Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 165 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Ann Bot. 2023 Nov 25;132(4):717-725. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcad125.
A current argument in the CAM biology literature has focused on the nature of the CAM evolutionary trajectory: whether there is a smooth continuum of phenotypes between plants with C3 and CAM photosynthesis or whether there are discrete steps of phenotypic evolutionary change such as has been modelled for the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. A further implication is that a smooth continuum would increase the evolvability of CAM, whereas discrete changes would make the evolutionary transition from C3 to CAM more difficult.
In this essay, I attempt to reconcile these two viewpoints, because I think in many ways this is a false dichotomy that is constraining progress in understanding how both CAM and C4 evolved. In reality, the phenotypic space connecting C3 species and strong CAM/C4 species is both a continuum of variably expressed quantitative traits and yet also contains certain combinations of traits that we are able to identify as discrete, recognizable phenotypes. In this sense, the evolutionary mechanics of CAM origination are no different from those of C4 photosynthesis, nor from the evolution of any other complex trait assemblage.
To make progress, we must embrace the concept of discrete phenotypic phases of CAM evolution, because their delineation will force us to articulate what aspects of phenotypic variation we think are significant. There are some current phenotypic gaps that are limiting our ability to build a complete CAM evolutionary model: the first is how a rudimentary CAM biochemical cycle becomes established, and the second is how the 'accessory' CAM cycle in C3+CAM plants is recruited into a primary metabolism. The connections to the C3 phenotype we are looking for are potentially found in the behaviour of C3 plants when undergoing physiological stress - behaviour that, strangely enough, remains essentially unexplored in this context.
CAM 生物学文献中的一个当前争论焦点集中在 CAM 进化轨迹的性质上:植物的 C3 和 CAM 光合作用之间是否存在表型连续体,或者是否存在表型进化变化的离散步骤,就像 C4 光合作用的进化那样已经建模过。进一步的含义是,连续统会增加 CAM 的可进化性,而离散变化会使 C3 到 CAM 的进化转变更加困难。
在这篇文章中,我试图调和这两种观点,因为我认为在很多方面,这是一个错误的二分法,限制了我们理解 CAM 和 C4 如何进化的进展。实际上,连接 C3 物种和强 CAM/C4 物种的表型空间既是表达可变数量性状的连续体,又是我们能够识别为离散、可识别表型的某些性状组合。从这个意义上说,CAM 起源的表型力学与 C4 光合作用的进化力学没有什么不同,也与任何其他复杂性状组合的进化没有什么不同。
要取得进展,我们必须接受 CAM 进化的离散表型阶段的概念,因为它们的划定将迫使我们阐明我们认为哪些方面的表型变化是重要的。目前存在一些限制我们构建完整 CAM 进化模型的表型差距:第一个是基本的 CAM 生化循环如何建立,第二个是 C3+CAM 植物中的“辅助”CAM 循环如何被招募到主要代谢中。我们正在寻找的与 C3 表型的联系可能存在于 C3 植物在经历生理压力时的行为中——奇怪的是,在这种情况下,这种行为基本上没有得到探索。