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.     

Auxin acts independently of DELLA proteins in regulating gibberellin levels

Shoot elongation is a vital process for plant development and productivity, in both ecological and economic contexts. Auxin and bioactive gibberellins (GAs), such as GA₁, play critical roles in the control of elongation,^1–3 along with environmental and endogenous factors, including other hormones such as the brassinosteroids.^4,5 The effect of auxins, such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), is at least in part mediated by its effect on GA metabolism,⁶ since auxin upregulates biosynthesis genes such as GA 3-oxidase and GA 20-oxidase and downregulates GA catabolism genes such as GA 2-oxidases, leading to elevated levels of bioactive GA₁.⁷ In our recent paper,¹ we have provided evidence that this action of IAA is largely independent of DELLA proteins, the negative regulators of GA action,^8,9 since the auxin effects are still present in the DELLA-deficient la cry-s genotype of pea. This was a crucial issue to resolve, since like auxin, the DELLAs also promote GA₁ synthesis and inhibit its deactivation. DELLAs are deactivated by GA, and thereby mediate a feedback system by which bioactive GA regulates its own level.¹⁰ However, our recent results,¹ in themselves, do not show the generality of the auxin-GA relationship across species and phylogenetic groups or across different tissue types and responses. Further, they do not touch on the ecological benefits of the auxin-GA interaction. These issues are discussed below as well as the need for the development of suitable experimental systems to allow this process to be examined.Key words: auxin, gibberellins, DELLA proteins, interactions, elongation     

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.     

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.     

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     

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.