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     

A Novel MAPKK Involved in Cell Death and Defense Signaling

A high-throughput in planta overexpression screen of a Nicotiana benthamiana cDNA library identified a mitogen activated protein kinase kinase (MAPKK), NbMKK1, as a potent inducer of hypersensitive response (HR)-like cell death. NbMKK1-mediated cell death was attenuated in plants whereby expression of NbSIPK, an ortholog of tobacco SIPK and Arabidopsis AtMPK6, was knocked down by virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), suggesting that NbMKK1 functions upstream of NbSIPK. In accordance with this result, NbMKK1 phosphorylated NbSIPK in vitro, and furthermore NbMKK1 and NbSIPK physically interacted in yeast two-hybrid assay. VIGS of NbMKK1 in N. benthamiana resulted in a delay of Phytophthora infestans INF1 elicitin-mediated HR as well as in the reduction of resistance against a non-host pathogen Pseudomonas cichorii. Our data of NbMKK1, together with that of LeMKK4,¹ demonstrate the presence of a novel defense signaling pathway involving NbMKK1/LeMKK4 and SIPK.Key Words: MAPK, defense, cell death, in planta screenMitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascades are highly conserved signaling pathways in eukaryotes, comprising three tiered classes of protein kinase, MAPKKK (MAPKK kinase), MAPKK and MAPK, that sequentially relay phosphorylation signals.² The Arabidopsis genome carries genes for 20 MAPKs, 10 MAPKKs³ and more than 25 MAPKKKs.⁴ In plants, MAPK signaling is known to function in various biotic^4,5 and abiotic⁶ stress responses and cytokinesis.⁷ In defense signaling, extensive research has been carried out for two tobacco MAPKs, SIPK⁸ (salicylic-acid-induced protein kinase; hereafter designated as NtSIPK) and WIPK⁹ (wound-induced protein kinase = NtWIPK), and their orthologs in Arabidopsis¹⁰ (AtMPK6 and ATMPK3, respectively), partly because kinase activities of these two MAPKs are easy to detect by an in gel kinase assay using myeline basic protein (MBP) as substrate.¹¹ Both NtSIPK and NtWIPK are activated by the interaction between host resistance (R)- gene and cognate avirulence gene of pathogen^11,12 and elicitor perception by host cells.^13,14 Shuqun Zhang and his group showed that an upstream kinase of both NtSIPK and NtWIPK is NtMEK2.¹⁵ Transient overexpression of constitutively active NtMEK2 caused phosphorylation of NtSIPK and NtWIPK, resulting in rapid HR-like cell death in tobacco leaves.¹⁵ Later, the same lab showed that overexpression of NtSIPK alone also caused HR-like cell death.¹⁶ The downstream target proteins of NtSIPK and AtMPK6 are being identified and include 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid sythase-6 (ACS-6).^17,18 Although recent studies identified another MAPK cascade (NtMEK1 → Ntf6) involved in defense responses^19,20 we can still say that the current research focus of MAPK defense signaling centers around the cascade comprising [NtMEK2→ NtSIPK/NtWIPK→ target proteins] of tobacco and its orthologous pathways in other plant species.In an effort to search for plant genes involved in HR-like cell death, we have been employing a high-throughput in planta expression screen of N. benthamiana cDNA libraries. In this experimental system, a cDNA library was made in a binary potato virus X (PVX)-based expression vector pSfinx.²¹ The cDNA library was transferred to Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and 40,000 of the bacterial colonies were individually inoculated by toothpicks onto leaf blades of N. benthamiana leaves. The phenotype around the inoculated site was observed 1–2 weeks following the inoculation. This rapid screen identified 30 cDNAs that caused cell death after overexpression, including genes coding for ubiquitin proteins, RNA recognition motif (RRM) containing proteins, a class II ethylene-responsive element binding factor (EREBP)-like protein²² and a MAPKK protein (this work). Such an in planta screening technique has been used before for the isolation of fungal²¹ and oomycete^23,24 elicitors and necrosis inducing genes, but not for isolation of plant genes. Overexpression screening of cDNA libraries is a common practice in prokaryotes, yeast and amimal cells,^25,26 so it is a surprise that this approach has not been systematically applied in plants. Given its throughput, we propose that this virus-based transient overexpression system is a highly efficient way to isolate novel plant genes by functional screen.²⁷ Since overexpression frequently causes non-specific perturbation of signaling, genes identified by overexpression should be further validated by loss-of-function assays, for instance, VIGS.²⁸Overexpression of the identified MAPKK gene, NbMKK1, triggered a rapid generation of H₂O₂, followed by HR-like cell death in N. benthamiana leaves (this work). NbMKK1-GFP fusion protein overexpression also caused cell death, and curiously NbMKK1-GFP was shown to localize consistently in the nucleus. Sequence comparison classified NbMKK1 to the Group D of MAPKKs about which little information is available. So far, a MAPKK, LeMKK4, from tomato belonging to the Group D MAPKKs, was shown to cause cell death after overexpression.¹ Based on amino acid sequence similarity and phylogenetic analyses, LeMKK4 and NbMKK1 seem to be orthologs. To see whether NbMKK1 transduces signals through SIPK and WIPK, we performed NbMKK1 overexpression in N. benthamiana plants whereby the expression of either NbSIPK or NbWIPK (WIPK ortholog in N. benthamiana) was silenced by VIGS. NbMKK1 did not induce cell death in NbSIPK-silenced plants, suggesting that the NbMKK1 cell death signal is transmitted through NbSIPK. Indeed, NbMKK1 phosphorylated NbSIPK in vitro, and NbMKK1 and NbSIPK physically interacted in yeast two-hybrid assay. These results suggest that NbMKK1 interacts with NbSIPK, most probably with its N-terminal docking domain, and phosphorylates NbSIPK in vivo to transduce the cell death signal downstream.NbMKK1 exhibits constitutive expression in leaves. To determine the function of NbMKK1 in defense, we silenced NbMKK1 by VIGS, and such plants were challenged with Phytophthora infestans INF1 elicitin²⁹ and Pseudomonas cichorii, a non-host pathogen. INF1-mediated HR cell death was remarkably delayed in NbMKK1-silenced plants. Likewise, plant defense against P. cichorii was compromised in NbMKK1-silenced plants. These results indicate that NbMKK1 is an important component of signaling of INF1-mediated HR and non-host resistance to P. cichorii.Together, our analyses of NbMKK1 and independent work from Greg Martin''s lab on LeMKK4¹ suggest that a Group D MAPKK, NbMKK1/LeMKK4, functions upstream of SIPK and transduces defense signals in these solanaceous plants (Fig. 1). In plants as well as in other eukaryotes, it is common that kinases have multiple partners. The work on these kinases fits this concept. A single MAPK (e.g., SIPK) is phosphorylated by multiple MAPKKs (e.g., NtMEK2 and NbMKK1), and a single MAPKK (e.g., NtMEK2) can phosphorylate multiple MAPKs (e.g., NtSIPK and NtWIPK).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Defense signaling through NbMKK1/LeMKK4. Two defense signal pathways involving NtMEK2 (indicated as MEK2) → WIPK/SIPK and NtMEK1(indicated as MEK1) → Ntf6 are well documented. By our and Pedley and Martin''s¹ works, another novel MAPKK, NbMKK1/LeMKK4 was demonstrated to participate in defense signaling by phosphorylation of SIPK.     

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     

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.     

Arabidopsis thaliana MAP65-1 and MAP65-2 function redundantly with MAP65-3/PLEIADE in cytokinesis downstream of MPK4

Plant cytokinesis occurs by the growth of cell plates from the interior to the periphery of the cell. These dynamic events in cytokinesis are mediated by a plant-specific microtubule (MT) array called the phragmoplast, which consists of bundled antiparallel MTs between the two daughter nuclei. The NACK-PQR pathway, a NACK1 kinesin-like protein and mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade, is a key regulator of plant cytokinesis through the regulation of phragmoplast MTs. The MT-associated protein MAP65 has been identified as one of the structural components of MT assays involved in cell division, and we recently showed that Arabidopsis AtMAP65-3/PLEIADE (PLE) is a substrate of MPK4 that is a component of the NACK-PQR pathway in Arabidopsis. Here we show that AtMAP65-1 and AtMAP65-2 are also phosphorylated by MPK4. AtMAP65-1 and AtMAP65-2 that localize to the phragmoplast were phosphorylated by MPK4 in vitro. Although mutants of the Arabidopsis AtMAP65-1 and AtMAP65-2 genes exhibited a wild-type phenotype, double mutations of AtMAP65-3 and AtMAP65-1 or AtMAP65-2 caused more severe growth and cytokinetic defects than the single atmap65-3/ple mutation. These results suggest that AtMAP65-1 and AtMAP65-2 also function in cytokinesis downstream of MPK4.Key words: MAP65, microtubule-associated protein, MAPK, cytokinesis, phragmoplast, microtubule, arabidopsisMitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascades are highly conserved signaling modules in eukaryotes, and are involved in various signaling processes in plant development, cell division and responses to endogenous or exogenous stimuli.¹ The NACK-PQR pathway, one of the best-characterized MAPK cascades in plants, has been identified as a key regulator of plant cytokinesis in tobacco. This pathway is composed of NPK1 MAPK kinase kinase (MAPKKK), NQK1/NtMEK1 MAPK kinase (MAPKK), NRK1/NTF6 MAPK and NACK1 kinesin-like protein, an activator of NPK1 MAPKKK.^2–5 During cytokinesis, all these components are localized on the equator of the phragmoplast, which is the plant-specific cytokinetic apparatus organized by microtubules (MTs). Downstream of this pathway, tobacco MAP65-1, an MT-associated protein, is phosphorylated by NRK1/NTF6 MAPK and phosphorylated MAP65-1 is localized to the equator of the phragmoplast.⁶ Phosphorylation of MAP65-1 by NRK1/NTF6 decreases the ability of MAP65-1 to bundle MTs, suggesting that the NACK-PQR pathway regulates expansion of the phragmoplast through the phosphorylation of MAP65.⁶The NACK-PQR pathway also seems to be conserved in Arabidopsis and rice. Several orthologs of components of the NACK-PQR pathway except for MAPK have been identified independently as regulators of cytokinesis in these plants.^3,5,7–14 Recently we reported that ANP MAPKKKs, MPK6/ANQ MAPKK and MPK4 MAPK biochemically constitute the MAPK pathway and HINKEL/AtNACK1 functions as an activator of ANP MAPKKKs.¹⁵ In addition, we revealed that MPK4 MAPK is localized to cell plates during cytokinesis, is required for cytokinesis in Arabidopsis and phosphorylates AtMAP65-3.¹⁶ Although AtMAP65-3 is proposed to be involved in cytokinesis,^17,18 and AtMAP65-1 is supposed to be a substrate of MPK4 based on a series of experiments,^6,19,20 the involvement in cytokinesis of other closely related members of the Arabidopsis MAP65 family, AtMAP65-1 and AtNAP65-2, has yet to be tested. In this report, we suggest redundant functions of these MAP65 molecules in cytokinesis of Arabidopsis.     

Dynamic protein trafficking to the cell wall

Recently we have studied the secretion pattern of a pectin methylesterase inhibitor protein (PMEI1) and a polygalacturonase inhibitor protein (PGIP2) in tobacco protoplast using the protein fusions, secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP. Both chimeras reach the cell wall by passing through the endomembrane system but using distinct mechanisms and through a pathway distinguishable from the default sorting of a secreted GFP. After reaching the apoplast, sec-GFP-PMEI1 is stably accumulated in the cell wall, while PGIP2-GFP undergoes endocytic trafficking. Here we describe the final localization of PGIP2-GFP in the vacuole, evidenced by co-localization with the marker Aleu-RFP, and show a graphic elaboration of its sorting pattern. A working model taking into consideration the presence of a regulated apoplast-targeted secretion pathway is proposed.Key words: cell wall trafficking, endocytosis, GPI-anchor, PGIP2, PMEI1, secretion pathway, vacuole fluorescent markerCell wall biogenesis, growth, differentiation and remodeling, as well as wall-related signaling and defense responses depend on the functionality of the secretory pathway. Matrix polysaccharides, synthesized in the Golgi stacks, and cell wall proteins, synthesized in the ER, are packaged into secretory vesicles that fuse with the plasma membrane (PM) releasing their cargo into the cell wall. Also the synthesis and deposition of cellulose itself are driven by the endomembrane system which controls the assembly, within the Golgi, and the export to the plasma membrane of rosette complexes of cellulose synthase.¹ Secretion to the cell wall has always been considered a default pathway² but recent studies have evidenced a complex regulation of wall component trafficking that does not seem to follow the default secretion model. Recent evidence that several cell wall proteins are retained in the Golgi stacks until specific signals at the N-terminal domain are proteolitically removed is a case in point.^3–5 Moreover, it has previously been reported that secretion of exogenous marker proteins (secGFP and secRGUS) and cell wall polysaccharides reach the PM through different pathways.⁶ More recently, we have reported that cell wall protein trafficking also occurs through mechanisms distinguishable from that of a secreted GFP suggesting that more complex events than the mechanisms of bulk flow control cell wall growth and differentiation.⁷ To follow cell wall protein trafficking we used a Phaseolus vulgaris polygalacturonase inhibitor protein (PGIP2) and an Arabidopsis pectin methylesterase inhibitor protein (PMEI1) fused to GFP (PGIP2-GFP and secGFP-PMEI1). Both apoplastic proteins are involved in the remodeling of pectin network with different mechanisms. PGIP2 specifically inhibits exogenous fungal polygalacturonases (PGs) and is involved in the plant defense mechanisms against pathogenic fungi.^8,9 PMEI1 counteracts endogenous PME and takes part in the physiological synthesis and remodeling of the cell wall during growth and differentiation.^10,11 The specific functions of the two apoplastic proteins seem to be strictly related to the distinct mechanisms that control their secretion and stability in the cell wall. In fact, while secGFP-PMEI1 moves through ER and Golgi stacks linked to a glycosyl phosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchor, PGIP2-GFP moves as a cargo soluble protein. Furthermore, secGFP-PMEI1 is stably accumulated in the cell wall, while PGIP2-GFP, over the time, is internalized into endosomes and targeted to vacuole, likely for degradation. After reaching the cell wall, the different fate of the two proteins seems to be strictly related to the presence/absence of their physiological counteractors. PMEI regulates the demethylesterification of homogalacturonan by inhibiting pectin methyl esterase (PME) activity through the formation of a reversible 1:1 complex which is stable in the acidic cell wall environment.¹² Stable wall localization of PMEI1 is likely related to its interaction with endogenous PME, always present in the wall. Unlike PMEs, fungal polygalacturonases (PGs), the physiological interactors of PGIP2, are present in the cell wall only during a pathogen attack. The absence of PGs may determine PGIP2 internalization. Internalization events have been already reported for PM proteins,^13–16 while cell wall protein internalization is surely a less well-known event. To date, only internalization of an Arabidopsis pollen-specific PME^4,5,17 and PGIP2 ⁷ has been reported.To further confirm the internalization of PGIP2-GFP and its final localization into the vacuole, we constructed a red fluorescent variant (RFP) of the green fluorescent marker protein that accumulates in lytic or acidic vacuole because of the barley aleurain sorting determinants (Aleu-RFP).¹⁸ The localization of PGIP2-GFP was compared to that of Aleu-RFP by confocal microscopy in tobacco protoplasts transiently expressing both fusions. Sixty hours after transformation, PGIP2-GFP labeled the central vacuole as indicated by complete co-localization with the vacuolar marker (Fig. 1A–D). Instead, at the same time point, secGFP-PMEI1 still labeled the cell wall (Fig. 1E–H) and never reached the vacuolar compartment. To summarize PGIP2-GFP secretion pattern, a graphic elaboration of confocal images is reported describing the sorting of PGIP2GFP in tobacco protoplast (Fig. 1I). The protein transits through the endomembrane system (green) and reaches the cell wall which is rapidly regenerating as evidenced by immunostaining with the red monoclonal antibody JIM7 that binds to methylesterified pectins.¹⁹ PGIP2-GFP is then internalized in endosomes, labeled in yellow because of the co-localization with the styryl dye FM4-64, a red marker of the endocytic pathway.Open in a separate windowFigure 1PGIP2-GFP, but not secGFP-PMEI1, is internalized and reaches the vacuole in tobacco leaf protoplasts. (A) Approximately 60 h after transformation, PGIP2-GFP labeled the central vacuole as indicated by co-localization with the vacuole marker Aleu-RFP (B). (C) Merged image of (A and B). (D) Differential interference contrast (DIC) image of (A–C). On the contrary, secGFP-PMEI1 still labeled cell wall (E). (F) No co-localization is present in the vacuole labeled by Aleu-RFP. (G) Merged image of (E and F). (H) DIC image of (E–G). (I) Graphic elaboration of confocal images describing the sorting of PGIP2. The protein is sorted by the endomembrane system (green) to the cell wall (red) that is regenerated by the protoplast. Lacking the specific ligand, it is then internalized in endosome (yellow). Details are reported in the text.In Figure 2 we propose a model of the mechanism of secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP secretion derived from the different lines of evidence previously reported in reference ⁷. SecGFPPMEI1 (Fig. 2-1), but not PGIP2-GFP (Fig. 2-2), carries a GPI-anchor, required for its secretion to the cell wall. When the anchorage of GPI is inhibited by mannosamine (Fig. 2-a) or by the fusion of GFP to the C-terminus of PMEI1 (Fig. 2-b), the two non-anchored proteins accumulate in the Golgi stacks. Evidence of retention in Golgi stacks has already been reported for other two cell wall proteins.^3–5 Unlike secGFP-PMEI1, PGIP2-GFP is not stably accumulated in the cell wall and undergoes endocytic trafficking (Fig. 2-3). PGIP2-GFP internalization, likely due to the absence of PGs, might also be related with its ability to interact with homogalacturonan and oligogalacturonides,²⁰ which have been reported to internalize^21,22 (Fig. 2-4). Since SYP 121, a Qa-SNARE, is involved in the default secretion of secGFP,²³ but not in secretion of PGIP2-GFP and secGFP-PMEI1, trafficking mechanisms underlying secretion into the apoplast are likely different from those underlying the default route (Figs. 2-5). Taken as a whole, evidence suggests the existence of currently undefined signals that control apoplast-targeted secretion.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic illustration for secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP trafficking. See text for details.     

Complete Genome Sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559T

Here we announce the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T, which was isolated by high-throughput dilution-to-extinction culturing from the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series station in the Western Sargasso Sea. Strain HTCC2559^T contained genes for carotenoid biosynthesis, flavonoid biosynthesis, and several macromolecule-degrading enzymes. The genome confirmed physiological observations of cultivated Croceibacter atlanticus strain HTCC2559^T, which identified it as an obligate chemoheterotroph.The phylum Bacteroidetes comprises 6 to ∼30% of total bacterial communities in the ocean by fluorescence in situ hybridization (8-10). Most marine Bacteroidetes are in the family Flavobacteriaceae, most of which are aerobic respiratory heterotrophs that form a well-defined clade by 16S rRNA phylogenetic analyses (4). The members of this family are well known for degrading macromolecules, including chitin, DNA, cellulose, starch, and pectin (17), suggesting their environmental roles as detritus decomposers in the ocean (6). Marine Polaribacter and Dokdonia species in the Flavobacteriaceae have also shown to have photoheterotrophic metabolism mediated by proteorhodopsins (11, 12).Several strains of the family Flavobacteriaceae were isolated from the Sargasso Sea and Oregon coast, using high-throughput culturing approaches (7). Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T was cultivated from seawater collected at a depth of 250 m from the Sargasso Sea and was identified as a new genus in the family Flavobacteriaceae based on its 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities (6). Strain HTCC2559^T met the minimal standards for genera of the family Flavobacteriaceae (3) on the basis of phenotypic characteristics (6).Here we report the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T. The genome sequencing was initiated by the J. Craig Venter Institute as a part of the Moore Foundation Microbial Genome Sequencing Project and completed in the current announcement. Gaps among contigs were closed by Genotech Co., Ltd. (Daejeon, Korea), using direct sequencing of combinatorial PCR products (16). The HTCC2559^T genome was analyzed with a genome annotation system based on GenDB (14) at Oregon State University and with the NCBI Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline (15, 16).The HTCC2559^T genome is 2,952,962 bp long, with 33.9 mol% G+C content, and there was no evidence of plasmids. The number of protein-coding genes was 2,715; there were two copies of the 16S-23S-5S rRNA operon and 36 tRNA genes. The HTCC2559^T genome contained genes for a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, glycolysis, and a pentose phosphate pathway. The genome also contained sets of genes for metabolic enzymes involved in carotenoid biosynthesis and also a serine/glycine hydroxymethyltransferase, which is often associated with the assimilatory serine cycle (13). The potential for HTCC2559^T to use bacterial type III polyketide synthase (PKS) needs to be confirmed because this organism had a naringenin-chalcone synthase (CHS) or chalcone synthase (EC 2.3.1.74), a key enzyme in flavonoid biosynthesis. CHS initiates the addition of three molecules of malonyl coenzyme A (malonyl-CoA) to a starter CoA ester (e.g., 4-coumaroyl-CoA) (1) and takes part in a few bacterial type III polyketide synthase systems (1, 2, 5, 18).The complete genome sequence confirmed that strain HTCC2559^T is an obligate chemoheterotroph because no genes for phototrophy were found. As expected from physiological characteristics (6), the HTCC2559^T genome contained a set of genes coding for enzymes required to degrade high-molecular-weight compounds, including peptidases, metallo-/serine proteases, pectinase, alginate lyases, and α-amylase.