Spore Density Determines Infection Strategy by the Plant Pathogenic Fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina

Necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens are resisted by different plant defenses. While necrotrophic pathogens are sensitive to jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent resistance, biotrophic pathogens are resisted by salicylic acid (SA)- and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent resistance. Although many pathogens switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy during infection, little is known about the signals triggering this transition. This study is based on the observation that the early colonization pattern and symptom development by the ascomycete pathogen Plectosphaerella cucumerina (P. cucumerina) vary between inoculation methods. Using the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) defense response as a proxy for infection strategy, we examined whether P. cucumerina alternates between hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic lifestyles, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf surface. Untargeted metabolome analysis revealed profound differences in metabolic defense signatures upon different inoculation methods. Quantification of JA and SA, marker gene expression, and cell death confirmed that infection from high spore densities activates JA-dependent defenses with excessive cell death, while infection from low spore densities induces SA-dependent defenses with lower levels of cell death. Phenotyping of Arabidopsis mutants in JA, SA, and ROS signaling confirmed that P. cucumerina is differentially resisted by JA- and SA/ROS-dependent defenses, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf. Furthermore, in situ staining for early callose deposition at the infection sites revealed that necrotrophy by P. cucumerina is associated with elevated host defense. We conclude that P. cucumerina adapts to early-acting plant defenses by switching from a hemibiotrophic to a necrotrophic infection program, thereby gaining an advantage of immunity-related cell death in the host.Plant pathogens are often classified as necrotrophic or biotrophic, depending on their infection strategy (Glazebrook, 2005; Nishimura and Dangl, 2010). Necrotrophic pathogens kill living host cells and use the decayed plant tissue as a substrate to colonize the plant, whereas biotrophic pathogens parasitize living plant cells by employing effector molecules that suppress the host immune system (Pel and Pieterse, 2013). Despite this binary classification, the majority of pathogenic microbes employ a hemibiotrophic infection strategy, which is characterized by an initial biotrophic phase followed by a necrotrophic infection strategy at later stages of infection (Perfect and Green, 2001). The pathogenic fungi Magnaporthe grisea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Mycosphaerella graminicola, the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, and the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae are examples of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011; van Kan et al., 2014; Kabbage et al., 2015).Despite considerable progress in our understanding of plant resistance to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook, 2005; Mengiste, 2012; Lai and Mengiste, 2013), recent debate highlights the dynamic and complex interplay between plant-pathogenic microbes and their hosts, which is raising concerns about the use of infection strategies as a static tool to classify plant pathogens. For instance, the fungal genus Botrytis is often labeled as an archetypal necrotroph, even though there is evidence that it can behave as an endophytic fungus with a biotrophic lifestyle (van Kan et al., 2014). The rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, which is often classified as a hemibiotrophic leaf pathogen (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011), can adopt a purely biotrophic lifestyle when infecting root tissues (Marcel et al., 2010). It remains unclear which signals are responsible for the switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy and whether these signals rely solely on the physiological state of the pathogen, or whether host-derived signals play a role as well (Kabbage et al., 2015).The plant hormones salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA) play a central role in the activation of plant defenses (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012). The first evidence that biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens are resisted by different immune responses came from Thomma et al. (1998), who demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genotypes impaired in SA signaling show enhanced susceptibility to the biotrophic pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (formerly known as Peronospora parastitica), while JA-insensitive genotypes were more susceptible to the necrotrophic fungus Alternaria brassicicola. In subsequent years, the differential effectiveness of SA- and JA-dependent defense mechanisms has been confirmed in different plant-pathogen interactions, while additional plant hormones, such as ethylene, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, and cytokinins, have emerged as regulators of SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Bari and Jones, 2009; Cao et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Moreover, SA- and JA-dependent defense pathways have been shown to act antagonistically on each other, which allows plants to prioritize an appropriate defense response to attack by biotrophic pathogens, necrotrophic pathogens, or herbivores (Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Verhage et al., 2010).In addition to plant hormones, reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important regulatory role in plant defenses (Torres et al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2015). Within minutes after the perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, NADPH oxidases and apoplastic peroxidases generate early ROS bursts (Torres et al., 2002; Daudi et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012), which activate downstream defense signaling cascades (Apel and Hirt, 2004; Torres et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2009; Mittler et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS play an important regulatory role in the deposition of callose (Luna et al., 2011; Pastor et al., 2013) and can also stimulate SA-dependent defenses (Chaouch et al., 2010; Yun and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Mammarella et al., 2015). However, the spread of SA-induced apoptosis during hyperstimulation of the plant immune system is contained by the ROS-generating NADPH oxidase RBOHD (Torres et al., 2005), presumably to allow for the sufficient generation of SA-dependent defense signals from living cells that are adjacent to apoptotic cells. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an additional role in the regulation of SA/ROS-dependent defense (Trapet et al., 2015). This gaseous molecule can stimulate ROS production and cell death in the absence of SA while preventing excessive ROS production at high cellular SA levels via S-nitrosylation of RBOHD (Yun et al., 2011). Recently, it was shown that pathogen-induced accumulation of NO and ROS promotes the production of azelaic acid, a lipid derivative that primes distal plants for SA-dependent defenses (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, NO, ROS, and SA are intertwined in a complex regulatory network to mount local and systemic resistance against biotrophic pathogens. Interestingly, pathogens with a necrotrophic lifestyle can benefit from ROS/SA-dependent defenses and associated cell death (Govrin and Levine, 2000). For instance, Kabbage et al. (2013) demonstrated that S. sclerotiorum utilizes oxalic acid to repress oxidative defense signaling during initial biotrophic colonization, but it stimulates apoptosis at later stages to advance necrotrophic colonization. Moreover, SA-induced repression of JA-dependent resistance not only benefits necrotrophic pathogens but also hemibiotrophic pathogens after having switched from biotrophy to necrotrophy (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012).Plectosphaerella cucumerina ((P. cucumerina, anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) is a filamentous ascomycete fungus that can survive saprophytically in soil by decomposing plant material (Palm et al., 1995). The fungus can cause sudden death and blight disease in a variety of crops (Chen et al., 1999; Harrington et al., 2000). Because P. cucumerina can infect Arabidopsis leaves, the P. cucumerina-Arabidopsis interaction has emerged as a popular model system in which to study plant defense reactions to necrotrophic fungi (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Carlucci et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). Various studies have shown that Arabidopsis deploys a wide range of inducible defense strategies against P. cucumerina, including JA-, SA-, ABA-, and auxin-dependent defenses, glucosinolates (Tierens et al., 2001; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014), callose deposition (García-Andrade et al., 2011; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012), and ROS (Tierens et al., 2002; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Barna et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Recent metabolomics studies have revealed large-scale metabolic changes in P. cucumerina-infected Arabidopsis, presumably to mobilize chemical defenses (Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Furthermore, various chemical agents have been reported to induce resistance against P. cucumerina. These chemicals include β-amino-butyric acid, which primes callose deposition and SA-dependent defenses, benzothiadiazole (BTH or Bion; Görlach et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), which activates SA-related defenses (Lawton et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Gamir et al., 2014; Luna et al., 2014), JA (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), and ABA, which primes ROS and callose deposition (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Pastor et al., 2013). However, among all these studies, there is increasing controversy about the exact signaling pathways and defense responses contributing to plant resistance against P. cucumerina. While it is clear that JA and ethylene contribute to basal resistance against the fungus, the exact roles of SA, ABA, and ROS in P. cucumerina resistance vary between studies (Thomma et al., 1998; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2014).This study is based on the observation that the disease phenotype during P. cucumerina infection differs according to the inoculation method used. We provide evidence that the fungus follows a hemibiotrophic infection strategy when infecting from relatively low spore densities on the leaf surface. By contrast, when challenged by localized host defense to relatively high spore densities, the fungus switches to a necrotrophic infection program. Our study has uncovered a novel strategy by which plant-pathogenic fungi can take advantage of the early immune response in the host plant.     

Chloroplast Phosphoglycerate Kinase Is Involved in the Targeting of Bamboo mosaic virus to Chloroplasts in Nicotiana benthamiana Plants

The Bamboo mosaic virus (BaMV) is a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus. Previously, we identified that the chloroplast phosphoglycerate kinase (chl-PGK) from Nicotiana benthamiana is one of the viral RNA binding proteins involved in the BaMV infection cycle. Because chl-PGK is transported to the chloroplast, we hypothesized that chl-PGK might be involved in viral RNA localization in the chloroplasts. To test this hypothesis, we constructed two green fluorescent protein (GFP)-fused mislocalized PGK mutants, the transit peptide deletion mutant (NO TRANSIT PEPTIDE [NOTP]-PGK-GFP) and the nucleus location mutant (nuclear location signal [NLS]-PGK-GFP). Using confocal microscopy, we demonstrated that NOTP-PGK-GFP and NLS-PGK-GFP are localized in the cytoplasm and nucleus, respectively, in N. benthamiana plants. When NOTP-PGK-GFP and NLS-PGK-GFP are transiently expressed, we observed a reduction in BaMV coat protein accumulation to 47% and 27% that of the wild-type PGK-GFP, respectively. To localize viral RNA in infected cells, we employed the interaction of NLS-GFP-MS2 (phage MS2 coat protein) with the modified BaMV RNA containing the MS2 coat protein binding sequence. Using confocal microscopy, we observed that BaMV viral RNA localizes to chloroplasts. Furthermore, elongation factor1a fused with the transit peptide derived from chl-PGK or with a Rubisco small subunit can partially restore BaMV accumulation in NbPGK1-knockdown plants by helping BaMV target chloroplasts.Bamboo mosaic virus (BaMV) is a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus. The genomic RNA of BaMV contains five open reading frames (ORFs) and is 6,366 nucleotides in length with a 5′ cap and a 3′ poly(A) tail (Lin et al., 1994; Yang et al., 1997). ORF1 encodes a 155-kD replicase comprised of a capping enzyme domain that exhibits S-adenosylmethionine-dependent guanylyltransferase activity (Li et al., 2001a; Huang et al., 2004), a helicase-like domain with RNA 5′-triphosphatase activity (Li et al., 2001b), and an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase domain (Li et al., 1998; Cheng et al., 2001). The three overlapping ORFs (i.e. ORF2, ORF3, and ORF4) are known as the triple gene block. They encode for proteins involved in viral movement (Lin et al., 2004, 2006; Vijaya Palani et al., 2006). ORF5 encodes the viral capsid protein (CP), required for virion assembly and viral movement (Cruz et al., 1998).The genomes of positive-strand RNA viruses are templates for both translation and replication. Viral replication complexes are likely to be assembled using host factors to synthesize the minus-strand RNA and then the plus-strand progeny RNA. Recent studies have shown that host factors play important roles in assembling the viral RNA replication complex, selecting and recruiting viral replication templates, activating the complex for RNA synthesis, and other steps (Ahlquist et al., 2003; Patarroyo et al., 2012). The translation and the minus-strand RNA synthesis of poliovirus are regulated by host poly(C) and poly(A) binding proteins and viral polymerase precursor 3CD (Waggoner and Sarnow, 1998; Herold and Andino, 2001; Walter et al., 2002). A number of host genes required for Brome mosaic virus replication have been identified systemically by the yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) genetic approach (Ishikawa et al., 1997; Kushner et al., 2003; Mas et al., 2006; Gancarz et al., 2011). The same approach was used to identify the host factors involved in the replication of Tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV; Panavas et al., 2005; Li et al., 2009b). A heat shock protein90 homolog (Huang et al., 2012) and the Nicotiana benthamiana glutathione transferase U4 (NbGSTU4; Chen et al., 2013), were identified to interact with the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of BaMV RNA and enhanced the minus-strand RNA synthesis at the early replication step. The Ser/Thr kinase-like protein localized on cell membrane facilitates the BaMV intercellular movement (Cheng et al., 2013).Previously, we have identified two host proteins (i.e. p51 and p43) interacting specifically with the 3′ UTRs of BaMV by using electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and the UV cross-linking competition technique. The results of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and BLAST indicate that the protein sequences of p43 and p51 match the chloroplast phosphoglycerate kinase (chl-PGK) and elongation factor1a (EF1a) of Nicotiana benthamiana, respectively (Lin et al., 2007). Phosphoglycerate kinase is an ATP-generating enzyme that acts in the glycolytic, gluconeogenic, and photosynthetic pathways (Banks et al., 1979; McHarg et al., 1999). chl-PGK is encoded in the nucleus and translated to produce a 50-kD precursor protein and is then processed into mature 43 kD in the chloroplast. In a knockdown experiment through virus-induced gene silencing, the reduction of PGK decreased the accumulation of BaMV coat protein (Lin et al., 2007).Eukaryotic EF1a has been shown to play a role in binding to the tRNA-like structure and upstream pseudoknot in the 3′ UTR of Tobacco mosaic virus to regulate the gene expression and viral replication (Pathak et al., 2008). EF1a has also been involved in the recruitment of viral RNA and has facilitated the replicase complex assembly of TBSV (Pogany et al., 2008). The 3′ UTR of BaMV cannot only bind its replicase but also the EF1a and has been proposed to regulate viral RNA replication (Lin et al., 2007).In this study, we transiently expressed two mislocalized PGK mutants to study the possible functions of chl-PGK that is involved in viral RNA replication. In addition, we used confocal microscopy to investigate the localization of BaMV RNA. Finally, we provided evidence that the down-regulation of BaMV accumulation in PGK-knockdown plants can be restored by the expression of the BaMV RNA binding protein EF1a that is fused to a chloroplast transit peptide.     

Rhamnolipids Elicit Defense Responses and Induce Disease Resistance against Biotrophic, Hemibiotrophic, and Necrotrophic Pathogens That Require Different Signaling Pathways in Arabidopsis and Highlight a Central Role for Salicylic Acid

Plant resistance to phytopathogenic microorganisms mainly relies on the activation of an innate immune response usually launched after recognition by the plant cells of microbe-associated molecular patterns. The plant hormones, salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid, and ethylene have emerged as key players in the signaling networks involved in plant immunity. Rhamnolipids (RLs) are glycolipids produced by bacteria and are involved in surface motility and biofilm development. Here we report that RLs trigger an immune response in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) characterized by signaling molecules accumulation and defense gene activation. This immune response participates to resistance against the hemibiotrophic bacterium Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato, the biotrophic oomycete Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis, and the necrotrophic fungus Botrytis cinerea. We show that RL-mediated resistance involves different signaling pathways that depend on the type of pathogen. Ethylene is involved in RL-induced resistance to H. arabidopsidis and to P. syringae pv tomato whereas jasmonic acid is essential for the resistance to B. cinerea. SA participates to the restriction of all pathogens. We also show evidence that SA-dependent plant defenses are potentiated by RLs following challenge by B. cinerea or P. syringae pv tomato. These results highlight a central role for SA in RL-mediated resistance. In addition to the activation of plant defense responses, antimicrobial properties of RLs are thought to participate in the protection against the fungus and the oomycete. Our data highlight the intricate mechanisms involved in plant protection triggered by a new type of molecule that can be perceived by plant cells and that can also act directly onto pathogens.In their environment, plants are challenged by potentially pathogenic microorganisms. In response, they express a set of defense mechanisms including preformed structural and chemical barriers, as well as an innate immune response quickly activated after microorganism perception (Boller and Felix, 2009). Plant innate immunity is triggered after recognition by pattern recognition receptors of conserved pathogen- or microbe-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs or MAMPs, respectively) or by plant endogenous molecules released by pathogen invasion and called danger-associated molecular patterns (Boller and Felix, 2009; Dodds and Rathjen, 2010). This first step of recognition leads to the activation of MAMP-triggered immunity (MTI). Successful pathogens can secrete effectors that interfere or suppress MTI, resulting in effector-triggered susceptibility. A second level of perception involves the direct or indirect recognition by specific receptors of pathogen effectors leading to effector-triggered immunity (ETI; Boller and Felix, 2009; Dodds and Rathjen, 2010). Whereas MTI and ETI are thought to involve common signaling network, ETI is usually quantitatively stronger than MTI and associated with more sustained and robust immune responses (Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010; Tsuda and Katagiri, 2010).The plant hormones, salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) have emerged as key players in the signaling networks involved in MTI and ETI (Robert-Seilaniantz et al., 2007; Tsuda et al., 2009; Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010; Mersmann et al., 2010; Tsuda and Katagiri, 2010; Robert-Seilaniantz et al., 2011). Interactions between these signal molecules allow the plant to activate and/or modulate an appropriate spectrum of responses, depending on the pathogen lifestyle, necrotroph or biotroph (Glazebrook, 2005; Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008). It is assumed that JA and ET signaling pathways are important for resistance to necrotrophic fungi including Botrytis cinerea and Alternaria brassicicola (Thomma et al., 2001; Ferrari et al., 2003; Glazebrook, 2005). Infection of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) with B. cinerea causes the induction of the JA/ET responsive gene PLANT DEFENSIN1.2 (PDF1.2; Penninckx et al., 1996; Zimmerli et al., 2001). Induction of PDF1.2 by B. cinerea is blocked in ethylene-insensitive2 (ein2) and coronatine-insensitive1 (coi1) mutants that are respectively defective in ET and JA signal transduction pathways. Moreover, ein2 and coi1 plants are highly susceptible to B. cinerea infection (Thomma et al., 1998; Thomma et al., 1999). JA/ET-dependent responses do not seem to be usually induced during resistance to biotrophs, but they can be effective if they are stimulated prior to pathogen challenge (Glazebrook, 2005). Plants impaired in SA signaling are highly susceptible to biotrophic and hemibiotrophic pathogens. Following pathogen infection, SA hydroxylase (NahG), enhanced disease susceptibility5 (eds5), or SA induction-deficient2 (sid2) plants are unable to accumulate high SA levels and they display heightened susceptibility to Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato (Pst), Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis, or Erysiphe orontii (Delaney et al., 1994; Lawton et al., 1995; Wildermuth et al., 2001; Nawrath et al., 2002; Vlot et al., 2009). Mutants that are insensitive to SA, such as nonexpressor of PATHOGENESIS-RELATED (PR) genes1 (npr1), have enhanced susceptibility to these pathogens (Cao et al., 1994; Glazebrook et al., 1996; Shah et al., 1997; Dong, 2004). According to some reports, plant defense against necrotrophs also involves SA. Arabidopsis plants expressing the nahG gene and infected with B. cinerea show larger lesions compared with wild-type plants (Govrin and Levine, 2002). In tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), acidic isoforms of PR3 and PR5 gene that are specifically induced by SA (Ménard et al., 2004) are up-regulated after challenge by B. cinerea (El Oirdi et al., 2010). Resistance to some necrotrophs like Fusarium graminearum involves both SA and JA signaling pathways (Makandar et al., 2010). It is assumed that SA and JA signaling can be antagonistic (Bostock, 2005; Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Thaler et al., 2012). In Arabidopsis, SA inhibits JA-dependent resistance against A. brassicicola or B. cinerea (Spoel et al., 2007; Koornneef et al., 2008). Recent studies demonstrated that ET modulates the NPR1-mediated antagonism between SA and JA (Leon-Reyes et al., 2009; Leon-Reyes et al., 2010a) and suppression by SA of JA-responsive gene expression is targeted at a position downstream of the JA biosynthesis pathway (Leon-Reyes et al., 2010b). Synergistic effects of SA- and JA-dependent signaling are also well documented (Schenk et al., 2000; van Wees et al., 2000; Mur et al., 2006) and induction of some defense responses after pathogen challenge requires intact JA, ET, and SA signaling pathways (Campbell et al., 2003).Isolated MAMPs trigger defense responses that also require the activation of SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways (Tsuda et al., 2009; Katagiri and Tsuda, 2010). For instance, treatment with the flagellin peptide flg22 induces many SA-related genes including SID2, EDS5, NPR1, and PR1 (Ferrari et al., 2007; Denoux et al., 2008), causes SA accumulation (Tsuda et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2009), and activates ET signaling (Bethke et al., 2009; Mersmann et al., 2010). Local application of lipopolysaccharides elevates the level of SA (Mishina and Zeier, 2007). The oomycete Pep13 peptide induces defense responses in potato (Solanum tuberosum) that require both SA and JA (Halim et al., 2009). Although signaling networks induced by isolated MAMPs are well documented, the contribution of SA, JA, and ET in MAMP- or PAMP-induced resistance to biotrophs and necrotrophs is poorly understood.Rhamnolipids (RLs) are glycolipids produced by various bacteria species including some Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species. They are essential for bacterial surface motility and biofilm development (Vatsa et al., 2010; Chrzanowski et al., 2012). RLs are potent stimulators of animal immunity (Vatsa et al., 2010). They have recently been shown to elicit plant defense responses and to induce resistance against B. cinerea in grapevine (Vitis vinifera; Varnier et al., 2009). They also participate to biocontrol activity of the plant beneficial bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa PNA1 against oomycetes (Perneel et al., 2008). However, the signaling pathways used by RLs to stimulate plant innate immunity are not known. To gain more insights into RL-induced MTI, we investigated RL-triggered defense responses and resistance to the necrotrophic fungus B. cinerea, the biotroph oomycete H. arabidopsidis, and the hemibiotroph bacterium Pst in Arabidopsis. Our results show that RLs trigger an innate immune response in Arabidopsis that protects the plant against these different lifestyle pathogens. We demonstrate that RL-mediated resistance involves separated signaling sectors that depend on the type of pathogen. In plants challenged by RLs, SA has a central role and participates to the restriction of the three pathogens. ET is fully involved in RL-induced resistance to the biotrophic oomycete and to the hemibiotrophic bacterium whereas JA is essential for the resistance to the necrotrophic fungus.     

Roles of Arabidopsis PARC6 in Coordination of the Chloroplast Division Complex and Negative Regulation of FtsZ Assembly

Chloroplast division is driven by the simultaneous constriction of the inner FtsZ ring (Z ring) and the outer DRP5B ring. The assembly and constriction of these rings in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) are coordinated partly through the inner envelope membrane protein ACCUMULATION AND REPLICATION OF CHLOROPLASTS6 (ARC6). Previously, we showed that PARC6 (PARALOG OF ARC6), also in the inner envelope membrane, negatively regulates FtsZ assembly and acts downstream of ARC6 to position the outer envelope membrane protein PLASTID DIVISION1 (PDV1), which functions together with its paralog PDV2 to recruit DYNAMIN-RELATED PROTEIN 5B (DRP5B) from a cytosolic pool to the outer envelope membrane. However, whether PARC6, like ARC6, also functions in coordination of the chloroplast division contractile complexes was unknown. Here, we report a detailed topological analysis of Arabidopsis PARC6, which shows that PARC6 has a single transmembrane domain and a topology resembling that of ARC6. The newly identified stromal region of PARC6 interacts not only with ARC3, a direct inhibitor of Z-ring assembly, but also with the Z-ring protein FtsZ2. Overexpression of PARC6 inhibits FtsZ assembly in Arabidopsis but not in a heterologous yeast system (Schizosaccharomyces pombe), suggesting that the negative regulation of FtsZ assembly by PARC6 is a consequence of its interaction with ARC3. A conserved carboxyl-terminal peptide in FtsZ2 mediates FtsZ2 interaction with both PARC6 and ARC6. Consistent with its role in the positioning of PDV1, the intermembrane space regions of PARC6 and PDV1 interact. These findings provide new insights into the functions of PARC6 and suggest that PARC6 coordinates the inner Z ring and outer DRP5B ring through interaction with FtsZ2 and PDV1 during chloroplast division.Chloroplasts evolved from an ancient cyanobacterium through endosymbiosis (Gould et al., 2008; Keeling, 2013). Like their prokaryotic relatives, chloroplasts replicate by binary fission, which is driven by a dynamic macromolecular complex located at the middle of the organelle (Falconet, 2011; Miyagishima et al., 2011; Osteryoung and Pyke, 2014). The major contractile components of the division complex include the FtsZ ring (Z ring), which assembles on the stromal surface of the inner envelope membrane (IEM; McAndrew et al., 2001; Vitha et al., 2001), and the DYNAMIN-RELATED PROTEIN 5B (DRP5B; also called ACCUMULATION AND REPLICATION OF CHLOROPLASTS5 [ARC5]) ring, which assembles on the cytosolic surface of the outer envelope membrane (OEM; Gao et al., 2003; Miyagishima et al., 2003; Yoshida et al., 2006). In green algae and land plants, the Z ring is composed of the tubulin-like, heteropolymer-forming proteins FtsZ1 and FtsZ2, which are both required for normal Z-ring function (Schmitz et al., 2009; TerBush and Osteryoung, 2012). DRP5B is a member of the dynamin family of membrane fission proteins, which polymerize into collar-like structures to mediate a variety of membrane fission processes in eukaryotes (Morlot and Roux, 2013). The Z ring and DRP5B ring function together to drive the simultaneous constriction of the IEM and OEM during chloroplast division.The assembly and constriction of the inner Z ring and outer DRP5B ring are coordinated across the two membranes by the activities of midplastid-localized envelope membrane proteins whose functions have been studied in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). ARC6 (Pyke et al., 1994) is a bitopic IEM protein of cyanobacterial origin that is conserved throughout green-lineage chloroplasts (Koksharova and Wolk, 2002; Vitha et al., 2003; Osteryoung and Pyke, 2014). Its N-terminal region extends into the stroma, where it interacts directly and specifically with FtsZ2 (Maple et al., 2005). As FtsZ1 and FtsZ2 are soluble (McAndrew et al., 2001), this interaction probably serves both to tether the Z ring to the IEM and to promote FtsZ polymerization at the division site (Vitha et al., 2003). The C-terminal region of ARC6 protrudes into the intermembrane space (IMS) and interacts with the IMS region of the plant-specific bitopic OEM protein PLASTID DIVISION2 (PDV2). ARC6-PDV2 interaction is required for the localization of PDV2 to the midplastid (Glynn et al., 2008). PDV2 and its paralog PDV1, also in the OEM, in turn recruit DRP5B from a cytosolic pool to the OEM (Miyagishima et al., 2006), probably through direct interaction with their cytosolic regions (Holtsmark et al., 2013). Thus, interactions between FtsZ2 and ARC6 in the stroma, ARC6 and PDV2 in the IMS, and PDV2 (and PDV1) and DRP5B in the cytosol connect and coordinate the FtsZ and DRPB5B rings across the IEM and OEM.Previously, we showed that, despite the fact that an interaction between the IMS regions of ARC6 and PDV1 could not be detected, ARC6 was nevertheless required for the equatorial localization of PDV1 as well as PDV2, suggesting the existence of a factor that acted downstream of ARC6 to position PDV1 (Glynn et al., 2008). This downstream factor was subsequently shown to be the nucleus-encoded chloroplast division protein PARALOG OF ARC6 (PARC6; Glynn et al., 2009), also called CDP1 (Zhang et al., 2009) and ARC6H (Ottesen et al., 2010). parc6 mutants exhibited mislocalization of PDV1 but not PDV2, demonstrating a specific role for PARC6 in PDV1 positioning. PARC6 is restricted to vascular plants, suggesting that it arose by the duplication and divergence of ARC6 following separation of the nonvascular and vascular lineages. As suggested by its name, PARC6 shares significant sequence similarity with ARC6 and is similarly imported to the chloroplast by a cleavable N-terminal transit peptide and localized in the IEM. However, whereas ARC6 has a single transmembrane domain (TMD), PARC6 is predicted to bear two, and while a portion of its N terminus was clearly shown to reside in the stroma, its full topology has not been established (Glynn et al., 2009). Furthermore, genetic analysis suggested that, unlike ARC6, which positively regulates FtsZ assembly (Vitha et al., 2003), PARC6 functions partly as a negative regulator of FtsZ assembly. Interaction assays provided evidence that this negative regulation may be mediated by interaction of the N terminus of PARC6 with the stromal division protein ARC3 (Pyke et al., 1994; Shimada et al., 2004; Maple et al., 2007), a Z-ring positioning factor recently shown to inhibit Z-ring assembly and/or promote FtsZ filament and Z-ring destabilization (TerBush and Osteryoung, 2012; Zhang et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015). Although the interaction of PARC6 with FtsZ was not detected previously, the significance of this finding has remained uncertain in the absence of definitive data on PARC6 topology (Glynn et al., 2009).Here, we report a detailed topological analysis of Arabidopsis PARC6, investigate its interactions with other division factors, and assess the effect of PARC6 on chloroplast FtsZ assembly. Our findings provide evidence that the negative effect of PARC6 on Z-ring assembly results from its interaction with ARC3 and reveal a role for PARC6 in coordinating the inner Z ring and outer DRP5B ring partially analogous to the role of ARC6.     

The Role of a Potassium Transporter OsHAK5 in Potassium Acquisition and Transport from Roots to Shoots in Rice at Low Potassium Supply Levels

In plants, K transporter (KT)/high affinity K transporter (HAK)/K uptake permease (KUP) is the largest potassium (K) transporter family; however, few of the members have had their physiological functions characterized in planta. Here, we studied OsHAK5 of the KT/HAK/KUP family in rice (Oryza sativa). We determined its cellular and tissue localization and analyzed its functions in rice using both OsHAK5 knockout mutants and overexpression lines in three genetic backgrounds. A β-glucuronidase reporter driven by the OsHAK5 native promoter indicated OsHAK5 expression in various tissue organs from root to seed, abundantly in root epidermis and stele, the vascular tissues, and mesophyll cells. Net K influx rate in roots and K transport from roots to aerial parts were severely impaired by OsHAK5 knockout but increased by OsHAK5 overexpression in 0.1 and 0.3 mm K external solution. The contribution of OsHAK5 to K mobilization within the rice plant was confirmed further by the change of K concentration in the xylem sap and K distribution in the transgenic lines when K was removed completely from the external solution. Overexpression of OsHAK5 increased the K-sodium concentration ratio in the shoots and salt stress tolerance (shoot growth), while knockout of OsHAK5 decreased the K-sodium concentration ratio in the shoots, resulting in sensitivity to salt stress. Taken together, these results demonstrate that OsHAK5 plays a major role in K acquisition by roots faced with low external K and in K upward transport from roots to shoots in K-deficient rice plants.Potassium (K) is one of the three most important macronutrients and the most abundant cation in plants. As a major osmoticum in the vacuole, K drives the generation of turgor pressure, enabling cell expansion. In the vascular tissue, K is an important participant in the generation of root pressure (for review, see Wegner, 2014 [including his new hypothesis]). In the phloem, K is critical for the transport of photoassimilates from source to sink (Marschner, 1996; Deeken et al., 2002; Gajdanowicz et al., 2011). In addition, enhancing K absorption and decreasing sodium (Na) accumulation is a major strategy of glycophytes in salt stress tolerance (Maathuis and Amtmann, 1999; Munns and Tester, 2008; Shabala and Cuin, 2008).Plants acquire K through K-permeable proteins at the root surface. Since available K concentration in the soil may vary by 100-fold, plants have developed multiple K uptake systems for adapting to this variability (Epstein et al., 1963; Grabov, 2007; Maathuis, 2009). In a classic K uptake experiment in barley (Hordeum vulgare), root K absorption has been described as a high-affinity and low-affinity biphasic transport process (Epstein et al., 1963). It is generally assumed that the low-affinity transport system (LATS) in the roots mediates K uptake in the millimolar range and that the activity of this system is insensitive to external K concentration (Maathuis and Sanders, 1997; Chérel et al., 2014). In contrast, the high-affinity transport system (HATS) was rapidly up-regulated when the supply of exogenous K was halted (Glass, 1976; Glass and Dunlop, 1978).The membrane transporters for K flux identified in plants are generally classified into three channels and three transporter families based on phylogenetic analysis (Mäser et al., 2001; Véry and Sentenac, 2003; Lebaudy et al., 2007; Alemán et al., 2011). For K uptake, it was predicted that, under most circumstances, K transporters function as HATS, while K-permeable channels mediate LATS (Maathuis and Sanders, 1997). However, a root-expressed K channel in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), Arabidopsis K Transporter1 (AKT1), mediates K absorption over a wide range of external K concentrations (Sentenac et al., 1992; Lagarde et al., 1996; Hirsch et al., 1998; Spalding et al., 1999), while evidence is accumulating that many K transporters, including members of the K transporter (KT)/high affinity K transporter (HAK)/K uptake permease (KUP) family, are low-affinity K transporters (Quintero and Blatt, 1997; Senn et al., 2001), implying that functions of plant K channels and transporters overlap at different K concentration ranges.Out of the three families of K transporters, cation proton antiporter (CPA), high affinity K/Na transporter (HKT), and KT/HAK/KUP, CPA was characterized as a K⁺(Na⁺)/H⁺ antiporter, HKT may cotransport Na and K or transport Na only (Rubio et al., 1995; Uozumi et al., 2000), while KT/HAK/KUP were predicted to be H⁺-coupled K⁺ symporters (Mäser et al., 2001; Lebaudy et al., 2007). KT/HAK/KUP were named by different researchers who first identified and cloned them (Quintero and Blatt, 1997; Santa-María et al., 1997). In plants, the KT/HAK/KUP family is the largest K transporter family, including 13 members in Arabidopsis and 27 members in the rice (Oryza sativa) genome (Rubio et al., 2000; Mäser et al., 2001; Bañuelos et al., 2002; Gupta et al., 2008). Sequence alignments show that genes of this family share relatively low homology to each other. The KT/HAK/KUP family was divided into four major clusters (Rubio et al., 2000; Gupta et al., 2008), and in cluster I and II, they were further separated into A and B groups. Genes of cluster I or II likely exist in all plants, cluster III is composed of genes from both Arabidopsis and rice, while cluster IV includes only four rice genes (Grabov, 2007; Gupta et al., 2008).The functions of KT/HAK/KUP were studied mostly in heterologous expression systems. Transporters of cluster I, such as AtHAK5, HvHAK1, OsHAK1, and OsHAK5, are localized in the plasma membrane (Kim et al., 1998; Bañuelos et al., 2002; Gierth et al., 2005) and exhibit high-affinity K uptake in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Santa-María et al., 1997; Fu and Luan, 1998; Rubio et al., 2000) and in Escherichia coli (Horie et al., 2011). Transporters of cluster II, like AtKUP4 (TINY ROOT HAIRS1, TRH1), HvHAK2, OsHAK2, OsHAK7, and OsHAK10, could not complement the K uptake-deficient yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) but were able to mediate K fluxes in a bacterial mutant; they might be tonoplast transporters (Senn et al., 2001; Bañuelos et al., 2002; Rodríguez-Navarro and Rubio, 2006). The function of transporters in clusters III and IV is even less known (Grabov, 2007).Existing data suggest that some KT/HAK/KUP transporters also may respond to salinity stress (Maathuis, 2009). The cluster I transporters of HvHAK1 mediate Na influx (Santa-María et al., 1997), while AtHAK5 expression is inhibited by Na (Rubio et al., 2000; Nieves-Cordones et al., 2010). Expression of OsHAK5 in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) BY2 cells enhanced the salt tolerance of these cells by accumulating more K without affecting their Na content (Horie et al., 2011).There are only scarce reports on the physiological function of KT/HAK/KUP in planta. In Arabidopsis, mutation of AtKUP2 (SHORT HYPOCOTYL3) resulted in a short hypocotyl, small leaves, and a short flowering stem (Elumalai et al., 2002), while a loss-of-function mutation of AtKUP4 (TRH1) resulted in short root hairs and a loss of gravity response in the root (Rigas et al., 2001; Desbrosses et al., 2003; Ahn et al., 2004). AtHAK5 is the only system currently known to mediate K uptake at concentrations below 0.01 mm (Rubio et al., 2010) and provides a cesium uptake pathway (Qi et al., 2008). AtHAK5 and AtAKT1 are the two major physiologically relevant molecular entities mediating K uptake into roots in the range between 0.01 and 0.05 mm (Pyo et al., 2010; Rubio et al., 2010). AtAKT1 may contribute to K uptake within the K concentrations that belong to the high-affinity system described by Epstein et al. (1963).Among all 27 members of the KT/HAK/KUP family in rice, OsHAK1, OsHAK5, OsHAK19, and OsHAK20 were grouped in cluster IB (Gupta et al., 2008). These four rice HAK members share 50.9% to 53.4% amino acid identity with AtHAK5. OsHAK1 was expressed in the whole plant, with maximum expression in roots, and was up-regulated by K deficiency; it mediated high-affinity K uptake in yeast (Bañuelos et al., 2002). In this study, we examined the tissue-specific localization and the physiological functions of OsHAK5 in response to variation in K supply and to salt stress in rice. By comparing K uptake and translocation in OsHAK5 knockout (KO) mutants and in OsHAK5-overexpressing lines with those in their respective wild-type lines supplied with different K concentrations, we found that OsHAK5 not only mediates high-affinity K acquisition but also participates in root-to-shoot K transport as well as in K-regulated salt tolerance.