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

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

Challenges to understand plant responses to wind

Understanding plant response to wind is complicated as this factor entails not only mechanical stress, but also affects leaf microclimate. In a recent study, we found that plant responses to mechanical stress (MS) may be different and even in the opposite direction to those of wind. MS-treated Plantago major plants produced thinner more elongated leaves while those in wind did the opposite. The latter can be associated with the drying effect of wind as is further supported by data on petiole anatomy presented here. These results indicate that plant responses to wind will depend on the extent of water stress. It should also be recognized that the responses to wind may differ between different parts of a plant and between plant species. Physiological research on wind responses should thus focus on the signal sensing and transduction of both the mechanical and drought signals associated with wind, and consider both plant size and architecture.Key words: biomechanics, leaf anatomy, phenotypic plasticity, plant architecture, signal transduction thigmomorphogenesis, windWind is one of the most ubiquitous environmental stresses, and can strongly affect development, growth and reproductive yield in terrestrial plants.^1–3 In spite of more than two centuries of research,⁴ plant responses to wind and their underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This is because plant responses to mechanical movement themselves are complicated and also because wind entails not only mechanical effects, but also changes in leaf gas and heat exchange.^5–7 Much research on wind has focused primarily on its mechanical effect. Notably, several studies that determine plant responses to mechanical treatments such as flexing, implicitly extrapolate their results to wind effects.^8–10 Our recent study¹¹ showed that this may lead to errors as responses to wind and mechanical stimuli (in our case brushing) can be different and even in the opposite direction. In this paper, we first separately discuss plant responses to mechanical stimuli, and other wind-associated effects, and then discuss future challenges for the understanding of plant responses to wind.It is often believed that responses to mechanical stress (thigmomorphogenesis) entail the production of thicker and stronger plant structures that resist larger forces. This may be true for continuous unidirectional forces such as gravity, however for variable external forces (such as wind loading or periodic flooding) avoiding such mechanical stress by flexible and easily reconfigurable structures can be an alternative strategy.^12–14 How plants adapt or acclimate to such variable external forces depends on the intensity and frequency of stress and also on plant structures. Reduced height growth is the most common response to mechanical stimuli.^15,16 This is partly because such short stature increases the ability of plants to both resist forces (e.g., real-locating biomass for radial growth rather than elongation growth), and because small plants experience smaller drag forces (Fig. 1). Some plant species show a resistance strategy in response to mechanical stress by increasing stem thickness^1,10 and tissue strength.⁷ But other species show an avoidance strategy by a reduction in stem or petiole thickness and flexural rigidity in response to MS.^11,15–18 These different strategies might be associated with plant size and structure. Stems of larger plants such as trees and tall herbs are restricted in the ability to bend as they carry heavy loads^7,10,19 (Fig. 1). Conversely short plants are less restricted in this respect and may also be prone to trampling for which stress-avoidance would be the only viable strategy.^18,20 Systematic understanding of these various responses to mechanical stress remains to be achieved.Open in a separate windowFigure 1A graphical representation of how wind effects can be considered to entail both a drying and a mechanical effect. Adaptation or acclimation to the latter can be through a force resistance strategy or a force avoidance strategy, the benefit of which may depend on the size and architecture of plants as well as the location of a given structure within a plant.Wind often enhances water stress by reducing leaf boundary layers and reduces plant temperature by transpiration cooling. The latter effect may be minor,¹¹ but the former could significantly affect plant development. Anten et al. (2010) compared phenotypic traits and growth of Plantago major that was grown under mechanical stimuli by brushing (MS) and wind in the factorial design. Both MS and wind treatments reduced growth and influenced allocation in a similar manner. MS plants, however, had more slender petioles and narrower leaf blades while wind exposed plants exhibited the opposite response having shorter and relatively thicker petioles and more round-shaped leaf blades. MS plants appeared to exhibit stress avoidance strategy while such responses could be compensated or overridden by water stress in wind exposure.¹¹ A further analysis of leaf petiole anatomy (Fig. 2) supports this view. The vascular fraction in the petiole cross-section was increased by wind but not by MS, suggesting that higher water transport was required under wind. Our results suggest that drying effect of wind can at least to some extent override its mechanical effect.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Representative images of petiole cross-sections of Plantago major grown in 45 days in continuous wind and/or mechanical stimuli (A–D). Petiole cross-section area (E) and vascular bundle fraction in the cross-section of petiole (F). mean + SD (n = 12) are shown. Significance levels of ANOVA; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns p > 0.05.Physiological knowledge on plant mechanoreception and signal transduction has been greatly increased during the last decades. Plants sense mechanical stimuli through membrane strain with stretch activated channels²¹ and/or through some linker molecules connecting the cell wall, plasma membrane and cytoskeleton.^4,22,23 This leads to a ubiquitous increase in intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration. The increased Ca²⁺ concentration is sensed by touch induced genes (TCHs),^24,25 which activates downstream transduction machineries including a range of signaling molecules and phytohormones, consequently altering physiological and developmental processes.²⁶ Extending this knowledge to understand plant phenotypic responses to wind however remains a challenge. As responses to wind have been found to differ among parts of a plant (e.g., terminal vs. basal stem) and also across species, physiological studies should be extended to the whole-plant as integrated system rather than focusing on specific tissue level. Furthermore to understand the general mechanism across species, it is required to study different species from different environmental conditions. Advances in bioinformatics, molecular and physiological research will facilitate cross-disciplinary studies to disentangle the complicated responses of plants to wind.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

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

Anticipating future conditions via trajectory sensitivity

Plants are known to be highly responsive to environmental heterogeneity and normally allocate more biomass to organs that grow in richer patches. However, recent evidence demonstrates that plants can discriminately allocate more resources to roots that develop in patches with increasing nutrient levels, even when their other roots develop in richer patches. Responsiveness to the direction and steepness of spatial and temporal trajectories of environmental variables might enable plants to increase their performance by improving their readiness to anticipated resource availabilities in their immediate proximity. Exploring the ecological implications and mechanisms of trajectory-sensitivity in plants is expected to shed new light on the ways plants learn their environment and anticipate its future challenges and opportunities.Key words: Gradient perception, phenotypic plasticity, anticipatory responses, plant behavior, plant learningNatural environments present organisms with myriad challenges of surviving and reproducing under changing conditions.¹ Depending on its extent, predictability and costs, environmental heterogeneity may select for various combinations of genetic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity.^2–6 However, phenotypic plasticity is both limited and costly.⁷ One of the main limitations of phenotypic plasticity is the lag between the perception of the environment and the time the products of the plastic responses are fully operational.⁷ For instance, the developmental time of leaves may significantly limit the adaptive value of their plastic modification due to mismatches between the radiation levels and temperatures prevailing during their development and when mature and fully functional.^8,9 Accordingly, selection is expected to promote responsiveness to cues that bear information regarding the probable future environment.^9,10Indeed, anticipatory responses are highly prevalent, if not universal, amongst living organisms. Whether through intricate cerebral processes, such as in vertebrates, nervous coordination, as in Echinoderms,¹¹ or by relatively rudimentary non-neural processes, such as in plants¹² and bacteria,¹³ accumulating examples suggest that virtually all known life forms are able to not only sense and plastically respond to their immediate environment but also anticipate probable future conditions via environmental correlations.¹⁰Perhaps the best known example of plants'' ability to anticipate future conditions is their responsiveness to spectral red/far-red cues, which is commonly tightly correlated with future probability of light competition.¹⁴ Among others, plants have been shown to respond to cues related to anticipated herbivory^15,16 and nitrogen availability.¹⁷ Imminent stress is commonly anticipated by the perception of a prevailing stress. For example, adaptation to anticipated severe stress was demonstrated to be inducted by early priming by sub-acute drought,¹⁸ root competition¹⁹ and salinity.²⁰Future conditions can also be anticipated by gradient perception: because resource and stress levels are often changing along predictable spatial and temporal trajectories, spatio-temporal dynamics of environmental variables might convey information regarding anticipated growth conditions (Fig. 1). For example, the order of changes in day length, rather than day length itself, are known to assist plants in differentiating fall from spring and thus avoid blooming in the wrong season.²¹ In addition, responsiveness to environmental gradients as such, i.e., sensitivity to the direction and steepness of environmental trajectories, independently from the stationary levels of the same factors, has been demonstrated in higher organisms, such as the perception of acceleration in contrast to velocity;²² and the dynamics of skin temperature in contrast to stationary skin temperature;²³ where the adaptive value of the second-order derivatives of environmental factors is paramount. Similar perception capabilities have also been demonstrated in rudimentary life forms such as bacteria (reviewed in refs. ¹³ and ²⁴) and plants.^25,26 Specifically, perception of environmental trajectories might assist organisms to both anticipate future conditions and better utilize the more promising patches in their immediate environment.^27,28Open in a separate windowFigure 1Trajectory sensitivity in plants. The hypothetical curves depict examples of spatio-temporal trajectories of resource availability, which might be utilized by plants to increase foraging efficiency in newly-encountered patches. When young or early-in-the-season (segment 1–2), plants are expected to allocate more resources to roots that experience the most promising (steepest increases or shallowest decreases) resource availabilities (e.g., allocating more resources to organs in INC-1 than INC-2). In addition, plants are predicted to avoid allocation to roots experiencing decreasing trajectories (DEC, segment 1–2); although temporarily more abundant with resources, such DEC patches are expected to become poorer than alternative patches in the longer run (segment 2–3).²⁹ However, responsiveness to environmental trajectories is only predicted where the expected period of resource uptake is relatively long, e.g., when plants are still active in segment 2–3, a stipulation which might not be fulfilled in e.g., short-living annuals with life span shorter than segment 1–2.In a recent study, Pisum plants have been demonstrated to be sensitive to temporal changes in nutrient availabilities. Specifically, plants allocated greater biomass to roots growing under dynamically-improving nutrient levels than to roots that grew under continuously higher, yet stationary or deteriorating, nutrient availabilities.²⁹ Allocation to roots in poorer patches might seem maladaptive if only stationary nutrient levels are accounted for, and indeed-almost invariably, plants are known to allocate more resources to organs that experience higher (non-toxic) resource levels (reviewed in ref. ³³). Accordingly, the new findings suggest that rather than merely responding to the prevailing nutrient availabilities, root growth and allocation are also responsive to trajectories of nutrient availabilities (Fig. 1).¹⁰Although Shemesh et al.²⁹ demonstrated trajectory-sensitivity of individual roots to temporal gradient of nutrient availabilities, it is likely that this sensitivity helps plants sense spatial gradients, whereby root tips perceive changes in growth conditions as they move through space.³⁴ Interestingly, because the trajectory-sensitivity was observed when whole roots were subjected to changing nutrient levels, it is likely that trajectory sensitivity in roots is based on the integration of sensory inputs perceived by yet-to-be-determined parts of the root over time, i.e., temporal sensitivity/memory (e.g. reviewed in ref. ³⁵), rather than on the integration of sensory inputs at different locations on the same individual roots (i.e., spatial sensitivity).Besides the direction of change, it is hypothesized that plants are also sensitive to the steepness of environmental trajectories (Fig. 1). This might be especially crucial in short-living annuals, which are expected to only be responsive to trajectories steep enough to be indicative of changes in growth conditions before the expected termination of the growth season (Fig. 1).Studying responsiveness to environmental variability is pivotal for understanding the ecology and evolution of any living organism. However, until recently most attention has been given to the study of responses to stationary spatial and temporal heterogeneities in growth conditions. Exploring the ecological implications and mechanisms of trajectory sensitivity in plants is expected to shed new light on the ways plants learn their immediate environment and anticipate its future challenges and opportunities.     

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.     

A Novel MAPKK Involved in Cell Death and Defense Signaling

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

Leaf carbohydrate metabolism during defense: Intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes do not compensate repression of cell wall invertase

The significance of cell wall invertase (cwINV) for plant defense was investigated by comparing wild type (wt) tobacco Nicotiana tabacum L. Samsun NN (SNN) with plants with RNA interference-mediated repression of cwINV (SNN::cwINV) during the interaction with the oomycetic phytopathogen Phytophthora nicotianae. We have previously shown that the transgenic plants developed normally under standard growth conditions, but exhibited weaker defense reactions in infected source leaves and were less tolerant to the pathogen. Here, we show that repression of cwINV was not accompanied by any compensatory activities of intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes such as vacuolar and alkaline/neutral invertases or sucrose synthase (SUSY), neither in uninfected controls nor during infection. In wt source leaves vacuolar invertase did not respond to infection, and the activity of alkaline/neutral invertases increased only slightly. SUSY however, was distinctly stimulated, in parallel to enhanced cwINV. In SNN::cwINV SUSY-activation was largely repressed upon infection. SUSY may serve to allocate sucrose into callose deposition and other carbohydrate-consuming defense reactions. Its activity, however, seems to be directly affected by cwINV and the related reflux of carbohydrates from the apoplast into the mesophyll cells.Key words: cell wall invertase, apoplastic invertase, alkaline invertase, neutral invertase, sucrose synthase, plant defense, Nicotiana tabacum, Phytophthora nicotianaePlant defense against pathogens is costly in terms of energy and carbohydrates.^1,2 Sucrose (Suc) and its cleavage products glucose and fructose are central molecules for metabolism and sensing in higher plants (reviewed in refs. ³ and ⁴). Rapid mobilization of these carbohydrates seems to be an important factor determining the outcome of plant-pathogen interactions. In particular in source cells reprogramming of the carbon flow from Suc to hexoses may be a crucial process during defense.^1,2There are two alternative routes of sucrolytic carbohydrate mobilization. One route is reversible and involves an uridine 5′-diphosphate (UDP)-dependent cleavage catalyzed by sucrose synthase (SUSY). Its activity is limited by the concentrations of Suc and UDP in the cytosol, as the affinity of the enzyme to its substrate is relatively low (K_m for Suc 40–200 mM). The other route is the irreversible, hydrolytic cleavage by invertases (INVs), which exhibit high affinity to Suc (K_m 7–15 mM).⁵Plants possess three different types of INV isoenzymes, which can be distinguished by their solubility, subcellular localization, pH-optima and isoelectric point. Usually, they are subdivided into cell wall (cwINV), vacuolar (vacINV), and alkaline/neutral (a/nINVs) INVs.cwINV, also referred to as extracellular or apoplastic INV, is characterized by a low pH-optimum (pH 3.5–5.0) and usually ionically bound to the cell wall. It is the key enzyme of the apoplastic phloem unloading pathway and plays a crucial role in the regulation of source/sink relations (reviewed in refs. ^{3, 6–8}). A specific role during plant defense has been suggested, based on observations that cwINV is often induced during various plant-pathogen interactions, and the finding that overexpression of a yeast INV in the apoplast increases plant resistance.^6,8–10 It was shown, that a rapid induction of cwINV is, indeed, one of the early defense-related reactions in resistant tobacco source leaves after infection with Phytophthora nicotianae (P. nicotianae).¹¹ Finally, the whole infection area in wt leaves was covered with hypersensitive lesions, indicating that all cells had undergone hypersensitive cell death (Fig. 1A).^1,11 When the activity of cwINV was repressed by an RNAi construct, defense-related processes were impaired, and the infection site exhibited only small spots of hypersensitive lesions. Finally, the pathogen was able to sporulate, indicating a reduced resistance of these transgenic plants (Fig. 1A).¹Open in a separate windowFigure 1Defense-induced changes in the activity of intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes and their contribution to defense. (A) The repression of cwINV in source leaves of tobacco leads to impaired pathogen resistance and can not be compensated by other sucrose-cleaving enzymes. The intensity of defense reactions is amongst others indicated by the extent of hypersensitive lesions. (B and C) Absolute activity of vacuolar (B) and alkaline/neutral (C) INVs at the infection site (white symbols, control; black symbols, infection site). (D) Increase in SUSY activity at the infection site. All data points taken from noninfected control parts of the plants in each individual experiment and each point along the time scale of an experiment are set as 0%. At least three independent infections are averaged and their means are presented as percentage changes ± SE (circles, SNN; triangles, SNN::cwINV). Insets show the means of the absolute amount of activities (white symbols, control; black symbols, infection site). Material and methods according to Essmann, et al.¹vacINV, also labeled as soluble acidic INV, is characterized by a pH optimum between pH 5.0–5.5. Among others it determines the level of Suc stored in the vacuole and generates hexose-based sugar signals (reviewed in refs. ³ and ¹²). Yet, no specific role of vacINV during pathogen response has been reported. Although vacINV and cwINV are glycoproteins with similar enzymatic and biochemical properties and share a high degree of overall sequence homology and two conserved amino acid motifs,⁴ the activity of vacINV in tobacco source leaves was not changed due to the repression of the cwINV (Fig. 1B).¹ After infection with P. nicotianae the activity of vacINV in wt SNN did not respond under conditions where cwINV was stimulated.¹ There was also no significant change in the transgenic SNN::cwINV (Fig. 1B). This suggests that during biotic stress, there is no crosstalk between the regulation of cwINV and vacINV.a/nINVs exhibit activity maxima between pH 6.5 and 8.0, are not glycosylated and thought to be exclusively localized in the cytosol. But recent reports also point to a subcellular location in mitochondria and chloroplasts.^13,14 Only a few a/nINVs have been cloned and characterized, and not much is known about their physiological functions (reviewed in refs. ^{4, 14} and ¹⁵). Among other things they seem to be involved in osmotic or low-temperature stress response.^14,15 During the interaction between tobacco and P. nicotianae the activity of a/nINVs rose on average 17% in the resistant wt SNN between 1 to 9 hours post infection (Fig. 1C). By contrast, in SNN::cwINV the a/nINVs activities remained unchanged in control leaves and even after infection (Fig. 1C). This suggests that the defense related stimulation in a/nINVs activities is rather a secondary phenomenon, possibly in response to the enhanced cwINV activity and the related carbohydrate availability in the cytosol.SUSY can be found as a soluble enzyme in the cytosol, bound to the inner side of the plasma membrane or the outer membrane of mitochondria, depending on the phosphorylation status. It channels hexoses into polysaccharide biosynthesis (i.e., starch, cellulose and callose) and respiration.^12,16 There is also evidence that SUSY improves the metabolic performance at low internal oxygen levels¹⁷ but little is known about its role during plant defense. Callose formation is presumably one of the strongest sink reactions in plant cells.^1,18 Defense-related SUSY activity may serve to allocate Suc into callose deposition and other carbohydrate-consuming defense reactions. In fact, in the resistant wt the activity of SUSY increased upon interaction with P. nicotianae in a biphasic manner (Fig. 1D). The time course is comparable to that of cwINV activity and correlates with callose deposition and enhanced respiration.^1,11 However, repression of cwINV leads in general to a reduction of SUSY activity in source leaves of tobacco.¹ After infection the activation of SUSY was also significantly impaired (Fig. 1D). At the same time, the early defense-related callose deposition in infected mesophyll cells of SNN::cwINV plants is substantially delayed.¹ It is known that expression of SUSY isoforms is differentially controlled by sugars,¹² and there is evidence that hexoses generated by the defense-induced cwINV activity deliver sugar signals to the infected cells.¹ In this sense, the reduction of defense-related, cwINV-generated sugar signals could be responsible for the repression of SUSY activity in SNN::cwINV plants after infection with P. nicotianae.Only limited hexoses or hexose-based sugar signals could be generated by cytoplasmic Suc cleavage.¹² The reduction of soluble carbohydrates for sugar signaling and also as fuel for metabolic pathways that support defense reactions could be responsible for the impaired resistance in SNN::cwINV plants (Fig. 1A).Obviously, neither intracellular INV isoforms, nor SUSY can compensate for the reduced carbohydrate availability due to cwINV repression during plant defense. The data also suggest that the activity of SUSY is affected by cwINV and related reflux of carbohydrates. It is known that SUSY activity can be controlled, e.g., by sugar-mediated phosphorylation¹² and one may speculate that posttranslational modulation of the protein is affected by the defense-related carbohydrate status of the cell.     

Reactive oxygen species as transducers of sphinganine-mediated cell death pathway

Long chain bases or sphingoid bases are building blocks of complex sphingolipids that display a signaling role in programmed cell death in plants. So far, the type of programmed cell death in which these signaling lipids have been demonstrated to participate is the cell death that occurs in plant immunity, known as the hypersensitive response. The few links that have been described in this pathway are: MPK6 activation, increased calcium concentrations and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The latter constitute one of the more elusive loops because of the chemical nature of ROS, the multiple possible cell sites where they can be formed and the ways in which they influence cell structure and function.Key words: hydrogen peroxide, long chain bases, programmed cell death, reactive oxygen species, sphinganine, sphingoid bases, superoxideA new transduction pathway that leads to programmed cell death (PCD) in plants has started to be unveiled.^1,2 Sphingoid bases or long chain bases (LCBs) are the distinctive elements in this PCD route that naturally operates in the entrance site of a pathogen as a way to contend its spread in the plant tissues.^2,3 This defense strategy has been known as the hypersensitive response (HR).^4,5As a lately discovered PCD signaling circuit, three connected transducers have been clearly identified in Arabidopsis: the LCB sphinganine (also named dihydrosphingosine or d18:0); MPK6, a mitogen activated kinase and superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as reactive oxygen species (ROS).^1,2 In addition, calcium transients have been recently allocated downstream of exogenously added sphinganine in tobacco cells.⁶Contrary to the signaling lipids derived from complex glycerolipid degradation, sphinganine, a metabolic precursor of complex sphingolipids, is raised by de novo synthesis in the endoplasmic reticulum to mediate PCD.^1,2 Our recent work demonstrated that only MPK6 and not MPK3 (commonly functionally redundant kinases) acts in this pathway and is positioned downstream of sphinganine elevation.² Although ROS have been identified downstream of LCBs in the route towards PCD,¹ the molecular system responsible for this ROS generation, their cellular site of formation and their precise role in the pathway have not been unequivocally identified. ROS are produced in practically all cell compartments as a result of energy transfer reactions, leaks from the electron transport chains, and oxidase and peroxidase catalysis.⁷Similar to what is observed in pathogen defense,³ increases in endogenous LCBs may be elicited by addition of fumonisin B1 (FB1) as well; FB1 is a mycotoxin that inhibits ceramide synthase. This inhibition results in an accumulation of its substrate, sphinganine and its modified forms, leading to the activation of PCD.^1,2,8 The application of FB1 is a commonly used approach for the study of PCD elicitation in Arabidopsis.^1,2,9–11An early production of ROS has been linked to an increase of LCBs. For example, an H₂O₂ burst is found in tobacco cells after 2–20 min of sphinganine supplementation,¹² and superoxide radical augmented in the medium 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine addition to Arabidopsis protoplasts (Fig. 1A). In consonance with this timing, both superoxide and H₂O₂ were detected in Arabidopsis leaves after 3–6 h exposure to FB1 or LCBs.¹ However, the source of ROS generation associated with sphinganine elevation seems to not be the same in both species: in tobacco cells, ROS formation is apparently dependent on a NADPH oxidase activity, a ROS source consistently implicated in the HR,^13,14 while in Arabidopsis, superoxide formation was unaffected by diphenyliodonium (DPI), a NADPH oxidase inhibitor (Fig. 1A). It is possible that the latter oxidative burst is due to an apoplastic peroxidase,¹⁵ or to intracellular ROS that diffuse outwards.^16,17 These results also suggest that both tobacco and Arabidopsis cells could produce ROS from different sources.Open in a separate windowFigure 1ROS are produced at early and long times in the FB1-induced PCD in Arabidopsis thaliana (Col-0). (A) Superoxide formation by Arabidopsis protoplasts is NADPH oxidase-independent and occurs 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine (d18:0) exposure. Protoplasts were obtained from a cell culture treated with cell wall lytic enzymes. Protoplasts were incubated with 10 µM FB1 or 10 µM sphinganine for 1 h. Then, cells were vacuum-filtered and the filtrate was used to determine XTT [2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide, disodium salt] reduction as described in references ²⁸ and ²⁹. DPI was used at 50 µM. (B) H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis wt and lcb2a-1 mutant in the presence and absence of FB1. Arabidopsis seedlings were exposed to 10 µM FB1 and after 48 h seedlings were treated with DA B (3,3-diaminobencidine) to detect H₂O₂ according to Thordal-Christensen et al.³⁰It has been suggested that the H₂O₂ burst associated with the sphinganine signaling pathway leads to the expression of defense-related genes but not to the PCD itself in tobacco cells.¹² It is possible that ROS are involved in the same way in Arabidopsis, since defense gene expression is also induced by FB1 in Arabidopsis.⁹ In this case, it will be important to define how the early ROS that are DPI-insensitive could contribute to the PCD manifestation mediated by sphinganine.The generation of ROS (4–60 min) found in Arabidopsis was associated to three conditions: the addition of sphinganine (Fig. 1A), FB1 (Fig. 1A) or pathogen elicitors.¹⁵ This is consistent with the MPK6 activation time, which is downstream of sphinganine elevation and occurs as early as 15 min of FB1 or sphinganine exposure.² All of them are events that appear as initial steps in the relay pathway that produces PCD.In order to explore a possible participation of ROS at more advanced times of PCD progression, we detected in situ H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis seedlings previously exposed to FB1 for 48 h. As shown in Figure 1B, formation of the brown-reddish precipitate corresponding to the reaction of H₂O₂ with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) was only visible in the FB1-exposed wild type plants, as compared to the non-treated plants. However, when lcb2a-1 mutant seedlings were used, FB1 exposure had a subtle effect in ROS formation. This mutant has a T-DNA insertion in the gene encoding subunit LCB2a from serine palmitoyltransferase (SPT), which catalyzes the first step in sphingolipid synthesis¹⁸ and the mutant has a FB1-resistant phenotype.² These results indicate that mutations in the LCB1¹ and LCB2a² genes (coding for the subunits of the heterodimeric SPT) that lead to a non-PCD phenotype upon the FB1 treatment, are unable to produce H₂O₂. In addition, they suggest that high levels of hydrogen peroxide are produced at advanced times in the PCD mediated by LCBs in Arabidopsis.Exposure of Arabidopsis to an avirulent strain of Pseudomonas syringae produces an endogenous elevation of LCBs as a way to implement defense responses that include HR-PCD.³ In this condition, we clearly detected H₂O₂ formation inside chloroplasts (Fig. 2A). When ultrastructure of the seedlings tissues exposed to FB1 for 72 h was analyzed, integrity of the chloroplast membrane system was severely affected in Arabidopsis wild-type seedlings exposed to FB1.² Therefore, we suggest that ROS generation-LCB induced in the chloroplast could be responsible of the observed membrane alteration, as noted by Liu et al. who found impairment in chloroplast function as a result of H₂O₂ formation in this organelle from tobacco plants. Interestingly, these plants overexpressed a MAP kinase kinase that activated the kinase SIPK, which is the ortholog of the MPK6 from Arabidopsis, a transducer in the PCD instrumented by LCBs.²Open in a separate windowFigure 2Conditions of LCBs elevation produce H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast and perturbation in the membrane morphology of mitochondria. (A) Exposure of Arabidopsis leaves to the avirulent strain Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (avrRPM1) (or Pst avrRPM1) induces H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast. Arabidopsis leaves were infiltrated with 1 × 10⁸ UFC/ml Pst avrRPM1 and after 18 h, samples were treated to visualize H₂O₂ formation with the DAB reaction. Controls were infiltrated with 10 mM MgCl₂ and then processed for DAB staining. Then, samples were analyzed in an optical photomicroscope Olympus Provis Model AX70. (B) Effect of FB1 on mitochondria ultrastructure. Wild type Arabidopsis seedlings were treated with FB1 for 72 h and tissues were processed and analyzed according to Saucedo et al.² Ch, chloroplast; M, mitochondria; PM, plasma membrane. Arrows show mitochondrial cisternae. Bars show the correspondent magnification.In addition, we have detected alterations in mitochondria ultrastructure as a result of 72 h of FB1 exposure (Fig. 2B). These alterations mainly consist in the reduced number of cristae, the membrane site of residence of the electron transport complexes. In this sense, it has been shown that factors that induce PCD such as the victorin toxin, methyl jasmonate and H₂O₂ produce alterations in mitochondrial morphology.^20–22 In fact, some of these studies propose that ROS are formed in the mitochondria and then diffuse to the chloroplasts.^22–24It is reasonable to envisage that damage of the membrane integrity of these two organelles reflects the effects of vast amounts of ROS produced by the electron transport chains.^25,26 Recent evidence supports the destruction of the photosynthetic apparatus associated to the generation of ROS in the HR.²⁶ At this time of PCD progression, ROS could be contributing to shut down the energy machinery in the cell, which ultimately would become the point of no-return of PCD²⁷ as part of the execution program of the cell death mediated by LCBs.In conclusion, we propose that ROS can display two different functional roles in the PCD process driven by LCBs. These roles depend on the time of ROS expression, the cellular site where they are generated, the enzymes that produce them, and the magnitude in which they are formed.     

Activation and manipulation of host responses by a Gram-positive bacterium

The interaction between tomato plants and Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm) represents a model pathosystem to study the interplay between the virulence determinants of a Gram-positive bacterium and the attempt of a crop plant to counteract pathogen invasion. To investigate plant responses activated during this compatible interaction, we recently analyzed gene expression profiles of tomato stems infected with Cmm. This analysis revealed activation of basal defense responses that are typically observed upon plant perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns. In addition, Cmm infection upregulated the expression of host genes related to ethylene synthesis and response. Further analysis of tomato plants impaired in ethylene perception and production demonstrated an important role for ethylene in the development of disease symptoms. Here we discuss possible molecular strategies used by the plant to recognize Cmm infection and possible mechanisms employed by the pathogen to interfere with the activation of plant defense responses and promote disease.Key words: tomato, Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, ethylene, basal defense, pathogen-associated molecular patternsLittle is known on the strategies employed by Gram-positive phytopathogenic bacteria to sense the presence of the host plant, penetrate and colonize tissue, and counteract plant defense responses. Also largely unexplored are the molecular mechanisms associated with detection of Gram-positive bacteria by the host plant and with the activation of attempted defense responses.Among the most devastating Gram-positive disease agents are actinobacteria of the genus Clavibacter whose subspecies cause systemic infections of the xylem in different plant species.¹ The subspecies Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm) causes bacterial wilt and canker of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), an economically important disease causing yield losses worldwide.¹ In recent years important insight into the molecular mechanism of Cmm pathogenicity has been achieved,¹ and genome sequence of a Cmm strain has been established.² Major Cmm pathogenicity determinants are plasmid borne and include the β-1,4-endocellulase CelA,³ and the putative serine protease Pat-1.⁴ Additional genes important for virulence are located in a pathogenicity island of about 129 kb on the Cmm chromosome which has a relatively low G + C content and is required for effective Cmm colonization of tomato plants.²Tomato is an economically important crop amenable to genetic analysis and transformations. Many resources are available for this plant species, including germplasm collections, natural and induced mutants, an extensive expressed sequence tag database and an ongoing genome sequencing project.⁵ In addition, because of its experimental tractability, tomato plants have been widely used to study plant disease resistance and susceptibility. As genetic and molecular tools for both Cmm and tomato are in place, the tomato-Cmm pathosystem represents an excellent model to study the interplay between virulence determinants of a Gram-positive phytopathogenic bacterium and defense responses of a crop plant.To get insight into host responses occurring during the tomato-Cmm compatible interaction and molecular mechanisms associated with the development of wilt and canker disease symptoms, we recently analyzed gene expression profiles of tomato stems infected with Cmm.⁶ This analysis revealed a clear activation of basal defense responses, which are typically observed upon plant perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs).⁷ These include production and scavenging of free oxygen radicals, induction of defense-related genes, enhanced protein turnover, and hormone biosynthesis. Interestingly, several tomato genes encoding proteins with characteristics of cell-surface receptors were differentially expressed in response to Cmm infection.⁶ These proteins can be considered as candidate receptors for Cmm PAMPs and include two receptor-like kinases, a homolog of the receptor for the fungal PAMP ethylene-inducing xylanase from Trichoderma viride,⁸ and the Ve1 resistance protein, which confers resistance in tomato to the vascular disease Verticillium wilt.⁹It remains to be elucidated what are the Cmm PAMPs perceived by tomato plants. Cold-shock protein from Gram-positive bacteria and different microbial patterns of Gram-negative bacteria, including lipopolysaccharides, flagellin, and the translational elongation factor EF-TU, were shown to act as PAMPs in plants.¹⁰ Similarly, Cmm cold shock protein or cell wall components, such as peptidoglycan, lipoteichoic acid, and lipopeptides, which function as Gram positive-derived PAMPs in animal systems¹¹, may act as PAMPs during the tomato-Cmm interaction. Additional possible Cmm PAMPs are exopolysaccharides, which are produced in large amounts by the bacterium and may interact directly with surface-exposed plant proteins.¹ The numerous extracellular cell wall degrading enzymes secreted by Cmm may also function as PAMPs, as observed for the fungal ethylene-inducing xylanase.^2,12 Alternatively, by virtue of their hydrolytic activity, these enzymes may release plant cell wall fragments that are recognized by PAMP receptors. Indeed, different β-glucan fragments released from plant cell walls were shown to elicit plant basal defense responses.^13,14How Cmm copes with the activation of basal defense responses is largely unknown. Many potential virulence determinants that might interfere with the plant defense reaction are clustered in the Cmm pathogenicity island, which is essential for effective plant colonization.² Several extracellular serine proteases are encoded in this region and inactivation of part of them by gene replacement drastically reduced Cmm colonization of tomato plants.² Although their targets are still unknown, these proteins might interfere with plant signaling pathways as it was described for certain cysteine proteases that serves in Gram-negative bacteria as suppressors of plant defenses.¹⁵ An additional candidate for interference with plant signaling may be a tomatinase, also encoded in the Cmm pathogenicity island, because hydrolysis products of α-tomatine were shown to suppress plant defense responses in a fungal system.¹⁶In addition to detecting the activation of basal defense responses, host gene expression profiling during the tomato-Cmm interaction unraveled the involvement of ethylene in disease development.⁶ In fact, Cmm infection of tomato stems was found to induce expression of host genes related to ethylene biosynthesis and response (Fig. 1).⁶ Further analysis of ethylene-insensitive Never ripe mutants and transgenic plants with reduced ethylene synthesis indicated that ethylene is required for normal development of wilting symptoms (Fig. 2), but not for the activation of defense-related genes or bacterial colonization.⁶ We hypothesize that during infection ethylene synthesis and response are manipulated by Cmm virulence determinants to promote disease. Alternatively, ethylene is released as part of the host responses activated by bacterial recognition, or as a result of tissue maceration. In line with our first hypothesis, the type III effectors AvrPto and AvrPtoB from Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato were shown to promote enhanced disease symptoms in tomato leaves, in part, by upregulating genes involved in ethylene production.¹⁷ Interestingly, expression in tomato plants of AvrPto or AvrPtoB, and infection with Cmm resulted in the upregulation of the SlACO1 gene encoding the key enzyme of ethylene biosynthesis ACC oxidase.^6,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Kinetics of ACC oxidase (ACO) gene expression in tomato plants inoculated with Cmm. Six-week-old tomato plants were infected with a Cmm suspension (10⁸ cfu/ml) or mock-inoculated. Total RNA was extracted from stem samples harvested at the indicated day post-inoculation (dpi) and subjected to Northern blot analysis using as probe a 550 bp fragment of the SlACO1 gene, which shares high homology with other ACO family members (upper). Ethidium bromide staining shows the amount of RNA loaded in each lane (lower).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Effect of impaired ethylene sensitivity on development of wilt symptoms in tomato plants infected with Cmm. Six-week-old plants were infected with a Cmm suspension (10⁸ cfu/ml) and examined for development of wilt symptoms during a 20-day period. The percentage of plants showing wilt symptoms was calculated in a group of at least 30 plants for the ethylene-insensitive mutant Never ripe and wild-type Pearson plants. Data are representative of two independent experiments.In conclusion, future research challenges for understanding how host responses are regulated by the plant and manipulated by a Gram-positive bacterium will be the isolation of Cmm PAMPs and their plant receptors, the identification of Cmm virulence determinants and the elucidation of their mode of action.