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.     

Expansive Evolution of the TREHALOSE-6-PHOSPHATE PHOSPHATASE Gene Family in Arabidopsis

Trehalose is a nonreducing sugar used as a reserve carbohydrate and stress protectant in a variety of organisms. While higher plants typically do not accumulate high levels of trehalose, they encode large families of putative trehalose biosynthesis genes. Trehalose biosynthesis in plants involves a two-step reaction in which trehalose-6-phosphate (T6P) is synthesized from UDP-glucose and glucose-6-phosphate (catalyzed by T6P synthase [TPS]), and subsequently dephosphorylated to produce the disaccharide trehalose (catalyzed by T6P phosphatase [TPP]). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), 11 genes encode proteins with both TPS- and TPP-like domains but only one of these (AtTPS1) appears to be an active (TPS) enzyme. In addition, plants contain a large family of smaller proteins with a conserved TPP domain. Here, we present an in-depth analysis of the 10 TPP genes and gene products in Arabidopsis (TPPA-TPPJ). Collinearity analysis revealed that all of these genes originate from whole-genome duplication events. Heterologous expression in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) showed that all encode active TPP enzymes with an essential role for some conserved residues in the catalytic domain. These results suggest that the TPP genes function in the regulation of T6P levels, with T6P emerging as a novel key regulator of growth and development in higher plants. Extensive gene expression analyses using a complete set of promoter-β-glucuronidase/green fluorescent protein reporter lines further uncovered cell- and tissue-specific expression patterns, conferring spatiotemporal control of trehalose metabolism. Consistently, phenotypic characterization of knockdown and overexpression lines of a single TPP, AtTPPG, points to unique properties of individual TPPs in Arabidopsis, and underlines the intimate connection between trehalose metabolism and abscisic acid signaling.The presence of trehalose in a wide variety of organisms and the existence of different biosynthesis pathways suggest a pivotal and ancient role for trehalose metabolism in nature. The most widely distributed metabolic pathway consists of two consecutive enzymatic reactions, with trehalose-6-phosphate (T6P) synthase (TPS) catalyzing the transfer of a glucosyl moiety from UDP-Glc to Glc-6-phosphate to produce T6P and UDP, and T6P phosphatase (TPP) catalyzing dephosphorylation of T6P to trehalose (Cabib and Leloir, 1958; Avonce et al., 2006). Apart from operating as a (reserve) carbon source and structural component in bacteria, fungi, and invertebrates, trehalose also functions as a major stress protectant of proteins and membranes during adverse conditions such as dehydration, high salinity, hypoxia, and nutrient starvation (Elbein et al., 2003). Trehalose accumulation is also observed in a few lower vascular resurrection plants (e.g. Selaginella lepidophylla). Until about a decade ago, higher vascular plants were believed to have lost the ability to produce trehalose, but with the emergence of more sensitive assays, genome sequencing, and the use of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) mutant complementation, minute amounts of trehalose and T6P, and functional plant enzyme orthologs were found (Goddijn et al., 1997; Vogel et al., 1998; Lunn et al., 2006). In addition, heterologous expression and disruption of trehalose metabolism in plants conferred pleiotropic effects, ranging from altered stress tolerance, leaf morphology, and developmental timing to embryo lethality (Holmström et al., 1996; Goddijn et al., 1997; Romero et al., 1997; Eastmond et al., 2002; Schluepmann et al., 2003; Avonce et al., 2004; Satoh-Nagasawa et al., 2006; Miranda et al., 2007; Chary et al., 2008), pointing to an important regulatory function. The intermediate T6P has been highlighted as a novel signal for carbohydrate status (for review, see Paul, 2008), positively correlating with Suc levels, redox-regulated ADP-Glc pyrophosphorylase activity, and starch biosynthesis (Lunn et al., 2006). Recently, it was reported that T6P inhibits the activity of the SnRK1 protein kinase to activate energy-consuming biosynthetic processes in growing tissue (Zhang et al., 2009) and that it is required for the onset of leaf senescence (Wingler et al., 2012).In most bacterial and eukaryotic species, the TPS and TPP activities are found on separate proteins. Recent phylogenetic and biochemical analyses showed that some archaea and bacteria, such as Cytophaga hutchinsonii, express proteins that have both active TPS and TPP domains resulting from gene fusion, suggesting that such prokaryotic bifunctional proteins are the evolutionary ancestors of the large eukaryotic trehalose biosynthesis enzymes in which one or both domains have subsequently lost their catalytic activity (Avonce et al., 2010). The yeast TPP enzyme Tps2, for example, harbors an inactive N-terminal TPS domain and an active C-terminal TPP domain. In contrast to the single TPS and TPP genes in most microorganisms, the genomes of higher plants encode a remarkably large family of putative trehalose biosynthesis enzyme homologs. These are commonly classified in three distinct subgroups, according to their similarity to the microbial TPS and TPP proteins and/or presence of specific motifs (e.g. conserved phosphatase boxes; Thaller et al., 1998; Leyman et al., 2001; Eastmond et al., 2003). Even primitive plants such as the alga Ostreococcus tauri and the moss Physcomitrella patens already contain members of each of these gene families, pointing to the early establishment and conservation of these proteins in plant evolution (Lunn, 2007; Avonce et al., 2010). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), the class I TPS proteins (AtTPS1-4) show most similarity to the yeast TPS Tps1, but also have a C-terminal domain with limited similarity to TPPs. However, only one of these, AtTPS1, appears to have heterologous enzymatic TPS activity in yeast (Blázquez et al., 1998; Vandesteene et al., 2010). Strikingly, AtTPS1 is the only class I enzyme with an N-terminal extension that seems to operate as an autoinhibitory domain (Van Dijck et al., 2002). The class II TPS proteins (AtTPS5-11) are similar bipartite proteins with a TPS-like domain but a more conserved TPP domain. They appear to lack both heterologous TPS and TPP activity (Ramon et al., 2009). The high level of conservation of putative substrate-binding residues in class I and class II proteins, however, suggests that substrates might still bind (Avonce et al., 2006; Lunn, 2007; Ramon et al., 2009; Vandesteene et al., 2010). Together with the specific expression patterns of the class I genes (van Dijken et al., 2004; Geelen et al., 2007; Vandesteene et al., 2010) and the extensive expression regulation of all class II members by plant carbon status (Baena-González et al., 2007; Usadel et al., 2008; Ramon et al., 2009), this suggests tissue-specific regulatory functions for these proteins in metabolic regulation of plant growth and development. Finally, Arabidopsis also harbors a family of 10 smaller proteins (AtTPPA-J; 320–385 amino acids) with limited similarity to the class I and class II proteins (795–942 amino acids). Like class II proteins, they contain the phosphatase box consensus sequences, characteristic of the l-2-haloacid dehalogenase (HAD) super family of enzymes, which includes a wide range of phosphatases and hydrolases (Thaller et al., 1998). It has been suggested that the origin of these plant TPP genes is different from the origin of the class I and II genes (Avonce et al., 2010) and that plants recruited the TPP genes after their divergence from fungi, most probably from proteobacteria or actinobacteria. Consistently, homologous TPP proteins are present in proteobacteria such as Rhodopherax ferrireducens (Avonce et al., 2010). To date, only a few of these single-domain plant TPP proteins have been subject to biochemical characterization, e.g. TPPA and TPPB from Arabidopsis (Vogel et al., 1998), OsTPP1 and OsTPP2 from rice (Oryza sativa; Pramanik and Imai, 2005; Shima et al., 2007), and RAMOSA3 (RA3) from maize (Zea mays; Satoh-Nagasawa et al., 2006).The phenotypic alterations observed in plants fed with trehalose or genetically modified in trehalose biosynthesis, suggest a pivotal role for trehalose metabolism in integrating the metabolic status with growth and development. Disruption of the only known active TPS enzyme in Arabidopsis (AtTPS1) results in embryo lethality (Eastmond et al., 2002) and, when rescued to bridge embryogenesis, causes a strong disruption of vegetative and generative development and abscisic acid (ABA) hypersensitivity (van Dijken et al., 2004; Gómez et al., 2010). Overexpressing AtTPS1 on the other hand renders seedlings sugar and ABA insensitive (Avonce et al., 2004, 2005). These observations strongly link trehalose metabolism with ABA signaling. Interestingly, a mutation of a TPP gene in maize, RA3, results in a distinct phenotype, with incorrect axillary meristem identity and determinacy in both male and female inflorescences (Satoh-Nagasawa et al., 2006). Arabidopsis plants with overall increased T6P levels, such as OtsA (Escherichia coli TPS) overexpression plants, similarly show increased inflorescence branching (Schluepmann et al., 2003; van Dijken et al., 2004).To better understand why higher plants harbor such a large number of putative TPP proteins, we have made a comprehensive study of the 10 Arabidopsis TPP genes and gene products, combining phylogenetic approaches and yeast growth complementation assays, together with a detailed analysis of all 10 TPP gene expression profiles in Arabidopsis, and a more detailed single AtTPP mutant phenotypic analysis.     

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.