100 Seconds with Paul Mahlberg

The first article you published in AJB was "Embryogeny and Histogenesis in Nerium oleander. II. Origin and Development of the Non-articulated Laticifer" in 1961. Please take us back to that period: what were you studying/most interested in at the time?

I chose for my doctoral study the non-articulated laticifer, a most unusual cell type present in a small number of angiospermous families. I became intrigued by this cell from previous knowledge of it during my earlier graduate studies (Master's degree in Botany, Univ. Wis.) and readings of the classical literature on this cell type. When I entered the Botany Department, University of California, Berkeley (1954), and discussed a thesis topic with Professor Adriance Foster, I selected this cell type for my dissertation. Because the Oleander (Nerium oleander L.) and Euphorbia marginata Pursh. were generally available in the area, I selected them as models for my study.

My doctoral dissertation was titled: Ontogenetic And Experimental Studies On The Laticifers Of Nerium Oleander Linn. and Euphorbia Marginata Pursh. pp. 262. 1958.

Perhaps I was intrigued most by the broad questions of how a body cell could evolve into such an unusual form, and what physiological and/or genetic phenomena gave rise to its intrusive growth capability. These broad questions remain unresolved, in part perhaps because the techniques were not yet available to provide full answers to them. We learned many details about its features but, as we know, answerable questions only lead to new questions. I certainly would like to continue this quest especially with the new techniques only recently available that could probe deeply into the laticifer proteins and genes associated with it growth and differentiation.

What was the process of peer review, acceptance, and publication at that time? How has that process changed (or not) over your career (1961 to 2004)? The peer review process was similar throughout the period 1961 to 2004, as I recall. Typically three members of the Botanical Society with research interests similar to mine, or at least familiar with my studies in the areas of anatomy and morphology, reviewed my submitted manuscripts. The critique of each reviewer was passed on to me for comments and manuscript revisions, whereupon I returned the modified manuscript to the Editorial Board for final acceptance or rejection as a publication in the American Journal of Botany. But I do recall a change at one point along the way at which I was requested to submit the names of several reviewers to potentially become involved in the reviewing process. Which I did on those occasions. Overall, I considered your editorial policy as very constructive and acceptable.

Your latest article in the AJB was "A Chemotaxonomic Analysis of Cannabinoid Variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)" in 2004. Please tell us how the thread of your research has changed over time.

1 My broadened interests in lipopilic secretory cells and structures placed emphasis upon secretory glands such as those in Cannabis, also a laticifer-bearing plant. Our gland studies would focus on electron microscopic examination of glands during development and chemical analyses of the contents within the gland. The distinguishing characters for such a study required an extremely abundant number and localized density of glands to facilitate their electron microscopic examination, and glands of large size and great numbers to probe individual glands as well as their concentration so as to aid examination of their structure and contents. I also acquired a large number of accessions, nearly 200, of Cannabis to research as a model for gland character and analyses of their specialized lipophilic chemical contents. Our studies linked cannabinoid synthesis to the gland with its accumulation in the specialized secretory cavity rather than in cells of the gland, and the genetically defined cannabinoid contents, in particular, to strains of distinct geographical origin and distribution.

In looking back over the course of your research, what areas have you consistently explored? What areas did you not expect to explore? My areas of research have been laticifers, both non-articulated and articulated types, as secretory cells and their accumulated secondary products, and lipophilic glandular trichomes and their accumulated secretory products. During these studies my techniques changed so as to probe a particular topic in either the laticifer or the trichome. Hence I, and my students, utilized histological-light microscopy, histological comparison of plastid morphology of numerous Euphorbia species, chemical probes for plastid analyses in laticifers, thin-section and scanning electron microscopy, micromanipulation for analyses of cannabinoids from individual glandular trichomes, antibody-immunochemistry probes as for tetrahydrocannabinol in electron microscopy, thin-layer, gas-liquid and liquid-liquid chromatography for analyses of cannabinoid contents of glandular trichomes and chemotaxonomic interpretations, tissue culture for induced organ or plantlet development and analyses, cinephotomicrography to study cytoplasmic streaming in cultured cells, protein separation techniques for latex analyses, elemental analyses of fossil laticifers, among other techniques. I encouraged my graduate students, PD Associates and Visiting Faculty members to excel in their studies, and I made every effort to provide them with facilities and techniques so that they could attain their goals.

In looking back at all of the articles you've published in AJB, which one or two stand out above the others and why? The one that stands out above the others is my first article in the AJB (1961), to which you refer, " Embryogeny and Histogenesis in Nerium oleander : II. Origin and Development of the Non-articulated Laticifer." My article provided the perspective of the long-term, perhaps elusive, goal to identify those factors that control the differentiation of this unique cell type. It was a consideration of many early biologically-oriented scientists as attested in the surprisingly extensive historical literature on this cell type. Those early students of laticifer study were unable to define the nature of this cell type. They were unable to place it into perspective with other cell types as they defined them within the plant body. And I, too, remain unsatisfied in my quest to elucidate those subtle factors that must define the origin and development of this cell among all other

2 cells of the plant body. Detection of the laticifer as fossil laticifer structures, dating back perhaps 50 my, indicate that it originated early in the evolution of angiospermy, but is limited in its distribution among these plants. I remain enthused that further studies on laticifers, particularly the non-articulated form, will elucidate its phylogenetic relationship with other cells of the plant body. Utilization of recently developed cell and tissue probes involving protein and gene techniques, not available during our previous studies, may elucidate the origin and relationship of this laticifer among other cells of the plant body. But I do wonder at times—how could I still be a part of such studies of this cell type? Perhaps I still haven't left the laboratory. It reminds me of the axiom; there is so much to learn, and so little time.

Why have you chosen AJB as one of the journals in which you've published throughout your career? I chose the American Journal of Botany for many of our publications because I consider it a leading journal in the field of botanical sciences. It has an international reputation for publishing manuscripts of the highest quality. I consider myself to be a part of the Journal. Our Journal is international in scope and is read by botanists throughout the world. It utilizes the highest quality materials for preparation resulting in excellent reproduction of illustrations provided by authors. These qualities contribute to making our Journal one of the finest of international science journals.