Biological networks are complex (non-linear), redundant (cyclic) and compartmentalized at the subcellular level. Rational manipulation of plant metabolism may have failed due to inherent difficulties of a comprehensive understanding of regulatory loops. We first need to identify key factors controlling the regulatory loops of primary metabolism. The paradigms of plant networks are revised in order to highlight the differences between metabolic and transcriptional networks. Comparison between animal and plant transcription factors (TFs) reveal some important differences. Plant transcriptional networks function at a lower hierarchy compared to animal regulatory networks. Plant genomes contain more TFs than animal genomes, but plant proteins are smaller and have less domains as animal proteins which are often multifunctional. We briefly summarize mutant analysis and co-expression results pinpointing some TFs regulating starch enzymes in plants. Detailed information is provided about biochemical reactions, TFs and cis regulatory motifs involved in sucrose-starch metabolism, in both source and sink tissues. Examples about coordinated responses to hormones and environmental cues in different tissues and species are listed. Further advancements require combined data from single-cell transcriptomic and metabolomic approaches. Cell fractionation and subcellular inspection may provide valuable insights. We propose that shuffling of promoter elements might be a promising strategy to improve in the near future starch content, crop yield or food quality.

The recent release of the maize genome (AGPv4) contains annotation errors of invertase genes and therefore the enzymes are bestly curated manually at the protein level in a comprehensible fashion The synthesis, transport and degradation of sucrose are determining factors for biomass allocation and yield of crop plants. Invertase (INV) is a key enzyme of carbon metabolism in both source and sink tissues. Current releases of the maize genome correctly annotates only two vacuolar invertases (ivr1 and ivr2) and four cell wall invertases (incw1, incw2 (mn1), incw3, and incw4). Our comprehensive survey identified 21 INV isogenes for which we propose a standard nomenclature grouped phylogenetically by amino acid similarity: three vacuolar (INVVR), eight cell wall (INVCW), and ten alkaline/neutral (INVAN) isogenes which form separate dendogram branches due to distinct molecular features. The acidic enzymes were curated for the presence of the DPN tripeptide which is coded by one of the smallest exons reported in plants. Particular attention was placed on the molecular role of INV in vascular tissues such as the nodes, internodes, leaf sheath, husk leaves and roots. We report the expression profile of most members of the maize INV family in nine tissues in two developmental stages, R1 and R3. INVCW7, INVVR2, INVAN8, INVAN9, INVAN10, and INVAN3 displayed the highest absolute expressions in most tissues. INVVR3, INVCW5, INVCW8, and INVAN1 showed low mRNA levels. Expressions of most INVs were repressed from stage R1 to R3, except for INVCW7 which increased significantly in all tissues after flowering. The mRNA levels of INVCW7 in the vegetative stem correlated with a higher transport rate of assimilates from leaves to the cob which led to starch accumulation and growth of the female reproductive organs.