passage of maize root
cells through the cell cycle. European Journal of Cell Biology 61:
160±167.
A FI N A L N O T E BalusÏka F, Barlow PW, Hauskrecht M, Kubica SÏ, Parker JS,
Volkmann D. 1995a. Microtubule arrays in maize root cells.
This review is dedicated to the memory of Daniel Mazia

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

Interplay between the cytoskeleton, nuclear organization and post-
(1912±1996) who was well aware of the unique nature of mitotic cellular growth patterns. New Phytologist 130: 177±192.
DNA±tubulin interactions. The apparent absence of a BalusÏka F, BacigaÂlova K, Oud JL, Hauskrecht M, Kubica SÏ. 1995b.
Rapid reorganization of microtubular cytoskeleton accompanies
corpuscular centrosome in cells of higher plants was a early changes in nuclear ploidy and chromatin structure in
puzzle to be solved, and Mazia approached this enigmatic postmitotic cells of barley leaves infected with powdery mildew.
problem by proposing the existence of a thread-like ¯exible Protoplasma 185: 140±151.
centrosome which would be in a position to attain higher- BalusÏka F, Barlow PW, Parker JS, Volkmann D. 1996. Symmetric
order structures. Daniel Mazia discovered and isolated the reorganizations of radiating microtubules around pre-mitotic and
post-mitotic nuclei of dividing cells organized within intact root
mitotic apparatus of sea urchins (Mazia and Dan, 1952) meristems. Journal of Plant Physiology 149: 119±128.
even before microtubules were known. Following this, and BalusÏka F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 1997a. Nuclear components with
with the legacy of Theodore Boveri in mind (Mazia, 1987), microtubule-organizing properties in multicellular eukaryotes:
he devoted almost his whole life to understanding how functional and evolutionary considerations. International Review of
Cytology 175: 91±135.
centrosomes, microtubules and nuclei (or mitotic chromo- BalusÏka F, SÏamaj J, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 1997b. Impact of taxol-
somes) interact to build the structural and functional unit mediated stabilization of microtubules on nuclear morphology,
which he termed the Cell Body (Mazia, 1994). ploidy levels and cell growth in maize roots. Biology of Cell 89:
Unfortunately, his death prevented him from formulating 221±231.
this concept to the full. Here, we make an attempt to do this, BalusÏka F, Lichtscheidl IK, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 1998. The plant
cell body: a cytoskeletal tool for cellular development and
employing a holistic approach that embraces both the morphogenesis. Protoplasma 202: 1±10.
evolutionary as well as the structural and functional aspects BalusÏka F, Salaj J, Mathur J, Braun M, Jasper F, SÏamaj J et al. 2000a.
of eukaryotic life. We ®nd that these approaches can be Root hair formation: F-actin-dependent tip growth is initiated by
satisfactorily integrated into the miracle of the Cell Body. local assembly of pro®lin-supported F-actin meshworks accumulated
within expansin-enriched bulges. Developmental Biology 227: 618±
632.
L I TE R A T U R E C I T E D BalusÏka F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 2000b. Actin-based domains of
the `cell periphery complex' and their associations with polarized
Adam JC, Pringle JR, Pfeifer M. 2000. Evidence for functional `cell bodies' in higher plants. Plant Biology 2: 253±267.
differentiation among Drosophila septins in cytokinesis and BalusÏka F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 2001a. Motile plant cell body: a
cellularization. Molecular Biology of the Cell 11: 3123±3135. `bug' within a `cage'. Trends in Plant Sciences 6: 104±111.
Adames NR, Cooper JA. 2000. Microtubule interactions with the cell BalusÏka F, Cvrckova F, Kendrick-Jones J, Volkmann D. 2001b. Sink
cortex causing nuclear movements in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. plasmodesmata as gateways for phloem unloading. Myosin VIII and
Journal of Cell Biology 149: 863±874. calreticulin as molecular determinants of sink strength? Plant
Albrecht-Buehler, G. 1980. Autonomous movement of cytoplasmic Physiology 126: 39±46.
fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the BalusÏka F, JaÂsik J, Edelmann HG, Salajova T, Volkmann D. 2001c.
USA 77: 6639±6643. Latrunculin B induced plant dwar®sm: plant cell elongation is F-
Albrecht-Buehler, G. 1992. A rudimentary form of cellular `vision'. actin dependent. Developmental Biology 231: 113±124.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 89: BalusÏka F, SÏamaj J, Menzel D. 2003a. Polar transport of auxin: carrier-
8288±8292. mediated ¯ux across the plasma membrane or neurotransmitter-like
Albrecht-Buehler G. 1994. The cellular infrared detector appears to be secretion? Trends Cell Biology 13: 282±285.
contained in the centrosome. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 27: BalusÏka F, Wojtaszek P, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 2003b. The
262±271. architecture of polarized cell growth: the unique status of elongating
Albrecht-Buehler G. 1998. Altered drug resistance of microtubules in plant cells. BioEssays 25: 569±576.
cells exposed to infrared light pulses: are microtubules the `nerves' BalusÏka F, SÏamaj J, Wojtaszek P, Volkmann D, Menzel D. 2003c.
of cells? Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 40: 183±192. Cytoskeleton ± plasma membrane ± cell wall continuum: emerging
Anderson GR, Stoler DL, Brenner BM. 2001. Cancer: the evolved links revisited. Plant Physiology 136: 482±491.
consequence of a destabilized genome. BioEssays 23: 1037±1046. BalusÏka F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. 2004. Root apices as
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 23
plant command centres: the unique `brain-like' status of the root apex control of cytokinesis in reproductive cells of plants. EMSA Bulletin
transition zone. BioloÂgia (Bratislava) 59 (Supplement 13): In press 22: 48±53.
Barlow PW. 1982. `The plant forms cells, not cells the plant': the origin of Brown RC, Lemmon BE. 2001. The cytoskeleton and spatial control of
de Bary's aphorism. Annals of Botany 49: 269±271. cytokinesis in the plant cell life cycle. Protoplasma 215: 35±49.
Barlow PW. 1994. Cell divisions in meristems and their contribution to Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Olsen O-A. 1994a. Endosperm development in
organogenesis and plant form. In: Ingram DS, Hudson A, eds. Shape barley: microtubule involvement in the morphogenetic pathway.
and form in plants and fungi. London: Academic Press, 169±193. Plant Cell 6: 1241±1252.
Barlow PW, Nevin D. 1976. Quantitative karyology of some species of Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Olsen O-A. 1994b. Development of endosperm
Luzula. Plant Systematics and Evolution 125: 77±86. in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sexual Plant Reproduction 12: 32±42.
Barlow PW, Volkmann D, BalusÏka F. 2004. Polarity in roots. In: Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Olsen O-A. 1996. Development of the
Lindsey K, ed. Polarity in plants. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, endosperm in rice (Oryza sativa L.): cellularization. Journal of Plant
192±241. Research 109: 301±313.
de Bary A. 1864. Die Mycetozoen (Schleimpilzen), Leipzig: Engelmann. Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Nguyen H. 2004. Events during the ®rst four
Bednarek SY, Falbel TG. 2003. Membrane traf®cking during plant rounds of mitosis establish three developmental domains in the
cytokinesis. Traf®c 3: 621±629. syncytial endosperm of Arabidopsis thaliana. Protoplasma 222:
Bennett MD. 1972. Nuclear DNA content and minimum generation time 167±174.
in herbaceous plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Bruusgaard JC, Liestùl K, Ekmark M, Kollstand K, Gundersen K.
Series B 181: 109±135. 2003. Number and spatial distribution of nuclei in the muscle ®bres
Ben-Yehuda S, Losick R. 2002. Asymmetric cell division in B. subtilis of normal mice studied in vivo. Journal of Physiology 551.2: 467±
involves a spiral-like intermediate of the cytokinetic protein FtsZ. 478.
Cell 109: 257±266. Burakov A, Nadezhdina E, Slepchenko B, Rodionov V. 2003.
Bhattacharya D, Yoon HS, Hackett JD. 2003. Photosynthetic eukaryotes Centrosome positioning in interphase cells. Journal of Cell Biology
unite: endosymbiosis connects the dots. BioEssays 26: 50±60. 162: 963±969.
Bi E, Maddox P, Lew DJ, Salmon ED, McMillan JN, Yeh E, Pringle Burkhardt J. 1998. The role of microtubule-based motor proteins in

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

JR. 1998. Involvement of an actomyosin contractile ring in maintaining the structure and function of the Golgi complex.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae cytokinesis. Journal of Cell Biology Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1404: 113±116.
142: 1301±1312. Canaday J, Stoppin-Mellet V, Mutterer J, Lambert A-M. 2000. Higher
Bibikova TN, Blanca¯or E, Gilroy S. 1999. Microtubules regulate tip plant cells: gamma-tubulin and microtubule nucleation in the absence
growth and orientation in root hairs of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant of centrosomes. Microscopy Research and Techniques 49: 487±495.
Journal 17: 657±665. Carazo-Salas RE, Guarguaglini G, Gruss OJ, Segref A, Karsenti E,
Blackman LM, Harper JDI, Overall RL. 1999. Localization of a Mattaj IW. 1999. Generation of GTP-bound Ran by RCC1 is
centrin-like protein to higher plant plasmodesmata. European required for chromatin-induced mitotic spindle formation. Nature
Journal of Cell Biology 78: 297±304. 400: 178±181.
Bloom GS, Goldstein LSB. 1998. Cruising along microtubule highways:
Carballido-LoÂpez R, Errington J. 2003. The bacterial cytoskeleton:
how membranes move through the secretory pathway. Journal of
in vivo dynamics of the actin-like protein Mbl of Bacillus subtilis.
Cell Biology 140: 1277±1280.
Developmental Cell 4: 19±28.
Boevink P, Oparka K, Santa-Cruz S, Martin B, Betteridge A, Hawes
Cathomen T, Mrkic B, Spehner D, Drillien R, Naef R, Pavlovic J,
C. 1998. Stacks on tracks: the plant golgi apparatus traf®cs on an
Aguzzi A, Billeter MA, Cattaneo R. 1998. A matrix-less measles
actin/ER network. Plant Journal 15: 441±447.
virus is infectious and elicits extensive cell fusion: consequences for
Boisnard-Lorig C, Colon-Carmona A, Bauch M, Hodge S, Doerner P,
propagation in the brain. EMBO Journal 17: 3899±3908.
Bancharel E, Dumas C, Haseloff J, Berger F. 2001. Dynamic
analyses of the expression of the HISTONE::YFP fusion protein in Cavalier-Smith T. 2002a. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and
Arabidopsis show that syncytial endosperm is divided in mitotic phylogenetic classi®cation of Protozoa. International Journal of
domains. Plant Cell 13: 495±509. Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297±354.
Bossi G, Trambas C, Booth S, Clark R, Stinchcombe J, Grif®ths GM. Cavalier-Smith T. 2002b. Chloroplast evolution: secondary
2002. The secretory synapse: the secrets of a serial killer. symbiogenesis and multiple losses. Current Biology 12: R62±R64.
Immunological Reviews 189: 152±160. Cavalier-Smith T, Beaton MJ. 1999. The skeletal function of non-coding
Boveri T. 1888. Zellen-studien II. Die Befruchtung und Teilung des Eies DNA: new evidence from ancient cell chimeras. Genetics 106: 3±13.
von Ascaris megalocephala. Jena: Fisher. Chabin-Brion K, Marceiller J, Perez F, Settegrana C, Drechou A,
Boveri T. 1902a. Zellen-studien IV. U È ber die Natur der Centrosomen. Durand G, PouÈs C. 2001. The Golgi complex is a microtubule-
Jena: Fisher. organizing organelle. Molecular Biology of the Cell 12: 2047±2060.
Boveri T. 1902b. U È ber mehrpolige Mitosen als Mittel zur Analyse des Chan J, Calder GM, Doonan JH, Lloyd CW. 2003. EB1 reveals mobile
Zellkerns. Verhandlungen der physikalisch-medizinischen microtubule nucleation sites in Arabidopsis. Nature Cell Biology 5:
Gesselschaft zu WuÈrzburg 35: 67±90. 967±971.
Bowerman B, Severson AF. 1999. Cell division: plant-like properties of Chen EH, Pryce BA, Tzeng JA, Gonzalez GA, Olson EN. 2003. Control
animal cell cytokinesis. Current Biology 9: R658±R660. of myoblast fusion by a guanine nucleotide exchange factor, loner,
Brandizzi F, Snapp EL, Roberts AG, Lippincot-Schwartz J, Hawes C. and its effector ARF6. Cell 114: 751±762.
2002. Membrane protein transport between the endoplasmic Clark RH, Stinchcombe JC, day A, Blott E, Booth S, Bossi G, Hamblin
reticulum and the Golgi in tobacco leaves is energy dependent but T, Davies EG, Grif®ths GM. 2003. Adaptor protein 3-dependent
cytoskeleton independent: evidence from selective photobleaching. microtubule-mediated movement of lytic granules to the
Plant Cell 14: 1293±1309. immunological synapse. Nature Immunology 4: 1111±1120.
Bresgen N, Czihak G, Linhart J. 1994. Computer modeling of blastoderm Clarke PR, Zhang C. 2001. Ran GTPase: a master regulator of nuclear
formation in Drosophila. Naturwissenschaften 81: 417±418. structure and function during the eukaryotic division cycle? Trends
Brinkley BR. 2001. Managing the centrosome numbers game: from chaos in Cell Biology 11: 366±371.
to stability in cancer cell division. Trends in Cell Biology 11: 18±21. Cleary AL. 2001. Plasma membrane ± cell wall connections: roles in
Brock SC, Goldenring JR, Crowe Jr. JE. 2003. Apical recycling mitosis and cytokinesis revealed by plasmolysis of Tradescantia
systems regulate directional budding of respiratory syncytial virus virginiana leaf epidermal cells. Protoplasma 215: 21±34.
from polarized epithelial cells. Proceedings of the National Academy Cole NB, Sciaky N, Marotta A, Song J, Lippincott-Schwartz J. 1996.
of Sciences of the USA 100: 15143±15148. Golgi dispersal during microtubule disruption: regeration of Golgi
Brooke NM, Holland PWH. 2003. The evolution of multicellularity and stacks at peripheral endoplasmic reticulum exit sites. Molecular
early animal genomes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development Biology of the Cell 7: 631±650.
13: 599±603. Compton DA. 2000. Spindle assembly in animal cells. Annual Reviews of
Brown RC, Lemmon BE. 1992. Cytoplasmic domain: a model for spatial Biochemistry 69: 95±114.
24 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
Conner SD, Schmid SL. 2003. Regulated portals of entry into the cell. comet tails, endosomes and endosymbionts. Journal of Experimental
Nature 422: 37±44. Biology 206: 1977±1984.
Cross JC,Werb Z, Fisher SJ. 1994. Implantation and the placenta: key Fink S. 1999. Pathological and regenerative plant anatomy. Encyclopedia
pieces of the development puzzle. Science 266: 1508±1518. of Plant Anatomy, vol. 14, part 6. Berlin: Gebruder Borntraeger.
Dacks JB, Doolittle WF. 2001. Reconstructing/deconstructing the earliest Flemming W. 1882. Zellsubstanz, Kern und Zelltheilung. Leipzig: Vogel.
eukaryotes: how cooperative genomics can help. Cell 107: 419±425. Foe VE, Field CM, Odell GM. 2000. Microtubules and mitotic cycle
D'Amato, F. 1977. Nuclear cytology in relation to development. phase modulate spatio-temporal distributions of F-actin and myosin
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. II in Drosophila syncytial blastoderm embryos. Development 127:
Daniel RA, Errington J. 2003. Control of cell morphogenesis in bacteria: 1767±1787.
two distinct ways to make a rod-shaped cell. Cell 113: 767±776. Foissner I, Grolig F, Obermeyer G. 2002. Reversible protein
de Duve C. 1996. The birth of complex cells. Scienti®c American 274: 38± phosphorylation regulates the dynamic organization of the pollen
45. tube cytoskeleton: effects of calyculin A and okadaic acid.
Del Vecchio AJ, Harper JDI, Vaughn KC, Baron AT, Salisbury JL, Protoplasma 220: 1±15.
Overall RL. 1997. Centrin homologues in higher plants are Forterre P, Philippe H. 1999. Where is the root of the universal tree of
prominently associated with the developing cell plate. Protoplasma life? BioEssays 21: 871±879.
196: 224±234. Fukasawa K, Choi T, Kuriyama R, Rulong S, Vande Woude GF. 1996.
Denegre JM, Valles Jr JM, Lin K, Jordan WB, Mowry KL. 1998. Abnormal centrosome ampli®cation in the absence of p53. Science
Cleavage planes in frog eggs are altered by strong magnetic ®elds. 271: 1744±1747.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: Gardiner J, Marc J. 2003. Putative microtubule-associated proteins from
14729±14732. the Arabidopsis genome. Protoplasma 222: 61±74.
De Wulf P, McAinsh AD, Sorger PK. 2003. Hierarchical assembly of the Gibbon BC, Kovar DR, Staiger CJ. 1999. Latrunculin B has different
budding yeast kinetochore from multiple subcomplexes. Genes and effects on pollen germination and tube growth. Plant Cell 11: 2349±
Development 17: 2902±2921. 2364.
Dibbayawan TP, Harper JDI, Marc J. 2001. A g-tubulin antibody Gilson PR. 2001. Nucleomorph genomes: much ado about practically

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

against a plant peptide sequence localizes to cell division speci®c nothing. Genome Biology 2: 1022.1±1022.5.
microtubule arrays and organelles in plants. Micron 32: 671±678. Glotzer M. 1997. The mechanism and control of cytokinesis. Current
Di Fiore B, Ciciarello M, Mangiacasale R, Palena A, Tassin A-M, Opinion in Cell Biology 9: 815±823.
Cundari E, Lavia P. 2003. Mammalian RanBP1 regulates Glotzer M. 2004. Cleavage furrow positioning. Journal of Cell Biology
centrosome cohesion during mitosis. Journal of Cell Science 116: 164: 347±351.
3399±3411. Glynn JM, Lustig RJ, Berlin A, Chang F. 2001. Role of bud6p and tea1p
Dolan MF, Melnitsky H, Margulis L, Kolnicki R. 2002. Motility in the interaction between actin and microtubules for the
proteins and the origin of the nucleus. The Anatomical Record 268: establishment of cell polarity in ®ssion yeast. Current Biology 11:
290±301. 836±845.
Doolittle WF. 1998. You are what you eat: a gene transfer ratchet could Goff LJ, Coleman AW. 1987. The solution of the cytological paradox of
account for bacterial genes in eukaryotic nuclear genomes. Trends in isomorphy. Journal of Cell Biology 104: 739±748.
Genetics 14: 307±311. Goldberg MB. 2001. Actin-based motility of intracellular microbial
Douglas S, Zauner S, Fraunholz M, Beaton M, Penny S, Deng L-T, pathogens. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 65: 595±
et al. 2001. The highly enslaved genome of an enslaved algal 626.
nucleus. Nature 410: 1091±1096. Goode BL, Drubin DG, Barnens G. 2000. Functional cooperation
Doxsey SJ. 2001. Centrosome as command centres for cellular control. between the microtubule and actin cytoskeletons. Current Opinion of
Nature Cell Biology 3: E105±E107. Cell Biology 12: 63±71.
Drykova D, Cenklova V, Sulimenko V, Voic J, DraÂber P, Binarova P. GoÈrlich D, Kutay U. 1999. Transport between the cell nucleus and the
2003. Plant g-tubulin interacts with ab-tubulin dimers and forms cytoplasm. Annual Reviews of Cell and Developmental Biology 15:
membrane-associated complexes. Plant Cell 15: 465±480. 607±660.
Du Q, Stukenberg PT, Macara IG. 2001. A mammalian Partner of Gray MW, Burger G, Lang BF. 2001. The origin and early evolution of
inscuteable binds NuMA and regulates mitotic spindle organization. mitochondria. Genome Biology 2: 1018.1±1018.5.
Nature Cell Biology 3: 1069±1075. Gregory TR. 2001a. The bigger the C-value, the larger the cell: genome
Dustin ML, Colman DR. 2002. Neural and immunological synaptic size and red blood cell size in vertebrates. Blood Cells, Molecules,
relations. Science 298: 785±789. and Disease 27: 830±843.
Ehlers K, Kollmann R. 2001. Primary and secondary plasmodesmata: Gregory TR. 2001b. Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA
structure, origin, and functioning. Protoplasma 216: 1±30. content, cell size, and the C-value enigma. Biological Reviews 76:
Epel D, Schatten G. 1998. Daniel Mazia: a passion for understanding how 65±101.
cells reproduce. Trends in Cell Biology 8: 416±418. Gregory TR, Hebert PDN. 1999. The modulation of DNA content:
Engquist-Goldstein A Ê E, Drubin DG. 2003. Actin assembly and proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Genome Research 9:
endocytosis: from yeast to mammals. Annual Reviews of Cell and 317±324.
Developmental Biology 19: 287±332. Guertin DA, Trautmann S, McCollum D. 2002. Cytokinesis in
Erhardt M, Stoppin-Mellet V, Campagne S, Canaday J, Mutterer J, eukaryotes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 66: 155±
Fabian T, et al. 2002. Higher plant SPC98p orthologues and g- 178.
tubulin localize at microtubule nucleation sites and are involved in Guerrero R. 1991. Predation as prerequisite to organelle origin:
microtubule nucleation. Journal of Cell Science 115: 2423±2431. Daptobacter as example. In: Margulis L, Fester R, eds. Symbiosis
Etienne-Manneville S, Hall A. 2002. Rho GTPases in cell biology. as a source of evolutionary innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
Nature 420: 629±635. 106±117.
Euteneuer U, Schliwa M. 1984. Persistent directional motility of cells and Gundel®nger ED, Kessels MM, Qualmann B. 2003. Temporal and
cytoplasmic fragments in the absence of microtubules. Nature 310: spatial coordination of exocytosis and endocytosis. Nature Reviews
58±61. Molecular Cell Biology 4: 127±139.
Euteneuer U, Schliwa M. 1992. Mechanism of centrosome repositioning Gundersen GG. 2002. Evolutionary conservation of microtubule-capture
during the wound response in BSC-1 cells. Journal of Cell Biology mechanisms. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 3: 296±304.
116: 1157±1166. Gupta RS, Aitken K, Falah K, Singh B. 1994. Cloning of Giaria lamblia
Faivre-Moskalenko C, Dogterom M. 2002. Dynamics of microtubule heat shock protein HSP70 homologs: implications regarding origins
asters in microfabricated chambers: the role of catastrophes. of eukaryotic cells and of endoplasmic reticulum. Proceedings of the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91: 2895±2899.
16788±16793. Gupta RS, Golding GB. 1996. The origin of the eukaryotic cell. Trends in
Fehrenbacher K, Huckaba T, Yang H-C, Boldogh I, Pon L. 2003. Actin Biochemical Sciences 21: 166±171.
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 25
Hall ZW, Ralston E. 1989. Nuclear domains in muscle cells. Cell 59: Narumiya S. 2001. Coordination of microtubules and the actin
771±772. cytoskeleton by the Rho effector mDia. Nature Cell Biology 3: 8±14.
Hales KG, Bi E, Wu J-Q, Adam JC, Yu I-C, Pringle JR. 1999. Jain R, Rivera MC, Lake JA. 1999. Horizontal gene transfer among
Cytokinesis: an emerging uni®ed theory for eukaryotes? Current genomes: the complexity hypothesis. Proceedings of the National
Opinion in Cell Biology 11: 717±725. Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 3801±3806.
Harper JDI, Fowke LC, Gilmer S, Overall RL, Marc J. 2000. A centrin Jenkins C, Samudrala R, Anderson I, Hedlund BP, Petroni G,
homologue is localised across the developing cell plate in Michailova N, Pinel N, Overbeek R, Rosati G, Staley JT. 2002.
gymnosperms and angiosperms. Protoplasma 211: 207±216. Genes for the cytoskeletal protein tubulin in the bacterial genus
Harris H. 1999. The birth of the cell. New Haven and London: Yale Prosthecobacter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
University Press. USA 99: 17049±17054.
Hart PE, Wolniak SM. 1998. Spermiogenesis in Marsilea vestita: a JeÂkely G. 2003. Small GTPases and the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
temporal correlation between centrin expression and blepharoplast BioEssays 25: 1129±1138.
differentiation. Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton 41: 39±48. Jones MGK, Northcote DH. 1972. Nematode-induced syncytium: a
Hartman H, Fedorov A. 2002. The origin of the eukaryotic cell: a multinucleate transfer cell. Journal of Cell Science 10: 789±809.
genomic investigaion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Joshi HC, Palevitz BA. 1996. g-Tubulin and microtubule organization in
Sciences of the USA 99: 1420±1425. plants. Trends in Cell Biology 6: 41±44.
Hentze MW. 2001. Believe it or not ± translation in the nucleus. Science JuÈrgens G. 2000. Apical-basal pattern formation in Arabidopsis
293: 1058±1059. embryogenesis. EMBO Journal 20: 3609±3616.
Herth W, Meyer Y. 1978. Cytology of budding and cleavage in tobacco JuÈrgens G. 2003. Growing up green: cellular basis of plant development.
mesophyll protoplasts cultivated in saline medium. Planta 142: 11± Mechanisms of Development 120: 1395±1406.
21. Kalab P, Weis K, Heald R. 2002. Visualization of a Ran-GTP gradient in
Hertwig R. 1903. U È ber Korrelation von Zell- und KerngroÈsse und ihre interphase and mitotic Xenopus egg extracts. Science 295: 2452±
Bedeutung fuÈr die Geschletliche Differenzierung und die Teilung der 2456.
Zelle. Biologisches Zentralblatt 23: 49±62. Kandasamy MK, McKinney EC, Meagher RB. 2003. Cell cycle-

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

Heslop-Harrison J, Heslop-Harrison Y, Cresti M, Tiezzi A, Moscatelli dependent association of Arabidopsis actin-related proteins AtARP4
A. 1988. Cytoskeletal elements, cell shaping and movement in the and AtARP7 with the nucleus. Plant Journal 33: 939±948.
angioperm pollen tube. Journal of Cell Science 91: 49±60. Kaplan DR. 1992. The relationship of cells to organisms in plants:
Hetzer M, Gruss OJ, Mattaj IW. 2002. The Ran GTPase as a marker of problem and implications of an organismal perspective. International
chromosome position in spindle formation and nuclear envelope Journal of Plant Sciences 153: S28-S37.
assembly. Nature Cell Biology 4: E177-E184. Kaplan DR, Hagemann W. 1991. The relationship of cell and organism
Ho WC, Allan VJ, van Meer G, Berger EG, Kreis TE. 1989. in vascular plants. BioScience 41: 693±703.
Reclustering of scattered Golgi elements occurs along microtubules. Karsenti E, Vernos I. 2001. The mitotic spindle: a self-made machine.
Science 294: 543±547.
European Journal of Cell Biology 48: 250±263.
Karyophyllis D, Katsaros C, Dimitriadis I, Galatis B. 2000. F-actin
HoÈftberger M, LuÈtz-Meindl U. 1999. Septum formation in the desmid
organization during the cell cycle of Sphacelaria rigidula
Xanthidium (Chlorophyta): effects of cytochalasin D and latrunculin
(Phaeophyceae). European Journal of Phycology 35: 25±33.
B suggest the involvement of actin micro®laments. Journal of
Katz LA. 1999. The tangled web: gene genealogies and the origin of
Phycology 35: 768±777.
eukaryotes. American Naturalist 154: S137±S145.
Holy TE, Dogterom M, Yurke B, Leibler S. 1997. Assembly and
Kaczanowski S, Jerzmanowski A. 2001. Evolutionary correlation
positioning of microtubule asters in microfabricated chambers.
between linker histones and microtubular structures. Journal of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:
Molecular Evolution 53: 19±30.
485±488.
Keeling PJ, Deane JA, Hink-Schauer C, Douglas SE, Maier U-G,
Horiike T, Hamada K, Kanaya S, Shinozawa T. 2001. Origin of McFadden GI. 1999. The secondary endosymbiont of the
eukaryotic cell nuclei by symbiosis of Archaea and Bacteria is cryptomonad Guillardia theta contains alpha-, beta-, and gamma-
revelaed by homology-hit analysis. Nature Cell Biology 3: 210±214. tubulin genes. Molecular Biology of Evolution 16: 1308±1313.
Horio T, Oakley BR. 2003. Expression of Arabidopsis g-tubulin in ®ssion Keryer G, Di Fiore B, Celati C, Lechtreck KF, Mogensen M, DelouveÂe
yeast reveals conserved and novel functions of g-tubulin. Plant A, Lavia P, Bornens M, Tassin A-M. 2003. Part of Ran is
Physiology 133: 1926±1934. associated with AKAP450 at the centrosome: involvement in
Howard A, Pelc S. 1953. Synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid in normal microtubule-organizing activity. Molecular Biology of the Cell 14:
and irradiated cells and its relation to chromosome breakage. 4260±4271.
Heredity 6 (Supplement): 261±273. Khodjakov A, Rieder CL. 2001. Centrosomes enhance the ®delity of
Hua Q, He R-Q. 2003. Tau could protect DNA double helix structure. cytokinesis in vertebrates and are required for cell cycle progression.
Bichimica et Biophysica Acta ± Proteins and Proteomics 1645: 205± Journal of Cell Biology 153: 237±242.
211. Kiermayer O. 1968. The distribution of microtubules in differentiating
Hua Q, He R-Q, Haque N, Qu M-H, del Carmen Alonso A, Grundke- cells of Micrasterias denticulata BreÂb. Planta 83: 223±236.
Iqbal I, Iqbal K. 2003. Microtubule associated protein tau binds to Kim GH, Klotchkova TA, Kang Y-M. 2001. Life without a cell
double-stranded but not single-stranded DNA. Cellular and membrane: regeneration of protoplasts from disintegrated cells of the
Molecular Life Sciences 60: 413±421. marine green alga Bryopsis plumosa. Journal of Cell Science 114:
Huang B-Q, Sheridan WF. 1994. Female gametophyte development in 2009±2014.
maize: microtubular organization and embryo sac polarity. Plant Cell Kim GH, Klotchkova TA. 2001. From protoplasm to swarmer:
6: 845±861. regeneration of protoplasts from disintegrated cells of the
Huang B-Q, Sheridan WF. 1996. Embryo sac development in the maize multicellular marine green alga Microdictyon umbilicatum
indeterminate gametophyte1 mutant: abnormal nuclear behavior and (Chlorophyta). Journal of Phycology 38: 174±183.
defective microtubule organization. Plant Cell 8: 1391±1407. Kirschner M, Gerhart J. 1998. Evolvability. Proceedings of the National
Hyman AA, Karsenti E. 1996. Morphogenetic properties of microtubules Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 8420±8427.
and mitotic spindle assembly. Cell 84: 401±410. Kirschner M, Mitchison TJ. 1986. Beyond self assembly: from
Iborra FJ, Jackson DA, Cook PR. 2001. Coupled transcription and microtubules to morphogenesis. Cell 45: 329±342.
translation within nuclei of mammalian cells. Science 293: 1139± Knop M, Strasser K. 2000. Role of the spindle pole body of yeast in
1141. mediating assembly of the prespore membrane during meiosis.
Inoue S, Salmon ED. 1995. Force generation by microtubule assembly/ EMBO Journal 19: 3657±3667.
disassembly in mitosis and related movements. Molecular Biology of Kodama A, Karakesisoglou I, Wong E, Vaezi A, Fuchs E. 2003. ACF7:
the Cell 6: 1619±1640. an essential integrator of microtubule dynamics. Cell 115: 343±354.
Ishizaki T, Morishima Y, Okamoto M, Furuyashiki T, Kato T, Komarova YA, Vorobjev IA, Borisy GG. 2002. Life cycle of MTs:
26 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
persistent growth in the cell interior, asymmetric transition McFadden GI. 1999. Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell.
frequencies and effects of the cell boundary. Journal of Cell Current Opinion of Plant Biology 2: 513±519.
Science 115: 3527±3539. McNaughton EE, Goff LJ. 1990. The role of microtubules in establishing
Kooijman SALM, Auger P, Poggiale JC, Kooi BW. 2003. Quantitative nuclear spatial patterns in multinucleate green algae. Protoplasma
steps in symbiogenesis and the evolution of homeostasis. Biological 157: 19±37.
Reviews 78: 435±463. McNeil PL, Terasaki M. 2001. Coping with the inevitable: how cells
Korn RW. 1999. Biological organization ± a new look at an old problem. repair a torn surface membrane. Nature Cell Biology 3: E124±E129.
BioScience 49: 51±57. McNeil PL, Miyake K, Vogel SS. 2003. The endomembrane requirement
Kozorovitskiy Y, Gould E. 2003. Stem cell fusion in the brain. Nature for cell surface repair. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Cell Biology 5: 952±954. Sciences of the USA 100: 4592±4597.
Kraus SW, Chen C, Penman S, Heald R. 2003. Nuclear actin and protein Machesky L. 1999. Rocket-based motility: a universal mechanism?
4.1: essential interactions during nuclear assembly in vitro. Nature Cell Biology 1: E29±E31.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100: Mahlberg P, Sabharwal P. 1966. Mitotic waves in laticifers of Euphorbia
10752±10757. marginata. Science 152: 518±519.
Kronenbusch PJ, Singer SJ. 1987. The microtubule-organizing complex Malawista SE, Chevance de Bois¯eury A. 1984. The cytokineplast:
and the Golgi apparatus are co-localized around the entire nuclear puri®ed, stable, and functional motile machinery from human blood
envelope of interphase cardiac myocytes. Journal of Cell Science 88: polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Journal of Cell Biology 95: 960±973.
25±34. Malik HS, Henikoff S. 2003. Phylogenomics of the nucleosome. Nature
Kumagai F, Nagata T, Yahara N, Moriyama Y, Horio T, Naoi K, Structural Biology 10: 882±891.
Hashimoto T, Murata T, Hasezawa S. 2003. g-Tubulin distribution Malone CJ, Misner L, Le Bot N, Tsai M-C, Campbell JM, Ahringer J,
during cortical microtubule reorganization at the M/G1 interface in White JG. 2003. The C. elegans Hook protein, ZYG-12, mediates
tobacco BY-2 cells. European Journal of Cell Biology 82: 43±51. the essential attachment between the centrosome and nucleus. Cell
Kusch J, Liakopoulos D, Barral Y. 2003. Spindle asymmetry: a compass 115: 825±836.
for the cell. Trends in Cell Biology 13: 562±569. Maly IV, Borisy GG. 2001. Self-organization of a propulsive actin

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

Laitiainen E, Nieminen KM, Vihinen H, Raudaskoski M. 2002. network as an evolutionary process. Proceedings of the National
Movement of generative cell and vegetative nucleus in tobacco Academy of Sciences of the USA 98: 11324±11329.
pollen is dependent on microtubule cytoskeleton but independent of Margulis L. 1993. Symbiosis in cell evolution. San Francisco: W.H.
the synthesis of callose plugs. Sexual Plant Reproduction 15: 195± Freeman & Co.
204. Margulis L, Dolan MF, Guerrero R. 2000. The chimeric eukaryote:
Lake JA, Rivera MC. 1994. Was the nucleus the ®rst endosymbiont? origin of the nucleus from the karyomastignot in amitochondriate
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91: protists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
2880±2881. 97: 6954±6959.
Lambert AM. 1993. Microtubule-organizing centers in higher plants. Martin W, Hoffmeister M, Rotte C, Henze K. 2001. An overview of
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 5: 116±122. endosymbiotic models for the origins of eukaryotes, their ATP-
Ledbetter MC, Porter KR. 1963. A "microtubule" in plant ®ne structure. producing organelles (mitochondria and hydrogenosomes), and their
Journal of Cell Biology 19: 239±250. heterotrophic lifestyle. Biological Chemistry 382: 1521±1539.
Levesque AA, Howard L, Gordon MB, Compton DA. 2003. A Maser RS, DePinho RA. 2002. Connecting chromosomes, crisis, and
functional relationship between NuMA and kid is involved in both cancer. Science 297: 565±569.
spindle organization and chromosome alignment in vertebrate cells. Mattaj IW. 2004. Sorting out the nuclear envelope from the endoplasmic
Molecular Biology of Cell 14: 3541±3552. reticulum. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 5: 65±69.
Lewis L, Albrecht-Buehler G. 1987. Distribution of multiple Matynia A, Salus SS, Sazer S. 2002. Three proteins required for early
centrospheres determines migration of BHK syncitia. Cell Motility steps in the protein secretory pathway also affect nuclear envelope
and Cytoskeleton 7: 282±290. structure and cell cycle progression in ®ssion yeast. Journal of Cell
Li H-Y, Cao K, Zheng Y. 2003. Ran in the spindle checkpoint: a new Science 115: 421±431.
function for a versatile GTPase. Trends in Cell Biology 13: 553±557. Mayer U, Herzog U, Berger F, Inze D, JuÈrgens G. 1999. Mutation in the
Li Y, Wang FH, Knox RB. 1989. Ultrastructural analysis of the ¯agellar PILZ group genes disrupt the microtubule cytoskeleton and uncouple
apparatus in sperm cells of Ginkgo biloba. Protoplasma 149: 57±63. cell cycle progression from cell division in Arabidopsis embryo and
Lingle WL, Lutz WH, Ingle JN, Maihle NJ, Salisbury JL. 1998. endosperm. European Journal of Cell Biology 78: 100±108.
Centrosome hypertrophy in human breast tumors: implications for Mayer U, JuÈrgens G. 2002. Microtubule cytoskeleton: a track record.
genomic stability and cell polarity. Proceedings of the National Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5: 494±501.
Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 2950±2955. Mazia D. 1984. Centrosomes and mitotic poles. Experimental Cell
Liu B, Marc J, Joshi HC, Palevitz BA. 1993. A g-tubulin-related protein Research 153: 1±15.
associated with the microtubule arrays of higher plants in a cell Mazia D. 1987. The chromosome cycle and the centrosome cycle in the
cycle-dependent manner. Journal of Cell Science 104: 1217±1228. mitotic cycle. International Review of Cytology 100: 49±92.
Lloyd CW, Chan J. 2004. Microtubules and the shape of plants to come. Mazia D. 1993. The cell cycle at the cellular level. European Journal of
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 5: 13±23. Cell Biology 61(Suppl. 38): 14.
Lu Z, Joseph D, Bugnard E, Zaal KJM, Ralston E. 2001. Golgi Mazia D, Dan K. 1952. The isolation and biochemical characterization of
complex reorganization during muscle differentiation: visualization the mitotic apparatus of dividing cells. Proceedings of the National
in living cells and mechanisms. Molecular Biology of the Cell 12: Academy of Sciences of the USA 38: 826±838.
795±808. Mazumdar A, Mazumdar M. 2002. How one becomes many: blastoderm
Lucas WJ, Ding B, van der Schoot C. 1993. Plasmodesmata and the cellularization in Drosophila melanogaster. BioEssays 24: 1012±
supracellular nature of plants. New Phytologist 125: 435±476. 1022.
Lyczak R, Gomes J-E, Bowerman B. 2002. Heads or tails: cell polarity Mazzarello P. 1999. A unifying concept: the history of Cell Theory.
and axis formation in the early Coenorhabditis elegans embryo. Nature Cell Biology 1: E13±E15.
Developmental Cell 3: 157±166. Mereshkowsky C. 1905. U È ber Natur und Ursprung der Chromatophoren
McCormick S. 1993. Male gametophyte development. Plant Cell 5: im P¯anzenreiche. Biologisches Zentralblatt 25: 593±604.
1265±1275. Mereshkowsky C. 1910. Theorie der zwei Plasmaarten als Grundlage der
McIntosh K, Pickett-Heaps JD, Gunning BES. 1995. Cytokinesis in Symbiogenesis, einer neuen Lehre von der Entstehung der
Spirogyra: integration of cleavage and cell-plate formation. Organismen. Biologisches Zentralblatt 30: 278±303, 321±347,
International Journal of Plant Sciences 156: 1±8. 353±367.
McIntosh JR, Grishchuk EL, West RR. 2002. Chromosome-microtubule Merri®eld CJ, Moss SE, Ballestrem C, Imhof BA, Giese G,
interactions during mitosis. Annual Reviews of Cell and Wundedrlich I, Almers W. 1999. Endocytic vesicles move at the
Developmental Biology 18: 193±219. tips of actin tails in cultured mast cells. Nature Cell Biology 1: 72±74.
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 27
Miescher F. 1871. U È ber die chemische Zusammensetzung der Eiterzellen. cell plate involved in endosperm celllularization of Arabidopsis.
Hoppe-Seyler's medicinisch-chemische Untersuchungen 4: 441±460. Plant Cell 12: 933±947.
Mitchison TJ. 1995. Evolution of a dynamic cytoskeleton. Philosophical Otegui M, Staehelin LA. 2003. Electron tomographic analysis of post-
Transactions of Royal Society of London Series B 349: 299±304. meiotic cytokinesis during pollen development in Arabidopsis
Mitchison T, Kirschner M. 1984. Dynamic instability of microtubule thaliana. Planta 218: 501±515.
growth. Nature 312: 232±237. Pak JY, Solorzano C, Arai M, Nitta T. 1991. Two distinct steps for
Mizuno K. 1993. Microtubule-nucleation sites on nuclei of higher plant spontaneous generation of subprotoplasts from disintegrated
cells. Protoplasma 173: 77±85. Bryopsis cell. Plant Physiology 96: 819±825.
Mogensen HL. 1992. The male germ unit: concept, composition, and Palevitz BA, Liu B. 1992. Micro®lament (F-actin) in generative cells and
signi®cance. International Review of Cytology 140: 129±147. sperm: an evaluation. Sexual Plant Reproduction 5: 89±100.
Mùller-Jensen J, Borch J, Dam M, Jensen RB, Roepstorff P, Gerdes Palevitz BA, Tiezzi A. 1992. Organization, composition, and function of
K. 2003. Bacterial mitosis: ParM of plasmid R1 moves plasmid DNA the generative cell and sperm cytoskeleton. International Review of
by an actin-like insertional polymerization mechanism. Molecular Cytology 140: 149±185.
Cell 12: 1477±1487. Palevitz BA, Liu B, Joshi C. 1994. g-tubulin in tobacco pollen tubes:
Moore JD. 2001. The Ran-GTPase and cell-cycle control. BioEssays 23: association with generative cell and vegetative microtubules. Sexual
77±85. Plant Reproduction 7: 209±214.
Moreno RD, Schatten G, Ramalho-Santos J. 2002. Golgi apparatus Pantaloni D, Le Clainche C, Carlier M-F. 2001. Mechanisms of actin-
dynamics during mouse oocyte in vitro maturation: effect of the based motility. Science 292: 1502±1506.
membrane traf®cking inhibitor brefeldin A. Biology of Reproduction Panteris E, Apostolakos P, Graf R, Galatis B. 2000. g-Tubulin colocalizes
66: 1259±1266. with microtubule arrays and tubulin paracrystals in dividing
Moritz M, Agard DA. 2001. Gamma-tubulin complexes and microtubule vegetative cells of higher plants. Protoplasma 210: 179±187.
nucleation. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 11: 174±181. Papaseit C, Vuillard L, Tabony J. 1999. Reaction-diffusion microtubule
MuÈsch A. 2004. Microtubule organization and function in epithelial cells. concentration patterns occur during biological morphogenesis.
Traf®c 5: 1±9. Biophysical Chemistry 79: 33±39.

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

Mulari MTK, Patrikainen L, Kaisto T, MetsikkoÈ K, Salo JJ, Papaseit C, Vuillard L, Tabony J. 2000. Microtubule self-organization is
VaÈaÈnaÈnen HK. 2003. The architecture of microtubular network gravity-dependent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
and Golgi orientation in osteoclasts ± major differences between of the USA 97: 8364±8368.
avian and mammalian species. Experimental Cell Research 285: Pasqualato S, Renault L, Cher®ls J. 2002. Arf, Arl, Arp and Sar proteins:
221±235. a family of GTP-binding proteins with a structural device for `front-
Multigner L, Gagnon J, Van Dorsselaer A, Job D. 1992. Stabilisation of back' communication. EMBO Reports 3: 1035±1041.
sea urchin ¯agellar microtubules by histone H1. Nature 360: 33±39. Pederson T. 2001. Is the nucleus in need of translation? Trends in Cell
Nagasato C, Motomura T. 2002. In¯uence of the centrosome in Biology 11: 395±397.
cytokinesis of brown algae: polyspermic zygotes of Scytosiphon Pederson T, Aebi U. 2002. Actin in the nucleus: what form and what for?
lomentaria (Scytosiphonales, Phaeophyceae). Journal of Cell Journal of Structural Biology 140: 3±9.
Science 115: 2541±2548. Petroni G, Spring S, Schleifer K-H, Verni F, Rosati G. 2000. Defensive
Nanduri J, Tartakoff AM. 2001. The arrest of secretion response in extrusive ectosymbionts of Euplotidium (Ciliophora) that contain
yeast: signaling from the secretory path to the nucleus via Wsc microtubule-like structures are bacteria related to Verrucomicrobia.
proteins and Pkc1p. Molecular Cell 8: 281±289. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97:
Narayanan A, Eifert J, Marfatia KA, Macara IG, Corbett AH, Terns 1813±1817.
RM, Terns MP. 2003. Nuclear RanGTP is not required for targeting Pickett-Heaps JD. 1969. The evolution of the mitotic apparatus: an
small nucleolar RNAs to the nucleolus. Journal of Cell Science 116: attempt at comparative ultrastructural cytology in dividing plant
177±186. cells. Cytobios 3: 257±280
Nickas ME, Schwartz C, Neiman AM. 2003. Ady4p and Spo74p are Pickett-Heaps JD, Gunning BES, Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Cleary AL.
components of the meiotic spindle pole body that promote growth of 1999. The cytoplast concept in dividing plant cells: cytoplasmic
the prespore membrane in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryotic domains and the evolution of spatially organized cell division.
Cell 2: 431±445. American Journal of Botany 86: 153±172.
Nigg EA. 2002. Centrosome aberrations: cause or consequence of cancer Piehl M, Nordberg J, Euteneuer U, Bornens M. 2001. Centrosome-
progression? Nature Reviews Cell Biology 2: 1±11. dependent exit of cytokinesis in animal cells. Science 291: 1550±
Niklas KJ. 2000. The evolution of plant body plans ± a biomechanical 1553.
perspective. Annals of Botany 85: 411±438. Piehl M, Tulu US, Wadsworth P, Cassimeris L. 2004. Centrosome
Nurse P. 2000. The incredible life and times of biological cells. Science maturation: measurement of microtubule nucleation throughout the
289: 1711±1716. cell cycle by using GFP-tagged EB1. Proceedings of the National
Oakley CE, Oakley BR. 1989. Identi®cation of a g-tubulin, a new Academy of Sciences of the USA 101: 1584±1588.
member of the tubulin superfamily encoded by mipA gene of Pierson ES, Derksen J, Traas JA. 1986. Organization of micro®laments
Aspergillus nidulans. Nature 338: 662±664. and microtubules in pollen tubes grown in vitro or in vivo in various
Oegema K, Marshall WF, Sedat JW, Alberts BM. 1997. Two proteins angiosperms. European Journal of Cell Biology 41: 14±18.
that cycle asynchronously between centrosomes and nuclear Plieth, C. Hansen, U.-P. Knight H. Knight MR. 1999. Temperature
structures: Drosophila CP60 and CP190. Journal of Cell Science sensing in plants: the primary mechanisms of signal perception and
110: 1573±1583. calcium response. Plant Journal 18: 491±497.
Ohba T, Nakamura M, Nishitani H, Nishimoto T. 1999. Self- Pollard TD. 2003. The cytoskeleton, cellular motility, and the reductionist
organization of microtubule asters induced by GTP-bound Ran. agenda. Nature 422: 741±745.
Science 284: 1356±1358. Pollard TD, Borisy GG. 2003. Cellular motility driven by assembly and
Olave IA, Reck-Peterson SL, Crabtree GR. 2002. Nuclear actin and disassembly of actin ®laments. Cell 112: 453±465.
actin-related proteins in chromatin remodelling. Annual Reviews of Poort RJ, Visscher H, Dilcher DL. 1996. Zoidogamy in fossil
Biochemistry 71: 755±781. gymnosperms: the centenary of a concept, with special reference to
Olsen O-A. 2001. Endosperm development: cellularization and cell fate prepollen of late Paleozoic conifers. Proceedings of the National
speci®cation. Annual Reviews of Plant Physiology and Plant Academy of Sciences of the USA 93: 11713±11717.
Molecular Biology 52: 233±267. Pruyne D, Bretscher A. 2000. Polarization of cell growth in yeast. II. The
O'Neil RM, La Claire II JW. 1984. Mechanical wounding induces the role of the cortical actin cytoskeleton. Journal of Cell Science 113:
formation of extensive coated membranes in giant algal cells. 571±585.
Science 225: 331±333. Rabitsch KP, Pentronczki M, Javerzat J-P, Genier S, Chwalla B,
Otegui M, Staehelin LA. 2000. Syncytial-type cell plates: a novel kind of Schleifer A, Tanaka TU, Nasmyth K. 2003. Kinetochore
28 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
recruitment of two nucleolar proteins is required for homolog required for yeast nuclear pore complex assembly. Journal of Cell
segregation in meiosis I. Developmental Cell 4: 535±548. Biology 160: 1041±1053.
Raemaekers T, Ribbeck K, Beaudouin J, Annaert W, Van Camp M, Sachs J. 1892. Physiologische Notizen. II. BeitraÈge zur Zelltheorie. Flora
Stockmans I, et al. 2003. NuSAP, a novel microtubule-associated 75: 57±67.
protein involved in mitotic spindle organization. Journal of Cell Sakaushi S, Okoshi M, Miyamura S, Hori T. 2003. Swimming behavior
Biology 162: 1017±1029. and ultrastructure of sperm of Lygodium japonicum (Pteridophyta).
Ralston E. 1993. Changes in architecture of the Golgi complex and other Sexual Plant Reproduction 16: 113±122.
subcellular organelles during myogenesis. Journal of Cell Biology SÏamaj J, Ovecka M, Hlavacka A, Lecourieux F, Meskiene I,
120: 399±409. Lichtscheidl I, et al. 2002. Involvement of the mitogen-activated
Ralston E, Hall ZW. 1992. Restricted distribution of mRNA produced protein kinase SIMK in regulation of root hair tip-growth EMBO
from a single nucleus in hybrid myotubes. Journal of Cell Biology Journal 21: 3296±3306.
119: 1063±1068. Sancho D, Vicente-Manzanares M, Mittelbrunn M, Montoya MC,
Ralston E. Ploug T, Kalhovde J, Lùmo T. 2001. Golgi complex, GordoÂn-Alonso M, Serrador JM, SaÂnchez-Madrid F. 2002.
endoplasmic reticulum exit sites, and microtubules in skeletal muscle Regulation of microtubule-organizing center reorientation and
®bers are organized by ptterned activity. Journal of Neuroscience 21: actomyosin cytoskeleton rearrangement during immune inter-
875±883. actions. Immunology Reviews 189: 84±97.
Ram M, Babbar SB. 2002. Transient existence of life without a cell Saoudi Y, Paintrand I, Multigner L, Job D. 1995. Stabilization and
membrane: a novel strategy of siphonous seaweed for survival and bundling of subtisilin-treated microtubules induced by microtubule
propagation. BioEssays 24: 588±590. associated proteins. Journal of Cell Science 108: 357±367.
Ranganath RM. 2003. Female gametophyte development in higher plants Sawitzky H, Grolig F. 1995. Phragmoplast of the green alga Spirogyra is
± meiosis and mitosis break the cellular barrier. Plant Biology 5: 42± functionally distinct from the higher plant phragmoplast. Journal of
49. Cell Biology 130: 1359±1371.
Raudaskoski M, A Ê stroÈm H, Laitiainen E. 2001. Pollen tube Schatz CA, Santarella R, Hoenger A, Karsenti E, Mattaj IW, Gruss
cytoskeleton: structure and function. Journal of Plant Growth OJ, Carazo-Salas RE. 2003. Importin a-regulated nucleation of

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

Regulation 20: 113±130. microtubules by TPX2. EMBO Journal 22: 2060±2070.
Reddy A, Caler EV, Andrews NW. 2001. Plasma membrane repair is Schmit A-C. 2003. Acentrosomal microtubule nucleation in higher plants.
mediated by Ca2+-regulated exocytosis of lysosomes. Cell 106: 157± International Review of Cytology 220: 257±289.
169. Segal M, Bloom K, Reed SI. 2002. Kar9p-independent microtubule
Rehberg M, Graf R. 2002. Dictyostelium EB1 is a genuine centrosomal capture at Bud6p cortical sites primes spindle polarity before bud
component required for proper spindle formation. Molecular Biology emergence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Molecular Biology of Cell
of Cell 13: 2301±2310. 13: 4141±4155.
Reichelt S, Kendrick-Jones J. 2000. Myosins. In: Staiger CJ, BalusÏka F, Seltzer V, Pawlowski T, Campagne S, Canaday J, Erhardt M, Evrard
Volkmann D, Barlow PW, eds. Actin: a dynamic framework for J-L, Herzog E, Schmit A-C. 2003. Multiple microtubule nucleation
multiple plant cell functions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic sites in higher plants. Cell Biology International 27: 267±269.
Publishers, 29±44. Shemer G, Podbilewicz B. 2000. Fusomorphogenesis: cell fusion in organ
Reinsch S, GoÈnczy P. 1998. Mechanisms of nuclear positioning. Journal formation. Developmental Dynamics 218: 30±51.
of Cell Science 111: 2283±2295. Shemer G, Podbilewicz B. 2003. The story of cell fusion: big lessons
Reiser L, Fischer RL. 1993. The ovule and the embryo sac. Plant Cell 5: from little worms. BioEssays 25: 672±682.
1291±1301. Shimamura M, Brown RC, Lemmon BE, Akashi T, Mizuno K,
Renzaglia KS, Garbary DJ. 2001. Motile gametes of land plants: Nishihara N et al. 2004. g-Tubulin in basal land plants:
diversity, development, and evolution. Critical Reviews of Plant characterization, localization, and implication in the evolution of
Sciences 20: 107±213. acentriolar microtubule organizing centers. Plant Cell 16: 45±59.
Ribeiro S, Golding GB. 1998. The mosaic nature of the eukaryotic Shimoda C. 2004. Forespore membrane assembly in yeast: coordinating
nucleus. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15: 779±788. SPBs and membrane traf®cking. Journal of Cell Science 117: 389±
Richmond ML. 2001. Thomas Henry Huxley's developmental view of the 396.
cell. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 3: 61±65. Shumaker DK, Kuczmarski ER, Goldman RD. 2003. The
Ridley AJ. 2001. Rho proteins: linking signaling with membrane nucleoskeleton: lamins and actin are major players in essential
traf®cking. Traf®c 2: 303±310. nuclear functions. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 15: 358±366.
Rieder CL, Faruki S, Khodjakov A. 2001. The centrosome in Sil¯ow CD, Lefebvre PA. 2001. Assembly and motility of eukaryotic cilia
vertebrates: more than a microtubule-organizing center. Trends in and ¯agella. Lessons from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant
Cell Biology 11: 413±419. Physiology 127: 1500±1507.
Rivera MC, Jain R, Moore JE, Lake JA. 1998. Genomic evidence for Sinnott EW. 1960. Plant morphogenesis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
two functionally distinct gene classes. Proceedings of the National Sipiczki M, Grallert B, Miklos I. 1993. Mycelial and syncytial growth of
Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 6239±6244. Shizosaccharomyces pombe induced by novel septation mutations.
Rizzotti M. 2000. Early evolution. Basel: BirkhaÈuser. Journal of Cell Science 104: 485±493.
Rodionov VI, Borisy GG. 1997. Self-centring activity of cytoplasm. Sitte P. 1992. A modern concept of the `Cell Theory': a perspective on
Nature 386: 170±173. competing hypothesis of structure. International Journal of Plant
Rogers SL, Rogers GC, Sharp DJ, Vale RD. 2002. Drosophila EB1 is Sciences 153: S1±S6.
important for proper assembly, dynamics, and positioning of the Slautterback DB. 1963. Cytoplasmic microtubules. Journal of Cell
mitotic spindle. Journal of Cell Biology 158: 873±884. Biology 18: 367±388.
Rossi SG, Rotundo RL. 1992. Cell surface acetylcholinesterase molecules Smirnova EA, Bajer AS. 1998. Early stages of spindle formation and
on multinucleated myotubes are clustered over the nucleus of origin. independence of chromosome and microtubule cycles in Haemanthus
Journal of Cell Biology 119: 1657±1667. endosperm. Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton 40: 22±37.
Rotundo RL, Gomez AM. 1990. Nucleus-speci®c translation and Solari F, Domenget C, Gire V, Woods C, Lazarides E, Rousset B,
assembly of acetylcholinesterase in multinucleated muscle cells. Jurdic P. 1995. Multinucleated cells can continuously generate
Journal of Cell Biology 110: 715±719. mononucleated cells in the absence of mitosis: a study of cells of the
Russell SD. 1993. The egg cell: development and role in fertilization and avian osteoclast lineage. Journal of Cell Science 108: 3233±3241.
early embryogenesis. Plant Cell 5: 1349±1359. Song B, Zhao M, Forrester JV, McCaig CD. 2002. Electrical cues
Rustom A, Saffrich R, Markovic I, Walther P, Gerdes H-H. 2004. regulate the orientation and frequency of cell division and the rate of
Nanotubular highways for intercellular organelle transport. Science wound healing in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of
303: 1007±1010. Sciences of the USA 99: 13577±13582.
Ryan KJ, McCaffery JM, Wente SR. 2003. The Ran GTPase cycle is Sonobe S. 1990. Cytochalasin B enhances cytokinetic cleavage in
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 29
miniprotoplasts isolated from cultured tobacco cells. Protoplasma nuclear positioning in ®ssion yeast based on microtubule pushing.
155: 239±242. Journal of Cell Biology 153: 379±411.
Sùrensen MB, Mayer U, Lukowitz W, Robert H, Chambrier P, Trombetta VV. 1939. The cytonuclear ratio in developing plant cells.
JuÈrgens G, Somerville C, Lepiniec L, Berger F. 2002. American Journal of Botany 26: 519±529.
Cellularisation in the endosperm of Arabidopsis thaliana is Tsukaya H. 2002. Intepretation of mutants in leaf morphology: genetic
coupled to mitosis and shares multiple components with evidence for a compensatory system in leaf morphogenesis that
cytokinesis. Development 129: 5567±5576. provides a new link between cell and organismal theories.
Southwick FS, Li W, Zhang F, Zeile WL, Purich DL. 2003. Actin-based International Review of Cytology 217: 1±39.
endosome and phagosome rocketing in macrophages: activation by Tulu US, Rusan NM, Wadsworth P. 2003. Peripheral, non-centrosome-
the secratagogue antagonists lanthanum and zinc. Cell Motility and associated microtubules contribute to spindle formation in
Cytoskeleton 54: 41±55. centrosome-containing cells. Current Biology 13: 1894±1899.
Southworth D. 1992. Freeze fracture of male reproductive cells. Ueda TQP, Nagasaki A. 2004. Variations on a theme: the many modes of
International Review of Cytology 140: 187±204. cytokinesis. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 16: 55±60.
Spang A. 2002. ARF1 regulatory factors and COPI vesicle formation. Vale RD. 2003. The molecular motor toolbox for intracellular transport.
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 14: 423±427. Cell 112: 467±480.
Staehelin LA, Hepler PK. 1996. Cytokinesis in higher plants. Cell 84: Valles JM Jr. 2002. Model of magnetic ®eld-induced mitotic apparatus
821±824. reorientation in frog eggs. Biophysical Journal 82: 1260±1265.
Stamm LM, Morisaki JH, Gao L-Y, Jeng RL, McDonald KL, Roth R, van den Ent F, Amos L, Lowe J. 2001a. Bacterial ancestry of actin and
Takeshita S, Heuser J, Welch MD, Brown EJ. 2003. tubulin. Current Opinion of Microbiology 4: 634±638.
Mycobacterium marinum escapes from phagosomes and is van den Ent F, Amos L, Lowe J. 2001b. Prokaryotic origin of the actin
propelled by actin-based motility. Journal of Experimental cytoskeleton. Nature 413: 39±44.
Medicine 198: 1361±1368. Vantard M, Blanchoin L. 2002. Actin polymerization processes in plant
Stevens CF. 2003. Neurotransmitter release at central synapses. Neuron cells. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5: 502±506.
40: 381±388. Vasiliev JM. 1987. Actin cortex and microtubular system in

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

St Johnson D, NuÈsslein-Volhard C. 1992. The origin of pattern and morphogenesis: cooperation and competition. Journal of Cell
polarity in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 68: 201±219. Science, Supplement 8: 1±18.
Strasburger E. 1875. Zellbildung und Zelltheilung. Jena: Herman Dabis. Vaughn KC, Sherman TD, Renzaglia KS. 1993. A centrin homologue is
Strasburger E. 1893. U È ber die WirkungssphaÈre der Kerne und die
a component of the multilayered structure in bryophytes and
ZellgroÈsse. Histologische BeitraÈge 5: 97±124. pteridophytes. Protoplasma 175: 58±66.
Strasburger E. 1901. U È ber Plasmaverbindungen p¯anzlicher Zellen.
Verkhovsky AB, Svitkina TM, Borisy GG. 1998. Self-polarization and
Jahrbuch fuÈr Wissenschaftliche Botanik 36: 493±610. directional motility of cytoplasm. Current Biology 9: 11±20.
Sullivan BA, Blower MD, Karpen GH. 2001. Determining centromere
Vernoud V, Horton AC, Yang Z, Nielsen E. 2003. Analysis of the smal
identity: cyclical stories and forking paths. Nature Reviews Genetics
GTPase gene superfamily of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 131:
2: 584±596.
1191±1208.
Swift H. 1950. The constancy of deoxyribose nucleic acid in plant nuclei.
Vidali L, McKenna ST, Hepler PK. 2001. Actin polymerization is
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 36:
essential for pollen tube growth. Molecular Biology of the Cell 12:
643±654.
2534±2545.
Sylwester A, Wessels D, Anderson SA, Warren RQ, Shutt DC,
VorõÂsÏek J. 2000. Functional morphology of the secretory pathway
Kennedy RC, Soll DR. 1993. HIV-induced syncytia of a T cell line
organelles in yeast. Microscopy Research and Techniques 51: 530±
form a single giant pseudopods and are motile. Journal of Cell
Science 106: 941±953. 546.
Tabony J, Job D. 1992. Gravitational symmetry breaking in microtubular Wallenfang MR, Seydoux G. 2000. Polarization of the anterior-posterior
dissipative structures. Proceedings of the National Academy of axis of C. elegans is a microtubule-directed process. Nature 408: 89±
Sciences of the USA 89: 6848±6952. 92.
Tabony J, Pochon N, Papaseit C. 2001. Microtubule self-organization Wang MQ, Kim W, Gao G, Torrey TA, Morse III HC, De Camilli P,
depends upon gravity. Advances in Space Research 28: 529±535. Goff SP. 2003. Endophilins interact with Moloney murine leukemia
Takai Y, Sasaki T, Matozaki T. 2001. Small GTP-binding proteins. virus Gag and modulate virion production. Journal of Biology 3: 4.1±
Physiological Reviews 81: 153±208. 4.17.
Tangl E. 1879. U È ber offene Communicationen zwischen den Zellen des Wasteneys GO. 2002. Microtubule organization in the green kingdom:
Endosperms einiger Samen. Jahrbuch fuÈr Wissenschaftliche Botanik chaos or self-order? Journal of Cell Science 115: 1345±1354.
12: 170±190. Watson JD, Crick FH. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a
Tassin AM, Maro B, Bornens M. 1985a. Fate of microtubule-organizing structure for deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature 171: 737±738.
centers during myogenesis in vitro. Journal of Cell Biology 100: 35± Weimann JM, Jahansson CB, Trejo A, Blau HM. 2003. Stable
46. reprogrammed heterokaryons form spontaneously in Pukinje
Tassin AM, Paintrand M, Berger EG, Bornens M. 1985b. The Golgi neurons after bone marrow transplant. Nature Cell Biology 5: 959±
apparatus remains associated with microtubule organizing centers 966.
during myogenesis. Journal of Cell Biology 101: 630±638. Weisenberg RC. 1972. Microtubule formation in vitro in solutions
Taunton J, Rowning BA, Coughlin ML, Wu M, Moon RT, Mitchison containing low calcium concentrations. Science 177: 1104±1105.
TJ, Larabell CA. 2000. Actin-dependent propulsion of endosomes Weisenberg RC, Borisy GG, Taylor EW. 1968. The colchicine-binding
and lysosomes by recruitment of N-WASP. Journal of Cell Biology protein of mammalian brain and its relation to microtubules.
148: 519±530. Biochemistry 7: 4466±4479.
Taylor MV. 2002. Muscle differentiation: how two cells become one. West-Eberhard MJ. 1998. Evolution in the light of developmental and
Current Biology 12: R224±R228. cell biology, and vice versa. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Taylor MV. 2003. Muscle differentiation: signalling cell fusion. Current Sciences of the USA 95: 8417±8419.
Biology 13: R964-R966. Wilde A, Lizarraga SB, Zhang L, Wiese C, Gliksman NR, Walczak
Timmis JN, Ayliffe MA, Huang CY, Martin W. 2004. Endosymbiotic CE, Zheng Y. 2001. Ran stimulates spindle assembly by altering
gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes. microtubule dynamics and the balance of motor activities. Nature
Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 123±135. Cell Biology 3: 221±227.
Tolliday N, Pitcher M, Li R. 2003. Direct evidence for a critical role of Wittmann T, Wilm M, Karsenti E, Vernos I. 2000. TPX2, a novel
myosin II in budding yeast cytokinesis and the evolvability of new Xenopus MAP involved in spindle pole organization. Journal of Cell
cytokinetic mechanisms in the absence of myosin II. Molecular Biology 149: 1405±1418.
Biology of the Cell 14: 798±809. Wodarz A. 2002. Establishing cell polarity in development. Nature Cell
Tran PT, Marsh L, Doye V, Inoue S, Chang F. 2001. A mechanism of Biology 4: E39±E44.
30 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
Woese CR. 2002. On the evolution of cells. Proceedings of the National to-cell transport of developmental signals in plant cells. Annual
Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: 8742±8747. Reviews of Cell and Developmental Biology 16: 393±421.
Wojtaszek P. 2001. Organismal view of plant and a plant cell. Acta Zerial M, McBride H. 2001. Rab proteins as membrane organizers.
Biochemica Polonica 48: 443±451. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2: 107±118.
Wolpert L. 1995. The evolution of the Cell Theory. Philosophical Zhang F, Southwick FS, Purich DL. 2002. Actin-based phagosome
Transactions of Royal Society of London, Series B 349: 227±233. motility. Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton 53: 81±88.
Woodcock CLF. 1971. The anchoring of nuclei by cytoplasmic Zhao M, Forrester JV, McCaig CD. 1999. A small, physiological
microtubules in Acetabularia. Journal of Cell Science 8: 611±621. electric ®eld orients cell division. Proceedings of the National
Yamaguchi R, Newport J. 2003. A role for Ran-GTP and Crm1 in Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 4942±4946.
blocking re-replication. Cell 113: 115±125. Zuckerkandl E. 2002. Why so many non-coding nucleotides? The
Zambryski P, Crawford K. 2000. Plasmodesmata: gatekeepers for cell- eukaryote genome as an epigenetic machine. Genetica 115: 105±129.

BOX 1 their associated proteins which together assemble into

Updated cellular doctrine
chromatin.
1. DNA enslaves tubulin, the primary slave, in order:
The Cell Body is a primary element of organismal structure. d to gain motility (microtubules move large DNA-based
The plasma membrane, being a component of the complex structures such as nuclei and mitotic chromosomes);
Cell Periphery Apparatus, encloses the Cell Body to form a d to bring about the evolution of its structure and base
complete Cell. The Cell Periphery Apparatus is a second- sequence, and to gather environmental information
ary, largely self-assembled structure that is guided and (microtubules provide DNA with a sensory apparatus

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

maintained in its position by the Cell Body, providing it with optimized to gather and process information via the
both a protective layer and a mechanical support. properties of dynamically unstable microtubules).
Evolutionarily, the actin-based portion of the outer bound- 2. DNA enslaves actin, the secondary `slave', via nuclear±
ary represents the vestige of an actin-based `host' proto-cell cytoplasmic shuttling of G-actin, pro®lin and actin-
that was penetrated by a tubulin-based `guest' proto-cell. depolymerizing factor, all of which are intrinsically
The latter proto-cell, in tight coordination with the `host' linked to the plasma membrane and derived membrane-
DNA, was subsequently transformed into a composite enclosed compartments (endosomes). The actin-associ-
DNA/tubulin-based Cell Body on account of the great ated elements together form part of the Cell Periphery
af®nity of DNA for tubulin molecules. Importantly, the Apparatus.
active Cell Body of contemporary eukaryotic cells can 3. For survival, the Cell Body participates in the organ-
participate in elaborating the plasma membrane de novo. ization of the Cell Periphery Apparatus (cell boundary
This can happen either occasionally during cell wounding or composed of plasma membrane and extracellular matrix/
regularly during cytokinesis and meiosis. On the other hand, cell wall). These boundary structures enable the Cell
the Cell Body cannot be formed de novo and can be formed Body:
only from a pre-existing Cell Body. Therefore, the Cell Body d to be protected from the hostile outside world;
represents the smallest autonomous and self-reproducing d to accumulate information about the outside world;
unit of eukaryotic life. d to interact with the outside world directly via endocytosis,
allowing the Cell Body to `taste' its surroundings.

BOX 2 III. Cytoskeleton as a Force Generator

Cell Body manifesto: four basic principles The cytoskeleton is specialized for the conversion of
chemical energy into mechanical energy. It generates two
I. `Templating' Principle types of force:
Two basic types of templates store and propagate informa- 1. A primitive force based on the polymerization of tubulin
tion (with Positive Feedback Loops operating between and actin: i.e. microtubules push or pull DNA-based
them). structures and membranes, actin ®laments push mem-
1. Molecular templates based on complementarity of mol- branes.
ecules (e.g. DNA and RNA); 2. A more advanced type of force based on molecular
2. Structural templates based on topological order of motors (myosins, kinesins, dyneins) which drag mem-
vectorial structures (arrangement of microtubule organ- branous cargoes along tracks based on polymerized
izing centres and the microtubules which arise from microtubules and actin ®laments.
them, non-coding DNA interacting with speci®c
proteins).
IV. Principle of Membrane Boundary and Compart-
II. `Molecular Slavery' Principle mentalization
DNA is proposed to act as a `master' molecule with The Cell Periphery Apparatus that encloses The Cell is a
cytoskeletal molecules acting as its `slaves'. The assembly boundary that represents a vestige of the `host' cell. It is
and spatial distribution of cytoskeletal polymers is directly specialized for the protection of the Cell Body. A major
(with tubulin as a primary `slave') and indirectly (with actin portion of cellular DNA is stored within nuclei separated
as a secondary `slave') controlled by DNA molecules and from the rest of the cell by a nuclear envelope which, similar
 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised 31
to other endosymbiotic organelles, is composed of two (now known as the nucleocytoplasmic ratio), stating that
membranes (that are probably descended from the ancient there is a positive interrelationship between nuclear and
boundary membranes of `host' and `guest' cells). cellular sizes.
More than 100 years after Julius Sachs and Eduard
Strasburger, Daniel Mazia tackled many of these same
BOX 3
problems from the perspective of centrosomes, microtu-
The Cell Body and its history bules and their roles in partitioning the mitotic chromo-
The history of the Cell Body starts in 1892 with Julius Sachs somes within which the whole genome resides (Mazia,
who, when faced with the curious internal structure of 1993; Epel and Schatten, 1998). Mazia proposed that the
several species of siphonous coenocytic algae, concluded eukaryotic cell is a confederation of two independent units:
that the nucleus organizes a distinct cytoplasmic domain, a tubulin-based Cell Body composed of nucleus and a
even in the absence of any obvious cytoplasmic boundary. complement of perinuclear microtubules, and an actin-
Sachs coined the term `energid' to describe the nucleus with based Cell Periphery Apparatus organized at the plasma
an associated portion of cytoplasm. He then postulated that membrane (Mazia, 1993). Although this proposal was
the algal siphons, which he was examining at that time, were formulated for the unitary cells that compose animal
polyenergids as opposed to the more usual monoenergidic organisms, we have shown that the Cell Body concept is
cells of higher plants with only one nucleus (Sachs, 1892; also valid for the supracellular `confederation' of intercon-
see also Sitte, 1992). In fact, similar views had been nected cells that comprise plant organisms (BalusÏka et al.,
proposed some 30 years before those of Sachs, by Max 1998, 2000b, 2001a). Obviously, this concept is of general
Schultze studying multinucleate muscle cells of animals applicability throughout the eukaryotic superkingdom. We

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

(Schultze, 1861; cited in Harris, 1999), and by Anton de conclude that the DNA-based nucleus and its associated
Bary working on multinucleate plasmodia of slime moulds tubulin-based microtubules form the Cell Body, and that this
(de Bary, 1864; cited in Harris, 1999). In¯uenced by these item represents the smallest autonomous and self-reproduc-
and other multinucleate situations, Eduard Strasburger ing unit of the eukaryotic life.
proposed, in 1893, the concept of the karyoplasmic ratio
32 BalusÏka Ð Cell Theory Revised
BOX 4 Milestones on the path towards the Cell Body concept. A story of two dominant molecules in eukaryotic life, DNA
and tubulin, interacting together and using a large battery of supporting proteins to build up the Cell BodyÐthe smallest
self-replicating and autonomous unit of eukaryotic life. Discoveries and concepts made using plants are highlighted in bold.

1665: R. Hooke discovers cells in plants (Harris, 1999).

1830: J. Purkinje and G. Valentin discover cells in animals (Harris, 1999).
1831: R. Brown discovers the nucleus in plant cells (Harris, 1999).
1838/1839: M. Schleiden and Th. Schwann annunciate a general Cell Theory (Harris, 1999).
1871: F. Miescher discovers nuclein, which was later identi®ed as DNA (Harris, 1999).
1875±1882: W. Flemming and E. Strasburger discover chromosomes, mitosis and cytokinesis.
1879: E. Tangl describes `open communications' for direct cell-to-cell transport in plant cells, which E. Strasburger (1901)
named plasmodesmata. Recent discovery reveals also that animal cells can be linked together via direct cytoplasmic channels,
which even transport organelles (Rustom et al., 2004).
1888: Th. Boveri discovers centrosomes as well as the individuality and continuity of chromosomes.
1892: J. Sachs, studying coenocytic algae, postulates the energid as a nuclear unit equipped with a portion of cytoplasm
(the earliest version of the Cell Body concept applied to coenocytes).
1893: E. Strasburger postulates the karyoplasmic ratio (now known as the nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio) in which a nucleus claims
a certain amount of surrounding cytoplasmic space by means of an unspeci®ed in¯uence. This `sphere of in¯uence' is
under the control of the nucleus (the earliest version of the Cell Body concept applied generally to multicellular organisms).
1901: Th. Boveri discovers the cyclical nature of centrosomes and their link to chromosomes as units of heredity (chromosomal theory
of heredity).
1905/1910: C. Mereshkowsky proposes that the nucleus was the ®rst endosymbiont of eukaryotic cells.
1950: H. Swift de®nes DNA amounts of haploid (1C-value) and diploid (2C-value) nuclei.

Downloaded from aob.oxfordjournals.org at Universidad de Colima on September 1, 2011

1952: D. Mazia and K. Dan isolate intact mitotic spindle apparatus.
1953: A. Howard and S. Pelc report that DNA synthesis is restricted to the discrete period of interphase, later known as S-phase,
and thus lay the basis for the cell cycle concept.
1953: J. Watson and F. Crick discover the double-helix structure of DNA molecules, which allows DNA to self-replicate and to serve as
a template which instructs the formation of RNA molecules.
1963: M. C. Ledbetter and K. Porter, as well as D. B. Slautterback, discover microtubules in plants using electron microscopy and
propose that they form mitotic spindles.
1968: R. Weisenberg, G. Borisy, and E. Taylor discover tubulin, a protein from which microtubules are formed.
1968: O. Kiermayer reports that perinuclear microtubules position nuclei in differentiating cells of the desmid, Micrasterias
denticulata.
1969: J. Pickett-Heaps proposes the concept of Microtubule Organizing Centre (MTOC), according to which microtubules and
their orientation are seeded by a structural template.
1971: C. L. F. Woodcock shows that coenocytic nuclei of Acetabularia caps are positioned by perinuclear microtubules.
1972: R. Weisenberg succeeds in polymerizing microtubules from tubulin in vitro.
1972: M. Bennett postulates the Nucleotype Concept, according to which DNA, irrespective of its informational content and role
in heredity, determines the size of the cell.
1984: T. Mitchison and M. Kirschner discover the dynamic instability of microtubules.
1987: D. Mazia proposes that chromosome- and centrosome-based cycles of mitotic cells are closely associated and mutually interdependent.
1987: J. M. Vasiliev proposes that the eukaryotic cell consists of two co-operating and competing systems: an actin-based cell periphery
called actinoplast, and a tubulin-based tubuloplast. The cell is viewed as some kind of symbiotic association between these two types
of cytoplasmic organization.
1992: R. M. Brown and B. E. Lemmon study the development of female gametophytes of higher plants and postulate the Cytoplasmic
Domain as a cytoplasmic space controlled by a given nucleus via radiating arrays of microtubules from which new plasma
membranes may be formed at the line of interaction between neighbouring arrays of microtubules which are also radiating
from the surfaces of adjacent nuclei. This domain corresponds to the `sphere of in¯uence' postulated by Strasburger in 1893
(see above).
1993: A.-M. Lambert and K. Mizuno postulate and show that the whole nuclear surface acts as a MTOC in plant cells. K. Mizuno
identi®es proteinaceous nuclear factors essential for the MTOC nature of nuclear surface. Also, radiating arrays of
microtubules are formed around small puri®ed nuclear particles.
1994: D. Mazia postulates the Cell Body concept for animal cells.
1997: F. BalusÏka, D. Volkmann and P. W. Barlow review the many nuclear, DNA- and chromatin-associated nuclear proteins which
stimulate polymerization of microtubules when released into the cytoplasm. Their controlled release into the cytoplasm during
interphase, and their bulk release during mitosis, is proposed to regulate the distribution of microtubules. Cell Body is
postulated to underlie the nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio.
2003: J. Chan, G. Calder, J. H. Doonan and C. W. Lloyd show that EB1 marks the elusive MTOCs of plant cells as mobile sites,
supporting the Daniel Mazia's idea of a ¯exible plant centrosome.
2004: F. BalusÏka, D. Volkmann and P. W. Barlow postulate that the Cell Body represents the smallest autonomous unit of eukaryotic
life, and that it can be structurally uncoupled from the Cell Periphery Apparatus (cell boundary) and functionally uncoupled
from cytokinesis.