Triple X Egyptian woman and a Down's syndrome offspring

The 47, XXX karyotype (triple X) has a frequency of 1 in 1000 female newborns. However, this karyotype is not usually suspected at birth or childhood. Female patients with a sex chromosome abnormality may be fertile. In patients with a 47, XXX cell line there appears to be an increased risk of a cytogenetically abnormal child but the extent of this risk cannot yet be determined; it is probably lower in the non-mosaic 47, XXX patient than the mosaic 46, XX/47, XXX one. We describe a new rare case of triple X woman and a Down''s syndrome offspring. The patient is 26 years of age. She is a housewife, her height is 160 cm and weight is 68 kg and her physical features and mentality are normal. She has had one pregnancy at the age of 25 years resulted in a girl with Down''s syndrome. The child had 47 chromosomes with trisomy 21 (47, XX, +21) Figure 1. The patient also has 47 chromosomes with a triple X karyotype (47, XX, +X) Figure 2. The patient''s husband (27 years old) is physically and mentally normal. He has 46 chromosomes with a normal XY karyotype (46, XY). There are neither Consanguinity between her parent''s nor she and her husband.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Karyotype 47, XX + 21 of the daughter of Triple X syndromeOpen in a separate windowFigure 2Karyptype 47, XX + X of the Down syndrome''s mother     

Testicular Sclerosing Sertoli Cell Tumor: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Sertoli cell tumors are very rare testicular tumors, representing 0.4% to 1.5% of all testicular malignancies. They are subclassified as classic, large-cell calcifying, and sclerosing Sertoli cell tumors (SSCT) based on distinct clinical features. Only 42 cases of SSCTs have been reported in the literature. We present a case of a 23-year-old man diagnosed with SSCT.Key words: Testicular neoplasm, Sertoli cell tumor, Sclerosing Sertoli cell tumorA 23-year-old man was referred to the Cleveland Clinic Department of Urology (Cleveland, OH) for an incidentally detected right testicular mass. The mass was identified during a work-up for transient left testicular discomfort. His only notable medical history was nephrolithiasis. There was no personal or family history of testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. On physical examination, he was a well-nourished, well-masculinized young man without gynecomastia. Testicular examination revealed normal volume and consistency bilaterally without other relevant findings. Testicular ultrasonography demonstrated an 8 mm × 6 mm × 6 mm hypoechoic, solid mass in the posterior right testicle with peripheral flow on color Doppler (Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Testicular ultrasound demonstrating an 8 mm × 6 mm × 6 mm hypoechoic, solid mass in the posterior right testicle (blue arrows).The remainder of the ultrasound examination yielded normal results. Lactic dehydrogenase, B-human chorionic gonadotropin, and α-fetoprotein levels were all within the normal range. After a thorough review of the options, the patient was then taken to the operating room for inguinal exploration. Intraoperative ultrasound confirmed a superficial 8-mm hypoechoic testis lesion. A whiteyellow, well-demarcated nodule was widely excised and a frozen section was sent to pathology for examination. The frozen section examination revealed the lesion to be a neoplasm with differential diagnosis including sclerosing Sertoli cell tumor (SSCT), adenomatoid tumor, and a variant of Leydig cell tumor. Because the final diagnosis could not be determined from frozen section, the decision was made to perform a right radical orchiectomy. Pathologic examination revealed a grossly unifocal, well-circumscribed, white, firm mass of 0.8 cm. Microscopically the lesion was composed of solid and hollow tubules and occasional anastomosing cords distributed within the hypocellular, densely collagenous stroma. Although the lesion was somewhat well circumscribed, entrapped seminiferous tubules with Sertoli-only cells were present within the tumor (Figure 2). Tumor cells had pale or eosinophilic cytoplasm with small and dark nuclei with inconspicuous nucleoli. The tumor was confined to the testis and margins were negative. A diagnosis of SSCT was reached, supported by positive immunostain results for steroidogenic factor 1, focal inhibin, and calretinin expression, and negative stain results for cytokeratin AE1/AE3 and epithelial membrane antigen in the tumor (Figure 3). The postoperative course was unremarkable. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis and chest radiograph were negative for metastatic disease.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Low-power examination revealing a well-circumscribed tumor composed of solid and hollow tubules and occasional anastomosing cords distributed within the hypocellular, densely collagenous stroma. Hematoxylin and eosin stain, original magnification ×40. (B) High-power examination. Note entrapped seminiferous tubules lacking spermatogenesis. Hematoxylin and eosin stain, original magnification ×100.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Nuclear expression of steroidogenic factor 1 in the tumor as well as benign Sertoli cells in entrapped seminiferous tubules (original magnification ×200). (B) Focal calretinin expression in the tumor (inhibin had a similar staining pattern; original magnification ×100).     

Arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs) related to pollen tube guidance into the embryo sac in Arabidopsis

Some AGP molecules or their sugar moieties are probably related to the guidance of the pollen tube into the embryo sac, in the final part of its pathway, when arriving at the ovules. The specific labelling of the synergid cells and its filiform apparatus, which are the cells responsible for pollen tube attraction, and also the specific labelling of the micropyle and micropylar nucellus, which constitutes the pollen tube entryway into the embryo sac, are quite indicative of this role. We also discuss the possibility that AGPs in the sperm cells are probably involved in the double fertilization process.Key words: Arabidopsis, arabinogalactan proteins, AGP 6, gametic cells, pollen tube guidanceThe selective labelling obtained by us with monoclonal antibodies directed to the glycosidic parts of AGPs, in Arabidopsis and in other plant species, namely Amaranthus hypochondriacus,¹ Actinidia deliciosa² and Catharanthus roseus, shows that some AGP molecules or their sugar moieties are probably related to the guidance of the pollen tube into the embryo sac, in the final part of its pathway, when arriving at the ovules. The evaluation of the selective labelling obtained with AGP-specific monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) JIM 8, JIM 13, MAC 207 and LM 2, during Arabidopsis pollen development, led us to postulate that some AGPs, in particular those with sugar epitopes identified by JIM 8 and JIM 13, can be classified as molecular markers for generative cell differentiation and development into male gametes.Likewise, we also postulated that the AGP epitopes recognized by Mabs JIM 8 and JIM 13 are also molecular markers for the development of the embryo sac in Arabidopsis thaliana. Moreover, these AGP epitopes are also present along the pollen tube pathway, predominantly in its last stage, the micropyle, which constitutes the region of the ovule in the immediate vicinity of the pollen tube target, the embryo sac.³We have recently shown the expression of AGP genes in Arabidopsis pollen grains and pollen tubes and also the presence of AGPs along Arabidopsis pollen tube cell surface and tip region, as opposed to what had been reported earlier. We have also shown that only a subset of AGP genes is expressed in pollen grain and pollen tubes, with prevalence for Agp6 and Agp11, suggesting a specific and defined role for some AGPs in Arabidopsis sexual reproduction (Pereira et al., 2006).⁴Therefore we continued by using an Arabidopsis line expressing GFP under the command of the Agp6 gene promoter sequence. These plants were studied under a low-power binocular fluorescence microscope. GFP labelling was only observed in haploid cells, pollen grains (Fig. 1) and pollen tubes (Fig. 2); all other tissues clearly showed no labelling. These observations confirmed the specific expression of Agp6 in pollen grains and pollen tubes. As shown in the Figures 1 and ​and2,2, the labelling with GFP is present in all pollen tube extension, so probably, AGP 6 is not one of the AGPs identified by JIM 8 and JIM 13, otherwise GFP light emission would localize more specifically in the sperm cells.⁵ So we think that MAC 207 which labels the entire pollen tube wall (Fig. 3) may indeed be recognizing AGP6, which seems to be expressed in the vegetative cell. In other words, the specific labelling obtained for the generative cell and for the two male gametes, is probably given by AGPs that are present in very low quantities, apparently not the case for AGP 6 or AGP 11.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Low-power binocular fluorescence microscope image of an Arabidopsis flower with the AGP 6 promoter:GFP construct. The labelling is evident in pollen grains that are being released and in others that are already in the stigma papillae.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Low-power binocular fluorescence microscope image of an Arabidopsis ovary with the AGP6 promoter:GFP construct. The ovary was partially opened to show the pollen tubes growing in the septum, and into the ovules. The pollen tubes are also labelled by GFP.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Imunofluorescence image of a pollen tube growing in vitro, and labeled by MAC 207 monoclonal antibody. The labelling is evident all over the pollen tube wall.After targeting an ovule, the pollen tube growth arrests inside a synergid cell and bursts, releasing the two sperm cells. It has recently been shown that sperm cells, for long considered to be passive cargo, are involved in directing the pollen tube to its target. In Arabidopsis, HAP2 is expressed only in the haploid sperm and is required for efficient pollen tube guidance to the ovules.⁶ The same could be happening with the AGPs identified in the sperm cells by JIM 8 and JIM 13. We are now working on tagging these AGPs and using transgenic plants aiming to answer to such questions.Pollen tube guidance in the ovary has been shown to be in the control of signals produced by the embryo sac. When pollen tubes enter ovules bearing feronia or sirene mutations (the embryo sac is mutated), they do not stop growing and do not burst. In Zea mays a pollen tube attractant was recently identified in the egg apparatus and synergids.⁷ Chimeric ZmEA1 fused to green fluorescent protein (ZmEA1:GFP) was first visible within the filiform apparatus and later was localized to nucellar cell walls below the micropylar opening of the ovule. This is the same type of labelling that we have shown in Arabidopsis ovules, using Mabs JIM 8 and JIM 13. We are now involved in the identification of the specific AGPs associated with the labellings that we have been showing.     

Schwann Cells: Development and Role in Nerve Repair

Schwann cells develop from the neural crest in a well-defined sequence of events. This involves the formation of the Schwann cell precursor and immature Schwann cells, followed by the generation of the myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) cells of mature nerves. This review describes the signals that control the embryonic phase of this process and the organogenesis of peripheral nerves. We also discuss the phenotypic plasticity retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain why this unusual feature is central to the striking regenerative potential of the peripheral nervous system (PNS).The myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) Schwann cells of adult nerves originate from the neural crest in well-defined developmental steps (Fig. 1). This review focuses on embryonic development (for additional information on myelination, see Salzer 2015). We also discuss how the ability to change between differentiation states, a characteristic attribute of developing cells, is retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain how the ability of Schwann cells to change phenotype in response to injury allows the peripheral nervous system (PNS) to regenerate after damage.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Main transitions in the Schwann cell precursor (SCP) lineage. The diagram shows both developmental and injury-induced transitions. Black uninterrupted arrows, normal development; red arrows, the Schwann cell injury response; stippled arrows, postrepair reformation of myelin and Remak cells. Embryonic dates (E) refer to mouse development. (Modified from Jessen and Mirsky 2012; reprinted, with permission and with contribution from Y. Poitelon and L. Feltri.)     

Mutational Biosynthesis of Novel Rapamycins by a Strain of Streptomyces hygroscopicus NRRL 5491 Disrupted in rapL,Encoding a Putative Lysine Cyclodeaminase

The gene rapL lies within the region of the Streptomyces hygroscopicus chromosome which contains the biosynthetic gene cluster for the immunosuppressant rapamycin. Introduction of a frameshift mutation into rapL by ΦC31 phage-mediated gene replacement gave rise to a mutant which did not produce significant amounts of rapamycin. Growth of this rapL mutant on media containing added l-pipecolate restored wild-type levels of rapamycin production, consistent with a proposal that rapL encodes a specific l-lysine cyclodeaminase important for the production of the l-pipecolate precursor. In the presence of added proline derivatives, rapL mutants synthesized novel rapamycin analogs, indicating a relaxed substrate specificity for the enzyme catalyzing pipecolate incorporation into the macrocycle.Rapamycin is a 31-member macrocyclic polyketide produced by Streptomyces hygroscopicus NRRL 5491 which, like the structurally related compounds FK506 and immunomycin (Fig. ​(Fig.1),1), has potent immunosuppressive properties (24). Such compounds are potentially valuable in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and in preventing the rejection of transplanted tissues (16). The biosynthesis of rapamycin requires a modular polyketide synthase, which uses a shikimate-derived starter unit (11, 20) and which carries out a total of fourteen successive cycles of polyketide chain elongation that resemble the steps in fatty acid biosynthesis (2, 27). l-Pipecolic acid is then incorporated (21) into the chain, followed by closure of the macrocyclic ring, and both these steps are believed to be catalyzed by a pipecolate-incorporating enzyme (PIE) (18), the product of the rapP gene (8, 15). Further site-specific oxidations and O-methylation steps (15) are then required to produce rapamycin. Open in a separate windowFIG. 1Structures of rapamycin, FK506, and immunomycin.The origin of the pipecolic acid inserted into rapamycin has been previously established (21) to be free l-pipecolic acid derived from l-lysine (although the possible role of d-lysine as a precursor must also be borne in mind) (9). Previous work with other systems has suggested several alternative pathways for pipecolate formation from lysine (22), but the results of the incorporation of labelled lysine into the pipecolate moiety of immunomycin (Fig. ​(Fig.1)1) clearly indicate loss of the α-nitrogen atom (3). More recently, the sequencing of the rap gene cluster revealed the presence of the rapL gene (Fig. ​(Fig.2),2), whose deduced gene product bears striking sequence similarity to two isoenzymes of ornithine deaminase from Agrobacterium tumefaciens (25, 26). Ornithine deaminase catalyzes the deaminative cyclization of ornithine to proline, and we have proposed (15) that the rapL gene product catalyzes the analogous conversion of l-lysine to l-pipecolate (Fig. ​(Fig.3).3). Open in a separate windowFIG. 2A portion of the rapamycin biosynthetic gene cluster which contains ancillary (non-polyketide synthase) genes (15, 27). PKS, polyketide synthase.Open in a separate windowFIG. 3(A) The conversion of l-ornithine to l-proline by ornithine cyclodeaminase (17). (B) Proposed conversion of l-lysine to l-pipecolic acid by the rapL gene product.Here, we report the use of ΦC31 phage-mediated gene replacement (10) to introduce a frameshift mutation into rapL and the ability of the mutant to synthesize rapamycins in the absence or presence of added pipecolate or pipecolate analogs.     

Auxin and Monocot Development

Monocots are known to respond differently to auxinic herbicides; hence, certain herbicides kill broadleaf (i.e., dicot) weeds while leaving lawns (i.e., monocot grasses) intact. In addition, the characters that distinguish monocots from dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin. However, the molecular mechanisms controlling auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction appear, so far, to be conserved between monocots and dicots, although there are differences in gene copy number and expression leading to diversification in function. This article provides an update on the conservation and diversification of the roles of genes controlling auxin biosynthesis, transport, and signal transduction in root, shoot, and reproductive development in rice and maize.Auxinic herbicides have been used for decades to control dicot weeds in domestic lawns (Fig. 1A), commercial golf courses, and acres of corn, wheat, and barley, yet it is not understand how auxinic herbicides selectively kill dicots and spare monocots (Grossmann 2000; Kelley and Reichers 2007). Monocots, in particular grasses, must perceive or respond differently to exogenous synthetic auxin than dicots. It has been proposed that this selectivity is because of either limited translocation or rapid degradation of exogenous auxin (Gauvrit and Gaillardon 1991; Monaco et al. 2002), altered vascular anatomy (Monaco et al. 2002), or altered perception of auxin in monocots (Kelley and Reichers 2007). To explain these differences, there is a need to further understand the molecular basis of auxin metabolism, transport, and signaling in monocots.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Differences between monocots and dicots. (A) A dicot weed in a lawn of grasses. Note the difference in morphology of the leaves. (B) Germinating dicot (bean) seedling. Dicots have two cotyledons (cot). Reticulate venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the cotyledons is called the hypocotyl (hyp). (C) Germinating monocot (maize) seedling. Monocots have a single cotyledon called the coleoptile (col) in grasses. Parallel venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the coleoptile is called the mesocotyl (mes).Auxin, as we have seen in previous articles, plays a major role in vegetative, reproductive, and root development in the model dicot, Arabidopsis. However, monocots have a very different anatomy from dicots (Raven et al. 2005). Many of the characters that distinguish monocots and dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin: (1) As the name implies, monocots have single cotyledons, whereas dicots have two cotyledons (Fig. 1B,C). Auxin transport during embryogenesis may play a role in this difference as cotyledon number defects are often seen in auxin transport mutants (reviewed in Chandler 2008). (2) The vasculature in leaves of dicots is reticulate, whereas the vasculature in monocots is parallel (Fig. 1). Auxin functions in vascular development because many mutants defective in auxin transport, biosynthesis, or signaling have vasculature defects (Scarpella and Meijer 2004). (3) Dicots often produce a primary tap root that produces lateral roots, whereas, in monocots, especially grasses, shoot-borne adventitious roots are the most prominent component of the root system leading to the characteristic fibrous root system (Fig. 2). Auxin induces lateral-root formation in dicots and adventitious root formation in grasses (Hochholdinger and Zimmermann 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The root system in monocots. (A) Maize seedling showing the primary root (1yR), which has many lateral roots (LR). The seminal roots (SR) are a type of adventitious root produced during embryonic development. Crown roots (CR) are produced from stem tissue. (B) The base of a maize plant showing prop roots (PR), which are adventitious roots produced from basal nodes of the stem later in development.It is not yet clear if auxin controls the differences in morphology seen in dicots versus monocots. However, both conservation and diversification of mechanisms of auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction have been discovered so far. This article highlights the similarities and the differences in the role of auxin in monocots compared with dicots. First, the genes in each of the pathways are introduced (Part I, Table I) and then the function of these genes in development is discussed with examples from the monocot grasses, maize, and rice (Part II).     

Apoptotic and Nonapoptotic Caspase Functions in Animal Development

A developing animal is exposed to both intrinsic and extrinsic stresses. One stress response is caspase activation. Caspase activation not only controls apoptosis but also proliferation, differentiation, cell shape, and cell migration. Caspase activation drives development by executing cell death or nonapoptotic functions in a cell-autonomous manner, and by secreting signaling molecules or generating mechanical forces, in a noncell autonomous manner.Programmed cell death or apoptosis occurs widely during development. During C. elegans development, 131 cells die by caspase CED-3-dependent apoptosis; however, ced-3 mutants do not show significant developmental defects (Ellis and Horvitz 1986). In contrast, studies on caspase mutants in mouse and Drosophila have revealed caspases’ roles in development. During development, cells are exposed to extrinsic and intrinsic stresses, and caspases are activated as one of multiple stress responses that ensure developmental robustness (Fig. 1). Caspases actively regulate animal development through both apoptosis and nonapoptotic functions that involve cell–cell communication in developing cell communities (Miura 2011). This chapter focuses on the in vivo roles of caspases in development and regeneration.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Caspase activation during development. An embryo undergoes intrinsic and extrinsic stress, which activates caspases to execute both apoptotic and nonapoptotic functions, including cell differentiation and dendrite pruning. Apoptotic cells affect the shape and behavior of their neighboring cells. Caspase-activated cells are shown in dark gray.     

Conserved residues in the ankyrin domain of VAPYRIN indicate potential protein-protein interaction surfaces

Plant VAPYRINs are required for the establishment of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) and root nodule symbiosis (RNS). In vapyrin mutants, the intracellular accommodation of AM fungi and rhizobia is blocked, and in the case of AM, the fungal endosymbiont cannot develop arbuscules which serve for nutrient exchange. VAPYRINs are plant-specific proteins that consists of a major sperm protein (MSP) domain and an ankyrin domain. Comparison of VAPYRINs of dicots, monocots and the moss Physcomitrella patens reveals a highly conserved domain structure. We focused our attention on the ankyrin domain, which closely resembles the D34 domain of human ankyrin R. Conserved residues within the petunia VAPYRIN cluster to a surface patch on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain, suggesting that this region may represent a conserved binding site involved in the formation of a protein complex with an essential function in intracellular accommodation of microbial endosymbionts.Key words: VAPYRIN, arbuscular mycorrhiza, petunia, symbiosis, glomus, ankyrin, major sperm protein, VAPPlants engage in mutualistic interactions such as root nodule symbiosis (RNS) with rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) with Glomeromycotan fungi. These associations are referred to as endosymbioses because they involve transcellular passage through the epidermis and intracellular accommodation of the microbial partner within root cortical cells of the host.^1,2 Infection by AM fungi and rhizobia is actively promoted by the plant and requires the establishment of infection structures namely the prepenetration apparatus (PPA) in AM and a preinfection thread in RNS, respectively.^3–5 In both symbioses the intracellular microbial accommodation in epidermal and root cortical cells involves rebuilding of the cytoskeleton and of the entire membrane system.^6–8 Recently, intracellular accommodation of rhizobia and AM fungi, and in particular morphogenesis of the AM fungal feeding structures, the arbuscules, was shown to depend on the novel VAPYRIN protein.^9–11VAPYRINs are plant-specific proteins consisting of two protein-protein interaction domains, an N-terminal major sperm protein (MSP) domain and a C-terminal ankyrin (ANK) domain. MSP of C. elegans forms a cytoskeletal network required for the motility of the ameboidal sperm.¹² MSP domains also occur in VAP proteins that are involved in membrane fusion processes in various eukaryotes.¹³ The ANK domain, on the other hand, closely resembles animal ankyrins which serve to connect integral membrane proteins to elements of the spectrin cytoskeleton,¹⁴ thereby facilitating the assembly of functional membrane microdomains in diverse animal cells.¹⁵ Ankyrin repeats exhibit features of nano-springs, opening the possibility that ankyrin domains may be involved in mechanosensing.¹⁶ Based on these structural similarities, VAPYRIN may promote intracellular accommodation of endosymbionts by interacting with membranes and/or with the cytoskeleton. Indeed, VAPYRIN protein associates with small subcellular compartments in petunia and in Medicago truncatula.^9,10Ankyrin repeats typically consist of 33 amino acids, of which 30–40% are highly conserved across most taxa. These residues confer to the repeats their basic helix-turn-helix structure.¹⁷ Ankyrin domains often consist of arrays of several repeats that form a solenoid with a characteristic crescent shape.¹⁷ Besides the ankyrin-specific motiv-associated amino acids there is little conservation between the ankyrin domains of different proteins, or between the individual repeats of a given ankyrin domain,¹⁷ a feature that was also observed in petunia VAPYRIN (Fig. 1A).⁹ However, sequence comparison of VAPYRINs from eight dicots, three monocots and the moss Physcomitrella patens revealed a high degree of sequence conservation beyond the ankyrin-specific residues (Fig. 1B and Sup. Fig. S1). When the degree of conservation was determined for the individual ankyrin repeats among all the 12 species, it appeared that repeats 7, 9 and 10 exhibited particularly high conservation (Fig. 1C).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Sequence analysis and phylogeny of VAPYRIN from diverse plants. (A) Predicted amino acid sequence of the petunia VAPYRIN protein PAM1. The 11 repeats of the ankyrin domain are aligned, and the ankyrin consensus sequence is shown below the eleventh ankyrin repeat (line c). Conserved residues that are characteristic for ankyrin repeats (Mosavi et al. 2004)¹⁷ are depicted in bold face. (B) Unrooted phylogenetic tree representing the VAPYRINs of eight dicot species (Petunia hybrida, Solanum lycopersicon, Solanum tuberosum, Vitis vinifera, Populus trichocarpa, Ricinus communis, Medicago truncatula and Glycine max) three monocot species (Sorghum bicolor, Zea mays and Oryza sativa), and the moss Physcomitrella patens. (C) Degree of conservation of the individual ankyrin repeats of VAPYRIN. Schematic representation of the MSP domain as N-terminal barrel-shaped structure, and of the individual ankyrin repeats as pairs of alpha-helices. An additional loop occurring only in monocots (grass-loop) is inserted above repeat 4, and the deletion between repeat 7 and 8 is indicated (gap). This latter feature is common to all VAPYRIN proteins. The percentage of amino acid residues that are identical in at least 11 of the 12 VAPYRINS is given below the MSP domain and the eleven ankyrin repeats. The box highlights repeats 7–10 which contribute to the predicted binding site (compare with Figs. 3 and ​and44).Sequence comparison of the eleven repeats of all the twelve plant species revealed that the individual repeats clustered according to their position in the domain, rather than according to their origin (plant species) (Fig. 2). This shows that the repeats each are well conserved across species, but show little similarity among each other within a given VAPYRIN protein. The higher conservation of repeats 9 and 10 was reflected by the compact appearance of the respective branches, in which the monocot and moss sequences were nested closely with the dicot sequences, compared to other repeats, where the branches appeared fragmented between monocots and dicots, and where the P. patens sequence fell out of the branch as in the case of repeats 4–6 (Fig. 2). Taken together, this points to an old evolutionary origin of the entire ankyrin domain in lower land plants, with no subsequent rearrangement of ankyrin repeats.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Phylogenetic analysis of the individual ankyrin repeats of VAPYRIN. Phylogenetic representation of an alignment of all the 11 repeats of the 12 VAPYRINs compared in Figure 1B and C. The repeats cluster according to their position within the domain, rather than to their origin (plant species). Numbers indicate the position of the repeats within the domain (compare with Fig. 1C). P. patens repeats are highlighted (small circles) for clarity. The monocot repeat 4 sequences (boxed) are remote from the remaining repeat 4 sequences because of the grass loop (compare with Fig. 1C).Ankyrin domains function as protein-protein interaction domains,¹⁷ in which the residues on the surface are involved in the binding of their protein partners.¹⁴ The fact that repeats 9 and 10 exhibited particularly high levels of conservation across species from moss to angiosperms indicated that this region may contain functionally important residues. Within repeat 10, sixteen amino acid positions were identical in >90% of the analyzed species (Fig. 3A and grey bars). Nine of those represent residues that are characteristic for ankyrin repeats (red letters) and determine their typical 3D shape.¹⁷ These residues are considered ankyrin-specific, and are unlikely to be involved in a VAPYRIN-specific function. The remaining seven highly conserved residues in repeat 10, however, are VAPYRIN-specific, since they have been under positive selection, without being essential for the basic structure of the ankyrin repeat. Ankyrin-specific and VAPYRIN-specific residues where identified throughout the entire ankyrin domain (Sup. Fig. 1), and subsequently mapped on a 3-dimensional model of petunia VAPYRIN to reveal their position in the protein (Fig. 3B–G). The ankyrin-specific residues were found to be localized primarily to the interior of the ankyrin domain, with the characteristic glycines (brown) marking the turns between helices and loops (Fig. 3B, D and F, compare with A). In contrast, the VAPYRIN-specific residues were localized primarily on the surface of the ankyrin domain (Fig. 3C, E and G). A prominent clustering of VAPYRIN-specific residues was identified on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain comprising repeats 7–10 close to the gap (Figs. 3G and ​and44). This highly conserved VAPYRIN-specific region contains several negatively and positively charged residues (D, E and K, R, respectively) and aromatic residues (W, Y, F), which may together form a conserved binding site for an interacting protein.Open in a separate windowFigure 33D-Mapping of conserved positions within the ankyrin domain of VAPYRIN. (A) Conserved amino acid residues were evaluated for ankyrin repeat 10 of petunia VAPYRIN as an example. The degree of conservation between the 12 VAPYRINs analyzed in Figures 1B and ​and22 is depicted with grey bars. Average conservation between all the 132 ankyrin repeats of the 12 VAPYRIN sequences is shown with black bars. Residues that are conserved in all 132 repeats (red letters) define the ankyrin consensus sequence, which confers to the repeats their characteristic basic structure.¹⁷ Residues that are >90% conserved but are not part of the basic ankyrin sequence (highlighted with asterisks) are VAPYRIN-specific and may therefore have been conserved because of their specific function in VAPYRIN. Arrows indicate the characteristic antiparallel helices, the turns are marked by conserved glycine residues (underlined; compare with B, D and F). (B–G) 3D-models of the petunia VAPYRIN PAM1. Conserved amino acid residues were color-coded according to their physico-chemical properties (http://life.nthu.edu.tw/∼fmhsu/rasframe/SHAPELY.HTM) with minor modification (see below). In (B, D and F) the ankyrin-specific residues are highlighted (corresponding to the bold letters in Fig. 1A). In (C, E and G), the VAPYRIN-specific residues are highlighted. Note the patch of high conservation on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain between repeats 7–10 next to the gap. (B–E) represent respective side views of the ankyrin domain, (F and G) exhibit the concave inner side of the domain. Color code: Bright red: aspartic acid (D), glutamic acid (E); Yellow: cysteine (C); Blue: lysine (K), arginine (R); Orange: serine (S), threonine (T); Dark blue: phenylalanine (F), tyrosin (Y); Brown: glycine (G); Green: leucin (L), valine (V), isoleucin (I), alanine (A); Lilac: tryptophane (W); Purple: histidine (H); Pink: proline (P).Open in a separate windowFigure 4The highly conserved surface area in domain 8–10 of the ankyrin domain of petunia VAPYRIN. Close-up of the highly conserved region of petunia PAM1 as shown in Figure 3G. Amino acids were color-coded as in Figure 3 and their position in the amino acid sequence is indicated (compare with Sup. Fig. 1).In this context, it is interesting to note that human ankyrin R also contains a binding surface on the concave side of the D34 domain for the interaction with the CBD3 protein.¹⁴ Consistent with an essential function of the C-terminal third of the ankyrin domain, mutations that abolish this relatively short portion of VAPYRIN, have a strong phenotype, indicating that they may represent null alleles.⁹ Based on this collective evidence, we hypothesize that repeats 7–10 are involved in the formation of a protein complex that is essential for intracellular accommodation of rhizobia and AM fungi. Biochemical and genetic studies are now required to identify the binding partners of VAPYRINs, and to elucidate their role in plant endosymbioses.     

CLE polypeptide signaling gene expression in Arabidopsis embryos

The CLAVATA3 (CLV3)/ESR-related (CLE) family of small polypeptides mediate intercellular signaling events in plants. The biological roles of several CLE family members have been characterized, but the function of the majority still remains elusive. We recently performed a systematic expression analysis of 23 Arabidopsis CLE genes to gain insight into the developmental processes they may potentially regulate during vegetative and reproductive growth. Our study revealed that each Arabidopsis tissue expresses one or more CLE genes, suggesting that they might play roles in many developmental and/or physiological processes. Here we determined the expression patterns of nine Arabidopsis CLE gene promoters in mature embryos and compared them to the known expression patterns in seedlings. We found that more than half of these CLE genes have similar expression profiles at the embryo and seedling stages, whereas the rest differ dramatically. The implications of these findings in understanding the biological processes controlled by these CLE genes are discussed.Key words: arabidopsis, CLE, embryo, polypeptide, signalingThe CLE genes encode small, secreted polypeptides characterized by a highly conserved 14 amino-acid region at their carboxyl termini called the CLE domain.¹ To date 32 family members have been identified in Arabidopsis, yet only three have been assigned functions: CLV3, CLE40 and CLE41 have been implicated in stem cell homeostasis in shoot, root and vascular meristems, respectively.^2–5 Overexpression studies indicated that CLE genes may regulate additional biological processes as diverse as root and shoot growth, phyllotaxis, apical dominance and leaf shape and size control.^6,7 This hypothesis is consistent with our recent expression analysis of Arabidopsis A-type CLE genes,⁸ in which we found that all examined tissues expressed one or more CLE genes, in overlapping patterns. Each CLE promoter exhibited a highly distinct and specific activity profile, and many showed complex expression dynamics during vegetative and reproductive growth.Consistent with their roles in meristem maintenance, CLV3 and CLE40 are expressed early in embryogenesis when meristem initiation and organization take place.^3,5 Yet there are no other reports of CLE gene expression in Arabidopsis embryos, and therefore it is not known to what extent this family of small peptides regulates intercellular signaling events during embryogenesis. We addressed this question by analyzing the expression patterns of selected CLE promoters in mature embryos and compared them with those in 11-day-old seedlings. We chose nine CLE genes whose promoters are active in different tissues of the seedling.⁸ Transgenic dried seeds carrying a single CLE promoter sequence driving the expression of the uidA reporter gene were imbibed in water for four days, the embryos dissected out of their seed coats, and beta-glucuronidase (GUS) reporter assays performed.⁹ Stained embryos were cleared with chloral hydrate¹⁰ and visualized using a Zeiss Axiophot microscope.Five of the CLE genes analyzed showed similar promoter expression patterns in mature embryos and in seedlings. In embryos, the CLE11, 13, 16 and 17 promoters drove GUS activity in specific patterns in the root. CLE11 and CLE13 promoter activity was detected in the root cap and root apical meristem (Fig. 1A and B), CLE16 promoter activity was observed in the root cap and above the root apical meristem (Fig. 1C), and CLE17 promoter activity was seen weakly in the root apical meristem (Fig. 1D). Each of these CLE genes exhibited a similar expression pattern in seedling roots.⁸ CLE17 was additionally expressed in the embryo shoot apex and at the cotyledon margins (Fig. 1D). Similarly, in seedlings CLE17 was expressed in the vegetative shoot apex, and at the margins of the cotyledons and fully expanded leaves.⁸ In embryos, CLE27 promoter activity was strong in the hypocotyl, as well as in the medial region of the cotyledons along the main vein (Fig. 1E). In seedlings, CLE27 was strongly expressed in the hypocotyl and exhibited patchy expression in both cotyledons and leaves.⁸ Our analysis reveals that the expression of these CLE genes is established early during development and remains constant at later stages, suggesting that they may perform the same function throughout the Arabidopsis life cycle.Open in a separate windowFigure 1GUS reporter activity driven by the promoters of (A) CLE11, (B) CLE13, (C) CLE16, (D) CLE17, (E) CLE27, (F) CLE1, (G) CLE12, (H) CLE18 and (I) CLE25 in mature Arabidopsis embryos. Arrowhead indicates GUS activity in the root cap and the arrow indicates GUS activity in the root apical meristem. Scale bar, 100 µm.Remarkably, the other four CLE promoters drove embryo expression patterns that were strongly divergent from what was observed in seedlings. We found that the CLE1 promoter was active in the embryo throughout the hypocotyl and in the central region of the cotyledons (Fig. 1F), but was observed in seedlings solely in the vasculature of fully differentiated roots and at the root tips.⁸ CLE12 promoter activity in embryos was observed throughout the hypocotyl and the cotyledons (Fig. 1G), whereas in seedlings it was detected weakly in the leaf vasculature and more strongly in the root vasculature.⁸ In contrast, the CLE18 and CLE25 promoters did not drive reporter activity in mature embryos (Fig. 1H and I), despite being broadly and strongly expressed in seedlings.⁸These four CLE gene promoters show dynamic shifts in their activity between different developmental stages. From our data we infer that CLE1 activity in hypocotyls and cotyledons is required solely during embryogenesis, and that the gene then acquires a distinct function in post-embryonic root development. Similarly CLE12 appears to acquire a post-embryonic function in the root vasculature, and its broad activity in the embryonic leaves becomes restricted to the leaf vasculature following germination. Finally, the absence of CLE18 and CLE25 promoter activity in mature embryos suggests that they may be dispensable for embryo formation, and might either specifically regulate post-embryonic signaling events in certain tissues or be involved in mediating responses to environmental stimuli to which embryos are not subjected. Alternatively, they may be expressed earlier during embryogenesis and become repressed during seed dormancy.Our spatio-temporal expression analysis of a small group of CLE genes in mature embryos and seedlings indicates that the majority of these signaling molecules exert their roles beginning early in development, potentially contributing to tissue patterning and organization. Yet whereas some appear to contribute to the same biological processes throughout the plant life cycle, others seem to function in different tissues at different developmental stages. In addition, each CLE promoter studied here is active in vegetative and/or reproductive tissues that are not present in embryos, such as trichomes (CLE16 and CLE17) and style (CLE1).⁸ This observation suggests that CLE genes are widely recruited to new tissue-specific signaling functions during the course of plant development.