Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Guidelines for naming and studying plasma membrane domains in plants

Nature Plants volume 10, pages 1172–1183 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Biological membranes play a crucial role in actively hosting, modulating and coordinating a wide range of molecular events essential for cellular function. Membranes are organized into diverse domains giving rise to dynamic molecular patchworks. However, the very definition of membrane domains has been the subject of continuous debate. For example, in the plant field, membrane domains are often referred to as nanodomains, nanoclusters, microdomains, lipid rafts, membrane rafts, signalling platforms, foci or liquid-ordered membranes without any clear rationale. In the context of plant–microbe interactions, microdomains have sometimes been used to refer to the large area at the plant–microbe interface. Some of these terms have partially overlapping meanings at best, but they are often used interchangeably in the literature. This situation generates much confusion and limits conceptual progress. There is thus an urgent need for us as a scientific community to resolve these semantic and conceptual controversies by defining an unambiguous nomenclature of membrane domains. In this Review, experts in the field get together to provide explicit definitions of plasma membrane domains in plant systems and experimental guidelines for their study. We propose that plasma membrane domains should not be considered on the basis of their size alone but rather according to the biological system being considered, such as the local membrane environment or the entire cell.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Plant PM nanodomains.
Fig. 2: Nested organization of cell membranes into polar domains and nanodomains.
Fig. 3: Emergence and maintenance of membrane domains.
Fig. 4: Microscopic observations of polar domains and nanodomains in the PM of plant cells.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singer, S. J. & Nicolson, G. L. The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes. Science 175, 720–731 (1972).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Suzuki, K. G. N. & Kusumi, A. Refinement of Singer–Nicolson fluid-mosaic model by microscopy imaging: lipid rafts and actin-induced membrane compartmentalization. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1865, 184093 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nicolson, G. L. & de Mattos, G. F. The fluid–mosaic model of cell membranes: a brief introduction, historical features, some general principles, and its adaptation to current information. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2023.184135 (2023).

  4. Nicolson, G. L. The fluid-mosaic model of membrane structure: still relevant to understanding the structure, function and dynamics of biological membranes after more than 40 years. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1838, 1451–1466 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nicolson, G. L. Update of the 1972 Singer–Nicolson fluid-mosaic model of membrane structure. Discoveries (Craiova) 1, e3 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gorelova, V., Sprakel, J. & Weijers, D. Plant cell polarity as the nexus of tissue mechanics and morphogenesis. Nat. Plants https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01021-w (2021).

  7. Muroyama, A. & Bergmann, D. Plant cell polarity: creating diversity from inside the box. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 35, 309–336 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hutten, S. J. et al. Visualization of BRI1 and SERK3/BAK1 nanoclusters in Arabidopsis roots. PLoS ONE 12, e0169905 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bucherl, C. A. et al. Visualization of BRI1 and BAK1(SERK3) membrane receptor heterooligomers during brassinosteroid signaling. Plant Physiol. 162, 1911–1925 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Platre, M. P. et al. Developmental control of plant Rho GTPase nano-organization by the lipid phosphatidylserine. Science 364, 57–62 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pan, X. et al. Auxin-induced signaling protein nanoclustering contributes to cell polarity formation. Nat. Commun. 11, 3914 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Miao, Y., Guo, X., Zhu, K. & Zhao, W. Biomolecular condensates tunes immune signaling at the host–pathogen interface. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 74, 102374 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jarsch, I. K. et al. Plasma membranes are subcompartmentalized into a plethora of coexisting and diverse microdomains in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana. Plant Cell 26, 1698–1711 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaillais, Y. & Ott, T. The nanoscale organization of the plasma membrane and its importance in signaling: a proteolipid perspective. Plant Physiol. 182, 1682–1696 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malinsky, J., Opekarová, M., Grossmann, G. & Tanner, W. Membrane microdomains, rafts, and detergent-resistant membranes in plants and fungi. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64, 501–529 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gouguet, P. et al. Connecting the dots: from nanodomains to physiological functions of REMORINs. Plant Physiol. 85, 632–649 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tapken, W. & Murphy, A. S. Membrane nanodomains in plants: capturing form, function, and movement. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 1573–1586 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Daněk, M. et al. Cell wall contributes to the stability of plasma membrane nanodomain organization of Arabidopsis thaliana FLOTILLIN2 and HYPERSENSITIVE INDUCED REACTION1 proteins. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 101, 619–636 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bücherl, C. A. et al. Plant immune and growth receptors share common signalling components but localise to distinct plasma membrane nanodomains. eLife 6, e25114 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Malínská, K., Malínský, J., Opekarová, M. & Tanner, W. Visualization of protein compartmentation within the plasma membrane of living yeast cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 14, 4427–4436 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang, P. et al. The plant cytoskeleton, NET3C, and VAP27 mediate the link between the plasma membrane and endoplasmic reticulum. Curr. Biol. 24, 1397–1405 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bayle, V. et al. Single-particle tracking photoactivated localization microscopy of membrane proteins in living plant tissues. Nat. Protoc. 6, 1600–1628 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fratini, M. et al. Plasma membrane nano-organization specifies phosphoinositide effects on Rho-GTPases and actin dynamics in tobacco pollen tubes. Plant Cell 33, 642–670 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lv, X. et al. Membrane microdomains and the cytoskeleton constrain AtHIR1 dynamics and facilitate the formation of an AtHIR1-associated immune complex. Plant J. 90, 3–16 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Béziat, C. & Jaillais, Y. Should I stay or should I go: the functional importance and regulation of lipid diffusion in biological membranes. J. Exp. Bot. 74, 2479–2488 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Raghupathy, R. et al. Transbilayer lipid interactions mediate nanoclustering of lipid-anchored proteins. Cell 161, 581–594 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Róg, T. et al. Interdigitation of long-chain sphingomyelin induces coupling of membrane leaflets in a cholesterol dependent manner. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1858, 281–288 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grosjean, K., Mongrand, S., Beney, L., Simon-Plas, F. & Gerbeau-Pissot, P. Differential effect of plant lipids on membrane organization. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 5810–5825 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Noack, L. C. & Jaillais, Y. Functions of anionic lipids in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 71, 71–102 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smokvarska, M. et al. The receptor kinase FERONIA regulates phosphatidylserine localization at the cell surface to modulate ROP signaling. Sci. Adv. 9, eadd4791 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Simons, K. & Ikonen, E. Functional rafts in cell membranes. Nature 387, 569–572 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smokvarska, M. et al. A plasma membrane nanodomain ensures signal specificity during osmotic signaling in plants. Curr. Biol. 30, 4654–4664 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ma, Z. et al. Membrane nanodomains modulate formin condensation for actin remodeling in Arabidopsis innate immune responses. Plant Cell 34, 374–394 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang, P. et al. Symbiotic root infections in Medicago truncatula require remorin-mediated receptor stabilization in membrane nanodomains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 40, 201721868 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heilmann, M. & Heilmann, I. Regulators regulated: different layers of control for plasma membrane phosphoinositides in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 67, 102218 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fuchs, V. A. F. et al. Nanodomain-mediated lateral sorting drives polarization of the small GTPase ROP2 in the plasma membrane of root hair cells. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.10.459822 (2021).

  37. Gronnier, J. et al. Regulation of immune receptor kinase plasma membrane nanoscale organization by a plant peptide hormone and its receptors. eLife 11, e74162 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hurst, C. H. et al. S-acylation stabilizes ligand-induced receptor kinase complex formation during plant pattern-triggered immune signaling. Curr. Biol. 33, 1588–1596 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McKenna, J. F. et al. The cell wall regulates dynamics and size of plasma-membrane nanodomains in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 4, 201819077 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tran, T. M. et al. The bacterial quorum sensing signal DSF hijacks Arabidopsis thaliana sterol biosynthesis to suppress plant innate immunity. Life Sci. Alliance 3, e202000720 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gronnier, J. et al. Structural basis for plant plasma membrane protein dynamics and organization into functional nanodomains. eLife 6, e26404 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Perraki, A. et al. Plasma membrane localization of Solanum tuberosum Remorin from Group 1, Homolog 3 is mediated by conformational changes in a novel C-terminal anchor and required for the restriction of potato virus X movement. Plant Physiol. 160, 624–637 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Sun, H. et al. Xanthomonas effector XopR hijacks host actin cytoskeleton via complex coacervation. Nat. Commun. 12, 4064 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ott, T. Membrane nanodomains and microdomains in plant–microbe interactions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 40, 82–88 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Martin, S. W., Glover, B. J. & Davies, J. M. Lipid microdomains—plant membranes get organized. Trends Plant Sci. 10, 263–265 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zappel, N. F. & Panstruga, R. Heterogeneity and lateral compartmentalization of plant plasma membranes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 11, 632–640 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yu, M., Cui, Y., Zhang, X., Li, R. & Lin, J. Organization and dynamics of functional plant membrane microdomains. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 77, 275–287 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nakamura, M. & Grebe, M. Outer, inner and planar polarity in the Arabidopsis root. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 41, 46–53 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Łangowski et al. Cellular mechanisms for cargo delivery and polarity maintenance at different polar domains in plant cells. Cell Discov. 2, 16018 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Langowski, L., Růzicka, K., Naramoto, S., Kleine-Vehn, J. & Friml, J. Trafficking to the outer polar domain defines the root–soil interface. Curr. Biol. 20, 904–908 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kleine-Vehn, J. et al. Recycling, clustering, and endocytosis jointly maintain PIN auxin carrier polarity at the plasma membrane. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 540 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Barberon, M. et al. Polarization of IRON-REGULATED TRANSPORTER 1 (IRT1) to the plant–soil interface plays crucial role in metal homeostasis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8293–8298 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Rodriguez-Furlan, C., Emami, A. & Van Norman, J. M. Distinct ADP–ribosylation factor–GTP exchange factors govern the opposite polarity of 2 receptor kinases. Plant Physiol. 194, 673–683 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Denninger, P. et al. Distinct RopGEFs successively drive polarization and outgrowth of root hairs. Curr. Biol. 29, 1854–1865 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Elliott, L. & Kirchhelle, C. The importance of being edgy: cell geometric edges as an emerging polar domain in plant cells. J. Microsc. 278, 123–131 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lace, B. et al. RPG acts as a central determinant for infectosome formation and cellular polarization during intracellular rhizobial infections. eLife 12, e80741 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Scholz, P., Anstatt, J., Krawczyk, H. E. & Ischebeck, T. Signalling pinpointed to the tip: the complex regulatory network that allows pollen tube growth. Plants 9, 1098 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Müller, S. Update: on selected ROP cell polarity mechanisms in plant cell morphogenesis. Plant Physiol. 193, 26–41 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Oda, Y. & Fukuda, H. Initiation of cell wall pattern by a Rho- and microtubule-driven symmetry breaking. Science 337, 1333–1336 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Smokvarska, M., Jaillais, Y. & Martinière, A. Function of membrane domains in Rho-of-Plant signaling. Plant Physiol. 185, 663–681 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Lin, W. & Yang, Z. Unlocking the mechanisms behind the formation of interlocking pavement cells. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 57, 142–154 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kost, B. et al. Rac homologues and compartmentalized phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate act in a common pathway to regulate polar pollen tube growth. J. Cell Biol. 145, 317–330 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Noack, L. C. & Jaillais, Y. Precision targeting by phosphoinositides: how PIs direct endomembrane trafficking in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 40, 22–33 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sternberg, H. et al. Formation of self-organizing functionally distinct Rho of plants domains involves a reduced mobile population. Plant Physiol. 187, 2485–2508 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Bozkurt, T. O. et al. The plant membrane-associated REMORIN1.3 accumulates in discrete perihaustorial domains and enhances susceptibility to Phytophthora infestans. Plant Physiol. 165, 1005–1018 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Qin, L. et al. Specific recruitment of phosphoinositide species to the plant–pathogen interfacial membrane underlies Arabidopsis susceptibility to fungal infection. Plant Cell 32, 1665–1688 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolbeck, A. et al. CASP microdomain formation requires cross cell wall stabilization of domains and non-cell autonomous action of LOTR1. eLife 11, e69602 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Barbosa, I. C. R. et al. Directed growth and fusion of membrane-wall microdomains requires CASP-mediated inhibition and displacement of secretory foci. Nat. Commun. 14, 1626 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Yoshida, S. et al. A SOSEKI-based coordinate system interprets global polarity cues in Arabidopsis. Nat. Plants 5, 160–166 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. van Dop, M. et al. DIX domain polymerization drives assembly of plant cell polarity complexes. Cell 180, 427–439 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Ramalho, J. J., Jones, V. A. S., Mutte, S. & Weijers, D. Pole position: how plant cells polarize along the axes. Plant Cell 34, 174–192 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Lee, Y., Rubio, M. C., Alassimone, J. & Geldner, N. A mechanism for localized lignin deposition in the endodermis. Cell 153, 402–412 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hosmani, P. S. et al. Dirigent domain-containing protein is part of the machinery required for formation of the lignin-based Casparian strip in the root. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14498–14503 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Pan, X., Pérez-Henríquez, P., Van Norman, J. M. & Yang, Z. Membrane nanodomains: dynamic nanobuilding blocks of polarized cell growth. Plant Physiol. 93, 83–97 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sugiyama, Y., Wakazaki, M., Toyooka, K., Fukuda, H. & Oda, Y. A novel plasma membrane-anchored protein regulates xylem cell-wall deposition through microtubule-dependent lateral inhibition of Rho GTPase domains. Curr. Biol. 27, 2522–2528 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Alassimone, J., Naseer, S. & Geldner, N. A developmental framework for endodermal differentiation and polarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5214–5219 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Aliaga Fandino, A. C., Jelínková, A., Marhava, P., Petrášek, J. & Hardtke, C. S. Ectopic assembly of an auxin efflux control machinery shifts developmental trajectories. Plant Cell 36, 1791–1805 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bloch, D. et al. Exocyst SEC3 and phosphoinositides define sites of exocytosis in pollen tube initiation and growth. Plant Physiol. 172, 980–1002 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Vukašinović, N. et al. Microtubule-dependent targeting of the exocyst complex is necessary for xylem development in Arabidopsis. N. Phytol. 213, 1052–1067 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kusumaatmaja, H. et al. Wetting of phase-separated droplets on plant vacuole membranes leads to a competition between tonoplast budding and nanotube formation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024109118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Dragwidge, J. M. et al. Biomolecular condensation orchestrates clathrin-mediated endocytosis in plants. Nat. Cell Biol. 26, 438–449 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Liu, C. et al. SEC14-like condensate phase transitions at plasma membranes regulate root growth in Arabidopsis. PLoS Biol. 21, e3002305 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Noack, L. C. et al. A nanodomain-anchored scaffolding complex is required for the function and localization of phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase alpha in plants. Plant Cell 34, 302–332 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Gomez, R. E. et al. Phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate controls autophagosome formation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat. Commun. 13, 4385 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Chambaud, C., Cookson, S. J., Ollat, N., Bayer, E. & Brocard, L. A correlative light electron microscopy approach reveals plasmodesmata ultrastructure at the graft interface. Plant Physiol. 188, 44–55 (2021).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Li, Z. P. et al. Plant plasmodesmata bridges form through ER-driven incomplete cytokinesis. Science adn4630 https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.12.571296 (2024 in press).

  87. Watanabe, S. et al. Protein localization in electron micrographs using fluorescence nanoscopy. Nat. Methods 8, 80–84 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Fu, Z. et al. mEosEM withstands osmium staining and Epon embedding for super-resolution CLEM. Nat. Methods 17, 55–58 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Brown, D. A. & Rose, J. K. Sorting of GPI-anchored proteins to glycolipid-enriched membrane subdomains during transport to the apical cell surface. Cell 68, 533–544 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Renne, M. F. & Ernst, R. Membrane homeostasis beyond fluidity: control of membrane compressibility. Trends Biochem. Sci. 48, 963–977 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Marsh, D. Handbook of Lipid Bilayers (CRC, 2013).

  92. Mair, A., Xu, S.-L., Branon, T. C., Ting, A. Y. & Bergmann, D. C. Proximity labeling of protein complexes and cell-type-specific organellar proteomes in Arabidopsis enabled by TurboID. eLife 8, e47864 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Arora, D. et al. Establishment of proximity-dependent biotinylation approaches in different plant model systems. Plant Cell 32, 3388–3407 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Wallner, E.-S. et al. Spatially resolved proteomics of the Arabidopsis stomatal lineage identifies polarity complexes for cell divisions and stomatal pores. Dev. Cell 59, 1096–1109 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Liu, C. et al. An actin remodeling role for Arabidopsis processing bodies revealed by their proximity interactome. EMBO J. 42, e111885 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Laganowsky, A. et al. Membrane proteins bind lipids selectively to modulate their structure and function. Nature 510, 172–175 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Laganowsky, A., Reading, E., Hopper, J. T. S. & Robinson, C. V. Mass spectrometry of intact membrane protein complexes. Nat. Protoc. 8, 639–651 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Liu, P. et al. Mechanism of sphingolipid homeostasis revealed by structural analysis of Arabidopsis SPT–ORM1 complex. Sci. Adv. 9, eadg0728 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Sarewicz, M. et al. High-resolution cryo-EM structures of plant cytochrome b6f at work. Sci. Adv. 9, eadd9688 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Mandala, V. S., Loftis, A. R., Shcherbakov, A. A., Pentelute, B. L. & Hong, M. Atomic structures of closed and open influenza B M2 proton channel reveal the conduction mechanism. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 27, 160–167 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Xie, H. et al. Solid-state NMR structure determination of a membrane protein in E. coli cellular inner membrane. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh4168 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Marrink, S. J. et al. Computational modeling of realistic cell membranes. Chem. Rev. 119, 6184–6226 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Lee, E. H., Hsin, J., Sotomayor, M., Comellas, G. & Schulten, K. Discovery through the computational microscope. Structure 17, 1295–1306 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Sych, T., Levental, K. R. & Sezgin, E. Lipid–protein interactions in plasma membrane organization and function. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 51, 135–156 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. König, S., Mosblech, A. & Heilmann, I. Stress-inducible and constitutive phosphoinositide pools have distinctive fatty acid patterns in Arabidopsis thaliana. FASEB J. 21, 1958–1967 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Boutté, Y. & Jaillais, Y. Metabolic cellular communications: feedback mechanisms between membrane lipid homeostasis and plant development. Dev. Cell 54, 171–182 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Cassim, A. M. et al. Plant lipids: key players of plasma membrane organization and function. Prog. Lipid Res. 73, 1–27 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Colin, L. A. & Jaillais, Y. Phospholipids across scales: lipid patterns and plant development. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 53, 1–9 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Martinière, A. et al. Cell wall constrains lateral diffusion of plant plasma-membrane proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12805–12810 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Liu, Z., Persson, S. & Sanchez-Rodriguez, C. At the border: the plasma membrane–cell wall continuum. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 1553–1563 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Kirchhelle, C. & Hamant, O. Discretizing the cellular bases of plant morphogenesis: emerging properties from subcellular and noisy patterning. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 81, 102159 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Elliott, L. et al. A self-regulatory cell-wall-sensing module at cell edges controls plant growth. Nat. Plants 10, 483–493 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Wallner, E.-S., Dolan, L. & Bergmann, D. C. Arabidopsis stomatal lineage cells establish bipolarity and segregate differential signaling capacity to regulate stem cell potential. Dev. Cell 58, 1643–1656 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Minami, A. et al. Arabidopsis dynamin-related protein 1E in sphingolipid-enriched plasma membrane domains is associated with the development of freezing tolerance. Plant J. 83, 501–514 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Laine, R. F. et al. High-fidelity 3D live-cell nanoscopy through data-driven enhanced super-resolution radial fluctuation. Nat. Methods 20, 1949–1956 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Levet, F. et al. A tessellation-based colocalization analysis approach for single-molecule localization microscopy. Nat. Commun. 10, 2379 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Wallis, T. P. et al. Super-resolved trajectory-derived nanoclustering analysis using spatiotemporal indexing. Nat. Commun. 14, 3353 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Miège and N. Geldner for their help in preparing the manuscript. We thank M. von Arx (Fig. 4p–r), V. Markovic (Fig. 4g,h), E.-S. Wallner (Fig. 4e), D. Biermann (Fig. 4i–k), A. De Meyer (Fig. 4f), M. van Dop (Fig. 4d) and L. Elliot (Fig. 4c) for providing the microscopy images shown in Fig. 4.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, Université de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCB Lyon 1, CNRS, INRAE, Lyon, France

    Yvon Jaillais, Marie-Cecile Caillaud & Charlotte Kirchhelle

  2. Laboratoire de Biogénèse Membranaire, UMR5200, Université de Bordeaux, CNRS, Villenave d’Ornon, France

    Emmanuelle Bayer, Yohann Boutté, Véronique Germain & Sebastien Mongrand

  3. Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Dominique C. Bergmann

  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Dominique C. Bergmann

  5. Departamento de Biología Molecular y Bioquímica, Instituto de Hortifruticultura Subtropical y Mediterránea ‘La Mayora’, Universidad de Málaga-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain

    Miguel A. Botella

  6. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London, UK

    Tolga O. Bozkurt

  7. Institute of Cell and Interaction Biology, CEPLAS Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences, Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Guido Grossmann

  8. Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Department of Plant Biochemistry, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Ingo Heilmann

  9. Division of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

    Piers A. Hemsley

  10. Cell and Molecular Sciences, James Hutton Institute, Dundee, UK

    Piers A. Hemsley

  11. IPSiM, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France

    Alexandre Martinière & Enric Zelazny

  12. School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Yansong Miao

  13. Department of Biology, Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Sabine Müller

  14. Copenhagen Plant Science Center, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Lise C. Noack

  15. Department of Biological Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

    Yoshihisa Oda

  16. Cell Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Thomas Ott

  17. Centre of Integrative Biological Signalling Studies, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Thomas Ott

  18. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Xue Pan

  19. Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

    Roman Pleskot & Martin Potocky

  20. Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

    Stéphanie Robert

  21. Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid—Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Campus de Montegancedo UPM, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain

    Clara Sanchez Rodriguez

  22. Agroécologie, INRAE, Institut Agro, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France

    Françoise Simon-Plas

  23. Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Eugenia Russinova & Daniel Van Damme

  24. VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Ghent, Belgium

    Eugenia Russinova & Daniel Van Damme

  25. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Center for Plant Cell Biology, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    Jaimie M. Van Norman

  26. Laboratory of Biochemistry, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Dolf Weijers

  27. School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Shaul Yalovsky

  28. Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    Zhenbiao Yang

  29. Faculty of Synthetic Biology, Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Shenzhen, China

    Zhenbiao Yang

  30. Key Laboratory of Quantitative Synthetic Biology, Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China

    Zhenbiao Yang

  31. Haixia Institute of Science and Technology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China

    Zhenbiao Yang

  32. NanoSignaling Lab, Zentrum für Molekularbiologie der Pflanzen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Julien Gronnier

Authors
  1. Yvon Jaillais
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuelle Bayer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominique C. Bergmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miguel A. Botella
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yohann Boutté
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tolga O. Bozkurt
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marie-Cecile Caillaud
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Véronique Germain
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guido Grossmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ingo Heilmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Piers A. Hemsley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Charlotte Kirchhelle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Alexandre Martinière
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Yansong Miao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sebastien Mongrand
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Sabine Müller
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Lise C. Noack
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Yoshihisa Oda
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Thomas Ott
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Xue Pan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Roman Pleskot
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Martin Potocky
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Stéphanie Robert
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Clara Sanchez Rodriguez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Françoise Simon-Plas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Eugenia Russinova
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Daniel Van Damme
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Jaimie M. Van Norman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Dolf Weijers
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Shaul Yalovsky
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Zhenbiao Yang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Enric Zelazny
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Julien Gronnier
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.J., E.B., Y.B., M.-C.C., A.M., S.M., F.S.-P., E.Z. and J.G. planned the project. Y.J. and J.G. wrote the draft manuscript. Y.J., E.B., D.C.B., M.A.B., Y.B., T.O.B., M.-C.C., V.G., G.G., I.H., P.A.H., C.K., A.M., Y.M., S. Mongrand, S. Müller, L.C.N., Y.O., T.O., X.P., R.P., M.P., S.R., C.S.R., F.S.-P., E.R., D.V.D., J.M.v.N., D.W., S.Y., Z.Y., E.Z. and J.G. edited and commented on the manuscript. J.G. prepared the figures. Y.B. (Fig. 4a,b), L.C.N. (Fig. 4l) and J.G. contributed to the figure panels.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yvon Jaillais or Julien Gronnier.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Plants thanks Pengwei Wang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaillais, Y., Bayer, E., Bergmann, D.C. et al. Guidelines for naming and studying plasma membrane domains in plants. Nat. Plants 10, 1172–1183 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01742-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01742-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing