The regulatory network of cell cycle progression is fundamentally different in plants versus yeast or metazoans

Plant growth and proliferation control is coming into a global focus due to recent ecological and economical developments. Plants represent not only the largest food supply for mankind but also may serve as a global source of renewable energies. However, plant breeding has to accomplish a tremendous boost in yield to match the growing demand of a still rapidly increasing human population. Moreover, breeding has to adjust to changing environmental conditions, in particular increased drought. Regulation of cell cycle control is a major determinant of plant growth and therefore an obvious target for plant breeding. Furthermore, cell cycle control is also crucial for the DNA damage response, for instance upon irradiation. Thus, an in-depth understanding of plant cell cycle regulation is of importance beyond a scientific point of view. The mere presence of many conserved core cell cycle regulators, e.g., CDKs, cyclins or CDK inhibitors, has formed the idea that the cell cycle in plants is exactly or at least very similarly controlled as in yeast or human cells. Here together with a recent publication we demonstrate that this dogma is not true and show that the control of entry into mitosis is fundamentally different in plants versus yeast or metazoans. Our findings build an important base for the understanding and ultimate modulation of plant growth not only during unperturbed but also under harsh environmental conditions.Key words: cell cycle, phosphorylation, checkpoint, DNA damage, cyclin-dependent kinase, CDK, WEE1, CDC25, ArabidopsisProgression through the cell cycle is not only a decisive event for a single cell but also of key importance for organ growth in multicellular organisms such as plants.^1,2 Moreover, coupled to and overlapping in space and time with proliferation, cell differentiation takes place and thus, a tight control of the cell cycle is one of the foundations of development.³ Thus, not very surprisingly, an elaborated machinery controlling cell cycle regulation has evolved and overall, many proteins appear to be conserved between humans and plants.^4,5 However, there are also clear differences in the repertoire of cell cycle regulators in plants and functional studies have often not yet been conducted to elucidate the specific role of many regulators.In metazoans, a switch-like activation of the central cyclin-dependent kinase, Cdk1 (or its homologous proteins, e.g., Cdc2⁺ or CDC28p) plays one of the most important roles in cell cycle control.⁶ Wee1-type kinases, e.g., Wee1 or Myt1, phosphorylate Cdk1-type kinases at Thr14 and Tyr15 (or the homologous positions) and inhibit their activity (Fig. 1A).⁷ The function of these kinases is opposed by Cdc25 that acts as dual specificity phosphatase and removes these phosphate groups leading to the rapid activation of Cdk1-type kinases. This inhibition of Cdk1 activity by Wee1 and its release by Cdc25 fulfill a fundamental function during metazoan cell cycle control ensures the unidirectionality of the cell cycle.^8,9 The underlying molecular mechanism for this is a wiring of Cdk1 with Cdc25 or Wee1 by positive and antagonistic (double-negative) feedback loops, i.e., Cdk1 activates its activator Cdc25 and inactivates its inhibitor Wee1 (Fig. 1C). Thus, there are only two stable steady states, inactive or active; this bistability generates a biological switch. The transition from one state to the other is thought to be brought about by rising and falling levels of cyclins as activating subunits of CDKs. Moreover, due to the positive feedback wiring, the two steady states are buffered against small changes in cyclin levels, i.e., it takes a much higher concentration of cyclins to switch from G₂-phase into mitosis than to stay in mitosis. This property of feed-back wiring, called hysteresis, greatly reinforces the unidirectionality of the cell cycle (Fig. 1A and C).^10,11Open in a separate windowFigure 1Computational analysis of the switch-like activation of Cdk1-like kinases. (A and B) show steady-state activity of CDKs as a function of cyclin levels. (A) CDK/cyclin activity regulated via inhibitory Tyr15-phosphorylation of the CDK catalytic subunit of the complex. (B) CDK/cyclin activity control is achieved by stoichiometrically acting CDK inhibitors (CKIs). Both switches allow building up inactivated kinase and once a cyclin level has reached a threshold, high levels of kinase activity are rapidly available that can forcefully promote the entry into the next cell cycle phase. Importantly, a small drop in cyclin levels is not sufficient to change the activity state, thus the system is buffered and once the decision is taken to enter the next cell cycle phase, this cannot easily be reverted. (C) Double-negative and positive feedback loops targeting the status of inhibitory CDK phosphorylation. CDK activity is governed via inhibitory phosphorylation by WEE1/MYT1 kinases and activatory dephosphorylation by CDC25 phosphatases. CDK can phosphorylate WEE1/MYT1 to inactivate its own inactivator and CDK activates its own activator CDC25 by phosphorylation.¹¹ (D) Double-negative feedback loop of the CDK-CKI module.⁴³ CKIs inhibit CDKs and, in turn, CDKs promote CKI degradation.⁴²Cdc25 and the feedback loops sketched above are also major targets of a checkpoint response and interruption of these can effectively arrest the cell cycle. For instance, in animals, DNA damage is sensed by ATM and ATR kinases that in turn activate Chk1 and Chk2 kinases which then will phosphorylate and inactivate Cdc25 allowing the cell to repair its damage.^12,13 In parallel, Chk1/2 activate Wee1 by phosphorylation and reinforce the checkpoint.Previously, candidate genes for Cdc25 and Wee1 homologs have been identified in Arabidopsis as well as in other plants.^14–18 Along with the finding that plants contain Cdk1-like kinases with a PSTAIRE cyclin binding signature, designated CDKAs, which can rescue yeast cdc2/cdc28 mutants,^19–22 this has given rise to the notion that the wiring of the regulatory triangle CDKA-CDC25-WEE1 is conserved in plants.Here and in an accompanying publication by Dissmeyer et al.²³ we have probed this notion by a detailed structure-function analysis. Our data demonstrate that the regulatory connection between these three components is not conserved and that plants must have evolved different mechanisms to stably progress through a mitotic cycle and arrest the cell cycle upon DNA damage.     

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?     

The galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG) contributes to photosynthesis-related processes in Arabidopsis thaliana

Processes putatively dependent on the galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG) were recently studied using the knockdown monogalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (mgd1-1) mutant (∼40% reduction in MGDG). Surprisingly, targeting of chloroplast proteins was not affected in mgd1-1 mutants, suggesting they retain sufficient MGDG to maintain efficient targeting. However, in dark-grown mgd1-1 plants the photoactive to photoinactive protochlorophyllide (Pchlide) ratio was increased, suggesting that photoprotective responses are induced in them. Nevertheless, mgd1-1 could not withstand high light intensities, apparently due to impairment of another photoprotective mechanism, the xanthophyll cycle (and hence thermal dissipation). This was mediated by increased conductivity of the thylakoid membrane leading to a higher pH in the thylakoid interior, which impaired the pH-dependent activation of violaxanthin de-epoxidase (VDE) and PsbS. These findings suggest that MGDG contribute directly to the regulation of photosynthesis-related processes.Key words: conductivity, galactolipid, light stress, photosynthesis, plastid, xanthophyllThe galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG), the major lipid in plastids,¹ is mainly synthesised in inner plastid envelopes,² where monogalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (MGD1) catalyses the last step of its production.³ Two MGDG-deficient mutants are known: the knockdown mgd1-1 mutant, which accumulates ∼40% less MGDG than wild type,⁴ and the null mutant mgd1-2, which displays extremely severe defects in chloroplast and plant development.⁵ Thus, the mgd1-1 mutant is more suitable for assessing putative roles of MGDG in processes such as protein targeting and photoprotection.There are conflicting indications regarding the involvement of galactolipids in chloroplast protein targeting: some suggest they play an important role,^6–10 but not all.^11,12 The data recently collected for mgd1-1 do not support MGDG''s involvement in protein targeting, since (inter alia) the level of MGDG in mgd1-1 mutants is clearly sufficient for efficient targeting.¹³ Further, the galactolipid associated with the TOC complex¹² is digalactosyldiacylglycerol (DGDG) and the digalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (dgd1) mutant,¹⁴ which has ∼10% of wild-type levels of DGDG, has impaired import efficiency.^15,16 Hence, this may indicate that DGDG is relatively more important for chloroplast import than MGDG.The prolamellar bodies (PLBs) of etioplasts have high lipid-to-protein ratios compared to thylakoids. Their major lipid and protein are MGDG and NADPH:Pchlide oxidoreductase (POR), respectively,¹⁷ and MGDG putatively plays an important role, interactively with POR, in the formation of PLBs.^18–20 The transformation of PLBs into thylakoids involves phototransformation of photoactive Pchlide (F656), a precursor of chlorophyll. Non-photoactive Pchlide (F631) is susceptible to photooxidative damage, but POR is believed to suppress this.^21,22 After excitation at 440 nm, mgd1-1 mutants display distinctly higher fluorescence emission peaks corresponding to photoactive Pchlide than wild type counterparts and (hence) higher photoactive:non-photoactive Pchlide ratios.¹³ These changes may be photoprotective responses that favour formation of photoactive Pchlide and optimize the plants'' opportunities to use light for chlorophyll production, enabling the transformation of etioplasts into chloroplasts.Interestingly,the xanthophyll cycle, another photoprotective mechanism, is impaired in mgd1-1.¹³ Normally, the xanthophyll cycle pigment violaxanthin is de-epoxidized into antheraxanthin, and then into zeaxanthin, by the enzyme VDE (Fig. 1), which is dependent on MGDG.²³ MGDG is also an integral component of photosynthetic complexes.^24–26 Thus, since mgd1-1 mutants have reduced total amounts of xanthophyll and chlorophyll pigments, but increased chlorophyll a/b ratios, their photosynthesis capacity is unsurprisingly reduced, even though the organization of their electron transport chains is not strongly affected by the MGDG deficiency.¹³Open in a separate windowFigure 1Reactions of the xanthophyll cycle (adapted from ref. ²⁹). VDE, violaxanthin de-epoxidase; ZE, zeaxanthin epoxidase.During short-term high light stress, antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin are thought to facilitate dissipation of excess light energy in the PSII antenna bed by non-photochemical quenching.^27,28 Upon high light stress the pH decreases, triggering photoprotective mechanisms via changes in the PSII antenna system. The PsbS protein, which is involved in thermal dissipation, is protonated and initiates a conformational change in the PSII antenna bed. This change is further stabilized by the de-epoxidation of violaxanthin to zeaxanthin by the luminal VDE.²⁸ However, the thermal dissipation is impaired in mgd1-1 mutants at high light intensities (>1000 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) making them more susceptible to light stress. Surprisingly, this is not mediated by direct effects on VDE and PsbS activities, but by changes in the proton conductivity of the thylakoid membrane.¹³The steady-state capacity of the xanthophyll cycle is reduced in mgd1-1 mutants, due to a ∼40% reduction in the proton motive force (pmf) across their thylakoid membranes, indicating that they have impaired capacities to energize these membranes. Nevertheless, the pmf is more or less equal to wild type under light-limited conditions (200 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹ light); it is only the increase in pmf in high light intensities that is impaired in the mutants.¹³ This leads to the thylakoid lumen being less acidic in mgd1-1 than in wild type, hampering full activation of VDE and PsbS. Thus, the thylakoid lumen pH is above the threshold level required for full activation of PsbS and VDE under steady-state conditions and so de-epoxidation rates are retarded and the equilibrium between zeaxanthin and violaxanthin starts to shift slightly towards violaxanthin (Fig. 2).¹³ Thus, increased conductivity of the thylakoid membranes is probably responsible for the diminished non-photochemical quenching in mgd1-1, and the findings strongly indicate that MGDG is required for efficient photosynthesis and photoprotection, in addition to being a physical membrane constituent.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic diagram illustrating the normal mode of action of the xanthophyll cycle. In standard light conditions, V is bound to the photosynthetic complexes and harvests light. In strong light, V is released from the complexes and converted to Z by VDE, which is unable to access V when it is associated with the photosynthetic complexes. The newly formed Z then binds to the photosynthetic complexes (at the PsbS protein), where it dissipates excess energy through NPQ. V, violaxanthin; A, antheraxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin; VDE, violaxanthin de-epoxidase; ZE, zeaxanthin epoxidase. Arrows indicate the directions of reactions.     

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.     

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.     

The Twisted Dwarf's ABC: How Immunophilins Regulate Auxin Transport

There is increasing evidence that immunophilins function as key regulators of plant development. One of the best investigated members, the multi-domain FKBP TWISTED DWARF1 (TWD1)/FKBP42, has been shown to reside on both the vacuolar and plasma membranes where it interacts in mirror image with two pairs of ABC transporters, MRP1/ MRP2 and PGP1/PGP19(MDR1), respectively. Twisted dwarf1 and pgp1/pgp19 mutants display strongly overlapping phenotypes, including reduction and disorientation of growth, suggesting functional interaction.In a recent work using plant and heterologous expression systems, TWD1 has been demonstrated to modulate PGP-mediated export of the plant hormone auxin, which controls virtually all plant developmental processes. Here we summarize recent molecular models on TWD1 function in plant development and PGP-mediated auxin tranport and discuss open questions.Key Words: Twisted Dwarf1, plant development, auxin, immunophilin, P-glycoprotein, ABC transporterFK506-binding Proteins (FKBPs), together with unrelated cyclophilins, belong to the immunophilins, an ancient and ubiquitous protein family.^1,4,5 They were first described as receptors for immunosuppressive drugs in animal and human cells, FK506 and cyclosporin A, respectively.¹ All FKBP-type immunophilins share a characteristic peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase domain (PPIase domain or FKBD, Fig. 2A) making protein folding a key feature among immunophilins.² The best investigated example, the human cytosolic single-domain FKBP12, modulates Ca²⁺ release channels^6,7 and associates with the cell cycle regulator TGF-β.⁸ Furthermore, the human FKBP12/FK506 complex is known to bind and inhibit calcineurin activity,⁹ leading to immune response inhibition. However, not all single- and multiple-domain FKBPs own folding activity and, interestingly, many form distinct protein complexes with diverse functions.^3–5Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model of TWISTED DWARF 1 interacting proteins. (A) Domain structure of TWD1 and putative interacting proteins. FKBD, FK506-binding domain: TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CaM(-BD, calmodulin-binding domain; MA, membrane anchor. For details, see text. (B) Functional TWD1-ABC transporter complexes on both the vacuolar and plasma membrane. While for TWD1/PGP pairs, the positive regulatory role on auxin transport was demonstrated,¹⁸ the modulation of MRP-mediated vacuolar import of glutathion conjugates (GS-X) was established using mammalian test substrates¹⁷ because the in vivo substrates are unknown. Note that C-terminal nucleotide binding folds of MRP- and PGP-like ABC transporters interact with distinct functional domains of TWD1, the TPR and FKBD, respectively. The native auxin, IAAH, gets trapped by deprotonization upon uptake into the cell. Export is catalyzed by secondary active export via PIN-like efflux carriers¹⁵ and/or by primary active, ATP-driven P-glycoproteins (PGPs, right panel); loss-of TWD1 function abolishes PGP-mediated auxin export (left panel).     

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.     

Arabidopsis glutathione reductase 1 is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol

We recently established a proteome methodology for Arabidopsis leaf peroxisomes and identified more than 90 putative novel proteins of the organelle. These proteins included glutathione reductase isoform 1 (GR1), a major enzyme of the antioxidative defense system that was previously reported to be cytosolic. In this follow-up study, we validated the proteome data by analyzing the in vivo subcellular targeting of GR1 and the function of its C-terminal tripeptide, TNL>, as a putative novel peroxisome targeting signal type 1 (PTS1). The full-length protein was targeted to peroxisomes in onion epidermal cells when fused N-terminally with the reporter protein. The efficiency of peroxisome targeting, however, was weak upon expression from a strong promoter, consistent with the idea that the enzyme is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol in vivo. The reporter protein that was extended C-terminally by 10 amino acid residues of GR1 was directed to peroxisomes, characterizing TNL> as a novel PTS1. The data thus identify plant peroxisomal GR at the molecular level in the first plant species and complete the plant peroxisomal ascorbate-glutathione cycle. Moreover, GR1 is the first plant protein that is dually targeted to peroxisomes and the cytosol. The evolutionary origin and regulatory mechanisms of dual targeting are discussed.Key words: ascorbate-glutathione cycle, dual targeting, proteome analyses, reactive oxygen species, targeting signalsMassive amounts of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) are produced during photosynthesis in peroxisomes by glycolate oxidase activity as part of the photorespiratory cycle.¹ Next to catalase, the ascorbate-glutathione cycle is the secondary scavenging system for H₂O₂ detoxification.^2–4 The cycle comprises four enzymes, ascorbate peroxidase (APX), monodehydroascorbate reductase (MDAR), dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR) and NADPH-dependent glutathione reductase (GR). GR plays a major physiological role in maintaining and regenerating reduced glutathione in response to biotic and abiotic stresses in plants.⁵ Jiminez et al. (1997) provided biochemical evidence for the presence of the antioxidants ascorbate and glutathione and the enzymes of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle in pea peroxisomes.^6–8 While Arabidopsis APX3, MDAR1 and MDAR4 have been characterized as peroxisomal isoforms,^9–11 the molecular identity of plant peroxisomal GR and DHAR have not been determined in any plant species to date.⁵ Arabidopsis encodes two GR and five DHAR isoforms that are either shown to be or predicted to be cytosolic, mitochondrial or plastidic.¹² We recently identified specific isoforms of GR (GR1, At3g24170) and DHAR (DHAR1, At1g19570) as being peroxisome-associated by proteome analysis of Arabidopsis leaf peroxisomes.^13,14 Both isoforms were previously reported to be or predicted to be cytosolic.¹⁵Arabidopsis GR1 terminates with TNL>, which is related to functional plant PTS1 tripeptides such as SNL> and ANL>.^16,17 Threonine (T), however, has not yet been described as an allowed residue at position −3 of PTS1s in any plant peroxisomal protein.¹⁶ Analysis of homologous plant proteins and expressed sequence tags (ESTs) shows that TNL> is generally highly conserved in putative plant GR1 orthologs (Fig. 1). A few other sequences terminate with related tripeptides, such TSL>, TTL>, NNL> and TKL>. Only a single EST (Picrorhiza kurrooa) carries the canonical PTS1, SKI> (Fig. 1). The data provide only weak additional support for peroxisome targeting of plant GR1 orthologs. However, GR homologs from green algae (chlorophyta) carry canonical PTS1 tripeptides, such as SKL> (Chlamydomonas, Volvox) and AKM> (Micromonas, Fig. 1, Suppl. Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Analysis of PTS1 conservation in plant GR1 homologs. Sequences of full-length protein (FLP) plant GR1 homologs or ESTs (“EST”) were identified by BLAST and phylogenetic analysis, aligned by ClustalX, and conserved residues were shaded by Genedoc. In addition to spermatophyta, homologs from bryophyta and chlorophyta were analyzed for PTS1 conservation. For a phylogenetic analysis of the full-length proteins, see also Supplementary Figure 1. The species abbreviations are as follows: Aa, Artemisia annua; At, Arabidopsis thaliana; Bn, Brassica napus; Br, Brassica rapa; Ci, Cichorium intybus; Cr, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii; Cs, Cynara scolymus; Fv, Fragaria vesca; Ha, Helianthus annuus; Msp, Micromonas sp. RCC 299; Mt, Medicago truncatula; Nt, Nicotiana tabacum; Os, Oryza sativa; Pk, Picrorhiza kurrooa; Ppat, Physcomitrella patens subsp. patens; Ps, Pisum sativum; Ptri, Populus trichocarpa; Rc, Ricinus communis; Rs, Raphanus sativus; Tp, Trifolium pratense; Tpus, Triphysaria pusilla; Vc, Volvox carteri f. nagariensis; Vv, Vitis vinifera; Zm, Zea mays.     

Induction as well as suppression: How aphid saliva may exert opposite effects on plant defense

Aphids ingest from the sieve tubes and by doing so they are confronted with sieve-tube occlusion mechanisms, which are part of the plant defense system. Because aphids are able to feed over longer periods, they must be able to prevent occlusion of the sieve plates induced by stylet penetration. Occlusion probably depends upon Ca²⁺-influx into the sieve element (SE) lumen. Aphid behavior, biochemical tests and in vitro experiments demonstrated that aphid''s watery saliva, injected during initial phase of a stylet penetration into the SE lumen, contains proteins that are able to bind calcium and prevent calcium-induced SE occlusion. In this addendum, we speculate on the consequences of saliva secretion for plant resistance. (a) The release of elicitors (e.g., oligogalacturonides) due to cell wall digestion by gel saliva enzymes may increase the resistance of cortex, phloem parenchyma cells and companion cells (CC) around the puncture site. (b) Ca²⁺-binding by aphid watery saliva may suppress the local defense responses in the SEs. (c) Signaling cascades triggered in CCs may lead to systemic resistance.Key words: aphid saliva, calcium binding, elicitor, oligogalacturonides, local plant defense, systemic plant defense, phloem translocation, aphid/plant-interactionAfter having penetrated the sieve-element (SE) plasma membrane, aphids encounter unspecific wound-induced occlusion reactions to prevent sap leakage.^1–4 Occlusion mechanisms by callose, structural P-proteins and forisomes are likely induced by a sudden calcium influx into the sieve-tube lumen.⁵ Calcium possibly enters the sieve-tube lumen through the stylet wounding-site in the plasma membrane and/or stretch-activated calcium-channels.^6–8 After SE penetration, aphids secrete watery saliva that contains calcium-binding proteins presumed to sabotage sieve-plate occlusion.^9,10We demonstrated that Megoura viciae (Buckton) is most likely able to prevent or reduce sieve-tube occlusion in Vicia faba by secretion of watery saliva. By in vitro confrontation of isolated forisomes, protein bodies responsible for sieve-tube occlusion in Fabaceaen,⁵ and watery saliva concentrate, we were able to show that salivary proteins convey forisomes from a dispersed (+Ca²⁺) into a condensed (−Ca²⁺) state.¹⁰ The dispersed forisome functions in vivo as a plug, leading to stoppage of mass flow.⁵This in vitro evidence was corroborated by aphid behavior in response to leaf tip burning, which triggers an electrical potential wave (EPW) along the sieve tubes. Such an EPW induces Ca²⁺-influx and corresponding SE occlusion along the pathway.¹¹ The passage of the EPW is associated with a prolonged secretion of watery saliva of aphids. This is interpreted as an attempt to unplug the SEs by calcium binding.¹⁰ Similar behavioral changes in response to leaf-tip burning were observed in an extended set of aphid/plant species combinations, indicating that attempted sabotage of sieve-tube occlusion by aphid saliva is a widespread phenomenon (unpublished).Aphid feeding was reported to induce local (on the same leaf) and systemic (in distant leaves) reactions of the host plant. The local response led to enhanced feeding,^12–14 while the systemic response showed reduced ingestion and extended periods of watery saliva secretion in sieve tubes distant from previous feeding sites.^12–14 These contrasting observations were described to be independent of the aphid species.¹³ The question arises how aphids induce these seemingly opposite plant responses?The aphid stylet pushing forward through cortical and vascular tissue is surrounded by a sheath of gel saliva, secreted into the apoplast.^15,16 Gel saliva contains cellulase and pectinase that amongst others produce oligogalacturonides (OGs) along the stylet sheath by digestion of cell wall material.^17,18 Usually, OGs act as elicitors, triggering a variety of plant responses against pathogens and insects in which the activation of calcium channels is involved.^19,20 This seems to conflict with a suppression of resistance as observed for the impact of watery saliva in SEs.¹⁰ We will make an attempt to explain this paradoxon.OG induced defense responses may be triggered in all cell types adjacent to the salivary sheath (Fig. 1). Because watery saliva is only secreted briefly into these cells, which are punctured for orientation purposes (Hewer et al., unpublished), it seems unlikely that OG induced defense is suppressed here by saliva-mediated calcium binding.¹⁵ The diffusion range of OGs may be restricted to the close vicinity of the stylet sheath leading to an enhanced regional defense with a limited sphere of action (Fig. 1). Because the settling distance of aphids is restricted by their body size (1–10 mm),²¹ aphids feeding on the same leaf are probably hardly confronted with the regional defense induced by another aphid (Fig. 1). Otherwise, they would show an increased number of test probes before first phloem activity, as described for volatile mediated plant defense in cortex cells.¹³ Circumstantial support in favor of our hypothesis is provided by production of hydrogen peroxide in the apoplast,²² which is most likely associated with the action of OGs.²² Observations of hydrogen peroxide production during aphid (Macrosiphum euphorbiae) infestation of tomato in a limited area along the leaf veins, the preferred feeding sites of this species, indicate a locally restricted defense response (Fig. 1 and ​and22).⁴ The question arises why the cell signals are not spread via plasmodesmata to adjacent cells to induce resistance in a more extended leaf area? Dissemination of the signals may be prevented by closure of plasmodesmata (Fig. 1) through callose deposition,^23,24 which is most likely directly coupled with calcium influx induced by OGs,²⁵ by apoplastic hydrogen peroxide and to a minor extent by stylet puncture (Fig. 2).^7,26Open in a separate windowFigure 1Hypothetical model on how stylet penetration induces and suppresses plant defense. Sheath saliva (light blue) that envelopes the stylet during propagation through the apoplast contains cellulase and pectinase,^17,18 enzymes producing elicitors (e.g., oligogalacturonides (oGs)) by local cell wall digestion.¹⁹ Parenchyma cells adjacent to the sheath may develop a defense response owing to signaling cascades triggered by oG-mediated Ca²⁺-influx.¹⁹ Together with a Ca²⁺-dependent transient closure of plasmodesmata by callose (black crosses),^23,24 the focused production of oGs may cause a defense response with a limited sphere of action (red—strong, brown—light, green—none). This restricted domain of defense may not be perceived by other aphids, since the settling distance is limited by the aphid body size. Nearby aphids do not show any sign of defense perception in their probing and feeding behavior.¹⁴ Signaling cascade compounds may be channeled from parenchyma cells to CCs (dashed yellow arrows), where they are subsequently released into the SEs. There they may act as long-distance systemic defense components (grey arrows). In contrast to the parenchyma domain (where only minor amounts of watery saliva are secreted), Ca²⁺-mediated reactions such as defense cascades and sieve-plate (SP) occlusion are suppressed in SEs by large amounts of watery saliva. The left aphid penetrates an SE and injects watery saliva (red cloud; ws) that inhibits local sieve-plate occlusion and,¹⁰ most likely, is transported by mass flow (black arrow) to adjacent SEs,²⁷ where occlusion is impeded as well. A short-distance systemic spread over a few centimeters may explain local suppression of plant defense resulting in a higher rate of colonization. Salivary proteins or their degradation products may serve as systemic defense signals as well (grey arrows), but may also diffuse via the PPUs into CCs where additional systemic signals are induced (yellow arrows).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Hypothetical involvement of Ca²⁺-channels in aphid-induced cell defense (detail). During probing with its stylet the aphid secretes gel saliva as a lubrication substance (light blue) into the apoplast.¹⁵ on the way to the sieve tubes, aphids briefly puncture most non-phloem cells (red) after which the puncturing sites are sealed with gel saliva.^7,16 Gel saliva also most likely prevents the influx of apoplastic calcium into pierced sieve elements (green) by sealing the penetration site.⁷ Watery saliva (red cloud), injected into the SE lumen,⁹ contains proteins which bind calcium ions (marked by X) that enter the SE via e.g., mechano sensitive Ca²⁺-channels activated by stylet penetration (blue tons).¹⁰ In this way, aphids suppress SE occlusion and activation of local defense cascades. In the parenchyma cells around the gel saliva sheath, a small cylindrical zone of defense may be induced by oligogalacturonides (oGs; brown triangles) produced by cell wall (grey) digestion.^17–19 Perceived by unknown receptor proteins (R; e.g., a receptor like protein kinase)³⁴ and kinase mediation (black dotted and dashed arrows), oGs lead to a Ca²⁺-influx through kinase activated calcium channels (orange tons).²⁵ Around the probing site, aphids apparently induce the production of superoxide by Ca²⁺-induced activation of the NADPH oxidase (violet box) and its following conversion to hydrogen peroxide (red spots) is mediated by superoxide dismutase (SoD).⁴ Hydrogen peroxide activates Ca²⁺-channels (violet tons) and diffuses through plasma membrane (curled arrows) therefore potentially acting as a intracellular signal.²⁶By contrast, Ca²⁺-influx into SEs, induced by presence of OGs or stylet insertion (Fig. 2), is not expected to trigger local defense given the abundant excretion of Ca²⁺-binding watery saliva.^7,10,25 Watery saliva may spread to down-stream and adjacent SEs through transverse and lateral sieve plates (Fig. 1).^7,27 Aphids puncturing nearby SEs may therefore encounter less severe sieve-plate occlusion which results in facilitated settling and thus in increased population growth. Aggregation of feeding aphids would self-amplify population growth until a certain density is attained. Farther from the colonization site, this effect may be lost due to dilution. Stimulation of aphid feeding by aphid infestation was observed locally on potato by Myzus persicae and M. euphorbiae, respectively, 96 h after infestation.¹³ However, a similar effect was not observed for M. persicae on Arabidopsis thaliana where aphids induced premature leaf senescence and resistance 12 h after infestation,²⁸ possibly induced by OGs.¹⁹As a speculation, OG induced Ca²⁺-influx into parenchyma cells adjacent to the salivary sheath activate Ca²⁺-induced signaling cascades via CaM,^26,29 CDPKs,^30,31 MAPKinases and reactive oxygen species (Fig. 2).³² Systemic resistance, induced by aphid infestation,^12–14 is mediated by unknown compounds such as, e.g., salivary proteins, their degradation products, signal cascade products or volatiles.¹³ Compounds produced in CCs first have to pass the PPUs, while SE signaling elements can be directly transported via mass flow (Fig. 1).The question arises if aphids profit from induced resistance on local (cortex and parenchyma cells) and systemic (distant plant organs) levels as holds for suppression of defense in SEs. Possibly settling and subsequent spread of competing pathogens/herbivores (e.g., fungi or other piercing-sucking insects) are suppressed by induced defense. In this context it is intriguing to understand how aphids cope with the self-induced systemic resistance, which probably lasts over weeks.³³