The role of vacuolar processing enzymes in plant immunity

Proteases play important roles in plant innate immunity. In this mini-review, we describe the current view on the role of a plant protease, vacuolar processing enzyme (VPE), and the first identified plant caspase-1-like protein, in plant immunity. In the past several years, VPEs were determined to play important roles in various types of cell death in plants. Early studies demonstrated the identification of VPE as a vacuolar hydrolytic protein responsible for maturation of vacuolar proteins. Later, Nicotiana benthamiana VPE was reported to mediate virus-induced hypersensitive response by regulating membrane collapse. The ortholog of VPE in Arabidopsis is also suggested to be involved in both mycotoxin-induced cell death and developmental cell death. However, the role of VPE in elicitor-signaling is still unclear. Our recent studies demonstrated the involvement of VPE in elicitor signal transduction to induce stomatal closure and defense responses, including defense gene expression and hypersensitive cell death.Key words: hypersensitive cell death, elicitor, stomatal closure, pathogen-associated molecular patterns, plant innate immunity, programmed cell deathIn the course of their development, plants have had to face a wide range of potential pathogens, including viral, bacterial, fungal and oomycete pathogens. Plants, unlike animals, which have specialized defender cells and an adaptive immune system, have an innate immunity of each cell and produce systemic signals emanating from the infection site. The plant innate immunity (PTI) is induced by pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)¹ and elicitors.^2,3 However, some pathogens deliver virulence proteins that target host protein to overcome the plant immunity response. Most plants have evolved the corresponding resistance (R) protein to recognize effector activity, which will trigger plant resistance through effector-triggered immunity (ETI).⁴ Natural selection drives evolution of new pathogen effector proteins and plant R proteins. This tug-of-war between plants and pathogens is represented as a zig-zag-zig model.^5–7 Both PTI and ETI cause stomatal closure and hypersensitive response (HR), a programmed host cell death (PCD) to limit pathogen development.^5,8 In plants, HR is caused by proteases with caspase activity. At least eight caspase activities have now been measured in plant extracts, which were found using caspase substrates, and various caspase inhibitors can block many forms of plant programmed cell death.⁹In the past several years, vacuolar-processing enzyme (VPE) has been determined to play important roles in plant immunity responses. In this review paper, I describe the current view on the role of VPE in plant immunity, based on our own research and recent developments in this field.     

Roles of calcineurin B-like protein-interacting protein kinases in innate immunity in rice

Cytosolic free Ca²⁺ mobilization induced by microbe/pathogen-asssociated molecular patterns (MAMPs/PAMPs) plays key roles in plant innate immunity. However, components involved in Ca²⁺ signaling pathways still remain to be identified and possible involvement of the CBL (calcineurin B-like proteins)-CIPK (CBL-interacting protein kinases) system in biotic defense signaling have yet to be clarified. Recently we identified two CIPKs, OsCIPK14 and OsCIPK15, which are rapidly induced by MAMPs, involved in various MAMP-induced immune responses including defense-related gene expression, phytoalexin biosynthesis and hypersensitive cell death. MAMP-induced production of reactive oxygen species as well as cell browning were also suppressed in OsCIPK14/15-RNAi transgenic cell lines. Possible molecular mechanisms and physiological functions of the CIPKs in plant innate immunity are discussed.Key words: PAMPs/MAMPs, calcium signaling, CBL-CIPK, hypersensitive cell death, reactive oxygen speciesCa²⁺ plays an essential role as an intracellular second messenger in plants as well as in animals. Several families of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins have been identified in higher plants, which decode spatiotemporal patterns of intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration.^1,2 Calcineurin B-Like Proteins (CBLs) comprise a family of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins similar to both the regulatory β-subunit of calcineurin and neuronal Ca²⁺ sensors of animals.^3,4 Unlike calcineurin B that regulates protein phosphatases, CBLs specifically target a family of protein kinases referred to as CIPKs (CBL-Interacting Protein Kinases).⁵ The CBL-CIPK system has been shown to be involved in a wide range of signaling pathways, including abiotic stress responses such as drought and salt, plant hormone responses and K+ channel regulation.^6,7Following the recognition of pathogenic signals, plant cells initiate the activation of a widespread signal transduction network that trigger inducible defense responses, including the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), biosynthesis of phytoalexins, expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and reorganization of cytoskeletons and the vacuole,⁸ followed by a form of programmed cell death known as hypersensitive response (HR).^9,10 Because complexed spatiotemporal patterns of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) have been suggested to play pivotal roles in defense signaling,^1,9 multiple Ca²⁺ sensor proteins and their effectors should function in defense signaling pathways. Although possible involvement of some calmodulin isoforms^11–13 and the calmodulin-domain/calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs)^14–19 has been suggested, other Ca²⁺-regulated signaling components still remain to be identified. No CBLs or CIPKs had so far been implicated as signaling components in innate immunity.     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Brassinosteroid-independent functions of the BRI1-associated kinase BAK1/SERK3

Eukaryotes have evolved programmed cell death (PCD) mechanisms that play important roles in both, development and immunity.^1–3 We demonstrated a requirement for the Arabidopsis thaliana leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase (LRR-RLK), BAK1/SERK3 (BRI1-Associated receptor Kinase 1/Somatic Embryogenesis Receptor Kinase 3) in regulating the containment of microbial infection-induced necrosis. BAK1-deficient plants showed constitutive expression of defense-related genes and developed spreading cell death upon infection by necrotizing pathogens that result in enhanced susceptibility to necrotrophic pathogens. This reaction was not inducible by exposition of bak1 mutants to general stresses but appeared to be solely inducible by necrotizing pathogen infection. BAK1 is known to interact with the brassinosteroid receptor, BRI1, and thereby facilitates plant growth and development in a brassinolide (BL)-dependent manner.^4,5 Surprisingly, the cell death-related phenotype in bak1 mutants is brassinolide-independent. In this addendum we want to present recent new data on BAK1 and discuss its role as a general regulator in plant processes being as diverse as brassinosteroid signaling in development, perception of pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), and cell-death control in innate immunity.Key words: LRR-RLK, cell-death control, immunity, brassinosteroids, BAK1, SERK3, BRI1, FLS2     

Indolic secondary metabolites protect Arabidopsis from the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora brassicae

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

Regulation of MAPK signaling and cell death by MAPK phosphatase MKP2

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways play crucial roles in developmental and adaptive responses. Depending on the stimulus, MAPK activation regulates a wide variety of plant cell responses, such as proliferation, differentiation and cell death, which normally require precise spatial and temporal control. In this context, protein phosphatases play important roles by regulating the duration and magnitude of MAPK activities. During infection by non-host and incompatible host microorganisms, MAPK activity can promote a local cell death mechanism called hypersensitive response (HR), which is part of the plant defence response. HR-like responses require sustained MAPK activity and correlate with oxidative burst. We recently showed that MAPK phosphatase MKP2 positively controls biotic and abiotic stress responses in Arabidopsis. MKP2 interacts with MPK6 in HR-like responses triggered by fungal elicitors, suggesting that MKP2 protein is part of the mechanism involved in MAPK regulation during HR. Here we discuss the interplay of MAPK and MKP2 phosphatase signaling during cell death responses elicited by host-pathogen interactions.Key words: Arabidopsis, hypersensitive response (HR), MAPK, MPK6, MKP2, ROSDifferent studies have identified conserved components of MAPK pathways in plants and have provided evidence that MAPK signaling regulates a wide variety of plant biological responses.¹ For example, MAPK signaling is required for the regulation of stomatal functions,^2–4 hormone signaling^5,6 and innate immunity responses.^7–9 An increasing number of reports indicate that plant MAPKs, in particular tobacco SIPK/Ntf4 and WIPK and their Arabidopsis orthologs, MPK6 and MPK3, are converging points for signals elicited by different pathogens and play regulatory roles in disease responses.¹⁰One of the most efficient and immediate immune responses dependent on MAPK signaling is a mechanism of cell death called hypersensitive response (HR). HR is a rapid, localized cell death process at the site of pathogen infection, which is associated with specific molecular effects such as the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and protein phosphorylation.¹¹ The best evidence implicating MAPK activity in HR comes from gain-of-function studies overexpressing SIPK/Ntf4 and WIPK in tobacco leaves. In these experiments, activation of SIPK/Ntf4 kinases efficiently induces HR-like cell death,^12,13 but the absence of endogenous WIPK function causes delayed induction of this HR phenotype, suggesting that WIPK activity facilitates or potentiates the SIPK signal.¹⁴ Similarly, overexpression analyses of Arabidopsis MPK3 and MPK6 proteins, either alone or co-expressed with activated upstream regulators (MKK proteins), also triggers a cell death phenotype,¹⁵ suggesting a coordinated role of MKK/MAPK signaling modules in HR.¹⁵ Thus, the involvement of MAPK activities such as SIPK/MPK6 in HR cell death responses is supported by different studies; however their regulation by phosphatases remains less understood.The main regulators of MAPKs are specific phosphatases belonging to various families, including PP2C Ser/Thr phosphatases, Tyr phosphatases (PTPs) or dual specificity phosphatases (DSPs) such as the MAPK phosphatase (MKP) subgroup.^16,17 In general, dephosphorylation of MAPKs inactivates their function in many metabolic, developmental or adaptive responses. In the context of HR, we have recently shown that Arabidopsis MKP phosphatase MKP2 interacts with MPK6 in the response triggered by fungal elicitors. In particular, co-expression of MPK6 and MKP2 proteins in infected tobacco leaves significantly attenuates the cell death phenotype produced by expressing MPK6 alone, suggesting that MKP2 negatively regulates MAPK activities in this process.¹⁸     

Serine/threonine protein phosphatases: Multi-purpose enzymes in control of defense mechanisms

Depending on the threat to a plant, different pattern recognition receptors, such as receptor-like kinases, identify the stress and trigger action by appropriate defense response development.^1,2 The plant immunity system primary response to these challenges is rapid accumulation of phytohormones, such as ethylene (ET), salicylic acid (SA), and jasmonic acid (JA) and its derivatives. These phytohormones induce further signal transduction and appropriate defenses against biotic threats.^3,4 Phytohormones play crucial roles not only in the initiation of diverse downstream signaling events in plant defense but also in the activation of effective defenses through an essential process called signaling pathway crosstalk, a mechanism involved in transduction signals between two or more distinct, “linear signal transduction pathways simultaneously activated in the same cell.”⁵     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29     

ATG7 contributes to plant basal immunity towards fungal infection

Autophagy has an important function in cellular homeostasis. In recent years autophagy has been implicated in plant basal immunity and assigned negative (“anti-death”) and positive (“pro-death”) regulatory functions in controlling cell death programs that establish sufficient immunity to microbial infection. We recently showed that Arabidopsis mutants lacking the autophagy-associated (ATG) genes ATG5, ATG10 and ATG18a are compromised in their resistance towards infection with necrotrophic fungal pathogens but display an enhanced resistance towards biotrophic bacterial invaders. Thus, the function of autophagy as either being pro-death or anti-death depends critically on the lifestyle and infection strategy of invading microbes. Here we show that ATG7 contributes to resistance to fungal pathogens. Genetic inactivation of ATG7 results in elevated susceptibility towards the necrotrophic fungal pathogen, Alternaria brassicicola, with atg7 mutants developing spreading necrosis accompanied by production of reactive oxygen intermediates. Likewise, treatment with the fungal toxin fumonisin B1 causes spreading lesion formation in the atg7 mutant. We conclude that ATG7-dependent autophagy constitutes an “anti-death” (“pro-survival”) plant mechanism to control the containment of cell death and immunity to necrophic fungal infection.Key words: autophagy, ATG7, basal immunity, fungal resistance, arabidopsisPlants have evolved a bipartite plant immune system to cope with microbial infections. The first layer of defense relies on the recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP) by pattern-recognition receptors (PAMP-triggered immunity, PTI).^1,2 To overcome this defense strategy, successful pathogens deliver so-called effector proteins into plant cells to modify host cellular processes and to suppress immune responses to enhance virulence. The presence or activities of these microbial effectors is sensed by plant resistance proteins and triggers the second layer of defense, the effector-triggered immunity (ETI).^1,2 In contrast to PTI, ETI is most often accompanied by programmed host cell death (PCD) at the site of attempted microbial invasion; however the molecular basis of this apoptosis-like hypersensitive response (HR) is largely unknown.In recent years evidence accumulated that a non-apoptotic form of cell death called autophagy is not only involved in animal PCD and innate immunity³ but is also an important component in the plant basal immune response.⁴ Generally, autophagy (auto, meaning “self” and phagy, “to eat”) is a cytoplasmic bulk degradation process in which cellular components are targeted to lysosomal or vacuolar degradation. This process is ubiquitous in eukaryotic organisms and is considered to aid cellular survival, differentiation, development and homeostasis by nutrient recycling or removal of damaged or toxic materials.^5–7     

Strigolactones as mediators of plant growth responses to environmental conditions

Strigolactones (SLs) have been recently identified as a new group of plant hormones or their derivatives thereof, shown to play a role in plant development. Evolutionary forces have driven the development of mechanisms in plants that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in shoot and root growth and development. The ability of SLs to regulate both shoot and root development suggests a role in the plant''s response to its growth environment. To play this role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward increased adaptive adjustment. Here, the effects of SLs on shoot and root development are presented, and possible feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues, light and nutrient status, are discussed; these might suggest a role for SLs in plants'' adaptive adjustment to growth conditions.Key words: strigolactones, light, nutrient status, root, shoot, branching, lateral roots, root hairsStrigolactones (SLs) are carotenoid-derived terpenoid lactones suggested to stem from the carotenoid pathway¹ via the activity of various oxygenases.^2,3 SLs production has been demonstrated in both monocotyledons and eudicotyledons (reviewed in ref. ⁴), suggesting their presence in many plant species.⁵ SLs are synthesized mainly in the roots and in some parts of the stem and then move towards the shoot apex (reviewed ref. ⁷).^6,8,9SLs were first characterized more than 40 years ago as germination stimulants of the parasitic plants Striga and Orobanche and later, as stimulants of arbuscular mycorrhiza hyphal branching as well (reviewed in ref. ^{4, 10–13}). Recently, SLs or derivatives thereof, have been identified as a new group of plant hormones, shown to play a role in inhibition of shoot branching,^2,3,8,9 thereby affecting shoot architecture; more recently they have also been shown to affect root growth by affecting auxin efflux.¹⁴Plants have developed mechanisms that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in their growth and development.¹⁵ Shoot architecture is affected by environmental cues, such as light quality and quantity and nutrient status.^16–19 Root-system architecture and development are affected by environmental conditions such as nutrient availability (reviewed in ref. ^{20, 21}). At the same time, plant hormones are known to be involved in the regulation of plant growth, development and architecture (reviewed in ref. ^22–24) and to be mediators of the effects of environmental cues on plant development; one classic example is auxin''s role in the plant''s shade-avoidance response (reviewed in ref. ²⁵).The ability of SLs to regulate shoot and root development suggests that these phytohormones also have a role in the plant''s growth response to its environment. To play this putative role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward enhancing its adaptive adjustment. The present review examines the SLs'' possible role in adaptive adjustment of the plant''s response to growth conditions, by discussing their effect on plant development and the possible associations and feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues: light and nutrient status.     

Piriformospora indica mycorrhization increases grain yield by accelerating early development of barley plants

Root colonization by the basidiomycete fungus Piriformospora indica induces host plant tolerance against abiotic and biotic stress, and enhances growth and yield. As P. indica has a broad host range, it has been established as a model system to study beneficial plant-microbe interactions. Moreover, its properties led to the assumption that P. indica shows potential for application in crop plant production. Therefore, possible mechanisms of P. indica improving host plant yield were tested in outdoor experiments: Induction of higher grain yield in barley was independent of elevated pathogen levels and independent of different phosphate fertilization levels. In contrast to the arbuscular mycorrhiza fungus Glomus mosseae total phosphate contents of host plant roots and shoots were not significantly affected by P. indica. Analysis of plant development and yield parameters indicated that positive effects of P. indica on grain yield are due to accelerated growth of barley plants early in development.Key words: mycorrhiza, barley development, Piriformospora indica, phosphate uptake, grain yield, pathogen resistanceThe wide majority of plant roots in natural ecosystems is associated with fungi, which very often play an important role for the host plants'' fitness.¹ The widespread arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis formed by fungi of the phylum Glomeromycota is mainly characterized by providing phosphate to their host plant in exchange for carbohydrates.^2,3 Fungi of the order Sebacinales also form beneficial interactions with plant roots and Piriformospora indica is the best-studied example of this group.⁴ This endophyte was originally identified in the rhizosphere of shrubs in the Indian Thar desert,⁵ but it turned out that the fungus colonizes roots of a very broad range of mono- and dicotyledonous plants,⁶ including major crop plants.^7–9 Like other mutualistic endophytes, P. indica colonizes roots in an asymptomatic manner¹⁰ and promotes growth in several tested plant species.^6,11,12 The root endophyte, moreover, enhances yield in barley and tomato and increases in both plants resistance against biotic stresses,^7,9 suggesting that application in agri- and horticulture could be successful.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵