Genes do not form channels

Abstract

Glutamate receptors and related proteins are important players in plant ion transport, cellular signalling, and ion toxicity, as substantial recent work has shown (see reviews by Dietrich et al. 2010; Kronzucker and Britto 2011; Maathuis 2007; Zhang et al. 2010). A new article on the subject, published in the journal Science, however, comes with the unsettling title “Glutamate Receptor–Like Genes Form Ca Channels in Pollen Tubes and Are Regulated by Pistil D-Serine” (Michard et al. 2011). This paper discusses the role of “ionotropic GLRs [glutamate-receptor-like genes]...identified in the genome of Arabidopsis”, and declares in its final paragraph that “Genes for putative cyclic nucleotidegated channels were the first reported as plausible Ca channels....” Thus, at several junctures, the manuscript rather boldly conflates genetic and functional attributes. This requires some editorial comment. Surely, the authors of this paper, its referees, and the journal’s editors must be aware that genes do not form channels, mediate ion fluxes (i.e. behave “ionotropically”), or perform any known catalytic or transport function in living organisms. Yet, the very term “glutamate receptor-like gene” is itself a misnomer: surely, a gene cannot be likened to a glutamate receptor. Moreover, the genes in question are not themselves regulated by the amino acid Dserine, contrary to what the paper’s title unequivocally states. To be fair, this sort of category error is not without precedent in the literature; for example, it can be seen in other articles on GLR channels by Chiu et al. (2002), Li et al. (2005), Meyerhoff et al. (2005), and Roy et al. (2008). While the conflation of gene and protein seems unusually rife in this area, it is by no means restricted to it, nor is it restricted to plant biology. Examples abound of statements that genes “transport” substances (Dean et al. 2003), “synthesize” or “produce” other substances (Malik et al. 2009; Pulkkinen et al. 2000; Weiner et al. 1993), and “catalyze” chemical reactions (Chen et al. 2005; Drakas et al. 2005; Lewinsohn et al. 2001; Metherall et al. 1996; Ono et al. 1999; Powell et al. 2008; Ullrich and van Putten 1995). Common usage of an error does not make it any less erroneous. However, the example of Michard et al. is particularly egregious in that it has introduced this manner of speech into the pages of one of the world’s most highly esteemed scientific journals. With this stamp of approval, it propagates a rather stunning Plant Soil (2011) 346:15–17 DOI 10.1007/s11104-011-0872-1