Dependency on floral resources determines the animals' responses to floral scents

Animal-pollinated angiosperms either depend on cross-pollination or may also reproduce after self-pollination—the former are thus obligately, the latter facultatively dependent on the service of animal-pollinators. Analogously, flower visitors either solely feed on floral resources or complement their diet with these, and are hence dependent or not on the flowers they visit. We assume that obligate flower visitors evolved abilities that enable them to effectively forage on flowers including mechanisms to bypass or tolerate floral defences such as morphological barriers and repellent/deterrent secondary metabolites. Facultative flower visitors, in contrast, are supposed to lack these adaptations and are often prevented to consume floral resources by defence mechanisms. In cases where obligate flower visitors are mutualists and facultative ones are antagonists, this dichotomy provides a solution for the plants'' dilemma to attract pollinators and simultaneously repel exploiters. In a meta-analysis, we recently supported this hypothesis: obligate flower visitors are attracted to floral scents, while facultative ones are repelled. Here, we add empirical evidence to these results: bumblebees and ants, obligate and facultative flower visitors, respectively, responded as predicted by the results of the meta-analysis to synthetic floral scent compounds.Key words: antagonists, exploitation, floral defences, mutualism, nectar, pollinationThe mutualism between flowers and their pollinators is often exploited by cheaters that consume floral rewards but do not contribute to or even reduce the reproductive success of plants.¹ The classification into mutualistic and antagonistic flower visitors represents a phytocentric point of view and only considers the interaction''s net effect for the plant. However, the outcome of each plant-flower visitor interaction may be highly conditional and variable over time² and thus constitutes a continuum between beneficial and detrimental, and it may not be unequivocally assigned to be either positive or negative. Furthermore, many flower visitor species that function as effective pollinators of some plant species represent severe antagonists to other plant species.³ Thus, except for highly specialised systems, it is difficult to predict whether an interaction is mutualistic, commensalistic or antagonistic. We proposed a different classification of flower visitors based on the animals'' interest in flower visits.⁴ Animals visit flowers primarily in search for food; pollination is just a secondary effect.⁵ For some taxa nectar and pollen are the sole nutrient supply, others only supplement their more generalistic diets with floral resources. These different dependencies on floral resources can often be unequivocally assigned to each animal species. Bees, for example, strongly depend on pollen and nectar and are thus obligate flower visitors. In contrast, ants are omnivores and thus facultative flower visitors that consume large amounts of floral nectar of some plant species but obtain most of the nutrients required by the colony from non-floral resources.⁶Optimal foraging theory predicts that animals evolve physiological and behavioral features that allow them to exploit their resources as effectively as possible.^7,8 Therefore, a classification considering the animals'' dependencies on floral resources (obligate versus facultative) may be better suited to explain adaptations to flower visits than their effect on plants'' reproduction (mutualistic versus antagonistic). One very important adaptation to the consumption of floral resources is the ability to tolerate or overcome floral defences that are employed by the flowers to reduce the visitation frequency of detrimental flower visitors.⁹ Floral scents are innate attractants or reinforce floral visits due to associative learning but do also serve as effective repellents against antagonists.¹⁰ In a meta-analysis, we recently demonstrated that the dependency on floral resources determines the responses to floral scents.⁴ In the bioassay presented here, using bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) and ants (Lasius niger), we empirically tested the predictions deduced from the metaanalysis. We expected that bumblebees—as obligate flower visitors—are attracted to floral scent compounds, while ants—as facultative flower visitors—are repelled.     

Private channels in plant-pollinator mutualisms

Volatile compounds often mediate plant-pollinator interactions, and may promote specialization in plant-pollinator relationships, notably through private channels of unusual compounds. Nevertheless, the existence of private channels, i.e., the potential for exclusive communication via unique signals and receptors, is still debated in the literature. Interactions between figs and their pollinating wasps offer opportunities for exploring this concept. Several experiments have demonstrated that chemical mediation is crucial in ensuring the encounter between figs and their species-specific pollinators. Indeed, chemical messages emitted by figs are notably species- and developmental stage-specific, making them reliable cues for the pollinator. In most cases, the species-specificity of wasp attraction is unlikely to result from the presence of a single specific compound. Nevertheless, a recent paper on the role of scents in the interaction between Ficus semicordata and its pollinating wasp Ceratosolen gravelyi showed that a single compound, 4-methylanisole, is the main signal compound in the floral scent, and is sufficient by itself to attract the obligate pollinator. Mainly focusing on these results, we propose here that a floral scent can act as a private channel, attracting only the highly specific pollinator.Key words: chemical mediation, ficus, agaonidae, private channel, floral filter, coevolved mutualismMutualisms are interspecies interactions in which each participant gains net benefits from interacting with its partner. Like many other interspecies interactions, mutualisms are usually mediated by chemical signals. For instance, floral scents act as pollinator attractants in numerous plant species.^1–3 We studied the chemical compounds that mediate a set of interactions which has become a model system for understanding the evolution of mutualisms: the interactions between Ficus (Moraceae) and their species-specific pollinating fig wasps (Chalcidoidea: Agaonidae). In this ‘nursery pollination mutualism’, the pollinators can breed only in receptive figs of their host tree, which depends in turn on the wasp as its sole pollinator. Each pollinator species is usually associated with a single Ficus species. Fig trees mainly grow in tropical regions, and many species can co-occur in the same forest. In these regions, the density of individual species is often quite low.⁴ Therefore, signals emitted by each species must be efficient at long distances and specific, to allow the attraction of the associated pollinator. In all of the Ficus species that have been studied so far (approximately 40 of a total of roughly 800 species worldwide), figs have been shown to release volatile compounds when they are receptive (i.e., at the stage when pollination can occur).^5–10 Behavioral tests have been performed with pollinators of several species, confirming for these species the role of fig scent in pollinator attraction (Soler et al. in prep).^5–7,9,11 In the floral scents of the fig species studied, at least two to five major compounds account for the majority of the total volatiles emitted by receptive figs.^8,10,12–15 These major volatiles emitted by receptive figs are generally compounds that are not rare in floral fragrances. The species-specificity of wasp attraction is thus usually not likely to result from the presence of only one single specific compound.^10,13 However, Chen and co-workers,¹⁶ focusing on Ficus semicordata, found that a single benzenoid compound, 4-methylanisole, is sufficient to attract its pollinator. Though 4-methylanisole occurs in floral fragrances, having been documented in floral scents of plants from 17 families (of the 90 families included in the review by Knudsen et al.),¹⁷ it usually accounts for only a fraction of total volatiles, and this was the first time that this benzenoid compound has been reported in the floral scent of a Ficus species.^7,10–12,18 To our knowledge, no previous study has shown that 4-methylanisole is attractive to pollinators of any plant, or that this compound could by itself mediate the specificity of any mutualistic interaction.Raguso (2008)³ defined a ‘private channel’ as the potential for such exclusive communication via unique signals and receptors. Moreover, according to Schaefer et al.¹⁹ private channels must fit three major criteria: (1) the identification of an intended (effective mutualist) receiver; (2) sensitive signal detection by this receiver, and finally (3) poor detection by unintended (less effective) receivers. Chen et al.¹⁶ showed that a single compound, 4-methylanisole, accounted for more than 90% of the volatile compounds emitted by receptive figs of F. semicordata. This compound is also known not to be produced by the two other sympatric Ficus species in which floral odours have also been studied, nor by any Ficus species whose scent has been analyzed (Soler et al., in preparation).^10,13 Moreover, Chen et al.¹⁶ found that the species-specificity of the attraction of Ceratosolen gravelyi, the pollinating wasp of Ficus semicordata, was due mainly, if not entirely, to this single major compound. Indeed, based on behavioural (olfactory) tests, they showed that the specialized pollinating wasp detects 4-methylanisole and is attracted by it, even at low concentrations (wasp response tested in concentrations ranging from 1.22 × 10² ng/100 µl to 1.22 × 10⁶ ng/100 µl). The last criterion for a private channel proposed by Schaefer et al.¹⁹ i.e., poor detection by unintended receivers, is the only one which has not been clearly demonstrated by Chen et al.¹⁶ In the case of fig/fig wasp mutualisms, the unintended receivers correspond obviously to the parasites of the mutualism. Indeed, many fig species harbor numerous species of chalcidoid wasps that mature within ovaries in fig inflorescences, like the pollinator, but do not carry pollen. Each of these non-pollinating fig wasps is assumed to be associated specifically with a single Ficus species²⁰ and to use fig scents as cues to detect the host species, as do pollinating fig wasps.²¹ However, in the case of the F. semicordata/C. gravelyi mutualism, no non-pollinating fig wasps have been observed ovipositing during the period when figs are at the receptive stage. This situation is quite unusual in Ficus species (Proffit M, unpublished data; Rasplus J-Y, personal communication). The apparent absence of ‘eavesdropping’ parasites at the time when pollinators are attracted to the figs suggests that the last criterion of a private channel—poor detection by potential receivers other than the specific pollinator—also holds in this case, although this has not been experimentally demonstrated.The study by Chen et al.¹⁶ is, to our knowledge, the first that attempted to test the existence of a private channel in a fig/fig wasp interaction. Nevertheless, this is not the first case of a putative private channel in a nursery pollination mutualism. Indeed, examples have been highlighted in the interactions between Yucca filamentosa (Agavaceae) and its moth pollinator Tegeticula cassandra (Prodoxidae)²² and in the interactions between Peltandra virginica (Araceae) and its pollinating fly Elachiptera formosa (Chloropidae).²³ Similarly, the existence of private channels has been suggested for several species in the family Eupomatiaceae, pollinated by beetles.²⁴ In contrast, Svensson et al.²⁵ showed that in the Breynia (Phyllanthaceae)/Epicephala (Gracillariidae) interaction, pollinators are attracted by common volatile compounds, supporting the hypothesis that no private channel exists in this case. In a review of the role of scents in plant-pollinator interactions, Raguso³ highlighted the putative examples of private channels, but noted that their existence is still debated, notably in the case of non co-specialized plant-pollinator interactions. Nevertheless, some studies have suggested that private channels do exist in this class of interactions. Most examples concern the Orchidaceae. For instance, Eltz et al.²⁶ showed that carvone oxide and ipsdienol are volatile floral rewards emitted by Neotropical orchids pollinated by male euglossine bees, which collect volatile substances for courtship displays. However, probably the best-known examples are Ophrys spp., temperate-zone terrestrial orchids whose flowers mimic the female pheromone of the pollinator to attract males, which pollinate flowers by pseudo-copulation.^27–29 In his review of the role of scents in plant pollinator interactions, Raguso³ also proposed that floral filters do not need to rely upon exclusive olfactory signals or receptors. Indeed, few studies have determined whether pollinator-attractive compounds could alone assure species-specificity (private channel), or whether specificity is mediated by more complex ‘floral filters’, of which scent is only one component. These latter may integrate mechanical or other kinds of barriers, as seems to be the case in the interaction between the dwarf palm Chamaerops humilis and the weevil Derelomus chamaeropsis.³⁰In the literature about private channels in chemical mediation of mutualisms, two points still seem unclear. One is a semantic point: do cases in which specificity is ensured by specific ratios of several more common compounds constitute a private channel, or is this concept restricted to cases in which specificity is ensured by a single rare compound? The literature on private channels emphasizes cases of the latter type. A related question is whether specificity is sometimes ensured not by a single rare compound, but by a combination of rare compounds. While all the putative cases of private channels that have attracted attention concern emission of and attraction to a single rare compound,^3,16,18 the limited number of studied cases does not allow drawing firm general conclusions. Nevertheless, we might think that a hypothetical private channel constituted by several rare compounds might be more difficult to evolve (if it requires the acquisition of several biosynthetic pathways by the plant, and of specific receptors by the insect) or counter-selected (owing to greater costs).We propose here that in the mutualism between F. semicordata and C. gravelyi, despite the existence of mechanical barriers to flower visitation (as in all Ficus species), available information on the chemical communication between plant and pollinator constitutes a strong case for the mediation of a highly specific interaction through a private channel, which acts largely alone as a floral filter that prevents ‘cheaters’ from finding and exploiting a potential resource. An interesting long-term consequence of such an adaptation in a highly co-specialized plant-pollinator interaction is that it might reduce evolutionary flexibility, preventing host shifts, and perhaps making it difficult for the mutualists to evolve counter-adaptations to a new parasite that ‘decodes’ the private channel. Private channels may be isolated adaptive peaks, even more difficult to escape than they are to reach. This could explain their apparent infrequent occurrence in nature.     

Presence of yeasts in floral nectar is consistent with the hypothesis of microbial-mediated signaling in plant-pollinator interactions

Olfactory floral signals are significant factors in plant-pollinator mutualisms. Recently, unusual fermentation odors have been described in the nectar and flowers of some species. Since yeasts are common inhabitants of many angiosperms nectars, this raises the possibility that nectar yeasts may act as causal agents of fermentation odors in flowers and, therefore, as possible intermediate agents in plant signaling to pollinators. A recent field study has reported that nectar yeasts were quite frequent in floral nectar across three different regions in Europe and America, where they reached high densities (up to 10⁵ cells/mm³). Yeast incidence in floral nectar differed widely across plant host species in all sampling sites. A detailed study currently in progress on one of the species surveyed in that study (Helleborus foetidus, Ranunculaceae) has detected that, in addition to interespecific differences in yeast incidence, there is also a strong component of variance in yeast abundance that takes place at the subindividual level (among flowers of the same plant, among nectaries of the same flower). If yeast metabolism is eventually proved to contribute significantly to floral scent, then multilevel patchiness in the distribution of nectar yeasts (among species, among individuals within species, and among flowers and nectaries of the same individual) might contribute to concomitant multilevel variation in plant signaling and, eventually, also in pollination success, pollen flow and plant fitness.Key words: nectar, yeast, scent, plant-animal interaction, plant signalingPollinators forage on a wide range of flowers that differ in morphology, color, scent and quality and quantity of reward. The majority of these floral features are important visual and olfactory cues that are directly related to plant-pollinators signaling and the pollination process.^1–12 Recently, the intriguing possibility has been raised that microbial communities (especially nectarivorous yeasts) inhabiting flowers could explain better than, or in addition to, plant physiology itself, certain floral features that participate in plant-pollinators signaling, like yeasty nectar or floral scent.^13,14 However, some of these suggestions are based on circumstantial or indirect evidence indicative of the presence of microbes in flowers. For example, fermentation odors have been described in a number of Angiosperms,^14–16 in which different compounds found in nectar were not shared with any other floral parts.¹³ In addition, yeasty odors (ketones and shortchain alcohols) have only been observed in mature flowers that were already visited by pollinators and thus potentially contaminated with microbes, in contrast, for example, to the sesquiterpenes isolated in immature flowers that are also common in the foliage of many plants.¹⁴ Yeasty odors were found in species whose flowers are long-lived, produce large amounts of nectar, and are visited by flies and beetles, which are known to act as yeast vectors to flowers.^17–19 In spite of these plausible suggestions, studies indicating a potential role of microbes in the origin of floral scents generally have not looked directly for their presence or abundance in floral nectar, which clearly would provide critical empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis of microbial-mediated signaling in plant-pollinator interactions.That yeasts are common inhabitants of floral nectars was well known to microbiologists more than a century ago^20,21 and has been recently corroborated by Herrera et al.²² This study was conducted at three widely separated areas, which differed greatly in ecological features and biogeographical affinities: two study sites were located in the Southern Iberian Peninsula, about 350 km apart, and one in Yucatán Peninsula, eastern Mexico. Floral nectar samples from 40, 63 and 37 species, belonging to 21, 23 and 21 families, were examined microscopically for yeast cells at these three areas. Yeasts occurred very frequently in floral nectar at all areas, as revealed by the high proportion of nectar samples that contained them (31.8%, 42.3% and 54.4%; samples from all species at each site combined). In addition to being quite frequent in nectar samples, yeast cells often reached extraordinarily high densities in floral nectar at the three areas, which reached roughly 4 × 10⁵ cells/mm³. When plant species, rather than individual nectar samples, were considered as the units for analyses, Herrera et al.²² found wide variation among species in both the frequency of occurrence and the density of yeasts in nectar samples. A significant fraction of such variation was found to be correlated with differences in pollinator composition, a link between pollination ecology and floral nectar microbiology that has remained unexplored until now. Similar results showing high densities and frequency of occurrence of yeasts in nectar, and interespecific differences in these magnitudes related to variation in pollinator composition, have been also reported by de Vega et al.²³ for 40 South African plant species, which further supports the generality of the phenomenon. In addition to interespecific differences in the prevalence of nectar yeasts, the data examined by Herrera et al.²² and de Vega et al.²³ revealed also considerable intraespecific variability (i.e., among individuals plants of the same species), although this aspect of results was not explicitly considered in their studies.A study currently in progress has documented patterns of intraespecific variability in yeast occurrence in the nectaries of Helleborus foetidus (Ranunculaceae), a winter-flowering, bumble bee-pollinated perennial herb whose long-lived flowers last for roughly two weeks. Frequency of occurrence and cell density of yeasts in nectar were studied at six populations of this species from Sierra de Cazorla (SE Spain). Helleborus foetidus flowers have five separated horn-shaped nectaries hidden at the corolla base, each of which produces up to 5 µl of nectar. This enabled us to study patterns of yeast occurrence also at the within-flower level. At each population, total variance in yeast cell density on a per-nectary basis was partitioned into components due to differences between individual plants, flowers within plants and nectaries within flowers. We found extreme differences concerning the abundance and frequency of yeasts in H. foetidus nectar, the magnitude of intraespecific variation being similar or even greater than variation found in interespecific comparisons in the same study area (Pozo MI, et al. unpublished results). Our data suggest that temporal and spatial factors may explain differences regarding yeast abundance in H. foetidus nectar, and possibly other species as well. The largest component of intraespecific variance in yeast abundance occurred at the subindividual level, and was mainly accounted for by the variance between nectaries in the same flower (Fig. 1). This intraespecific variation in nectarivorous yeast incidence can have some important implications related to plant-pollinators interactions and, more specifically, to plant signaling, as outlined below.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Hierarchical dissection of variance in yeast abundance in single-nectary nectar samples of Helleborus foetidus. (A) Temporal patterns. Collection dates and plant, flower within plant and nectary within flower as hierarchical levels of variance analyzed. (B) Spatial patterns. Population, plant within populations and flower within plants as hierarchical levels of variance analyzed.Nectar-inhabiting yeasts modify certain flower characteristics linked to pollinator foraging behavior, such as nectar sugar composition and energetic value, by reducing total sugar concentration and altering the relative proportions of constituent sugars (sucrose, glucose and fructose) and the sucrose:hexose ratio.^23–26 Furthermore, as noted above, yeasts could be also implicated in floral volatiles emission.^13,14 Consequently, yeast incidence (measured both by frequency and abundance of yeast cells in nectar samples) may have been modifying signaling cues which have been postulated to be intrinsic plant species-specific. Although an empirical connection between yeast presence and fermentation nectar odor is needed, the fact that nectarivorous yeast presence would be as variable as described by our studies could imply the same variability for plant species signaling aspects, along with potential consequences for pollinators, since variance was mainly accounted for by variation below individual plant level. For example, in H. foetidus study variance in yeast abundance occurs mainly at the single nectary, which matches with the smallest scale that is perceived by a foraging insect. The fact that nectar is an important floral reward that plays a decisive role in the establishment of plant-pollinator mutualisms, together with the recently confirmed ubiquity of nectarivorous yeasts which could be acting as parasites of such mutualisms, open up new and exciting avenues to explore their effect on pollination success and pollen flow^27–30 and finally on plant fitness.^31–35     

Antennal responses of an oligolectic bee and its cleptoparasite to plant volatiles

Cleptoparasitic or cuckoo bees lay their eggs in nests of other bees, and the parasitic larvae feed the food that had been provided for the host larvae. Nothing is known about the specific signals used by the cuckoo bees for host nest finding, but previous studies have shown that olfactory cues originating from the host bee alone, or the host bee and the larval provision are essential. Here, I compared by using gas chromatography coupled to electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) the antennal responses of the oligolectic oil-bee Macropis fulvipes and their cleptoparasite, Epeoloides coecutiens, to dynamic headspace scent samples of Lysimachia punctata, a pollen and oil host of Macropis. Both bee species respond to some scent compounds emitted by L. punctata, and two compounds, which were also found in scent samples collected from a Macropis nest entrance, elicited clear signals in the antennae of both species. These compounds may not only play a role for host plant detection by Macropis, but also for host nest detection by Epeoloides. I hypothesise that oligolectic bees and their cleptoparasites use the same compounds for host plant and host nest detection, respectively.Key words: Macropis fulvipes, Epeoloides coecutiens, Lysimachia punctata, oligolectic oil-bee, floral scent, dynamic headspace, GC-EAD, cuckoo bee, host nest findingBees are the most important animal pollinators worldwide, and guarantee sexual reproduction of many plant species.^1,2 This is especially true for female bees, which collect pollen and mostly nectar for their larvae and frequently visit flowers. For finding and detection of suitable flowers, bees are known to use, besides optical cues,^3,4 especially olfactory signals.^5–8 However, c. 20% of bees do not collect pollen for their larvae by their own, but enter nests of host bees and lay eggs into the broodcells.^1,9 The parasitic larvae subsequently feed the food that had been provided for the host larvae. These so called cuckoo or cleptoparasitic bees can be generalistic, indicating that they use species of several other bee groups as host, whereas others can be highly specialized, laying eggs in cells of only few host species.¹ Until now little is known about the cues used by the cuckoo bees for finding host nests. Nevertheless, Cane¹⁰ and Schindler¹¹ demonstrated that parasitic Nomada bees use primarily visual cues of the nest entrance holes for finding possible nests, and olfactory cues for detection of suitable host nests. The chemical cues used by the cleptoparasites originate from the host bee^10,11 and also pollen,¹⁰ the main larval provision. In most bee species, pollen is mixed together with nectar as larval provision, and both floral resources are known to emit volatiles.^12,13 It is unknown, whether cuckoo bees in search for host nests also use volatiles originating from nectar. While the odours of the host bee used as signal by the cleptoparasites, e.g., cuticiular hydrocarbons and glandular secretions, are often species-specific,¹⁴ the chemical cues from the larval provision may just indicate the presence of pollen in the nest without more specifity. As a consequence cuckoo bees could use species-specific host odours to detect nests of a suitable host, and odours released from the larval provision could indicate to them that broodcells are foraged. However, especially those cuckoo bees with oligolectic hosts foraging pollen only on few closely related plant species,¹ may also use the olfactory signals from host broodcell supplies as more specific cue for host nest detection. Thus the same signal from certain flowers may be used for different informations: for the host bee for host plant and for the cuckoo bee for host nest detection.In this concern I tested oligolectic Macropis (Melittidae, Melittinae) and its specific cuckoo bee, Epeoloides (Apidae, Apinae) by using gas chromatography coupled to electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) on floral scent of Lysimachia (Myrsinaceae). Macropis is highly specialized on Lysimachia, because it is not only collecting pollen from plants of this genus, but also floral oil. Both floral products are the only provision for the larvae.^1,15 Recently, we have shown that the oil bee Macropis is strongly attracted to floral scent of its oil host Lysimachia though the compounds used for host plant finding are still unknown.⁷ Macropis is the only host of Epeoloides, and larvae of this cleptoparasite only feed on the Lysimachia pollen-oil mixture provided for the larvae of Macropis. Worldwide, there are only 2 species of this genus, one in North America and the other in Europe/Asia.^1,16,17 I hypothesized that both bee species respond to specific Lysimachia compounds, which may be used for host plant as well as host nest detection.The measurements with M. fulvipes (F.) and E. coecutiens (F.) antennae demonstrate that both bees, host as well as cuckoo bee, respond to some scent compounds emitted by inflorescences of Lysimachia punctata L. (Fig. 1), a plant being an important pollen and oil source for M. fulvipes. Macropis responded to much more Lysimachia compounds compared to the cuckoo bee, however, two compounds elicited clear signals in the antennae of both bee species: the benzenoid 1-hydroxy-1-phenyl-2-propanone, and the fatty acid derivative 2-tridecanone. Interestingly, both compounds are also emitted from the floral oil of this plant,⁷ and both compounds were also detected in scent samples collected by dynamic headspace in the entrance of a Macropis nest (Dötterl, unpublished data). Therefore, an Epeoloides female being in search for a host nest can detect volatiles emitted from the provision of the host bee at the entrance of a bee nest, and may use these specific compounds for detection of a Macropis nest provisioned with Lysimachia pollen and oil.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Coupled gas chromatographic and electroantennographic detection of a Lysimachia punctata headspace scent sample using antennae of a female oligolectic Macropis fulvipes and a female cleptoparasitic Epeoloides coecutiens bee. (1) 1-hydroxy-1-phenyl-2-propanone, (2) 2-tridecanone.Present results show that an oligolectic oil-bee as well as its cleptoparasite detects volatiles originating from the host plant of the pollen collecting bee, and that oligolectic bees as well as their cuckoo bees may use the same specific signals for host plant and host nest finding, respectively. Biotests are now needed to test this hypothesis.     

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     

Pseudomyrmex ants and Acacia host plants join efforts to protect their mutualism from microbial threats

Plants express numerous ‘pathogenesis-related’ (PR) proteins to defend themselves against pathogen infection. We recently discovered that PR-proteins such as chitinases, glucanases, peroxidases and thaumatin-like proteins are also functioning in the protection of extra-floral nectar (EFN) of Mexican Acacia myrmecophytes. These plants produce EFN, cellular food bodies and nesting space to house defending ant species of the genus Pseudomyrmex. More than 50 PR-proteins were discovered in this EFN and bioassays demonstrated that they actively can inhibit the growth of fungi and other phytopathogens. Although the plants can, thus, express PR-proteins and secrete them into the nectar, the leaves of these plants exhibit reduced activities of chitinases as compared to non-myrmecophytic plants and their antimicrobial protection depends on the mutualistic ants. When we deprived plants of their resident ants we observed higher microbial loads in the leaves and even in the tissue of the nectaries, as compared to plants that were inhabited by ants. The indirect defence that is achieved through an ant-plant mutualism can protect plants also from infections. Future studies will have to investigate the chemical nature of this mechanism in order to understand why plants depend on ants for their antimicrobial defence.Key words: ant-plant mutualism, indirect defense, pathogen resistance, pathogenesis-related proteinPlants fall victim to multiple attackers from various kingdoms and have evolved numerous strategies to defend themselves against herbivores and microbial pathogens. Pathogen resistance is usually based on particular cell wall properties, secondary compounds (phytoalexins) and on pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins.^1,2 Plant resistance to pathogens is thus, mainly based on plant traits that interact with the pathogen and therewith functions as a “direct” defence mechanism. Resistance to herbivores, by contrast, can also be “indirect”: plants house or attract carnivores, which fulfil the defensive function.³ Defensive ant-plant interactions are common mutualisms in which plants provide to ants an array of rewards that comprises both food rewards and domatia (nesting space).^3,4 Ants are attracted or nourished by plant-derived food rewards and defend the plants against herbivores.^3,5 In obligate interactions, myrmecophytes are inhabited by specialised ants during major parts of their life⁴ and the ants are entirely dependent on the food rewards and nesting space that are provided by their host. These ants, in return, defend their host efficiently and aggressively against herbivores and encroaching vegetation. Only recently we found that this protective service might also cover the defence against phytopathogens.In the Mexican Acacia-Pseudomyrmex mutualism, extrafloral nectar (EFN) represents an important plant trait to nourish symbiotic ant colonies. EFN is secreted by special glands called extrafloral nectaries and is rich in mono- and disaccharides and amino acids.⁶ Due to its high content in primary metabolites, EFN appears also attractive to exploiters, which make use of the nectar resource without providing a service to the plant.⁷ For example, EFN can serve as a suitable medium for pathogen growth and is highly prone to microbial infestations, which can have negative consequences on nectar composition.^8,9We recently found that Acacia EFN is biochemically protected from microbial infections.^10,11 More than 50 proteins could be distinguished in EFN of the myrmecophytes, A. hindsii, A. cornigera and A. collinsii, and most of these proteins were annotated as PR-proteins such as chitinases, β-1,3 glucanases, thaumatin-like proteins and peroxidases. In fact, chitinases and glucanases represented more than 50% of the total amount of proteins in EFN of myrmecophytic Acacia plants.^10,11 This dominance of PR-proteins clearly distinguishes the anti-microbial strategy of Acacia-EFN from the strategy of floral nectar of ornamental tobacco. The protection of the latter nectar is mainly based on small metabolites, such as hydrogen peroxide, which are produced by five proteins forming the ‘nectar redox cycle’.^12–14 By contrast, PR-proteins have also been reported from pollination droplets of gymnosperms,¹⁵ although their biological functions remain to be studied. For the Acacia EFN, biotests demonstrated that the chitinases and glucanases are active and that EFN successfully can inhibit the growth of various fungi and oomycetes.¹¹Nevertheless, and although the microorganisms used in these assays were phytopathogens, we have now observed that the protection from microbial infection of the Acacia plant itself depends on certain characteristics of its ant inhabitants. The occurrence of fungi and bacteria in EFN and in the tissue of leaves and nectaries was investigated under natural growing conditions. We collected samples of A. cornigera and A. hindsii plants, which were inhabited by ants or which had been deprived of ants experimentally two weeks before. The tissues were extracted and analyzed for microbial infection by cultivating the extracts on malt agar plates, in order to quantify the abundances of life fungi and bacteria as the numbers of colony-forming units (CFU). Leaves of two species of myrmecophytic Acacia plants showed a significant increase in their bacterial load when they were deprived of the mutualistic P. ferrugineus ants (Fig. 1A). This observation is redolent of an earlier observation made on Macaranga myrmecophytes in Malaysia: lesions of these plants could easily be infected with fungi when the mutualistic Crematogaster ants were absent, but not in the presence of the ants.¹⁶ Similarly, myrmecophytic Piper plants depend, at least in part, on their ant inhabitants to obtain an efficient protection from fungal pathogens.¹⁷ Myrmecophytic Maracanga plants possessed reduced activities of chitinases in their leaves¹⁶ and the same phenomenon was found in Acacia myrmecophytes.¹⁸ Thus, the leaves of the obligate ant-plants of both genera, Acacia and Macaranga, appear not to express PR-proteins at sufficient activities as to protect themselves from pathogens and symbiotic ants are required for this defensive function. The effect is specific for the defending ants, because no significant differences between plants with and without ants could be detected in the case of plants that were inhabited by the non-defending parasite, P. gracilis¹⁹ (Fig. 1B). Most interestingly, even the nectary tissue appears to require ant-mediated protection from phytopathogens, whereas the EFN itself does not: no fungi can usually be isolated from freshly collected nectar of Acacia myrmecophytes under field conditions¹⁰ (Fig. 2A), but the tissue of the nectaries became heavily infected when branches were kept free of the defending ants (Fig. 2B).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effects of the presence and absence of the symbiotic ant P. ferrugineus and the parasitic ant P. gracilis on the abundance of bacteria [CFU mg dry leaf mass⁻¹] in leaf samples of A. cornigera (A) and A. hindsii (B). Significance levels are indicated: ns p > 0.05, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. (Two-factorial ANOVA applied separately for each plant species; independent variables: ant presence and ant species.)Open in a separate windowFigure 2Effects of presence and absence of the symbiotic ant P. ferrugineus on fungal abundance in EFN (A) and nectar tissue (B) of A. cornigera and A. hindsii. Significance levels are indicated: ns p > 0.05, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. (Two-factorial ANOVA; independent variables: ant presence and plant species).Our new findings highlight the joint efforts of both ant and plant that are required for an efficient protection from pathogens of the myrmecophyte host plants, and, thus, for the prevention of this mutualism from exploitation by microorganisms. It remains open why the myrmecophytic Acacia plants exhibit reduced chitinase activities in their leaves¹⁸ and thus depend on ants for their antimicrobial protection, although they are fully equipped to express functioning PR-proteins and secrete them into their EFN.^10,11 We could assume that an antimicrobial protection by ants is less costly for the plant than its own biochemical defence mechanisms. Alternatively, plant pathogens, which express multiple effectors in order to suppress their host resistance strategies,¹ might be less capable to cope with ant-derived resistance mechanisms. Every attempt of an explanation, however, remains speculative as long as we do not understand how the ants can protect the leaves of their host plant from infection. The chemical mechanisms remain to be analyzed and may comprise both an ant-mediated resistance induction in the plant and directly ant-derived antimicrobial compounds. Most importantly, the joined efforts of both plant host and ant inhabitant are required to keep leaves, nectaries and nectar free of microbial infections and microbial pathogens have been identified as a further target of the indirect defence, which plants can obtain when they establish an obligate mutualism with ants.     

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.     

Historical Overview on Plant Neurobiology

The review tracks the history of electrical long-distance signals from the first recordings of action potentials (APs) in sensitive Dionea and Mimosa plants at the end of the 19^th century to their re-discovery in common plants in the 1950''s, from the first intracellular recordings of APs in giant algal cells to the identification of the ionic mechanisms by voltage-clamp experiments. An important aspect is the comparison of plant and animal signals and the resulting theoretical implications that accompany the field from the first assignment of the term “action potential” to plants to recent discussions of terms like plant neurobiology.Key Words: action potentials, slow wave potentials, plant nerves, plant neurobiology, electrical signaling in plants and animailsFor a long time plants were thought to be living organisms whose limited ability to move and respond was appropriately matched by limited abilities of sensing.¹ Exceptions were made for plants with rapid and purposeful movements such as Mimosa pudica (also called the sensitive plant), Drosera (sundews), Dionea muscipula (flytraps) and tendrils of climbing plants. These sensitive plants attracted the attention of outstanding pioneer researchers like Pfeffer,^2,3 Burdon-Sanderson,^4,5 Darwin,⁶ Haberlandt^7–9 and Bose.^10–13 They found them not only to be equipped with various mechanoreceptors exceeding the sensitivity of a human finger but also to trigger action potentials (APs) that implemented these movements.The larger field of experimental electrophysiology started with Luigi Galvani''s discovery of “animal electricity” or contractions of isolated frog legs suspended between copper hooks and the iron grit of his balcony.¹⁴ It soon became clear that the role of the electric current was not to provide the energy for the contraction but to simulate a stimulus that existed naturally in the form of directionally transmitted electrical potentials. Studies by both Matteucci and Du Bois-Reymond¹⁵ recognized that wounding of nerve strands generated the appearance of a large voltage difference between the wounded (internal) and intact (external) site of nerves. This wound or injury potential was the first, crude measurement of what later became known as membrane or resting potential of nerve cells. It was also found that various stimuli reduced the size of the potential (in modern terms: they caused a depolarization), and to describe the propagating phenomenon novel terms such as action potential (AP) and action current were created (reviewed in refs. ¹⁵ and ¹⁶). Rather than relying on such indirect methods, the membrane theory of exicitation proposed by Bernstein in 1912¹⁷ made it desirable to directly measure the value of cell membrane potentials. Such progress soon became possible by the introduction of microelectrodes (KCl-filled glass micropipettes with a tip diameter small enough to be inserted into living cells) to record intracellular, i.e., the real membrane potentials (V_m). The new technique was simultaneously adopted for giant cells (axons) of cephalopods such as Loligo and Sepia¹⁸ and giant internodal cells of Charophytic green algae. In the 1930s Umrath and Osterhout^19–21 not only made the first reliable, intracellular measurements of membrane potentials in plant cells (reporting V_m values between −100 to −170 mV) but the first intracellular recordings of plant APs as well. When this technique was complemented with precise electronic amplifiers and voltage clamp circuits in the 1940s, one could measure ion currents (instead of voltages) and so directly monitor the activity of ion channels. The smart application of these methods led to a new, highly detailed understanding of the ionic species and mechanisms involved in V_m changes, especially APs.^22–27 Whereas the depolarizing spike in animal nerve cells is driven by an increased influx of Na⁺ ions, plant APs were found to involve influx of Ca²⁺ and/or efflux of Cl⁻¹ ions.The first extracellular recording of a plant AP was initiated by Charles Darwin and performed on leaves of the Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula Ellis) by the animal physiologist Burdon-Sanderson in 1873.^4–6 Ever since APs have often been considered to fulfil comparable roles in plants and nerve-muscle preparations of animals. However, this was never a generally accepted view. While it is commonly assumed that the AP causes the trap closure, this had not been definitely shown (see refs. ²⁸ and ²⁹). Kunkel (1878) and Bose (1907, 1926) measured action spikes also in Mimosa plants where they preceded the visible folding movements of the leaflets.^{12–13,30–31} Dutrochet and Pfeffer^2–3 had already found before that interrupting vascular bundles by incision prevented the excitation from propagating beyond the cut and concluded that the stimulus must move through the vascular bundles, in particular the woody or hadrome part (in modern terms the xylem). Haberlandt⁷ cut or steam-killed the external, nonwoody part of the vascular bundles and concluded that the phloem strands were the path for the excitation, a notion which is confirmed by a majority of recent studies in Mimosa and other plant species. APs have their largest amplitude near and in the phloem and there again in the sieve cells.^{23–24,32–35} Moreover, APs can be recorded through the excised stylets of aphids known to be inserted in sieve tube elements.^36–37 Other studies found that AP-like signals propagate with equal rate and amplitude through all cells of the vascular bundle.³⁸ Starting studies with isolated vascular bundles (e.g., from the fern Adiantum), Bose found increasing amplitudes of heat-induced spikes by repeated stimulation (tetanisation) and incubation in 0.5 % solution of sodium carbonate.^10–13 Since the electrical behavior of isolated vascular strands was comparable to that of isolated frog nerves, Bose felt justified to refer to them as plant nerves.Although at the time a hardly noticed event, the discovery that normal plants such as pumpkins had propagating APs just as the esoteric “sensitive” plants was a scientific breakthrough with important consequences.^39–40,32 First, it corrected the long-held belief that normal plants are simply less sensitive and responsive than the so-called “sensitive plants” from Mimosa to Venus flytraps. Second, it led to the stimulating belief that so widely distributed electric signals must carry important messages.⁴¹ The ensuing studies made considerable progress in linking electrical signals with respiration and photosynthesis,^40–42 pollination,^43–44 phloem transport^{33,36–37,45} and the rapid, plant-wide deployment of plant defenses.^46–53The detailed visualization of nerve cells with silver salts by the Spanish zoologist S. Ramon y Cajal, the demonstrated existence of APs in Dionea and Mimosa as well as the discovery of plant mechanoreceptors in these and other plants⁹ at the end of the century was sufficient stimulation to start a search for structures that could facilitate the rapid propagation of these and other excitation signals. Researchers began to investigate easily stainable intracellular plasma strands that run across the lumen of many plant cells, and sometimes even continue over several cells for their potential role as nerve-like, excitation-conducting structures. Such strands were shown to occur in traumatized areas of many roots⁵⁴ and in insectivorous butterworts where they connect the glue-containing hair tips with the basal peptidase-producing glands of the Pinguicula leaves.^55–56 However, after investigating these claims, Haberlandt came to the conclusion that the only nerve-like structures of plants were situated the long phloem cells of the vascular bundles.^7–8 From that time on papers, lectures and textbooks reiterated statements that “plants have no nerves”.This unproductive expression ignores the work of Darwin, Haberlandt, Pfeffer and Bose together with the fact that in spite of their anatomical differences, nerve cell networks and vascular bundles share the analog function of conducting electrical signals. Similar anatomical differences have not been an obstacle to stating that both plants and animals consist of cells. The mechanistic similarity of excitations (consisting of a transient decline in cell input resistance) in plant and nerve cells was later elegantly demonstrated by the direct comparison of action potentials in Nitella and the giant axon of squids.^57–58 Today, consideration of nerve-like structures in plants involves increasingly more aspects of comparison. We know that many plants can efficiently produce electric signals in the form of action potentials and slow wave potentials (= variation potentials) and that the long-distance propagation of these signals proceeds in the vascular bundles. We also know that plants like Dionea can propagate APs with high efficiency and speed without the use of vascular bundles, probably because their cells are electrically coupled through plasmodesmata. Other analogies with neurobiology include vesicle-operated intercellular clefts in axial root tissues (the so-called plant synapses)⁵⁹ as well as the certain existence and operation of substances like neurotransmitters and synaptotagmins in plant cells (e.g., refs. ⁶⁰ and ⁶¹). The identification of the role(s) of these substances in plants will have important implications. Altogether, modern plant neurobiology might emerge as a coherent science.⁶²Electrophysiological and other studies of long-distance signals in plants and animals greatly contributed to our knowledge of the living world by revealing important similarities and crucial differences between plants and animals in an area that might directly relate to their different capacities to respond to environmental signals. Even at this stage the results are surprising. Rather than lacking electric signals, higher plants have developed more than just one signal type that is able to cover large distances. In addition to APs that occur also in animals and lower plants,⁶³ higher plants feature an additional, unique, hydraulically propagated type of electric signals called slow wave potentials.⁶⁴     

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.     

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.     

Complete Genome Sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559T

Here we announce the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T, which was isolated by high-throughput dilution-to-extinction culturing from the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series station in the Western Sargasso Sea. Strain HTCC2559^T contained genes for carotenoid biosynthesis, flavonoid biosynthesis, and several macromolecule-degrading enzymes. The genome confirmed physiological observations of cultivated Croceibacter atlanticus strain HTCC2559^T, which identified it as an obligate chemoheterotroph.The phylum Bacteroidetes comprises 6 to ∼30% of total bacterial communities in the ocean by fluorescence in situ hybridization (8-10). Most marine Bacteroidetes are in the family Flavobacteriaceae, most of which are aerobic respiratory heterotrophs that form a well-defined clade by 16S rRNA phylogenetic analyses (4). The members of this family are well known for degrading macromolecules, including chitin, DNA, cellulose, starch, and pectin (17), suggesting their environmental roles as detritus decomposers in the ocean (6). Marine Polaribacter and Dokdonia species in the Flavobacteriaceae have also shown to have photoheterotrophic metabolism mediated by proteorhodopsins (11, 12).Several strains of the family Flavobacteriaceae were isolated from the Sargasso Sea and Oregon coast, using high-throughput culturing approaches (7). Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T was cultivated from seawater collected at a depth of 250 m from the Sargasso Sea and was identified as a new genus in the family Flavobacteriaceae based on its 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities (6). Strain HTCC2559^T met the minimal standards for genera of the family Flavobacteriaceae (3) on the basis of phenotypic characteristics (6).Here we report the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T. The genome sequencing was initiated by the J. Craig Venter Institute as a part of the Moore Foundation Microbial Genome Sequencing Project and completed in the current announcement. Gaps among contigs were closed by Genotech Co., Ltd. (Daejeon, Korea), using direct sequencing of combinatorial PCR products (16). The HTCC2559^T genome was analyzed with a genome annotation system based on GenDB (14) at Oregon State University and with the NCBI Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline (15, 16).The HTCC2559^T genome is 2,952,962 bp long, with 33.9 mol% G+C content, and there was no evidence of plasmids. The number of protein-coding genes was 2,715; there were two copies of the 16S-23S-5S rRNA operon and 36 tRNA genes. The HTCC2559^T genome contained genes for a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, glycolysis, and a pentose phosphate pathway. The genome also contained sets of genes for metabolic enzymes involved in carotenoid biosynthesis and also a serine/glycine hydroxymethyltransferase, which is often associated with the assimilatory serine cycle (13). The potential for HTCC2559^T to use bacterial type III polyketide synthase (PKS) needs to be confirmed because this organism had a naringenin-chalcone synthase (CHS) or chalcone synthase (EC 2.3.1.74), a key enzyme in flavonoid biosynthesis. CHS initiates the addition of three molecules of malonyl coenzyme A (malonyl-CoA) to a starter CoA ester (e.g., 4-coumaroyl-CoA) (1) and takes part in a few bacterial type III polyketide synthase systems (1, 2, 5, 18).The complete genome sequence confirmed that strain HTCC2559^T is an obligate chemoheterotroph because no genes for phototrophy were found. As expected from physiological characteristics (6), the HTCC2559^T genome contained a set of genes coding for enzymes required to degrade high-molecular-weight compounds, including peptidases, metallo-/serine proteases, pectinase, alginate lyases, and α-amylase.     

Timing the switch to phototrophic growth: A possible role of GUN1

In young Arabidopsis seedlings, retrograde signaling from plastids regulates the expression of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes in response to the developmental and functional state of the chloroplasts. The chloroplast-located PPR protein GUN1 is required for signalling following disruption of plastid protein synthesis early in seedling development before full photosynthetic competence has been achieved. Recently we showed that sucrose repression and the correct temporal expression of LHCB1, encoding a light-harvesting chlorophyll protein associated with photosystem II, are perturbed in gun1 mutant seedlings.¹ Additionally, we demonstrated that in gun1 seedlings anthocyanin accumulation and the expression of the “early” anthocyanin-biosynthesis genes is perturbed. Early seedling development, predominantly at the stage of hypocotyl elongation and cotyledon expansion, is also affected in gun1 seedlings in response to sucrose, ABA and disruption of plastid protein synthesis by lincomycin. These findings indicate a central role for GUN1 in plastid, sucrose and ABA signalling in early seedling development.Key words: ABA, ABI4, anthocyanin, chloroplast, GUN1, retrograde signalling, sucroseArabidopsis seedlings develop in response to light and other environmental cues. In young seedlings, development is fuelled by mobilization of lipid reserves until chloroplast biogenesis is complete and the seedlings can make the transition to phototrophic growth. The majority of proteins with functions related to photosynthesis are encoded by the nuclear genome, and their expression is coordinated with the expression of genes in the chloroplast genome. In developing seedlings, retrograde signaling from chloroplasts to the nucleus regulates the expression of these nuclear genes and is dependent on the developmental and functional status of the chloroplast. Two classes of gun (genomes uncoupled) mutants defective in retrograde signalling have been identified in Arabidopsis: the first, which comprises gun2–gun5, involves mutations in genes encoding components of tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.^2,3 The other comprises gun1, which has mutations in a nuclear gene encoding a plastid-located pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein with an SMR (small MutS-related) domain near the C-terminus.^4,5 PPR proteins are known to have roles in RNA processing⁶ and the SMR domain of GUN1 has been shown to bind DNA,⁴ but the specific functions of these domains in GUN1 are not yet established. However, GUN1 has been shown to be involved in plastid gene expression-dependent,⁷ redox,⁴ ABA1,⁴ and sucrose signaling,^1,4,8 as well as light quality and intensity sensing pathways.^9–11 In addition, GUN1 has been shown to influence anthocyanin biosynthesis, hypocotyl extension and cotyledon expansion.^1,11