Search

Parasitic plants live in intimate physical connection with other plants serving as their hosts. These host plants provide the inorganic and organic compounds that the parasites need for their propagation. The uptake of the macromolecular compounds happens through symplasmic connections in the form of plasmodesmata. In contrast to regular plasmodesmata, which connect genetically identical cells of an individual plant, the plasmodesmata that connect the cells of host and parasite join separate individuals belonging to different species and are therefore termed “interspecific”. The existence of such interspecific plasmodesmata was deduced either indirectly using molecular approaches or observed directly by ultrastructural analyses. Most of this evidence concerns shoot parasitic Cuscuta species and root parasitic Orobanchaceae, which can both infect a large range of phylogenetically distant hosts. The existence of an interspecific chimeric symplast is both striking and unique and, with exceptions being observed in closely related grafted plants, exist only in these parasitic relationships. Considering the recent technical advances and upcoming tools for analyzing parasitic plants, interspecific plasmodesmata in parasite/host connections are a promising system for studying secondary plasmodesmata. For open questions like how their formation is induced, how their positioning is controlled and if they are initiated by one or both bordering cells simultaneously, the parasite/host interface with two adjacent distinguishable genetic systems provides valuable advantages. We summarize here what is known about interspecific plasmodesmata between parasitic plants and their hosts and discuss the potential of the intriguing parasite/host system for deepening our insight into plasmodesmatal structure, function, and development.

Abstract WHIRLY2 is a single‐stranded DNA binding protein associated with mitochondrial nucleoids. In the why 2‐1 mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana, a major proportion of leaf mitochondria has an aberrant structure characterized by disorganized nucleoids, reduced abundance of cristae, and a low matrix density despite the fact that the macroscopic phenotype during vegetative growth is not different from wild type. These features coincide with an impairment of the functionality and dynamics of mitochondria that have been characterized in detail in wild‐type and why 2‐1 mutant cell cultures. In contrast to the development of the vegetative parts, seed germination is compromised in the why 2‐1 mutant. In line with that, the expression level of why 2 in seeds of wild‐type plants is higher than that of why 3, whereas in adult plant no difference is found. Intriguingly, in early stages of shoots development of the why 2‐1 mutant, although not in seeds, the expression level of why 3 is enhanced. These results suggest that WHIRLY3 is a potential candidate to compensate for the lack of WHIRLY2 in the why 2‐1 mutant. Such compensation is possible only if the two proteins are localized in the same organelle. Indeed, in organello protein transport experiments using intact mitochondria and chloroplasts revealed that WHIRLY3 can be dually targeted into both, chloroplasts and mitochondria. Together, these data indicate that the alterations of mitochondria nucleoids are tightly linked to alterations of mitochondria morphology and functionality. This is even more evident in those phases of plant life when mitochondrial activity is particularly high, such as seed germination. Moreover, our results indicate that the differential expression of why 2 and why 3 predetermines the functional replacement of WHIRLY2 by WHIRLY3, which is restricted though to the vegetative parts of the plant.