Duration of Priming of Two Indirect Plant Defenses

When plants are infested by herbivores, they emit herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) that attract carnivorous natural enemies of herbivores. Furthermore, there are increasing evidences that defenses of intact plants against herbivores are primed when exposed to HIPVs. We previously reported that lima bean leaf volatiles induced by the herbivorous mites Tetranychus urticae primed two T. urtiae-induced indirect defenses in neighboring conspecific plants: HIPV emission and extrafloral nectar (EFN) secretion. An intriguing unanswered question is whether the durations of these two defenses are the same. Here, we show that the durations of the two defenses were the same for up to two days after the initiation of T. urticae damage. The two induced primed defense would act as a battery of defense in exposed plants.Key Words: herbivore-induced plant volatiles, indirect, defense, induced response, plant-plant interaction, primingWhen infested by herbivores, plants defend themselves indirectly by emitting herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs). One of the ecological functions of HIPVs is to attract carnivorous natural enemies of the herbivores.^1,2 Recently, it was reported that the emission of HIPVs primed defenses against herbivores in neighboring intact plants.^3–7 Thus, HIPVs also mediate interactions between infested and intact plants.⁸ The enhanced defense in response to HIPVs in intact plants is called ‘priming’, which has been studied intensively in plant-pathogen interactions,⁹ but not so in plant-insect interactions.We previously reported that exposure to HIPVs emitted from lima bean leaves infested by Tetranychus urticae primed HIPV production in detached intact conspecific leaves.³ We also reported that exposure to HIPVs, produced in response to T. urticae damage,⁴ primed the induced production of extrafloral nectar (EFN; an alternative food source for predators^10,11 in lima bean plants. An intriguing question is whether the two primed defenses work as a battery against T. urticae. To answer this, we examined the duration of primed HIPV production by lima bean plants using the same experimental set-up as our previous study of EFN priming by conspecific plants.⁴For exposure of plants to HIPVs, we used a 60 × 60 × 60 cm cage with two 30 × 30 cm windows on opposite sides of the cage.¹² As odor sources, we used eight plants that had been infested with 60 adult T. urticae females per plant for 1 day. Eight uninfested plants were used as control odor sources. Two uninfested plants were placed in a cage with the odor source plants and exposed to either HIPVs or uninfested plant volatiles (UPVs) for 10 days in a climate-controlled room (25 ± 2°C, 60–70% RH, 16:8; L:D).A Y-tube olfactometer¹³ was used to examine the response of the predators to HIPVs. Adult female P. persimilis were randomly selected from a colony and individually positioned at the beginning of the iron wire. When test mites reached the end of one arm of the olfactometer, their choice was recorded. We tested the olfactory responses of the predator toward (1) plants infested by T. urticae for two days after exposure to UPVs vs. plants infested by T. urticae for two days after exposure to HIPVs, and (2) plants infested by T. urticae for four days after exposure to UPVs vs. plants infested by T. urticae for four days after exposure to HIPVs.HIPV-exposed plants attracted more predators than UPV-exposed plants in a Y-tube olfactometer when infested by T. urticae for two days (Fig. 1A). By contrast, the predators did not distinguish between HIPV- and UPV-exposed plants when infested by T. urticae for four days (Fig. 1B). Our previous study showed that HIPV-exposed plants secreted significantly larger amounts of EFN secretion than UPV-exposed plants infested by T. urticae for two days under the same experimental condition as in this study.⁴ However, the difference was not significant when they were infested for four days.⁴Open in a separate windowFigure 1The olfactory response of P. persimilis females to volatiles from the odor-exposed plants, as determined in a Y-tube olfactometer: (A) plants infested by T. urticae for two days after exposure to UPVs (UPV-exposed—T. urticae 2d) vs. plants infested by T. urticae for two days after exposure to HIPVs (HIPV-exposed—T. urticae 2d), and (B) plants infested by T. urticae for four days after exposure to UPVs (UPV-exposed—T. urticae 4d) vs. plants infested by T. urticae for four days after the exposure to HIPVs (HIPV-exposed—T. urticae 4d). Asterisks beside each bar indicate a significant difference between the first trifoliate leaves and the primary leaves. Asterisks beside a bar indicate a significant difference (binomial test: p < 0.001).Lima bean plants increase the amount of endogenous jasmonic acid after exposure to HIPVs.¹⁴ Jasmonic acid, an important plant hormone regulating a defense signaling pathway against herbivores and pathogens,^15,16 is reported to be involved in the induction of both volatile emission^17,18 and EFN secretion¹⁹ in response to T. urticae damage in lima bean plants. The increase of endogenous jasmonic acid in HIPV-exposed plants may partly explain the simultaneous priming of the two defenses.In this study, we showed that the durations of priming of two indirect defenses were roughly the same for up to two days. Priming of these two indirect defenses would thus be a battery of defense at the outset of T. urticae damage. Further study is necessarily to test whether the primed battery of induced defense increases the fitness of the exposed plants.     

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.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

A Novel MAPKK Involved in Cell Death and Defense Signaling

A high-throughput in planta overexpression screen of a Nicotiana benthamiana cDNA library identified a mitogen activated protein kinase kinase (MAPKK), NbMKK1, as a potent inducer of hypersensitive response (HR)-like cell death. NbMKK1-mediated cell death was attenuated in plants whereby expression of NbSIPK, an ortholog of tobacco SIPK and Arabidopsis AtMPK6, was knocked down by virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), suggesting that NbMKK1 functions upstream of NbSIPK. In accordance with this result, NbMKK1 phosphorylated NbSIPK in vitro, and furthermore NbMKK1 and NbSIPK physically interacted in yeast two-hybrid assay. VIGS of NbMKK1 in N. benthamiana resulted in a delay of Phytophthora infestans INF1 elicitin-mediated HR as well as in the reduction of resistance against a non-host pathogen Pseudomonas cichorii. Our data of NbMKK1, together with that of LeMKK4,¹ demonstrate the presence of a novel defense signaling pathway involving NbMKK1/LeMKK4 and SIPK.Key Words: MAPK, defense, cell death, in planta screenMitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascades are highly conserved signaling pathways in eukaryotes, comprising three tiered classes of protein kinase, MAPKKK (MAPKK kinase), MAPKK and MAPK, that sequentially relay phosphorylation signals.² The Arabidopsis genome carries genes for 20 MAPKs, 10 MAPKKs³ and more than 25 MAPKKKs.⁴ In plants, MAPK signaling is known to function in various biotic^4,5 and abiotic⁶ stress responses and cytokinesis.⁷ In defense signaling, extensive research has been carried out for two tobacco MAPKs, SIPK⁸ (salicylic-acid-induced protein kinase; hereafter designated as NtSIPK) and WIPK⁹ (wound-induced protein kinase = NtWIPK), and their orthologs in Arabidopsis¹⁰ (AtMPK6 and ATMPK3, respectively), partly because kinase activities of these two MAPKs are easy to detect by an in gel kinase assay using myeline basic protein (MBP) as substrate.¹¹ Both NtSIPK and NtWIPK are activated by the interaction between host resistance (R)- gene and cognate avirulence gene of pathogen^11,12 and elicitor perception by host cells.^13,14 Shuqun Zhang and his group showed that an upstream kinase of both NtSIPK and NtWIPK is NtMEK2.¹⁵ Transient overexpression of constitutively active NtMEK2 caused phosphorylation of NtSIPK and NtWIPK, resulting in rapid HR-like cell death in tobacco leaves.¹⁵ Later, the same lab showed that overexpression of NtSIPK alone also caused HR-like cell death.¹⁶ The downstream target proteins of NtSIPK and AtMPK6 are being identified and include 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid sythase-6 (ACS-6).^17,18 Although recent studies identified another MAPK cascade (NtMEK1 → Ntf6) involved in defense responses^19,20 we can still say that the current research focus of MAPK defense signaling centers around the cascade comprising [NtMEK2→ NtSIPK/NtWIPK→ target proteins] of tobacco and its orthologous pathways in other plant species.In an effort to search for plant genes involved in HR-like cell death, we have been employing a high-throughput in planta expression screen of N. benthamiana cDNA libraries. In this experimental system, a cDNA library was made in a binary potato virus X (PVX)-based expression vector pSfinx.²¹ The cDNA library was transferred to Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and 40,000 of the bacterial colonies were individually inoculated by toothpicks onto leaf blades of N. benthamiana leaves. The phenotype around the inoculated site was observed 1–2 weeks following the inoculation. This rapid screen identified 30 cDNAs that caused cell death after overexpression, including genes coding for ubiquitin proteins, RNA recognition motif (RRM) containing proteins, a class II ethylene-responsive element binding factor (EREBP)-like protein²² and a MAPKK protein (this work). Such an in planta screening technique has been used before for the isolation of fungal²¹ and oomycete^23,24 elicitors and necrosis inducing genes, but not for isolation of plant genes. Overexpression screening of cDNA libraries is a common practice in prokaryotes, yeast and amimal cells,^25,26 so it is a surprise that this approach has not been systematically applied in plants. Given its throughput, we propose that this virus-based transient overexpression system is a highly efficient way to isolate novel plant genes by functional screen.²⁷ Since overexpression frequently causes non-specific perturbation of signaling, genes identified by overexpression should be further validated by loss-of-function assays, for instance, VIGS.²⁸Overexpression of the identified MAPKK gene, NbMKK1, triggered a rapid generation of H₂O₂, followed by HR-like cell death in N. benthamiana leaves (this work). NbMKK1-GFP fusion protein overexpression also caused cell death, and curiously NbMKK1-GFP was shown to localize consistently in the nucleus. Sequence comparison classified NbMKK1 to the Group D of MAPKKs about which little information is available. So far, a MAPKK, LeMKK4, from tomato belonging to the Group D MAPKKs, was shown to cause cell death after overexpression.¹ Based on amino acid sequence similarity and phylogenetic analyses, LeMKK4 and NbMKK1 seem to be orthologs. To see whether NbMKK1 transduces signals through SIPK and WIPK, we performed NbMKK1 overexpression in N. benthamiana plants whereby the expression of either NbSIPK or NbWIPK (WIPK ortholog in N. benthamiana) was silenced by VIGS. NbMKK1 did not induce cell death in NbSIPK-silenced plants, suggesting that the NbMKK1 cell death signal is transmitted through NbSIPK. Indeed, NbMKK1 phosphorylated NbSIPK in vitro, and NbMKK1 and NbSIPK physically interacted in yeast two-hybrid assay. These results suggest that NbMKK1 interacts with NbSIPK, most probably with its N-terminal docking domain, and phosphorylates NbSIPK in vivo to transduce the cell death signal downstream.NbMKK1 exhibits constitutive expression in leaves. To determine the function of NbMKK1 in defense, we silenced NbMKK1 by VIGS, and such plants were challenged with Phytophthora infestans INF1 elicitin²⁹ and Pseudomonas cichorii, a non-host pathogen. INF1-mediated HR cell death was remarkably delayed in NbMKK1-silenced plants. Likewise, plant defense against P. cichorii was compromised in NbMKK1-silenced plants. These results indicate that NbMKK1 is an important component of signaling of INF1-mediated HR and non-host resistance to P. cichorii.Together, our analyses of NbMKK1 and independent work from Greg Martin''s lab on LeMKK4¹ suggest that a Group D MAPKK, NbMKK1/LeMKK4, functions upstream of SIPK and transduces defense signals in these solanaceous plants (Fig. 1). In plants as well as in other eukaryotes, it is common that kinases have multiple partners. The work on these kinases fits this concept. A single MAPK (e.g., SIPK) is phosphorylated by multiple MAPKKs (e.g., NtMEK2 and NbMKK1), and a single MAPKK (e.g., NtMEK2) can phosphorylate multiple MAPKs (e.g., NtSIPK and NtWIPK).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Defense signaling through NbMKK1/LeMKK4. Two defense signal pathways involving NtMEK2 (indicated as MEK2) → WIPK/SIPK and NtMEK1(indicated as MEK1) → Ntf6 are well documented. By our and Pedley and Martin''s¹ works, another novel MAPKK, NbMKK1/LeMKK4 was demonstrated to participate in defense signaling by phosphorylation of SIPK.     

Colors of young and old spring leaves as a potential signal for ant-tended hemipterans

A new hypothesis explaining the adaptive significance of bright autumn leaf colors argues that these colors signal tree quality to myrmecophilous specialist aphids. In turn, the aphids attract aphid-tending ants during the following spring, which defend the trees from other aphids and herbivores. In this context, other types of plant coloration, such as the color change observed in young and old spring leaves, may function as a signal of plant quality for aphids and other myrmecophilous hemipterans. If these plant colors are costly for plants, then vividly colorful plants would be required to invest more in growth than in defense; as a result, colorful plants may be more palatable for honeydew-producing hemipterans, such as aphids, scale insects and treehoppers, although the relative importance of hemipterans other than aphids may be relatively low. These hemipterans may be attracted to colorful plants, after which their attendant ants would protect the plants from herbivory. However, it is necessary to examine color vision in hemipterans to support this hypothesis.Key words: ant-Hemiptera interactions, indirect effects, myrmecophiles, plant-ant mutualism, plant coloration, tritrophic interactionsRecently, the adaptive significance of plant coloration has attracted scientific interest.¹ Various theories have been postulated to explain the adaptive value of autumn leaf colors (red and yellow).² The coevolution hypothesis, the most novel and challenging theory among those proposed, argues that bright leaf colors serve as a conspicuous defense signal against autumn-colonizing insect herbivores, particularly aphids.³ According to this hypothesis, the production of autumn color pigments is an indicator of a particularly vigorous tree. Aphids, which have color vision and have long been associated with trees, migrate to winter host trees in the autumn and cause substantial damage. Therefore, vivid leaf color in the autumn would encourage aphids to colonize other less vigorously defended trees.⁴ Hamilton and Brown³ and Holopainen and Peltonen⁵ detected a higher number of specialist aphids on tree species with more intense autumn colors.After Hamilton and Brown,³ several researchers have attempted to explain the relationship between aphids and autumn color.^2,6 However, they did not account for several possibilities.⁶ First, healthy, vigorous trees may not be well defended, because they invest more in growth than in defense. Second, some aphid species avoid colonizing trees with bright colors, whereas others are attracted to bright colors. Finally, there are numerous multispecific interactions between plants, herbivores, predators and parasitoids in tree crowns. Ants prey on various arthropods living in trees, and ant-aphid mutualism affects arboreal arthropod communities. I incorporated these factors and formed a hypothesis in which autumn leaf colors signal tree quality to myrmecophilous specialist aphids. These aphids, in turn, attract aphid-tending ants during the following spring, which then defend the trees from other aphids and herbivores. Thus, autumn colors may be adaptive, because they attract myrmecophilous specialist aphids and their attendant ants, thereby reducing herbivory and interspecific competition among aphids.⁶In this addendum, I extend my former hypothesis beyond the relationship between autumn leaf colors and aphids. First, myrmecophilous aphids are not the only arthropods that benefit trees. Styrsky and Eubanks⁷ recently reviewed the literature regarding the effects of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing hemipterans on plants, and found that plants actually benefited indirectly from these interactions in most cases. This finding supports a new hypothesis focused on plant-ant mutualism via aphids. In addition, the mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing hemipterans includes many other organisms in addition to aphids, such as scale insects and treehoppers. Scale insects, especially soft scales (Coccidae) and mealybugs (Pseudococcidae), comprise many species that are tended by honeydew-collecting ants,⁸ and ant-scale insect mutualism is often beneficial for host plants.⁷ Although the female adults of scale insects are usually immobile, first-instar nymphs (crawlers) disperse by wind and locate on host plants, usually trees.⁹ The nymphs, emerging at various times from spring to autumn,¹⁰ may use plant coloration to select a suitable host. However, because specialist coccids and mealybugs represent a minority among the speciose scale insects,10 coevolutionary relationships between plants and ants via specialist scale insects may be relatively rare. The treehoppers also comprise many myrmecophilous species,^8,11 but the diversity of this group is highest in tropical regions; only a relatively small number of membracid species are present in temperate regions.¹² Therefore, scale insects and treehoppers may be attracted to autumn colors, and their attendant ants may then defend trees against other herbivorous insects. To fully account for the adaptive value of autumn colors, one would expect the importance of these hemipterans to be less than that of aphids, based on their low host-plant specificity, restricted distribution and life cycles. However, hemipterans may be associated with plant coloration in other aspects than autumn leaf color.Second, the colors of young and old spring leaves may also signal plant quality to ant-tended honeydew-producing hemipterans. The young leaves of many plants are reddish or yellowish (Fig. 1A and B).¹³ In the spring and other seasons, the old leaves of some evergreen tree species turn red or yellow (Fig. 1B). Because changes in leaf color may occur from spring to autumn, various hemipteran species may play specific roles as the season progresses. Aphids migrate in the spring and in the autumn,¹⁴ although most host-alternating aphids migrate to trees in autumn and to herbs in the late spring in temperate regions.¹⁵ If plants pay some cost for these colors¹⁶ and vivid colors indicate high plant quality for hemipterans, then changing colors may attract myrmecophilous hemipterans including aphids, scale insects and treehoppers, which may then protect plants against herbivory by other insects.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Red young leaves of the evergreen oak Quercus glauca. (B) Yellowish young and reddish old leaves of the camphor tree Cinnamomum camphora.However, color vision has not been examined in detail in most hemipteran insects.^17,18 Many insects are insensitive to red, although one species of flower-visiting thrip is specifically attracted to red flowers.¹⁹ Thus, studies on color vision in hemipteran insects are required to evaluate this new hypothesis, as well as the coevolution hypothesis.     

ARF-GTPase as a Molecular Switch for Polar Auxin Transport Mediated by Vesicle Trafficking in Root Development

Polar auxin transport (PAT), which is controlled precisely by both auxin efflux and influx facilitators and mediated by the cell trafficking system, modulates organogenesis, development and root gravitropism. ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF)-GTPase protein is catalyzed to switch to the GTP-bound type by a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) and promoted for hybridization to the GDP-bound type by a GTPase-activating protein (GAP). Previous studies showed that auxin efflux facilitators such as PIN1 are regulated by GNOM, an ARF-GEF, in Arabidopsis. In the November issue of The Plant Journal, we reported that the auxin influx facilitator AUX1 was regulated by ARF-GAP via the vesicle trafficking system.¹ In this addendum, we report that overexpression of OsAGAP leads to enhanced root gravitropism and propose a new model of PAT regulation: a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by vesicle trafficking to regulate PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, thus controlling root development in plants.Key Words: ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF), ARF-GAP, ARF-GEF, auxin, GNOM, polar transport of auxinPolar auxin transport (PAT) is a unique process in plants. It results in alteration of auxin level, which controls organogenesis and development and a series of physiological processes, such as vascular differentiation, apical dominance, and tropic growth.² Genetic and physiological studies identified that PAT depends on efflux facilitators such as PIN family proteins and influx facilitators such as AUX1 in Arabidopsis.Eight PIN family proteins, AtPIN1 to AtPIN8, exist in Arabidopsis. AtPIN1 is located at the basal side of the plasma membrane in vascular tissues but is weak in cortical tissues, which supports the hypothesis of chemical pervasion.³ AtPIN2 is localized at the apical side of epidermal cells and basally in cortical cells.^1,4 GNOM, an ARF GEF, modulates the localization of PIN1 and vesicle trafficking and affects root development.^5,6 The PIN auxin-efflux facilitator network controls root growth and patterning in Arabidopsis.⁴ As well, asymmetric localization of AUX1 occurs in the root cells of Arabidopsis plants,⁷ and overexpression of OsAGAP interferes with localization of AUX1.¹ Our data support that ARF-GAP mediates auxin influx and auxin-dependent root growth and patterning, which involves vesicle trafficking.¹ Here we show that OsAGAP overexpression leads to enhanced gravitropic response in transgenic rice plants. We propose a model whereby ARF GTPase is a molecular switch to control PAT and root growth and development.Overexpression of OsAGAP led to reduced growth in primary or adventitious roots of rice as compared with wild-type rice.¹ Gravitropism assay revealed transgenic rice overxpressing OsAGAP with a faster response to gravity than the wild type during 24-h treatment. However, 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA) treatment promoted the gravitropic response of the wild type, with no difference in response between the OsAGAP transgenic plants and the wild type plants (Fig. 1). The phenotype of enhanced gravitropic response in the transgenic plants was similar to that in the mutants atmdr1-100 and atmdr1-100/atpgp1-100 related to Arabidopsis ABC (ATP-binding cassette) transporter and defective in PAT.⁸ The physiological data, as well as data on localization of auxin transport facilitators, support ARF-GAP modulating PAT via regulating the location of the auxin influx facilitator AUX1.¹ So the alteration in gravitropic response in the OsAGAP transgenic plants was explained by a defect in PAT.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Gravitropism of OsAGAP overexpressing transgenic rice roots and response to 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA). (A) Gravitropism phenotype of wild type (WT) and OsAGAP overexpressing roots at 6 hr gravi-stimulation (top panel) and 0 hr as a treatment control (bottom panel). (B) Time course of gravitropic response in transgenic roots. (C and D) results correspond to those in (A and B), except for treatment with NAA (5 × 10⁻⁷ M).The polarity of auxin transport is controlled by the asymmetric distribution of auxin transport proteins, efflux facilitators and influx carriers. ARF GTPase is a key member in vesicle trafficking system and modulates cell polarity and PAT in plants. Thus, ARF-GDP or GTP bound with GEF or GAP determines the ARF function on auxin efflux facilitators (such as PIN1) or influx ones (such as AUX1).ARF1, targeting ROP2 and PIN2, affects epidermal cell polarity.⁹ GNOM is involved in the regulation of PIN1 asymmetric localization in cells and its related function in organogenesis and development.⁶ Although VAN3, an ARF-GAP in Arabidopsis, is located in a subpopulation of the trans-Golgi transport network (TGN), which is involved in leaf vascular network formation, it does not affect PAT.¹⁰ OsAGAP possesses an ARF GTPase-activating function in rice.¹¹ Specifically, our evidence supports that ARF-GAP bound with ARF-GTP modulates PAT and gravitropism via AUX1, mediated by vesicle trafficking, including the Golgi stack.¹Therefore, we propose a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by the vascular trafficking system in regulating PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, which controls root development and gravitropism in plants (Fig. 2). Here we emphasize that ARF-GEF catalyzes a conversion of ARF-bound GDP to GTP, which is necessary for the efficient delivery of the vesicle to the target membrane.¹² An opposite process of ARF-bound GDP to GTP is promoted by ARF-GTPase-activating protein via binding. A loop status of ARF-GTP and ARF-GDP bound with their appurtenances controls different auxin facilitators and regulates root development and gravitropism.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model for ARF GTPase as a molecular switch for the polar auxin transport mediated by the vesicle traffic system.     

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     

Flowering time regulation by the SUMO E3 ligase SIZ1

Flowering is a developmental process, which is influenced by chemical and environmental stimuli. Recently, our research established that the Arabidopsis SUMO E3 ligase, AtSIZ1, is a negative regulator of transition to flowering through mechanisms that reduce salicylic acid (SA) accumulation and involve SUMO modification of FLOWERING LOCUS D (FLD). FLD is an autonomous pathway determinant that represses the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a floral repressor. This addendum postulates mechanisms by which SIZ1-mediated SUMO conjugation regulates SA accumulation and FLD activity.Key words: SIZ1, SA, flowering, SUMO, FLD, FLCSUMO conjugation and deconjugation are post-translational processes implicated in plant defense against pathogens, abscisic acid (ABA) and phosphate (Pi) starvation signaling, development, and drought and temperature stress tolerance, albeit only a few of the modified proteins have been identified.^1–8 The Arabidopsis AtSIZ1 locus encodes a SUMO E3 ligase that regulates floral transition and leaf development.^8,9 siz1 plants accumulate substantial levels of SA, which is the primary cause for dwarfism and early short-day flowering exhibited by these plants.^1,9 How SA promotes transition to flowering is not yet known but apparently, it is through a mechanism that is independent of the known floral signaling pathways.^9,10 Exogenous SA reduces expression of AGAMOUS-like 15 (AGL15), a floral repressor that functions redundantly with AGL18.^11,12 A possible mechanism by which SA promotes transition to flowering may be by repressing expression of AGL15 and AGL18 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model of how SUMO conjugation and deconjugation regulate plant development in Arabidopsis. SIZ1 and Avr proteins regulate biosynthesis and accumulation of SA, a plant stress hormone that is involved in plant innate immunity, leaf development and regulation of flowering time. SA promotes transition to flowering may through AGL15/AGL18 dependent and independent pathways. FLC expression is activated by FRIGIDA but repressed by the autonomous pathway gene FLD, and SIZ1-mediated sumoylation of FLD represses its activity. Lines with arrows indicate upregulation (activation), and those with bars identify downregulation (repression).siz1 mutations also cause constitutive induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes leading to enhanced resistance against biotrophic pathogens.¹ Several bacterial type III effector proteins, such as YopJ, XopD and AvrXv4, have SUMO isopeptidase activity.^13–15 PopP2, a member of YopJ/AvrRxv bacterial type III effector protein family, physically interacts with the TIR-NBS-LRR type R protein RRS1, and possibly stabilizes the RRS1 protein.¹⁶ Phytopathogen effector and plant R protein interactions lead to increased SA biosynthesis and accumulation, which in turn activates expression of pathogenesis-related proteins that facilitate plant defense.¹⁷ SIZ1 may participate in SUMO conjugation of plant R proteins to regulate Avr and R protein interactions leading to SA accumulation, which, in turn, affects phenotypes such as diseases resistance, dwarfism and flowering time (Fig. 1).Our recent work revealed also that AtSIZ1 facilitates FLC expression, negatively regulating flowering.⁹ AtSIZ1 promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD activity.⁹ Site-specific mutations that prevent SUMO1/2 conjugation to FLD result in enhanced activity of the protein to represses FLC expression, which is associated with reduced acetylation of histone 4 (H4) in FLC chromatin.⁹ FLD, an Arabidopsis ortholog of Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1), is a floral activator that downregulates methylation of H3K4 in FLC chromatin and represses FLC expression.^18,19 Interestingly, bacteria expressing recombinant FLD protein did not demethylate H3K4me2, inferring that the demethylase activity requires additional co-factors as are necessary for LSD1.^18,20 Together, these results suggest that SIZ1-mediated SUMO modification of FLD may affect interactions between FLD and co-factors, which is necessary for FLC chromatin modification.Despite our results that implicate SA in flowering time control, how SIZ1 regulates SA accumulation and the identity of the effectors involved remain to be discovered. In addition, it remains to be determined if SIZ1 is involved in other mechanisms that modulate FLD activity and FLC expression, or the function of other autonomous pathway determinants.