Phytochrome B Promotes Branching in Arabidopsis by Suppressing Auxin Signaling

Many plants respond to competition signals generated by neighbors by evoking the shade avoidance syndrome, including increased main stem elongation and reduced branching. Vegetation-induced reduction in the red light:far-red light ratio provides a competition signal sensed by phytochromes. Plants deficient in phytochrome B (phyB) exhibit a constitutive shade avoidance syndrome including reduced branching. Because auxin in the polar auxin transport stream (PATS) inhibits axillary bud outgrowth, its role in regulating the phyB branching phenotype was tested. Removing the main shoot PATS auxin source by decapitation or chemically inhibiting the PATS strongly stimulated branching in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) deficient in phyB, but had a modest effect in the wild type. Whereas indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) levels were elevated in young phyB seedlings, there was less IAA in mature stems compared with the wild type. A split plate assay of bud outgrowth kinetics indicated that low auxin levels inhibited phyB buds more than the wild type. Because the auxin response could be a result of either the auxin signaling status or the bud’s ability to export auxin into the main shoot PATS, both parameters were assessed. Main shoots of phyB had less absolute auxin transport capacity compared with the wild type, but equal or greater capacity when based on the relative amounts of native IAA in the stems. Thus, auxin transport capacity was unlikely to restrict branching. Both shoots of young phyB seedlings and mature stem segments showed elevated expression of auxin-responsive genes and expression was further increased by auxin treatment, suggesting that phyB suppresses auxin signaling to promote branching.The development of shoot branches is a multistep process with many potential points of regulation. After the formation of an axillary meristem in the leaf axil, an axillary bud may form through the generation of leaves and other tissues. The axillary bud may grow out to form a branch, or may remain dormant or semidormant for an indefinite period of time (Bennett and Leyser, 2006). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), the position of the bud in the rosette is a strong determinant of its fate, with upper buds displaying greater outgrowth potential than lower buds. In fact, the varying potential of buds at different positions is maintained even in buds that are activated to form branches, with the upper buds growing out first and most robustly, and lower buds growing out after a time lag and with less vigor (Hempel and Feldman, 1994; Finlayson et al., 2010).The disparate fate of buds at different rosette positions is mediated, at least in part, by the process of correlative inhibition, whereby remote parts of the plant inhibit the outgrowth of the buds (Cline, 1997). Correlative inhibition is typically associated with the bud-inhibiting effects of auxin sourced in the shoot apex and transported basipetally in the polar auxin transport stream (PATS). Auxin in the PATS does not enter the bud and thus must act indirectly; however, the exact mechanism by which auxin inhibits bud outgrowth is not well understood, despite many years of intensive study (Waldie et al., 2010; Domagalska and Leyser, 2011). Evidence supports divergent models by which auxin may regulate branching. One model contends that the PATS modulates a bud outgrowth inhibiting second messenger (Brewer et al., 2009). Another model postulates a mechanism whereby competition between the main shoot and the axillary bud for auxin export in the PATS regulates bud activity (Bennett et al., 2006; Prusinkiewicz et al., 2009; Balla et al., 2011).In addition to intrinsic developmental programming, branching is also modulated by environmental signals, including competition signals generated by neighboring plants. The red light:far-red light ratio (R:FR) is an established competition signal that is modified (reduced) by neighboring plants and sensed by the phytochrome family of photoreceptors. A low R:FR evokes the shade avoidance syndrome with plants displaying, among other phenotypes, enhanced shoot elongation and reduced branching (Smith, 1995; Ballaré, 1999; Franklin and Whitelam, 2005; Casal, 2012). Phytochrome B (phyB) is the major sensor contributing to R:FR responses, and loss of phyB function results in a plant that displays a phenotype similar to constitutive shade avoidance. It should be noted that actual shade avoidance is mediated by additional phytochromes and that the complete absence of functional phyB in the loss-of-function mutant may also result in a phenotype that does not exactly mirror shade avoidance. Loss of phyB function leads to reduced branching and altered expression of genes associated with hormone pathways and bud development in the axillary buds (Kebrom et al., 2006; Finlayson et al., 2010; Kebrom et al., 2010; Su et al., 2011). In Arabidopsis, phyB deficiency differentially affects the outgrowth of buds from specific positions in the rosette and thus demonstrates an important function in the regulation of correlative inhibition (Finlayson et al., 2010; Su et al., 2011), a process known to be influenced by auxin. Many aspects of auxin signaling are dependent on AUXIN RESISTANT1 (AXR1), which participates in activating the Skip-Cullin-F-box auxin signaling module (del Pozo et al., 2002). Reduced auxin signaling resulting from AXR1 deficiency enabled phyB-deficient plants to branch profusely and reduced correlative inhibition, thus establishing auxin signaling downstream of phyB action (Finlayson et al., 2010). Although a link between auxin signaling and phyB regulation of branching was demonstrated, the details of the interaction were not discovered.The relationship between auxin and shade avoidance responses has been investigated in some detail. Auxin signaling was implicated in shade avoidance responses mediated by ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA HOMEOBOX PROTEIN2 in young Arabidopsis seedlings (Steindler et al., 1999). Rapid changes in leaf development resulting from canopy shade were also shown to involve TRANSPORT INHIBITOR RESPONSE1-dependent auxin signaling (Carabelli et al., 2007). A link between auxin abundance and the response to the R:FR was demonstrated in Arabidopsis deficient for the TRP AMINOTRANSFERASE OF ARABIDOPSIS1 (TAA1) auxin biosynthetic enzyme (Tao et al., 2008). Young wild-type seedlings respond to a decreased R:FR by increasing indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) biosynthesis, accumulating IAA, increasing hypocotyl and petiole elongation, and increasing leaf elevation. However, these responses are reduced in plants deficient in TAA1. Subsequent studies confirmed the importance of auxin in responses to the R:FR (Pierik et al., 2009; Kozuka et al., 2010; Keller et al., 2011), and also identified the auxin transporter PIN-FORMED3 as essential for hypocotyl elongation responses in young seedlings (Keuskamp et al., 2010). In addition to the roles of auxin abundance and transport in the process, auxin sensitivity has also been implicated in shade avoidance. Several auxin signaling genes are direct targets of the phytochrome signaling component PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR5 (PIF5), and these genes are misregulated in Arabidopsis deficient in either PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR4 (PIF4) or PIF5 (Hornitschek et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2013). Auxin-responsive hypocotyl elongation and auxin-induced gene expression were also reduced in young seedlings of the pif4pif5 double mutant (Hornitschek et al., 2012), which show defects in shade avoidance responses (Lorrain et al., 2008).Although some aspects of the regulation of branching are now understood, there are still many gaps in our knowledge of the process, especially as related to the regulation of branching by light signals. Because auxin is known to play a major role in regulating branch development, and because recent studies have implicated auxin in general shade avoidance responses and specifically in the regulation of branching by phyB, the hypothesis that auxin homeostasis, transport, and/or signaling may contribute to the hypobranching phenotype of phyB-deficient plants was generated and tested, using a variety of physiological and molecular approaches.     

The importance of floral signals in the establishment of plant-ant mutualisms

Visual and olfactory floral signals are essential for the establishment of plant-pollinator mutualisms. Different batteries of floral features attract different pollinators and may achieve specific relationships that are essential for the immediate plant reproductive success, and at an evolutionary time scale have been of vital importance in the radiation of Angiosperms. We have found that mutualistic services by ants, insects traditionally considered ineffective pollinators, are essential for the pollination of Cytinus hypocistis (Cytinaceae), a Mediterranean root holoparasitic plant. Diverse floral signals, mainly nectar characteristics and floral scent could be playing a key role in the attraction of different species of ants, which pollinate effectively the flowers. Surprisingly, the abundance of other insects foraging in this parasite was very low and, although this scarcity could be due in part to the presence of ants, we suggest that different floral features exhibited by C. hypocistis could be evolving for attracting ants. Based on some current findings, we suspect that the study of floral signals in Cytinaceae is critical in the understanding the divergence of pollination systems in this fascinating family of parasitic plants.Key words: ant, Cytinus hypocistis, Cytinaceae, floral signal, nectar, plant-animal interaction, scentThe flowers of angiosperms exhibit an amazing variety of floral and nectar colors,^1,2 floral morphology and displays,^3,4 floral scents⁵ and nectar characteristics,^6,7 that may influence pollinator type and pollination quality. The existence of those signals help to the establishment of interactions among plants and pollinators, that range from drastic generalists, when flowers are visited by an elevated number of pollinators, to extreme specialists, being the plant pollinated by only one or a few species of pollinators.^8,9In the majority of terrestrial ecosystems, ants stand out as one of the most common floral visitors.¹⁰ In spite of such ubiquity, ants have been largely considered as ineffective pollinators, mainly due to their small size, erratic behaviour and the presence of metapleural glands that produce antibiotic secretions reducing pollen viability.^11,12 Moreover, it has been postulated that ants act as nectar thieves and reduce visitation by other potential pollinator.¹⁰ However, new findings are highlighting that their role on pollination is not fully understood. Recently we have described, combining a four-year field observation study with experimental pollination treatments at six study sites, a new ant-plant mutualism, between the holoparasitic plant Cytinus hypocistis (Cytinaceae) and different ant species,¹³ joining a growing body of evidence stressing the prominent role that ants are playing in some plant-pollinator systems.^14–17 Nevertheless, in contrast to preceding studies where only one ant species pollinated the plants (but see refs. ¹⁷ and ¹⁸) in C. hypocistis as many as ten ant species behave as true pollinators. Moreover, our study has shown that the different ant species that pollinate C. hypocistis differ in their effectiveness as pollinators, as commonly observed in other pollinator guilds.^19,20 We therefore suggest that generalizations about the importance and quality of ants as pollinators should be avoided or made with caution unless backed by careful field measurements.Our study system was a monoecious rootless, stemless and leafless holoparasitic plant with inflorescences appearing at ground level. Although C. hypocistis does not exhibit typical features of the purported ‘ant-pollination syndrome’,²¹ a number of floral signals could be playing key roles in the establishment of the plant-ant interactions. Among them, the low stature of plants that make flowers to stay a ground level, in combination with sweet scented flowers that offer concentrated nectar and large quantity of pollen, are signals that may enhance the attractiveness of C. hypocistis to diurnal and nocturnal ants that pollinate flowers efficiently. Flying insect visits were unexpectedly low, and only a fly was a predictable visitor. The presence of ants can discourage flying pollinators from visiting the flowers,²² but we suspect that this low number of visits can be explained by the floral features exhibited by C. hypocistis which, although probably still no specialized, may be becoming more important for attracting ants.It has been postulated that different species of animals are attracted by diverse sets of visual (colour and floral shape) and chemical (floral scent, nectar features) floral characteristics.^5,6,9 These features are critical for plant reproductive success,^23,24 and at an evolutionary time scale they have been of vital importance in the radiation of Angiosperms.²⁵ Although our study does not specifically deal with the relative importance of different floral signals, circumstantial evidence suggests that in the family Cytinaceae various signalling-related features could be essential for the establishment of plant-pollinator mutualisms. More specifically, floral scent seems to be an important channel of communication between these flowering plants and their pollinators and has been a likely key factor in the evolution of pollination mechanisms in this outstanding family of parasitic plants. In the only three studies conducted on plant-pollinator systems in the family Cytinaceae a remarkable diversity of mutualisms has been observed. First, in Mexico, the yeasty and unpleasant scent produced by the dark flowers of Bdallophyton bambusarum has been described to attract carrion flies,²⁶ a common pollinator guild in other parasitic plants such as Rafflesiaceae or Hydnoraceae, with a characteristic pollination system by deceit with flowers mimicking insect mating or egg-laying habitats.²⁷ Second, in South Africa, the crimson flowers of Cytinus visseri emit a strong scent dominated by aliphatic compounds that play a central role in attracting small mammals, the only flower visitors and pollinators of this species.²⁸ And third, our recent findings on C. hypocistis in Spain and Morocco point to an important effect of floral scent in attracting ants, its main pollinators. Although research on the importance of floral signals to attract pollinators in this family is still in its infancy, recent findings make of Cytinaceae an ideal model to study at an intrafamily level the influence of divergent selection from pollinators on the evolution of high floral signal diversity. Mechanisms acting on plant-animals signalling obviously deserve further studies to provide an accurate picture of the importance of visual and chemical cues on the evolution of pollination systems in Angiosperms.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

Historical Overview on Plant Neurobiology

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

Complete Genome Sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559T

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

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

A Role for auxin during actinorhizal symbioses formation?

The symbiotic interaction between the soil bacteria Frankia and actinorhizal plants leads to the formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules resembling modified lateral roots. Little is known about the signals exchanged between the two partners during the establishment of these endosymbioses. However, a role for plant hormones has been suggested.Recently, we studied the role of auxin influx activity during actinorhizal symbioses. An inhibitor of auxin influx was shown to perturb nodule formation. Moreover we identified a functional auxin influx carrier that is produced specifically in Frankia-infected cells. These results together with previous data showing auxin production by Frankia lead us to propose a model of auxin action during the symbiotic infection process.Key words: lateral roots, nitrogen fixation, Frankia, AUX1, actinorhizal symbioses, phenylacetic acid, auxin influxActinorhizal symbioses result from the interaction between the soil actinomycete Frankia and plants belonging to eight angiosperm families collectively called actinorhizal plants.¹ This symbiotic interaction leads to the formation of a new organ on the root system, the actinorhizal nodule, where the bacteria are hosted and fix nitrogen.² Unlike legume nodules, actinorhizal nodules are structurally and developmentally related to lateral roots.³ Little is known about the signals exchanged between the two partners during the establishment of the symbiosis.² Diffusible signals are emitted by Frankia at early stages of the interaction resulting in root hair deformation.² The chemical nature of these signals remains unknown, however, detailed studies revealed that they are different from rhizobial Nod factors.⁴ Phytohormones are chemicals that control many developmental processes⁵ and have been linked to many plant-microbe interactions. Recently, we studied the role of auxin influx in actinorhizal nodule formation in the tropical tree Casuarina glauca.⁶     

The Arabidopsis MAP kinase kinase 7: A crosstalk point between auxin signaling and defense responses?

Plant-pathogen interaction induces a complex host response that coordinates various signaling pathways through multiple signal molecules. Besides the well-documented signal molecules salicylic acid (SA), ethylene and jasmonic acid, auxin is emerging as an important player in this response. We recently characterized an Arabidopsis activation-tagged mutant, bud1, in which the expression of the MAP kinase kinase 7 (AtMKK7) gene is increased. The bud1 mutant plants accumulate elevated levels of SA and display constitutive pathogenesis-related (PR) gene expression and enhanced resistance to pathogens. Additionally, increased expression of AtMKK7 in the bud1 mutant causes deficiency in polar auxin transport, indicating that AtMKK7 negatively regulates auxin signaling. Based on these results, we hypothesized that AtMKK7 may serve as a crosstalk point between auxin signaling and defense responses. Here we show that increased expression of AtMKK7 in bud1 results in a significant reduction in free auxin (indole-3-acetic acid) levels in the mutant plants. We propose three possible mechanisms to explain how AtMKK7 coordinates the growth hormone auxin and the defense signal molecule SA in the bud1 mutant plants. We suggest that AtMKK7 may play a role in cell death and propose that AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 may function downstream of AtMKK7.Key words: Arabidopsis, MAP kinase kinase 7, auxin signaling, defense responses, crosstalkPathogen invasion of a plant induces multiple physiological changes at the site of infection, including the accumulation of reactive oxygen species, nitric oxide and salicylic acid (SA).^1–6 Jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) are also produced in response to pathogen infection.^7–11 Numerous reports have documented that SA, JA and ET work synergistically or antagonistically to fine-tune plant defense responses, based on a multitude of environmental, host and pathogen genetic factors that vary depending on the pathogen-host combinations.^4,12The growth hormone auxin may also play an important role in plant defense responses. Many plant-pathogenic microorganisms have the ability to produce indole-3-acetic acid (IAA),¹³ which is important for the pathogenicity for some pathogens.^14–16 In the Arabidopsis-Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris (Xcc) compatible interaction, Xcc triggers IAA synthesis in the host plants.17 Exogenous treatment of plants with the auxin analogs, NAA and 2,4-D, leads to disease susceptibility.¹⁸ A flagellin-derived-peptid e-induced microRNA (miRNA) was found to negatively regulate messenger RNAs for the F-box auxin receptors TIR1, AFB2 and AFB3, to repress auxin signaling, resulting in significantly enhanced host resistance.¹⁸ These results suggest that auxin likely functions as a virulence factor to suppress host defense.We previously identified an Arabidopsis activation-tagged mutant bud1 from a transgenic population generated by a sense/antisense RNA expression system.¹⁹ Further characterization indicated that bud1 is a semidominant mutant, in which the expression of the Arabidopsis MAP kinase kinase 7 (AtMKK7) gene is increased.²⁰ The increased expression of AtMKK7 in bud1 causes deficiency in auxin transport, whereas reducing mRNA levels of AtMKK7 by antisense RNA expression leads to enhancement of auxin transport, indicating that AtMKK7 negatively regulates polar auxin transport (PAT).²⁰ Recently, we have shown that the bud1 mutant plants accumulate elevated levels of SA and exhibit constitutive pathogenesis-related (PR) gene expression and enhanced resistance to both the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola (Psm) ES4326 and the oomycete pathogen Hyaloperonospora parasitica Noco2.²¹ Reducing mRNA levels of AtMKK7 by antisense RNA expression not only compromises basal resistance but also blocks the induction of systemic acquired resistance (SAR), demonstrating that AtMKK7 is a positive regulator required for both basal resistance and SAR.²¹ Furthermore, we found that the free IAA levels in the bud1 mutant plants were significantly reduced, compared to those in wild-type plants (Fig. 1A). All these results taken together suggest that AtMKK7 may positively regulate SA signaling and negatively regulate auxin signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Free IAA levels in wild type (WT) and bud1 mutant plants. Thirty-day-old soil grown plants were used for free IAA measurement. (B) A schematic representation of three possible mechanisms through which MKK7 regulates host responses after pathogen invasion.Given that SA is a positive regulator of defense responses, whereas auxin is likely a negative regulator of defense responses, we propose three possible mechanisms through which AtMKK7 coordinates the growth hormone auxin and the defense signal molecule SA in the bud1 mutant plants (Fig. 1B): (1) AtMKK7 induces SA accumulation, which suppresses auxin signaling, leading to increased defense responses; (2) AtMKK7 independently induces SA accumulation and suppresses auxin signaling; (3) AtMKK7 suppresses auxin signaling, which relieves the repression of SA signaling by auxin, resulting in SA accumulation.We could test the hypotheses using different approaches. We can examine whether the expression of YUC1, YUC2, YUC4 and YUC6, genes that have been suggested to play essential roles in auxin biosynthesis,²² is altered in the bud1 mutant. We can also analyze the expression of YUC1, YUC2, YUC4 and YUC6, as well as the levels of free IAA in the double mutant bud1sid2 (sid2 is a SA deficient mutant) to test whether IAA biosynthesis is derepressed in the double mutant. Furthermore, polar auxin transport in the bud1sid2 plants should be determined. Finally, we can test whether exogenous application of auxin is able to suppress AtMKK7-induced constitutive defense responses in the bud1 mutant, including elevated levels of SA, constitutive PR gene expression and enhanced resistance to Psm ES4326 and H. parasitica Noco2.AtMKK7 belongs to the Group D of plant MAPKKs.²³ Functions of two other members of this group, LeMKK4 and NbMKK1, have been described.^24,25 LeMKK4 and NbMKK1 are orthologs of AtMKK7 in tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana, respectively. When overexpressed in leaves, wild-type LeMKK4 elicits cell death in both tomato and N. benthamiana.²⁴ Overexpression of wild-type NbMKK1 also causes cell death on N. benthamiana leaves.²⁵ We expected that overexpression of AtMKK7 would also result in cell death. However, neither increased expression of AtMKK7 in the bud1 mutant plants, nor overexpression of wild-type AtMKK7 from the dexamethasone-inducible promoter causes cell death.²¹ This is probably because the expression levels of AtMKK7 in these plants were below the threshold to induce cell death. Consistently, ectopic and constitutive expression of AtMKK7 driven by the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter in wild-type plants leads to lethality of the transgenic plants.²⁰ Therefore, to characterize the function of AtMKK7 in cell death, transgenic plants expressing a constitutively active form of AtMKK7 (AtMKK7^S193A/S199D) from the dexamethasone-inducible promoter will be useful.What MAPK(s) acts downstream of AtMKK7? LeMKK4 directly phosphorylates LeMPK1, LeMPK2 and LeMPK3 in vitro, and activates LeMPK2 and LeMPK3 when expressed in tomato leaves,²⁴ whereas NbMKK1 activates NbSIPK when expressed in N. benthamiana leaves.²⁵ LeMPK2 and LeMPK3 are tomato orthologs of the well-studied tobacco proteins SIPK (salicylic acid-induced protein kinase) and WIPK (wound-induced protein kinase),^26,27 respectively. The Arabidopsis orthologs of SIPK and WIPK are AtMPK6 and AtMPK3, respectively. Based on previous in-gel kinase assay results,²¹ we predict that both AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 may function downstream of AtMKK7. Characterization of double mutants bud1atmpk3 and bud1atmpk6, as well as atmpk3 and atmpk6 mutant plants expressing the constitutively active form of AtMKK7 from the dexamethasone-inducible promoter will shed light on this question.     

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

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