Flowering time regulation by the SUMO E3 ligase SIZ1

Flowering is a developmental process, which is influenced by chemical and environmental stimuli. Recently, our research established that the Arabidopsis SUMO E3 ligase, AtSIZ1, is a negative regulator of transition to flowering through mechanisms that reduce salicylic acid (SA) accumulation and involve SUMO modification of FLOWERING LOCUS D (FLD). FLD is an autonomous pathway determinant that represses the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a floral repressor. This addendum postulates mechanisms by which SIZ1-mediated SUMO conjugation regulates SA accumulation and FLD activity.Key words: SIZ1, SA, flowering, SUMO, FLD, FLCSUMO conjugation and deconjugation are post-translational processes implicated in plant defense against pathogens, abscisic acid (ABA) and phosphate (Pi) starvation signaling, development, and drought and temperature stress tolerance, albeit only a few of the modified proteins have been identified.^1–8 The Arabidopsis AtSIZ1 locus encodes a SUMO E3 ligase that regulates floral transition and leaf development.^8,9 siz1 plants accumulate substantial levels of SA, which is the primary cause for dwarfism and early short-day flowering exhibited by these plants.^1,9 How SA promotes transition to flowering is not yet known but apparently, it is through a mechanism that is independent of the known floral signaling pathways.^9,10 Exogenous SA reduces expression of AGAMOUS-like 15 (AGL15), a floral repressor that functions redundantly with AGL18.^11,12 A possible mechanism by which SA promotes transition to flowering may be by repressing expression of AGL15 and AGL18 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model of how SUMO conjugation and deconjugation regulate plant development in Arabidopsis. SIZ1 and Avr proteins regulate biosynthesis and accumulation of SA, a plant stress hormone that is involved in plant innate immunity, leaf development and regulation of flowering time. SA promotes transition to flowering may through AGL15/AGL18 dependent and independent pathways. FLC expression is activated by FRIGIDA but repressed by the autonomous pathway gene FLD, and SIZ1-mediated sumoylation of FLD represses its activity. Lines with arrows indicate upregulation (activation), and those with bars identify downregulation (repression).siz1 mutations also cause constitutive induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes leading to enhanced resistance against biotrophic pathogens.¹ Several bacterial type III effector proteins, such as YopJ, XopD and AvrXv4, have SUMO isopeptidase activity.^13–15 PopP2, a member of YopJ/AvrRxv bacterial type III effector protein family, physically interacts with the TIR-NBS-LRR type R protein RRS1, and possibly stabilizes the RRS1 protein.¹⁶ Phytopathogen effector and plant R protein interactions lead to increased SA biosynthesis and accumulation, which in turn activates expression of pathogenesis-related proteins that facilitate plant defense.¹⁷ SIZ1 may participate in SUMO conjugation of plant R proteins to regulate Avr and R protein interactions leading to SA accumulation, which, in turn, affects phenotypes such as diseases resistance, dwarfism and flowering time (Fig. 1).Our recent work revealed also that AtSIZ1 facilitates FLC expression, negatively regulating flowering.⁹ AtSIZ1 promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD activity.⁹ Site-specific mutations that prevent SUMO1/2 conjugation to FLD result in enhanced activity of the protein to represses FLC expression, which is associated with reduced acetylation of histone 4 (H4) in FLC chromatin.⁹ FLD, an Arabidopsis ortholog of Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1), is a floral activator that downregulates methylation of H3K4 in FLC chromatin and represses FLC expression.^18,19 Interestingly, bacteria expressing recombinant FLD protein did not demethylate H3K4me2, inferring that the demethylase activity requires additional co-factors as are necessary for LSD1.^18,20 Together, these results suggest that SIZ1-mediated SUMO modification of FLD may affect interactions between FLD and co-factors, which is necessary for FLC chromatin modification.Despite our results that implicate SA in flowering time control, how SIZ1 regulates SA accumulation and the identity of the effectors involved remain to be discovered. In addition, it remains to be determined if SIZ1 is involved in other mechanisms that modulate FLD activity and FLC expression, or the function of other autonomous pathway determinants.     

Flowering regulation by tissue specific functions of photoreceptors

Flowering is one of the most important steps in a plant life cycle. Plants utilize light as an informational source to determine the timing of flowering. In Arabidopsis, phytochrome A (phyA), phyB and cryptochrome2 (cry2) are major photoreceptors that regulate flowering. These photoreceptors perceive light stimuli by leaves for the regulation of flowering. A leaf is an organ consisting of different tissues such as epidermis, mesophyll and vascular bundles. In the present study, we examined in which tissue the light signals are perceived and how those signals are integrated within a leaf to regulate flowering. For this purpose, we established transgenic Arabidopsis lines that expressed a phyB-green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion protein or a cry2-GFP fusion protein in organ/tissue-specific manners. Consequently, phyB was shown to perceive light stimuli in mesophyll. By contrast, cry2 functioned only in vascular bundles. We further confirmed that both phyB-GFP and cry2-GFP regulated flowering by altering the expression of a key flowering gene, FT, in vascular bundles. In summary, perception sites for different spectra of light are spatially separated within a leaf and the signals are integrated through the inter-tissue communication.Key words: photoreceptor, light, flowering, phytochrome, cryptochrome, inter-tissue signalThe timing of flowering is strictly regulated by environmental conditions such as light. Two aspects of light, spectral nature and photoperiod, dramatically affect flowering. In Arabidopsis, phyB and phyA/cry2 are the major photoreceptors mediating these responses. Although photoreceptors are expressed in almost all organs,¹ partial irradiation and grafting analyses have demonstrated that plants perceive light signals only in leaves.^2–4 However, roles for different tissues in a leaf remained unknown due to a lack of a proper method. To answer the question, we established Arabidopsis transgenic lines that expressed phyB-GFP or cry2-GFP on the respective mutant backgrounds. The resultant transgenic lines were examined for their flowering phenotype. Consequently, we found that phyB-GFP in mesophyll but not in other tissues regulated flowering.⁵ By contrast, cry2-GFP functioned only in vascular bundles.⁶A strong genetic interaction between phyB and cry2 in the regulation of flowering is known.^7,8 Cry2 regulates the flowering by suppressing the inhibitory effect of phyB on flowering. Hence, cry2 function is observed only in the presence of phyB. Conversely, the effect of phyB is exaggerated in the cry2 mutant, because phyB is not counteracted by cry2 in its absence. Here, we tested how phyB and cry2 in different tissues regulated flowering in the absence of the other photoreceptor. For this purpose, we took a physiological approach. Phenotype of the phyB-GFP lines was examined under monochromatic red light, in which phyB but not cyr2 is activated. As expected, phyB-GFP in mesophyll but not in vascular bundles strongly affected the flowering in this condition (Fig. 1A). We also tested the cry2-GFP function when phyB was not activated. Namely, plants were placed under blue light supplemented with strong far-red light. As expected, cry2-GFP failed to affect the flowering even under this condition regardless of where it was expressed (Fig. 1B).Open in a separate windowFigure 1FT expression under phyB or cry2 inactive conditions. Total RNA was extracted from the seedlings grown under long-day condition for 10 days and subjected to qRT-PCR for FT expression analysis. Data were normalized to the level of FT mRNA in (A) of the wild type, which was set to 1 arbitrary unit (a.u.). Mean ± SE (n = 4). WT, wild type. (A) Long-day red light, (16L 8D; 10 µmol m^-2 s^-1). WT, wild type; phyB, phyB mutant; Bpro, PHYB promoter-PHYB-GFP; PBT56, phyB-GFP in mesophyll; PBT239, phyB-GFP in vascular bundles.⁵ (B) Long-day blue and far-red light (16L 8D; blue light, 3 µmol m^-2 s^-1; far-red light, 10 µmol m^-2 s^-1). WT, wild type; cry2, cry2 mutant; pCRY-C2G, CRY2 promoter-CRY2-GFP; pCAB-C2G, CAB3 promoter-CRY2-GFP; pSUC-C2G, SUC2 promoter-CRY2-GFP.⁶Photoreceptors regulate flowering by altering the expression of a key flowering regulator, FT.^9,10 Interestingly, the FT gene is expressed specifically in vascular bundles.¹¹ Indeed, mesophyll phyB-GFP controlled the expression of FT in vascular bundles. Hence, there must be a mechanism by which the light signal is transduced from mesophyll to vascular bundles to regulate the FT expression in vascular bundles. It should be noted here that FT is not the sole factor involved in the light regulation of flowering. Factors such as CO, SPA, COP1 and PFT1 are known to link the photoreceptors and FT.^12–14 These factors most likely function in leaves. However, their function sites at the tissue level remain totally unknown except for CO. The biological clock is another class of machinery that is tightly related to the light signal transduction pathway.¹⁵ Unfortunately, function sites of the clock components for the regulation of flowering remain unclear. The future work should reveal those sites. Such analyses should finally provide a complete picture illustrating a network of the inter-tissue signaling for the regulation of flowering.The present work urges us to indentify the molecule that mediates the inter-tissue signaling between mesophyll and vascular bundles. Potential candidates include phytohormones, microRNA¹⁶ and peptides.¹⁷ Among phytohormones, gibberellin promotes flowering.¹⁸ However, gibberellin is probably not the answer because gibberellin does not alter the FT expression directly. Except gibberellin, no exogenously added phythromone dramatically affects flowering in Arabidopsis. It is known that microRNA such as miR172, miR159 and miR156 are involved in the regulation of flowering time.¹⁹ However, those microRNA''s neither regulate the FT expression nor are regulated by light. Since most of microRNA''s has not been intensively studied yet, it remains possible that one of them may mediate the above inter-tissue signal. Another potential candidate is a peptide. Although not much is known about peptide hormones in plants yet, peptides such as PSK,²⁰ xylogen²¹ and CLE²² have been shown to regulate cell growth and differentiation. Although none of peptides is known to regulate flowering in plants at present, a future work may reveal a novel peptide that mediates the inter-tissue signals for flowering.     

Mannan synthase activity in the CSLD family

Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL) proteins are a group of plant glycosyltransferases that are predicted to synthesize β-1,4-linked polysaccharide backbones. CSLC, CSLF and CSLH families have been confirmed to synthesize xyloglucan and mixed linkage β-glucan, while CSLA family proteins have been shown to synthesize mannans. The polysaccharide products of the five remaining CSL families have not been determined. Five CSLD genes have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana and a role in cell wall biosynthesis has been demonstrated by reverse genetics. We have extended past research by producing a series of double and triple Arabidopsis mutants and gathered evidence that CSLD2, CSLD3 and CSLD5 are involved in mannan synthesis and that their products are necessary for the transition between early developmental stages in Arabidopsis. Moreover, our data revealed a complex interaction between the three glycosyltransferases and brought new evidence regarding the formation of non-cellulosic polysaccharides through multimeric complexes.Key words: mannan, mannose, plant cell wall, glycosyltransferase, cellulose synthase like, CSL, biosynthesis, hemicelluloseThe plant cell wall is mainly composed of polysaccharides, which are often grouped into cellulose, hemicelluloses and pectin. Since the discovery of the first cellulose synthase (CESA) genes in cotton fibers,¹ the synthesis of cellulose has been extensively studied.² In contrast, the glycosyltransferases responsible for synthesizing hemicelluloses and pectin are still largely unidentified.^3,4,5 The CESA genes are members of a superfamily that includes genes with a high sequence similarity with CESA genes and are named Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL).⁶ The CSL genes have themselves been grouped into nine families designated CSLA, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, -H and -J (Figure 1A).^5,6 Mannan and glucomannan synthase activity has been demonstrated in the CSLA family,^7,8,9 while members of the CSLC family have been implicated in synthesis of the xyloglucan backbone.¹⁰ CSLF and CSLH, which are found only in grasses, are involved in synthesis of mixed linkage glucan.^11,12 The function of the remaining CSL families has not been determined. We have reported our research on the CSLD family in a recent publication.¹³ Of all the CSL families, CSLD possesses the most ancient intron/exon structure and is the most similar to the CESA family.⁶ CSLD genes are found in all sequenced genomes of terrestrial plants including Physcomitrella and Selaginella suggesting a highly conserved function throughout the plant kingdom (Figure 1A). Five genes (CSLD1 to CSLD5) and one apparent pseudogene (CSLD6) have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹⁴ Bernal et al.^14,15 studied knock-out mutants of the individual genes and presented evidence for a role in cell wall biosynthesis for each Arabidopsis CSLD. To elucidate the activity of the CSLD proteins and obtain further understanding of their biological role, we generated double mutants csld2/csld3, csld2/csld5, csld3/csld5 and the triple mutant csld2/csld3/csld5. Immunochemical, biochemical and complementation assays brought evidence that CSLD5 or CSLD2 in concomitance with CSLD3 act as mannan synthases.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Schematic representation of the CESA superfamily phylogeny. The inset on the right is a detailed phylogenetic tree of CSLDs from Selaginella moellendorffii, Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. The figure is modified from Ulvskov and Scheller.⁵ (B) Comparison of csld2, csld3, csld5 with Col-0 20 days after germination. The inflorescences of csld2 and csld3 were similar to Col-0 whereas csld5 had a delayed growth. Scale bar: 1 cm. (C) Col-0 and csld2/csld3/csld5 (triple mutant, TM) 40 days after germination. After 40 days, the triple mutant was barely developed and, as shown in the magnified inset, displayed purple coloration indicating accumulation of anthocyanins, a typical stress response. Scale bar: 2 mm.     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP kinase successively mediate H2O2 signaling in Vicia guard cell

As a second messenger, H₂O₂ generation and signal transduction is subtly controlled and involves various signal elements, among which are the members of MAP kinase family. The increasing evidences indicate that both MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase mediate ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in plant cells. Here we analyze the mechanisms of similarity and difference between MEK1/2 and p38-like MAP protein kinase in mediating ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation, inhibition of inward K⁺ currents, and stomatal closure. These data suggest that activation of MEK1/2 is prior to p38-like protein kinase in Vicia guard cells.Key words: H₂O₂ signaling, ABA, p38-like MAP kinase, MEK1/2, guard cellAn increasing number of literatures elucidate that reactive oxygen species (ROS), especially H₂O₂, is essential to plant growth and development in response to stresses,^1–4 and involves activation of various signaling events, among which are the MAP kinase cascades.^1–3,5 Typically, activation of MEK1/2 mediates NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS generation in response to stresses,^4,6–8 and the facts that MEK1/2 inhibits the expression and activation of antioxidant enzymes reveal how PD98059, the specific inhibitor of MEK1/2, abolishes abscisic acid (ABA)-induced H₂O₂ generation.^6,8,9 It has been indicated that PD98059 does not to intervene on salicylic acid (SA)-stimulated H₂O₂ signaling regardless of SA mimicking ABA in regulating stomatal closure.^2,6,8,10 Generally, activation of MEK1/2 promotes ABA-induced stomatal closure by elevating H₂O₂ generation in conjunction with inactivating anti-oxidases.Moreover, activation of plant p38-like protein kinase, the putative counterpart of yeast or mammalian p38 MAP kinase, has been reported to participate in various stress responses and ROS signaling. It has been well documented that p38 MAP kinase is involved in stress-triggered ROS signaling in yeast or mammalian cells.^11–13 Similar to those of yeast and mammals, many studies showed the activation of p38-like protein kinase in response to stresses in various plants, including Arabidopsis thaliana,^14–16 Pisum sativum,¹⁷ Medicago sativa¹⁸ and tobacco.¹⁹ The specific p38 kinase inhibitor SB203580 was found to modulate physiological processes in plant tissues or cells, such as wheat root cells,²⁰ tobacco tissue²¹ and suspension-cultured Oryza sativa cells.²² Recently, we investigate how activation of p38-like MAP kinase is involved in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling in guard cells. Our results show that SB203580 blocks ABA-induced stomatal closure by inhibiting ABA-induced H₂O₂ generation and decreasing K⁺ influx across the plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells, contrasting greatly with its analog SB202474, which has no effect on these events.^23,24 This suggests that ABA integrate activation of p38-like MAP kinase and H₂O₂ signaling to regulate stomatal behavior. In conjunction with SB203580 mimicking PD98059 not to mediate SA-induced H₂O₂ signaling,^23,24 these results generally reveal that the activation of p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 is similar in guard cells.On the other hand, activation of p38-like MAP kinase^23,24 is not always identical to that of MEK1/2^8,25 in ABA-induced H₂O₂ signaling of Vicia guard cells. For example, H₂O₂^- and ABA-induced stomatal closure was partially reversed by SB203580. The maximum inhibition of both regent-induced stomatal closure were observed at 2 h after treatment with SB203580, under which conditions the stomatal apertures were 89% and 70% of the control values, respectively. By contrast, when PD98059 was applied together with ABA or H₂O₂, the effects of both ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure were completely abolished (Fig. 1). These data imply that the two members of MAP kinase family are efficient in H₂O₂-stimulated stomatal closure, but p38-like MAP kinase is less susceptive than MEK1/2 to ABA stimuli.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effects of SB203580 and PD98059 on ABA- and H₂O₂-induced stomatal closure. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.^8,23,24It has been reported that ABA or NaCl activate p38 MAP kinase in the chloronema cells of the moss Funaria hygrometrica in 2∼10 min.²⁶ Similar to this, SB203580 improves H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents after 4 min and leads it to the control level (100%) during the following 8 min (Fig. 2). However, the activation of p38-like MAP kinase in response to ABA need more time, and only recovered to 75% of the control at 8 min of treatment (Fig. 2). These results suggest that control of H₂O₂ signaling is required for the various protein kinases including p38-like MAP kinase and MEK1/2 in guard cells,^1,2,8,23,24 and the ABA and H₂O₂ pathways diverge further downstream in their actions on the K⁺ channels and, thus, on stomatal control. Other differences in action between ABA and H₂O₂ are known. For example, Köhler et al. (2001) reported that H₂O₂ inhibited the K⁺ outward rectifier in guard cells shows that H₂O₂ does not mimic ABA action on guard cell ion channels as it acts on the K⁺ outward rectifier in a manner entirely contrary to that of ABA.²⁷Open in a separate windowFigure 2Effect of SB203580 on ABA- and H₂O₂-inhibited inward K⁺ currents. The experimental procedure and data analysis are according to the previous publication.²⁴ SB203580 directs ABA- and H₂O₂-inactivated inward K⁺ currents across plasma membrane of Vicia guard cells. Here the inward K⁺ currents value is stimulated by −190 mV voltage.Based on the similarity and difference between PD98059 and SB203580 in interceding ABA and H₂O₂ signaling, we speculate the possible mechanism is that the member of MAP kinase family specially regulate signal event in ABA-triggered ROS signaling network,^1–4 and the signaling model as follows (Fig. 3).Open in a separate windowFigure 3Schematic illustration of MAP kinase-mediated H₂O₂ signaling of guard cells. The arrows indicate activation. The line indicates enhancement and the bar denotes inhibition.     

A new callose function: Involvement in differentiation and function of fern stomatal complexes

Callose in polypodiaceous ferns performs multiple roles during stomatal development and function. This highly dynamic (1→3)-β-D-glucan, in cooperation with the cytoskeleton, is involved in: (a) stomatal pore formation, (b) deposition of local GC wall thickenings and (c) the mechanism of stomatal pore opening and closure. This behavior of callose, among others, probably relies on the particular mechanical properties as well as on the ability to form and degrade rapidly, to create a scaffold or to serve as a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials and to produce fibrillar deposits in the periclinal GC walls, radially arranged around the stomatal pore. The local callose deposition in closing stomata is an immediate response of the external periclinal GC walls experiencing strong mechanical forces induced by the neighboring cells. The radial callose fibrils transiently co-exist with radial cellulose microfibrils and, like the latter, seem to be oriented via cortical MTs.Key words: callose, cytoskeleton, fern stomata, guard cell wall thickening, stomatal function, stomatal pore formationCallose represents a hemicellulosic matrix cell wall component, usually of temporal appearance, which is synthesized by callose synthases, enzymes localized in the plasmalemma and degraded by (1→3)-β-glucanases.^1–4 It consists of triple helices of a linear homopolymer of (1→3)-β-glucose residues.^5–7 The plant cell is able to form and degrade callose in a short time. On the surface of the plasmolyzed protoplast a thin callose surface film may arise within seconds.⁸ Callose is the only cell wall component that is implicated in a great variety of developmental plant processes, like cell plate formation,^9–11 microspore development,^12–14 trafficking through plasmodesmata,^15,16 formation and closure of sieve pores,¹⁶ response of the plant cells to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses,^4,5 establishment of distinct “cell cortex domains”,¹⁷ etc.Despite the widespread occurrence of callose, its general function(s) is (are) not well understood (reviewed in refs. ⁴ and ⁵). It may serve as: a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials, as in developing cell plates;⁹ a cell wall-strengthening material, as in cotton seed hairs and growing pollen tubes;¹⁸ a sealing or plugging material at the plasma membrane of pit fields, plasmodesmata and sieve plate pores;¹⁶ a mechanical obstruction to growth of fungal hyphae or a special permeability barrier, as in pollen mother cell walls and muskmelon endosperm envelopes.^4,19,20 The degree of polymerization, age and thickness of callose deposits may cause variation in its physical properties.⁵Evidence accumulated so far showed that a significant number of ferns belonging to Polypodiales and some other fern classes forms intense callose deposits in the developing GC wall thickenings.^21–28 This phenomenon has not been observed in angiosperm stomata, although callose is deposited along the whole surface of the young VW and in the VW ends of differentiating and mature stomata (our unpublished data; reviewed in refs ²⁹ and ³⁰).Stomata are specialized epidermal bicellular structures (Fig. 1A) regulating gas exchange between the aerial plant organs and the external environment. Their appearance in the first land plants was crucial for their adaptation and survival in the terrestrial environment. The constituent GCs have the ability to undergo reversible changes in shape, leading to opening and closure of the stomatal pore (stomatal movement). The mechanism by which GCs change shape is based on: (a) the particular mechanical properties of GC walls owed to their particular shape, thickening, fine structure and chemical composition and (b) the reversible changes in vacuole volume, in response to environmental factors, through fairly complicated biochemical pathways.^30–33Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Diagrammatic representation of an elliptical stoma. (B–E) Diagram to show the process of stomatal pore formation in angiosperms (B and C) and Polypodiales ferns (D and E). The arrows in (B) indicate the forming stomatal pore. DW, dorsal wall; EPW, external periclinal wall; GC, guard cell; IPW, internal periclinal wall; ISP, internal stomatal pore; PE polar ventral wall end; VW, ventral wall.The present review is focused on the multiple-role of callose in differentiating and functioning fern stomata, as they are substantiated by the available information, including some unpublished data, and in particular in: stomatal pore formation, deposition of GC wall thickenings and opening and closure of the stomatal pore. The mode of deposition of fibrillar callose deposits in GC walls and the mechanism of their alignment are also considered.     

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