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     

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.     

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.     

The conserved fission complex on peroxisomes and mitochondria

Peroxisomes are eukaryotic organelles highly versatile and dynamic in content and abundance. Plant peroxisomes mediate various metabolic pathways, a number of which are completed sequentially in peroxisomes and other subcellular organelles, including mitochondria and chloroplasts. To understand how peroxisomal dynamics contribute to changes in plant physiology and adaptation, the multiplication pathways of peroxisomes are being dissected. Research in Arabidopsis thaliana has identified several evolutionarily conserved families of proteins in peroxisome division. These include five PEROXIN11 proteins (PEX11a to -e) that induce peroxisome elongation and the fission machinery, which is composed of three dynamin-related proteins (DRP3A, -3B and -5B) and DRP''s membrane receptor, FISSION1 (FIS1A and -1B). While the function of PEX11 is restricted to peroxisomes, the fission factors are more promiscuous. DRP3 and FIS1 proteins are shared between peroxisomes and mitochondria, and DRP5B plays a dual role in the division of chloroplasts and peroxisomes. Analysis of the Arabidopsis genome suggests that higher plants may also contain functional homologs of the yeast Mdv1/Caf4 proteins, adaptor proteins that link DRPs to FIS1 on the membrane of both peroxisomes and mitochondria. Sharing a conserved fission machine between these metabolically linked subcellular compartments throughout evolution may have some biological significance.Key words: Arabidopsis, peroxisomal and mitochondrial division, dynamin-related protein (DRP), FISSION1 (FIS1), mitochondrial division 1 (Mdv1), CCR4p-associated factor 4 (Caf4)Peroxisomes are single membrane-delimited organelles involved in a variety of metabolic pathways essential to development.¹ Plant peroxisomes participate in processes such as lipid mobilization, photorespiration, detoxification, hormone biosynthesis and metabolism, and plant-pathogen interaction.^2,3 A number of these metabolic functions, such as photorespiration, fatty acid metabolism and jasmonic acid biosynthesis, are accomplished through the cooperative efforts of peroxisomes and other subcellular compartments, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts.^3–5 The function, morphology and abundance of peroxisomes can vary depending on the organism, cell type, developmental stage and prevailing environmental conditions in which the organism resides.^6,7 It is now believed that in addition to budding from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), peroxisomes also multiply from pre-existing peroxisomes via division, going through steps including peroxisome elongation/tubulation, membrane constriction and fission.^7,8In the reference plant Arabidopsis thaliana, three evolutionarily conserved families of proteins have been identified as key components of the peroxisome division apparatus. Five integral membrane proteins, named PEX11a to -e, are mainly responsible for inducing the elongation and tubulation of peroxisomes in the early stage of peroxisome division.^9–11 DRP3A and DRP3B are members of a dynamin-related protein family that powers the fission of membranes and FIS1A and FIS1B are homologous proteins believed to anchor the DRP proteins to the membrane.^12–19 Similar to their counterparts in yeasts and mammals, DRP3 and FIS1 are shared by the fission machineries of peroxisomes and mitochondria.^12–19 We recently reported the unexpected finding that DRP5B, a plant/algal-specific DRP distantly related to the DRP3 proteins and originally discovered for its function in chloroplast division, is also involved in the division of peroxisomes. Using co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) and bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) assays, we further demonstrated that DRP5B and the two DRP3 proteins can homo- and hetero-dimerize and each DRP can form a complex with FIS1A and/or FIS1B and most of the Arabidopsis PEX11 isoforms.²⁰ These results together demonstrate that, despite their distinct evolutionary origins, structures and functions, peroxisomes, mitochondria and chloroplasts use some of the same factors for fission. These data also revealed that, like in yeasts and mammals, the FIS1-DRP complex exits on peroxisomes and mitochondria in plants.DRP5B, a DRP unique in the plant and photosynthetic algae lineages, seems to be the sole component shared by the division of chloroplasts and peroxisomes.²⁰ However, both FIS1 and DRP are found to be required for the division of peroxisomes and mitochondria throughout eukaryotic evolution,^21,22 prompting the question: to what extent is the FIS1-DRP complex conserved among diverse species? In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, this fission complex also contains an adaptor encoded by two homologous WD40 proteins, Mdv1 and Caf4, which are partially redundant in function with Mdv1 playing the major role. Mdv1 and Caf4 share an N-terminal extension (NTE) domain with two α-helices, a middle coiled-coil domain (CC) and C-terminal WD40 repeat. Both proteins use the NTE to interact with the tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain-containing N-terminus of Fis1, the CC domain to dimerize and the C-terminal WD40 repeat to interact with and recruit the DRP protein, Dnm1.^23,24 The Hansenula polymorpha Mdv1 (Hp Mdv1) also has a dual function in the division of peroxisomes and mitochondria.²⁵ In addition, a Mdv1/Caf4 homolog, Mda1, was identified from the primitive red algae Cyanidioschyzon merolae and found to be involved at least in mitochondrial fission.²⁶ However, higher eukaryotes do not seem to have obvious homologs of Mdv1/Caf4. For example, mammals contain Fis1 and Drp (called DLP1 or Drp1) but no apparent homologs to Mdv1 and Caf4. Instead, a metazoan-specific tail-anchored protein, Mitochondrial Fission Factor (Mff), was recently found to regulate the fission of mitochondria and peroxisomes in a similar manner to Fis1. Mff is essential in recruiting Drp1, at least in mitochondrial division, yet it functions in a Fis1-independent pathway.^27,28To determine whether plants contain structural or functional homologs of Mdv1 and Caf4, we performed blast searches of the Arabidopsis genome, which resulted in the retrieval of ∼300 WD40 proteins. However, just like the search results from mammals, none of these proteins show significant sequence similarity with Mdv1 and Caf4 beyond the WD40 repeats. To identify proteins with similar domain structures with Mdv1/Caf4, we further analyzed these WD40 proteins, using the online Simple Modular Architecture Research Tool (smart.embl-heidelberg.de/). After eliminating proteins apparently inappropriate to be part of this complex, such as kinases and proteins with drastically distinct domain organizations despite of having both WD40 repeats and CC domains, we were able to narrow down to eight proteins. These proteins, which are encoded by At1g04510, At2g32950, At2g33340, At3g18860, At4g05410, At4g21130, At5g50230 and At5g67320, respectively, each contain a central CC domain in addition to the WD40 repeat region and are ranging from 450 to 900 amino acids in length (Fig. 1A). Subcellular localization studies will need to be performed to determine whether some of these proteins are associated with peroxisomes and mitochondria. If such a WD40 protein is proven to be part of the FIS1-DRP complex in Arabidopsis, it will be important to determine whether it simply acts as an adaptor or it also plays other roles, such as to promote and maintain the active structure and conformation of DRP3A/3B at the division site (Fig. 1B). Consistent with the latter scenario, it was found that Sc Mdv1 accumulates at the division sites after Dnm1 assembles and that the mammalian Fis1 and Drp1 proteins physically interact.^29,30 Peroxisomes and mitochondria are functionally linked in a number of metabolic pathways. For example, in plants, they act cooperatively in important processes such as fatty acid metabolism and photorespiration.³ An interesting question to address in the future is whether sharing such a conserved fission machine between peroxisomes and mitochondria throughout evolution has critical biological consequences.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Domain structure of Mdv1/Caf4 and their homologs or putative homologs. (A) Domain structure of Sc Mdv1 and Sc Caf4 from S. cerevisiae, their homologs from H. polymorpha and C. merolae, and the eight Arabidopsis proteins with similar domain organization. Grey boxes indicate the CC domain and black boxes are Wd40 repeats. (B) The putative FIS1-WD40-DRP complex in Arabidopsis. CC, coiled-coil; NTE, N-terminal extension; TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; TMD, transmembrane domain.     

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.     

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.     

Mannan synthase activity in the CSLD family

Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL) proteins are a group of plant glycosyltransferases that are predicted to synthesize β-1,4-linked polysaccharide backbones. CSLC, CSLF and CSLH families have been confirmed to synthesize xyloglucan and mixed linkage β-glucan, while CSLA family proteins have been shown to synthesize mannans. The polysaccharide products of the five remaining CSL families have not been determined. Five CSLD genes have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana and a role in cell wall biosynthesis has been demonstrated by reverse genetics. We have extended past research by producing a series of double and triple Arabidopsis mutants and gathered evidence that CSLD2, CSLD3 and CSLD5 are involved in mannan synthesis and that their products are necessary for the transition between early developmental stages in Arabidopsis. Moreover, our data revealed a complex interaction between the three glycosyltransferases and brought new evidence regarding the formation of non-cellulosic polysaccharides through multimeric complexes.Key words: mannan, mannose, plant cell wall, glycosyltransferase, cellulose synthase like, CSL, biosynthesis, hemicelluloseThe plant cell wall is mainly composed of polysaccharides, which are often grouped into cellulose, hemicelluloses and pectin. Since the discovery of the first cellulose synthase (CESA) genes in cotton fibers,¹ the synthesis of cellulose has been extensively studied.² In contrast, the glycosyltransferases responsible for synthesizing hemicelluloses and pectin are still largely unidentified.^3,4,5 The CESA genes are members of a superfamily that includes genes with a high sequence similarity with CESA genes and are named Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL).⁶ The CSL genes have themselves been grouped into nine families designated CSLA, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, -H and -J (Figure 1A).^5,6 Mannan and glucomannan synthase activity has been demonstrated in the CSLA family,^7,8,9 while members of the CSLC family have been implicated in synthesis of the xyloglucan backbone.¹⁰ CSLF and CSLH, which are found only in grasses, are involved in synthesis of mixed linkage glucan.^11,12 The function of the remaining CSL families has not been determined. We have reported our research on the CSLD family in a recent publication.¹³ Of all the CSL families, CSLD possesses the most ancient intron/exon structure and is the most similar to the CESA family.⁶ CSLD genes are found in all sequenced genomes of terrestrial plants including Physcomitrella and Selaginella suggesting a highly conserved function throughout the plant kingdom (Figure 1A). Five genes (CSLD1 to CSLD5) and one apparent pseudogene (CSLD6) have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹⁴ Bernal et al.^14,15 studied knock-out mutants of the individual genes and presented evidence for a role in cell wall biosynthesis for each Arabidopsis CSLD. To elucidate the activity of the CSLD proteins and obtain further understanding of their biological role, we generated double mutants csld2/csld3, csld2/csld5, csld3/csld5 and the triple mutant csld2/csld3/csld5. Immunochemical, biochemical and complementation assays brought evidence that CSLD5 or CSLD2 in concomitance with CSLD3 act as mannan synthases.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Schematic representation of the CESA superfamily phylogeny. The inset on the right is a detailed phylogenetic tree of CSLDs from Selaginella moellendorffii, Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. The figure is modified from Ulvskov and Scheller.⁵ (B) Comparison of csld2, csld3, csld5 with Col-0 20 days after germination. The inflorescences of csld2 and csld3 were similar to Col-0 whereas csld5 had a delayed growth. Scale bar: 1 cm. (C) Col-0 and csld2/csld3/csld5 (triple mutant, TM) 40 days after germination. After 40 days, the triple mutant was barely developed and, as shown in the magnified inset, displayed purple coloration indicating accumulation of anthocyanins, a typical stress response. Scale bar: 2 mm.     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29