WHEN using flow cytometry (by that time called Impulscytophotometrie, i.e., impulse cytophotometry in Germany) to quantify nuclear DNA content in faba bean (Vicia faba), the German botanist Friedrich Otto Heller could have hardly imagined that in 1973, he laid the foundation stone of a new scientific discipline, plant flow cytometry (1). In fact, his pioneering work received little attention, with just a dozen of citations on the Web of Science , and only a few of his contemporaries recognized the potential of flow cytometry (FCM) for plant sciences. The turning point was the work of David Galbraith, 10 years later, who came with an ingenious method for rapid isolation of cell nuclei by mechanical homogenization of plant tissues using a razor blade (2). This method replaced lengthy enzymatic treatments, provided the conceptual basis for routine analysis of nuclear DNA content and set the stage for the spread of FCM into plant laboratories (3). However, the dominance of biomedical research in the design of commercially available instruments, coupled with their relatively high cost, as well as a rather low interest of both the scientific and the industrial community slowed down the progress. It was not until the early 1990s that the number of publications on plant FCM started to rise markedly (4). The last decade has witnessed an ever-increasing number of applications in both basic and applied research, as well as in industry and plant breeding (5), making plant FCM a vital and dynamic research discipline with a great potential. Plant material has several unique features not paralleled in animals and humans, which makes its analyses by flow cytometry challenging. First, plant cells have rigid walls and are held together by extra cellular matrix to form complex three-dimensional tissues. It is not a trivial task to produce liquid suspensions of single and regularly shaped cells and subcellular particles such as nuclei, mitochondria, chloroplasts, and chromosomes. Other problems are due to the chemical composition of the cytosol. Plant cells produce a vast array of secondary metabolites that may interfere with a particular assay, for example with the staining of nuclear DNA (6). In addition, autofluorescence of some cellular components like the chloroplasts and cell walls can override the weak fluorescence of stained targets. Concerning the methods and protocols, plant FCM suffers from the fact that the majority of them were adopted from other fields (e.g., biomedical research) and only a few attempts have been made to deal with the peculiarities of plant samples. A rather old-fashioned feature of plant FCM is the predominance of single-parameter analyses. This is clearly a consequence of the enormous success of the method for estimation of nuclear DNA content, which can be done quite reliably with just one fluorescence parameter. The use of FCM for addressing other issues (e.g., particle structure and/or volume based on scatter properties) and for multiparameter analyses in particular (e.g., cell cycle studies) has been scarce. Despite this, FCM contributed significantly to a large number of remarkable and exciting results with farreaching implications. Plant breeding (5) and plant population