Plant Neurobiology as a Paradigm Shift Not Only in the Plant Sciences

Plants are complex living beings, extremely sensitive to environmental factors, continuously adapting to the ever changing environment. Emerging research document that plants sense, memorize, and process experiences and use this information for their adaptive behavior and evolution. As any other living and evolving systems, plants act as knowledge accumulating systems. Neuronal informational systems are behind this concept of organisms as knowledge accumulating systems because they allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses to changes in environment. Therefore, it should not be surprising that neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants. The journal, Plant Signaling & Behavior, was launched as a platform for exchanging information and fostering research on plant neurobiology in order to allow our understanding of plants in their whole integrated, communicative, and behavioral complexity.

I always go by official statistics because they are very carefully compounded and, even if they are false, we have no others …∼ Jaroslav Hašek, 1911

Key Words: plant neurobiology, sensory biology, behavior, biological complexity, evolution, signal integrationThis quotation of writer and mystificator Jaroslav Hašek is from his electorial speech aimed to get a seat in the Austro-Hungarian parliament for his imaginary political party ‘Moderate Progress within the Limits of the Law’ in 1911. It indicates how statistics can be misused for manipulation of public opinion, sometimes allegedly for general good. This quotation is partially relevant also for recent biology which is passing through a critical cross-road from reductionist-mechanistic concepts and methodologies towards the post-genomic, holistic, systems-based analysis of integrated and communicative hierarchic networks known as life processes.There is a message hidden in this Hašek''s aphorism. All those mathematical models, scientific theories and concepts, however appealing, harmonious and long-standing … but which do not correspond to reality …; inevitably will be ‘killed by ugly’ facts generated by scientific progress, and finally replaced by new models, theories, and concepts.¹Despite the indisputable success of the reductionistic approach in providing many discoveries regarding single cells and their components, it is increasingly clear that promises of ‘mechanistic’ genocentric biology were just chimeras and that living organisms are much more complex than the sum of their constituents. Ernst Mayr, in his final opus, almost a testament published at his age of 100, strongly opposed the belief that the reductionism at the molecular level could help to explain the complexity of life. He stressed that the concept of biological “emergence”, which deals with the occurrence of unexpected features in complex living systems, is not fully accessible using only physical and chemical approaches.²Themes of hierarchy, continuity, and order dominated biology before the turn of the century, but these have in many cases been replaced by images of the workshop. Examples include such terms as ‘machineries’, ‘mechanistic understanding’, ‘mechanistic explanation’, ‘motors’, ‘machines’, ‘clocks’ etc. This shift may well reflect the characteristic style of our age. These concepts, although useful for mining of details, do not reveal the true complexity of life and can be misleading. Even a one-celled organism is made up of ‘millions’ of subcellular parts. Concerning the great complexity of unicellular creatures Ilya Prigogine (1973) wrote: “… but let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organism.”³ Moreover, eukaryotic cell proved to be, in fact, ‘cells within cell’,^4–8 while there are numerous supracellular situations, the most dramatic one is represented by plants when all cells are interconnected via plasmodesmata into supracellular organism.⁶ All this collectively indicate that the currently valid ‘Cell Theory’ dogma is approaching its replacement with a new updated concept of a basic unit of eukaryotic life.^6–8All those mathematical models, scientific theories and concepts, however appealing, harmonious and long-standing … but which do not correspond to reality …; inevitably will be ‘killed by ugly’ facts generated by scientific progress, and finally replaced by new models, theories, and concepts.Furthermore, genomes are much more complex and dynamic as we ever anticipated.^9,10 They often have as much as 99% of non-coding DNA sequences,¹¹ which is not ‘junk DNA’ but rather DNA which is part of multitask networks integrating coding DNA.¹² In genomes exposed to stress (like mutations), changes are scored preferentially in non-coding sequences which regain a new balance by complex changes in genome composition and activity.^9,10,13,14 There are several definitions regarding what is gene¹¹ and molecular biologists and genetics are learning to be careful not to make strong conclusions from under-expression, knocking-out, or overexpression of any particular gene. It is increasingly clear that mutations in single genes are accompanied with altered expressions of other genes and non-coding DNA sequences too, and even subtle re-arrangements of chromatin structure and genome architecture are possible. The dynamic genome actively regains the lost balance, also via extensive re-shufflings of non-coding DNA.After complete sequencing of numerous genomes, it is clear that our understanding of what constitutes life and what distinguishes living biological systems from non-living chemical - biochemical systems is not much better than our understanding before the start of the genomics era some 60 years ago. Yet, it is also obvious that living systems, whether single cells or whole complex organisms like animals and plants, are not machines and automata which respond to external signals via a limited set of predefined responses and automatic reflexes. While humans and other animals, even insects, are already out of this ‘mechanistic’ trap^15,16 which can be traced back to Descartes,¹⁷ plants are still considered to act only in predetermined automatic fashions, as mechanical devices devoid of any possibility for choice and planning of their activities. In contrast to machines, life systems are based on wet chemistry, being systems of hierarchical and dynamic integration, communication and emergence.^1,18Recently, a critical mass of data has accumulated demanding reconsideration of this mechanistic view of plants.^19,20 Plants are complex living beings, extremely sensitive to environmental factors and continuously adapting to the ever changing environment.²¹ In addition, plants respond to environmental stimuli as integrated organisms. Often, plants make important decisions, such as onset or breakage of dormancy and onset of flowering, which implicate some central or decentralized command center. Moreover, roots and shoots act in an integrated manner allowing dynamic balance of above-ground and below-ground organs. The journal, Plant Signaling & Behavior, was launched as a platform for exchange of information about the integration of discrete processes, including subcellular signalling integrated with higher-level processes. Signal integration and communication results in adaptive behavior of whole supracellular organisms, encompassing also complex, and still elusive, plant-plant, plant-insect, and plant-animal communications. Coordinated behavior based on sensory perception is inherent for neurobiological systems.²² Therefore, plants can be considered for neuronal individuals. Moreover, plants are also able to share knowledge perceived from environment with other plants, communicating both private and public messages.^23,24 This implicates social learning and behavioral inheritance in plants too.After complete sequencing of numerous genomes, it is clear that our understanding of what constitutes life and what distinguishes living biological systems from non-living chemical - biochemical systems is not much better than our understanding before the start of genomics era some 60 years ago.

Behavior

1. An activity of a defined organism: observable activity when measurable in terms of quantitative effects of the environment whether arising from internal or external stimuli.
2. Anything that an organism does that involves action and response to stimulation.

(Webster Third New International Dictionary 1961).Neuronal informational systems allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses. Therefore, it should not be surprising that neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants.Some of our colleagues assert that plants do not exhibit any integrated neuronal principles.²⁵ They maintain that plants do not show complex experience- or learning-based behavior. Plants, they aver, act rather as machines manifesting predefined reflexes. Yet recent studies indicate that even prokaryotic bacteria exhibit cognitive behavior^26,27 and posses linguistic communication and rudimentary intelligence.^28–30 Therefore, it should not be too surprising that plants also show features of communication and even plant-specific cognition.^{19,20,31,32–35} As any other living systems, plants act as ‘knowledge accumulating systems’.¹ In fact, in order to adapt, all organisms continuously generate hypotheses about their environment via well formulated ‘questions’ which are solved by an increasing set of possible ‘answers’ in order to adapt.¹ Neuronal informational systems are behind this concept of organisms as ‘knowledge accumulating systems’ because they allow the most rapid and efficient adaptive responses.²² As a consequence, neuronal computation is not limited to animal brains but is used also by bacteria and plants.Reductionistic approaches will continue to “atomize” biological systems. Nevertheless, the avalanche of new data will be in need of functional integration, winning adherents to the idea that plants have integrated signaling and communicative systems that endowed them with complex and adaptive behavior. We trust that Plant Signaling & Behavior, will become an important platform for exchange of these ideas. With progress of sciences, plants show more and more similarities to animals despite obviously plant-specific evolutionary origins, cellular basis, and multicellularity. We can just mention sexuality and sex organs, embryos, stem cells, immunity, circadian rhythms, hormonal and peptide signaling, sensory perception and bioelectricity including action potentials, communication and neurobiological aspects of signal integration. The whole picture strongly suggest that convergent evolution is much more important^36,37 than currently envisioned in evolutionary theories.Reductionistic approaches will continue to “atomize” biological systems. Nevertheless, the avalanche of new data will be in need of functional integration, winning adherents to the idea that plants have integrated signaling and communicative systems that endowed them with complex and adaptive behavior.We have started with Jaroslav Hašek and we close with him as well. His quotation from 1911 is also a warning for future that we should stay open-minded. We should not slip into dogmatic ‘traps’ which have been so characteristic for the mechanistic and genocentric biology. Mathematics and computational biology are important tools, and surely will play decisive role in systems biology in the future. But they can be easily misinterpreted, and even misused. Plant systems biology, and the whole biology in general, must overcome dogmas of mechanistic genocentric biology. We hope that characterizing plants in their whole behavioral and communicative complexity will allow us to better understand what is life and how it emerged from chemical and biochemical complex systems.     

Structural basis of transmembrane domain interactions in integrin signaling

Cell surface receptors of the integrin family are pivotal to cell adhesion and migration. The activation state of heterodimeric αβ integrins is correlated to the association state of the single-pass α and β transmembrane domains. The association of integrin αIIbβ3 transmembrane domains, resulting in an inactive receptor, is characterized by the asymmetric arrangement of a straight (αIIb) and tilted (β3) helix relative to the membrane in congruence to the dissociated structures. This allows for a continuous association interface centered on helix-helix glycine-packing and an unusual αIIb(GFF) structural motif that packs the conserved Phe-Phe residues against the β3 transmembrane helix, enabling αIIb(D723)β3(R995) electrostatic interactions. The transmembrane complex is further stabilized by the inactive ectodomain, thereby coupling its association state to the ectodomain conformation. In combination with recently determined structures of an inactive integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β complex that overlap with the αβ transmembrane complex, a comprehensive picture of integrin bi-directional transmembrane signaling has emerged.Key words: cell adhesion, membrane protein, integrin, platelet, transmembrane complex, transmembrane signalingThe communication of biological signals across the plasma membrane is fundamental to cellular function. The ubiquitous family of integrin adhesion receptors exhibits the unusual ability to convey signals bi-directionally (outside-in and inside-out signaling), thereby controlling cell adhesion, migration and differentiation.^1–5 Integrins are Type I heterodimeric receptors that consist of large extracellular domains (>700 residues), single-pass transmembrane (TM) domains, and mostly short cytosolic tails (<70 residues). The activation state of heterodimeric integrins is correlated to the association state of the TM domains of their α and β subunits.^6–10 TM dissociation initiated from the outside results in the transmittal of a signal into the cell, whereas dissociation originating on the inside results in activation of the integrin to bind ligands such as extracellular matrix proteins. The elucidation of the role of the TM domains in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling has been the subject of extensive research efforts, perhaps commencing with the demonstration that the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of α subunits (Fig. 1), which closely follows the first charged residue on the intracellular face, αIIb(K989), constrains the receptor to a default low affinity state.¹¹ Despite these efforts, an understanding of this sequence motif had not been reached until such time as the structure of the αIIb TM segment was determined.¹² In combination with the structure of the β3 TM segment¹³ and available mutagenesis data,^6,9,10,14,15 this has allowed the first correct prediction of the overall association of an integrin αβ TM complex.¹² The predicted association was subsequently confirmed by the αIIbβ3 complex structure determined in phospholipid bicelles,¹⁶ as well as by the report of a similar structure based on molecular modeling using disulfide-based structural constraints.¹⁷ In addition to the structures of the dissociated and associated αβ TM domains, their membrane embedding was defined^{12,13,16,18,19} and it was experimentally recognized that, in the context of the native receptor, the TM complex is stabilized by the inactive, resting ectodomain.¹⁶ These advances in integrin membrane structural biology are complemented by the recent structures of a resting integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β cytosolic tail complex that overlap with the αβ TM complex,^20,21 allowing detailed insight into integrin bi-directional TM signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Amino acid sequence of integrin αIIb and β3 transmembrane segments and flanking regions. Membrane-embedded residues^{12,13,16,18,19} are enclosed by a gray box. Residues 991–995 constitute the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of integrin α subunits.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

Quantitative real-time imaging of molecular dynamics during cancer cell invasion and metastasis in vivo

Despite our advanced understanding of primary cancer development and progression, metastasis and the systemic spread of the disease to secondary sites remains the leading cause of cancer-associated death. The metastatic process is therefore a major potential therapeutic target area for cancer researchers and elucidating the key steps that are susceptible to therapeutic intervention will be critical to improve our treatment strategies. Recent advances in intravital imaging are rapidly improving our insight into this process and are helping in the design of stage-specific drug regimes for the treatment of metastatic cancer. Here we discuss current developments in intravital imaging and our recent use of photobleaching and photoactivation in the analysis of dynamic biomarkers in living animals to assess the efficacy of therapeutic intervention on early stages of tumor cell metastasis.Key words: in vivo imaging, photobleaching, photoactivation, biomarkersMetastasis is a complex process consisting of interactions between cancer cells and their surrounding extra-cellular matrix and stroma. To give rise to a secondary tumor, a primary tumor cell undergoes alterations to its cell-cell and cell-ECM contacts, allowing it to breach the basement membrane and intravasate into the vasculature or the lymphatic system. A tumor cell must survive in the circulation before extravasating at a secondary site and initiating new tumor growth and the development of its own blood supply. Imaging this process in live animals under native physiological conditions is inherently difficult due to poor sample stability, tissue penetration and autofluorescence of the tissue. However, new advances in fluorescent imaging, including the continued development of green fluorescent protein (GFP) and its variants, have facilitated the observation of this process and shed light on some key mechanisms that determine how and why cells metastasise. The use of fluorescent probes for in vivo imaging can be divided into two types (1) ‘passive’ markers or reporters used for direct visualization and tracking of cell movement in relation to extracellular structures and (2) more complex, ‘active’ reporters or biosensors for monitoring detailed processes such as biochemical activity or protein-protein interactions during metastasis.^1,2 In some cases there can be overlap between both types of imaging which will be addressed here.The majority of early intravital imaging studies focused on the stages of metastasis that occur after dissemination from the primary tumor and predominantly used a ‘passive’ reporter approach to assess tumor cell behavior. Models of circulating tumor cells have allowed for analysis at the single cell level of tumor cell velocity, persistence, shape change and interactions with the ECM and stroma in secondary tissue.^3–5 The use of fluorescently-labelled cells has also revealed some limiting factors that cause the arrest of cancer cells in target tissue such as trapping in small capillary networks due to tumor cell size or adhesion to surrounding vessel walls.^6,7 Furthermore, experimental models of metastasis such as intra-splenic, intra-cardial and tail vein injections in combination with fluorescently-tagged tumor cells has provided information on the colonisation, extravasation and dormancy of tumor cells in secondary sites (Fig. 1 and refs. ^{5, 8} and ⁹). Collectively, along with the rapid increase in tissue specific expression of GFP in mouse cancer models,¹⁰ a wealth of information on different steps of the metastatic process has begun to emerge.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Whole body optical imaging of mCherry-expressing SW 620 colon cancer cell metastases after approximately six weeks post intra-splenic injection. Images were obtained using the Olympus OV100 whole body imaging system with an Olympus MT10, 150 w, Xenon light source, using a low magnification objective (macro lens) with a magnification of 0.14× and numerical aperture of 0.04. (B) mCherry expressing SW 620 colon cancer cells colonizing the liver 30 mins after intra-splenic injection. 1 × 10⁶ cells were injected into the spleen of an anesthetised CD-1 nude mouse and the incision sealed using ‘Clay Adams’ vetinary clips (VetTec). The mouse was placed on a heat pad for 30 mins then sacrificed. An incision was made in the abdomen to expose the liver and images of fluorescent cells within the liver were obtained using a 0.8× (0.22 NA) objective lens with variable zoom on the Olympus OV100.The departure of individual cells away from solid primary tumors into the blood stream has been a more difficult process to study using intravital imaging. It is a rare, sporadic event, requiring long acquisition and the inherent density and complex nature of the tumor tissue poses problems for imaging. Overcoming autofluorescence and light scattering has recently been improved due to advances in fluorophores^1,11 and the combined use of long-term multiphoton microscopy¹² has allowed greater resolution and tissue penetration than before. Multiphoton imaging can also provide additional detail regarding the interaction between cells and the surrounding extracellular environment using second harmonic signal generation (SHG) from collagen, elastin and other matrix proteins found in connective tissue.^13,14 In this regard, imaging the interaction of cancer cells with extracellular matrix has revealed distinct modes of cell locomotion adopted by cancer cells in vivo, such as ameboid or mesenchymal invasion, that depend upon the topography or density of the surrounding matrix.^3,13,15 A greater understanding of the initial cell movement and interaction with the extracellular environment will enhance our ability to pin-point cell-ECM targets that may be of clinical relevance in the future.Concurrent with the use of GFP as a ‘passive’ marker, a number of techniques have been developed that facilitate the visualization and localisation of GFP-tagged fusion proteins to quantify changes in protein expression, mobility and sub-cellular interactions during various processes in vitro. These include photobleaching (PB), photoactivation (PA), fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) and fluorescent life time imaging microscopy (FLIM).^2,16,17 The adaptation of these techniques for in vivo imaging to examine the activity of key molecules will provide new ‘active’ markers or reporters that can be correlated with biological processes important in disease progression such as migration, proliferation and cell death. Other fluorescent probes such as MMPsense or Apotrace that measure ‘active’ processes such as metalloproteinase activity or apoptosis have also recently been used in animals.^18,19 In this way we can get closer to understanding how subcellular components or signal transduction pathways interact in real-time. The improved spatial and temporal detail will facilitate the ‘when and where’ we should target metastatic cancer cells for therapy.¹²In our recent paper we have adapted two techniques, photobleaching and photoactivation, for in vivo imaging and used them to assess the potential of E-cadherin as a molecular biosensor for cell migration in live tumors.²⁰ E-cadherin-based cell-cell contacts are prominent sites of remodelling during early stages of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). The disruption or deregulation of E-cadherin-based adhesions leads to the collapse of normal epithelial architecture that precedes the initial intravasation of cells from tumors.^21–23 In vitro photobleaching analysis of E-cadherin can be used as an ‘active’ molecular read-out of cell migration, as cells within a stationary colony show significantly reduced E-cadherin mobility compared to collectively migrating cells.²⁰ Moreover, as demonstrated in Figure 2 (reviewed in ref. ²⁰), E-cadherin mobility can also be spatially regulated within a population of tumor cells, as cells at the rear of a wound show impaired E-cadherin mobilisation compared to cells at the leading edge of the wound. This suggests a gradient of E-cadherin mobilisation within the local environment of a tumor may exist and could potentially be used in the future to map areas of weakened cell-cell adhesion from which cells are more likely to migrate. In vivo analysis of E-cadherin dynamics showed that changes in the mobility of E-cadherin can also be used as an ‘active’ marker of cell behavior in live animals, and may be useful in predicting cell mobilisation from primary tumors.²⁰Open in a separate windowFigure 2FRAP of GFP-E-cadherin at the rear or front of a wound heal assay. (A and B) Schematic and representative images of a wound heal assay depicting the area of cells selected for E-cadherin-based cell-cell junction FRAP analysis (red broken line). (C and D) Representative images of FRAP experiments performed at the rear or front of a wound heal assay respectively. White solid arrows represent area of photobleaching at the rear and white broken arrows represent area of photobleaching at the front of the wound. Red arrows indicate dynamics of cells at the front of the wound. Cells were classed to be at the front of the wound within the first three cells from the wound border (reviewed in ref. ²⁰).We also demonstrated the subcellular tracking of plasma membrane dynamics in vivo using the membrane-targeting sequence of H-Ras fused to photoactivatable-GFP.^24,25 Importantly, both the dynamics of cell-cell junctions, as visualised using E-cadherin:GFP, and the dynamics of the plasma membrane, which also plays a fundamental role in cell invasion and metastasis, are significantly different in vivo than in vitro.²⁰ Critically, this raises the possibility that many signalling axes and networks may function differently in vivo and therefore care must be taken when correlating in vitro information to the live setting. Lastly, we demonstrated the benefits of in vivo imaging in the assessment of molecular-based targeted therapeutics by using the Src inhibitor dasatinib, which impaired E-cadherin cell mobility in vivo but not in vitro.^20,26In the context of previous intravital imaging studies, our work suggests that we are at the beginning of a new stage of intravital imaging in which ‘active’ probes can help predict the efficacy of novel therapeutic treatments and also provide a context dependent read-out of oncogene-induced biological behavior in live animals. Importantly, not all molecules are adaptable for this type of in vivo imaging. Careful selection of candidate molecular markers that demonstrate clear changes attributable to a biological function, for example, subcellular relocalization or compartmentalisation, will be ideally suited for this type of intravital examination in the future.Here we have adopted two key fluorescent imaging techniques typically used in vitro and combined them with a fundamental biological question in vivo. The adaptation of other techniques for in vivo imaging such as FRET or FLIM-FRET probes will provide a detailed pixel by pixel map of the activity and behavior of key signalling proteins in live animals.^2,27 The use of these ‘active’ probes in vivo may hold further surprises concerning differences in molecular behavior in live animals compared to the traditional ‘snap-shot’ approach in vitro. Finally, one of the major challenges of in vivo imaging during drug discovery is the need for repeated imaging of the same animal in the presence or absence of drugs. The continued development of optical windows and observation chambers for non-invasive real-time imaging will facilitate this and allow for the assessment of drug response at the single cell level.²⁸ This, when combined with the subcellular optical techniques described here, will prove very useful in the future for in vivo imaging when evaluating the aetiology of the disease or during the drug discovery process.     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Roles of calcineurin B-like protein-interacting protein kinases in innate immunity in rice

Cytosolic free Ca²⁺ mobilization induced by microbe/pathogen-asssociated molecular patterns (MAMPs/PAMPs) plays key roles in plant innate immunity. However, components involved in Ca²⁺ signaling pathways still remain to be identified and possible involvement of the CBL (calcineurin B-like proteins)-CIPK (CBL-interacting protein kinases) system in biotic defense signaling have yet to be clarified. Recently we identified two CIPKs, OsCIPK14 and OsCIPK15, which are rapidly induced by MAMPs, involved in various MAMP-induced immune responses including defense-related gene expression, phytoalexin biosynthesis and hypersensitive cell death. MAMP-induced production of reactive oxygen species as well as cell browning were also suppressed in OsCIPK14/15-RNAi transgenic cell lines. Possible molecular mechanisms and physiological functions of the CIPKs in plant innate immunity are discussed.Key words: PAMPs/MAMPs, calcium signaling, CBL-CIPK, hypersensitive cell death, reactive oxygen speciesCa²⁺ plays an essential role as an intracellular second messenger in plants as well as in animals. Several families of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins have been identified in higher plants, which decode spatiotemporal patterns of intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration.^1,2 Calcineurin B-Like Proteins (CBLs) comprise a family of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins similar to both the regulatory β-subunit of calcineurin and neuronal Ca²⁺ sensors of animals.^3,4 Unlike calcineurin B that regulates protein phosphatases, CBLs specifically target a family of protein kinases referred to as CIPKs (CBL-Interacting Protein Kinases).⁵ The CBL-CIPK system has been shown to be involved in a wide range of signaling pathways, including abiotic stress responses such as drought and salt, plant hormone responses and K+ channel regulation.^6,7Following the recognition of pathogenic signals, plant cells initiate the activation of a widespread signal transduction network that trigger inducible defense responses, including the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), biosynthesis of phytoalexins, expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and reorganization of cytoskeletons and the vacuole,⁸ followed by a form of programmed cell death known as hypersensitive response (HR).^9,10 Because complexed spatiotemporal patterns of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) have been suggested to play pivotal roles in defense signaling,^1,9 multiple Ca²⁺ sensor proteins and their effectors should function in defense signaling pathways. Although possible involvement of some calmodulin isoforms^11–13 and the calmodulin-domain/calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs)^14–19 has been suggested, other Ca²⁺-regulated signaling components still remain to be identified. No CBLs or CIPKs had so far been implicated as signaling components in innate immunity.     

Timing the switch to phototrophic growth: A possible role of GUN1

In young Arabidopsis seedlings, retrograde signaling from plastids regulates the expression of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes in response to the developmental and functional state of the chloroplasts. The chloroplast-located PPR protein GUN1 is required for signalling following disruption of plastid protein synthesis early in seedling development before full photosynthetic competence has been achieved. Recently we showed that sucrose repression and the correct temporal expression of LHCB1, encoding a light-harvesting chlorophyll protein associated with photosystem II, are perturbed in gun1 mutant seedlings.¹ Additionally, we demonstrated that in gun1 seedlings anthocyanin accumulation and the expression of the “early” anthocyanin-biosynthesis genes is perturbed. Early seedling development, predominantly at the stage of hypocotyl elongation and cotyledon expansion, is also affected in gun1 seedlings in response to sucrose, ABA and disruption of plastid protein synthesis by lincomycin. These findings indicate a central role for GUN1 in plastid, sucrose and ABA signalling in early seedling development.Key words: ABA, ABI4, anthocyanin, chloroplast, GUN1, retrograde signalling, sucroseArabidopsis seedlings develop in response to light and other environmental cues. In young seedlings, development is fuelled by mobilization of lipid reserves until chloroplast biogenesis is complete and the seedlings can make the transition to phototrophic growth. The majority of proteins with functions related to photosynthesis are encoded by the nuclear genome, and their expression is coordinated with the expression of genes in the chloroplast genome. In developing seedlings, retrograde signaling from chloroplasts to the nucleus regulates the expression of these nuclear genes and is dependent on the developmental and functional status of the chloroplast. Two classes of gun (genomes uncoupled) mutants defective in retrograde signalling have been identified in Arabidopsis: the first, which comprises gun2–gun5, involves mutations in genes encoding components of tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.^2,3 The other comprises gun1, which has mutations in a nuclear gene encoding a plastid-located pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein with an SMR (small MutS-related) domain near the C-terminus.^4,5 PPR proteins are known to have roles in RNA processing⁶ and the SMR domain of GUN1 has been shown to bind DNA,⁴ but the specific functions of these domains in GUN1 are not yet established. However, GUN1 has been shown to be involved in plastid gene expression-dependent,⁷ redox,⁴ ABA1,⁴ and sucrose signaling,^1,4,8 as well as light quality and intensity sensing pathways.^9–11 In addition, GUN1 has been shown to influence anthocyanin biosynthesis, hypocotyl extension and cotyledon expansion.^1,11