Spore Density Determines Infection Strategy by the Plant Pathogenic Fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina

Necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens are resisted by different plant defenses. While necrotrophic pathogens are sensitive to jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent resistance, biotrophic pathogens are resisted by salicylic acid (SA)- and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent resistance. Although many pathogens switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy during infection, little is known about the signals triggering this transition. This study is based on the observation that the early colonization pattern and symptom development by the ascomycete pathogen Plectosphaerella cucumerina (P. cucumerina) vary between inoculation methods. Using the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) defense response as a proxy for infection strategy, we examined whether P. cucumerina alternates between hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic lifestyles, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf surface. Untargeted metabolome analysis revealed profound differences in metabolic defense signatures upon different inoculation methods. Quantification of JA and SA, marker gene expression, and cell death confirmed that infection from high spore densities activates JA-dependent defenses with excessive cell death, while infection from low spore densities induces SA-dependent defenses with lower levels of cell death. Phenotyping of Arabidopsis mutants in JA, SA, and ROS signaling confirmed that P. cucumerina is differentially resisted by JA- and SA/ROS-dependent defenses, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf. Furthermore, in situ staining for early callose deposition at the infection sites revealed that necrotrophy by P. cucumerina is associated with elevated host defense. We conclude that P. cucumerina adapts to early-acting plant defenses by switching from a hemibiotrophic to a necrotrophic infection program, thereby gaining an advantage of immunity-related cell death in the host.Plant pathogens are often classified as necrotrophic or biotrophic, depending on their infection strategy (Glazebrook, 2005; Nishimura and Dangl, 2010). Necrotrophic pathogens kill living host cells and use the decayed plant tissue as a substrate to colonize the plant, whereas biotrophic pathogens parasitize living plant cells by employing effector molecules that suppress the host immune system (Pel and Pieterse, 2013). Despite this binary classification, the majority of pathogenic microbes employ a hemibiotrophic infection strategy, which is characterized by an initial biotrophic phase followed by a necrotrophic infection strategy at later stages of infection (Perfect and Green, 2001). The pathogenic fungi Magnaporthe grisea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Mycosphaerella graminicola, the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, and the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae are examples of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011; van Kan et al., 2014; Kabbage et al., 2015).Despite considerable progress in our understanding of plant resistance to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook, 2005; Mengiste, 2012; Lai and Mengiste, 2013), recent debate highlights the dynamic and complex interplay between plant-pathogenic microbes and their hosts, which is raising concerns about the use of infection strategies as a static tool to classify plant pathogens. For instance, the fungal genus Botrytis is often labeled as an archetypal necrotroph, even though there is evidence that it can behave as an endophytic fungus with a biotrophic lifestyle (van Kan et al., 2014). The rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, which is often classified as a hemibiotrophic leaf pathogen (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011), can adopt a purely biotrophic lifestyle when infecting root tissues (Marcel et al., 2010). It remains unclear which signals are responsible for the switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy and whether these signals rely solely on the physiological state of the pathogen, or whether host-derived signals play a role as well (Kabbage et al., 2015).The plant hormones salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA) play a central role in the activation of plant defenses (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012). The first evidence that biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens are resisted by different immune responses came from Thomma et al. (1998), who demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genotypes impaired in SA signaling show enhanced susceptibility to the biotrophic pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (formerly known as Peronospora parastitica), while JA-insensitive genotypes were more susceptible to the necrotrophic fungus Alternaria brassicicola. In subsequent years, the differential effectiveness of SA- and JA-dependent defense mechanisms has been confirmed in different plant-pathogen interactions, while additional plant hormones, such as ethylene, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, and cytokinins, have emerged as regulators of SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Bari and Jones, 2009; Cao et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Moreover, SA- and JA-dependent defense pathways have been shown to act antagonistically on each other, which allows plants to prioritize an appropriate defense response to attack by biotrophic pathogens, necrotrophic pathogens, or herbivores (Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Verhage et al., 2010).In addition to plant hormones, reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important regulatory role in plant defenses (Torres et al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2015). Within minutes after the perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, NADPH oxidases and apoplastic peroxidases generate early ROS bursts (Torres et al., 2002; Daudi et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012), which activate downstream defense signaling cascades (Apel and Hirt, 2004; Torres et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2009; Mittler et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS play an important regulatory role in the deposition of callose (Luna et al., 2011; Pastor et al., 2013) and can also stimulate SA-dependent defenses (Chaouch et al., 2010; Yun and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Mammarella et al., 2015). However, the spread of SA-induced apoptosis during hyperstimulation of the plant immune system is contained by the ROS-generating NADPH oxidase RBOHD (Torres et al., 2005), presumably to allow for the sufficient generation of SA-dependent defense signals from living cells that are adjacent to apoptotic cells. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an additional role in the regulation of SA/ROS-dependent defense (Trapet et al., 2015). This gaseous molecule can stimulate ROS production and cell death in the absence of SA while preventing excessive ROS production at high cellular SA levels via S-nitrosylation of RBOHD (Yun et al., 2011). Recently, it was shown that pathogen-induced accumulation of NO and ROS promotes the production of azelaic acid, a lipid derivative that primes distal plants for SA-dependent defenses (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, NO, ROS, and SA are intertwined in a complex regulatory network to mount local and systemic resistance against biotrophic pathogens. Interestingly, pathogens with a necrotrophic lifestyle can benefit from ROS/SA-dependent defenses and associated cell death (Govrin and Levine, 2000). For instance, Kabbage et al. (2013) demonstrated that S. sclerotiorum utilizes oxalic acid to repress oxidative defense signaling during initial biotrophic colonization, but it stimulates apoptosis at later stages to advance necrotrophic colonization. Moreover, SA-induced repression of JA-dependent resistance not only benefits necrotrophic pathogens but also hemibiotrophic pathogens after having switched from biotrophy to necrotrophy (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012).Plectosphaerella cucumerina ((P. cucumerina, anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) is a filamentous ascomycete fungus that can survive saprophytically in soil by decomposing plant material (Palm et al., 1995). The fungus can cause sudden death and blight disease in a variety of crops (Chen et al., 1999; Harrington et al., 2000). Because P. cucumerina can infect Arabidopsis leaves, the P. cucumerina-Arabidopsis interaction has emerged as a popular model system in which to study plant defense reactions to necrotrophic fungi (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Carlucci et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). Various studies have shown that Arabidopsis deploys a wide range of inducible defense strategies against P. cucumerina, including JA-, SA-, ABA-, and auxin-dependent defenses, glucosinolates (Tierens et al., 2001; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014), callose deposition (García-Andrade et al., 2011; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012), and ROS (Tierens et al., 2002; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Barna et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Recent metabolomics studies have revealed large-scale metabolic changes in P. cucumerina-infected Arabidopsis, presumably to mobilize chemical defenses (Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Furthermore, various chemical agents have been reported to induce resistance against P. cucumerina. These chemicals include β-amino-butyric acid, which primes callose deposition and SA-dependent defenses, benzothiadiazole (BTH or Bion; Görlach et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), which activates SA-related defenses (Lawton et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Gamir et al., 2014; Luna et al., 2014), JA (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), and ABA, which primes ROS and callose deposition (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Pastor et al., 2013). However, among all these studies, there is increasing controversy about the exact signaling pathways and defense responses contributing to plant resistance against P. cucumerina. While it is clear that JA and ethylene contribute to basal resistance against the fungus, the exact roles of SA, ABA, and ROS in P. cucumerina resistance vary between studies (Thomma et al., 1998; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2014).This study is based on the observation that the disease phenotype during P. cucumerina infection differs according to the inoculation method used. We provide evidence that the fungus follows a hemibiotrophic infection strategy when infecting from relatively low spore densities on the leaf surface. By contrast, when challenged by localized host defense to relatively high spore densities, the fungus switches to a necrotrophic infection program. Our study has uncovered a novel strategy by which plant-pathogenic fungi can take advantage of the early immune response in the host plant.     

Lipoxygenase6-Dependent Oxylipin Synthesis in Roots Is Required for Abiotic and Biotic Stress Resistance of Arabidopsis

Jasmonates are oxylipin signals that play important roles in the development of fertile flowers and in defense against pathogens and herbivores in leaves. The aim of this work was to understand the synthesis and function of jasmonates in roots. Grafting experiments with a jasmonate-deficient mutant demonstrated that roots produce jasmonates independently of leaves, despite low expression of biosynthetic enzymes. Levels of 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid, jasmonic acid, and its isoleucine derivative increased in roots upon osmotic and drought stress. Wounding resulted in a decrease of preformed 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid concomitant with an increase of jasmonic acid and jasmonoyl-isoleucine. 13-Lipoxygenases catalyze the first step of lipid oxidation leading to jasmonate production. Analysis of 13-lipoxygenase-deficient mutant lines showed that only one of the four 13-lipoxygenases, LOX6, is responsible and essential for stress-induced jasmonate accumulation in roots. In addition, LOX6 was required for production of basal 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid in leaves and roots. Loss-of-function mutants of LOX6 were more attractive to a detritivorous crustacean and more sensitive to drought, indicating that LOX6-derived oxylipins are important for the responses to abiotic and biotic factors.Oxylipins are ubiquitous signaling molecules that are derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids by enzymatic and nonenzymatic processes. In plants, the biosynthesis and function of oxylipins of the jasmonate family in aboveground tissues has been investigated in detail. Jasmonates comprise 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (OPDA), jasmonic acid (JA), and derivatives of JA. In leaves, jasmonates accumulate in response to abiotic factors such as wounding, drought, osmotic stress, darkness, and ozone and during interactions with organisms such as herbivores, pathogens, and mutualistic organisms (Wasternack, 2007). The relevance of jasmonates in wound response, ozone tolerance, and the defense against herbivores and necrotrophic pathogens in leaves has been well investigated using mutants in JA biosynthesis and signaling (Browse, 2009a). In addition, jasmonates play an important role in flower development, and Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mutants in the JA pathway are male sterile (Browse, 2009b). The first step in jasmonate biosynthesis is catalyzed by 13-lipoxygenases (LOXs). The resulting 13(S)-hydroperoxyoctadecatrienoic acid (13-HPOTE) is converted by allene oxide synthase (AOS) and allene oxide cyclase to OPDA (Wasternack, 2007). These enzymatic steps are located in plastids. OPDA is transported to peroxisomes and converted to JA. JA can be further metabolized to different derivatives that take place mainly in the cytosol. The conjugation of JA with Ile is an important step because jasmonoyl-Ile (JA-Ile) has been identified as a biologically active jasmonate (Staswick and Tiryaki, 2004). OPDA is also biologically active without conversion to JA derivatives. In contrast to all other jasmonates, the OPDA structure contains an electrophilic α,β-unsaturated carbonyl group that renders OPDA more reactive than JA. Therefore, OPDA is classified as a reactive electrophile species with unique signaling properties different from other jasmonates (Farmer and Davoine, 2007).Of the six lipoxygenase genes present in Arabidopsis, four genes encode 13-LOX. For the respective enzymes LOX2, LOX3, LOX4, and LOX6, it was shown that linolenic acid is the preferred substrate and that 13-HPOTE is formed in vitro (Bannenberg et al., 2009). All four enzymes are proposed to be located in plastids. LOX2 is highly expressed in leaves; expression is up-regulated by jasmonates and stress treatments such as wounding and osmotic stress (Bell and Mullet, 1993; Seltmann et al., 2010a). LOX2 was shown to contribute the majority of jasmonate synthesis upon wounding and osmotic stress and during senescence in leaves (Bell et al., 1995; Glauser et al., 2009). LOX2 is also responsible for the accumulation of arabidopsides (Glauser et al., 2009), which are galactolipids containing esterified OPDA in plastids by direct oxidation of galactolipids (Zoeller et al., 2012). LOX3 and LOX4 are required for the development of fertile flowers (Caldelari et al., 2011). LOX6 shows overall low expression (Bannenberg et al., 2009). Recently, it was reported that LOX6 contributes to the fast accumulation of JA and JA-Ile in wounded leaves and is required for the fast increase of JA and JA-Ile in distal leaves after wounding (Chauvin et al., 2013).In contrast to leaves and flowers, little is known on jasmonate biosynthesis and function in roots. Expression of the plastid-localized enzymes of jasmonate synthesis LOX2, AOS, and allene oxide cyclase2 is very low in roots (Zimmermann et al., 2004). By contrast, enzymes such as 9-LOX and α-dioxygenase1 are strongly expressed in roots. These enzymes are involved in the biosynthesis of oxylipins different from jasmonates, and 9-LOX products have been shown to regulate lateral root development because mutants in LOX1 and LOX5 produce more lateral roots (Vellosillo et al., 2007). However, jasmonate function in roots is still obscure. Here, we analyzed jasmonate accumulation in roots upon different stress treatments and show that mutants defective in LOX6 are impaired in stress-induced jasmonate synthesis and are more susceptible to drought and detritivore feeding.     

Rhamnolipids Elicit Defense Responses and Induce Disease Resistance against Biotrophic, Hemibiotrophic, and Necrotrophic Pathogens That Require Different Signaling Pathways in Arabidopsis and Highlight a Central Role for Salicylic Acid

Plant resistance to phytopathogenic microorganisms mainly relies on the activation of an innate immune response usually launched after recognition by the plant cells of microbe-associated molecular patterns. The plant hormones, salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid, and ethylene have emerged as key players in the signaling networks involved in plant immunity. Rhamnolipids (RLs) are glycolipids produced by bacteria and are involved in surface motility and biofilm development. Here we report that RLs trigger an immune response in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) characterized by signaling molecules accumulation and defense gene activation. This immune response participates to resistance against the hemibiotrophic bacterium Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato, the biotrophic oomycete Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis, and the necrotrophic fungus Botrytis cinerea. We show that RL-mediated resistance involves different signaling pathways that depend on the type of pathogen. Ethylene is involved in RL-induced resistance to H. arabidopsidis and to P. syringae pv tomato whereas jasmonic acid is essential for the resistance to B. cinerea. SA participates to the restriction of all pathogens. We also show evidence that SA-dependent plant defenses are potentiated by RLs following challenge by B. cinerea or P. syringae pv tomato. These results highlight a central role for SA in RL-mediated resistance. In addition to the activation of plant defense responses, antimicrobial properties of RLs are thought to participate in the protection against the fungus and the oomycete. Our data highlight the intricate mechanisms involved in plant protection triggered by a new type of molecule that can be perceived by plant cells and that can also act directly onto pathogens.In their environment, plants are challenged by potentially pathogenic microorganisms. In response, they express a set of defense mechanisms including preformed structural and chemical barriers, as well as an innate immune response quickly activated after microorganism perception (Boller and Felix, 2009). Plant innate immunity is triggered after recognition by pattern recognition receptors of conserved pathogen- or microbe-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs or MAMPs, respectively) or by plant endogenous molecules released by pathogen invasion and called danger-associated molecular patterns (Boller and Felix, 2009; Dodds and Rathjen, 2010). This first step of recognition leads to the activation of MAMP-triggered immunity (MTI). Successful pathogens can secrete effectors that interfere or suppress MTI, resulting in effector-triggered susceptibility. A second level of perception involves the direct or indirect recognition by specific receptors of pathogen effectors leading to effector-triggered immunity (ETI; Boller and Felix, 2009; Dodds and Rathjen, 2010). Whereas MTI and ETI are thought to involve common signaling network, ETI is usually quantitatively stronger than MTI and associated with more sustained and robust immune responses (Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010; Tsuda and Katagiri, 2010).The plant hormones, salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) have emerged as key players in the signaling networks involved in MTI and ETI (Robert-Seilaniantz et al., 2007; Tsuda et al., 2009; Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010; Mersmann et al., 2010; Tsuda and Katagiri, 2010; Robert-Seilaniantz et al., 2011). Interactions between these signal molecules allow the plant to activate and/or modulate an appropriate spectrum of responses, depending on the pathogen lifestyle, necrotroph or biotroph (Glazebrook, 2005; Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008). It is assumed that JA and ET signaling pathways are important for resistance to necrotrophic fungi including Botrytis cinerea and Alternaria brassicicola (Thomma et al., 2001; Ferrari et al., 2003; Glazebrook, 2005). Infection of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) with B. cinerea causes the induction of the JA/ET responsive gene PLANT DEFENSIN1.2 (PDF1.2; Penninckx et al., 1996; Zimmerli et al., 2001). Induction of PDF1.2 by B. cinerea is blocked in ethylene-insensitive2 (ein2) and coronatine-insensitive1 (coi1) mutants that are respectively defective in ET and JA signal transduction pathways. Moreover, ein2 and coi1 plants are highly susceptible to B. cinerea infection (Thomma et al., 1998; Thomma et al., 1999). JA/ET-dependent responses do not seem to be usually induced during resistance to biotrophs, but they can be effective if they are stimulated prior to pathogen challenge (Glazebrook, 2005). Plants impaired in SA signaling are highly susceptible to biotrophic and hemibiotrophic pathogens. Following pathogen infection, SA hydroxylase (NahG), enhanced disease susceptibility5 (eds5), or SA induction-deficient2 (sid2) plants are unable to accumulate high SA levels and they display heightened susceptibility to Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato (Pst), Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis, or Erysiphe orontii (Delaney et al., 1994; Lawton et al., 1995; Wildermuth et al., 2001; Nawrath et al., 2002; Vlot et al., 2009). Mutants that are insensitive to SA, such as nonexpressor of PATHOGENESIS-RELATED (PR) genes1 (npr1), have enhanced susceptibility to these pathogens (Cao et al., 1994; Glazebrook et al., 1996; Shah et al., 1997; Dong, 2004). According to some reports, plant defense against necrotrophs also involves SA. Arabidopsis plants expressing the nahG gene and infected with B. cinerea show larger lesions compared with wild-type plants (Govrin and Levine, 2002). In tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), acidic isoforms of PR3 and PR5 gene that are specifically induced by SA (Ménard et al., 2004) are up-regulated after challenge by B. cinerea (El Oirdi et al., 2010). Resistance to some necrotrophs like Fusarium graminearum involves both SA and JA signaling pathways (Makandar et al., 2010). It is assumed that SA and JA signaling can be antagonistic (Bostock, 2005; Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Thaler et al., 2012). In Arabidopsis, SA inhibits JA-dependent resistance against A. brassicicola or B. cinerea (Spoel et al., 2007; Koornneef et al., 2008). Recent studies demonstrated that ET modulates the NPR1-mediated antagonism between SA and JA (Leon-Reyes et al., 2009; Leon-Reyes et al., 2010a) and suppression by SA of JA-responsive gene expression is targeted at a position downstream of the JA biosynthesis pathway (Leon-Reyes et al., 2010b). Synergistic effects of SA- and JA-dependent signaling are also well documented (Schenk et al., 2000; van Wees et al., 2000; Mur et al., 2006) and induction of some defense responses after pathogen challenge requires intact JA, ET, and SA signaling pathways (Campbell et al., 2003).Isolated MAMPs trigger defense responses that also require the activation of SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways (Tsuda et al., 2009; Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010). For instance, treatment with the flagellin peptide flg22 induces many SA-related genes including SID2, EDS5, NPR1, and PR1 (Ferrari et al., 2007; Denoux et al., 2008), causes SA accumulation (Tsuda et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2009), and activates ET signaling (Bethke et al., 2009; Mersmann et al., 2010). Local application of lipopolysaccharides elevates the level of SA (Mishina and Zeier, 2007). The oomycete Pep13 peptide induces defense responses in potato (Solanum tuberosum) that require both SA and JA (Halim et al., 2009). Although signaling networks induced by isolated MAMPs are well documented, the contribution of SA, JA, and ET in MAMP- or PAMP-induced resistance to biotrophs and necrotrophs is poorly understood.Rhamnolipids (RLs) are glycolipids produced by various bacteria species including some Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species. They are essential for bacterial surface motility and biofilm development (Vatsa et al., 2010; Chrzanowski et al., 2012). RLs are potent stimulators of animal immunity (Vatsa et al., 2010). They have recently been shown to elicit plant defense responses and to induce resistance against B. cinerea in grapevine (Vitis vinifera; Varnier et al., 2009). They also participate to biocontrol activity of the plant beneficial bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa PNA1 against oomycetes (Perneel et al., 2008). However, the signaling pathways used by RLs to stimulate plant innate immunity are not known. To gain more insights into RL-induced MTI, we investigated RL-triggered defense responses and resistance to the necrotrophic fungus B. cinerea, the biotroph oomycete H. arabidopsidis, and the hemibiotroph bacterium Pst in Arabidopsis. Our results show that RLs trigger an innate immune response in Arabidopsis that protects the plant against these different lifestyle pathogens. We demonstrate that RL-mediated resistance involves separated signaling sectors that depend on the type of pathogen. In plants challenged by RLs, SA has a central role and participates to the restriction of the three pathogens. ET is fully involved in RL-induced resistance to the biotrophic oomycete and to the hemibiotrophic bacterium whereas JA is essential for the resistance to the necrotrophic fungus.