The Leucine-Rich Repeat Receptor-Like Kinase BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED KINASE1 and the Cytochrome P450 PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT3 Contribute to Innate Immunity to Aphids in Arabidopsis

The importance of pathogen-associated molecular pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) against microbial pathogens has been recently demonstrated. However, it is currently unclear if this layer of immunity mediated by surface-localized pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) also plays a role in basal resistance to insects, such as aphids. Here, we show that PTI is an important component of plant innate immunity to insects. Extract of the green peach aphid (GPA; Myzus persicae) triggers responses characteristic of PTI in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Two separate eliciting GPA-derived fractions trigger induced resistance to GPA that is dependent on the leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED KINASE1 (BAK1)/SOMATIC-EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE3, which is a key regulator of several leucine-rich repeat-containing PRRs. BAK1 is required for GPA elicitor-mediated induction of reactive oxygen species and callose deposition. Arabidopsis bak1 mutant plants are also compromised in immunity to the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum), for which Arabidopsis is normally a nonhost. Aphid-derived elicitors induce expression of PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT3 (PAD3), a key cytochrome P450 involved in the biosynthesis of camalexin, which is a major Arabidopsis phytoalexin that is toxic to GPA. PAD3 is also required for induced resistance to GPA, independently of BAK1 and reactive oxygen species production. Our results reveal that plant innate immunity to insects may involve early perception of elicitors by cell surface-localized PRRs, leading to subsequent downstream immune signaling.Close to a million insect species have so far been described, and nearly one-half of them feed on plants (Wu and Baldwin, 2010). Within these plant-feeding insects, most feed on a few related plant species, with only 10% feeding upon multiple plant families (Schoonhoven et al., 2005). Plant defense to insects include several layers (Bos and Hogenhout, 2011; Hogenhout and Bos, 2011). Physical barriers, volatile cues, and composition of secondary metabolites of plants are important components that determine insect host choice (Howe and Jander, 2008; Bruce and Pickett, 2011). In addition, plants induce a variety of plant defense responses upon perception of herbivore oral secretions (OS), saliva, and eggs (De Vos and Jander, 2009; Bruessow et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2010; Wu and Baldwin, 2010). These responses may provide full protection against the majority of insect herbivores, and insects that are able to colonize specific plant species likely produce effectors in their saliva or during egg laying that suppress these induced defense responses (Bos and Hogenhout, 2011; Hogenhout and Bos, 2011; Pitino and Hogenhout, 2013).Aphids are sap-feeding insects of the order Hemiptera and are among the most destructive pests in agriculture, particularly in temperate regions (Blackman and Eastop, 2000). More than 4,000 aphid species in 10 families are known (Dixon, 1998). Most aphid species are specialists and use one or a few closely related plant species within one family as host for feeding and reproduction. Examples are pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum), cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae), and English grain aphid (Sitobion avenae) that colonize plant species within the legumes (family Fabaceae), brassicas (Brassicaceae), and grasses (Gramineae), respectively. The green peach aphid (GPA; Myzus persicae) is one of few aphid species with a broad host range and can colonize hundreds of plants species in over 40 plant families, including brassicas (Blackman and Eastop, 2000). Aphids possess mouthparts composed of stylets that navigate to the plant vascular system, predominantly the phloem, for long-term feeding. However, before establishing a long-term feeding site, these insects display a host selection behavior by probing the upper leaf cell layers with their stylets, a behavior seen on host and nonhost plants of the aphid (Nam and Hardie, 2012). When the plant is judged unsuitable, the aphid takes off to find an alternative plant host. It is not yet clear what happens in the initial stages of insect interactions with plants.Plants sense microbial organisms (including bacteria, fungi, and oomycetes) through perception of conserved molecules, named microbe-associated molecular patterns and pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) via pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to induce the first stage of plant immunity, termed PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI). PTI is effective against the majority of plant pathogens. Bacterial and fungal PAMPs characterized so far include bacterial flagellin (or its derived peptide flg22), bacterial elongation factor (EF)-Tu (or its derived peptide elf18), bacterial lipopolysaccharides and bacterial cold shock protein, chitin oligosaccharides, and the oomycete elicitin INF1 (Boller and Felix, 2009)Plant PRRs are either receptor-like kinases (RLKs) or receptor-like proteins. Most leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-type PRRs associate with and rely for their function on the small regulatory LRR-RLK BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED KINASE1 (BAK1)/SOMATIC-EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE3 (SERK3; Monaghan and Zipfel, 2012). For example, in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), flg22 and elf18 bind to the LRR-RLKs FLAGELLIN SENSITIVE2 (FLS2) and EF-TU RECEPTOR (EFR), respectively, leading to a quasi-instant association with BAK1 (Gómez-Gómez and Boller, 2000; Zipfel et al., 2006; Chinchilla et al., 2007; Heese et al., 2007; Schulze et al., 2010; Roux et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2013). BAK1 is required for optimal downstream immune signaling events, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation, reactive oxygen species (ROS) bursts, callose depositions, induction of immune genes, and induced resistance. Similarly, BAK1 is a positive regulator of innate immune responses triggered by the Arabidopsis LRR-RLKs PLANT ELICITOR PEPTIDE1 RECEPTOR1 (PEPR1) and PEPR2 that bind the Arabidopsis-derived damage-associated molecular pattern A. thaliana Peptide1 (AtPep1; Krol et al., 2010; Postel et al., 2010; Roux et al., 2011) and by the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) LRR receptor-like protein Ve1 that recognizes Ave1 derived from Verticillium spp. (Fradin et al., 2009; de Jonge et al., 2012). Consistent with the role of BAK1 downstream of numerous PRRs, BAK1 is required for full immunity to a number of bacterial, fungal, oomycete, and viral pathogens (Heese et al., 2007; Kemmerling et al., 2007; Fradin et al., 2009; Chaparro-Garcia et al., 2011; Roux et al., 2011; Kørner et al., 2013).Notably, it has been recently shown that the ortholog of BAK1 in Nicotiana attenuata regulates the induction of jasmonic acid (JA) accumulation upon herbivory (Yang et al., 2011a). However, immunity to insects was not affected when BAK1 was silenced, and the observed effect on JA accumulation may be due to an indirect effect on brassinosteroid (BR) responses, for which BAK1 is also an important positive regulator (Li et al., 2002; Nam and Li, 2002). Therefore, it is currently unclear if BAK1 is involved in the early recognition of insect-derived elicitors leading to immunity.We discovered that the key regulatory LRR-RLK BAK1 participates in plant defense to an insect herbivore. We found that extracts of GPA trigger plant defense responses in Arabidopsis that are characteristic of PTI. Arabidopsis bak1 mutant plants are compromised in defense to GPA, which colonizes Arabidopsis, and to pea aphid, for which Arabidopsis is a nonhost. BAK1 is required for ROS bursts, callose deposition, and induced resistance in Arabidopsis upon perception of aphid-derived elicitors. One of the defense genes induced by GPA-derived extracts encodes PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT3 (PAD3), a cytochrome P450 that catalyzes the conversion of dihydrocamalexic acid to camalexin, which is a major Arabidopsis phytoalexin that is toxic to GPA (Kettles et al., 2013). PAD3 expression is required for Arabidopsis-induced resistance to GPA, independently of BAK1 and ROS. Our results provide evidence that innate immunity to insect herbivores may rely on the early perception of elicitors by cell surface-localized PRR.     

Spore Density Determines Infection Strategy by the Plant Pathogenic Fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina

Necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens are resisted by different plant defenses. While necrotrophic pathogens are sensitive to jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent resistance, biotrophic pathogens are resisted by salicylic acid (SA)- and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent resistance. Although many pathogens switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy during infection, little is known about the signals triggering this transition. This study is based on the observation that the early colonization pattern and symptom development by the ascomycete pathogen Plectosphaerella cucumerina (P. cucumerina) vary between inoculation methods. Using the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) defense response as a proxy for infection strategy, we examined whether P. cucumerina alternates between hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic lifestyles, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf surface. Untargeted metabolome analysis revealed profound differences in metabolic defense signatures upon different inoculation methods. Quantification of JA and SA, marker gene expression, and cell death confirmed that infection from high spore densities activates JA-dependent defenses with excessive cell death, while infection from low spore densities induces SA-dependent defenses with lower levels of cell death. Phenotyping of Arabidopsis mutants in JA, SA, and ROS signaling confirmed that P. cucumerina is differentially resisted by JA- and SA/ROS-dependent defenses, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf. Furthermore, in situ staining for early callose deposition at the infection sites revealed that necrotrophy by P. cucumerina is associated with elevated host defense. We conclude that P. cucumerina adapts to early-acting plant defenses by switching from a hemibiotrophic to a necrotrophic infection program, thereby gaining an advantage of immunity-related cell death in the host.Plant pathogens are often classified as necrotrophic or biotrophic, depending on their infection strategy (Glazebrook, 2005; Nishimura and Dangl, 2010). Necrotrophic pathogens kill living host cells and use the decayed plant tissue as a substrate to colonize the plant, whereas biotrophic pathogens parasitize living plant cells by employing effector molecules that suppress the host immune system (Pel and Pieterse, 2013). Despite this binary classification, the majority of pathogenic microbes employ a hemibiotrophic infection strategy, which is characterized by an initial biotrophic phase followed by a necrotrophic infection strategy at later stages of infection (Perfect and Green, 2001). The pathogenic fungi Magnaporthe grisea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Mycosphaerella graminicola, the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, and the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae are examples of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011; van Kan et al., 2014; Kabbage et al., 2015).Despite considerable progress in our understanding of plant resistance to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook, 2005; Mengiste, 2012; Lai and Mengiste, 2013), recent debate highlights the dynamic and complex interplay between plant-pathogenic microbes and their hosts, which is raising concerns about the use of infection strategies as a static tool to classify plant pathogens. For instance, the fungal genus Botrytis is often labeled as an archetypal necrotroph, even though there is evidence that it can behave as an endophytic fungus with a biotrophic lifestyle (van Kan et al., 2014). The rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, which is often classified as a hemibiotrophic leaf pathogen (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011), can adopt a purely biotrophic lifestyle when infecting root tissues (Marcel et al., 2010). It remains unclear which signals are responsible for the switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy and whether these signals rely solely on the physiological state of the pathogen, or whether host-derived signals play a role as well (Kabbage et al., 2015).The plant hormones salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA) play a central role in the activation of plant defenses (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012). The first evidence that biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens are resisted by different immune responses came from Thomma et al. (1998), who demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genotypes impaired in SA signaling show enhanced susceptibility to the biotrophic pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (formerly known as Peronospora parastitica), while JA-insensitive genotypes were more susceptible to the necrotrophic fungus Alternaria brassicicola. In subsequent years, the differential effectiveness of SA- and JA-dependent defense mechanisms has been confirmed in different plant-pathogen interactions, while additional plant hormones, such as ethylene, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, and cytokinins, have emerged as regulators of SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Bari and Jones, 2009; Cao et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Moreover, SA- and JA-dependent defense pathways have been shown to act antagonistically on each other, which allows plants to prioritize an appropriate defense response to attack by biotrophic pathogens, necrotrophic pathogens, or herbivores (Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Verhage et al., 2010).In addition to plant hormones, reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important regulatory role in plant defenses (Torres et al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2015). Within minutes after the perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, NADPH oxidases and apoplastic peroxidases generate early ROS bursts (Torres et al., 2002; Daudi et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012), which activate downstream defense signaling cascades (Apel and Hirt, 2004; Torres et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2009; Mittler et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS play an important regulatory role in the deposition of callose (Luna et al., 2011; Pastor et al., 2013) and can also stimulate SA-dependent defenses (Chaouch et al., 2010; Yun and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Mammarella et al., 2015). However, the spread of SA-induced apoptosis during hyperstimulation of the plant immune system is contained by the ROS-generating NADPH oxidase RBOHD (Torres et al., 2005), presumably to allow for the sufficient generation of SA-dependent defense signals from living cells that are adjacent to apoptotic cells. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an additional role in the regulation of SA/ROS-dependent defense (Trapet et al., 2015). This gaseous molecule can stimulate ROS production and cell death in the absence of SA while preventing excessive ROS production at high cellular SA levels via S-nitrosylation of RBOHD (Yun et al., 2011). Recently, it was shown that pathogen-induced accumulation of NO and ROS promotes the production of azelaic acid, a lipid derivative that primes distal plants for SA-dependent defenses (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, NO, ROS, and SA are intertwined in a complex regulatory network to mount local and systemic resistance against biotrophic pathogens. Interestingly, pathogens with a necrotrophic lifestyle can benefit from ROS/SA-dependent defenses and associated cell death (Govrin and Levine, 2000). For instance, Kabbage et al. (2013) demonstrated that S. sclerotiorum utilizes oxalic acid to repress oxidative defense signaling during initial biotrophic colonization, but it stimulates apoptosis at later stages to advance necrotrophic colonization. Moreover, SA-induced repression of JA-dependent resistance not only benefits necrotrophic pathogens but also hemibiotrophic pathogens after having switched from biotrophy to necrotrophy (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012).Plectosphaerella cucumerina ((P. cucumerina, anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) is a filamentous ascomycete fungus that can survive saprophytically in soil by decomposing plant material (Palm et al., 1995). The fungus can cause sudden death and blight disease in a variety of crops (Chen et al., 1999; Harrington et al., 2000). Because P. cucumerina can infect Arabidopsis leaves, the P. cucumerina-Arabidopsis interaction has emerged as a popular model system in which to study plant defense reactions to necrotrophic fungi (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Carlucci et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). Various studies have shown that Arabidopsis deploys a wide range of inducible defense strategies against P. cucumerina, including JA-, SA-, ABA-, and auxin-dependent defenses, glucosinolates (Tierens et al., 2001; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014), callose deposition (García-Andrade et al., 2011; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012), and ROS (Tierens et al., 2002; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Barna et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Recent metabolomics studies have revealed large-scale metabolic changes in P. cucumerina-infected Arabidopsis, presumably to mobilize chemical defenses (Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Furthermore, various chemical agents have been reported to induce resistance against P. cucumerina. These chemicals include β-amino-butyric acid, which primes callose deposition and SA-dependent defenses, benzothiadiazole (BTH or Bion; Görlach et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), which activates SA-related defenses (Lawton et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Gamir et al., 2014; Luna et al., 2014), JA (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), and ABA, which primes ROS and callose deposition (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Pastor et al., 2013). However, among all these studies, there is increasing controversy about the exact signaling pathways and defense responses contributing to plant resistance against P. cucumerina. While it is clear that JA and ethylene contribute to basal resistance against the fungus, the exact roles of SA, ABA, and ROS in P. cucumerina resistance vary between studies (Thomma et al., 1998; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2014).This study is based on the observation that the disease phenotype during P. cucumerina infection differs according to the inoculation method used. We provide evidence that the fungus follows a hemibiotrophic infection strategy when infecting from relatively low spore densities on the leaf surface. By contrast, when challenged by localized host defense to relatively high spore densities, the fungus switches to a necrotrophic infection program. Our study has uncovered a novel strategy by which plant-pathogenic fungi can take advantage of the early immune response in the host plant.     

AtGEN1 and AtSEND1, Two Paralogs in Arabidopsis,Possess Holliday Junction Resolvase Activity

Holliday junctions (HJs) are physical links between homologous DNA molecules that arise as central intermediary structures during homologous recombination and repair in meiotic and somatic cells. It is necessary for these structures to be resolved to ensure correct chromosome segregation and other functions. In eukaryotes, including plants, homologs of a gene called XPG-like endonuclease1 (GEN1) have been identified that process HJs in a manner analogous to the HJ resolvases of phages, archaea, and bacteria. Here, we report that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), a eukaryotic organism, has two functional GEN1 homologs instead of one. Like all known eukaryotic resolvases, AtGEN1 and Arabidopsis single-strand DNA endonuclease1 both belong to class IV of the Rad2/XPG family of nucleases. Their resolvase activity shares the characteristics of the Escherichia coli radiation and UV sensitive C paradigm for resolvases, which involves resolving HJs by symmetrically oriented incisions in two opposing strands. This leads to ligatable products without the need for further processing. The observation that the sequence context influences the cleavage by the enzymes can be interpreted as a hint for the existence of sequence specificity. The two Arabidopsis paralogs differ in their preferred sequences. The precise cleavage positions observed for the resolution of mobile nicked HJs suggest that these cleavage positions are determined by both the substrate structure and the sequence context at the junction point.To counter the effects of endogenous and exogenous factors that threaten the genome integrity, efficient mechanisms have evolved to ensure the faithful transmission of genetic information (Tuteja et al., 2001). Double-strand breaks, induced by conditions such as ionizing radiation or replication fork (RF) stalling, are among the most deleterious lesions (Jackson and Bartek, 2009). To protect the genome from consequences of these lesions, the cells have ancient double-strand break repair mechanisms, including the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. The HR mechanism is also of great importance in the intentional genetic recombination during sexual reproduction. A key intermediate in HR is the so-called Holliday junction (HJ), a structure that was first suggested in the context of a gene conversion model in fungi (Holliday, 1964) and later shown to arise in somatic and meiotic cells (Szostak et al., 1983; Schwacha and Kleckner, 1995; Cromie et al., 2006; Bzymek et al., 2010).HJs are structures consisting of four DNA strands of two homologous DNA helices (e.g. homologous chromosomes or sister chromatids). They arise through invasion of one single strand from each of two helices into the other double strand. This results in two continuous strands (one per helix) and two strands that cross from one helix into the other. Schematics often depict the HJs with a parallel orientation of the helices, in which the crossing strands cross each other as was originally postulated (Holliday, 1964). However, HJs based on oligonucleotides have been shown to adopt an antiparallel conformation (for review, see Lilley, 2000). In this configuration, the junction resembles the letter H in a lateral view, and the crossing strands actually perform U turns. The crossing strands represent physical links between the two DNA strands involved. If a RF is restored by HR-mediated repair during mitosis, the resulting HJ usually involves the two sister chromatids of one chromosome (Li and Heyer, 2008). In meiosis, the physical links in the shape of HJs arise because of meiotic crossover between homologous chromosomes. In either case, these links must be resolved to ensure unperturbed cell survival.The importance of resolving the HJs for the survival of cells and organisms is highlighted by the phenotypes described for mutants defective for the known pathways of HJ resolution. One of these pathways is the resolution by canonical HJ resolvases, enzymes that cleave the two opposing strands of a HJ in perfectly symmetric positions relative to the junction point, which results in readily ligatable nicked duplex (nD) products (Svendsen and Harper, 2010). This property distinguishes the canonical HJ resolvases from the noncanonical resolvases (see below).The main resolvase of Escherichia coli is radiation and UV sensitive C (RuvC), which is part of the E. coli resolvasome (RuvABC complex; Otsuji et al., 1974; Sharples et al., 1990, 1999). In this complex, a HJ is sandwiched between two RuvA tetramers (Panyutin and Hsieh, 1994). Two RuvB complexes form ATP-dependent motors of branch migration, with two opposing helical arms of the junction threaded through their central openings. For the resolution of the HJ, one RuvA tetramer is replaced by a RuvC homodimer. This homodimer positions two active sites at the center of the junction that are poised to cleave the junction point if a preferred consensus sequence of the form 5′-(A/T)TT^↓(G/C)-3′ is encountered. The requirement for this correct sequence is quite strict; even a single base change can lead to a drastic reduction of the cleavage efficiency (Shah et al., 1994). Isolated EcRuvC is also active in vitro and binds only HJ structures with high specificity. This binding is independent of the sequence context, but the cleavage depends on the specific sequence (Iwasaki et al., 1991; Benson and West, 1994; Dunderdale et al., 1994). The exact cleavage position has been determined to be either one nucleotide 3′ or 5′ from the junction or at the junction point (Bennett and West, 1996; Shida et al., 1996; Osman et al., 2009). The well-characterized EcRuvC is often referred to as a paradigm of canonical HJ resolution.Eukaryotes have evolved a more complex interplay of different HJ resolution pathways (Schwartz and Heyer, 2011; Zakharyevich et al., 2012). A defined complex, consisting of a recombination deficiency Q (RecQ) helicase (AtRECQ4A in Arabidopsis [Arabidopsis thaliana], Bloom syndrome protein in human, and Slow growth suppression1 (Sgs1) in yeast [Saccharomyces cerevisiae]), a type IA topoisomerase (DNA topoisomerase 3-alpha [TOP3A] in Arabidopsis, HsTOPOIIIα in human, and ScTop3 in yeast), and the structural protein RecQ-mediated genome instability1 (AtRMI1 in Arabidopsis, HsRMI1 in human, and ScRmi1 in yeast; RTR complex), mediates the so-called dissolution pathway. The crossing points of a double HJ are brought together by branch migration catalyzed by the helicase followed by decatenation catalyzed by the topoisomerase (Wu and Hickson, 2003; Hartung et al., 2007a, 2008; Mankouri and Hickson, 2007; Yang et al., 2010). In addition to the catalytic activities, a functional RTR complex also requires structural functions based on protein-protein interactions, for which RMI1 plays an essential role (Mullen et al., 2005; Chen and Brill, 2007; Bonnet et al., 2013; Schröpfer et al., 2014). Dissolution leads to noncross-over products and therefore, is a major mechanism in somatic yeast cells (Gangloff et al., 1994; Ira et al., 2003; Matos et al., 2011). In Arabidopsis, the loss of RTR component function leads to elevated rates of HR as well as sensitivity to UV light and methylmethane sulfonate (MMS; Bagherieh-Najjar et al., 2005; Hartung et al., 2007a; Bonnet et al., 2013). Mutants of AtRMI1 and AtTOP3A exhibit severe and unique meiotic phenotypes (Chelysheva et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008). This meiosis I arrest is dependent on HR, but the exact nature of the recombination intermediates that are involved remains unclear (Li et al., 2004; Hartung et al., 2007b; Knoll et al., 2014).Dissolution acts in parallel with a second pathway mediated by the structure-specific endonuclease MMS and UV-sensitive protein81 (MUS81) as shown by the fact that the additional mutation of ScSgs1/AtRECQ4A leads to synthetic lethality (Mullen et al., 2001; Hartung et al., 2006; Mannuss et al., 2010). Single mutants of MUS81 in yeast, human, Drosophila melanogaster, and Arabidopsis are sensitive to DNA-damaging agents that perturb RFs and show reduced HR after induction of double-strand breaks (Boddy et al., 2001; Hanada et al., 2006; Hartung et al., 2006). The MUS81 homologs form heterodimers with the noncatalytic subunit essential meiotic endonuclease1 (EME1; ScMms4 in S. cerevisiae). SpMus81-Eme1 was, to our knowledge, the first nuclear endonuclease reported to be capable of resolving HJs (Boddy et al., 2001). The Arabidopsis complexes can be formed with the two different subunits: AtEME1A or AtEME1B (Geuting et al., 2009). AtMUS81-EME1A/B, like the fission yeast ortholog, preferentially cleaves nicked Holliday junctions (nHJs) and 3′-flaps but also shows weaker activity on intact HJs in vitro (Boddy et al., 2001; Osman et al., 2003; Geuting et al., 2009; Schwartz and Heyer, 2011). MUS81 homologs are key players in meiotic cross-over generation (Osman et al., 2003; Berchowitz et al., 2007; Higgins et al., 2008). Although cross-over formation is solely dependent on SpMus81 in fission yeast, this function was shown to be shared with ScYen1 in budding yeast (Osman et al., 2003; Blanco et al., 2010; Ho et al., 2010; Tay and Wu, 2010). Tightly regulated by cell division cycle5-dependent hyperphosphorylation at the end of prophase I, the main activity of ScMus81-Mms4 is timed to coordinate with the formation of chiasmata and HJs that link the homologous chromosomes. This role in meiosis I is shown by the failure of chromosome segregation at the end of meiosis I in ScMus81 mutants (Matos et al., 2011). Interestingly, the chromosomes could be segregated at the end of meiosis II because of the presence of ScYen1. In contrast to canonical HJ resolvases, the hallmark of the MUS81-EME1 cleavage mechanism is the asymmetry of the second incision relative to either a first incision or a preexisting nick. This difference classifies MUS81-EME1 as a noncanonical resolvase. Its products need additional processing by gap-filling or flap-cleaving enzymes to allow religation (Boddy et al., 2001; Geuting et al., 2009).In very recent studies, HsMUS81-EME1 was found to constitute an essential canonical HJ resolvase with HsSLX1-SLX4 (SLX for synthetic lethal of unknown function), in which a first incision is made by HsSLX1-SLX4 followed by the enhanced action of the HsMUS81-EME1 subunits on the resulting nHJ (Garner et al., 2013; Wyatt et al., 2013). HsSLX1-SLX4 had previously been described as a canonical resolvase, albeit producing only a low level of symmetrically cut ligatable products (Fekairi et al., 2009).In addition to the mechanisms described above, an activity resembling that of EcRuvC had long been known to be present in mammalian cell-free extracts. In 2008, the group of Steven C. West succeeded in identifying, to their knowledge, the first nuclear proteins analogous to the EcRuvC paradigm: ScYen1 and Homo sapiens XPG-like endonuclease1 (HsGEN1; Ip et al., 2008). These proteins are members of the large and well-characterized Rad2/XPG family of nucleases. The Rad2/XPG family consists of the Xeroderma pigmentosum group G-complementing protein (XPG) endonucleases of the nucleotide excision repair (class I), the flap endonuclease1 (FEN1) replication-associated flap endonucleases (class II), the exodeoxyribonuclease1 (EXO1) exonucleases of recombination and repair (class III), and class IV (containing the [putative] eukaryotic HJ resolvases). This last class was introduced after the identification of the rice (Oryza sativa) single-strand DNA endonuclease1 (OsSEND-1) based on sequence homology. The class IV members show a domain composition homologous to FEN1 and EXO1, with no spacer region between their N-terminal XPG (XPG-N) and internal XPG (XPG-I) domains, whereas the primary structure of these domains is more similar to the sequence of the nuclease domain of XPG (Furukawa et al., 2003).Although all Rad2/XPG homologs share a common cleavage mechanism as observed for the typical 5′-flap substrate (Tsutakawa et al., 2011; Tsutakawa and Tainer, 2012), the striking evolutionary difference between classes I, II, and III on the one hand and the HJ resolvases (class IV) on the other hand is the ability of class IV members to form homodimers in vitro at their preferred substrate, the HJs (Rass et al., 2010). The homodimer configuration ensures the presence of two active sites positioned on the opposing strands of the HJ, which is necessary for resolution. The mode of eukaryotic HJ resolution is largely similar to the bacterial paradigm: (1) cleavage occurs one nucleotide in the 3′ direction of a static junction point (equivalent to the main cleavage site on 5′-flaps), (2) the incisions occur with almost perfect point symmetry, (3) the incisions result in readily ligatable nDs, and (4) certain sites within a migratable HJ core are preferred, providing evidence for a (yet to be determined) sequence specificity (Ip et al., 2008; Bailly et al., 2010; Rass et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2012).In the absence of MUS81-EME1/Mms4, the proteins HsGEN1, ScYen1, and CeGEN-1 have been shown to play a role in response to replication-associated perturbations, such as MMS- and UV-induced DNA damage (Bailly et al., 2010; Blanco et al., 2010; Tay and Wu, 2010; Gao et al., 2012; Muñoz-Galván et al., 2012). It is also likely that these proteins provide a backup mechanism in mitosis and meiosis, ensuring proper chromosome segregation after a failure of other mechanisms, including MUS81-EME1/Mms4 (Blanco et al., 2010; Matos et al., 2011).Although canonical HJ resolvases in animals and fungi are a current topic of great interest, very little is known about these proteins in plants. In rice, two members of the Rad2/XPG class IV have been described: OsSEND-1 (the founding member) and OsGEN-like (OsGEN-L). OsSEND-1 was shown to digest single-stranded circular DNA, and its expression is induced on MMS-induced genotoxic stress, whereas OsGEN-L is implicated in late spore development (Furukawa et al., 2003; Moritoh et al., 2005). Both studies (Furukawa et al., 2003; Moritoh et al., 2005) proposed putative homologs in other plants, and the gene locus At1g01880 of Arabidopsis, coding for the protein AtGEN1, is considered the ortholog of HsGEN1 and ScYen1 (Ip et al., 2008). However, currently, only OsGEN-L has been further investigated and described to possess in vitro properties similar to both Rad2/XPG nucleases and EcRuvC. This protein shows a well-defined 5′-flap activity as well as a poorly characterized ability, similar to that of EcRuvC, to resolve mobile HJs (Yang et al., 2012).Thus, of two members of Rad2/XPG class IV of plants, only one member has so far been analyzed with respect to a possible HJ resolvase activity. However, Arabidopsis expression data show that both proteins are expressed in plants and do not reveal marked differences (Laubinger et al., 2008). In this study, the goal was, therefore, to characterize the in vitro activities of not only AtGEN1 but also, AtSEND1, focusing on the idea that Arabidopsis and (seed) plants in general might encode not one but actually two HJ resolvases with functional homology to EcRuvC.