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     

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.     

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     

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.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

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.     

Protein interactors of acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP2 mediate cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis

In our recent paper in the Plant Journal, we reported that Arabidopsis thaliana lysophospholipase 2 (lysoPL2) binds acyl-CoA-binding protein 2 (ACBP2) to mediate cadmium [Cd(II)] tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. ACBP2 contains ankyrin repeats that have been previously shown to mediate protein-protein interactions with an ethylene-responsive element binding protein (AtEBP) and a farnesylated protein 6 (AtFP6). Transgenic Arabidopsis ACBP2-overexpressors, lysoPL2-overexpressors and AtFP6-overexpressors all display enhanced Cd(II) tolerance, in comparison to wild type, suggesting that ACBP2 and its protein partners work together to mediate Cd(II) tolerance. Given that recombinant ACBP2 and AtFP6 can independently bind Cd(II) in vitro, they may be able to participate in Cd(II) translocation. The binding of recombinant ACBP2 to [¹⁴C]linoleoyl-CoA and [¹⁴C]linolenoyl-CoA implies its role in phospholipid repair. In conclusion, ACBP2 can mediate tolerance to Cd(II)-induced oxidative stress by interacting with two protein partners, AtFP6 and lysoPL2. Observations that ACBP2 also binds lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) in vitro and that recombinant lysoPL2 degrades lysoPC, further confirm an interactive role for ACBP2 and lysoPL2 in overcoming Cd(II)-induced stress.Key words: acyl-CoA-binding protein, cadmium, hydrogen peroxide, lysophospholipase, oxidative stressAcyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBP1 to ACBP6) are encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ These ACBP proteins are well studied in Arabidopsis in comparison to other organisms,^1–4 and are located in various subcellular compartments.¹ Plasma membranelocalized ACBP1 and ACBP2 contain ankyrin repeats that have been shown to function in protein-protein interactions.^5,6 ACBP1 and ACBP2 which share 76.9% amino acid identity also confer tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis to lead [Pb(II)] and Cd(II), respectively.^1,5,7 Since recombinant ACBP1 and ACBP2 bind linolenoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro, they may possibly be involved in phospholipid repair in response to heavy metal stress at the plasma membrane.^5,7 In contrast, ACBP3 is an extracellularly-localized protein⁸ while ACBP4, ACBP5 and ACBP6 are localized to cytosol.^9,10 ACBP1 and ACBP6 have recently been shown to be involved in freezing stress.^9,11 ACBP4 and ACBP5 bind oleoyl-CoA ester and their mRNA expressions are lightregulated.^12,13 Besides acyl-CoA esters, some ACBPs also bind phospholipids.^9,11,13 To investigate the biological function of ACBP2, we have proceeded to establish its interactors at the ankyrin repeats, including AtFP6,⁵ AtEBP⁶ and now lysoPL2 in the Plant Journal paper. While the significance in the interaction of ACBP2 with AtEBP awaits further investigations, some parallels can be drawn between those of ACBP2 with AtFP6 and with lysoPL2.     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.     

Novel protein-protein interaction family proteins involved in chloroplast movement response

To optimize photosynthetic activity, chloroplasts change their intracellular location in response to ambient light conditions; chloroplasts move toward low intensity light to maximize light capture and away from high intensity light to avoid photodamage. Although several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement response, any physical interaction among them was not found so far. We recently found a physical interaction between two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, WEB1 (Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1) and PMI2 (Plastid Movement Impaired 2), that were indentified to regulate chloroplast movement velocity. Since the both coiled-coil regions of WEB1 and PMI2 were classified into an uncharacterized protein family having DUF827 (DUF: Domain of Unknown Function) domain, it was the first report that DUF827 proteins could mediate protein-protein interaction. In this mini-review article, we discuss regarding molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2, and also define a novel protein family composed of WEB1, PMI2 and WEB1/PMI2-like proteins for protein-protein interaction in land plants.Key words: Arabidopsis, blue light, chloroplast velocity, coiled-coil region, organelle movement, phototropin, protein-protein interactionIntracellular locations of chloroplasts change in response to different light conditions to capture sunlight efficiently for energy production through photosynthesis. Chloroplasts move toward weak light to maximize light capture (the accumulation response),^1,2 and away from strong light to reduce photodamage (the avoidance response).³ In higher plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, the responses are induced by blue light-dependent manner.^1,2 Recently, chloroplast actin (cp-actin) filaments were found to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement and positioning.^4,5 The cp-actin filaments are localized at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane to anchor the chloroplast to the plasma membrane, and are relocalized to the leading edge of chloroplasts before and during the movement.^4,5 The difference of cp-actin filament amounts between the front and the rear halves of chloroplasts determines the chloroplast movement velocity; as the difference increases, chloroplast velocity also increases.^4,5Several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast movement. The blue light receptors, phototropin 1 (phot1) and phot2, mediate the accumulation response,⁶ and phot2 solely mediates the avoidance response.^7,8 Chloroplast Unusual Positioning 1 (CHUP1), Kinesin-like Protein for Actin-Based Chloroplast Movement 1 (KAC1) and KAC2 are involved in the cp-actin filament formation.^4,9–11 Other proteins with unknown molecular function involved in the chloroplast movement responses have also been reported. They are J-domain Protein Required for Chloroplast Accumulation Response 1 (JAC1),^12,13 Plastid Movement Impaired 1 (PMI1),¹⁴ a long coiled-coil protein Plastid Movement Impaired 2 (PMI2), a PMI2-homologous protein PMI15,¹⁵ and THRUMIN1.¹⁶Recently, we characterized two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1 (WEB1) and PMI2, which regulate the velocity of chloroplast photorelocation movement.¹⁷ In this mini-review article, we discuss about molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2 in chloroplast photorelocation movement, and also define the WEB1/PMI2-related (WPR) protein family as a new protein family for protein-protein interaction.     

Zinc homeostasis is involved in unfolded protein response under salt stress

Accumulation of unfolded protein or misfolded protein causes endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. Increased salt concentration activates a stress response pathway in the ER in Arabidopsis thaliana to induce the expression of several salt stress response genes, leading to a more optimal protein folding environment in the ER. In addition, some salt stress-regulated proteins require zinc for their activity, including some zinc-dependent DNA binding proteins and zinc-finger proteins. In a recent study, we reported that ZTP29, a putative zinc transporter at the ER membrane, is involved in the response to salt stress through regulation of zinc level in the ER to induce the UPR pathway. In this addendum, we propose a testable hypothesis for the role of ZTP29 in the response to salt stress via the regulation of zinc levels in the ER.Key words: zinc, ER stress, unfolded protein response, salt stress, arabidopsisHigh salinity is a common abiotic stress that adversely affects plant growth and crop production.¹ Plants must sense the stress and transduce stress signals to activate response pathways leading to adaptation to, or tolerance of, the abiotic stress in salt environment.² Salt stress activates a stress response pathway in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in Arabidopsis thaliana, indicating that the adaptation of plants to salt stress involves ER stress signal regulation.^3,4 There is limited understanding of molecular mechanisms on ER stress in plants, as compared to yeast and mammalian cells. bZIP60, bZIP28, bZIP17 are three membrane-associated basic domain/leucine zipper (bZIP) factors, which have been reported as candidates for ER-folding proteins in plants.^5–7 BiP acts as a general chaperone in the ER lumen, due to its ability to discriminate between properly folded and unfolded protein structures.⁸ Unfolded or misfolded proteins are retained in the ER and form stable complexes with BiP and other ER resident chaperones.⁹ Zinc deficiency induces unfolded protein response (UPR) in most eukaryotes.¹⁰ Zinc is an important trace element, which participates in physiological and biochemical process in vivo. The requirement of zinc for proper ER function is evolutionarily conserved.     

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     

Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and TGFβ1-stimulated cell migration in skin and cornea wound healing

Cell migration during wound healing is a complex process that involves the expression of a number of growth factors and cytokines. One of these factors, transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) controls many aspects of normal and pathological cell behavior. It induces migration of keratinocytes in wounded skin and of epithelial cells in damaged cornea. Furthermore, this TGFβ-induced cell migration is correlated with the production of components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and expression of integrins and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). MMP digests ECMs and integrins during cell migration, but the mechanisms regulating their expression and the consequences of their induction remain unclear. It has been suggested that MMP-14 activates cellular signaling processes involved in the expression of MMPs and other molecules associated with cell migration. Because of the manifold effects of MMP-14, it is important to understand the roles of MMP-14 not only the cleavage of ECM but also in the activation of signaling pathways.Key words: wound healing, migration, matrix metalloproteinase, transforming growth factor, skin, corneaWound healing is a well-ordered but complex process involving many cellular activities including inflammation, growth factor or cytokine secretion, cell migration and proliferation. Migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells requires the coordinated expression of various growth factors such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), transforming growth factor (TGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), small GTPases, and macrophage stimulating protein (reviewed in refs. ¹ and ²). The epithelial cells in turn regulate the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and integrins during cell migration.^1,3,4 TGF-β is a well-known cytokine involved in processes such as cell growth inhibition, embryogenesis, morphogenesis, tumorigenesis, differentiation, wound healing, senescence and apoptosis (reviewed in refs. ⁵ and ⁶). It is also one of the most important cytokines responsible for promoting the migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells.^3,6,7TGFβ has two quite different effects on skin keratinocytes: it suppresses their multiplication and promotes their migration. The TGFβ-induced cell growth inhibition is usually mediated by Smad signaling, which upregulates expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p21^WAF1/Cip1 or p12^CDK2-AP1 in HaCaT skin keratinocyte cells and human primary foreskin keratinocytes.^8,9 Keratinocyte migration in wounded skin is associated with strong expression of TGFβ and MMPs,¹ and TGFβ stimulates the migration of manually scratched wounded HaCaT cells.¹⁰ TGFβ also induces cell migration and inhibits proliferation of injured corneal epithelial cells, whereas it stimulates proliferation of normal corneal epithelial cells via effects on the MAPK family and Smad signaling.^2,7 Indeed, skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells display the same two physiological responses to TGFβ during wound healing; cell migration and growth inhibition. However as mentioned above, TGFβ has a different effect on normal cells. For example, it induces the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) of normal mammary cells and lens epithelial cells.^11,12 It also promotes the differentiation of corneal epithelial cells, and induces the fibrosis of various tissues.^2,6The MMPs are a family of structurally related zinc-dependent endopeptidases that are secreted into the extracellular environment.¹³ Members of the MMP family have been classified into gelatinases, stromelysins, collagenases and membrane type-MMPs (MT-MMPs) depending on their substrate specificity and structural properties. Like TGFβ, MMPs influence normal physiological processes including wound healing, tissue remodeling, angiogenesis and embryonic development, as well as pathological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis and tumor invasion.^13,14The expression patterns of MMPs during skin and cornea wound healing are well studied. In rats, MMP-2, -3, -9, -11, -13 and -14 are expressed,¹⁵ and in mice, MMP-1, -2, -3, -9, -10 and -14 are expressed during skin wound healing.¹ MMP-1, -3, -7 and -12 are increased in corneal epithelial cells during Wnt 7a-induced rat cornea wound healing.¹⁶ Wound repair after excimer laser keratectomy is characterized by increased expression of MMP-1, -2, -3 and -9 in the rabbit cornea, and MMP-2, -9 in the rat cornea.^17,18 The expression of MMP-2 and -9 during skin keratinocyte and corneal epithelial cell migration has been the most thoroughly investigated, and it has been shown that their expression generally depends on the activity of MMP-14. MMP-14 (MT1-MMP) is constitutively anchored to the cell membrane; it activates other MMPs such as MMP-2, and also cleaves various types of ECM molecules including collagens, laminins, fibronectin as well as its ligands, the integrins.¹³ The latent forms of some cytokines are also cleaved and activated by MMP-14.¹⁹ Overexpression of MMP-14 protein was found to stimulate HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cell migration.²⁰ In contrast, the attenuation of MMP-14 expression using siRNA method decreased fibroblast invasiveness,²¹ angiogenesis of human microvascular endothelial cells,²² and human skin keratinocyte migration.¹⁰ The latter effect was shown to result from lowering MMP-9 expression. Other studies have shown that EGF has a critical role in MMP-9 expression during keratinocyte tumorigenesis and migration.^23,24 On the other hand, TGFβ modulates MMP-9 production through the Ras/MAPK pathway in transformed mouse keratinocytes and NFκB induces cell migration by binding to the MMP-9 promoter in human skin primary cultures.^25,26 Enhanced levels of pro-MMP-9 and active MMP-9 have also been noted in scratched corneal epithelia of diabetic rats.²⁷There is evidence that MMP-14 activates a number of intracellular signaling pathways including the MAPK family pathway, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family, Rac and CD44, during cell migration and tumor invasion.^19,20,28 In COS-7 cells, ERK activation is stimulated by overexpression of MMP-14 and is essential for cell migration.²⁹ These observations all indicate that MMP-14 plays an important role in cell migration, not only by regulating the activity or expression of downstream MMPs but also by processing and activating migration-associated molecules such as integrins, ECMs and a variety of intracellular signaling pathays.³⁰Cell migration during wound healing is a remarkably complex phenomenon. TGFβ is just one small component of the overall process of wound healing and yet it triggers a multitude of reactions needed for cell migration. It is important to know what kinds of molecules are expressed when cell migration is initiated, but it is equally important to investigate the roles of these molecules and how their expression is regulated. Despite the availability of some information about how MMPs and signaling molecules can influence each other, much remains to be discovered in this area. It will be especially important to clarify how MMP-14 influences other signaling pathways since its role in cell migration is not restricted to digesting ECM molecules but also includes direct or indirect activation of cellular signaling pathways.     

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

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