Nitric oxide functions in both methyl jasmonate signaling and abscisic acid signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells

Intracellular components in methyl jasmonate (MeJA) signaling remain largely unknown, to compare those in well-understood abscisic acid (ABA) signaling. We have reported that nitric oxide (NO) is a signaling component in MeJA-induced stomatal closure, as well as ABA-induced stomatal closure in the previous study. To gain further information about the role of NO in the guard cell signaling, NO production was examined in an ABA- and MeJA-insensitive Arabidopsis mutant, rcn1. Neither MeJA nor ABA induced NO production in rcn1 guard cells. Our data suggest that NO functions downstream of the branch point of MeJA and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.Key words: abscisic acid, Arabidopsis thaliana, guard cells, methyl jasmonate, nitric oxideStomatal pores that are formed by pairs of guard cells respond to various environmental stimuli including plant hormones. Some signal components commonly function in MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closing signals,¹ such as cytosolic alkalization, ROS generation and cytosolic free calcium ion elevation. Recently, we demonstrated that NO functions in MeJA signaling, as well as ABA signaling in guard cells.²NO production by nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and nitrate reductase (NR) plays important roles in physiological processes in plants.^3,4 It has been shown that NO functions downstream of ROS production in ABA signaling in guard cells.⁵ NO mediates elevation of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt), inactivation of inward-rectifying K⁺ channels and activation of S-type anion channels,⁶ which are known to be key factors in MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closure.^2,7–9It has been reported that ROS was not induced by MeJA and ABA in the MeJA- and ABA-insensitive mutant, rcn1 in which the regulatory subunit A of protein phosphatase 2A, RCN1, is impaired.^7,10 We examined NO production induced by MeJA and ABA in rcn1 guard cells (Fig. 1). NO production by MeJA and ABA was impaired in rcn1 mutant (p = 0.87 and 0.25 for MeJA and ABA, respectively) in contrast to wild type. On the other hand, the NO donor, SNP induced stomatal closure both in wild type and rcn1 mutant (data not shown). These results are consistent with our previous results, i.e., NO is involved in both MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closure and functions downstream of the branching point of MeJA and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.⁷ Our finding implies that protein phosphatase 2A might positively regulate NO levels in guard cells (Fig. 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Impairment of MeJA- and ABA-induced NO production in rcn1 guard cells. (A) Effects of MeJA (n = 10) and ABA (n = 9) on NO production in wild-type guard cells. (B) Effects of MeJA (n = 7) and ABA (n = 7) on NO production in rcn1 guard cells. The vertical scale represents the percentage of diaminofluorescein-2 diacetate (DAF-2 DA) fluorescent levels when fluorescent intensities of MeJA- or ABA-treated cells are normalized to control value taken as 100% for each experiment. Each datum was obtained from at least 30 guard cells. Error bars represent standard errors. Significance of differences between data sets was assessed by Student''s t-test analysis in this paper. We regarded differences at the level of p < 0.05 as significant.Open in a separate windowFigure 2A model of signal interaction in MeJA-induced and ABA-induced stomatal closure. Neither MeJA nor ABA induces ROS production, NO production, I_Kin and stomatal closure in rcn1 mutant. These results suggest that NO functions downstream of the branch point of MeJA signaling and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.     

Dynamic protein trafficking to the cell wall

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

Conserved residues in the ankyrin domain of VAPYRIN indicate potential protein-protein interaction surfaces

Plant VAPYRINs are required for the establishment of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) and root nodule symbiosis (RNS). In vapyrin mutants, the intracellular accommodation of AM fungi and rhizobia is blocked, and in the case of AM, the fungal endosymbiont cannot develop arbuscules which serve for nutrient exchange. VAPYRINs are plant-specific proteins that consists of a major sperm protein (MSP) domain and an ankyrin domain. Comparison of VAPYRINs of dicots, monocots and the moss Physcomitrella patens reveals a highly conserved domain structure. We focused our attention on the ankyrin domain, which closely resembles the D34 domain of human ankyrin R. Conserved residues within the petunia VAPYRIN cluster to a surface patch on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain, suggesting that this region may represent a conserved binding site involved in the formation of a protein complex with an essential function in intracellular accommodation of microbial endosymbionts.Key words: VAPYRIN, arbuscular mycorrhiza, petunia, symbiosis, glomus, ankyrin, major sperm protein, VAPPlants engage in mutualistic interactions such as root nodule symbiosis (RNS) with rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) with Glomeromycotan fungi. These associations are referred to as endosymbioses because they involve transcellular passage through the epidermis and intracellular accommodation of the microbial partner within root cortical cells of the host.^1,2 Infection by AM fungi and rhizobia is actively promoted by the plant and requires the establishment of infection structures namely the prepenetration apparatus (PPA) in AM and a preinfection thread in RNS, respectively.^3–5 In both symbioses the intracellular microbial accommodation in epidermal and root cortical cells involves rebuilding of the cytoskeleton and of the entire membrane system.^6–8 Recently, intracellular accommodation of rhizobia and AM fungi, and in particular morphogenesis of the AM fungal feeding structures, the arbuscules, was shown to depend on the novel VAPYRIN protein.^9–11VAPYRINs are plant-specific proteins consisting of two protein-protein interaction domains, an N-terminal major sperm protein (MSP) domain and a C-terminal ankyrin (ANK) domain. MSP of C. elegans forms a cytoskeletal network required for the motility of the ameboidal sperm.¹² MSP domains also occur in VAP proteins that are involved in membrane fusion processes in various eukaryotes.¹³ The ANK domain, on the other hand, closely resembles animal ankyrins which serve to connect integral membrane proteins to elements of the spectrin cytoskeleton,¹⁴ thereby facilitating the assembly of functional membrane microdomains in diverse animal cells.¹⁵ Ankyrin repeats exhibit features of nano-springs, opening the possibility that ankyrin domains may be involved in mechanosensing.¹⁶ Based on these structural similarities, VAPYRIN may promote intracellular accommodation of endosymbionts by interacting with membranes and/or with the cytoskeleton. Indeed, VAPYRIN protein associates with small subcellular compartments in petunia and in Medicago truncatula.^9,10Ankyrin repeats typically consist of 33 amino acids, of which 30–40% are highly conserved across most taxa. These residues confer to the repeats their basic helix-turn-helix structure.¹⁷ Ankyrin domains often consist of arrays of several repeats that form a solenoid with a characteristic crescent shape.¹⁷ Besides the ankyrin-specific motiv-associated amino acids there is little conservation between the ankyrin domains of different proteins, or between the individual repeats of a given ankyrin domain,¹⁷ a feature that was also observed in petunia VAPYRIN (Fig. 1A).⁹ However, sequence comparison of VAPYRINs from eight dicots, three monocots and the moss Physcomitrella patens revealed a high degree of sequence conservation beyond the ankyrin-specific residues (Fig. 1B and Sup. Fig. S1). When the degree of conservation was determined for the individual ankyrin repeats among all the 12 species, it appeared that repeats 7, 9 and 10 exhibited particularly high conservation (Fig. 1C).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Sequence analysis and phylogeny of VAPYRIN from diverse plants. (A) Predicted amino acid sequence of the petunia VAPYRIN protein PAM1. The 11 repeats of the ankyrin domain are aligned, and the ankyrin consensus sequence is shown below the eleventh ankyrin repeat (line c). Conserved residues that are characteristic for ankyrin repeats (Mosavi et al. 2004)¹⁷ are depicted in bold face. (B) Unrooted phylogenetic tree representing the VAPYRINs of eight dicot species (Petunia hybrida, Solanum lycopersicon, Solanum tuberosum, Vitis vinifera, Populus trichocarpa, Ricinus communis, Medicago truncatula and Glycine max) three monocot species (Sorghum bicolor, Zea mays and Oryza sativa), and the moss Physcomitrella patens. (C) Degree of conservation of the individual ankyrin repeats of VAPYRIN. Schematic representation of the MSP domain as N-terminal barrel-shaped structure, and of the individual ankyrin repeats as pairs of alpha-helices. An additional loop occurring only in monocots (grass-loop) is inserted above repeat 4, and the deletion between repeat 7 and 8 is indicated (gap). This latter feature is common to all VAPYRIN proteins. The percentage of amino acid residues that are identical in at least 11 of the 12 VAPYRINS is given below the MSP domain and the eleven ankyrin repeats. The box highlights repeats 7–10 which contribute to the predicted binding site (compare with Figs. 3 and ​and44).Sequence comparison of the eleven repeats of all the twelve plant species revealed that the individual repeats clustered according to their position in the domain, rather than according to their origin (plant species) (Fig. 2). This shows that the repeats each are well conserved across species, but show little similarity among each other within a given VAPYRIN protein. The higher conservation of repeats 9 and 10 was reflected by the compact appearance of the respective branches, in which the monocot and moss sequences were nested closely with the dicot sequences, compared to other repeats, where the branches appeared fragmented between monocots and dicots, and where the P. patens sequence fell out of the branch as in the case of repeats 4–6 (Fig. 2). Taken together, this points to an old evolutionary origin of the entire ankyrin domain in lower land plants, with no subsequent rearrangement of ankyrin repeats.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Phylogenetic analysis of the individual ankyrin repeats of VAPYRIN. Phylogenetic representation of an alignment of all the 11 repeats of the 12 VAPYRINs compared in Figure 1B and C. The repeats cluster according to their position within the domain, rather than to their origin (plant species). Numbers indicate the position of the repeats within the domain (compare with Fig. 1C). P. patens repeats are highlighted (small circles) for clarity. The monocot repeat 4 sequences (boxed) are remote from the remaining repeat 4 sequences because of the grass loop (compare with Fig. 1C).Ankyrin domains function as protein-protein interaction domains,¹⁷ in which the residues on the surface are involved in the binding of their protein partners.¹⁴ The fact that repeats 9 and 10 exhibited particularly high levels of conservation across species from moss to angiosperms indicated that this region may contain functionally important residues. Within repeat 10, sixteen amino acid positions were identical in >90% of the analyzed species (Fig. 3A and grey bars). Nine of those represent residues that are characteristic for ankyrin repeats (red letters) and determine their typical 3D shape.¹⁷ These residues are considered ankyrin-specific, and are unlikely to be involved in a VAPYRIN-specific function. The remaining seven highly conserved residues in repeat 10, however, are VAPYRIN-specific, since they have been under positive selection, without being essential for the basic structure of the ankyrin repeat. Ankyrin-specific and VAPYRIN-specific residues where identified throughout the entire ankyrin domain (Sup. Fig. 1), and subsequently mapped on a 3-dimensional model of petunia VAPYRIN to reveal their position in the protein (Fig. 3B–G). The ankyrin-specific residues were found to be localized primarily to the interior of the ankyrin domain, with the characteristic glycines (brown) marking the turns between helices and loops (Fig. 3B, D and F, compare with A). In contrast, the VAPYRIN-specific residues were localized primarily on the surface of the ankyrin domain (Fig. 3C, E and G). A prominent clustering of VAPYRIN-specific residues was identified on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain comprising repeats 7–10 close to the gap (Figs. 3G and ​and44). This highly conserved VAPYRIN-specific region contains several negatively and positively charged residues (D, E and K, R, respectively) and aromatic residues (W, Y, F), which may together form a conserved binding site for an interacting protein.Open in a separate windowFigure 33D-Mapping of conserved positions within the ankyrin domain of VAPYRIN. (A) Conserved amino acid residues were evaluated for ankyrin repeat 10 of petunia VAPYRIN as an example. The degree of conservation between the 12 VAPYRINs analyzed in Figures 1B and ​and22 is depicted with grey bars. Average conservation between all the 132 ankyrin repeats of the 12 VAPYRIN sequences is shown with black bars. Residues that are conserved in all 132 repeats (red letters) define the ankyrin consensus sequence, which confers to the repeats their characteristic basic structure.¹⁷ Residues that are >90% conserved but are not part of the basic ankyrin sequence (highlighted with asterisks) are VAPYRIN-specific and may therefore have been conserved because of their specific function in VAPYRIN. Arrows indicate the characteristic antiparallel helices, the turns are marked by conserved glycine residues (underlined; compare with B, D and F). (B–G) 3D-models of the petunia VAPYRIN PAM1. Conserved amino acid residues were color-coded according to their physico-chemical properties (http://life.nthu.edu.tw/∼fmhsu/rasframe/SHAPELY.HTM) with minor modification (see below). In (B, D and F) the ankyrin-specific residues are highlighted (corresponding to the bold letters in Fig. 1A). In (C, E and G), the VAPYRIN-specific residues are highlighted. Note the patch of high conservation on the concave side of the crescent-shaped ankyrin domain between repeats 7–10 next to the gap. (B–E) represent respective side views of the ankyrin domain, (F and G) exhibit the concave inner side of the domain. Color code: Bright red: aspartic acid (D), glutamic acid (E); Yellow: cysteine (C); Blue: lysine (K), arginine (R); Orange: serine (S), threonine (T); Dark blue: phenylalanine (F), tyrosin (Y); Brown: glycine (G); Green: leucin (L), valine (V), isoleucin (I), alanine (A); Lilac: tryptophane (W); Purple: histidine (H); Pink: proline (P).Open in a separate windowFigure 4The highly conserved surface area in domain 8–10 of the ankyrin domain of petunia VAPYRIN. Close-up of the highly conserved region of petunia PAM1 as shown in Figure 3G. Amino acids were color-coded as in Figure 3 and their position in the amino acid sequence is indicated (compare with Sup. Fig. 1).In this context, it is interesting to note that human ankyrin R also contains a binding surface on the concave side of the D34 domain for the interaction with the CBD3 protein.¹⁴ Consistent with an essential function of the C-terminal third of the ankyrin domain, mutations that abolish this relatively short portion of VAPYRIN, have a strong phenotype, indicating that they may represent null alleles.⁹ Based on this collective evidence, we hypothesize that repeats 7–10 are involved in the formation of a protein complex that is essential for intracellular accommodation of rhizobia and AM fungi. Biochemical and genetic studies are now required to identify the binding partners of VAPYRINs, and to elucidate their role in plant endosymbioses.     

MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP kinase successively mediate H2O2 signaling in Vicia guard cell

As a second messenger, H₂O₂ generation and signal transduction is subtly controlled and involves various signal elements, among which are the members of MAP kinase family. The increasing evidences indicate that both MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase mediate ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in plant cells. Here we analyze the mechanisms of similarity and difference between MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase in mediating ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation, inhibition of inward K⁺ currents, and stomatal closure. These data suggest that activation of MEK1/2 is prior to p38-like protein kinase in Vicia guard cells.Key words: H₂O₂ signaling, ABA, p38-like MAP kinase, MEK1/2, guard cellAn increasing number of literatures elucidate that reactive oxygen species (ROS), especially H₂O₂, is essential to plant growth and development in response to stresses,^1–4 and involves activation of various signaling events, among which are the MAP kinase cascades.^1–3,5 Typically, activation of MEK1/2 mediates NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS generation in response to stresses,^4,6–8 and the facts that MEK1/2 inhibits the expression and activation of antioxidant enzymes reveal how PD98059, the specific inhibitor of MEK1/2, abolishes abscisic acid (ABA)-induced H₂O₂ generation.^6,8,9 It has been indicated that PD98059 does not to intervene on salicylic acid (SA)-stimulated H₂O₂ signaling regardless of SA mimicking ABA in regulating stomatal closure.^2,6,8,10 Generally, activation of MEK1/2 promotes ABA-induced stomatal closure by elevating H₂O₂ generation in conjunction with inactivating anti-oxidases.Moreover, activation of plant p38-like protein kinase, the putative counterpart of yeast or mammalian p38 MAP kinase, has been reported to participate in various stress responses and ROS signaling. It has been well documented that p38 MAP kinase is involved in stress-triggered ROS signaling in yeast or mammalian cells.^11–13 Similar to those of yeast and mammals, many studies showed the activation of p38-like protein kinase in response to stresses in various plants, including Arabidopsis thaliana,^14–16 Pisum sativum,¹⁷ Medicago sativa¹⁸ and tobacco.¹⁹ The specific p38 kinase inhibitor SB203580 was found to modulate physiological processes in plant tissues or cells, such as wheat root cells,²⁰ tobacco tissue²¹ and suspension-cultured Oryza sativa cells.²² Recently, we investigate how activation of p38-like MAP kinase is involved in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in guard cells. Our results show that SB203580 blocks ABA-induced stomatal closure by inhibiting ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation and decreasing K⁺ influx across the plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells, contrasting greatly with its analog SB202474, which has no effect on these events.^23,24 This suggests that ABA integrate activation of p38-like MAP kinase and H₂O₂ signaling to regulate stomatal behavior. In conjunction with SB203580 mimicking PD98059 not to mediate SA-induced H₂O₂ signaling,^23,24 these results generally reveal that the activation of p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 is similar in guard cells.On the other hand, activation of p38-like MAP kinase^23,24 is not always identical to that of MEK1/2^8,25 in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling of Vicia guard cells. For example, H₂O₂^- and ABA-induced stomatal closure was partially reversed by SB203580. The maximum inhibition of both regent-induced stomatal closure were observed at 2 h after treatment with SB203580, under which conditions the stomatal apertures were 89% and 70% of the control values, respectively. By contrast, when PD98059 was applied together with ABA or H₂O₂, the effects of both ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure were completely abolished (Fig. 1). These data imply that the two members of MAP kinase family are efficient in H₂O₂-stimulated stomatal closure, but p38-like MAP kinase is less susceptive than MEK1/2 to ABA stimuli.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effects of SB203580 and PD98059 on ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.^8,23,24It has been reported that ABA or NaCl activate p38 MAP kinase in the chloronema cells of the moss Funaria hygrometrica in 2∼10 min.²⁶ Similar to this, SB203580 improves H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents after 4 min and leads it to the control level (100%) during the following 8 min (Fig. 2). However, the activation of p38-like MAP kinase in response to ABA need more time, and only recovered to 75% of the control at 8 min of treatment (Fig. 2). These results suggest that control of H₂O₂ signaling is required for the various protein kinases including p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 in guard cells,^1,2,8,23,24 and the ABA and H₂O₂ pathways diverge further downstream in their actions on the K⁺ channels and, thus, on stomatal control. Other differences in action between ABA and H₂O₂ are known. For example, Köhler et al. (2001) reported that H₂O₂ inhibited the K⁺ outward rectifier in guard cells shows that H₂O₂ does not mimic ABA action on guard cell ion channels as it acts on the K⁺ outward rectifier in a manner entirely contrary to that of ABA.²⁷Open in a separate windowFigure 2Effect of SB203580 on ABA- and H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.²⁴ SB203580 directs ABA- and H₂O₂-inactivated inward K⁺ currents across plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells. Here the inward K⁺ currents value is stimulated by −190 mV voltage.Based on the similarity and difference between PD98059 and SB203580 in interceding ABA and H₂O₂ signaling, we speculate the possible mechanism is that the member of MAP kinase family specially regulate signal event in ABA-triggered ROS signaling network,^1–4 and the signaling model as follows (Fig. 3).Open in a separate windowFigure 3Schematic illustration of MAP kinase-mediated H₂O₂ signaling of guard cells. The arrows indicate activation. The line indicates enhancement and the bar denotes inhibition.     

Co-localization of mitochondria with chloroplasts is a light-dependent reversible response

Co-localization of mitochondria with chloroplasts in plant cells has long been noticed as beneficial interactions of the organelles to active photosynthesis. Recently, we have found that mitochondria in mesophyll cells of Arabidopsis thaliana expressing mitochondrion-targeted green fluorescent protein (GFP) change their distribution in a light-dependent manner. Mitochondria occupy the periclinal and anticlinal regions of palisade cells under weak and strong blue light, respectively. Redistributed mitochondria seem to be rendered static through co-localization with chloroplasts. Here we further demonstrated that distribution patterns of mitochondria, together with chloroplasts, returned back to those of dark-adapted state during dark incubation after blue-light illumination. Reversible association of the two organelles may underlie flexible adaptation of plants to environmental fluctuations.Key words: Arabidopsis thaliana, blue light, chloroplast, green fluorescent protein, mesophyll cell, mitochondrion, organelle positioningHighly dynamic cell organelles, mitochondria, are responsible not only for energy production, but also for cellular metabolism, cell growth and survival as well as gene regulations.^1,2 Appropriate intracellular positioning and distribution of mitochondria contribute to proper organelle functions and are essential for cell signaling.^3,4 In plant cells operating photosynthesis, the co-localization of mitochondria with chloroplasts has been a well known phenomenon for a long period of time.^5,6,7 Physical contact of mitochondria with chloroplasts may provide a means to transfer genetic information from the organelle genome,⁸ as well as to exchange metabolite components; a process required for the maintenance of efficient photosynthesis.^9,10,11Using Arabidopsis thaliana stably expressing mitochondrion-targeted GFP,¹² we have recently examined a different aspect of mitochondria positioning. Although mitochondria in leaf mesophyll cells are highly motile under dark condition, mitochondria change their intracellular positions in response to light illumination.¹³ The pattern of light-dependent positioning of mitochondria seems to be essentially identical to that of chloroplasts.¹⁴ Mitochondria occupy the periclinal regions under weak blue light (wBL; 470 nm, 4 µmol m⁻²s⁻¹) and the anticlinal regions under strong blue light (sBL; 100 µmol m⁻²s⁻¹), respectively. A gradual increase in the number of static mitochondria located in the vicinity of chloroplasts in the periclinal regions with time period of wBL illumination clearly demonstrates that the co-localization of these two organelles is a light-induced phenomenon.¹³In the present study, to ask whether the light-dependent positioning of mitochondria is reversible or not, a time course of mitochondria redistribution was examined transferring the sample leaves from light to dark conditions. The representative results (Fig. 1) clearly show that mitochondria re-changed their positions within several hours of dark treatment. Immediately after dark adaptation, mitochondria in the palisade mesophyll cells were distributed randomly throughout the cytoplasm (Fig. 1A and ^{ref. 13}). Chloroplasts were distributed along the inner periclinal walls and the lower half of the anticlinal walls. On the contrary, mitochondria accumulated along the outer (Fig. 1B) and inner periclinal walls when illuminated with wBL. Chloroplast position was also along the outer and inner periclinal walls. Many of the mitochondria located near the chloroplasts lost their motility. When wBL-illuminated leaves were transferred back to dark condition, the numbers of mitochondria and chloroplasts present on the periclinal regions began to decrease within several hours (Fig. 1C). After 10 h dark treatment, distribution patterns of mitochondria as well as chloroplasts almost recovered to those of dark-adapted cells (Fig. 1D).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Distribution of mitochondria and chloroplasts on the outer periclinal regions of palisade mesophyll cells of A. thaliana under different light conditions. Mitochondria (green; GFP) and chloroplasts (red; chlorophyll autofluorescence) were visualized with confocal microscopy after dark adaptation (A), immediately after wBL (470 nm, 4 µmol m⁻²s⁻¹) illumination for 4 h (B), after dark treatment for 6 h (C) and 10 h (D) following the 4-h wBL illumination, respectively. Bar = 50 µm.To our knowledge, this may be the first report that directly demonstrates that wBL regulates mitochondria and chloroplast positioning in a reversible manner, though the nuclei in A. thaliana leaf cells were also found to reverse their positions when transferred from sBL to dark conditions.¹⁵ Reversible regulation of organelle positioning in leaf cells should play critical roles in adaptation of plants to highly fluctuating light conditions in the nature. Since distribution patterns of mitochondria under wBL and sBL are identical to those of chloroplasts, we can assume that phototropins, the BL receptors for chloroplast photo-relocation movement,¹⁶ may have some role in the redistribution of mitochondria. On the other hand, we also found that red light exhibited a significant effect on mitochondria positioning (Islam et al. 2009), suggesting an involvement of photosynthesis. These possibilities are now under investigation.     

High-throughput transient transformation of Arabidopsis roots enables systematic colocalization analysis of GFP-tagged proteins

Determination of the subcellular localization of an unknown protein is a major step towards the elucidation of its function. Lately, the expression of proteins fused to fluorescent markers has been very popular and many approaches have been proposed to express these proteins. Stable transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens generates stable lines for downstream experiments, but is time-consuming. If only colocalization is required, transient techniques save time and effort. Several methods for transient assays have been described including protoplast transfection, biolistic bombardment, Agrobacterium tumefaciens cocultivation and infiltration. In general colocalizations are preferentially performed in intact tissues of the same species, resembling the native situation. High transformation rates were described for cotyledons of Arabidopsis, but never for roots. Here we report that it is possible to transform Arabidopsis root epidermal cells with an efficiency that is sufficient for colocalization purposes.Key words: Arabidopsis, GFP-fusions, protein localization, root, transient transformationSince the release of the Arabidopsis thaliana genome sequence plant biologists set the goal to elucidate the functions of all coded genes. Apart from the spatio-temporal expression patterns of genes, the subcellular localization of gene products can play an essential role in deciphering their function. Classical immunological approaches to localize proteins can be hindered by cross-reactivity, time-consuming generation of antibodies and the low temporal resolution. Expression of tagged proteins forms a suitable alternative. Lately, fusions with fluorescent proteins in combination with confocal (CLSM)¹ or spinning disc microscopy² allow real time protein localization and even subcellular trafficking at high resolution. An overview of fluorescent tagging approaches can be found elsewhere.³Currently several techniques to introduce the coding region for a tagged protein in a plant are available. The generation of stable lines transformed by Agrobacterium tumefaciens offers a continuous source of plant material, but it is time-consuming especially when only colocalization experiments are required. Transient assays, on the other hand, offer the advantage of being fast and amenable to high throughput strategies. Each of these techniques, however, has some limitations and drawbacks. Particle bombardment (biolistics) ^4–6 for example circumvents the host specificity of Agrobacterium strains, but requires expensive equipment. Moreover, it is rather disruptive and imposes a significant stress upon the plants, possibly influencing the results. Protoplasts lack a cell wall and protoplast transformation^7,8 is therefore not suitable for certain experiments related to cell wall proteins or when interactions between cells on tissue level might be important.⁹ Moreover, protoplasts have lost their identity which might be critical for the correct functioning of certain transgenic constructs. Agrobacterium infiltration of tobacco leaves¹⁰ is regularly used and represents an efficient, fast and relatively easy transformation technique. However, tobacco leaves easily show autofluoresence due to tissue damage as a result of experimental manipulations. As it has been reported that some protein fusions expressed in an heterologous system localize to different subcellular localizations11 it is advisable not to use tobacco when localizing Arabidopsis proteins. Leaf infiltrations have been performed in Arabidopsis,¹² but apparently their leaves are much more prone to mechanical damage and the leaf developmental stage is critical, complicating this technique. Cocultivation of Agrobacterium with seedlings offers a rapid and efficient approach applicable to many mono and dicot species. It was reported to work efficiently in Arabidopsis cotyledons, but not in roots.⁹ As an alternative method, Agrobacterium infiltration of Arabidopsis seedlings¹¹ seems an efficient technique for transient expression. However, expression in root cells could not be obtained. Colocalizations are required in the native cells or tissue for the correct localization of an unknown protein or proteins that need interaction partners. As a consequence this technique can not be reliably used when root expressed gene products are studied. Here we show evidence that it is possible to use the described technique¹¹ to induce transient expression in Arabidopsis roots.We used the Agrobacterium infiltration of Arabidopsis seedlings technique¹¹ to colocalize several C-terminal (S65T)-sGFP fusions generated in the plant binary vector pGWB6.¹³ Each construct was transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens (C59C1Rif^R) containing the helper plasmid pMP90. Subsequently different stable marker lines, wild type Arabidopsis (Col-0) bearing mCherry fusion constructs,¹⁴ were transiently transformed.¹¹ After 2 or 3 days seedlings were studied using CLSM. Besides being expressed in cotyledons fusion proteins were clearly observed in root epidermis and root cap cells (Fig. 1A and B). As reported¹¹ the transformation efficiency in cotyledons was considerably higher than in root cells. However, in each experiment we obtained a considerable amount of transformed root epidermal cells which was more than sufficient for colocalization studies (Fig. 2). It was remarkable that transformation was repeatedly successful in groups of cells, adjacent or close to each other.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Transient transformation of Arabidopsis root cells. Expression of the protein-GFP fusion product can be seen in the epidermal (A) and root cap cells (B) on fluorescence/transmission merged images. As seen in (A) high efficiencies of root transformation can be reached.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Colocalization of mCherry and GFP constructs. Confocal image of the mCherry fluorescence (A), the GFP signal (B) and the merged image (C).In contrast to what was reported earlier we show here that the Agrobacterium infiltration technique¹¹ is perfectly capable of transiently transforming Arabidopsis root epidermal cells. It allows the transient production and study of proteins in their native environment, considerably increasing the reliability of such experiments. Additionaly the use of RFP marker constructs in colocalisation studies in the root is free of interference by the red background autofluorescence of chlorophyll.     

Arabidopsis glutathione reductase 1 is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol

We recently established a proteome methodology for Arabidopsis leaf peroxisomes and identified more than 90 putative novel proteins of the organelle. These proteins included glutathione reductase isoform 1 (GR1), a major enzyme of the antioxidative defense system that was previously reported to be cytosolic. In this follow-up study, we validated the proteome data by analyzing the in vivo subcellular targeting of GR1 and the function of its C-terminal tripeptide, TNL>, as a putative novel peroxisome targeting signal type 1 (PTS1). The full-length protein was targeted to peroxisomes in onion epidermal cells when fused N-terminally with the reporter protein. The efficiency of peroxisome targeting, however, was weak upon expression from a strong promoter, consistent with the idea that the enzyme is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol in vivo. The reporter protein that was extended C-terminally by 10 amino acid residues of GR1 was directed to peroxisomes, characterizing TNL> as a novel PTS1. The data thus identify plant peroxisomal GR at the molecular level in the first plant species and complete the plant peroxisomal ascorbate-glutathione cycle. Moreover, GR1 is the first plant protein that is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol. The evolutionary origin and regulatory mechanisms of dual targeting are discussed.Key words: ascorbate-glutathione cycle, dual targeting, proteome analyses, reactive oxygen species, targeting signalsMassive amounts of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) are produced during photosynthesis in peroxisomes by glycolate oxidase activity as part of the photorespiratory cycle.¹ Next to catalase, the ascorbate-glutathione cycle is the secondary scavenging system for H₂O₂ detoxification.^2–4 The cycle comprises four enzymes, ascorbate peroxidase (APX), monodehydroascorbate reductase (MDAR), dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR) and NADPH-dependent glutathione reductase (GR). GR plays a major physiological role in maintaining and regenerating reduced glutathione in response to biotic and abiotic stresses in plants.⁵ Jiminez et al. (1997) provided biochemical evidence for the presence of the antioxidants ascorbate and glutathione and the enzymes of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle in pea peroxisomes.^6–8 While Arabidopsis APX3, MDAR1 and MDAR4 have been characterized as peroxisomal isoforms,^9–11 the molecular identity of plant peroxisomal GR and DHAR have not been determined in any plant species to date.⁵ Arabidopsis encodes two GR and five DHAR isoforms that are either shown to be or predicted to be cytosolic, mitochondrial or plastidic.¹² We recently identified specific isoforms of GR (GR1, At3g24170) and DHAR (DHAR1, At1g19570) as being peroxisome-associated by proteome analysis of Arabidopsis leaf peroxisomes.^13,14 Both isoforms were previously reported to be or predicted to be cytosolic.¹⁵Arabidopsis GR1 terminates with TNL>, which is related to functional plant PTS1 tripeptides such as SNL> and ANL>.^16,17 Threonine (T), however, has not yet been described as an allowed residue at position −3 of PTS1s in any plant peroxisomal protein.¹⁶ Analysis of homologous plant proteins and expressed sequence tags (ESTs) shows that TNL> is generally highly conserved in putative plant GR1 orthologs (Fig. 1). A few other sequences terminate with related tripeptides, such TSL>, TTL>, NNL> and TKL>. Only a single EST (Picrorhiza kurrooa) carries the canonical PTS1, SKI> (Fig. 1). The data provide only weak additional support for peroxisome targeting of plant GR1 orthologs. However, GR homologs from green algae (chlorophyta) carry canonical PTS1 tripeptides, such as SKL> (Chlamydomonas, Volvox) and AKM> (Micromonas, Fig. 1, Suppl. Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Analysis of PTS1 conservation in plant GR1 homologs. Sequences of full-length protein (FLP) plant GR1 homologs or ESTs (“EST”) were identified by BLAST and phylogenetic analysis, aligned by ClustalX, and conserved residues were shaded by Genedoc. In addition to spermatophyta, homologs from bryophyta and chlorophyta were analyzed for PTS1 conservation. For a phylogenetic analysis of the full-length proteins, see also Supplementary Figure 1. The species abbreviations are as follows: Aa, Artemisia annua; At, Arabidopsis thaliana; Bn, Brassica napus; Br, Brassica rapa; Ci, Cichorium intybus; Cr, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii; Cs, Cynara scolymus; Fv, Fragaria vesca; Ha, Helianthus annuus; Msp, Micromonas sp. RCC 299; Mt, Medicago truncatula; Nt, Nicotiana tabacum; Os, Oryza sativa; Pk, Picrorhiza kurrooa; Ppat, Physcomitrella patens subsp. patens; Ps, Pisum sativum; Ptri, Populus trichocarpa; Rc, Ricinus communis; Rs, Raphanus sativus; Tp, Trifolium pratense; Tpus, Triphysaria pusilla; Vc, Volvox carteri f. nagariensis; Vv, Vitis vinifera; Zm, Zea mays.     

Creating drought- and salt-tolerant cotton by overexpressing a vacuolar pyrophosphatase gene

Increased expression of an Arabidopsis vacuolar pyrophosphatase gene, AVP1, leads to increased drought and salt tolerance in transgenic plants, which has been demonstrated in laboratory and field conditions. The molecular mechanism of AVP1-mediated drought resistance is likely due to increased proton pump activity of the vacuolar pyrophosphatase, which generates a higher proton electrochemical gradient across the vacuolar membrane, leading to lower water potential in the plant vacuole and higher secondary transporter activities that prevent ion accumulation to toxic levels in the cytoplasm. Additionally, overexpression of AVP1 appears to stimulate auxin polar transport, which in turn stimulates root development. The larger root system allows AVP1-overexpressing plants to absorb water more efficiently under drought and saline conditions, resulting in stress tolerance and increased yields. Multi-year field-trial data indicate that overexpression of AVP1 in cotton leads to at least 20% more fiber yield than wild-type control plants in dry-land conditions, which highlights the potential use of AVP1 in improving drought tolerance in crops in arid and semiarid areas of the world.Key words: drought tolerance, proton pump, salt tolerance, transgenic cotton, vacuolar membraneDrought and salinity are major environmental factors that limit agricultural productivity in most parts of the world.¹ Climate change will likely make many places worse in terms of water availability and soil salinization,² which will have negative impacts on food production in world agriculture. Yet, the demand for more food will continue to rise because of the growing world population that may reach 9 billon people by 2050.³ Therefore, the primary challenge we face during this century is the production of more food under the constraints of limited water and fertilizer on marginal soils.Many genes that respond to abiotic stresses have been identified in the model plant Arabidopsis,⁴ and some of them were shown to play important roles in protecting plants under abiotic stress conditions.⁵ The Arabidopsis vacuolar pyrophosphatase gene AVP1 appears to be one of the most promising genes that may be used to improve drought- and salt-tolerance in crops.⁶ Roberto Gaxiola''s group first demonstrated that overexpression of AVP1 could lead to significantly improved drought- and salt-tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis plants.⁷ Later when this gene was introduced into tomato⁸ and rice,⁹ similar tolerance phenotypes were observed. Overexpression of AVP1 in cotton, not only improved drought- and salt-tolerance in greenhouse conditions, but also increased fiber yield in dryland field conditions.⁶ AVP1-expressing cotton plants produced larger root systems and bigger shoot biomass than controls when grown under hydroponic conditions in the presence of up to 200 mM NaCl.⁶ In the greenhouse, AVP1-expressing cotton plants also produced more root and shoot biomass than controls when grown under saline conditions or reduced irrigation.⁶ The increased yield by AVP1-expressing cotton plants is due to more bolls produced, which in turn is due to larger shoot system that AVP1-expressing cotton plants develop under saline or drought conditions.⁶The larger root systems of AVP1-expressing cotton plants under saline and water-deficit conditions allow transgenic plants access to more of the soil profile and available soil water resulting in increased biomass production and yield. Li et al. showed that the larger root systems of AVP1-overexpressing Arabidopsis is caused by increased auxin polar transport in the root, which stimulates root development in AVP1-overexpressing Arabidopsis plants.¹⁰ Furthermore, a recent comparative study of transgenic Arabidopsis lines that produce enlarged leaves showed that auxin levels were increased by 50% in AVP1-overexpressing plants.¹¹ To test if altered auxin level is responsible for the observed larger root systems in AVP1-expressing cotton plants, we germinated wild-type and AVP1-expressing cotton plants in the absence or presence of the auxin polar transport inhibitor Naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA). Both wild-type and AVP1-expressing cotton plants developed robust lateral root systems in the absence of NPA (Fig. 1A). The presence of 50 µM NPA resulted in nearly complete inhibition of lateral root development in wild-type plants, while lateral root development in AVP1-expressing plants was reduced, it was significantly greater than wild-type (Fig. 1B). These data indicate that AVP1-overexpression could overcome the inhibitory effects of NPA on root development in AVP1-expressing cotton plants, suggesting that either increased auxin transport or higher auxin concentration in the root systems of AVP1-expressing cotton plants is responsible for the observed larger root systems, and eventually for the increased boll numbers and fiber yields under dryland field conditions.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Root development of wild-type and AVP1-expressing cotton plants in the absence and presence of auxin transport inhibitor NPA. (A) Phenotype of cotton roots after 10 days of growth in the absence of NPA. WT, Wild-type; 1, 5, 9, three independent AVP1-overexpressing cotton lines. (B) Phenotype of cotton roots after 10 days of growth in the presence of 50 µm NPA.Many genes that may play important roles under water-deficit conditions have been tested in laboratory conditions,^4,5 but very few have been tested vigorously in field conditions. A bacterial cold shock protein gene was shown to improve drought tolerance in maize based on multi-year and multi-place field trial experiments,¹² and it appears that this gene will likely gain approval for commercial release and become the first genetically engineered product that demonstrates improved drought tolerance in a major crop in the U.S. Another example of increased drought tolerance supported by multiple field trial experiments is through downregulation of farnesylation in transgenic canola plants.¹³ Downregulation of farnesyltransferase by antisense or RNAi techniques in transgenic canola leads to increased sensitivity to abscisic acid, consequently resulting in smaller guard cell aperture under drought conditions. These transgenic canola plants lose less water through transpiration and are more drought resistant. Data from more than 5 years of field studies in Canada consistently proved that this approach can indeed increase drought tolerance in transgenic canola. Our study with AVP1-expressing cotton over the last several years in field conditions is another example that genetic engineering approach can be an efficient tool in generating drought-tolerant crops. AVP1-expressing cotton plants can establish a larger shoot mass in dryland conditions (Fig. 2), which results in increased boll numbers and fiber production. Our approach is likely applicable to other major crops as well.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Wild-type and AVP1-expressing cotton plants grown in the dryland field condition. Plants were planted in the middle of may 2009 and the picture was taken in the middle of July 2009 at the USDA experimental Farm in Lubbock, Texas.     

Canonical WNT Signalling Controls Hair Follicle Spacing

Canonical WNT signals play an important role in hair follicle development. In addition to being crucial for epidermal appendage initiation, they control the interfollicular spacing pattern and contribute to the spatial orientation and largely parallel alignment of hair follicles. However, owing to the complexity of canonical WNT signalling and its interconnections with other pathways, many details of hair follicle formation await further clarification. Here, we discuss the recently suggested reaction-diffusion (RD) mechanism of spatial hair follicle arrangement in the light of yet unpublished data and conclusions. They clearly demonstrate that the observed hair follicle clustering in dickkopf (DKK) transgenic mice cannot be explained by any trivial process caused by protein overexpression, thereby further supporting our model of hair follicle spacing. Furthermore, we suggest future experiments to challenge the RD model of spatial follicle arrangement.Key Words: hair follicle, pattern formation, WNT, DKK, KRM, LRPIn order to stimulate the canonical WNT signalling pathway, members of the WNT protein family have to bind to their cognate Frizzled receptors as well as to a co-receptor encoded by Lrp5 and 6, respectively.^1–3 Pathway activation is competitively inhibited by soluble WNT binding proteins such as secreted frizzled related proteins (SFRPs).^4,5 Moreover, members of the DKK family bind non-competitively to LRPs;^6,7 simultaneous interaction with Kremen (KRM) 1 or 2 causes depletion of WNT co-receptors from the cell surface, thereby inhibiting canonical WNT signals.⁸Based on previous findings concerning the importance of WNT signalling in hair follicle initiation and orientation,^9,10 we recently hypothesised that the pathway may also have an essential role in the spatial arrangement of follicles. Using a combined experimental and computational modelling approach, we provided evidence for WNTs and DKKs controlling interfollicular spacing through a reaction-diffusion mechanism (Fig. 1).¹¹ By confirming the prediction of hair follicle clustering in the presence of moderate DKK overexpression, we demonstrated the biological implementation of a fundamental principle of pattern formation the mathematical basis of which has been described by Alan Turing in the 1950s.¹²Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic of early hair follicle development in mouse and the hypothesised distribution of WNTs and DKKs as the critical regulators of interfollicular spacing. According to the RD hypothesis of Alan Turing, patterning starts with an almost even distribution of activator and inhibitor (solid and dashed lines, respectively) (A, bottom). Transferring the model to murine hair follicle morphogenesis, this molecular pattern is associated with a morphologically unstructured epidermis (A, top); (the underlying dermis is indicated by black spots). Of note, WNTs and DKKs were recently suggested to represent an activator/inhibitor pair in follicle development. In the RD model, small fluctuations in the initially even protein distribution are enhanced and, eventually, give rise to a distinct and stable pattern of activator and inhibitor distribution (B, bottom). This is mainly achieved by an activator controlling expression of its own as well of the inhibitor, an inhibitor antagonising the activator''s action, and an increased mobility of the inhibitor as compared to the activator. Although protein distribution in the developing skin is still hypothetical, the predicted pattern could control hair follicle morphogenesis, the first sign of which are epithelial thickenings (B, top). They stimulate the formation of dermal condensates which become dermal papillae later on. Of note, interfollicular spacing is solely determined by the parameters of the underlying RD mechanism. Hence, upon embryo growth, areas in between previously formed follicles again become capable of hair follicle formation owing to local protein levels (C). While the Turing model cannot describe this transitional state, it clearly predicts the formation of new follicles after enlargement of the interfollicular space (D); without changing the underlying parameters, the RD mechanism generates a fixed spacing pattern. Indeed, hair follicle development in mouse does occur by consecutive inductive waves.Unexpectedly, DKK2 was capable of stimulating the WNT pathway in the absence of Krm2 expression.¹³ As discussed by Stark et al., this finding raises the possibility that transgenic overexpression of Dkk2 in our Foxn1::Dkk2 mice may directly activate the canonical WNT pathway.¹⁴ Thus, since stabilised β-catenin is sufficient for follicle formation,¹⁵ new appendages may be initiated adjacent to previously formed, Dkk2 expressing follicles, if their neighborhood lacks KRM protein.Indeed, during early hair follicle development, interfollicular epidermis shows only weak Krm2 expression as compared to follicle buds (Fig. 2). Moreover, at more advanced stages, the distal part of emerging follicles may even lack any Krm2 gene activity. However, although Krm1 is also predominantly expressed in the developing hair bulb, moderate gene activity is found throughout the epidermis and the distal part of hair follicles (Fig. 3). Hence, developing follicles and their neighborhood do not represent a KRM-negative compartment. As a consequence, hair follicle induction by DKK2-mediated stimulation of the canonical WNT pathway is very unlikely.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Expression of Krm2 during early hair follicle development, demonstrated by non-radioactive in situ hybridisation. Bars, 100 µm.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Expression of Krm1 during early hair follicle development, demonstrated by non-radioactive in situ hybridisation. Bars, 100 µm.In contrast to DKK2, DKK1 is unable to stimulate the canonical WNT pathway.^16,17 This difference could be attributed to the amino-terminal domain. To investigate whether transgenic DKK2 may cause hair follicle clustering just by pathway activation, we generated Foxn1::Dkk1 transgenic mice. However, they showed essentially the same phenotype as Foxn1::Dkk2 animals.¹¹ Moreover, transgenic mice expressing amino-terminally truncated DKK1 protein were largely indistinguishable from Foxn1::Dkk1 animals instead of showing an enhanced patterning abnormality (data not shown).If direct stimulation of the canonical WNT signalling pathway by transgenic DKKs would be responsible for the severely altered spatial arrangement of hair follicles, increasing transgene expression should at least preserve or even enhance hair follicle clustering, while the distances between clusters may increase. However, mice with particularly strong Dkk2 transgene expression did not show hair follicle clusters but single, well-developed follicles with large interfollicular distances.¹¹In summary, our data do strongly argue against hair follicle clustering in transgenic mice by DKK-mediated activation of the WNT pathway. By contrast, all data are in line with the recently suggested RD model of hair follicle spacing.Nevertheless, several questions remain to be answered. First, the identity of the WNT protein(s) involved in interfollicular patterning is unknown. Second, the contribution of the inhibitors DKK1 and DKK4 both of which are expressed during hair follicle initiation is still a matter of debate. In the light of multiple WNTs being expressed during early hair follicle morphogenesis,¹⁸ some redundancy appears to be likely. Hence, the effects of single gene knockouts may be limited and transgenic approaches with their intrinsic capability of dramatically changing overall WNT levels may be favourable to challenge the RD model and to identify the WNT family members that are involved in the patterning process. Likewise, gene inactivation of either Dkk1 or Dkk4 would be insufficient to provide further support for our model. In principle, the inhibitor(s) may be crucial for follicle formation while they are not involved in the interfollicular patterning process. By contrast, experimentally lowering the inhibitors'' mobility should unequivocally support or disprove the proposed mechanism of hair follicle spacing. According to the underlying mathematical model, it should dramatically affect patterning in the presence of normal levels of functional protein.     

Challenges to understand plant responses to wind

Understanding plant response to wind is complicated as this factor entails not only mechanical stress, but also affects leaf microclimate. In a recent study, we found that plant responses to mechanical stress (MS) may be different and even in the opposite direction to those of wind. MS-treated Plantago major plants produced thinner more elongated leaves while those in wind did the opposite. The latter can be associated with the drying effect of wind as is further supported by data on petiole anatomy presented here. These results indicate that plant responses to wind will depend on the extent of water stress. It should also be recognized that the responses to wind may differ between different parts of a plant and between plant species. Physiological research on wind responses should thus focus on the signal sensing and transduction of both the mechanical and drought signals associated with wind, and consider both plant size and architecture.Key words: biomechanics, leaf anatomy, phenotypic plasticity, plant architecture, signal transduction thigmomorphogenesis, windWind is one of the most ubiquitous environmental stresses, and can strongly affect development, growth and reproductive yield in terrestrial plants.^1–3 In spite of more than two centuries of research,⁴ plant responses to wind and their underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This is because plant responses to mechanical movement themselves are complicated and also because wind entails not only mechanical effects, but also changes in leaf gas and heat exchange.^5–7 Much research on wind has focused primarily on its mechanical effect. Notably, several studies that determine plant responses to mechanical treatments such as flexing, implicitly extrapolate their results to wind effects.^8–10 Our recent study¹¹ showed that this may lead to errors as responses to wind and mechanical stimuli (in our case brushing) can be different and even in the opposite direction. In this paper, we first separately discuss plant responses to mechanical stimuli, and other wind-associated effects, and then discuss future challenges for the understanding of plant responses to wind.It is often believed that responses to mechanical stress (thigmomorphogenesis) entail the production of thicker and stronger plant structures that resist larger forces. This may be true for continuous unidirectional forces such as gravity, however for variable external forces (such as wind loading or periodic flooding) avoiding such mechanical stress by flexible and easily reconfigurable structures can be an alternative strategy.^12–14 How plants adapt or acclimate to such variable external forces depends on the intensity and frequency of stress and also on plant structures. Reduced height growth is the most common response to mechanical stimuli.^15,16 This is partly because such short stature increases the ability of plants to both resist forces (e.g., real-locating biomass for radial growth rather than elongation growth), and because small plants experience smaller drag forces (Fig. 1). Some plant species show a resistance strategy in response to mechanical stress by increasing stem thickness^1,10 and tissue strength.⁷ But other species show an avoidance strategy by a reduction in stem or petiole thickness and flexural rigidity in response to MS.^11,15–18 These different strategies might be associated with plant size and structure. Stems of larger plants such as trees and tall herbs are restricted in the ability to bend as they carry heavy loads^7,10,19 (Fig. 1). Conversely short plants are less restricted in this respect and may also be prone to trampling for which stress-avoidance would be the only viable strategy.^18,20 Systematic understanding of these various responses to mechanical stress remains to be achieved.Open in a separate windowFigure 1A graphical representation of how wind effects can be considered to entail both a drying and a mechanical effect. Adaptation or acclimation to the latter can be through a force resistance strategy or a force avoidance strategy, the benefit of which may depend on the size and architecture of plants as well as the location of a given structure within a plant.Wind often enhances water stress by reducing leaf boundary layers and reduces plant temperature by transpiration cooling. The latter effect may be minor,¹¹ but the former could significantly affect plant development. Anten et al. (2010) compared phenotypic traits and growth of Plantago major that was grown under mechanical stimuli by brushing (MS) and wind in the factorial design. Both MS and wind treatments reduced growth and influenced allocation in a similar manner. MS plants, however, had more slender petioles and narrower leaf blades while wind exposed plants exhibited the opposite response having shorter and relatively thicker petioles and more round-shaped leaf blades. MS plants appeared to exhibit stress avoidance strategy while such responses could be compensated or overridden by water stress in wind exposure.¹¹ A further analysis of leaf petiole anatomy (Fig. 2) supports this view. The vascular fraction in the petiole cross-section was increased by wind but not by MS, suggesting that higher water transport was required under wind. Our results suggest that drying effect of wind can at least to some extent override its mechanical effect.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Representative images of petiole cross-sections of Plantago major grown in 45 days in continuous wind and/or mechanical stimuli (A–D). Petiole cross-section area (E) and vascular bundle fraction in the cross-section of petiole (F). mean + SD (n = 12) are shown. Significance levels of ANOVA; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns p > 0.05.Physiological knowledge on plant mechanoreception and signal transduction has been greatly increased during the last decades. Plants sense mechanical stimuli through membrane strain with stretch activated channels²¹ and/or through some linker molecules connecting the cell wall, plasma membrane and cytoskeleton.^4,22,23 This leads to a ubiquitous increase in intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration. The increased Ca²⁺ concentration is sensed by touch induced genes (TCHs),^24,25 which activates downstream transduction machineries including a range of signaling molecules and phytohormones, consequently altering physiological and developmental processes.²⁶ Extending this knowledge to understand plant phenotypic responses to wind however remains a challenge. As responses to wind have been found to differ among parts of a plant (e.g., terminal vs. basal stem) and also across species, physiological studies should be extended to the whole-plant as integrated system rather than focusing on specific tissue level. Furthermore to understand the general mechanism across species, it is required to study different species from different environmental conditions. Advances in bioinformatics, molecular and physiological research will facilitate cross-disciplinary studies to disentangle the complicated responses of plants to wind.     

Brassinosteroid negatively regulates jasmonate inhibition of root growth in Arabidopsis

Jasmonate (JA) inhibits root growth of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. The mutation in COI1, that plays a central role in JA signaling, displays insensitivity to JA inhibition of root growth. To dissect JA signaling pathway, we recently isolated one mutant named psc1, which partially suppresses coi1 insensitivity to JA inhibition of root growth. As we identified the PSC1 gene as an allele of DWF4 that encodes a key enzyme in brassinosteroid (BR) biosynthesis, we hypothesized and demonstrated that BR is involved in JA signaling and negatively regulates JA inhibition of root growth. In our Plant Physiology paper, we analyzed effects of psc1 or exogenous BR on the inhibition of root growth by JA. Here we show that treatment with brassinazole (Brz), a BR biosynthesis inhibitor, increased JA sensitivity in both coi1-2 and wild type, which further confirms that BR negatively regulates JA inhibition of root growth. Since effects of psc1, Brz and exogenous BR on JA inhibition of root growth were mild, we suggests that BR negatively finely regulates JA inhibition of root growth in Arabidopsis.Key words: jasmonate signaling, root growth, brassinosteroid, brassinazole, arabidopsisJasmonate (JA) regulates many plant developmental processes and stress responses.^1,2 COI1 plays a central role in JA signaling and is required for all JA responses in Arabidopsis.^3,4 coi1-1, a strong mutation in COI1, is male sterile and exhibits loss of all JA responses tested to date, such as JA inhibition of root growth, the expression of JA-induced genes, and susceptibility to insect attack and pathogen infection, and coi1-2, a weak mutant of COI1, shows similar JA responses to coi1-1 except for partially fertile that makes it able to produce a small quantity of seeds.⁵To investigate COI1-mediated JA responses and dissect JA signaling pathway, we conducted genetic screens for suppressors of coi1-2. Previously, we identified cos1 that completely suppresses coil-2 insensitive to JA.⁶ Recently, we isolated the psc1 mutant that partially suppresses coi1-2 insensitivity to JA, and found that PSC1 is an allele of DWF4.⁷Since the DWF4 gene encodes a key enzyme in brassinosteroid (BR) biosynthesis,⁸ we hypothesized that BR is involved in JA signaling. By physiological analysis, we showed that psc1 partially restored JA inhibition of root growth in coi1-2 background and displayed JA hypersensitivity in wild-type COI1 background, the effects of psc1 were eliminated by exogenous BR, and that exogenous BR could attenuated JA inhibition of root growth in wild type. These findings demonstrated that BR is involved in JA signaling and indicated that BR negatively regulates JA inhibition of root growth.BR is a family of polyhydroxylated steroid hormones involved in many aspects of plant growth and development. The BR-deficient mutants exhibited severely retarded growth that was able to be rescued by exogenous BR.⁹ Brassinazole (Brz) is a BR biosynthesis inhibitor. The Arabidopsis seedlings treated with Brz displayed a BR deficient-mutant-like phenotype, which could be elimilated by exogenous BR.¹⁰To determine wether treatment with Brz affects JA inhibition of root growth, the seedlings of wild type and coi1-2 were grown in MS medium supplemented with MeJA and/or Brz. As shown in Figure 1, the relative root length was obviously reduced in both coi1-2 and wild type when treated with Brz relative to without Brz, indicating that the repression of BR biosynthesis by Brz could increase JA sensitivity. These results further confirm BR negatively regulates JA inhibition of root growth.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effect of Brz on JA inhibition of root growth. Brz increased JA inhibition of root growth in both coi1-2 and wild type (WT). Root length of 7-day-old seedlings grown in MS medium containing 0, 5 and 10 μM MeJA without (−) or with (+) 0.5 μM Brz was expressed as a percentage of root length in MS without (−) or with (+) 0.5 µM Brz. Error bars represent SE (n > 30).It has been demonstrated that JA connects with other plant hormones including auxin, ethylene, abscisic acid, salicylic acid and gibberellin to form complex regulatory networks modulating plant developmental and stress responses.^11–15 We found that BR negatively regulates JA inhibition of root growth, suggesting that a cross talk between JA and BR exists in planta, which extends our understandings on the JA signal transduction.COI1 is a JA receptor¹⁶ and DWF4 catalyzes the rate-limiting step in BR-biosynthesis pathway.⁸ We found that JA inhibits DWF4 expression, this inhibition was dependent on COI1,⁷ indicating that DWF4 is downregulated by JA and is located downstream of COI1 in the JA signaling pathway.Since the effects of psc1, Brz, and exogenous BR on JA inhibition of root growth were mild, and the DWF4 expression was partially repressed by JA (Ren et al. 2009, Fig. 1), we suggest that BR negatively finely regulates JA inhibition of root growth, and propose a model for these regulations. As shown in Figure 2A, JA signal passes COI1 repressing substrates, such as JAZs,^17,18 i.e., JA activates degradation of substrates via SCF^COI1-26S proteasome,^16–18 whereas substrates positively regulate root growth through other regulators. JA also partially inhibits DWF4 expression through COI1, reducing BR that is required for root growth.^7,9 Mutation in COI1 interrupts JA signaling for failing in degradation of substrates and repression of DWF4 as well, resulting in JA-insensitivity (Fig. 2B). However, mutation in DWF4 or treatment with Brz causes a reduction in BR, which affects root growth, leading to JA-hypersensitivity in wild-type COI1 background (Fig. 2C and E) and partial restoration of JA sensitivity in coi1-2 background (Fig. 2D and F). Whereas, an application of exogenous BR could eliminate the effect of BR reduction resulted from repression of DWF4 by JA on root growth, attenuating JA sensitivity in wild type (Fig. 2G). Because the inhibition of DWF4 expression by JA is dependent on COI1, the coi1 mutant treated with exogenous BR do not show alteration in JA sensitivity (Fig. 2H).Open in a separate windowFigure 2A model for that BR negatively finely regulates JA inhibition of root growth in Arabidopsis. (A–D) Treatment with JA in wild type (A), coi1-2 (B), psc1 (C) and psc1coi1 (D). (E and F) Treatments with JA and Brz in wild type (E) and coi1-2 (F). (G and H) Treatments with JA and exogenous BR in wild type (G) and coi1-2 (H). Arrows indicate positive regulation or enhancement, whereas blunted lines indicate repression or negative regulation. Crosses indicate interruption or impairment. The letter “S” indicates substrates of SCF^COI1. Thicker arrows and blunted lines represent the central JA signaling pathway regulating JA inhibition of root growth. Broken arrows represent JA signaling pathway in which other regulators are involved. The intensity of gray boxes represents the degree of JA inhibition on root growth.     

Increasing insight into induced plant defense mechanisms using elicitors and inhibitors

One of the strategies that plants employ to defend themselves against herbivore attack is the induced production of carnivore-attracting volatiles. Using elicitors and inhibitors of different steps of the signal-transduction pathways can improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying induced plant defenses. For instance, we recently showed that application of jasmonic acid, a key hormone in the octadecanoid pathway involved in herbivore-induced defense, to Brassica oleracea affects gene expression, hormone levels, and volatile emission, as well as oviposition by herbivores and host location behavior by parasitoids. Such defense responses vary with the dose of the elicitor and with time since application. This addendum describes how the use of inhibitors, in addition to the use of elicitors like jasmonic acid, can be applied in bio-assays to investigate the role of signal-transduction pathways involved in induced plant defense. We show how inhibition of different steps of the octadecanoid pathway affects host location behavior by parasitoids.Key words: Brassica oleracea, Cotesia glomerata, elicitor, herbivore-induced plant defense, inhibitor, jasmonic acid, octadecanoid pathway, phenidone, propyl gallate, diethyldithiocarbamic acid (DIECA)Chemical information plays an important role in the interactions between plants and insects. When a plant is damaged, it can respond with the production of specific volatiles and toxins.¹ Insects associated with these plants can use the resulting chemical information to find their host plants and to determine the suitability of a plant for feeding or oviposition. Application of chemicals acting as elicitors can be used to mimic such plant responses, while knowledge of the signal transduction pathways involved can be used to select potential inhibitors of induced plant response. Compared to exposing plants to herbivores, the application of elicitors and inhibitors allows for manipulation of defined steps in signal-transduction pathways, as well as to induce plants in a dose-controlled manner.² However, also with elicitors and inhibitors it is often difficult to link the applied dose to the strength of the induction of the plant, as the plant may use alternatives routes to express certain traits and the manipulation can result in unwanted effects on other processes in the plant, such as flowering or senescence.^3,4 Hence, experiments using elicitors or inhibitors should preferably use rather short incubation times (hours to days), to avoid developmental differences due to treatment.⁵JA is a key hormone in the octadecanoid pathway, involved in direct as well as indirect plant defenses against herbivores. Application of this phytohormone is known to mediate induction of volatile emission, increase toxin levels and to upregulate defense gene expression. In turn, the changes in these plant traits affect members of the insect community associated with the plant and may result in higher parasitism rates of herbivores, attraction of predators, and reduced oviposition and development of herbivores.^6–12JA is often used to mimic herbivory in studies on induced plant responses. However, recent studies on JA-application to e.g., Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera L. (Brussels sprouts) also indicate that the JA-induced volatile emission differs from volatile emission induced by herbivores.¹² More nectar was secreted by flowers of herbivore-infested Brassica nigra L. (black mustard) than by flowers from JA-induced plants.⁶ The intensity of the behavioral responses of herbivores and parasitoids differs between JA- and herbivore-induced plants, but compared to non-induced plants, both treatments are favored by parasitoids on both Brussels sprouts and black mustard plants,^6,12 while Pieris butterflies avoid oviposition on induced Brussels sprouts plants.¹¹ The results indicate that JA-mediated responses do play an important role in plant defense against herbivorous insects, and can be used to induce defense responses in many plant species. However, cross-talk with other phytohormones, as well as visual cues will also affect plant defense responses.While JA application induces the octadecanoid pathway, inhibitors of steps in this pathway are also available (Fig. 1). This approach allows including visual cues of feeding damage while eliminating or reducing chemical cues. Three inhibitors of different steps of the octadecanoid pathway are phenidone (1-phenyl-pyrazolidinone), DIECA (diethyldithiocarbamic acid) and n-propyl gallate (3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid propyl ester; all obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO; Fig. 1). The redox-active compound phenidone is known to inhibit the activity of lipoxygenases (LOXs),^13–15 by reducing the active form of LOX to an inactive form. Therefore, phenidone is an effective inhibitor of an early step in the octadecanoid pathway, and thus of the plant’s induced defense system.^16,17 DIECA reduces 13-hydroperoxylinolenic acid to its corresponding alcohol 13-hydroxylinolenic acid, which is not a signaling intermediate and cannot be converted into JA.^18–20 Propyl gallate is a less specific inhibitor inhibiting both LOX and allene oxide cyclase (AOC), an enzyme catalyzing the step to 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (OPDA) in the octadecanoid pathway.^14,21,22 We investigated the effects of these three inhibitors on herbivore-induced parasitoid attraction. For all three inhibitors 2 mM aqueous solutions with 0.1% Tween were applied to the plants.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Representation of the octadecanoid pathway with indication of which step of the signal-transduction pathway is affected by the different elicitors (+) and inhibitors (−).The response of the parasitoid Cotesia glomerata was tested to Pieris brassicae-infested plants (15 2^nd instar larvae) treated with inhibitor solution, Pieris brassicae-infested plants treated with a solution without inhibitor or intact plants sprayed with inhibitor solution. Recently, Bruinsma et al.¹⁷ showed that Pieris brassicae- infested plants treated with phenidone were less attractive to C. glomerata than infested plants treated with control solution (binomial test, N = 42, p = 0.008, Fig. 2). However, infested plants treated with phenidone were still more attractive than intact plants sprayed with phenidone (binomial test, N = 39, p < 0.001, Fig. 2). Thus, phenidone did reduce the induction of parasitoid attractants, but did not eliminate the induction completely. Here, we present additional experiments with the inhibitors DIECA and propyl gallate. DIECA application shows similar results as phenidone application; infested plants treated with DIECA are less attractive to C. glomerata than infested plants treated with control solution, but are more attractive than uninfested plants treated with DIECA (binomial test, N = 46, p = 0.026 and N = 26, p < 0.001, respectively, Fig. 2). Treatment with propyl gallate resulted in lower attractiveness of infested inhibitor-treated plants compared to infested control plants, but not significantly so (binomial test, N = 45, p = 0.072, Fig. 2), and propyl gallate-treated infested plants were more attractive than propyl gallate-treated intact plants (binomial test, N = 28, p < 0.001; Fig. 2). Summarizing, phenidone and DIECA treatment of Brussels sprouts plants resulted in a reduced attractiveness of caterpillar-infested B. oleracea plants to C. glomerata. Although propyl gallate-treated plants also attracted fewer parasitoids, this difference was marginally insignificant. Of the three inhibitors, the LOX inhibitor phenidone had the largest effect on the attraction of the parasitoid C. glomerata.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Attraction of Cotesia glomerata to plants sprayed with the inhibitors phenidone, DIECA, or propyl gallate, or sprayed with a control solution, with or without infestation with Pieris brassicae. Numbers to the left of the bars indicate the total number of parasitoids tested, numbers between brackets the number of parasitoids that landed on a plant (binomial test, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05).Our data show that both elicitors and inhibitors can be used in bio-assays to demonstrate the importance of certain steps in defense pathways.^5,23 Although application of the inhibitors to herbivore-infested plants did not abolish the response of the plants and the parasitoids still preferred them over non-induced plants, the inhibition of the octadecanoid pathway did reduce the attractiveness of the plants to the parasitoids. This implies that the octadecanoid pathway is involved in attracting parasitoids, but it is not the only factor determining parasitoid host location. This shows that use of inhibitors can provide interesting opportunities to comparatively investigate ecological interactions of genetically identical plants that differ in the degree of defense expression. Integrating knowledge on mechanisms with studies on ecological interactions and applying this to studies of increasingly complex interactions will further promote the understanding of induced defense in a community ecology context.^24,25