共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
Vincent Chochois John P. Vogel Gregory J. Rebetzke Michelle Watt 《Plant physiology》2015,168(3):953-967
Seedling roots enable plant establishment. Their small phenotypes are measured routinely. Adult root systems are relevant to yield and efficiency, but phenotyping is challenging. Root length exceeds the volume of most pots. Field studies measure partial adult root systems through coring or use seedling roots as adult surrogates. Here, we phenotyped 79 diverse lines of the small grass model Brachypodium distachyon to adults in 50-cm-long tubes of soil with irrigation; a subset of 16 lines was droughted. Variation was large (total biomass, ×8; total root length [TRL], ×10; and root mass ratio, ×6), repeatable, and attributable to genetic factors (heritabilities ranged from approximately 50% for root growth to 82% for partitioning phenotypes). Lines were dissected into seed-borne tissues (stem and primary seminal axile roots) and stem-borne tissues (tillers and coleoptile and leaf node axile roots) plus branch roots. All lines developed one seminal root that varied, with branch roots, from 31% to 90% of TRL in the well-watered condition. With drought, 100% of TRL was seminal, regardless of line because nodal roots were almost always inhibited in drying topsoil. Irrigation stimulated nodal roots depending on genotype. Shoot size and tillers correlated positively with roots with irrigation, but partitioning depended on genotype and was plastic with drought. Adult root systems of B. distachyon have genetic variation to exploit to increase cereal yields through genes associated with partitioning among roots and their responsiveness to irrigation. Whole-plant phenotypes could enhance gain for droughted environments because root and shoot traits are coselected.Adult plant root systems are relevant to the size and efficiency of seed yield. They supply water and nutrients for the plant to acquire biomass, which is positively correlated to the harvest index (allocation to seed grain), and the stages of flowering and grain development. Modeling in wheat (Triticum aestivum) suggested that an extra 10 mm of water absorbed by such adult root systems during grain filling resulted in an increase of approximately 500 kg grain ha−1 (Manschadi et al., 2006). This was 25% above the average annual yield of wheat in rain-fed environments of Australia. This number was remarkably close to experimental data obtained in the field in Australia (Kirkegaard et al., 2007). Together, these modeling and field experiments have shown that adult root systems are critical for water absorption and grain yield in cereals, such as wheat, emphasizing the importance of characterizing adult root systems to identify phenotypes for productivity improvements.Most root phenotypes, however, have been described for seedling roots. Seedling roots are essential for plant establishment, and hence, the plant’s potential to set seed. For technical reasons, seedlings are more often screened than adult plants because of the ease of handling smaller plants and the high throughput. Seedling-stage phenotyping may also improve overall reproducibility of results because often, growth media are soil free. Seedling soil-free root phenotyping conditions are well suited to dissecting fine and sensitive mechanisms, such as lateral root initiation (Casimiro et al., 2003; Péret et al., 2009a, 2009b). A number of genes underlying root processes have been identified or characterized using seedlings, notably with the dicotyledonous models Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana; Mouchel et al., 2004; Fitz Gerald et al., 2006; Yokawa et al., 2013) and Medicago truncatula (Laffont et al., 2010) and the cereals maize (Zea mays; Hochholdinger et al., 2001) and rice (Oryza sativa; Inukai et al., 2005; Kitomi et al., 2008).Extrapolation from seedling to adult root systems presents major questions (Hochholdinger and Zimmermann, 2008; Chochois et al., 2012; Rich and Watt, 2013). Are phenotypes in seedling roots present in adult roots given developmental events associated with aging? Is expression of phenotypes correlated in seedling and adult roots if time compounds effects of growth rates and growth conditions on roots? Watt et al. (2013) showed in wheat seedlings that root traits in the laboratory and field correlated positively but that neither correlated with adult root traits in the field. Factors between seedling and adult roots seemed to be differences in developmental stage and the time that growing roots experience the environment.Seedling and adult root differences may be larger in grasses than dicotyledons. Grass root systems have two developmental components: seed-borne (seminal) roots, of which a number emerge at germination and continue to grow and branch throughout the plant life, and stem-borne (nodal or adventitious) roots, which emerge from around the three-leaf stage and continue to emerge, grow, and branch throughout the plant life. Phenotypes and traits of adult root systems of grasses, which include the major cereal crops wheat, rice, and maize, are difficult to predict in seedling screens and ideally identified from adult root systems first (Gamuyao et al., 2012).Phenotyping of adult roots is possible in the field using trenches (Maeght et al., 2013) or coring (Wasson et al., 2014). A portion of the root system is captured with these methods. Alternatively, entire adult root systems can be contained within pots dug into the ground before sowing. These need to be large; field wheat roots, for example, can reach depths greater than 1.5 m depending on genotype and environment. This method prevents root-root interactions that occur under normal field sowing of a plant canopy and is also a compromise.A solution to the problem of phenotyping adult cereal root systems is a model for monocotyledon grasses: Brachypodium distachyon. B. distachyon is a small-stature grass with a small genome that is fully sequenced (Vogel et al., 2010). It has molecular tools equivalent to those available in Arabidopsis (Draper et al., 2001; Brkljacic et al., 2011; Mur et al., 2011). The root system of B. distachyon reference line Bd21 is more similar to wheat than other model and crop grasses (Watt et al., 2009). It has a seed-borne primary seminal root (PSR) that emerges from the embryo at seed germination and multiple stem-borne coleoptile node axile roots (CNRs) and leaf node axile roots (LNRs), also known as crown roots or adventitious roots, that emerge at about three leaves through to grain development. Branch roots emerge from all root types. There are no known anatomical differences between root types of wheat and B. distachyon (Watt et al., 2009). In a recent study, we report postflowering root growth in B. distachyon line Bd21-3, showing that this model can be used to answer questions relevant to the adult root systems of grasses (Chochois et al., 2012).In this study, we used B. distachyon to identify adult plant phenotypes related to the partitioning among seed-borne and stem-borne shoots and roots for the genetic improvement of well-watered and droughted cereals (Fig. 1; Krassovsky, 1926; Navara et al., 1994), nitrogen, phosphorus (Tennant, 1976; Brady et al., 1995), oxygen (Wiengweera and Greenway, 2004), soil hardness (Acuna et al., 2007), and microorganisms (Sivasithamparam et al., 1978). Of note is the study by Krassovsky (1926), which was the first, to our knowledge, to show differences in function related to water. Krassovsky (1926) showed that seminal roots of wheat absorbed almost 2 times the water as nodal roots per unit dry weight but that nodal roots absorbed a more diluted nutrient solution than seminal roots. Krassovsky (1926) also showed by removing seminal or nodal roots as they emerged that “seminal roots serve the main stem, while nodal roots serve the tillers” (Krassovsky, 1926). Volkmar (1997) showed, more recently, in wheat that nodal and seminal roots may sense and respond to drought differently. In millet (Pennisetum glaucum) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), Rostamza et al. (2013) found that millet was able to grow nodal roots in a dryer soil than sorghum, possibly because of shoot and root vigor.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.B. distachyon plant scanned at the fourth leaf stage, with the root and shoot phenotypes studied indicated. Supplemental Table S1.
Open in a separate windowThe third reason for dissecting the different root types in this study was that they seem to have independent genetic regulation through major genes. Genes affecting specifically nodal root growth have been identified in maize (Hetz et al., 1996; Hochholdinger and Feix, 1998) and rice (Inukai et al., 2001, 2005; Liu et al., 2005, 2009; Zhao et al., 2009; Coudert et al., 2010; Gamuyao et al., 2012). Here, we also dissect branch (lateral) development on the seminal or nodal roots. Genes specific to branch roots have been identified in Arabidopsis (Casimiro et al., 2003; Péret et al., 2009a), rice (Hao and Ichii, 1999; Wang et al., 2006; Zheng et al., 2013), and maize (Hochholdinger and Feix, 1998; Hochholdinger et al., 2001; Woll et al., 2005).This study explored the hypothesis that adult root systems of B. distachyon contain genotypic variation that can be exploited through phenotyping and genotyping to increase cereal yields. A selection of 79 wild lines of B. distachyon from various parts of the Middle East (Fig. 2 shows the geographic origins of the lines) was phenotyped. They were selected for maximum genotypic diversity from 187 diploid lines analyzed with 43 simple sequence repeat markers (Vogel et al., 2009). We phenotyped shoots and mature root systems concurrently because B. distachyon is small enough to complete its life cycle in relatively small pots of soil with minimal influence of pot size compared with crops, such as wheat. We further phenotyped a subset of this population under irrigation (well watered) and drought to assess genotype response to water supply. By conducting whole-plant studies, we aimed to identify phenotypes that described partitioning among shoot and root components and within seed-borne and stem-borne roots. Phenotypes that have the potential to be beneficial to shoot and root components may speed up genetic gain in future.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.B. distachyon lines phenotyped in this study and their geographical origin. Capital letters in parentheses indicate the country of origin: Turkey (T), Spain (S), and Iraq (I; Vogel et al., 2009). a, Adi3, Adi7, Adi10, Adi12, Adi13, and Adi15; b, Bd21 and Bd21-3 are the reference lines of this study. Bd21 was the first sequenced line (Vogel et al., 2010) and root system (described in detail in Watt et al., 2009), and Bd21-3 is the most easily transformed line (Vogel and Hill, 2008) and parent of a T-DNA mutant population (Bragg et al., 2012); c, Gaz1, Gaz4, and Gaz7; d, Kah1, Kah2, and Kah3. e, Koz1, Koz3, and Koz5; f, Tek1 and Tek6; g, exact GPS coordinates are unknown for lines Men2 (S), Mur2 (S), Bd2.3 (I), Bd3-1 (I), and Abr1 (T). 相似文献
Phenotype | Abbreviation | Unit | Range of Variation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
All Experiments (79 Lines and 582 Plants) | Experiment 6 (36 Lines) | |||
Whole plant | ||||
TDW | TDW | Milligrams | 88.6–773.8 (×8.7) | 285.6–438 (×1.5) |
Shoot | ||||
SDW | SDW | Milligrams | 56.4–442.5 (×7.8) | 78.2–442.5 (×5.7) |
No. of tillers | TillerN | Count | 2.8–20.3 (×7.4) | 10–20.3 (×2) |
Total root system | ||||
TRL | TRL | Centimeters | 1,050–10,770 (×10.3) | 2,090–5,140 (×2.5) |
RDW | RDW | Milligrams | 28.9–312.17 (×10.8) | 62.2–179.1 (×2.9) |
Rootpc | Rootpc | Percentage (of TDW) | 20.5–60.6 (×3) | 20.5–44.3 (×2.2) |
R/S | R/S | Unitless ratio | 0.26–1.54 (×6) | 0.26–0.80 (×3.1) |
PSRs | ||||
Length (including branch roots) | PSRL | Centimeters | 549.1–4,024.6 (×7.3) | 716–2,984 (×4.2) |
PSRpc | PSRpc | Percentage (of TRL) | 14.9–94.1 (×6.3) | 31.3–72.3 (×2.3) |
No. of axile roots | PSRcount | Count | 1 | 1 |
Length of axile root | PSRsum | Centimeters | 17.45–52 (×3) | 17.45–30.3 (×1.7) |
Branch roots | PSRbranch | Centimeters · (centimeters of axile root)−1 | 19.9–109.3 (×5.5) | 29.3–104.3 (×3.6) |
CNRs | ||||
Length (including branch roots) | CNRL | Centimeters | 0–3,856.7 | 0–2,266.5 |
CNRpc | CNRpc | Percentage (of TRL) | 0–57.1 | 0–49.8 |
No. of axile roots | CNRcount | Count | 0–2 | 0–2 |
Cumulated length of axile roots | CNRsum | Centimeters | 0–113.9 | 0–47.87 |
Branch roots | CNRbranch | Centimeters · (centimeters of axile root)−1 | 0–77.8 | 0–77.8 |
LNRs | ||||
Length (including branch roots) | LNRL | Centimeters | 99.5–5,806.5 (×58.5) | 216.1–2,532.4 (×11.7) |
LNRpc | LNRpc | Percentage (of TRL) | 4.2–72.7 (×17.5) | 6–64.8 (×10.9) |
LNRcount | LNRcount | Count | 2–22.2 (×11.1) | 3.3–15.3 (×4.6) |
LNRsum | LNRsum | Centimeters | 25.9–485.5 | 48–232 (×4.8) |
Branch roots | LNRbranch | Centimeters · (centimeters of axile root)−1 | 2.1–25.4 (×12.1) | 3.2–15.9 (×5) |
2.
PARP inhibitors (PARPi) gained major interest among prostate cancer researchers in the last few years, thanks to the outstanding results coming from the PROfound an TRITON2 studies. Following that, PARPi gained approval also in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with mutations in homologous repair (HR) – related genes. Nevertheless, some questions still remain unanswered concerning the management of drug resistance and PARPi-sensitivity in patients harboring alterations in various DNA damage response (DDR) related genes, not only BRCA1 and BRCA2.In this perspective article we focus on the key issues concerning PARPi in mCRPC, specifically those related to drug sensitivity and resistance mechanisms, exploring the possible role of combination therapeutic approaches and trying to depict potential future addresses in translational oncology research.Perspective Article (max: 1200 words)The DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway gained major interest between cancer researchers since 2005, when emerging studies demonstrated that the simultaneous inhibition of both Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) and tumor suppressors Breast Related Cancer Antigens 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2) generates excessive DNA instability and, ultimately, leads to cellular death. This process, called synthetic lethal theory, constituted the rationale for the development of drugs targeting PARP1 in BRCA1/2 deficient clones, the PARP inhibitors (PARPi) [1, 2].In normal conditions, PARP1 plays a key role as regulator of multiple cellular processes, including DDR. When a DNA damage occurs, the activation of PARP1 results in the recruitment of several DNA repair factors, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, leading to the restoration of single-strand (SSBs) and double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) [1,2]. Particularly, BRCA1 and BRCA2 act downstream the PARP1 cascade in one of the two major pathways for DSBs repair, largely error free: the homologous repair (HR). Another crucial mechanism, which sees the synergic contribution of PARP1, BRCA1 and BRCA 2, is the stabilization of replication fork during the S phase of the cell cycle [2]. As a consequence of that, heterozygous germline mutations in DDR genes, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2, dramatically increase the risk of developing multiple neoplasms (e.g. breast, ovarian, prostate and pancreatic cancers )2. In addition, somatic and germline mutations in one of these genes confer a strong sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents (e.g. platinum salts): these fundamental observations led researchers to successfully study and test pharmacological inhibition of the DDR pathway, using PARPi [2].Of note, it has been calculated that approximately 12% of metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients harbor germline DDR mutations, while 20–25% harbor somatic DDR mutations. Overall, it is estimated that in almost 22.7% of mCRPC patients could be identified mutations in DDR-related genes, making them a considerable number of people who could take an advantage from PARPi administration [3].In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to Olaparib as the first PARPi viable for women suffering from BRCA 1–2 mutated metastatic ovarian cancer both for cases previously treated with three or more lines of chemotherapy, and also as maintenance therapy following platinum-based chemotherapy [2]. Since that, following the consistent results described by subsequent clinical trials, Olaparib and other PARPi (e.g. Rucaparib, Niraparib) gained approval for different clinical settings in ovarian cancer and for BRCA-mutated breast, pancreatic and prostate cancer [2].In 2020, thanks to the outstanding results of the PROFound trial, the FDA approved the administration of Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after therapy with enzalutamide or abiraterone and harboring mutations in HR-related genes [4]. Later the same year, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended Olaparib in the same setting, with a slight but substantial difference: the main requirement was the identification of a BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation (somatic or germline) in prostate cancer patients who have progressed to a prior therapy that included a new hormonal agent [5].Similarly, Rucaparib received the FDA accelerated approval after the publication of the TRITON2 study, that showed consistent overall response rate (ORR) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) response rate values in patients with BRCA 1 and BRCA2 alterations [6].Nevertheless, it is well known that DDR mechanisms, including homologous repair (HR), are characterized by the interplay of a huge number of enzymes, co-factors, and molecules, not only BRCA1 and BRCA2 [2,5]. Specifically, HR requires the intervention of co-factors as PALB2 (Partner And Localizer Of BRCA2) and RAD51 (RAD51 Recombinase) to perform an accurate repair of double strand DNA breaks. In addition, BRCA1 and BRCA2 exhibit a crucial role during the S phase of the cell cycle, as protectors of the replication fork from the degradation activity carried out by nucleases. This is why, although PARPi seem to be more effective against BRCA1 and 2 mutations, data extrapolated from clinical trials suggest a benefit also for people harboring alterations in others genes, such as PALB2, RAD51 and ATM (Ataxia-Telangectasia Mutated) [2]. The PROFound trial, considered as a milestone, enlightened this aspect and its possible implications in prostate cancer: administering Olaparib to the whole cohort of HR-deficient patients could extend the survival benefit to a significant number of people, albeit the subgroup of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutated cohort might have generated an overestimation of this effect in that trial [7]. Further studies need to be carried out in order to perform a correct prognostic and predictive gene-signature based stratification of patients.One of major concerns related to anti-cancer drugs, particularly targeted therapies, is drug-resistance. Even PARPi, although frequently characterized by initial good responses, ultimately loose their effectiveness, leading to disease relapse [2]. The reason is that cancerous cells learn how to escape from the pharmacological attack of PARPi via several mechanisms: upregulation of drug efflux pumps; mutations of the drug target; recovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2 function; re-establishment of replication fork stability [2,8]. The deep knowledge of these mechanisms could lead to overcome drug resistance: the most appealing hypothesis to get through this barrier appears to combine PARPi with agents affecting HR from other sides, such as Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) inhibitors, for which some encouraging data have been published in a cohort of ovarian cancer patients [2]. An interesting observation is also that HR deficient cancers might exhibit a high tumor mutational burden, often associated with an improved sensitivity to immunotherapy. Thus, clinical trials are now investigating the combination of PARPi and immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) in mCRPC [9].Furthermore, several trials are ongoing to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of PARPi and new hormone agents (i.e. Abiraterone acetate, Enzalutamide) for metastatic prostate cancer, both in the hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant phases.Unfortunately, most of data concerning combination therapies were extrapolated from preliminary analyses of clinical trials, with many open issues still remaining. Firstly, drug safety: as previously stated in a phase I/II clinical trial, the addition of ICIs to PARPi seems to be well tolerated with no significant increase of severe adverse effects; at the same time, the administration of PARPi plus Abiraterone in mCRPC patients was investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled phase II clinical trial, obtaining promising results in term of safety and also efficacy [2,10]. Another major concern regards the need to identify reliable biomarkers predictive of drug response, and this must be one of the addresses of future researches [1,2]. The last issue involves health care costs of such combinations therapies, again emphasizing the importance to perform a thorough stratification of mCRPC patients. [2]. These might be some branches for future researches, to explore where and when to combine PARPi with other agents, and in which patients subgroup [1,2,9].We have now several weapons in our hands, ready to be used, the most important represented by genomic analyses techniques [2]. In addition, following that principle of synthetic lethality, we need to hit cellular DNA repairing system from many sides, employing old and new drugs. The only way to cope with this huge amount of data is to team up with different professional figures (e.g. biotechnologists, pharmacologists, biostatisticians), constructing a cooperative network system. Only by doing this we will make it up to the mountain. Study ID Title Status Phase NCT03732820 Study on Olaparib Plus Abiraterone as First-line Therapy in Men With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Recruiting 3 NCT01972217 Phase II Study to Evaluate Olaparib With Abiraterone in Treating Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer. Active, not recruiting 2 NCT02987543 Study of Olaparib (Lynparza™) Versus Enzalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (PROfound) Active, not recruiting 3 NCT03787680 Targeting Resistant Prostate Cancer With ATR and PARP Inhibition (TRAP Trial) Active, not recruiting 2 NCT03834519 Study of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) Plus Olaparib Versus Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) (MK-7339–010/KEYLYNK-010) Active, not recruiting 3 NCT03012321 Abiraterone/Prednisone, Olaparib, or Abiraterone/Prednisone + Olaparib in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer With DNA Repair Defects Recruiting 2 NCT03434158 Olaparib Maintenance in Patients With MCRPC After Docetaxel Treatment Reaching Partial or Stable Response (IMANOL) Active, not recruiting 2 NCT03516812 Testosterone and Olaparib in Treating Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Active, not recruiting 2 NCT04951492 Olaparib for the Treatment of Castration Resistant Prostate Adenocarcinoma Not yet recruiting 2 NCT02893917 Olaparib With or Without Cediranib in Treating Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Active, not recruiting 2 NCT01682772 TOPARP: A Phase II Trial of Olaparib in Patients With Advanced Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Active, not recruiting 2 NCT05005728 XmAb®20,717 Alone or in Combination With Chemotherapy or Targeted Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Not yet recruiting 2 NCT03413995 Trial of Rucaparib in Patients With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Harboring Germline DNA Repair Gene Mutations Recruiting 2 NCT02952534 A Study of Rucaparib in Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and Homologous Recombination Gene Deficiency (TRITON-2) Active, not recruiting 2 NCT02975934 A Study of Rucaparib Versus Physician''s Choice of Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and Homologous Recombination Gene Deficiency (TRITON-3) Recruiting 3 NCT04455750 A Clinical Study Evaluating The Benefit of Adding Rucaparib to Enzalutamide for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer That Has Become Resistant To Testosterone-Deprivation Therapy Recruiting 3 NCT03442556 Docetaxel, Carboplatin, and Rucaparib Camsylate in Treating Patients With Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer With Homologous Recombination DNA Repair Deficiency Recruiting 2 NCT04592237 Cabazitaxel, Carboplatin, and Cetrelimab Followed by Niraparib With or Without Cetrelimab for the Treatment of Aggressive Variant Metastatic Prostate Cancer Recruiting 2 NCT04821622 Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC Recruiting 3 NCT02854436 An Efficacy and Safety Study of Niraparib in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and DNA-Repair Anomalies Active, not recruiting 2