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.     

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     

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     

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.     

Bathy Phytochromes in Rhizobial Soil Bacteria

Phytochromes are biliprotein photoreceptors that are found in plants, bacteria, and fungi. Prototypical phytochromes have a Pr ground state that absorbs in the red spectral range and is converted by light into the Pfr form, which absorbs longer-wavelength, far-red light. Recently, some bacterial phytochromes have been described that undergo dark conversion of Pr to Pfr and thus have a Pfr ground state. We show here that such so-called bathy phytochromes are widely distributed among bacteria that belong to the order Rhizobiales. We measured in vivo spectral properties and the direction of dark conversion for species which have either one or two phytochrome genes. Agrobacterium tumefaciens C58 contains one bathy phytochrome and a second phytochrome which undergoes dark conversion of Pfr to Pr in vivo. The related species Agrobacterium vitis S4 contains also one bathy phytochrome and another phytochrome with novel spectral properties. Rhizobium leguminosarum 3841, Rhizobium etli CIAT652, and Azorhizobium caulinodans ORS571 contain a single phytochrome of the bathy type, whereas Xanthobacter autotrophicus Py2 contains a single phytochrome with dark conversion of Pfr to Pr. We propose that bathy phytochromes are adaptations to the light regime in the soil. Most bacterial phytochromes are light-regulated histidine kinases, some of which have a C-terminal response regulator subunit on the same protein. According to our phylogenetic studies, the group of phytochromes with this domain arrangement has evolved from a bathy phytochrome progenitor.Phytochromes are biological photoreceptors that were discovered in plants, where they control development throughout the life cycle in manifold ways (21, 33). Today, a large number of homologs are known also from cyanobacteria, other bacteria, and fungi, which are termed cyanobacterial phytochromes (Cphs), bacteriophytochromes (BphPs), and fungal phytochromes (Fphs), respectively (20, 24). The chromophore is autocatalytically assembled within the N-terminal part of the protein, the photosensory core module (PCM), which contains the PAS, GAF, and PHY domains (30). Typically, phytochromes are converted by light between two spectrally different forms, the red-absorbing Pr and the far-red-absorbing Pfr forms. Photoconversion is initiated by an isomerization of the covalently bound bilin chromophore (32).Plant and cyanobacterial phytochromes incorporate phytochromobilin (PΦB) and phycocyanobilin (PCB) as natural chromophores, respectively, which are covalently bound to Cys residues in the GAF domains. All characterized phytochromes that belong to these groups have a Pr ground state. Plant phytochromes can undergo dark conversion of Pfr to Pr (5), whereas the Pfr form of typical cyanobacterial phytochromes is stable in darkness (26).Bacteriophytochromes utilize biliverdin (BV) instead as a natural chromophore (1), which is covalently attached to a Cys residue in the N terminus of the PAS domain (26). Since the conjugated system of BV is longer than that of PΦB or PCB, the absorption maxima of bacteriophytochromes are found at higher wavelengths than those of cyanobacterial or plant homologs.With the discovery of a bacterial phytochrome from Bradyrhizobium sp. strain ORS278, termed BrBphP1, the first phytochrome with a Pfr ground state and dark conversion from Pr to Pfr was found (10). Thereafter, five more phytochromes with dark conversion of Pr to Pfr were described: Rhodopseudomonas palustris BphP1 (RpBphP1) from strain CEA001, RpBphP5, and RpBphP6 from strain CGA009 (11); Agrobacterium tumefaciens Agp2 (or AtBphP2) from strain C58 (18); and Pseudomonas aeruginosa BphP1 (PaBphP1) (40). These phytochromes are now termed bathy phytochromes because the absorption maxima of their ground states are bathochromically (to longer wavelengths) shifted compared to those of all other phytochromes.Moreover, some other bacterial phytochromes with unusual properties have been described. In the Ppr from Rhodospirillum centenum, a photoactive yellow protein (PYP) domain is fused to the N terminus of a phytochrome homolog. The phytochrome part of Ppr assembles with BV to form a Pr adduct. However, irradiation does not result in the formation of Pfr but in a bleaching of the Pr spectrum (23). The BV adduct of RpBphP3 from R. palustris, which has a Pr ground state, photoconverts to the so-called Pnr form with a blue-shifted absorption maximum (12). RpBphP4 from R. palustris strains Ha2 and BisB5 and Bradyrhizobium BphP3 (BrBphP3) from Bradyrhizobium BTAi1, both with a Pr ground state, photoconvert into a long-lived MetaR form (8, 42). MetaRa and MetaRc are intermediates in the photoconversion from Pr to Pfr of prototypical phytochromes (3). BphP3 from the Bradyrhizobium strain ORS 278 is an exception among bacteriophytochromes as it binds PCB as a natural chromophore. This phytochrome adopts a so-called Po (P-orange) ground state with an absorbance maximum in the orange range (11, 15). Upon irradiation, this phytochrome converts into the Pr form. RpBphP4 from R. palustris CGA009 lacks the biliverdin binding cysteine and does not bind a chromophore (42).With the rapidly growing number of bacterial genome sequences, many new bacterial phytochromes are being discovered. Thus, a large and increasing number of newly identified phytochromes remain spectroscopically uncharacterized. We established an in vivo photometry approach which allowed the rapid acquisition of spectral information about phytochromes from intact bacterial cells. In the beginning period of plant phytochrome research, in vivo photometry was extensively applied (4, 6, 29, 34). This method, in fact, allowed the identification of phytochromes for the first time in plant tissues (6), which led to the purification of phytochromes from plant extracts (37). Here, we apply in vivo photometry for the first time to organisms outside the plant kingdom. This method is especially useful for studying species with single phytochrome genes. The approach is also helpful for comparing properties of native phytochromes in vivo and of their recombinant proteins in vitro.In the present study, we concentrate on nonphotosynthetic species of the order Rhizobiales which belongs to the Alphaproteobacteria. The family Rhizobiaceae comprises plant-interacting soil bacteria. A. tumefaciens and Agrobacterium vitis can transfer genes into plants to induce plant tumors, whereas many other Rhizobiaceae can live as plant symbionts in nodules of stems or roots in which they assimilate molecular nitrogen to produce NH₄⁺, which is used by the plant for synthesis of amino acids and other nitrogen-containing molecules. A. tumefaciens C58 contains two phytochromes, termed Agp1 (or AtBphP1) and Agp2 (or AtBphP2), that have been characterized as recombinant proteins (14, 18, 26, 35) and whose spectral activities have been measured in extracts of wild-type and knockout mutants (31). A large number of phytochromes from photosynthetic Bradyrhizobium and Rhodopseudomonas species, which also belong to the order Rhizobiales, have been characterized as recombinant proteins (11), some of which have already been noted above.It turned out that most of our analyzed phytochromes undergo dark conversion of Pr to Pfr and thus belong to the group of bathy phytochromes. Such phytochromes, which absorb at around 750 nm, clearly dominate among Rhizobiales. We propose that this specific property reflects an adaptation to the light regime in the soil. Our studies also suggest that bacterial phytochromes with a C-terminal response regulator have evolved from a bathy phytochrome progenitor.     

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.     

Anticipating future conditions via trajectory sensitivity

Plants are known to be highly responsive to environmental heterogeneity and normally allocate more biomass to organs that grow in richer patches. However, recent evidence demonstrates that plants can discriminately allocate more resources to roots that develop in patches with increasing nutrient levels, even when their other roots develop in richer patches. Responsiveness to the direction and steepness of spatial and temporal trajectories of environmental variables might enable plants to increase their performance by improving their readiness to anticipated resource availabilities in their immediate proximity. Exploring the ecological implications and mechanisms of trajectory-sensitivity in plants is expected to shed new light on the ways plants learn their environment and anticipate its future challenges and opportunities.Key words: Gradient perception, phenotypic plasticity, anticipatory responses, plant behavior, plant learningNatural environments present organisms with myriad challenges of surviving and reproducing under changing conditions.¹ Depending on its extent, predictability and costs, environmental heterogeneity may select for various combinations of genetic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity.^2–6 However, phenotypic plasticity is both limited and costly.⁷ One of the main limitations of phenotypic plasticity is the lag between the perception of the environment and the time the products of the plastic responses are fully operational.⁷ For instance, the developmental time of leaves may significantly limit the adaptive value of their plastic modification due to mismatches between the radiation levels and temperatures prevailing during their development and when mature and fully functional.^8,9 Accordingly, selection is expected to promote responsiveness to cues that bear information regarding the probable future environment.^9,10Indeed, anticipatory responses are highly prevalent, if not universal, amongst living organisms. Whether through intricate cerebral processes, such as in vertebrates, nervous coordination, as in Echinoderms,¹¹ or by relatively rudimentary non-neural processes, such as in plants¹² and bacteria,¹³ accumulating examples suggest that virtually all known life forms are able to not only sense and plastically respond to their immediate environment but also anticipate probable future conditions via environmental correlations.¹⁰Perhaps the best known example of plants'' ability to anticipate future conditions is their responsiveness to spectral red/far-red cues, which is commonly tightly correlated with future probability of light competition.¹⁴ Among others, plants have been shown to respond to cues related to anticipated herbivory^15,16 and nitrogen availability.¹⁷ Imminent stress is commonly anticipated by the perception of a prevailing stress. For example, adaptation to anticipated severe stress was demonstrated to be inducted by early priming by sub-acute drought,¹⁸ root competition¹⁹ and salinity.²⁰Future conditions can also be anticipated by gradient perception: because resource and stress levels are often changing along predictable spatial and temporal trajectories, spatio-temporal dynamics of environmental variables might convey information regarding anticipated growth conditions (Fig. 1). For example, the order of changes in day length, rather than day length itself, are known to assist plants in differentiating fall from spring and thus avoid blooming in the wrong season.²¹ In addition, responsiveness to environmental gradients as such, i.e., sensitivity to the direction and steepness of environmental trajectories, independently from the stationary levels of the same factors, has been demonstrated in higher organisms, such as the perception of acceleration in contrast to velocity;²² and the dynamics of skin temperature in contrast to stationary skin temperature;²³ where the adaptive value of the second-order derivatives of environmental factors is paramount. Similar perception capabilities have also been demonstrated in rudimentary life forms such as bacteria (reviewed in refs. ¹³ and ²⁴) and plants.^25,26 Specifically, perception of environmental trajectories might assist organisms to both anticipate future conditions and better utilize the more promising patches in their immediate environment.^27,28Open in a separate windowFigure 1Trajectory sensitivity in plants. The hypothetical curves depict examples of spatio-temporal trajectories of resource availability, which might be utilized by plants to increase foraging efficiency in newly-encountered patches. When young or early-in-the-season (segment 1–2), plants are expected to allocate more resources to roots that experience the most promising (steepest increases or shallowest decreases) resource availabilities (e.g., allocating more resources to organs in INC-1 than INC-2). In addition, plants are predicted to avoid allocation to roots experiencing decreasing trajectories (DEC, segment 1–2); although temporarily more abundant with resources, such DEC patches are expected to become poorer than alternative patches in the longer run (segment 2–3).²⁹ However, responsiveness to environmental trajectories is only predicted where the expected period of resource uptake is relatively long, e.g., when plants are still active in segment 2–3, a stipulation which might not be fulfilled in e.g., short-living annuals with life span shorter than segment 1–2.In a recent study, Pisum plants have been demonstrated to be sensitive to temporal changes in nutrient availabilities. Specifically, plants allocated greater biomass to roots growing under dynamically-improving nutrient levels than to roots that grew under continuously higher, yet stationary or deteriorating, nutrient availabilities.²⁹ Allocation to roots in poorer patches might seem maladaptive if only stationary nutrient levels are accounted for, and indeed-almost invariably, plants are known to allocate more resources to organs that experience higher (non-toxic) resource levels (reviewed in ref. ³³). Accordingly, the new findings suggest that rather than merely responding to the prevailing nutrient availabilities, root growth and allocation are also responsive to trajectories of nutrient availabilities (Fig. 1).¹⁰Although Shemesh et al.²⁹ demonstrated trajectory-sensitivity of individual roots to temporal gradient of nutrient availabilities, it is likely that this sensitivity helps plants sense spatial gradients, whereby root tips perceive changes in growth conditions as they move through space.³⁴ Interestingly, because the trajectory-sensitivity was observed when whole roots were subjected to changing nutrient levels, it is likely that trajectory sensitivity in roots is based on the integration of sensory inputs perceived by yet-to-be-determined parts of the root over time, i.e., temporal sensitivity/memory (e.g. reviewed in ref. ³⁵), rather than on the integration of sensory inputs at different locations on the same individual roots (i.e., spatial sensitivity).Besides the direction of change, it is hypothesized that plants are also sensitive to the steepness of environmental trajectories (Fig. 1). This might be especially crucial in short-living annuals, which are expected to only be responsive to trajectories steep enough to be indicative of changes in growth conditions before the expected termination of the growth season (Fig. 1).Studying responsiveness to environmental variability is pivotal for understanding the ecology and evolution of any living organism. However, until recently most attention has been given to the study of responses to stationary spatial and temporal heterogeneities in growth conditions. Exploring the ecological implications and mechanisms of trajectory sensitivity in plants is expected to shed new light on the ways plants learn their immediate environment and anticipate its future challenges and opportunities.     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.