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     

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.     

Strigolactones: Internal and external signals in plant symbioses?

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

Indolic secondary metabolites protect Arabidopsis from the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora brassicae

The model plant Arabidopsis thaliana contains a large arsenal of secondary metabolites that are not essential in development but have important ecological functions in counteracting attacks of pathogens and herbivores.^1,2 Preformed secondary compounds are often referred to as phytoanticipins and metabolites, that are synthesized de novo in response to biotic stress are known as phytoalexins.³ Camalexin is the typical phytoalexin of Arabidopsis. It has antimicrobial activity towards some pathogens and was shown to be an important component of disease resistance in several plant pathogen interactions.⁴ Glucosinolates (GS) are characteristic phytoanticipins of the Brassicaceae family including Arabidopsis. GS are best known as repellents or attractants for herbivorous insects and their predators whereas their antimicrobial potential has received relatively little attention.⁵ The GS are glucosides and the biologically active aglycone is released upon biotic stress by glucohydrolase enzymes commenly called myrosinases. Because an Arabidopsis mutant susceptible to the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora brassicae shows a partial deficiency in both camalexin and iGS accumulation we became intrigued by the role of these secondary compounds in disease resistance.^6,7 Our results show that disease resistance of Arabidopsis to P. brassicae is established by the combined action of iGS and camalexin.Key words: Arabidopsis, disease resistance, Phytophthora brassicae, secondary metabolites, indolic glucosinolates, camalexin     

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.     

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

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

Electrophysiological approach to examine a putative cold- and menthol-sensitive channel in the liverwort Conocephalum conicum

The mechanism of cold perception by plants is still poorly understood. It was found that temperature drop evokes changes in the activity of ion pumps and channels, which leads to plasma membrane depolarization.^1,2 The nature of the primary step of its action (alteration in membrane composition,³ transient influx of Ca²⁺ etc.,²) has not been elicited yet. Our electrophysiological experiments conducted on the liverwort Conocephalum conicum showed that its cells respond not only to sudden cooling⁴ but also to menthol, generating depolarization of the plasma membrane and action potentials (APs). Similar results are well documented in mammals; cold or “cooling compounds” including menthol cause activation of thermosenstitive channel TRPM8 permeable to Ca²⁺ and generation of AP series.⁵ TRP receptors are detected, among others, in green and brown algae. Possible existence of TRPM8-like channel-receptor in Conocephalum conicum is discussed here.Key words: action potential, cold, liverwort, menthol, thermoreceptors, voltage transient