Ravichandran Sree Janani, Linh Nguyen Manh, Scarpella Enrico
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, CW-405 Biological Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada.
New Phytol. 2020 Aug;227(4):1051-1059. doi: 10.1111/nph.16605. Epub 2020 May 14.
The 'canalization hypothesis' was suggested 50 years ago by Tsvi Sachs to account for the formation of vascular strands in response to wounding or auxin application. The hypothesis proposes that positive feedback between auxin movement through a cell and the cell's auxin conductivity leads to the gradual selection of narrow 'canals' of polar auxin transport that will differentiate into vascular strands. Though the hypothesis has provided an invaluable conceptual framework to understand the patterned formation of vascular strands, evidence has been accumulating that seems to be incompatible with the hypothesis. We suggest that the challenging evidence is incompatible with current interpretations of the hypothesis but not with the concept at the core of the hypothesis' original formulation.
“ canalization hypothesis”（输导组织分化假说）是50年前由茨维·萨克斯提出的，用于解释植物在受伤或施用生长素时维管束的形成。该假说认为，生长素在细胞间的运输与细胞的生长素传导性之间的正反馈作用，导致了极性生长素运输的狭窄“通道”逐渐被选择出来，这些通道将分化为维管束。尽管该假说为理解维管束的模式形成提供了一个非常有价值的概念框架，但越来越多的证据似乎与该假说不相容。我们认为，这些具有挑战性的证据与该假说目前的解释不相容，但与该假说最初提出的核心概念并不矛盾。
