Autophosphorylation desensitizes phytochrome signal transduction

Plant red/far-red photoreceptor phytochromes are known as autophosphorylating serine/threonine kinases. However, the functional roles of autophosphorylation and kinase activity of phytochromes are largely unknown. We recently reported that the autophosphorylation of phytochrome A (phyA) plays an important role in regulating plant phytochrome signaling by controlling phyA protein stability. Two serine residues in the N-terminal extension (NTE) region were identified as autophosphorylation sites, and phyA mutant proteins with serine-to-alanine mutations were degraded in plants at a significantly slower rate than the wild-type under light conditions, resulting in transgenic plants with hypersensitive light responses. In addition, the autophosphorylation site phyA mutants had normal protein kinase activities. Collectively, our results suggest that phytochrome autophosphorylation provides a mechanism for signal desensitization in phytochrome-mediated light signaling by accelerating the degradation of phytochrome A.Key words: phytochrome, autophosphorylation, phosphorylation, protein kinase, protein degradation, light signaling, signal desensitizationHigher plants continually adapt to their light environments to promote photosynthesis for optimal growth and development. Natural light conditions are monitored by various plant photoreceptors, including red (R)/far-red (FR) photoreceptor phytochromes.^1,2 Phytochromes are dimeric chromoproteins covalently linked to tetrapyrrole chromophore phytochromobilin, and exist as two photo-interconvertible species, red-light absorbing Pr and far-red-light absorbing Pfr forms. Phytochromes are biosynthesized as the Pr form in the dark, and are transformed to the Pfr form upon exposure to red light. This photoactivation of phytochromes induces a highly regulated signaling network for photomorphogenesis in plants.^3,4 Recently, phosphorylation and dephosphorylation have been suggested to play important roles in phytochrome-mediated light signaling;^5,6 for instance, a few phytochrome-associated protein phosphatases have been shown to act as positive regulators of phytochrome signaling.^7–9 However, the functional roles of phytochrome phosphorylation remain to be explored.     

Photosynthesis-dependent anthocyanin pigmentation in arabidopsis

Light is the ultimate energy source for photo-autotrophs on earth. For green plants, however, it can also be toxic under certain stressful environmental conditions and at critical developmental stages. Anthocyanins, a class of flavonoids, act as an effective screening mechanism that allows plant survival and proliferation under occasional periods of harmful irradiation through modulation of light absorption. Apart from light-sensing through photoreceptors such as phytochrome and cryptochrome, plants use the photosynthetic electron transfer (PET) chain to integrate light information. The redox status of the plastoquinone (PQ) pool of the PET chain regulates anthocyanin biosynthesis genes, together with the plant hormone ethylene and plant hormone-like sugars. A complex signaling apparatus in acyanic cells appears to transduce information to cyanic cells to regulate anthocyanin production through an intercellular signaling pathway that remains largely uncharacterized. This review will highlight recent advances in this field and their implications for the regulation of anthocyanin pigmentation.Key words: anthocyanin induction, ethylene, sugar, light, photosynthesis, mesophyll-derived signalLight is the key stimulus for anthocyanin biosynthesis among numerous other environmental cues such as temperature, nutrient deficiency, water status, wounding and pathogen attack.¹ The production of anthocyanin in young seedlings requires prolonged exposure to visible and near-visible wavelengths of light at a relatively high photon flux, and the extent of the plant response to light is a function of light quality and quantity.² High-light conditions trigger the accumulation of anthocyanin in vegetative tissues, which serves as a means to safeguard against the detrimental effects of excess light on the photosynthetic apparatus, which can lead to photo-inhibition. Sugar is a common regulator of a number of genes involved in photosynthesis, carbohydrate metabolism and pathogenesis. It also induces anthocyanin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis seedlings in the form of disaccharide sugars such as sucrose (Suc) and maltose.^3–5 Plant hormones such as abscisic acid, jasmonic acid, cytokinin and gibberellic acid act in concert with sugar in the presence of light to regulate anthocyanin accumulation in either a positive or negative manner.⁶ Thus, light, sugar and hormone signals interact in an intricate signaling network that simultaneously coordinates plant homeostasis and regulates anthocyanin pigmentation. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of these interactions between light, sugar and ethylene and how they regulate anthocyanin pigmentation in Arabidopsis.     

Significance of light-induced hook exaggeration as reinforced by the concomitant anatomical change of germinating tomato seeds

Progression of the apical hook of tomato, Solanum lycopersicum, exaggerated by phytochrome mediation at the early germination stage, is followed in detail macroscopically and anatomically, and its proposed significance, i.e., survival by securing the seed coat release in the field, is reinforced by new findings. Furthermore, after self-release or artificial removal of the seed coat and the endosperm, no hook exaggeration occurs any more. Similar light-induced hook exaggeration (LIHE) is also found in carrot, parsley and Cryptotaenia japonica, which share some seed characteristics with tomato. These findings also support the above-stated significance.Key words: apical hook, carrot, cotyledons, Cryptotaenia japonica, endosperm, field germination, light action, parsley, phytochrome, seed coat, Solanum lycopersicumContrary to many other seed species,^1–3 the apical hook of germinating tomato seeds is exaggerated by red (R) and far-red light (FR) given in a pulse or continuously, mediated by the very low and low fluence responses of phytochromes.⁴ Also, an R high-irradiance response is probably involved.⁴ Based on some simulation experiments for germination in the field, we have proposed that LIHE may play a role, not in breaking through compacted soil surface, but in securing to release the seed coat at some depth of soil in response to light coming through soil gaps.⁴ Here we present additional observations and experimental data not published yet and reinforce the proposed significance of the recently discovered photo-response.     

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

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

Novel protein-protein interaction family proteins involved in chloroplast movement response

To optimize photosynthetic activity, chloroplasts change their intracellular location in response to ambient light conditions; chloroplasts move toward low intensity light to maximize light capture and away from high intensity light to avoid photodamage. Although several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement response, any physical interaction among them was not found so far. We recently found a physical interaction between two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, WEB1 (Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1) and PMI2 (Plastid Movement Impaired 2), that were indentified to regulate chloroplast movement velocity. Since the both coiled-coil regions of WEB1 and PMI2 were classified into an uncharacterized protein family having DUF827 (DUF: Domain of Unknown Function) domain, it was the first report that DUF827 proteins could mediate protein-protein interaction. In this mini-review article, we discuss regarding molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2, and also define a novel protein family composed of WEB1, PMI2 and WEB1/PMI2-like proteins for protein-protein interaction in land plants.Key words: Arabidopsis, blue light, chloroplast velocity, coiled-coil region, organelle movement, phototropin, protein-protein interactionIntracellular locations of chloroplasts change in response to different light conditions to capture sunlight efficiently for energy production through photosynthesis. Chloroplasts move toward weak light to maximize light capture (the accumulation response),^1,2 and away from strong light to reduce photodamage (the avoidance response).³ In higher plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, the responses are induced by blue light-dependent manner.^1,2 Recently, chloroplast actin (cp-actin) filaments were found to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement and positioning.^4,5 The cp-actin filaments are localized at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane to anchor the chloroplast to the plasma membrane, and are relocalized to the leading edge of chloroplasts before and during the movement.^4,5 The difference of cp-actin filament amounts between the front and the rear halves of chloroplasts determines the chloroplast movement velocity; as the difference increases, chloroplast velocity also increases.^4,5Several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast movement. The blue light receptors, phototropin 1 (phot1) and phot2, mediate the accumulation response,⁶ and phot2 solely mediates the avoidance response.^7,8 Chloroplast Unusual Positioning 1 (CHUP1), Kinesin-like Protein for Actin-Based Chloroplast Movement 1 (KAC1) and KAC2 are involved in the cp-actin filament formation.^4,9–11 Other proteins with unknown molecular function involved in the chloroplast movement responses have also been reported. They are J-domain Protein Required for Chloroplast Accumulation Response 1 (JAC1),^12,13 Plastid Movement Impaired 1 (PMI1),¹⁴ a long coiled-coil protein Plastid Movement Impaired 2 (PMI2), a PMI2-homologous protein PMI15,¹⁵ and THRUMIN1.¹⁶Recently, we characterized two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1 (WEB1) and PMI2, which regulate the velocity of chloroplast photorelocation movement.¹⁷ In this mini-review article, we discuss about molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2 in chloroplast photorelocation movement, and also define the WEB1/PMI2-related (WPR) protein family as a new protein family for protein-protein interaction.     

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.     

Strigolactones as mediators of plant growth responses to environmental conditions

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

The shared and separate roles of aposematic (warning) coloration and the co-evolution hypothesis in defending autumn leaves

The potential anti-herbivory functions of colorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves received considerable attention in the last decade. The most studied and discussed is the co-evolutionary hypothesis, according to which autumn coloration signals the quality of defense to insects that migrate to the trees in autumn. In addition to classic aposematism (repellency due to signaling unpalatability, non profitability of consumption, or danger for whatever reasons) that operates immediately, this hypothesis also proposes that the reduced fitness of the insects is in their next generation hatching in the spring from eggs laid on the trees in autumn. Supporters of the co-evolutionary hypothesis either posited that this hypothesis differs from visual aposematism or ignored the issue of aposematism. Interestingly, other authors that cited their papers considered the co-evolutionary hypothesis as visual aposematism. Recently, the overlap between the co-evolutionary hypothesis and visual aposematism was finally recognized, with the exception of yellow autumn leaves not signaling defense to aphids, which are known to be attracted to yellow leaves. However, the detailed relationships between these two hypotheses have not been discussed yet. Here I propose that the co-evolutionary hypothesis generally equals visual aposematism in red and yellow autumn leaves towards all herbivores except for yellow not operating with aphids. The co-evolutionary signaling extends beyond classic aposematism because it may operate later and not only immediately. The possibility that for yellow autumn leaves the co-evolutionary hypothesis may also operate via olfactory aposematism should not be dismissed.Key words: aposematic, autumn coloration, co-evolution, defense, evolution, herbivory, treesColorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves dominate large areas of America, Asia and Europe, expressed by thousands of tree, shrub and climber species.^1–5 In the last decade, this phenomenon received considerable scientific attention. For a long time it was a common belief that this coloration is the by-product of the cessation of masking by chlorophylls that degrade in autumn. However, two key theoretical and experimental developments stimulated the recent wave of study of autumn leaf coloration. The first was the recognition that anthocyanins are synthesized de novo in red autumn leaves,^1,2 and the second was the formulation of the anti-herbivory co-evolutionary hypothesis.^6–8The updated version of the co-evolutionary hypothesis⁹ posits that red autumn coloration signals to all types of insects (including aphids) that migrate to the trees in autumn about their chemical defense, lower nutritional quality or imminent leaf fall, or any other characteristic that would induce a lower fitness in the insects. In addition, yellow leaves signals the same to all herbivores except aphids. A special aspect of the co-evolutionary hypothesis is that the reduced fitness of the insects is not only immediate, reducing insect feeding in autumn, but also related to the reduced development of the next generation that hatches in the following spring from eggs laid on the trees in the autumn.⁹ Originally, the co-evolutionary hypothesis addressed both red and yellow autumn leaves.^6–8 However, with the later understanding that yellow leaves usually attract rather than repel aphids,^9–13 the co-evolutionary hypothesis was later restricted to red leaves when aphids are concerned.⁹In addition to other various potential anti-herbivory roles,^14,15 red autumn leaf coloration has several potential physiological functions, such as protection from photoinhibition and photo oxidation, and other physiological functions have been proposed but not agreed upon.^{1,2,9,16–21}     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

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