The TRPA1 channel and oral hypoglycemic agents

Diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) results from the combination of insulin unresponsiveness in target tissues and the failure of pancreatic β cells to secrete enough insulin.¹ It is a highly prevalent chronic disease that is aggravated with time, leading to major complications, such as cardiovascular disease and peripheral and ocular neuropathies.² Interestingly, therapies to improve glucose homeostasis in diabetic patients usually involve the use of glibenclamide, an oral hypoglycemic drug that blocks ATP-sensitive K⁺ channels (K_ATP),^3,4 forcing β cells to release more insulin to overcome peripheral insulin resistance. However, sulfonylureas are ineffective for long-term treatments and ultimately result in the administration of insulin to control glucose levels.⁵ The mechanisms underlying β-cell failure to respond effectively with glibenclamide after long-term treatments still needs clarification. A recent study demonstrating that this drug activates TRPA1,⁶ a member of the Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) family of ion channels and a functional protein in insulin secreting cells,^7,8 has highlighted a possible role for TRPA1 as a potential mediator of sulfonylurea-induced toxicity.     

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.     

Protein Misfolding and the Serpinopathies

The serpins are the largest superfamily of protease inhibitors. They are found in almost all branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. They inhibit their target protease by a unique mechanism that involves a large conformational transition and the translocation of the enzyme from the upper to the lower pole of the protein. This complex mechanism, and the involvement of serpins in important biological regulatory processes, makes them prone to mutation-related diseases. For example the polymerization of mutant α₁-antitrypsin leads to the accumulation of ordered polymers within the endoplasmic reticulum of hepatocytes in association with cirrhosis. An identical process in the neuron specific serpin, neuroserpin, results in the accumulation of polymers in neurons and the dementia FENIB. In both cases there is a clear correlation between the molecular instability, the rate of polymer formation and the severity of disease. A similar process underlies the hepatic retention and plasma deficiency of antithrombin, C1 inhibitor, α₁-antichymotrypsin and heparin co-factor II. The common mechanism of polymerization has allowed us to group these conditions together as a novel class of disease, the serpinopathies.Key Words: serpins, α1-antitrypsin, neuroserpin, polymerization, dementia, conformational disease, serpinopathiesSerpins (or serine protease inhibitors) are the largest family of protease inhibitors. They have been found in all major branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes.^1–3 Despite their name there is increasing evidence that serpins can also inhibit other classes of proteases as demonstrated by the viral serpin CrmA and recently by a plant serpin, serpin1.^4,5 They can even play a non-inhibitory role in events as diverse as blood pressure regulation (angiotensinogen), chromatin condensation (MENT), tumor progression (maspin), protein folding (hsp47) and hormone transport (cortisol and thyroxine binding globulin).⁶One of the most important roles of serpins is the regulation of enzymes involved in proteolytic cascades. Among these serpins are α₁-antitrypsin, α₁-antichymotrypsin, C1 inhibitor, antithrombin and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, which play an important role in the control of proteases involved in the inflammatory, complement, coagulation and fibrinolytic pathways, respectively.^1,3 The serpin superfamily is characterised by more than 30% homology with the archetypal serpin α₁-antitrypsin and conservation of tertiary structure.^7,8 Serpins adopt a metastable conformation composed in most cases of 9 α-helices, three β-sheet (A to C) and an exposed mobile reactive centre loop (RCL). This flexible RCL typically contains 20 residues that act as a pseudo substrate for the target protease (Fig. 1A).^9–15 After formation of a Michaelis complex^16,17 the enzyme cleaves the P1-P1′ bond of the serpin, releasing the P1'' residue and forming an ester bond between the protease and the serpin.^18,19 This is then followed by a dramatic conformational transition from a stressed to relaxed conformation with the enzyme being pulled from the upper to the lower pole of the serpin and the insertion of the reactive loop as an extra strand in β-sheet A.^20–25 As a consequence of this conformational change the thermal stability of the serpin is greatly enhanced. Whereas a typical serpin in its native state exhibits a midpoint of thermal denaturation of around 50–60°C, a cleaved serpin with its RCL fully incorporated into β-sheet A denatures at temperatures >120°C.^9,26,27 Another consequence is the inactivation of the enzyme, stabilised at the acyl-intermediate and unable to proceed further to deacylation of the complex.^24,28 This serpin-protease complex then binds to members of the lipoprotein receptor family and is cleared from the circulation.^29–31Open in a separate windowFigure 1Inhibition of neutrophil elastase by α₁-antitrypsin and the structural basis of polymerization. (A) After docking (left) the neutrophil elastase (grey) is inactivated by movement from the upper to the lower pole of the protein (right). This is associated with the insertion of the RCL (red) as an extra strand into β-sheet A (green). (B) The structure of α₁-antitrypsin is centred on β-sheet A (green) and the mobile reactive centre loop (red). Polymer formation results from the Z variant of α₁-antitrypsin (Glu342Lys at P17; indicated by arrow) or mutations in the shutter domain (blue circle) that open β-sheet A to favour partial loop insertion and the formation of an unstable intermediate (M*). The patent β-sheet A then accepts the loop of another molecule to form a dimer (D), which then extends into polymers (P). The individual molecules of α₁-antitrypsin within the polymer, although identical, are coloured red, yellow and blue for clarity. Figure reproduced with permission from Lomas et al.⁹⁷Despite the evolutionary advantage conferred upon serpins by the remarkable mobility of the native state, their complexity is also their weak point.^19,32 Mutations affecting the serpins can lead to a variety of diseases, resulting from either a gain or loss of function.^6,19 For example mutations can cause aberrant conformational transitions that result in the retention of the serpin within the cell of synthesis. This will lead to either protein overload and death of the cell in which the serpin is synthesised, or disease as a consequence of the resulting plasma deficiency. Such a mechanism underlies diseases as diverse as cirrhosis, thrombosis, angio-oedema, emphysema and dementia. We review here the common mechanism underlying these diseases that we have grouped together as the serpinopathies.^33–35 The aggregation and accumulation of conformationally destabilized proteins is an important feature of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer''s and Parkinson''s disease and the spongiform encephalopathies. Indeed we have used the serpinopathies as a paradigm for these other ‘conformational diseases’.³⁶     

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     

New insights into the mitochondrial nitric oxide production pathways

Considerable evidence has appeared over the past few years that nitric oxide (NO) is an important anoxic metabolite and a potent signal molecule in plants. Several pathways operative in different cell compartments, lead to NO production. Mitochondria, being a major NO producing compartment, can generate it by either nitrite reduction occurring at nearly anoxic conditions or by the oxidative route via nitric oxide synthase (NOS). Recently we compared both pathways by ozone collision chemiluminescence and by DAF fluorescence. We found that nitrite reduction to NO is associated with the mitochondrial membrane fraction but not with the matrix. In case of the nitric oxide synthase pathway, an L-arginine dependent fluorescence was detected but its response to NOS inhibitors and substrates was untypical. Therefore the existence of NOS or NOS-like activity in barley root mitochondria is very doubtful. We also found that mitochondria scavenge NO. In addition, we found indirect evidence that mitochondria are able to convert NO to gaseous intermediates like NO₂, N₂O and N₂O₃.Key words: nitrate reductase, nitric oxide synthase, nitric oxide, mitochondria, DAF fluorescenceMitochondria are known as powerhouses of the cell. These organelles harbour the citric acid cycle and electron transport chain. Almost all the eukaryotic mitochondria share these basic functions. In addition to the energy generation, mitochondria are one of the major producers of reactive oxygen species¹ and involved in retrograde signalling.² Recent evidence suggests that mitochondria are one of the major producers of nitric oxide (NO) in plants.^3,4 Since nitric oxide has gained high importance, this novel property of mitochondria stimulated interest in NO signalling research.Eukaryotic mitochondria may produce NO by two distinct pathways. One is an oxidative pathway which uses L-arginine as a substrate and produces NO and citrulline⁷ and the other is a reductive pathway which uses nitrite as a substrate and produces NO at low oxygen conditions.^5,6     

Nitric oxide and nitrite are likely mediators of pollen interactions

The ability of plants to produce nitric oxide (NO) is now well recognised. In plants, NO is involved in the control of organ development and in regulating some of their physiological functions. We have recently shown that pollen generates NO in a constitutive manner and have measured both intra- and extracellular production of this radical. Furthermore, we have shown that nitrite accumulates in the media surrounding the pollen and have suggested that the generation of these signaling molecules may be important for the normal interaction between the pollen grain and the stigma on which it alights. However, pollen grains inevitably come into contact with other tissues, including those of animals and it is likely that the NO produced will influence the behavior of the cells associated with these tissues. Such non-animal-derived, NO-mediated effects on mammalian cells may not be restricted to pollen and plant debris and fungal spore-derived NO may elicit similar effects.Key words: allergy, fungal spores, nitric oxide, nitrite, pollenNitric oxide (NO) has been recognised as a signaling molecule for 20+ years, but its roles in controlling cellular activity are far from fully understood. In plants, NO is involved in numerous biological processes¹ including seed germination,² floral development,³ the control of stomatal closure⁴ and root gravitropism⁵ and is also known to affect gene expression.⁶ Recently, we showed that pollen of Arabidopsis, Senecio and Tradescantia produces NO,⁷ and speculated that its role in this specific context is to help orchestrate early signaling events of the pollen-stigma interaction.^7,8 We subsequently showed that NO generation by pollen is more widespread among angiosperms and not just restricted to the species that were first investigated.⁹ Obviously, this intracellular generation of NO could influence the internal biochemistry of the pollen grain and pollen tube. However, for it to impact on other tissues, such as the stigma, on which the pollen grains alight during pollination, the NO generated would have to be released into the extracellular matrix.To demonstrate that pollen grains do indeed release NO to their surroundings we employed a water soluble derivative of the fluorescent NO probe, diaminofluorescein (DAF), to show that the 525 nm emission of the surrounding solution increased with time and that this fluorescence could be removed by scavenging the NO released from the pollen with compounds such as 2-phenyl-4,4,5,5,-tetramethylimidazoline-1-oxyl 3-oxide (PTIO). Thus, it is quite conceivable that, in vivo, NO produced by pollen moves into the extracellular matrix where it exerts an influence on the activity of cells in the adjacent tissues. Interestingly, in vitro rehydration of the pollen (analagous to the regulated hydration of pollen on the stigma) was needed before NO evolution could be measured. Normally, some form of specific stimulation, such as that which occurs either during pathogenesis¹⁰ or which results from the increased hormone levels observed during stomatal closure,¹¹ is required to initiate NO production by plant tissues. Thus, it is interesting here, that water appears to be the signaling cue to initiate constitutive NO release by the pollen.As a result of its free radical nature, NO is notoriously difficult to measure. As the chemistry involved in their reactivity has become better understood, doubts have been raised concerning the specificity of many of the fluorescent probes that have been used for its detection.¹² Commonly the fluorescent NO probe, DAF, is used, but similar alternative probes such as diamino-rhodamine (DAR) have recently also been described.¹³ Here, Figure 1 shows the NO-dependent fluorescence of DAR4M-AM-infused Brassica napus pollen and the associated temporal increase in the fluorescence of the extracellular medium containing a cell impermeable form of the dye. Despite the use of these different dye-based probes, it has still proved important to use other approaches to detect pollen NO production to refute the possibility that similarly reactive free radicals other than NO are responsible for the increased fluorescence observed. We have, therefore, confirmed our fluorescence measurements using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) techniques⁹ which have also indicated the presence of NO. Thus, the use of both fluorescent probe and EPR approaches point to the generation and release of NO from the pollen of all the plant species studied.Open in a separate windowFigure 1The diamino-rhodamine dyes, DAR4M-AM (cell permeable) and DAR4M (cell impermeable), can be used to detect intra- and extracellular pollen-derived nitric oxide (NO) respectively. Aqueous suspensions of Brassica napus sp. pollen were incubated for 15 min at room temp in 10 µM DAR4M-AM either without (A) or with (B) 200 µM of the NO scavenger, 2-(4-carboxyphenyl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethylimidazoline-1-oxyl-3-oxide (cPTIO). In each case, after removal of the excess dye and resuspension of the pollen in 10% (v/v) glycerol, the accumulated DAR4M-AM fluorescence signals within the pollen grains were detected by spinning disc, laser scanning, confocal microscopy with excitation at 560 nm and emission detection at 575 nm. The extracellular accumulation with time of the NO-associated fluorescence signal of the dye, DAR4M, in the media was also followed spectrophotometrically (C). Using the same excitation and emission detection wavelengths, the fluorescence of aqueous suspensions of the pollen in 10 µM DAR4M either without (Ci) or with (Cii) 200 “M cPTIO was monitored over a 10 min. period at room temp. The output fluorescence signal with time is presented in relative units.An additional NO detection technique based on ozone chemiluminescence was also used to confirm the data obtained.⁹ Unlike the fluorescence and EPR approaches which measure the accumulated production of NO, this method detects the steady-state levels of NO at any given time. However, as these levels proved to be very low and not readily detectable by this approach, we altered the assay conditions so as to measure the nitrite that accumulated as a result of NO oxidation in the extracellular media. While the nitrite that accumulated in the media could have done so as a result of being directly excreted by the pollen, the results obtained were in accordance with the earlier observations that pollen evolves NO.⁹ Neither should nitrite be dismissed as a mere downstream by-product. Not only is it the substrate for the production of NO by enzymes such as nitrate reductase,¹⁴ it can also act as a cell signaling molecule in its own right¹⁵ effecting increased cGMP production, increases in different cytochrome P450 activities and the induction of specific gene expression.Having established that pollen produces NO and nitrite, the mechanisms underlying their generation and subsequent signaling require determination. In mammalian cells the production of NO by a family of nitric oxide synthase enzymes is well understood.¹⁶ However, attempts to find plant homologues have so far proved unsuccessful, with the sole proposed candidate¹⁷ having now been shown to be a G protein.^18–20 Nitrate reductase is clearly one source of NO in plants,^11,14 but whether other enzymes exist which are similarly involved remains a matter for debate and discovery. Obviously, as plant NO synthesising enzymes are identified their function in the generation of NO and nitrite in pollen will need to be established.Originally,⁷ we suggested that pollen-derived NO is integral to the pollen-stigma interaction and this now needs to be determined. Nevertheless, the NO and nitrite released externally by pollen may also affect the cells of any moist tissues on which pollen grains land. Such cells may include, for example, those lining mammalian nasal passages. It is well established that NO helps orchestrate the activity of cells involved in human immune responses¹⁶ and this begs the question as to whether or not pollen-produced NO alters these responses during, for example, the onset of the symptoms of hayfever? Many plant cells produce NO, particular during stress and after wounding²¹ and damaged plant tissues that come into contact with human cells in environments that create such debris also have the potential to elicit similar responses. The reaction of mammalian cells to fungi, which are known to possess NOS enzymes²² and whose spores are a main contributor to asthma,²³ may also be similarly mediated.To conclude, pollen grains appear to generate both NO and nitrite constitutively. Determining the functional significance and ramifications of this production in terms of both endogenous and exogenous cell signaling is an important focus for future research.     

Silicon efflux transporters isolated from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake

The accumulation of silicon (Si) differs greatly with plant species and cultivars due to different ability of the roots to take up Si. In Si accumulating plants such as rice, barley and maize, Si uptake is mediated by the influx (Lsi1) and efflux (Lsi2) transporters. Here we report isolation and functional analysis of two Si efflux transporters (CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2) from two pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars contrasting in Si uptake. These cultivars are used for rootstocks of bloom and bloomless cucumber, respectively. Different from mutations in the Si influx transporter CmLsi1, there was no difference in the sequence of either CmLsi2 between two cultivars. Both CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 showed an efflux transport activity for Si and they were expressed in both the roots and shoots. These results confirm our previous finding that mutation in CmLsi1, but not in CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 are responsible for bloomless phenotype resulting from low Si uptake.Key words: silicon, efflux transporter, pumpkin, cucumber, bloomSilicon (Si) is the second most abundant elements in earth''s crust.¹ Therefore, all plants rooting in soils contain Si in their tissues. However Si accumulation in the shoot differs greatly among plant species, ranging for 0.1 to 10% of dry weight.^1–3 In higher plants, only Poaceae, Equisetaceae and Cyperaceae show a high Si accumulation.^2,3 Si accumulation also differs with cultivars within a species.^4,5 These differences in Si accumulation have been attributed to the ability of the roots to take up Si.^6,7Genotypic difference in Si accumulation has been used to produce bloomless cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.).⁸ Bloom (white and fine powders) on the surface of cucumber fruits is primarily composed of silica (SiO₂).⁹ However, nowadays, cucumber without bloom (bloomless cucumber) is more popular in Japan due to its more attractive and distinctly shiny appearance. Bloomless cucumber is produced by grafting cucumber on some specific pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars. These pumpkin cultivars used for bloomless cucumber rootstocks have lower silicon accumulation compared with the rootstocks used for producing bloom cucumber.⁹Our study showed that the difference in Si accumulation between bloom and bloomless root stocks of pumpkin cultivars results from different Si uptake by the roots.¹⁰ Si uptake has been demonstrated to be mediated by two different types of transporters (Lsi1 and Lsi2) in rice, barley and maize.^11–15 Lsi1 is an influx transporter of Si, belonging to a NIP subfamily of aquaporin family.^10,11,13,14 This transporter is responsible for transport of Si from external solution to the root cells.¹¹ On the other hand, Lsi2 is an efflux transporter of Si, belonging to putative anion transporter.¹² Lsi2 releases Si from the root cells towards the xylem. Both Lsi1 and Lsi2 are required for Si uptake by the roots.^11,12 To understand the mechanism underlying genotypic difference in Si uptake, we have isolated and functionally characterized an influx Si transporter CmLsi1 from two pumpkin cultivars used for rootstocks of bloomless and bloom cucumber.¹⁰ Sequence analysis showed only two amino acids difference of CmLsi1 between two pumpkin cultivars. However, CmLsi1 from bloom rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁺)] showed transport activity for Si, whereas that from bloomless rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁻)] did not.¹⁰ Furthermore, we found that loss of Si transport activity was caused by one amino acid mutation at the position of 242 (from proline to leucine).¹⁰ This mutation resulted in failure to be localized at the plasma membrane, which is necessary for functioning as an influx transporter. The mutated protein was localized at the ER.¹⁰ Here, we report isolation and expression analysis of Si efflux transporters from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake and accumulation to examine whether Si efflux transporter is also involved in the bloom and bloomless phenotypes.     

Nitric oxide (NO)-dependent and NO-independent signaling pathways act in ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening

We investigated the role of nitric oxide (NO) in ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening in Vicia faba L. in different size dishes. When a large dish (9 cm diameter) was used, ABA induced NO synthesis and the NO scavenger reduced ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening. When a small dish (6 cm diameter) was used, ABA induced stomatal closure and inhibited stomatal opening. The NO scavenger was able to reduce ABA-induced stomatal closure, but unable to reverse ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening. Furthermore, NO was not synthesized in response to ABA, indicating that NO is not required for ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening in the small dish. These results indicated that an NO-dependent and an NO-independent signaling pathway participate in ABA signaling pathway. An NO-dependent pathway is the major player in ABA-induced stomatal closure. However, in ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening, an NO-dependent and an NO-independent pathway act: different signaling molecules participate in ABA-signaling cascade under different environmental condition.Key words: ABA, environmental condition, nitric oxide, stomata, Vicia faba LNitric oxide (NO) is a key signaling molecule in plants.^1,2 It functions in disease resistance and programmed cell death,^3,4 root development,^5,6 and plant responses to various abiotic stresses.^1,2,7,8 In addition, NO is required for stomatal closure in response to ABA in several species including Arabidopsis, Vicia faba, pea, tomato, barley, and wheat.^9–11 ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening is a distinct process from ABA-induced stomatal closure.^12,13 In V. faba, these two processes employ a similar signaling pathway; NO is also a second messenger molecule for ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening in a large dish.¹⁴ In this study, we examined the role of NO in ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening using different dish sizes. In a small dish, NO is not involved in ABA-inhibition of stomatal opening: the NO-independent signaling pathway is the major player in it.     

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

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.     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29