Nitric oxide production is not required for dihydrosphingosine-induced cell death in tobacco BY-2 cells

Sphinganine or dihydrosphingosine (d18:0, DHS), one of the most abundant free sphingoid Long Chain Base (LCB) in plants, is known to induce a calcium-dependent programmed cell death (PCD) in tobacco BY-2 cells. We have recently shown that DHS triggers a production of H₂O₂, via the activation of NADPH oxidase(s). However, this production of H₂O₂ is not correlated with the DHS-induced cell death but would rather be associated with basal cell defense mechanisms. In the present study, we extend our current knowledge of the DHS signaling pathway, by demonstrating that DHS also promotes a production of nitric oxide (NO) in tobacco BY-2 cells. As for H₂O₂, this NO production is not necessary for cell death induction.Key words: tobacco BY-2 cells, sphingolipids, LCBs, dihydrosphingosine, sphinganine, apoptosis, programmed cell death (PCD), nitric oxide (NO)These last few years, it has been demonstrated in plants that long chain bases (LCBs), the sphingolipid precursors, are important regulators of different cellular processes including programmed cell death (PCD).^1–3 Indeed, plant treatment with fumonisin B1 or AAL toxin, two mycotoxins that disrupt sphingolipid metabolism, leads to an accumulation of the dihydrosphingosine (d18:0, DHS), one of the most abundant free LCB in plants and correlatively to the induction of cell death symptoms.^4,5 A more recent study shows a rapid and sustained increase of phytosphingosine (t18:0), due to a de novo synthesis from DHS, when Arabidopsis thaliana leaves are inoculated with the avirulent strain Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (avrRpm1), known to induce a localized PCD called hypersensitive response (HR).⁶ More direct evidences were obtained from experiments on Arabidopsis cells where external application of 100 µM C2-ceramide, a non-natural acylated LCB, induced PCD in a calcium (Ca²⁺)-dependent manner.⁷ Recently, we have shown that DHS elicited rapid Ca²⁺ increases both in the cytosol and the nucleus of tobacco BY-2 cells and correlatively induced apoptotic-like response. Interestingly, blocking nuclear Ca²⁺ changes without affecting the cytosolic Ca²⁺ increases prevented DHS-induced PCD.⁸Besides calcium ions, reactive oxygen species (ROS) have also been suggested to play an important role in the control of PCD induced by sphingolipids in plants.⁹ Thus, the C2-ceramide-induced PCD in Arabidopsis is preceded by an increase in H₂O₂.⁷ However, inhibition of ROS production by catalase, a ROS-scavenging enzyme, did not prevent C2-ceramide-induced cell death, suggesting that this PCD is independent of ROS generation. Moreover, we recently showed in tobacco BY-2 cells that DHS triggers a dose-dependent production of H₂O₂ via activation of a NADPH oxidase.¹⁰ The DHS-induced cytosolic Ca²⁺ transient is required for this H₂O₂ production while the nuclear calcium variation is not necessary. In agreement with the results of Townley et al. blocking the ROS production using diphenyleniodonium (DPI), a known inhibitor of NADPH oxidases, does not prevent DHS-induced cell death. Gene expression analysis of defense-related genes, using real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) experiments, rather indicates that H₂O₂ generation is likely associated with basal defense mechanisms.¹⁰In the present study, we further investigated the DHS signaling cascade leading to cell death in tobacco BY-2 cells, by evaluating the involvement of another key signaling molecule i.e., nitric oxide (NO). In plants, NO is known to play important roles in numerous physiological processes including germination, root growth, stomatal closing and adapative response to biotic and abiotic stresses (reviewed in ref. ^11–14). NO has also been shown to be implicated in the induction of PCD in animal cells,¹⁵ in yeast,¹⁶ as well as in plant cells, in which it is required for tracheid differentiation¹⁷ or HR activation.^18,19 Interestingly in the latter case, the balance between NO and H₂O₂ production appears to be crucial to induce cell death.²⁰ Here we show in tobacco BY-2 cells that although DHS elicits a production of NO, this production is not necessary for the induction of PCD.     

Reactive oxygen species as transducers of sphinganine-mediated cell death pathway

Long chain bases or sphingoid bases are building blocks of complex sphingolipids that display a signaling role in programmed cell death in plants. So far, the type of programmed cell death in which these signaling lipids have been demonstrated to participate is the cell death that occurs in plant immunity, known as the hypersensitive response. The few links that have been described in this pathway are: MPK6 activation, increased calcium concentrations and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The latter constitute one of the more elusive loops because of the chemical nature of ROS, the multiple possible cell sites where they can be formed and the ways in which they influence cell structure and function.Key words: hydrogen peroxide, long chain bases, programmed cell death, reactive oxygen species, sphinganine, sphingoid bases, superoxideA new transduction pathway that leads to programmed cell death (PCD) in plants has started to be unveiled.^1,2 Sphingoid bases or long chain bases (LCBs) are the distinctive elements in this PCD route that naturally operates in the entrance site of a pathogen as a way to contend its spread in the plant tissues.^2,3 This defense strategy has been known as the hypersensitive response (HR).^4,5As a lately discovered PCD signaling circuit, three connected transducers have been clearly identified in Arabidopsis: the LCB sphinganine (also named dihydrosphingosine or d18:0); MPK6, a mitogen activated kinase and superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as reactive oxygen species (ROS).^1,2 In addition, calcium transients have been recently allocated downstream of exogenously added sphinganine in tobacco cells.⁶Contrary to the signaling lipids derived from complex glycerolipid degradation, sphinganine, a metabolic precursor of complex sphingolipids, is raised by de novo synthesis in the endoplasmic reticulum to mediate PCD.^1,2 Our recent work demonstrated that only MPK6 and not MPK3 (commonly functionally redundant kinases) acts in this pathway and is positioned downstream of sphinganine elevation.² Although ROS have been identified downstream of LCBs in the route towards PCD,¹ the molecular system responsible for this ROS generation, their cellular site of formation and their precise role in the pathway have not been unequivocally identified. ROS are produced in practically all cell compartments as a result of energy transfer reactions, leaks from the electron transport chains, and oxidase and peroxidase catalysis.⁷Similar to what is observed in pathogen defense,³ increases in endogenous LCBs may be elicited by addition of fumonisin B1 (FB1) as well; FB1 is a mycotoxin that inhibits ceramide synthase. This inhibition results in an accumulation of its substrate, sphinganine and its modified forms, leading to the activation of PCD.^1,2,8 The application of FB1 is a commonly used approach for the study of PCD elicitation in Arabidopsis.^1,2,9–11An early production of ROS has been linked to an increase of LCBs. For example, an H₂O₂ burst is found in tobacco cells after 2–20 min of sphinganine supplementation,¹² and superoxide radical augmented in the medium 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine addition to Arabidopsis protoplasts (Fig. 1A). In consonance with this timing, both superoxide and H₂O₂ were detected in Arabidopsis leaves after 3–6 h exposure to FB1 or LCBs.¹ However, the source of ROS generation associated with sphinganine elevation seems to not be the same in both species: in tobacco cells, ROS formation is apparently dependent on a NADPH oxidase activity, a ROS source consistently implicated in the HR,^13,14 while in Arabidopsis, superoxide formation was unaffected by diphenyliodonium (DPI), a NADPH oxidase inhibitor (Fig. 1A). It is possible that the latter oxidative burst is due to an apoplastic peroxidase,¹⁵ or to intracellular ROS that diffuse outwards.^16,17 These results also suggest that both tobacco and Arabidopsis cells could produce ROS from different sources.Open in a separate windowFigure 1ROS are produced at early and long times in the FB1-induced PCD in Arabidopsis thaliana (Col-0). (A) Superoxide formation by Arabidopsis protoplasts is NADPH oxidase-independent and occurs 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine (d18:0) exposure. Protoplasts were obtained from a cell culture treated with cell wall lytic enzymes. Protoplasts were incubated with 10 µM FB1 or 10 µM sphinganine for 1 h. Then, cells were vacuum-filtered and the filtrate was used to determine XTT [2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide, disodium salt] reduction as described in references ²⁸ and ²⁹. DPI was used at 50 µM. (B) H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis wt and lcb2a-1 mutant in the presence and absence of FB1. Arabidopsis seedlings were exposed to 10 µM FB1 and after 48 h seedlings were treated with DA B (3,3-diaminobencidine) to detect H₂O₂ according to Thordal-Christensen et al.³⁰It has been suggested that the H₂O₂ burst associated with the sphinganine signaling pathway leads to the expression of defense-related genes but not to the PCD itself in tobacco cells.¹² It is possible that ROS are involved in the same way in Arabidopsis, since defense gene expression is also induced by FB1 in Arabidopsis.⁹ In this case, it will be important to define how the early ROS that are DPI-insensitive could contribute to the PCD manifestation mediated by sphinganine.The generation of ROS (4–60 min) found in Arabidopsis was associated to three conditions: the addition of sphinganine (Fig. 1A), FB1 (Fig. 1A) or pathogen elicitors.¹⁵ This is consistent with the MPK6 activation time, which is downstream of sphinganine elevation and occurs as early as 15 min of FB1 or sphinganine exposure.² All of them are events that appear as initial steps in the relay pathway that produces PCD.In order to explore a possible participation of ROS at more advanced times of PCD progression, we detected in situ H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis seedlings previously exposed to FB1 for 48 h. As shown in Figure 1B, formation of the brown-reddish precipitate corresponding to the reaction of H₂O₂ with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) was only visible in the FB1-exposed wild type plants, as compared to the non-treated plants. However, when lcb2a-1 mutant seedlings were used, FB1 exposure had a subtle effect in ROS formation. This mutant has a T-DNA insertion in the gene encoding subunit LCB2a from serine palmitoyltransferase (SPT), which catalyzes the first step in sphingolipid synthesis¹⁸ and the mutant has a FB1-resistant phenotype.² These results indicate that mutations in the LCB1¹ and LCB2a² genes (coding for the subunits of the heterodimeric SPT) that lead to a non-PCD phenotype upon the FB1 treatment, are unable to produce H₂O₂. In addition, they suggest that high levels of hydrogen peroxide are produced at advanced times in the PCD mediated by LCBs in Arabidopsis.Exposure of Arabidopsis to an avirulent strain of Pseudomonas syringae produces an endogenous elevation of LCBs as a way to implement defense responses that include HR-PCD.³ In this condition, we clearly detected H₂O₂ formation inside chloroplasts (Fig. 2A). When ultrastructure of the seedlings tissues exposed to FB1 for 72 h was analyzed, integrity of the chloroplast membrane system was severely affected in Arabidopsis wild-type seedlings exposed to FB1.² Therefore, we suggest that ROS generation-LCB induced in the chloroplast could be responsible of the observed membrane alteration, as noted by Liu et al. who found impairment in chloroplast function as a result of H₂O₂ formation in this organelle from tobacco plants. Interestingly, these plants overexpressed a MAP kinase kinase that activated the kinase SIPK, which is the ortholog of the MPK6 from Arabidopsis, a transducer in the PCD instrumented by LCBs.²Open in a separate windowFigure 2Conditions of LCBs elevation produce H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast and perturbation in the membrane morphology of mitochondria. (A) Exposure of Arabidopsis leaves to the avirulent strain Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (avrRPM1) (or Pst avrRPM1) induces H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast. Arabidopsis leaves were infiltrated with 1 × 10⁸ UFC/ml Pst avrRPM1 and after 18 h, samples were treated to visualize H₂O₂ formation with the DAB reaction. Controls were infiltrated with 10 mM MgCl₂ and then processed for DAB staining. Then, samples were analyzed in an optical photomicroscope Olympus Provis Model AX70. (B) Effect of FB1 on mitochondria ultrastructure. Wild type Arabidopsis seedlings were treated with FB1 for 72 h and tissues were processed and analyzed according to Saucedo et al.² Ch, chloroplast; M, mitochondria; PM, plasma membrane. Arrows show mitochondrial cisternae. Bars show the correspondent magnification.In addition, we have detected alterations in mitochondria ultrastructure as a result of 72 h of FB1 exposure (Fig. 2B). These alterations mainly consist in the reduced number of cristae, the membrane site of residence of the electron transport complexes. In this sense, it has been shown that factors that induce PCD such as the victorin toxin, methyl jasmonate and H₂O₂ produce alterations in mitochondrial morphology.^20–22 In fact, some of these studies propose that ROS are formed in the mitochondria and then diffuse to the chloroplasts.^22–24It is reasonable to envisage that damage of the membrane integrity of these two organelles reflects the effects of vast amounts of ROS produced by the electron transport chains.^25,26 Recent evidence supports the destruction of the photosynthetic apparatus associated to the generation of ROS in the HR.²⁶ At this time of PCD progression, ROS could be contributing to shut down the energy machinery in the cell, which ultimately would become the point of no-return of PCD²⁷ as part of the execution program of the cell death mediated by LCBs.In conclusion, we propose that ROS can display two different functional roles in the PCD process driven by LCBs. These roles depend on the time of ROS expression, the cellular site where they are generated, the enzymes that produce them, and the magnitude in which they are formed.     

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     

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     

Strigolactones as mediators of plant growth responses to environmental conditions

Strigolactones (SLs) have been recently identified as a new group of plant hormones or their derivatives thereof, shown to play a role in plant development. Evolutionary forces have driven the development of mechanisms in plants that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in shoot and root growth and development. The ability of SLs to regulate both shoot and root development suggests a role in the plant''s response to its growth environment. To play this role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward increased adaptive adjustment. Here, the effects of SLs on shoot and root development are presented, and possible feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues, light and nutrient status, are discussed; these might suggest a role for SLs in plants'' adaptive adjustment to growth conditions.Key words: strigolactones, light, nutrient status, root, shoot, branching, lateral roots, root hairsStrigolactones (SLs) are carotenoid-derived terpenoid lactones suggested to stem from the carotenoid pathway¹ via the activity of various oxygenases.^2,3 SLs production has been demonstrated in both monocotyledons and eudicotyledons (reviewed in ref. ⁴), suggesting their presence in many plant species.⁵ SLs are synthesized mainly in the roots and in some parts of the stem and then move towards the shoot apex (reviewed ref. ⁷).^6,8,9SLs were first characterized more than 40 years ago as germination stimulants of the parasitic plants Striga and Orobanche and later, as stimulants of arbuscular mycorrhiza hyphal branching as well (reviewed in ref. ^{4, 10–13}). Recently, SLs or derivatives thereof, have been identified as a new group of plant hormones, shown to play a role in inhibition of shoot branching,^2,3,8,9 thereby affecting shoot architecture; more recently they have also been shown to affect root growth by affecting auxin efflux.¹⁴Plants have developed mechanisms that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in their growth and development.¹⁵ Shoot architecture is affected by environmental cues, such as light quality and quantity and nutrient status.^16–19 Root-system architecture and development are affected by environmental conditions such as nutrient availability (reviewed in ref. ^{20, 21}). At the same time, plant hormones are known to be involved in the regulation of plant growth, development and architecture (reviewed in ref. ^22–24) and to be mediators of the effects of environmental cues on plant development; one classic example is auxin''s role in the plant''s shade-avoidance response (reviewed in ref. ²⁵).The ability of SLs to regulate shoot and root development suggests that these phytohormones also have a role in the plant''s growth response to its environment. To play this putative role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward enhancing its adaptive adjustment. The present review examines the SLs'' possible role in adaptive adjustment of the plant''s response to growth conditions, by discussing their effect on plant development and the possible associations and feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues: light and nutrient status.     

Reactive oxygen species in aerobic methane formation from vegetation

The first report of aerobic methane emissions from vegetation by an unknown mechanism¹ suggested that this potential new source may make a significant contribution to global methane emissions. We recently investigated possible mechanisms and reported^2,3 experiments in which UV-irradiation caused methane emissions from pectin, a major plant cell wall polysaccharide. Our findings also suggest that UV-generated reactive oxygen species (ROS) release methane from pectin. This has implications for all other, UV-independent processes which may generate ROS in or close to the plant cell wall and suggests a need to evaluate additional systems for ROS-generated methane emissions in leaves.Key words: methane, hydroxyl radicals, reactive oxygen species, UV, methyl esters, pectinUntil recently, the global methane budget was thought to be well understood, the only natural process for methane generation being an anaerobic microbial mechanism.⁴ However, observations by Keppler et al.¹ of aerobic methane emissions from vegetation caused controversy and called for a re-assessment of the natural sources of methane. While no mechanism was originally suggested, a putative source, the methyl ester groups of pectin, was proposed based on carbon isotope analyses.¹ We tested this hypothesis directly and reported that UV light could drive methane emissions from pectin in vitro under aerobic conditions.² While UV light was necessary for generation of methane from pectin, it is not tenable that UV was directly attacking pectic methyl ester groups since these do not absorb UV of the wavelengths used (280–400 nm). Instead, we proposed that the energy from the UV light was being absorbed by compounds such as phenolics, and that a reactive intermediary would be formed in the process. Importantly, our process had to be non-enzymic since no enzymes were present in either experimental system.^1,2 Following this hypothesis, we tested the effect of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on pectin in vitro and discovered that certain ROS cause production of methane: hydroxyl radicals (^•OH) and singlet oxygen were effective, but hydrogen peroxide and superoxide were not.³ Also, the addition of ROS-specific scavengers to pectin sheets stopped or severely reduced UV-induced methane emissions from pectin, suggesting that ROS are the intermediary in the mechanism of aerobic methane formation from pectin (Fig. 1). De-esterified pectin was produced by saponification and emitted only trace amounts of methane upon UV-irradiation, clearly establishing ester groups as the source of methane^2,3 and confirming findings of other research groups.^5,6 However, we also found that acetyl ester groups may contribute to methane emissions from pectin and should therefore be considered in future experiments attempting to identify methane sources. Interestingly, we also observed, for the first time, ethylene, ethane and CO₂ emissions from pectin upon UV-irradiation,² which corroborates the ROS hypothesis since ROS attack of methyl esters is likely to form methyl radicals, which can then either form methane or dimerise to form ethylene or ethane.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Proposed pathway for ^•OH-driven methane generation from pectin upon UV irradiation. The compound illustrated here, l-tryptophan, is merely an example of a possible photosensitiser. Hydroxyl radicals (^•OH) are shown to attack a methyl galacturonate residue of the homogalacturonan component of the pectin molecule since this is likely to be the most abundant source of methane, but the methyl esters found in xylogalacturonan domains and the acetyl esters found in homogalacturonan and rhamnogalacturonan domains are also possible methane sources. Note that only ∼70% of all galacturonic acid residues of the pectin backbone are methyl-esterified. Inset photograph shows experimental set-up during UV-irradiation of pectin.ROS are produced and destroyed constantly throughout the lifetime of plants. The generation of ROS in vivo can generally be linked to two sources: (i) a response to an external stimulus which may be perceived as a threat or (ii) a signaling process in the cell which may happen during growth, hormone action or programmed cell death.⁷ Our experiments showed that ROS could lead to methane formation from methyl ester groups; however, the origin of the ROS may not be important, only their nature. Indeed, hydrogen peroxide and superoxide, widely reported to be formed during an oxidative burst following a biotic stress,⁸ did not generate methane from pectin in vitro, and are therefore unlikely to do so in vivo. Only the hydroxyl radical (^•OH) and singlet oxygen generation led to methane formation, and therefore any process which generates them could also trigger UV-independent methane production. Abiotic stresses, such as drought, heat or salinity, which have been shown to lead to the production of ^•OH in vegetation,⁹ could therefore be processes leading to aerobic methane formation, as could exposure to elevated ozone concentrations.¹⁰ Indeed, physical injury (by cutting) of plant material has recently been demonstrated to cause methane emissions.¹¹The origin of the ROS may not be important, as long as their generation is in or close to the pectin of the plant cell wall, since ^•OH cannot travel far within a cell. Indeed, it is estimated that ^•OH typically reacts with organic matter within ∼1 nm of the site of radical production.¹² Processes such as growth^13,14 and calcium signaling,¹⁵ which both involve ROS production as an intermediary in the mechanism but are not necessarily due to external stress, may therefore have the potential to generate methane aerobically. Any process involved in the complicated pathways of ROS-regulation, for which 152 genes are responsible in Arabidopsis thaliana,¹⁶ could be involved in methane emission if the ROS generation is localised close to pectin or other potential substrates.In addition, hydrogen peroxide, which is generated in the cell walls of healthy plants,¹⁷ can be converted in the cell wall into ^•OH by processes such as the Fenton reaction,^18,19 especially in the presence of apoplastic ascorbate.^20,21 A complete analysis of the potential for ^•OH and singlet oxygen to be present in the plant cell wall is therefore necessary for a proper understanding of the different mechanisms that may drive aerobic methane generation. Further experiments into the effects of abiotic stresses other than UV on aerobic methane production from different types of vegetation are necessary in order that future in-vitro studies under simulated natural conditions can be carried out correctly. This type of study, in conjunction with direct in-vivo field studies and satellite observations, are essential to allow global estimates to be made accurately in the future and help us understand the significance of ROS-driven methane emission.     

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     

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.     

The Role of the DNA Damage Response Kinase Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated in Neuroprotection

It has been estimated that a human cell is confronted with 1 million DNA lesions every day, one fifth of which may originate from the activity of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) alone [1,2]. Terminally differentiated neurons are highly active cells with, if any, very restricted regeneration potential [3]. In addition, genome integrity and maintenance during neuronal development is crucial for the organism. Therefore, highly accurate and robust mechanisms for DNA repair are vital for neuronal cells. This requirement is emphasized by the long list of human diseases with neurodegenerative phenotypes, which are either caused by or associated with impaired function of proteins involved in the cellular response to genotoxic stress [4-8]. Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM), one of the major kinases of the DNA Damage Response (DDR), is a node that links DDR, neuronal development, and neurodegeneration [2,9-12]. In humans, inactivating mutations of ATM lead to Ataxia-Telangiectasia (A-T) disease [11,13], which is characterized by severe cerebellar neurodegeneration, indicating an important protective function of ATM in the nervous system [14]. Despite the large number of studies on the molecular cause of A-T, the neuroprotective role of ATM is not well established and is contradictory to its general proapoptotic function. This review discusses the putative functions of ATM in neuronal cells and how they might contribute to neuroprotection.     

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.     

R type anion channel: A multifunctional channel seeking its molecular identity

Plant genomes code for channels involved in the transport of cations, anions and uncharged molecules through membranes. Although the molecular identity of channels for cations and uncharged molecules has progressed rapidly in the recent years, the molecular identity of anion channels has lagged behind. Electrophysiological studies have identified S-type (slow) and R-type (rapid) anion channels. In this brief review, we summarize the proposed functions of the R-type anion channels which, like the S-type, were first characterized by electrophysiology over 20 years ago, but unlike the S-type, have still yet to be cloned. We show that the R-type channel can play multiple roles.Key words: R-type anion channel, nitrate, sulphate, guard cell, action potentialAnion channels play a central role in signal transduction, nutrient transport and cell turgor regulation.¹ By far, their function was particularly well investigated in the guard cells of stomata using a combination of electrophysiological, pharmacological and genetic tools. In this system, anion channel activation was shown to be one of the limiting steps in the loss of cell turgor leading to stomatal closure.² In algal cells, anion channels were shown to contribute to membrane excitability through the generation of action potential.^1,3With the burst of molecular biology in the nineties, the genes coding for plant ion channels started to be unveiled. The first channel gene to be cloned in plant was the shaker-like potassium channel identified in a yeast functional expression screen.^4,5 More than ten years later, TaALMT1 and AtCLCa were characterized as the first members of two important anion channel families.^6,7 This growing group of newly identified channels, accounting for electrophysiological activity described long ago, includes the MSLs anion selective mechanosensitive channels.⁸ Recently, the well known S-type channel has been finally recognized to be encoded by members of the SLAC1 (and other SLAH) family (Slow Anion Channel-Associated 1).⁹ In agreement with electrophysiological data,^10–13 it requires phosphorylation by a Protein Kinase in order to be functional.^14,15 In contrast, the molecular identity of the R-type anion channel remains unknown. Therefore, this candidate, which has been functionally known since twenty years, remains the next challenge for plant channel physiologists.     

Strigolactones: Internal and external signals in plant symbioses?

As the newest plant hormone, strigolactone research is undergoing an exciting expansion. In less than five years, roles for strigolactones have been defined in shoot branching, secondary growth, root growth and nodulation, to add to the growing understanding of their role in arbuscular mycorrhizae and parasitic weed interactions.¹ Strigolactones are particularly fascinating as signaling molecules as they can act both inside the plant as an endogenous hormone and in the soil as a rhizosphere signal.^2-4 Our recent research has highlighted such a dual role for strigolactones, potentially acting as both an endogenous and exogenous signal for arbuscular mycorrhizal development.⁵ There is also significant interest in examining strigolactones as putative regulators of responses to environmental stimuli, especially the response to nutrient availability, given the strong regulation of strigolactone production by nitrate and phosphate observed in many species.^5,6 In particular, the potential for strigolactones to mediate the ecologically important response of mycorrhizal colonization to phosphate has been widely discussed. However, using a mutant approach we found that strigolactones are not essential for phosphate regulation of mycorrhizal colonization or nodulation.⁵ This is consistent with the relatively mild impairment of phosphate control of seedling root growth observed in Arabidopsis strigolactone mutants.⁷ This contrasts with the major role for strigolactones in phosphate control of shoot branching of rice and Arabidopsis^8,9 and indicates that the integration of strigolactones into our understanding of nutrient response will be complex. New data presented here, along with the recent discovery of phosphate specific CLE peptides,¹⁰ indicates a potential role for PsNARK, a component of the autoregulation of nodulation pathway, in phosphate control of nodulation.