A Distinct Pathway for Polar Exocytosis in Plant Cell Wall Formation

Post-Golgi protein sorting and trafficking to the plasma membrane (PM) is generally believed to occur via the trans-Golgi network (TGN). In this study using Nicotiana tabacum pectin methylesterase (NtPPME1) as a marker, we have identified a TGN-independent polar exocytosis pathway that mediates cell wall formation during cell expansion and cytokinesis. Confocal immunofluorescence and immunogold electron microscopy studies demonstrated that Golgi-derived secretory vesicles (GDSVs) labeled by NtPPME1-GFP are distinct from those organelles belonging to the conventional post-Golgi exocytosis pathway. In addition, pharmaceutical treatments, superresolution imaging, and dynamic studies suggest that NtPPME1 follows a polar exocytic process from Golgi-GDSV-PM/cell plate (CP), which is distinct from the conventional Golgi-TGN-PM/CP secretion pathway. Further studies show that ROP1 regulates this specific polar exocytic pathway. Taken together, we have demonstrated an alternative TGN-independent Golgi-to-PM polar exocytic route, which mediates secretion of NtPPME1 for cell wall formation during cell expansion and cytokinesis and is ROP1-dependent.Plant development and growth require coordinated tissue and cell polarization. Two of the most essential cellular processes involved in polarization are cell expansion and cytokinesis, which determines cell morphology and functions (Jaillais and Gaude, 2008; Dettmer and Friml, 2011; Li et al., 2012). Pollen tube and root hair growth require highly polarized membrane trafficking (Libault et al., 2010; Kroeger and Geitmann, 2012). Cytokinesis, by which new cells are formed, separates daughter cells by forming a new structure within the cytoplasm termed the cell plate (CP). Made up of a cell wall (CW), surrounded by new plasma membrane (PM), the cell plate is generally considered to be an example of internal cell polarity in a nonpolarized plant cell (Bednarek and Falbel, 2002; Baluska et al., 2006).The conventional view of pollen tube tip growth and cell plate formation is supported by polar exocytic secretion of numerous vesicles (diameter of 60–100 nm) to the pollen tube tip and phragmoplast areas during cytokinesis. These polar exocytic vesicles, which are generally believed to originate from the Golgi apparatus, are delivered to the site of secretion via the cytoskeleton and fuse with the target membrane with the aid of fusion factors (Jurgens, 2005; Backues et al., 2007). However, whether these polar exocytic vesicles undergoing post-Golgi trafficking are part of the conventional Golgi-trans-Golgi network (TGN)-PM/CP exocytosis or are derived from some other unidentified exocytic secretion pathway remain unclear.Polar exocytosis is regulated and controlled by a conserved Rho GTPase signaling network in fungi, animals, and plants (Burkel et al., 2012; Ridley, 2013). Rho of plant (ROP), the sole subfamily of Rho GTPases in plant, participate in signaling pathways that regulate cytoskeleton organization and endomembrane trafficking, consequently determining cell polarization, polar growth and cell morphogenesis (Gu et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2008). In growing pollen tubes, ROP1 participates in regulating polar exocytosis in the tip region via two downstream pathways to regulate apical F-actin dynamics: RIC4-mediated F-actin polymerization and RIC3-mediated apical actin depolymerization. A constitutively active mutant of ROP1 (CA-rop1) prevents fusion of these vesicles with the PM and enhances the accumulation of exocytic vesicles in the apical cortex of pollen tubes (Lee et al., 2008). Although ROP GTPases have been extensively researched, their roles in polar membrane expansion in pollen tubes and epidermal pavement cells remains unclear (Xu et al., 2010; Yang and Lavagi, 2012), and there have been insufficient studies on the functions of ROPs in controlling cell plate formation during cytokinesis. Cell division requires precise regulation and spatial organization of the cytoskeleton for delivery of secretion vesicles to the expanding cell plate (Molendijk et al., 2001).In addition, newly made cell walls during cell expansion and cell plate formation require sufficient plasticity in order to integrate new membrane materials to support the polarized membrane extension. They also should be strong enough to withstand the internal turgor pressure and thereby maintain the shape of the cell (Zonia and Munnik, 2011; Hepler et al., 2013). Recent studies have demonstrated that pectins are important for both cytokinesis and cell expansion (Moore and Staehelin, 1988; Bosch et al., 2005; Chebli et al., 2012; Altartouri and Geitmann, 2015; Bidhendi and Geitmann, 2016). Pectins are one of the major cell wall components of the middle lamella and primary cell wall. They are polymerized and methylesterified in the Golgi and subsequently released into the apoplastic space as “soft” methylesterified polymers. The homogalacturonan components of pectin are later de-methylesterified by pectin methylesterases (PMEs). The demethylesterified pectins can be cross-linked, interact with Ca²⁺, and finally form the “hard” pectin matrix of the cell wall. Therefore, the enzymatic activity of PMEs determines the rigidity of the cell wall (Micheli, 2001; Peaucelle et al., 2011).In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) pollen tubes, PMEs are found predominantly polar localized in the tip region and determine the rigidity of the apical cell wall (Bosch et al., 2005; Jiang et al., 2005; Fayant et al., 2010; Chebli et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). PME isoform knockout mutants in Arabidopsis (AtPPME1 or vanguard1) produce unstable pollen tubes which burst when germinated in vitro and have reduced fertilization abilities (Jiang et al., 2005; Rockel et al., 2008). Recent studies have shown that in growing tobacco pollen tubes, polar targeting of NtPPME1 to the pollen tube apex depends on an apical F-actin mesh network (Wang et al., 2013). Although the functions of PME in cell wall constriction are well documented, the intracellular secretion and regulation mechanism of the exocytic process of PME still remain largely unexplored. In addition, pectins are also found to be abundant in the forming cell plate, raising the possibility that PMEs may also function during cell plate formation (Moore and Staehelin, 1988; Dhonukshe et al., 2006).In our study, we have used NtPPME1 as a marker to identify a polar exocytic process which is distinct from the conventional Golgi-TGN-PM exocytosis pathway in both pollen tube tip growth and cell plate formation. We have identified a Golgi-derived secretory vesicle (GDSV) for the polar secretion and targeting of NtPPME1 to the cell wall that bypasses the TGN during cell polarization. Further investigations using ROP1 mutants have shown that this polar exocytosis is ROP1 dependent.     

Nontransgenic Genome Modification in Plant Cells

Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) are a powerful tool for genome editing in eukaryotic cells. ZFNs have been used for targeted mutagenesis in model and crop species. In animal and human cells, transient ZFN expression is often achieved by direct gene transfer into the target cells. Stable transformation, however, is the preferred method for gene expression in plant species, and ZFN-expressing transgenic plants have been used for recovery of mutants that are likely to be classified as transgenic due to the use of direct gene-transfer methods into the target cells. Here we present an alternative, nontransgenic approach for ZFN delivery and production of mutant plants using a novel Tobacco rattle virus (TRV)-based expression system for indirect transient delivery of ZFNs into a variety of tissues and cells of intact plants. TRV systemically infected its hosts and virus ZFN-mediated targeted mutagenesis could be clearly observed in newly developed infected tissues as measured by activation of a mutated reporter transgene in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and petunia (Petunia hybrida) plants. The ability of TRV to move to developing buds and regenerating tissues enabled recovery of mutated tobacco and petunia plants. Sequence analysis and transmission of the mutations to the next generation confirmed the stability of the ZFN-induced genetic changes. Because TRV is an RNA virus that can infect a wide range of plant species, it provides a viable alternative to the production of ZFN-mediated mutants while avoiding the use of direct plant-transformation methods.Methods for genome editing in plant cells have fallen behind the remarkable progress made in whole-genome sequencing projects. The availability of reliable and efficient methods for genome editing would foster gene discovery and functional gene analyses in model plants and the introduction of novel traits in agriculturally important species (Puchta, 2002; Hanin and Paszkowski, 2003; Reiss, 2003; Porteus, 2009). Genome editing in various species is typically achieved by integrating foreign DNA molecules into the target genome by homologous recombination (HR). Genome editing by HR is routine in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) cells (Scherer and Davis, 1979) and has been adapted for other species, including Drosophila, human cell lines, various fungal species, and mouse embryonic stem cells (Baribault and Kemler, 1989; Venken and Bellen, 2005; Porteus, 2007; Hall et al., 2009; Laible and Alonso-González, 2009; Tenzen et al., 2009). In plants, however, foreign DNA molecules, which are typically delivered by direct gene-transfer methods (e.g. Agrobacterium and microbombardment of plasmid DNA), often integrate into the target cell genome via nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and not HR (Ray and Langer, 2002; Britt and May, 2003).Various methods have been developed to indentify and select for rare site-specific foreign DNA integration events or to enhance the rate of HR-mediated DNA integration in plant cells. Novel T-DNA molecules designed to support strong positive- and negative-selection schemes (e.g. Thykjaer et al., 1997; Terada et al., 2002), altering the plant DNA-repair machinery by expressing yeast chromatin remodeling protein (Shaked et al., 2005), and PCR screening of large numbers of transgenic plants (Kempin et al., 1997; Hanin et al., 2001) are just a few of the experimental approaches used to achieve HR-mediated gene targeting in plant species. While successful, these approaches, and others, have resulted in only a limited number of reports describing the successful implementation of HR-mediated gene targeting of native and transgenic sequences in plant cells (for review, see Puchta, 2002; Hanin and Paszkowski, 2003; Reiss, 2003; Porteus, 2009; Weinthal et al., 2010).HR-mediated gene targeting can potentially be enhanced by the induction of genomic double-strand breaks (DSBs). In their pioneering studies, Puchta et al. (1993, 1996) showed that DSB induction by the naturally occurring rare-cutting restriction enzyme I-SceI leads to enhanced HR-mediated DNA repair in plants. Expression of I-SceI and another rare-cutting restriction enzyme (I-CeuI) also led to efficient NHEJ-mediated site-specific mutagenesis and integration of foreign DNA molecules in plants (Salomon and Puchta, 1998; Chilton and Que, 2003; Tzfira et al., 2003). Naturally occurring rare-cutting restriction enzymes thus hold great promise as a tool for genome editing in plant cells (Carroll, 2004; Pâques and Duchateau, 2007). However, their wide application is hindered by the tedious and next to impossible reengineering of such enzymes for novel DNA-target specificities (Pâques and Duchateau, 2007).A viable alternative to the use of rare-cutting restriction enzymes is the zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), which have been used for genome editing in a wide range of eukaryotic species, including plants (e.g. Bibikova et al., 2001; Porteus and Baltimore, 2003; Lloyd et al., 2005; Urnov et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2005; Beumer et al., 2006; Moehle et al., 2007; Santiago et al., 2008; Shukla et al., 2009; Tovkach et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009; Osakabe et al., 2010; Petolino et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). Here too, ZFNs have been used to enhance DNA integration via HR (e.g. Shukla et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009) and as an efficient tool for the induction of site-specific mutagenesis (e.g. Lloyd et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2010) in plant species. The latter is more efficient and simpler to implement in plants as it does not require codelivery of both ZFN-expressing and donor DNA molecules and it relies on NHEJ—the dominant DNA-repair machinery in most plant species (Ray and Langer, 2002; Britt and May, 2003).ZFNs are artificial restriction enzymes composed of a fusion between an artificial Cys₂His₂ zinc-finger protein DNA-binding domain and the cleavage domain of the FokI endonuclease. The DNA-binding domain of ZFNs can be engineered to recognize a variety of DNA sequences (for review, see Durai et al., 2005; Porteus and Carroll, 2005; Carroll et al., 2006). The FokI endonuclease domain functions as a dimer, and digestion of the target DNA requires proper alignment of two ZFN monomers at the target site (Durai et al., 2005; Porteus and Carroll, 2005; Carroll et al., 2006). Efficient and coordinated expression of both monomers is thus required for the production of DSBs in living cells. Transient ZFN expression, by direct gene delivery, is the method of choice for targeted mutagenesis in human and animal cells (e.g. Urnov et al., 2005; Beumer et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2008). Among the different methods used for high and efficient transient ZFN delivery in animal and human cell lines are plasmid injection (Morton et al., 2006; Foley et al., 2009), direct plasmid transfer (Urnov et al., 2005), the use of integrase-defective lentiviral vectors (Lombardo et al., 2007), and mRNA injection (Takasu et al., 2010).In plant species, however, efficient and strong gene expression is often achieved by stable gene transformation. Both transient and stable ZFN expression have been used in gene-targeting experiments in plants (Lloyd et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2005; Maeder et al., 2008; Cai et al., 2009; de Pater et al., 2009; Shukla et al., 2009; Tovkach et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009; Osakabe et al., 2010; Petolino et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). In all cases, direct gene-transformation methods, using polyethylene glycol, silicon carbide whiskers, or Agrobacterium, were deployed. Thus, while mutant plants and tissues could be recovered, potentially without any detectable traces of foreign DNA, such plants were generated using a transgenic approach and are therefore still likely to be classified as transgenic. Furthermore, the recovery of mutants in many cases is also dependent on the ability to regenerate plants from protoplasts, a procedure that has only been successfully applied in a limited number of plant species. Therefore, while ZFN technology is a powerful tool for site-specific mutagenesis, its wider implementation for plant improvement may be somewhat limited, both by its restriction to certain plant species and by legislative restrictions imposed on transgenic plants.Here we describe an alternative to direct gene transfer for ZFN delivery and for the production of mutated plants. Our approach is based on the use of a novel Tobacco rattle virus (TRV)-based expression system, which is capable of systemically infecting its host and spreading into a variety of tissues and cells of intact plants, including developing buds and regenerating tissues. We traced the indirect ZFN delivery in infected plants by activation of a mutated reporter gene and we demonstrate that this approach can be used to recover mutated plants.     

Calcineurin B-Like Protein-Interacting Protein Kinase CIPK21 Regulates Osmotic and Salt Stress Responses in Arabidopsis

The role of calcium-mediated signaling has been extensively studied in plant responses to abiotic stress signals. Calcineurin B-like proteins (CBLs) and CBL-interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) constitute a complex signaling network acting in diverse plant stress responses. Osmotic stress imposed by soil salinity and drought is a major abiotic stress that impedes plant growth and development and involves calcium-signaling processes. In this study, we report the functional analysis of CIPK21, an Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) CBL-interacting protein kinase, ubiquitously expressed in plant tissues and up-regulated under multiple abiotic stress conditions. The growth of a loss-of-function mutant of CIPK21, cipk21, was hypersensitive to high salt and osmotic stress conditions. The calcium sensors CBL2 and CBL3 were found to physically interact with CIPK21 and target this kinase to the tonoplast. Moreover, preferential localization of CIPK21 to the tonoplast was detected under salt stress condition when coexpressed with CBL2 or CBL3. These findings suggest that CIPK21 mediates responses to salt stress condition in Arabidopsis, at least in part, by regulating ion and water homeostasis across the vacuolar membranes.Drought and salinity cause osmotic stress in plants and severely affect crop productivity throughout the world. Plants respond to osmotic stress by changing a number of cellular processes (Xiong et al., 1999; Xiong and Zhu, 2002; Bartels and Sunkar, 2005; Boudsocq and Lauriére, 2005). Some of these changes include activation of stress-responsive genes, regulation of membrane transport at both plasma membrane (PM) and vacuolar membrane (tonoplast) to maintain water and ionic homeostasis, and metabolic changes to produce compatible osmolytes such as Pro (Stewart and Lee, 1974; Krasensky and Jonak, 2012). It has been well established that a specific calcium (Ca²⁺) signature is generated in response to a particular environmental stimulus (Trewavas and Malhó, 1998; Scrase-Field and Knight, 2003; Luan, 2009; Kudla et al., 2010). The Ca²⁺ changes are primarily perceived by several Ca²⁺ sensors such as calmodulin (Reddy, 2001; Luan et al., 2002), Ca²⁺-dependent protein kinases (Harper and Harmon, 2005), calcineurin B-like proteins (CBLs; Luan et al., 2002; Batistič and Kudla, 2004; Pandey, 2008; Luan, 2009; Sanyal et al., 2015), and other Ca²⁺-binding proteins (Reddy, 2001; Shao et al., 2008) to initiate various cellular responses.Plant CBL-type Ca²⁺ sensors interact with and activate CBL-interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) that phosphorylate downstream components to transduce Ca²⁺ signals (Liu et al., 2000; Luan et al., 2002; Batistič and Kudla, 2004; Luan, 2009). In several plant species, multiple members have been identified in the CBL and CIPK family (Luan et al., 2002; Kolukisaoglu et al., 2004; Pandey, 2008; Batistič and Kudla, 2009; Weinl and Kudla, 2009; Pandey et al., 2014). Involvement of specific CBL-CIPK pair to decode a particular type of signal entails the alternative and selective complex formation leading to stimulus-response coupling (D’Angelo et al., 2006; Batistič et al., 2010).Several CBL and CIPK family members have been implicated in plant responses to drought, salinity, and osmotic stress based on genetic analysis of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mutants (Zhu, 2002; Cheong et al., 2003, 2007; Kim et al., 2003; Pandey et al., 2004, 2008; D’Angelo et al., 2006; Qin et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2009; Held et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2012; Drerup et al., 2013; Eckert et al., 2014). A few CIPKs have also been functionally characterized by gain-of-function approach in crop plants such as rice (Oryza sativa), pea (Pisum sativum), and maize (Zea mays) and were found to be involved in osmotic stress responses (Mahajan et al., 2006; Xiang et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2009; Cuéllar et al., 2010).In this report, we examined the role of the Arabidopsis CIPK21 gene in osmotic stress response by reverse genetic analysis. The loss-of-function mutant plants became hypersensitive to salt and mannitol stress conditions, suggesting that CIPK21 is involved in the regulation of osmotic stress response in Arabidopsis. These findings are further supported by an enhanced tonoplast targeting of the cytoplasmic CIPK21 through interaction with the vacuolar Ca²⁺ sensors CBL2 and CBL3 under salt stress condition.     

Structure of Cellulose Microfibrils in Primary Cell Walls from Collenchyma

In the primary walls of growing plant cells, the glucose polymer cellulose is assembled into long microfibrils a few nanometers in diameter. The rigidity and orientation of these microfibrils control cell expansion; therefore, cellulose synthesis is a key factor in the growth and morphogenesis of plants. Celery (Apium graveolens) collenchyma is a useful model system for the study of primary wall microfibril structure because its microfibrils are oriented with unusual uniformity, facilitating spectroscopic and diffraction experiments. Using a combination of x-ray and neutron scattering methods with vibrational and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, we show that celery collenchyma microfibrils were 2.9 to 3.0 nm in mean diameter, with a most probable structure containing 24 chains in cross section, arranged in eight hydrogen-bonded sheets of three chains, with extensive disorder in lateral packing, conformation, and hydrogen bonding. A similar 18-chain structure, and 24-chain structures of different shape, fitted the data less well. Conformational disorder was largely restricted to the surface chains, but disorder in chain packing was not. That is, in position and orientation, the surface chains conformed to the disordered lattice constituting the core of each microfibril. There was evidence that adjacent microfibrils were noncovalently aggregated together over part of their length, suggesting that the need to disrupt these aggregates might be a constraining factor in growth and in the hydrolysis of cellulose for biofuel production.Growth and form in plants are controlled by the precisely oriented expansion of the walls of individual cells. The driving force for cell expansion is osmotic, but the rate and direction of expansion are controlled by the mechanical properties of the cell wall (Szymanski and Cosgrove, 2009). Expanding, primary cell walls are nanocomposite materials in which long microfibrils of cellulose, a few nanometers in diameter, run through a hydrated matrix of xyloglucans, pectins, and other polymers (Knox, 2008; Mohnen, 2008; Szymanski and Cosgrove, 2009; Scheller and Ulvskov, 2010). Native cellulose microfibrils are partially crystalline (Nishiyama, 2009; Fernandes et al., 2011). Formerly, primary wall cellulose was thought to have a unique crystal structure called cellulose IV₁ (Dinand et al., 1996), but NMR evidence suggests the presence of forms similar to the better characterized cellulose Iα and Iβ crystalline forms together with large quantities of less ordered cellulose (Wickholm et al., 1998; Sturcová et al., 2004; Wada et al., 2004). Nevertheless, cellulose is much more ordered than any other component of the primary cell wall (Bootten et al., 2004), in keeping with its key role of providing strength and controlling growth.The stiffness of the cell wall is greatest in the direction of the cellulose microfibrils, where growth is directional and the predominant microfibril orientation is usually transverse to the growth direction (Green, 1999; MacKinnon et al., 2006; Szymanski and Cosgrove, 2009). Expansion of the cell wall then requires either widening of the spacing between microfibrils (Marga et al., 2005) or slippage between them (Cosgrove, 2005), or both, and the microfibrils reorient toward the direction of growth (Anderson et al., 2010). Polymer cross bridges between microfibrils (McCann et al., 1990) are thought to resist these deformations of the cell wall nanostructure and, thus, to control the rate of growth. Until recently, most attention was focused on bridging xyloglucans, hydrogen bonded to microfibril surfaces (Scheller and Ulvskov, 2010). However, there is evidence that not all xyloglucans are appropriately positioned (Fujino et al., 2000; Park and Cosgrove, 2012a) and that other bridging polymers may be involved (Zykwinska et al., 2007). It has also been suggested that bundles of aggregated microfibrils, not single microfibrils, might be the key structural units in primary cell walls (Anderson et al., 2010), as in wood (Fahlén and Salmén, 2005; Fernandes et al., 2011). If so, single microfibrils could bridge between microfibril bundles. In summary, the growth of plant cells is not well understood, and we need more information on how cellulose orientation is controlled and on the nature of the bridging polymers, the cellulose surfaces to which these polymers bind, and the cohesion between microfibril surfaces that might mediate aggregation.Cellulose microfibrils are synthesized at the cell surface by large enzyme complexes having hexagonal symmetry, sometimes called “rosettes” (Somerville, 2006). Each complex contains multiple cellulose synthases that differ between primary cell walls and wood, although the appearance of the complexes is similar (Somerville, 2006; Atanassov et al., 2009). The simultaneous synthesis, from the same end, of all the chains in a native cellulose microfibril is why they are parallel (Nishiyama et al., 2002, 2003), in contrast to the entropically favored antiparallel structure found in man-made celluloses like rayon (Langan et al., 2001). The number of chains in a microfibril and the number of cellulose synthases in the synthetic complex are evidently related. It is commonly assumed that the number of chains is divisible by six, matching the hexagonal rosette symmetry, and 36-chain models (Himmel et al., 2007) bounded by the hydrophilic [110] and [1-10] crystal faces, as in algal celluloses (Bergenstråhle et al., 2008), have been widely adopted. The assembly and orientation of cellulose are connected, as several cellulose synthase mutants have phenotypes defective in cellulose orientation and plant form as well as depleted in cellulose content (Paredez et al., 2008). In certain other mutant lines, the crystallinity of the microfibrils appears to be affected (Fujita et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2012; Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2012).Therefore, a detailed understanding of the structure of primary wall cellulose microfibrils would help us to understand cellulose synthesis as well as the growth and structural mechanics of living plants (Burgert and Fratzl, 2009). Primary cell walls and their cellulose skeletons also affect food quality characteristics like the crispness of salad vegetables and apples (Malus domestica; Jarvis, 2011). When biofuels are produced from lignocellulosic biomass, lignification leads to recalcitrance (Himmel et al., 2007), but some of the cell types in Miscanthus spp., switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and arable crop residues have only primary walls with no lignin, and recalcitrance then depends on the nature of the cellulose microfibrils (Beckham et al., 2011).A relatively detailed structure has recently been proposed for the microfibrils of spruce (Picea spp.) wood (Fernandes et al., 2011), which are 3.0 nm in diameter, allowing space for only about 24 cellulose chains. Evidence from x-ray diffraction supported a “rectangular” shape (Matthews et al., 2006) bounded by the [010] and [200] faces. There was considerable disorder increasing toward the surface, and the microfibrils were aggregated into bundles about 15 to 20 nm across, with some, but not all, of the lateral interfaces being resistant to water (Fernandes et al., 2011). Disordered domains are a feature of other strong biological materials such as spider silk (van Beek et al., 2002).Therefore, it is of interest whether any of these features of wood cellulose might also be found in the cellulose microfibrils of primary (growing) cell walls. It would be particularly useful to characterize the disorder known to be present in primary wall microfibrils, that is, to define how cellulose that is not measured as “crystalline” differs from crystalline cellulose. Many of the experiments leading toward a structure for wood cellulose were dependent on exceptionally uniform orientation of the cellulose microfibrils (Sturcová et al., 2004; Fernandes et al., 2011). However, in growing cell walls, the microfibrils are not uniformly oriented. When microfibrils are first laid down at the inner face of the primary cell wall, their orientation is normally transverse to the direction of growth, but as the cell wall expands, the microfibrils reorient so that the orientation distribution, integrated across the thickness of the expanded cell wall, becomes progressively closer to random (Cosgrove, 2005; MacKinnon et al., 2006).This technical problem does not apply to the cell walls of celery (Apium graveolens) collenchyma, which are similar in composition to other primary cell walls but have their microfibrils oriented relatively uniformly along the cell axis (Sturcová et al., 2004; Kennedy et al., 2007a, 2007b). Some structural information on celery collenchyma cellulose has already been derived from spectroscopic and scattering experiments (Sturcová et al., 2004; Kennedy et al., 2007a, 2007b), confirming the disorder expected in a primary wall cellulose. Some of these experiments were analogous to what has been done on spruce cellulose (Fernandes et al., 2011), but insufficient data are available to specify the number of chains in each primary wall microfibril, the nature and location of the disorder, and the presence or absence of direct contact between microfibrils. Here, we report x-ray and neutron scattering and spectroscopic experiments addressing these questions and leading to a proposed structure for primary wall cellulose microfibrils. Characterizing a structure containing so much disorder presented unusual challenges, but disorder appears to be central to the enigmatic capacity of primary wall cellulose to provide high strength and yet to permit and control growth.     

Spore Density Determines Infection Strategy by the Plant Pathogenic Fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina

Necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens are resisted by different plant defenses. While necrotrophic pathogens are sensitive to jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent resistance, biotrophic pathogens are resisted by salicylic acid (SA)- and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent resistance. Although many pathogens switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy during infection, little is known about the signals triggering this transition. This study is based on the observation that the early colonization pattern and symptom development by the ascomycete pathogen Plectosphaerella cucumerina (P. cucumerina) vary between inoculation methods. Using the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) defense response as a proxy for infection strategy, we examined whether P. cucumerina alternates between hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic lifestyles, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf surface. Untargeted metabolome analysis revealed profound differences in metabolic defense signatures upon different inoculation methods. Quantification of JA and SA, marker gene expression, and cell death confirmed that infection from high spore densities activates JA-dependent defenses with excessive cell death, while infection from low spore densities induces SA-dependent defenses with lower levels of cell death. Phenotyping of Arabidopsis mutants in JA, SA, and ROS signaling confirmed that P. cucumerina is differentially resisted by JA- and SA/ROS-dependent defenses, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf. Furthermore, in situ staining for early callose deposition at the infection sites revealed that necrotrophy by P. cucumerina is associated with elevated host defense. We conclude that P. cucumerina adapts to early-acting plant defenses by switching from a hemibiotrophic to a necrotrophic infection program, thereby gaining an advantage of immunity-related cell death in the host.Plant pathogens are often classified as necrotrophic or biotrophic, depending on their infection strategy (Glazebrook, 2005; Nishimura and Dangl, 2010). Necrotrophic pathogens kill living host cells and use the decayed plant tissue as a substrate to colonize the plant, whereas biotrophic pathogens parasitize living plant cells by employing effector molecules that suppress the host immune system (Pel and Pieterse, 2013). Despite this binary classification, the majority of pathogenic microbes employ a hemibiotrophic infection strategy, which is characterized by an initial biotrophic phase followed by a necrotrophic infection strategy at later stages of infection (Perfect and Green, 2001). The pathogenic fungi Magnaporthe grisea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Mycosphaerella graminicola, the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, and the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae are examples of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011; van Kan et al., 2014; Kabbage et al., 2015).Despite considerable progress in our understanding of plant resistance to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook, 2005; Mengiste, 2012; Lai and Mengiste, 2013), recent debate highlights the dynamic and complex interplay between plant-pathogenic microbes and their hosts, which is raising concerns about the use of infection strategies as a static tool to classify plant pathogens. For instance, the fungal genus Botrytis is often labeled as an archetypal necrotroph, even though there is evidence that it can behave as an endophytic fungus with a biotrophic lifestyle (van Kan et al., 2014). The rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, which is often classified as a hemibiotrophic leaf pathogen (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011), can adopt a purely biotrophic lifestyle when infecting root tissues (Marcel et al., 2010). It remains unclear which signals are responsible for the switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy and whether these signals rely solely on the physiological state of the pathogen, or whether host-derived signals play a role as well (Kabbage et al., 2015).The plant hormones salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA) play a central role in the activation of plant defenses (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012). The first evidence that biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens are resisted by different immune responses came from Thomma et al. (1998), who demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genotypes impaired in SA signaling show enhanced susceptibility to the biotrophic pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (formerly known as Peronospora parastitica), while JA-insensitive genotypes were more susceptible to the necrotrophic fungus Alternaria brassicicola. In subsequent years, the differential effectiveness of SA- and JA-dependent defense mechanisms has been confirmed in different plant-pathogen interactions, while additional plant hormones, such as ethylene, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, and cytokinins, have emerged as regulators of SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Bari and Jones, 2009; Cao et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Moreover, SA- and JA-dependent defense pathways have been shown to act antagonistically on each other, which allows plants to prioritize an appropriate defense response to attack by biotrophic pathogens, necrotrophic pathogens, or herbivores (Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Verhage et al., 2010).In addition to plant hormones, reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important regulatory role in plant defenses (Torres et al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2015). Within minutes after the perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, NADPH oxidases and apoplastic peroxidases generate early ROS bursts (Torres et al., 2002; Daudi et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012), which activate downstream defense signaling cascades (Apel and Hirt, 2004; Torres et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2009; Mittler et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS play an important regulatory role in the deposition of callose (Luna et al., 2011; Pastor et al., 2013) and can also stimulate SA-dependent defenses (Chaouch et al., 2010; Yun and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Mammarella et al., 2015). However, the spread of SA-induced apoptosis during hyperstimulation of the plant immune system is contained by the ROS-generating NADPH oxidase RBOHD (Torres et al., 2005), presumably to allow for the sufficient generation of SA-dependent defense signals from living cells that are adjacent to apoptotic cells. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an additional role in the regulation of SA/ROS-dependent defense (Trapet et al., 2015). This gaseous molecule can stimulate ROS production and cell death in the absence of SA while preventing excessive ROS production at high cellular SA levels via S-nitrosylation of RBOHD (Yun et al., 2011). Recently, it was shown that pathogen-induced accumulation of NO and ROS promotes the production of azelaic acid, a lipid derivative that primes distal plants for SA-dependent defenses (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, NO, ROS, and SA are intertwined in a complex regulatory network to mount local and systemic resistance against biotrophic pathogens. Interestingly, pathogens with a necrotrophic lifestyle can benefit from ROS/SA-dependent defenses and associated cell death (Govrin and Levine, 2000). For instance, Kabbage et al. (2013) demonstrated that S. sclerotiorum utilizes oxalic acid to repress oxidative defense signaling during initial biotrophic colonization, but it stimulates apoptosis at later stages to advance necrotrophic colonization. Moreover, SA-induced repression of JA-dependent resistance not only benefits necrotrophic pathogens but also hemibiotrophic pathogens after having switched from biotrophy to necrotrophy (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012).Plectosphaerella cucumerina ((P. cucumerina, anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) is a filamentous ascomycete fungus that can survive saprophytically in soil by decomposing plant material (Palm et al., 1995). The fungus can cause sudden death and blight disease in a variety of crops (Chen et al., 1999; Harrington et al., 2000). Because P. cucumerina can infect Arabidopsis leaves, the P. cucumerina-Arabidopsis interaction has emerged as a popular model system in which to study plant defense reactions to necrotrophic fungi (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Carlucci et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). Various studies have shown that Arabidopsis deploys a wide range of inducible defense strategies against P. cucumerina, including JA-, SA-, ABA-, and auxin-dependent defenses, glucosinolates (Tierens et al., 2001; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014), callose deposition (García-Andrade et al., 2011; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012), and ROS (Tierens et al., 2002; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Barna et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Recent metabolomics studies have revealed large-scale metabolic changes in P. cucumerina-infected Arabidopsis, presumably to mobilize chemical defenses (Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Furthermore, various chemical agents have been reported to induce resistance against P. cucumerina. These chemicals include β-amino-butyric acid, which primes callose deposition and SA-dependent defenses, benzothiadiazole (BTH or Bion; Görlach et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), which activates SA-related defenses (Lawton et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Gamir et al., 2014; Luna et al., 2014), JA (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), and ABA, which primes ROS and callose deposition (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Pastor et al., 2013). However, among all these studies, there is increasing controversy about the exact signaling pathways and defense responses contributing to plant resistance against P. cucumerina. While it is clear that JA and ethylene contribute to basal resistance against the fungus, the exact roles of SA, ABA, and ROS in P. cucumerina resistance vary between studies (Thomma et al., 1998; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2014).This study is based on the observation that the disease phenotype during P. cucumerina infection differs according to the inoculation method used. We provide evidence that the fungus follows a hemibiotrophic infection strategy when infecting from relatively low spore densities on the leaf surface. By contrast, when challenged by localized host defense to relatively high spore densities, the fungus switches to a necrotrophic infection program. Our study has uncovered a novel strategy by which plant-pathogenic fungi can take advantage of the early immune response in the host plant.     

Characterization of the Possible Roles for B Class MADS Box Genes in Regulation of Perianth Formation in Orchid

To investigate sepal/petal/lip formation in Oncidium Gower Ramsey, three paleoAPETALA3 genes, O. Gower Ramsey MADS box gene5 (OMADS5; clade 1), OMADS3 (clade 2), and OMADS9 (clade 3), and one PISTILLATA gene, OMADS8, were characterized. The OMADS8 and OMADS3 mRNAs were expressed in all four floral organs as well as in vegetative leaves. The OMADS9 mRNA was only strongly detected in petals and lips. The mRNA for OMADS5 was only strongly detected in sepals and petals and was significantly down-regulated in lip-like petals and lip-like sepals of peloric mutant flowers. This result revealed a possible negative role for OMADS5 in regulating lip formation. Yeast two-hybrid analysis indicated that OMADS5 formed homodimers and heterodimers with OMADS3 and OMADS9. OMADS8 only formed heterodimers with OMADS3, whereas OMADS3 and OMADS9 formed homodimers and heterodimers with each other. We proposed that sepal/petal/lip formation needs the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9. The determination of the final organ identity for the sepal/petal/lip likely depended on the presence or absence of OMADS5. The presence of OMADS5 caused short sepal/petal formation. When OMADS5 was absent, cells could proliferate, resulting in the possible formation of large lips and the conversion of the sepal/petal into lips in peloric mutants. Further analysis indicated that only ectopic expression of OMADS8 but not OMADS5/9 caused the conversion of the sepal into an expanded petal-like structure in transgenic Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) plants.The ABCDE model predicts the formation of any flower organ by the interaction of five classes of homeotic genes in plants (Yanofsky et al., 1990; Jack et al., 1992; Mandel et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Jofuku et al., 1994; Pelaz et al., 2000, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Pinyopich et al., 2003; Ditta et al., 2004; Jack, 2004). The A class genes control sepal formation. The A, B, and E class genes work together to regulate petal formation. The B, C, and E class genes control stamen formation. The C and E class genes work to regulate carpel formation, whereas the D class gene is involved in ovule development. MADS box genes seem to have a central role in flower development, because most ABCDE genes encode MADS box proteins (Coen and Meyerowitz, 1991; Weigel and Meyerowitz, 1994; Purugganan et al., 1995; Rounsley et al., 1995; Theißen and Saedler, 1995; Theißen et al., 2000; Theißen, 2001).The function of B group genes, such as APETALA3 (AP3) and PISTILLATA (PI), has been thought to have a major role in specifying petal and stamen development (Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Krizek and Meyerowitz, 1996; Kramer et al., 1998; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007; Kanno et al., 2007; Whipple et al., 2007; Irish, 2009). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), mutation in AP3 or PI caused identical phenotypes of second whorl petal conversion into a sepal structure and third flower whorl stamen into a carpel structure (Bowman et al., 1989; Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994). Similar homeotic conversions for petal and stamen were observed in the mutants of the AP3 and PI orthologs from a number of core eudicots such as Antirrhinum majus, Petunia hybrida, Gerbera hybrida, Solanum lycopersicum, and Nicotiana benthamiana (Sommer et al., 1990; Tröbner et al., 1992; Angenent et al., 1993; van der Krol et al., 1993; Yu et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2004; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; de Martino et al., 2006), from basal eudicot species such as Papaver somniferum and Aquilegia vulgaris (Drea et al., 2007; Kramer et al., 2007), as well as from monocot species such as Zea mays and Oryza sativa (Ambrose et al., 2000; Nagasawa et al., 2003; Prasad and Vijayraghavan, 2003; Yadav et al., 2007; Yao et al., 2008). This indicated that the function of the B class genes AP3 and PI is highly conserved during evolution.It has been thought that B group genes may have arisen from an ancestral gene through multiple gene duplication events (Doyle, 1994; Theißen et al., 1996, 2000; Purugganan, 1997; Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999; Lamb and Irish, 2003; Kim et al., 2004; Stellari et al., 2004; Zahn et al., 2005; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007). In the gymnosperms, there was a single putative B class lineage that duplicated to generate the paleoAP3 and PI lineages in angiosperms (Kramer et al., 1998; Theißen et al., 2000; Irish, 2009). The paleoAP3 lineage is composed of AP3 orthologs identified in lower eudicots, magnolid dicots, and monocots (Kramer et al., 1998). Genes in this lineage contain the conserved paleoAP3- and PI-derived motifs in the C-terminal end of the proteins, which have been thought to be characteristics of the B class ancestral gene (Kramer et al., 1998; Tzeng and Yang, 2001; Hsu and Yang, 2002). The PI lineage is composed of PI orthologs that contain a highly conserved PI motif identified in most plant species (Kramer et al., 1998). Subsequently, there was a second duplication at the base of the core eudicots that produced the euAP3 and TM6 lineages, which have been subject to substantial sequence changes in eudicots during evolution (Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999). The paleoAP3 motif in the C-terminal end of the proteins was retained in the TM6 lineage and replaced by a conserved euAP3 motif in the euAP3 lineage of most eudicot species (Kramer et al., 1998). In addition, many lineage-specific duplications for paleoAP3 lineage have occurred in plants such as orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009), Ranunculaceae, and Ranunculales (Kramer et al., 2003; Di Stilio et al., 2005; Shan et al., 2006; Kramer, 2009).Unlike the A or C class MADS box proteins, which form homodimers that regulate flower development, the ability of B class proteins to form homodimers has only been reported in gymnosperms and in the paleoAP3 and PI lineages of some monocots. For example, LMADS1 of the lily Lilium longiflorum (Tzeng and Yang, 2001), OMADS3 of the orchid Oncidium Gower Ramsey (Hsu and Yang, 2002), and PeMADS4 of the orchid Phalaenopsis equestris (Tsai et al., 2004) in the paleoAP3 lineage, LRGLOA and LRGLOB of the lily Lilium regale (Winter et al., 2002), TGGLO of the tulip Tulipa gesneriana (Kanno et al., 2003), and PeMADS6 of the orchid P. equestris (Tsai et al., 2005) in the PI lineage, and GGM2 of the gymnosperm Gnetum gnemon (Winter et al., 1999) were able to form homodimers that regulate flower development. Proteins in the euAP3 lineage and in most paleoAP3 lineages were not able to form homodimers and had to interact with PI to form heterodimers in order to regulate petal and stamen development in various plant species (Schwarz-Sommer et al., 1992; Tröbner et al., 1992; Riechmann et al., 1996; Moon et al., 1999; Winter et al., 2002; Kanno et al., 2003; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; Yao et al., 2008). In addition to forming dimers, AP3 and PI were able to interact with other MADS box proteins, such as SEPALLATA1 (SEP1), SEP2, and SEP3, to regulate petal and stamen development (Pelaz et al., 2000; Honma and Goto, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Castillejo et al., 2005).Orchids are among the most important plants in the flower market around the world, and research on MADS box genes has been reported for several species of orchids during the past few years (Lu et al., 1993, 2007; Yu and Goh, 2000; Hsu and Yang, 2002; Yu et al., 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2004, 2008; Xu et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2009). Unlike the flowers in eudicots, the nearly identical shape of the sepals and petals as well as the production of a unique lip in orchid flowers make them a very special plant species for the study of flower development. Four clades (1–4) of genes in the paleoAP3 lineage have been identified in several orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009). Several works have described the possible interactions among these four clades of paleoAP3 genes and one PI gene that are involved in regulating the differentiation and formation of the sepal/petal/lip of orchids (Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009). However, the exact mechanism that involves the orchid B class genes remains unclear and needs to be clarified by more experimental investigations.O. Gower Ramsey is a popular orchid with important economic value in cut flower markets. Only a few studies have been reported on the role of MADS box genes in regulating flower formation in this plant species (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). An AP3-like MADS gene that regulates both floral formation and initiation in transgenic Arabidopsis has been reported (Hsu and Yang, 2002). In addition, four AP1/AGAMOUS-LIKE9 (AGL9)-like MADS box genes have been characterized that show novel expression patterns and cause different effects on floral transition and formation in Arabidopsis (Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). Compared with other orchids, the production of a large and well-expanded lip and five small identical sepals/petals makes O. Gower Ramsey a special case for the study of the diverse functions of B class MADS box genes during evolution. Therefore, the isolation of more B class MADS box genes and further study of their roles in the regulation of perianth (sepal/petal/lip) formation during O. Gower Ramsey flower development are necessary. In addition to the clade 2 paleoAP3 gene OMADS3, which was previously characterized in our laboratory (Hsu and Yang, 2002), three more B class MADS box genes, OMADS5, OMADS8, and OMADS9, were characterized from O. Gower Ramsey in this study. Based on the different expression patterns and the protein interactions among these four orchid B class genes, we propose that the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9 is required for sepal/petal/lip formation. Further sepal and petal formation at least requires the additional presence of OMADS5, whereas large lip formation was seen when OMADS5 expression was absent. Our results provide a new finding and information pertaining to the roles for orchid B class MADS box genes in the regulation of sepal/petal/lip formation.