Category Archives: Plant Cuttings

Dodgy photos dog phytology

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

It has oft been claimed that a picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of certain images in Klementina Kakar et al.’s study entitled ‘CLASP-mediated cortical microtubule organization guides PIN polarization axis’ it seems quite clear that many more than a thousand words have been written about them. Why? The normally genteel world of botanical research has been shaken, stirred and shocked to its very core by a retraction of that paper – which purported to identify the molecular machinery that connects the organisation of microtubules to the regulation of the axis of polarisation of auxin-transporting PIN proteins (which membrane-sited molecules are needed for transport of the plant hormone auxin across plasma membranes and thereby help to maintain polarity of growth and development within the plant). Relating as it does to fundamental aspects of plant growth and development and such phenomena as gravitropism, this is an important finding and understandably published in a very high-impact and influential journal. So what’s gone awry? A retraction is, after all, a very serious state of affairs. Well, and in the words of the same four authors of the original paper, ‘after re-examination of this Letter [this is how Nature articles are formally described], concerns with some of the reported data were raised. It was found that two confocal images were near-identical in panels of Figure 3 and two confocal images were re-used in panels of Figure 4, and that some gel images were inappropriately generated by cutting and pasting of non-adjacent bands. Therefore, we feel that the most responsible action is to retract the paper. We sincerely apologize for any adverse consequences that may have resulted from the paper’s publication’. For more on this, visit the various items at the Retraction Watch* website. Fortunately – for those unaware of this from media reports, etc, but who might otherwise come across the article in their literature searches, the PubMed entry for the original Nature paper does make mention of its subsequent retraction, and provides a link to the retraction notice. Although I don’t know if the paper’s retracted status is indicated on all search engines… However, in the scrabble to find appropriate literature to cite in one’s work, one might overlook that notification. Is this therefore a weakness in the otherwise laudable retraction process/system whereby subsequent readers of those papers may not be aware of their retraction? Maybe we need a form of historical revisionism reminiscent of the rewriting of history in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four to expunge such items from the record totally so that they’re never ever found…? Hmm, what would historians of science make of that? Do let us know!

* Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. Launched in August 2010 it is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (executive editor of Reuters Health) and Adam Marcus (managing editor of Anesthesiology News).

[For more on the costs associated with retractions, check out Tracy Vence's commentary at The Scientist.  And with such sobering news, if you are concerned that retractions can unduly affect one’s career, Virginia Gewin has some words of comfort. But, if you want more retraction stories, why not check out last year’s ‘Top 10’? – Ed.]

The trees have it…

Image: Stefan Laube/Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Stefan Laube/Wikimedia Commons.

Trees, those magnificent, organic, large – sometimes huge – woody constructions continue to fascinate and inspire all who stop, stand and stare up (and up, and up…) at them. So here’s a selection of tree-based items to maintain – or maybe even initiate? – the phenomenon of arborifascination. But first a question: why did the three-toed sloth come down from the trees?

Answer: to defecate! Sloths are considered to be amongst the most, well, er, slothful of animals that, anecdotally, spend most of their time in trees, doing ‘not a lot’, apart from eating tree leaves [they are arboreal herbivores, after all; Tree Use No. (TUN) 1]. However, not only is this descent to the ground energy-consuming, it also exposes the sloth to potential predators; so why would they risk it? Work by Jonathan Pauli et al. may have the answer to this otherwise inexplicable behaviour. Three-toed sloths* harbour moths, inorganic nitrogen (N) and algae (e.g. green algae Trichophilus spp.) within their fur. The lipid-rich algae are eaten by the sloths and presumably supplement their diet of leaves. By leaving the tree for defecation, the fur-residing moths are transported to their oviposition (egg-laying) sites in sloth dung, which subsequently facilitates further moth colonisation of sloth fur. Since those moths are ‘portals for nutrients’, levels of inorganic N (potentially from moth excreta) in sloth fur increase, which in turn fuels algal growth. As the researchers conclude, ‘these linked mutualisms between moths, sloths and algae appear to aid the sloth in overcoming a highly constrained lifestyle’. Wow! I will never look at a three-toed sloth in quite the same way again.

Also challenging perceived wisdom is work by Marc Ancrenaz et al. Traditionally, orangutans (the world’s largest arboreal mammal) are assumed to be obligate arborealists, swinging seemingly effortlessly from tree to tree (TUN 2) as they navigate their lofty aerial neighbourhood. However, observations of terrestrial activity by these primates in the wild begs the question, why? Hitherto this activity was considered to be a response to habitat disturbance, but Ancrenaz et al. found no difference in instances of this behaviour in disturbed versus non-disturbed areas. They therefore propose that terrestrial locomotion is part of the Bornean orangutan’s natural behavioural repertoire and may increase their ability to cope with at least smaller-scale forest fragmentation, and to cross moderately open spaces in mosaic landscapes. So, it seems that even orangutans can have a bit too much of the ‘high life’ at times.

Finally, a terrestrial–aquatic organism that’s going up in the world. Reviewing evidence of tree-climbing activity in extant crocodilians (crocodiles and alligators), Vladimir Dinets et al. suggest it is much more widespread than previously considered and ‘might have multiple functions’, e.g. as an alternative site for thermoregulation (TUN 4), or increased detectability of prey (TUN 5). So, there you have it, ‘tons’ of alternative tree uses! Trees, helping to make the world an even more amazing place.

 

* Two-toed sloths don’t go in for this more energetic activity – and have lower densities of moths, lower N levels and reduced algal biomass in their fur…

Colourfully cunning cryptoflorigraphic conundrum

Image: From the ‘Voynich manuscript’.

Image: From the ‘Voynich manuscript’.

Botany is not without its mysteries. And one that’s previously eluded solution for 600 years or so is that of the so-called Voynich manuscript, an illustrated codex (a book made up of a number of sheets) consisting of about 240 pages, hand-written in an unknown writing system. Carbon-dated to the early 15th century, there are nevertheless suggestions that it might not be an ancient language but a hoax. And, despite containing many images of plants and other biological entities, its message and purpose has remained obscure (although an imaginative botanical interpretation is that it might represent a mediaeval plant physiology treatise). However, Stephen Bax, Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Bedfordshire (UK) has now claimed to have begun to decipher the manuscript’s text.

Progress is slow, but amongst the first few words to have been revealed are juniper, taurus, coriander, Centaurea, chiron, hellebore, Nigella sativa, kesar and cotton. A confident Bax declared, ‘… my research shows conclusively that the manuscript is not a hoax, as some have claimed, and is probably a treatise on nature, perhaps in a Near Eastern or Asian language’. Clearly, some way to go before we have a final, complete version, and can use it as a set text in plant physiology classes (so don’t throw out Taiz & Zeiger’s Plant Physiology just yet!). But another ancient manuscript whose purpose is more obvious is the Tractatus de Herbis (‘Treatise on Medicinal Plants), a manual of materia medica [‘a Latin medical term for the body of collected knowledge about the therapeutic properties of any substance used for healing (i.e., medicines)’] compiled during the 15th century. This tome has been reproduced in a limited edition facsimile replica of 987 copies (price available ‘on request’, though I suspect that if you’ve got to ask how much it is, you can’t afford it…). This limited edition is accompanied by a full-colour commentary volume by Alain Touwaide,Research Associate of the Department of Botany at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, USA and Scientific Director of the Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC (USA).

[If you want to view the Voynich manuscript – for free! – it is available on-line. Even if the majority of the words are elusive, the images are quite wondrous… For more Voynich images and interpretations – e.g. putative plant identifications – Ellie Velinska’s blog is worth a visit  – Ed.]

An explosive mix: C4, C3, C2 and CCM

Image: Ninghui Shi/Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Ninghui Shi/Wikimedia Commons.

As if the task of explaining the details of the ‘normal’ C3 Calvin Cycle of photosynthesis (P/S) to our students isn’t hard enough, we also need to appraise them of C4 P/S  – with its spatial separation of initial CO2 fixation into organic acids in mesophyll cells and its subsequent release and re-fixation via the enzyme Rubisco (ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase)  into the photosynthetic Calvin Cycle proper within bundle sheath cells*. As testing and trying as that is, nature always has to go one ‘better’, and ‘spoil’ things. So, the fin-de-millennial recognition of a variant of this C4 P/S in which initial CO2 fixation into 4-carbon acids and its subsequent release and re-fixation into the Calvin Cycle of C3 P/S takes place within a single cell is kind of unwelcome (no matter how fascinating it is!). Well, anyway, it exists – in such higher plants as Suaeda (Borszczowia) aralocaspica, Bienertia cycloptera, B. sinuspersici and B. kavirense, all in the Chenopodiaceae (now within the Amaranthaceae) – so we need to get over it, and try and understand it. And that’s what Samantha Stutz et al. have been doing. Although these plants perform spatial separation of the two CO2 fixation events within a single mesophyll cell, they do so using two distinct – dimorphic – chloroplasts. Already known is that light is necessary for development of the dimorphic chloroplasts in cotyledons in B. aralocaspica. In the dark they only have a single structural plastid type (which expresses Rubisco): light induces formation of dimorphic chloroplasts from the single plastid pool, and structural polarization leads to the single-cell C4 syndrome. The aim of Stutz et al.’s study was to determine how growth under limited light affects leaf structure, biochemistry and efficiency of the single-cell CO2-concentrating mechanism. Overall, the team found that the fully developed single-cell C4 system in B. sinuspersici is robust when grown under ‘moderate light’. Where might this sort of work be going? Well, whilst it is interesting for its own sake – the pure pursuit of knowledge – it has a more applied dimension too. Central to all of this single-cell photosynthetic biology and biochemistry is the concept of CCM, carbon-concentrating mechanisms, whereby levels of CO2 are increased in the vicinity of Rubisco so that it favours photosynthesis – CO2-fixation – over photorespiration (so-called C2 photosynthesis) which uses O2 as substrate and consequently reduces photosynthetic efficiency. Well, in bids to replicate some of the greater photosynthetic efficiency of C4 plants (largely by virtue of their diverse CCMs…), an attractive notion is to engineer various forms of CCM into C3 crop plants. This approach is exemplified in the work of Mitsue Miyao et al., where they attempted to exploit enzymes of the facultative C4 aquatic plant Hydrilla verticillata (which engages in single-cell C4 P/S) to convert rice from its typical C3 P/S into a single-cell C4 photosynthesiser. Although they didn’t achieve their goal (and it’s good to know that ‘negative’ results can still be published!), their article is an interesting and soul-bearing account of the lessons learned in this work. As we continue our quest for that elusive boost in photosynthetic yield, we’ll no doubt continue to exploit any biochemical variant on the photosynthetic theme that nature displays. Which begs the question: how many more variants exist amongst the 325,000 species of flowering plants (let alone all the algae and other members of the plant kingdom)? Seems like we need more plant anatomists, plant biochemists, plant physiologists – as well as plant taxonomists (see my last post on this blog) – after all!

 

* That’s C4 P/S as opposed to CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism), which is also a version of C4 P/S but which involves temporal separation of the same two carbon-fixation events in plants such as pineapple, cacti and agave. However, CAM is hardly ever referred to as C4 P/S because the all-powerful Zea Supremacy lobby has commandeered the term for that spatially separated C4 version found in plants such as maize… but don’t get me started on that!

 

[Intriguingly, and in addition to its dimorphic chloroplasts, Suaeda aralocaspica has dimorphic seeds, which exhibit distinct differences in dormancy and germination characteristics. Now, they say that things come in threes, so what’s the third dimorphy about this iconic species…? – Ed.]

Cause for optimism (maybe not…)

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

As an ‘old-fashioned’ botanist my heart was gladdened to see that Number 1 in the ‘Top 10 most viewed Plant Science research articles in 2013’ from Frontiers in Plant Science was one that dealt with fundamental botany of the taxonomic kind. The paper in question was entitled ‘Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland)’ and was written by Peter Hochuli and Susanne Feist-Burkhardt. Whilst that recognition may engender a feel-good view that plant taxonomy is doing rather well, Quentin Wheeler’s timely New Phytologist Commentary, ‘Are reports of the death of taxonomy an exaggeration?’, offers a more cautious interpretation. Commenting upon an article by Daniel Bebber et al., he concludes that plant taxonomy (though one suspects taxonomy of all biota fares as badly) is still in desperate need of greater attention – in terms of people to undertake the work and appropriate funding – as befits its importance to a true appreciation of the planet’s biodiversity and the inter-relationships between living things. Sadly, this state of affairs is unlikely to be helped by news that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (London, UK) – one of the world’s premier centres of plant taxonomic endeavour – is in the midst of a funding crisis. Indeed, the situation is apparently so bad that ‘about 125 jobs could be cut as… Kew… faces a £5m shortfall in revenue in the coming financial year’. This must be particularly concerning since it comes shortly after news that visitor numbers to Kew increased by 29% last year compared to 2012. And this bad news on the plant taxonomy front is echoed in the USA where ‘too few scientists are being trained in agriculture areas of science’. So, there’s an insufficiency of people to grow the new crops that aren’t being identified because of the dearth of plant taxonomists. Where will it all end..?

[If you’re not put off by the precarious state of life as a taxonomist and want a little bit more of a career insight, then you could do much worse that read Elisabeth Pain’s ‘Science Careers’ article.  And for a welcome boost to publicising the plight of the endangered species known as Taxonomus non-vulgaris var. biologicus, see Tim Entwisle’s news article in The Guardian – Ed.]

One of a kind…

Image: Scott Zona/Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Scott Zona/Wikimedia Commons.

These articles have been going long enough(!) to be able now to report a successful outcome to a research project whose initiation was announced in a former news item entitled ‘Old meets new’. The project is the elucidation of the genome of Amborella trichopoda. “Amborella is a monotypic genus of rare understory [sic! What ever happened to understorEy??? - Ed.] shrubs or small trees endemic to… New Caledonia”.

Not only is this plant rare and monotypic – truly ‘one of a kind’! – but it is also probably the living – extant – flowering plant [angiosperm] that is closest evolutionarily to the earliest true first member of the angiosperm plant group, and may therefore be “the last survivor of a lineage that branched off during the dynasty’s earliest days, before the rest of the 350,000 or so angiosperm species diversified”. Given Amborella’s exalted status (which “represents the equivalent of the duck-billed platypus in mammals”), it is hoped that understanding its genetics will shed light on the evolution of the angiosperms as a whole. Indeed, the University of Bonn’s Dietmar Quandt is reported as describing Amborella as a more worthy model organism than Arabidopsis(!!!).

Since the angiosperms are probably the most ‘successful’ of all the groups in the Plant Kingdom (‘the land plants’, the Plantae), hopes are understandably high that unravelling the genome of Amborella – reported by the aptly named Amborella Genome Project – will lead to the identification of “the molecular basis of biological innovations that contributed to their geologically near-instantaneous rise to ecological dominance”. And accompanying the main nuclear genome article, Danny Rice et al. report on Amborella’s mitochondrial genome (mitochondria have some of their own DNA additional to that located in the nucleus) and find that numerous genes were acquired by horizontal gene transfer from other plants, including almost four entire mitochondrial genomes from mosses and algae. So, as ancient as it is, Amborella was still prepared to ‘learn’ from the experiences of even older land plants – mosses – and plant-like algae (which are in a different kingdom entirely to the land plants, the Protista). Adopt and adapt: a life lesson for all living things, I suggest.

[For more on this fascinating story, visit the home of the Amborella genome database. And if you still need some ‘proper’ botany (after all this genomery), you need look no further than Paula Rudall and Emma Knowles’ paper examining ultrastructure of stomatal development in early-divergent angiosperms (including Amborella…).  Notwithstanding all of this understandable present-day excitement, I can’t help but think that the importance of Amborella was foretold many decades ago, as "popular-in-the-mid-1970s" British-based pop band Fox seemingly declared: "things can get much better, under your Amborella…". Indeed! So, arabidopsis had better watch out! – Ed.]

A day in the life…

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Well, dissident Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn did it (with Ivan Denisovich), that Swinging Sixties phenomenon, the mop-topped beat combo that is The Beatles did it with typical inventivenesss and musicality – and probably a ‘little help from their friends’* – and now labs are getting in on the act. Welcome to The Node’s ‘a day in the life of a …’ seriesThe Node was launched in June 2010 by Development, a leading research journal in the field of developmental biology, and its publisher, The Company of Biologists, as a non-commercial information resource and community site for the developmental biology community, and ‘a place to share news about and with the developmental biology [which includes plant and non-plant-based work… – Ed.] community around the world’. Designed to give insights into the working of the labs – and the people – that try to unravel development, it has already showcased Narender Kumar, graduate student, in an arabidopsis lab at Louisiana State University (USA), and Dr James Lloyd in a moss lab at the University of Leeds (UK). I’d like to think that these insights into the more human sides of plant development research might help to inspire the next generation to get involved in plant biology research and rise to the challenges of the 21st century that so often revolve around food and energy security – solutions to both of which conundra will have important botanical dimensions.

* The Rolling Stone magazine voted the Beatles’ A day in the life to be that group’s best song, and the 28th best song of all time.

[And if you’d like to read more about plants in the lab., check out the University of Bristol’s School of Chemistry’s ‘Plants in the Lab’ website, which ‘by bringing beautiful and interesting plants and flowers into the laboratory setting and then explaining what some of the molecules produced naturally mean to chemists, we are hoping to challenge the familiar divide between nature and laboratory’. Talking of Bristol University, who’s our favourite Trollope-loving botanist? Melville Wills Professor of Botany Alistair Hetherington (whose botanical life story is told in Current Biology.) And for the day when you have to leave the lab – maybe to go to another one..? – Natalie Butterfield has the ‘perfect lab leaving list’ for you. – Ed.]

Plant Cell – all change at the top

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Picking up from my previous post about plantpersons in the public eye, and moving from research to the equally important activity of disseminating the results of that work, we have news that the ASPB (American Society of Plant Biologists) has named Professor Sabeeha Merchant as the next Editor-in-Chief of The Plant Cell, the publication with the ‘highest impact factor of primary research journals in plant biology’. Merchant is a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and a member of the USA’s National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Her group’s research focuses on trace metal metabolism using Chlamydomonas as a model species. Does that mean that under her leadership we can expect to see more articles in that august organ about plant-like cells…? Her 5-year term commences on 1st January 2015, so I guess we’ll know next year.

Merchant succeeds Professor Cathie Martin, Group Leader at the UK’s John Innes Centre, who is noteworthy in that role not just for being the first woman and the first non-American to hold this post, but also for founding Teaching Tools in Plant Biology as a feature of the journal. And Martin – who was awarded an MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) in 2013 for services to plant biotechnology – will continue to be kept very busy when she leaves that post as her work on phytonutrients and anthocyanins, and ‘purple tomatoes’ in particular, takes off.

And congratulations to Cathie Martin, Eugenio Butelli and John Innes Centre for winning out on the 2014 BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) Innovator of the Year award, for their work on the enhancement of bioactives in crops for comparative nutritional assays and nutritional improvement. For more on the biology of anthocyanins I recommend the quick guide thereto by Beverley Glover and Cathie Martin. And for more on ‘unnatural tomatoes’, there is an article on this very blog that you can take a look at.

 

[And with mention of JIC, we ought to show some balance and not forget good old RES  (Rothamsted Experimental Station) – ‘the longest running agricultural institute in the world – whose new Director,Professor Achim Dobermann, takes over on 1st June 2014. Interestingly, Dobermann was formerly Deputy Director General for Research at IRRI (International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines). Hmmm, think rice, think flooded paddy fields, think recent dramatic downpours covering large areas of the UK. Rice – is that now to be the golden future of UK agriculture…? So, strategic re-alignment in bucketloads at RES… And for more on how plants cope with flooding, why not look at Sarah Shailes’ blog post thereonSarah is a PhD student at JIC studying cell signalling in the legume-nodulation event, and is an example of the emerging new talent in plant science, the subject of a future news item… – Ed.]

Grow with the flow…

Image: William Hogarth, frontispiece for Henry Fielding. The tragedy of tragedies; or the life and death of Tom Thumb the Great. London: printed for Harrison and Co., 1731.

Image: William Hogarth, frontispiece for Henry Fielding. The tragedy of tragedies; or the life and death of Tom Thumb the Great. London: printed for Harrison and Co., 1731.

A short item this, but one that has a cytoskeleton dimension and which just goes to show the impact that this cell component has on plant growth and development, and often in surprising ways.

Adding to that catalogue of cytoskeletal contributions to cell biology, Motoki Tominaga et al. propose that the rate of cytoplasmic streaming within cells is a ‘determinant’ of plant size.  Cytoplasmic streaming is the term for large-scale active circulation of the entire fluid contents of cells, which is driven by organelles coated with myosin (a component of the cytoskeleton) as they process along actin filament bundles (also cytoskeleton components) fixed at the periphery of the cell. Working with ‘myosin-manipulated’ arabidopsis, the Japan-based team discovered that streaming was slower in plants with ‘slow myosin’, and faster in those with a ‘fast myosin’: as you might predict perhaps. But they also noticed that slow myosin produced smaller-than-usual plants, whereas fast myosin resulted in plants that were larger than wild-type ones. Which led them to – not unnaturally – conclude that their ‘results strongly suggest that cytoplasmic streaming is a key determinant of plant size’. Subsequently, they also mused on the possibility that manipulation of cytoplasmic streaming could be exploited for ‘applications in artificial size control in plants’. Which leads me to muse on how big could you make arabidopsis, that Tom-Thumb of the plant world? This is one story that – like Topsy – could surely grow (and grow…).

 

[Never one to turn down an opportunity to create a pun [or educate his readers(s)], Mr Cuttings’ title is a take on the lifestyle coaching advice one might be given to ‘go with the flow’ – Ed.]

Spotlight on macronutrients (…and finally): Magnesium and a food fight…

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Whilst incorporation of essential elements into the body of the plant is undoubtedly important for and to the wellbeing of the plant, their presence in those green organisms constitutes a major source of elements that are also essential for animals that ingest plant matter. Consequently, plants provide an important source of elemental nutrition for us, whether by their direct consumption or via our feasting on the animals that ultimately feed on the plants. And different plants differ in their ability to provide those all-important nutrients.

Take for example, quinoaChenopodium quinoa – a so-called ‘pseudocereal’ that originated in the Andean region of South America.  A 185 g serving of cooked quinoa provides 29.6% of your RDA (recommended dietary allowance, now largely replaced by RDI – reference daily intake, ‘the daily intake level of a nutrient that is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of 97–98% of healthy individuals in every demographic in the United States’) of Mg. [Aha, the Mg connection – eventually…! – Ed.] Although this is not as high as, say, seeds of pumpkin, where a serving a third of that of quinoa provides 47.7% of Mg’s RDI, or spinach, which provides about the same RDI for Mg in an equivalent serving  (although with about a seventh of the calories) and is in the same family as quinoa (the Amaranthaceae), quinoa is pretty good. Plus, that same serving of quinoa can also provide high levels of other essential nutrients – 58.5% manganese (Mn), 40.1% phosphorus (P), 40% copper (Cu), and 18.3% zinc (Zn). Given these fairly fascinating food facts it is perhaps no surprise that quinoa – despite its 4000 years history of cultivation and consumption in places today known as Ecuador, Bolivia, Columbia and Peru – has been widely touted as a ‘newly discovered, up-and-coming’ food. So much so that – apparently (well, it somehow passed me by…) – 2013 was the United Nations’ International Year of Quinoa. But this ‘must-have’ food status is not without its problems,  and there are concerns that increased demand for quinoa has pushed up prices to the detriment of those people who traditionally used the crop as a staple of their diet in places like Bolivia.  When will this little planet of ours be free of battles over food?

[For a more in-depth nutrient analysis of quinoa, visit the George Mateljan Foundation’s website.  But, you might want to wait because – allegedly – Ethiopian tef  is set to overtake quinoa as the next ‘super grain’. Despite quinoa not really being a grain,  and tef producing probably the smallest grain in the world – you need approximately 150 of them to match the weight of a single grain of wheat  (and the apparent irony of Ethiopia feeding the rest of the world has not gone unnoticed). But flour produced from tef, unlike wheat, is gluten-free and suitable for those who suffer from coeliac disease, a digestive condition where a person has an adverse reaction to gluten, which symptoms include diarrhoea, abdominal pain, weight loss and feeling tired all the time  – Ed.]