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.     

Challenges to understand plant responses to wind

Understanding plant response to wind is complicated as this factor entails not only mechanical stress, but also affects leaf microclimate. In a recent study, we found that plant responses to mechanical stress (MS) may be different and even in the opposite direction to those of wind. MS-treated Plantago major plants produced thinner more elongated leaves while those in wind did the opposite. The latter can be associated with the drying effect of wind as is further supported by data on petiole anatomy presented here. These results indicate that plant responses to wind will depend on the extent of water stress. It should also be recognized that the responses to wind may differ between different parts of a plant and between plant species. Physiological research on wind responses should thus focus on the signal sensing and transduction of both the mechanical and drought signals associated with wind, and consider both plant size and architecture.Key words: biomechanics, leaf anatomy, phenotypic plasticity, plant architecture, signal transduction thigmomorphogenesis, windWind is one of the most ubiquitous environmental stresses, and can strongly affect development, growth and reproductive yield in terrestrial plants.^1–3 In spite of more than two centuries of research,⁴ plant responses to wind and their underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This is because plant responses to mechanical movement themselves are complicated and also because wind entails not only mechanical effects, but also changes in leaf gas and heat exchange.^5–7 Much research on wind has focused primarily on its mechanical effect. Notably, several studies that determine plant responses to mechanical treatments such as flexing, implicitly extrapolate their results to wind effects.^8–10 Our recent study¹¹ showed that this may lead to errors as responses to wind and mechanical stimuli (in our case brushing) can be different and even in the opposite direction. In this paper, we first separately discuss plant responses to mechanical stimuli, and other wind-associated effects, and then discuss future challenges for the understanding of plant responses to wind.It is often believed that responses to mechanical stress (thigmomorphogenesis) entail the production of thicker and stronger plant structures that resist larger forces. This may be true for continuous unidirectional forces such as gravity, however for variable external forces (such as wind loading or periodic flooding) avoiding such mechanical stress by flexible and easily reconfigurable structures can be an alternative strategy.^12–14 How plants adapt or acclimate to such variable external forces depends on the intensity and frequency of stress and also on plant structures. Reduced height growth is the most common response to mechanical stimuli.^15,16 This is partly because such short stature increases the ability of plants to both resist forces (e.g., real-locating biomass for radial growth rather than elongation growth), and because small plants experience smaller drag forces (Fig. 1). Some plant species show a resistance strategy in response to mechanical stress by increasing stem thickness^1,10 and tissue strength.⁷ But other species show an avoidance strategy by a reduction in stem or petiole thickness and flexural rigidity in response to MS.^11,15–18 These different strategies might be associated with plant size and structure. Stems of larger plants such as trees and tall herbs are restricted in the ability to bend as they carry heavy loads^7,10,19 (Fig. 1). Conversely short plants are less restricted in this respect and may also be prone to trampling for which stress-avoidance would be the only viable strategy.^18,20 Systematic understanding of these various responses to mechanical stress remains to be achieved.Open in a separate windowFigure 1A graphical representation of how wind effects can be considered to entail both a drying and a mechanical effect. Adaptation or acclimation to the latter can be through a force resistance strategy or a force avoidance strategy, the benefit of which may depend on the size and architecture of plants as well as the location of a given structure within a plant.Wind often enhances water stress by reducing leaf boundary layers and reduces plant temperature by transpiration cooling. The latter effect may be minor,¹¹ but the former could significantly affect plant development. Anten et al. (2010) compared phenotypic traits and growth of Plantago major that was grown under mechanical stimuli by brushing (MS) and wind in the factorial design. Both MS and wind treatments reduced growth and influenced allocation in a similar manner. MS plants, however, had more slender petioles and narrower leaf blades while wind exposed plants exhibited the opposite response having shorter and relatively thicker petioles and more round-shaped leaf blades. MS plants appeared to exhibit stress avoidance strategy while such responses could be compensated or overridden by water stress in wind exposure.¹¹ A further analysis of leaf petiole anatomy (Fig. 2) supports this view. The vascular fraction in the petiole cross-section was increased by wind but not by MS, suggesting that higher water transport was required under wind. Our results suggest that drying effect of wind can at least to some extent override its mechanical effect.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Representative images of petiole cross-sections of Plantago major grown in 45 days in continuous wind and/or mechanical stimuli (A–D). Petiole cross-section area (E) and vascular bundle fraction in the cross-section of petiole (F). mean + SD (n = 12) are shown. Significance levels of ANOVA; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns p > 0.05.Physiological knowledge on plant mechanoreception and signal transduction has been greatly increased during the last decades. Plants sense mechanical stimuli through membrane strain with stretch activated channels²¹ and/or through some linker molecules connecting the cell wall, plasma membrane and cytoskeleton.^4,22,23 This leads to a ubiquitous increase in intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration. The increased Ca²⁺ concentration is sensed by touch induced genes (TCHs),^24,25 which activates downstream transduction machineries including a range of signaling molecules and phytohormones, consequently altering physiological and developmental processes.²⁶ Extending this knowledge to understand plant phenotypic responses to wind however remains a challenge. As responses to wind have been found to differ among parts of a plant (e.g., terminal vs. basal stem) and also across species, physiological studies should be extended to the whole-plant as integrated system rather than focusing on specific tissue level. Furthermore to understand the general mechanism across species, it is required to study different species from different environmental conditions. Advances in bioinformatics, molecular and physiological research will facilitate cross-disciplinary studies to disentangle the complicated responses of plants to wind.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP kinase successively mediate H2O2 signaling in Vicia guard cell

As a second messenger, H₂O₂ generation and signal transduction is subtly controlled and involves various signal elements, among which are the members of MAP kinase family. The increasing evidences indicate that both MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase mediate ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in plant cells. Here we analyze the mechanisms of similarity and difference between MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase in mediating ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation, inhibition of inward K⁺ currents, and stomatal closure. These data suggest that activation of MEK1/2 is prior to p38-like protein kinase in Vicia guard cells.Key words: H₂O₂ signaling, ABA, p38-like MAP kinase, MEK1/2, guard cellAn increasing number of literatures elucidate that reactive oxygen species (ROS), especially H₂O₂, is essential to plant growth and development in response to stresses,^1–4 and involves activation of various signaling events, among which are the MAP kinase cascades.^1–3,5 Typically, activation of MEK1/2 mediates NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS generation in response to stresses,^4,6–8 and the facts that MEK1/2 inhibits the expression and activation of antioxidant enzymes reveal how PD98059, the specific inhibitor of MEK1/2, abolishes abscisic acid (ABA)-induced H₂O₂ generation.^6,8,9 It has been indicated that PD98059 does not to intervene on salicylic acid (SA)-stimulated H₂O₂ signaling regardless of SA mimicking ABA in regulating stomatal closure.^2,6,8,10 Generally, activation of MEK1/2 promotes ABA-induced stomatal closure by elevating H₂O₂ generation in conjunction with inactivating anti-oxidases.Moreover, activation of plant p38-like protein kinase, the putative counterpart of yeast or mammalian p38 MAP kinase, has been reported to participate in various stress responses and ROS signaling. It has been well documented that p38 MAP kinase is involved in stress-triggered ROS signaling in yeast or mammalian cells.^11–13 Similar to those of yeast and mammals, many studies showed the activation of p38-like protein kinase in response to stresses in various plants, including Arabidopsis thaliana,^14–16 Pisum sativum,¹⁷ Medicago sativa¹⁸ and tobacco.¹⁹ The specific p38 kinase inhibitor SB203580 was found to modulate physiological processes in plant tissues or cells, such as wheat root cells,²⁰ tobacco tissue²¹ and suspension-cultured Oryza sativa cells.²² Recently, we investigate how activation of p38-like MAP kinase is involved in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in guard cells. Our results show that SB203580 blocks ABA-induced stomatal closure by inhibiting ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation and decreasing K⁺ influx across the plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells, contrasting greatly with its analog SB202474, which has no effect on these events.^23,24 This suggests that ABA integrate activation of p38-like MAP kinase and H₂O₂ signaling to regulate stomatal behavior. In conjunction with SB203580 mimicking PD98059 not to mediate SA-induced H₂O₂ signaling,^23,24 these results generally reveal that the activation of p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 is similar in guard cells.On the other hand, activation of p38-like MAP kinase^23,24 is not always identical to that of MEK1/2^8,25 in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling of Vicia guard cells. For example, H₂O₂^- and ABA-induced stomatal closure was partially reversed by SB203580. The maximum inhibition of both regent-induced stomatal closure were observed at 2 h after treatment with SB203580, under which conditions the stomatal apertures were 89% and 70% of the control values, respectively. By contrast, when PD98059 was applied together with ABA or H₂O₂, the effects of both ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure were completely abolished (Fig. 1). These data imply that the two members of MAP kinase family are efficient in H₂O₂-stimulated stomatal closure, but p38-like MAP kinase is less susceptive than MEK1/2 to ABA stimuli.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effects of SB203580 and PD98059 on ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.^8,23,24It has been reported that ABA or NaCl activate p38 MAP kinase in the chloronema cells of the moss Funaria hygrometrica in 2∼10 min.²⁶ Similar to this, SB203580 improves H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents after 4 min and leads it to the control level (100%) during the following 8 min (Fig. 2). However, the activation of p38-like MAP kinase in response to ABA need more time, and only recovered to 75% of the control at 8 min of treatment (Fig. 2). These results suggest that control of H₂O₂ signaling is required for the various protein kinases including p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 in guard cells,^1,2,8,23,24 and the ABA and H₂O₂ pathways diverge further downstream in their actions on the K⁺ channels and, thus, on stomatal control. Other differences in action between ABA and H₂O₂ are known. For example, Köhler et al. (2001) reported that H₂O₂ inhibited the K⁺ outward rectifier in guard cells shows that H₂O₂ does not mimic ABA action on guard cell ion channels as it acts on the K⁺ outward rectifier in a manner entirely contrary to that of ABA.²⁷Open in a separate windowFigure 2Effect of SB203580 on ABA- and H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.²⁴ SB203580 directs ABA- and H₂O₂-inactivated inward K⁺ currents across plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells. Here the inward K⁺ currents value is stimulated by −190 mV voltage.Based on the similarity and difference between PD98059 and SB203580 in interceding ABA and H₂O₂ signaling, we speculate the possible mechanism is that the member of MAP kinase family specially regulate signal event in ABA-triggered ROS signaling network,^1–4 and the signaling model as follows (Fig. 3).Open in a separate windowFigure 3Schematic illustration of MAP kinase-mediated H₂O₂ signaling of guard cells. The arrows indicate activation. The line indicates enhancement and the bar denotes inhibition.     

Flowering time regulation by the SUMO E3 ligase SIZ1

Flowering is a developmental process, which is influenced by chemical and environmental stimuli. Recently, our research established that the Arabidopsis SUMO E3 ligase, AtSIZ1, is a negative regulator of transition to flowering through mechanisms that reduce salicylic acid (SA) accumulation and involve SUMO modification of FLOWERING LOCUS D (FLD). FLD is an autonomous pathway determinant that represses the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a floral repressor. This addendum postulates mechanisms by which SIZ1-mediated SUMO conjugation regulates SA accumulation and FLD activity.Key words: SIZ1, SA, flowering, SUMO, FLD, FLCSUMO conjugation and deconjugation are post-translational processes implicated in plant defense against pathogens, abscisic acid (ABA) and phosphate (Pi) starvation signaling, development, and drought and temperature stress tolerance, albeit only a few of the modified proteins have been identified.^1–8 The Arabidopsis AtSIZ1 locus encodes a SUMO E3 ligase that regulates floral transition and leaf development.^8,9 siz1 plants accumulate substantial levels of SA, which is the primary cause for dwarfism and early short-day flowering exhibited by these plants.^1,9 How SA promotes transition to flowering is not yet known but apparently, it is through a mechanism that is independent of the known floral signaling pathways.^9,10 Exogenous SA reduces expression of AGAMOUS-like 15 (AGL15), a floral repressor that functions redundantly with AGL18.^11,12 A possible mechanism by which SA promotes transition to flowering may be by repressing expression of AGL15 and AGL18 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model of how SUMO conjugation and deconjugation regulate plant development in Arabidopsis. SIZ1 and Avr proteins regulate biosynthesis and accumulation of SA, a plant stress hormone that is involved in plant innate immunity, leaf development and regulation of flowering time. SA promotes transition to flowering may through AGL15/AGL18 dependent and independent pathways. FLC expression is activated by FRIGIDA but repressed by the autonomous pathway gene FLD, and SIZ1-mediated sumoylation of FLD represses its activity. Lines with arrows indicate upregulation (activation), and those with bars identify downregulation (repression).siz1 mutations also cause constitutive induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes leading to enhanced resistance against biotrophic pathogens.¹ Several bacterial type III effector proteins, such as YopJ, XopD and AvrXv4, have SUMO isopeptidase activity.^13–15 PopP2, a member of YopJ/AvrRxv bacterial type III effector protein family, physically interacts with the TIR-NBS-LRR type R protein RRS1, and possibly stabilizes the RRS1 protein.¹⁶ Phytopathogen effector and plant R protein interactions lead to increased SA biosynthesis and accumulation, which in turn activates expression of pathogenesis-related proteins that facilitate plant defense.¹⁷ SIZ1 may participate in SUMO conjugation of plant R proteins to regulate Avr and R protein interactions leading to SA accumulation, which, in turn, affects phenotypes such as diseases resistance, dwarfism and flowering time (Fig. 1).Our recent work revealed also that AtSIZ1 facilitates FLC expression, negatively regulating flowering.⁹ AtSIZ1 promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD activity.⁹ Site-specific mutations that prevent SUMO1/2 conjugation to FLD result in enhanced activity of the protein to represses FLC expression, which is associated with reduced acetylation of histone 4 (H4) in FLC chromatin.⁹ FLD, an Arabidopsis ortholog of Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1), is a floral activator that downregulates methylation of H3K4 in FLC chromatin and represses FLC expression.^18,19 Interestingly, bacteria expressing recombinant FLD protein did not demethylate H3K4me2, inferring that the demethylase activity requires additional co-factors as are necessary for LSD1.^18,20 Together, these results suggest that SIZ1-mediated SUMO modification of FLD may affect interactions between FLD and co-factors, which is necessary for FLC chromatin modification.Despite our results that implicate SA in flowering time control, how SIZ1 regulates SA accumulation and the identity of the effectors involved remain to be discovered. In addition, it remains to be determined if SIZ1 is involved in other mechanisms that modulate FLD activity and FLC expression, or the function of other autonomous pathway determinants.