RPA and POT1: Friends or foes at telomeres?

Telomere maintenance in cycling cells relies on both DNA replication and capping by the protein complex shelterin. Two single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding proteins, replication protein A (RPA) and protection of telomere 1 (POT1) play critical roles in DNA replication and telomere capping, respectively. While RPA binds to ssDNA in a non-sequence-specific manner, POT1 specifically recognizes singlestranded TTAGGG telomeric repeats. Loss of POT1 leads to aberrant accumulation of RPA at telomeres and activation of the ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related kinase (ATR)-mediated checkpoint response, suggesting that POT1 antagonizes RPA binding to telomeric ssDNA. The requirement for both POT1 and RPA in telomere maintenance and the antagonism between the two proteins raises the important question of how they function in concert on telomeric ssDNA. Two interesting models were proposed by recent studies to explain the regulation of POT1 and RPA at telomeres. Here, we discuss how these models help unravel the coordination, and also the antagonism, between POT1 and RPA during the cell cycle.Key words: RPA, POT1, telomere, ATR, checkpointTelomeres, the natural ends of chromosomes, are composed of repetitive DNA sequences and “capped” by both specific proteins and non-coding RNAs.^1–3 One of the critical functions of telomeres is to prevent chromosomal ends from recognition by the DNA damage response machinery. Critically short or improperly capped telomeres lead to telomere dysfunction and are a major source of genomic instability.⁴ While telomeres need to be properly capped to remain stable, they also need to be duplicated during each cell division by the DNA replication machinery. The requirement of these two seemingly competing processes for telomere maintenance suggests that the cell must coordinate DNA replication and capping of telomeres to ensure faithful telomere duplication yet avoid an inappropriate DNA damage response.Telomeric DNA is unique in several ways. The bulk of each human telomere is comprised of double-stranded TTA GGG repeats. At the very end of each telomere, a stretch of single-stranded TTAGGG repeats exists as a 3′ overhang. The TTA GGG repeats in the telomeric single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) allow it to loop back and invade telomeric double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), forming a structure called the t-loop.⁵ At the base of the t-loop, the TTAGGG strand of the telomeric dsDNA is displaced by the invading single-stranded 3′ overhang to form a single-stranded D-loop. Thus, the unique DNA sequence and structures of telomeres confer the ability to bind proteins in both sequence- and structure-specific manners, providing the basis for additional regulations.In human cells, telomere capping is orchestrated by the protein complex shelterin, which contains TRF1, TRF2, RAP1, TIN2, TPP1 and POT1.³ Among these shelterin components, TRF1 and TRF2 interact with telomeric dsDNA in a sequence-specific manner, whereas POT1, in a complex with TPP1, binds to telomeric ssDNA in a sequence-specific manner.^6–8 While the human genome contains only one POT1 gene, the mouse genome contains two POT1-related genes, POT1a and POT1b.^9–11 TIN2 functions to stabilize TRF1 and TRF2 DNA binding and also tethers the POT1-TPP1 heterodimer to the rest of the shelterin complex on telomeric dsDNA.^12,13Unlike the properly capped telomeres, double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs) with ssDNA overhangs are known to activate the ATR checkpoint kinase.^14,15 In a complex with its functional partner ATRIP, ATR is recruited to ssDNA by RPA, a non-sequence-specific ssDNA-binding protein complex.¹⁶ In addition to the ATR-ATRIP kinase complex, several other checkpoint proteins involved in ATR activation are also recruited in the presence of RPA-ssDNA.¹⁵ The structural resemblance between DSBs and telomeres and the presence of ssDNA at telomeres raise the important question as to how ATR activation is repressed at telomeres.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

On the chromatin structure of eukaryotic telomeres

Telomeres prevent chromosome fusions and degradation by exonucleases and are implicated in DNA repair, homologous recombination, chromosome pairing and segregation. All these functions of telomeres require the integrity of their chromatin structure, which has been traditionally considered as heterochromatic. In agreement with this idea, different studies have reported that telomeres associate with heterochromatic marks. However, these studies addressed simultaneously the chromatin structures of telomeres and subtelomeric regions or the chromatin structure of telomeres and Interstitial Telomeric Sequences (ITSs). The independent analysis of Arabidopsis telomeres, subtelomeric regions and ITSs has allowed the discovery of euchromatic telomeres. In Arabidopsis, whereas subtelomeric regions and ITSs associate with heterochromatic marks, telomeres exhibit euchromatic features. We think that this scenario could be found in other model systems if the chromatin organizations of telomeres, subtelomeric regions and ITSs are independently analyzed.Key words: telomeres, subtelomeres, euchromatin, heterochromatin, ChIP, immunolocalizationTelomeric DNA usually contains tandem repeats of a short GC rich motif. The number of repeats and, therefore, the length of telomeres is subject to regulation and influences relevant biological processes like aging and cancer.^1–3 In situ hybridization studies have revealed that telomeric repeats are also present at interstitial chromosomal loci.^4,5 An analysis of the genome sequence from different eukaryotes indicates that ITSs have a widespread distribution in different model systems including zebrafish, chicken, opossum, mouse, dog, cattle, horse, human, rice, poplar or Arabidopsis (see Fig. 1 for an example; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview). These ITSs have been related to chromosomal aberrations, fragile sites, hot spots for recombination and diseases caused by genomic instability, although their functions remain unknown.⁶Open in a separate windowFigure 1Distribution of the main telomeric repeat arrays in the genome of several model organisms. These representations have been performed by using the megaBLAST program and the all assemblies genomic databases at NCBI (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview). Searches for homology with 100 tandem telomeric repeats were done using the default parameters except that the expected threshold was set to 10 and the filters were turned off. Chromosomes are represented as vertical bars and numbered at the bottom. The horizontal bars represent the telomeric repeat arrays. Colors indicate the BLAST scores (red ≥200; pink 80–200; green 50–80).Telomeres and ITSs have probably cross talk through evolution. In some instances, ITSs could have been generated by telomeric fusions. Pioneering studies performed by Hermann J. Muller in Drosophila and Barbara McClintock in maize showed that newly formed chromosome ends tend to fuse giving rise to the so-called breakage-fusion-bridge cycle.^7,8 This cycle can lead to stable chromosomal reorganizations after healing of the broken ends. In addition, Muller and McClintock found that, unlike these newly formed broken chromosome ends, natural chromosomal ends are quite stable and do not tend to fuse.⁹ It is currently known that telomere dysfunction due to mutations that cause telomeric shortening or abolish the expression of certain telomeric proteins can lead to telomeric fusions, anaphase bridges and genome reorganizations.^1–3,10,11 Therefore, telomeric shortening or alterations of telomeric chromatin structure might be expected to generate ITSs through evolution by promoting telomeric fusions.¹² ITSs might also originate through the activity of telomerase during the repair process of double strand breaks or by recombination.^13–16 In addition, telomerase activity might lead to the formation of new telomeres by healing of chromosome breaks within internal telomeric repeats and even within other sequences.^17–19 This process of healing involves the acquisition of telomeric chromatin structure.DNA folds into two major chromatin organizations inside the cell nucleus: heterochromatin and euchromatin. Heterochromatin is highly condensed in interphase nuclei and is usually associated with repetitive and silent DNA. By contrast, euchromatin has an open conformation and is often related to the capacity to be transcribed. Both kinds of chromatin exhibit defined epigenetic modifications that influence their biochemical behavior. Thus, the study of these epigenetic marks is an issue of major interest.The chromatin structures of telomeres and ITSs might be different. Therefore, they should be studied independently. Chromatin structure analyses are usually performed by immunocytolocalization or by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP).^20–23 Special care should be taken when the epigenetic status of telomeres is analyzed by immunocytolocalization. This technique does not allow differentiating between telomeres and subtelomeric regions. Since subtelomeric regions are known to be heterochromatic in many eukaryotic organisms, heterochromatic marks should be immunolocalized at the chromosome ends of these organisms. However, these marks could correspond to subtelomeric regions and not to telomeres.The ChIP technique implies the immunoprecipitation of chromatin with specific antibodies and the further analysis of the immunoprecipitated DNA. DNA sequences immunoprecipitated by a specific antibody are thought to associate in vivo with the feature recognized by this antibody. Whereas the enrichment of single copy sequences in the immunoprecipitated DNA has been usually analyzed by quantitative PCR, the analyses of repetitive DNA sequences have been often performed by hybridization. Thus, multiple telomeric chromatin structure analyses have been performed by hybridizing immunoprecipitated DNA with a telomeric probe. However, these analyses displayed simultaneously the chromatin structures of telomeres and ITSs. High throughput sequencing analyses of the immunoprecipitated DNA might help overcome this problem. Nevertheless, since the reads obtained with these techniques at present are short, it is still difficult to ascertain whether the enrichment of immunoprecipitated telomeric sequences corresponds to telomeres or to ITSs. Third-generation long-read accurate technologies and new algorithms that discriminate between telomeres and ITSs should solve the problem.In principle, the combination of immunocytolocalization and ChIP experiments should help to differentiate between telomeres and ITSs. However, since subtelomeric regions are known to influence telomere function and contain degenerated ITSs, at least in some organisms like humans or Arabidopsis, this may not be necessarily true.⁶ A specific epigenetic mark might be required for telomere function, found associated with telomeric repeats by ChIP and with the end of chromosomes by immunocytolocalization and still not associate with true telomeres but with subtelomeric regions and ITSs or just with subtelomeric ITSs.An alternative way to analyze the chromatin structure of telomeres by ChIP involves the use of frequently cutting restriction enzymes. The chromatin structures of Arabidopsis telomeres and ITSs have been independently studied by using Tru9I, a restriction enzyme that recognizes the sequence TTAA.²⁴ Since telomeres in Arabidopsis and in other model systems are composed of perfect telomeric repeat arrays, they remain uncut after digestion with Tru9I.²⁵ In contrast, Arabidopsis ITSs are frequently cut because they are composed of short arrays of perfect telomeric repeats interspersed with degenerated repeats.^25–28 Thus, when Arabidopsis genomic DNA is digested with Tru9I and hybridized with a telomeric probe, most of the signals corresponding to ITSs disappear.²⁵ The use of Tru9I has made possible to discover that Arabidopsis telomeres exhibit euchromatic features. In contrast, Arabidopsis ITSs and subtelomeric regions are heterochromatic.²⁴ In Arabidopsis, heterochromatin is characterized by cytosine methylation, which can be targeted at CpG, CpNpG or CpNpN residues (where N is any nucleotide), and by H3K9me1,2, H3K27me1,2 and H4K20me1. In turn, Arabidopsis euchromatin is characterized by H3K4me1,2,3, H3K36me1,2,3, H4K20me2,3 and by histones acetylation.²⁹ ChIP experiments processed with Tru9I have revealed that Arabidopsis telomeres have high levels of euchromatic marks (H3K4me2, H3K9 and H4K16 acetylation) and low levels of heterochromatic marks (H3K9me2, H3K27me1 and DNA methylation).²⁴ Therefore, Arabidopsis telomeres exhibit epigenetic modifications characteristic of euchromatin.Different studies in mice, humans or Arabidopsis have reported that telomeres are heterochromatic based on the existence of siRNAs containing telomeric sequences, on the association of telomeric sequences with telomeric and with heterochromatin proteins, on the methylation of telomeric sequences or on the histones modifications associated with telomeric sequences.^30–34 However, the experiments presented in those studies addressed simultaneously the chromatin organizations of telomeres and subtelomeric regions or of telomeres and ITSs. Telomeres have also been reported to be heterochromatic based on the existence of the so-called TElomeric Repeat containing RNAs (TERRA), which are present in different eukaryotes.³⁵ At telomeric regions, TERRA are transcribed from subtelomeric promoters towards chromosome ends. Since human subtelomeric TERRA are mostly composed of subtelomeric sequences, with only about 200 bp of telomeric sequences at their 3′ ends, they might be related to subtelomeric heterochromatin formation rather than to the formation of telomeric chromatin. Nevertheless, TERRA interact with human telomeric proteins and influence telomere function. In addition, TERRA might also be related to ITSs heterochromatinization.^34,35We believe that the scenario found in Arabidopsis could also be found in other model systems if the chromatin structures of telomeres, subtelomeric regions and ITSs are independently analyzed. Several reports have described the presence of histone H3.3 at mice telomeres.^36–39 Since this histone variant has been previously associated with active chromatin, these studies are compatible with a euchromatic organization of telomeres. However, again in these reports, the experiments shown addressed simultaneously the chromatin organization of telomeres and subtelomeric regions or of telomeres and ITSs. In general terms, we believe that a clear distinction between telomeres and ITSs should be established when future ChIP experiments are analyzed. The use of third generation high throughput sequencing technologies or of frequently cutting restriction enzymes might help in this task.As mentioned above, the epigenetic modifications associated with telomeric regions are known to be important for telomere function. These modifications are required to provide genome stability.³³ In this context, it will be relevant to ascertain how the function of Arabidopsis telomeres is influenced by their euchromatic marks and by the presence of heterochromatin at subtelomeric regions.     

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Strigolactones: Internal and external signals in plant symbioses?

As the newest plant hormone, strigolactone research is undergoing an exciting expansion. In less than five years, roles for strigolactones have been defined in shoot branching, secondary growth, root growth and nodulation, to add to the growing understanding of their role in arbuscular mycorrhizae and parasitic weed interactions.¹ Strigolactones are particularly fascinating as signaling molecules as they can act both inside the plant as an endogenous hormone and in the soil as a rhizosphere signal.^2-4 Our recent research has highlighted such a dual role for strigolactones, potentially acting as both an endogenous and exogenous signal for arbuscular mycorrhizal development.⁵ There is also significant interest in examining strigolactones as putative regulators of responses to environmental stimuli, especially the response to nutrient availability, given the strong regulation of strigolactone production by nitrate and phosphate observed in many species.^5,6 In particular, the potential for strigolactones to mediate the ecologically important response of mycorrhizal colonization to phosphate has been widely discussed. However, using a mutant approach we found that strigolactones are not essential for phosphate regulation of mycorrhizal colonization or nodulation.⁵ This is consistent with the relatively mild impairment of phosphate control of seedling root growth observed in Arabidopsis strigolactone mutants.⁷ This contrasts with the major role for strigolactones in phosphate control of shoot branching of rice and Arabidopsis^8,9 and indicates that the integration of strigolactones into our understanding of nutrient response will be complex. New data presented here, along with the recent discovery of phosphate specific CLE peptides,¹⁰ indicates a potential role for PsNARK, a component of the autoregulation of nodulation pathway, in phosphate control of nodulation.     

Silicon efflux transporters isolated from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake

The accumulation of silicon (Si) differs greatly with plant species and cultivars due to different ability of the roots to take up Si. In Si accumulating plants such as rice, barley and maize, Si uptake is mediated by the influx (Lsi1) and efflux (Lsi2) transporters. Here we report isolation and functional analysis of two Si efflux transporters (CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2) from two pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars contrasting in Si uptake. These cultivars are used for rootstocks of bloom and bloomless cucumber, respectively. Different from mutations in the Si influx transporter CmLsi1, there was no difference in the sequence of either CmLsi2 between two cultivars. Both CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 showed an efflux transport activity for Si and they were expressed in both the roots and shoots. These results confirm our previous finding that mutation in CmLsi1, but not in CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 are responsible for bloomless phenotype resulting from low Si uptake.Key words: silicon, efflux transporter, pumpkin, cucumber, bloomSilicon (Si) is the second most abundant elements in earth''s crust.¹ Therefore, all plants rooting in soils contain Si in their tissues. However Si accumulation in the shoot differs greatly among plant species, ranging for 0.1 to 10% of dry weight.^1–3 In higher plants, only Poaceae, Equisetaceae and Cyperaceae show a high Si accumulation.^2,3 Si accumulation also differs with cultivars within a species.^4,5 These differences in Si accumulation have been attributed to the ability of the roots to take up Si.^6,7Genotypic difference in Si accumulation has been used to produce bloomless cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.).⁸ Bloom (white and fine powders) on the surface of cucumber fruits is primarily composed of silica (SiO₂).⁹ However, nowadays, cucumber without bloom (bloomless cucumber) is more popular in Japan due to its more attractive and distinctly shiny appearance. Bloomless cucumber is produced by grafting cucumber on some specific pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars. These pumpkin cultivars used for bloomless cucumber rootstocks have lower silicon accumulation compared with the rootstocks used for producing bloom cucumber.⁹Our study showed that the difference in Si accumulation between bloom and bloomless root stocks of pumpkin cultivars results from different Si uptake by the roots.¹⁰ Si uptake has been demonstrated to be mediated by two different types of transporters (Lsi1 and Lsi2) in rice, barley and maize.^11–15 Lsi1 is an influx transporter of Si, belonging to a NIP subfamily of aquaporin family.^10,11,13,14 This transporter is responsible for transport of Si from external solution to the root cells.¹¹ On the other hand, Lsi2 is an efflux transporter of Si, belonging to putative anion transporter.¹² Lsi2 releases Si from the root cells towards the xylem. Both Lsi1 and Lsi2 are required for Si uptake by the roots.^11,12 To understand the mechanism underlying genotypic difference in Si uptake, we have isolated and functionally characterized an influx Si transporter CmLsi1 from two pumpkin cultivars used for rootstocks of bloomless and bloom cucumber.¹⁰ Sequence analysis showed only two amino acids difference of CmLsi1 between two pumpkin cultivars. However, CmLsi1 from bloom rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁺)] showed transport activity for Si, whereas that from bloomless rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁻)] did not.¹⁰ Furthermore, we found that loss of Si transport activity was caused by one amino acid mutation at the position of 242 (from proline to leucine).¹⁰ This mutation resulted in failure to be localized at the plasma membrane, which is necessary for functioning as an influx transporter. The mutated protein was localized at the ER.¹⁰ Here, we report isolation and expression analysis of Si efflux transporters from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake and accumulation to examine whether Si efflux transporter is also involved in the bloom and bloomless phenotypes.     

Protein interactors of acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP2 mediate cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis

In our recent paper in the Plant Journal, we reported that Arabidopsis thaliana lysophospholipase 2 (lysoPL2) binds acyl-CoA-binding protein 2 (ACBP2) to mediate cadmium [Cd(II)] tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. ACBP2 contains ankyrin repeats that have been previously shown to mediate protein-protein interactions with an ethylene-responsive element binding protein (AtEBP) and a farnesylated protein 6 (AtFP6). Transgenic Arabidopsis ACBP2-overexpressors, lysoPL2-overexpressors and AtFP6-overexpressors all display enhanced Cd(II) tolerance, in comparison to wild type, suggesting that ACBP2 and its protein partners work together to mediate Cd(II) tolerance. Given that recombinant ACBP2 and AtFP6 can independently bind Cd(II) in vitro, they may be able to participate in Cd(II) translocation. The binding of recombinant ACBP2 to [¹⁴C]linoleoyl-CoA and [¹⁴C]linolenoyl-CoA implies its role in phospholipid repair. In conclusion, ACBP2 can mediate tolerance to Cd(II)-induced oxidative stress by interacting with two protein partners, AtFP6 and lysoPL2. Observations that ACBP2 also binds lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) in vitro and that recombinant lysoPL2 degrades lysoPC, further confirm an interactive role for ACBP2 and lysoPL2 in overcoming Cd(II)-induced stress.Key words: acyl-CoA-binding protein, cadmium, hydrogen peroxide, lysophospholipase, oxidative stressAcyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBP1 to ACBP6) are encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ These ACBP proteins are well studied in Arabidopsis in comparison to other organisms,^1–4 and are located in various subcellular compartments.¹ Plasma membranelocalized ACBP1 and ACBP2 contain ankyrin repeats that have been shown to function in protein-protein interactions.^5,6 ACBP1 and ACBP2 which share 76.9% amino acid identity also confer tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis to lead [Pb(II)] and Cd(II), respectively.^1,5,7 Since recombinant ACBP1 and ACBP2 bind linolenoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro, they may possibly be involved in phospholipid repair in response to heavy metal stress at the plasma membrane.^5,7 In contrast, ACBP3 is an extracellularly-localized protein⁸ while ACBP4, ACBP5 and ACBP6 are localized to cytosol.^9,10 ACBP1 and ACBP6 have recently been shown to be involved in freezing stress.^9,11 ACBP4 and ACBP5 bind oleoyl-CoA ester and their mRNA expressions are lightregulated.^12,13 Besides acyl-CoA esters, some ACBPs also bind phospholipids.^9,11,13 To investigate the biological function of ACBP2, we have proceeded to establish its interactors at the ankyrin repeats, including AtFP6,⁵ AtEBP⁶ and now lysoPL2 in the Plant Journal paper. While the significance in the interaction of ACBP2 with AtEBP awaits further investigations, some parallels can be drawn between those of ACBP2 with AtFP6 and with lysoPL2.