Dissection of salicylic acid-mediated defense signaling networks

The small phenolic molecule salicylic acid (SA) plays a key role in plant defense. Significant progress has been made recently in understanding SA-mediated defense signaling networks. Functional analysis of a large number of genes involved in SA biosynthesis and regulation of SA accumulation and signal transduction has revealed distinct but interconnecting pathways that orchestrate the control of plant defense. Further studies utilizing combinatorial approaches in genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry and genomics will uncover finer details of SA-mediated defense networks as well as further insights into the crosstalk of SA with other defense signaling pathways. The complexity of defense networks illustrates the capacity of plants to integrate multiple developmental and environmental signals into a tight control of the costly defense responses.Key words: salicylic acid, disease resistance, signal transduction, Arabidopsis, Pseudomonas syringaePlants have evolved sophisticated defense mechanisms to ward off attacks from pathogens. In addition to pre-formed physical/chemical barriers, plants can actively monitor the presence of pathogens and subsequently activate defense signaling networks, which in turn restrict the further growth and spread of pathogens.The small phenolic compound salicylic acid (SA) plays a central role in plant defense signaling. It is required for recognition of pathogen-derived components and subsequent establishment of local resistance in the infected region as well as systemic resistance at the whole plant level.^1–3 SA accumulation is inducible upon infections of various pathogens, treatment with elicitors from pathogens, and stress conditions.^3–5 Exogenous application of SA and its synthetic analogs to plants is sufficient to invoke disease resistance.^6–9 Disruption of SA accumulation and/or signaling by mutations or by a transgenic SA hydrolase encoded by the bacterial gene nahG greatly compromises defense against pathogens.¹⁰ In addition, the phytohormones jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) regulate SA-mediated defense as well as many aspects of plant development. Emerging evidence also implicates additional phytohormones in plant defense, two of which, auxin and abscisic acid, were recently shown to impact the SA pathway.^11,12The past two decades have witnessed exciting progress made towards a comprehensive understanding of defense networks in the model plant Arabidopsis, especially those regulated by SA. The discovery of an expanding array of genes involved in SA-mediated defense suggests the complexity of defense networks. Surprisingly, information on functional relationships among many defense genes is sparse. Connecting the dots (genes) on the defense map to form pathways, which are further interconnected into complex defense networks, still remains a challenging task. This review focuses on our current understanding of the interactions among genes that regulate three key sub-circuits of the SA pathway: SA biosynthesis, SA accumulation and SA signal transduction. Discussions of the crosstalk between components involved in the SA pathway and those in other defense pathways can be found in some excellent reviews.^13–17     

Phospholipases in action during plant defense signaling

Eukaryotic organisms rely on intricate signaling networks to connect recognition of microbes with the activation of efficient defense reactions. Accumulating evidence indicates that phospholipids are more than mere structural components of biological membranes. Indeed, phospholipid-based signal transduction is widely used in plant cells to relay perception of extracellular signals. Upon perception of the invading microbe, several phospholipid hydrolyzing enzymes are activated that contribute to the establishment of an appropriate defense response. Activation of phospholipases is at the origin of the production of important defense signaling molecules, such as oxylipins and jasmonates, as well as the potent second messenger phosphatidic acid (PA), which has been shown to modulate the activity of a variety of proteins involved in defense signaling. Here, we provide an overview of recent reports describing the different plant phospholipase pathways that are activated during the establishment of plant defense reactions in response to pathogen attack.Key words: lipid signaling, PA, PLA, PLC, PLD, plant immunityIn plant cells, perception of pathogenic microbes largely relies on transmembrane pattern recognition receptors that specifically recognize highly conserved pathogen-derived molecules called PAMPs/MAMPs (pathogen-/microbial-associated molecular patterns), such as bacterial flagellin.¹ PAMP recognition by the plant leads to basal defense responses. A second layer of defense is based on the recognition of specific pathogen-derived molecules, called effectors, primarily by an additional class of plant cytoplasmic receptor proteins [nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NB-LRR) proteins] but also by protein receptors predicted to be located at the plasma membrane [receptor-like proteins (RLPs) and receptor-like kinases (RLKs)]. This recognition leads to the activation of plant immune responses that are frequently associated to the development of hypersensitive cell death (HR) at the inoculation site, which has been shown to contribute to plant resistance.²The activation of plant immunity involves a variety of early signaling events, including rapid accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), changes in cellular ion fluxes, activation of protein kinase cascades, changes in gene expression and production of stress-related hormones.^3,4 During recent years, a substantial number of reports have also shown the importance of lipids and lipid-related molecules, including glycerolipids, sphingolipids, fatty acids, oxylipins, jasmonates and sterols, in the regulation of plant defense responses.⁵Phospholipids are more than structural components in biological membranes. Indeed, evidence that phospholipases and phospholipid-derived molecules are involved in plant signaling, and more particularly in plant immunity, is rapidly accumulating.^6,7 In plants, phosphatidic acid (PA) can be produced from phospholipids by phospholipase D (PLD) enzymes or from diacylyglycerol (DAG) by DAG kinases (DGKs) in the phospholipase C (PLC) pathway. PA is a potent secondary signal messenger molecule that modulates the activity of kinases, phosphatases, phospholipases and proteins involved in membrane-trafficking, Ca²⁺ signaling and the oxidative burst.^8,9 In addition, a growing body of evidence indicates that phospholipase A (PLA) [and related molecules such as lysophospholipids (LPLs) and free fatty acids (FFAs)] and phospholipase C (PLC) (and its related molecules DAG and DGK) play important roles in the control of the plant defense response to the attack by invading pathogens.⁷Here, we review the recent advances in understanding phospholipase-mediated signaling and its importance in the control of plant immune responses.     

Induced root-secreted phenolic compounds as a belowground plant defense

Rhizosphere is the complex place of numerous interactions between plant roots, microbes and soil fauna. Whereas plant interactions with aboveground organisms are largely described, unravelling plant belowground interactions remains challenging. Plant root chemical communication can lead to positive interactions with nodulating bacteria, mycorriza or biocontrol agents or to negative interactions with pathogens or root herbivores. A recent study¹ suggested that root exudates contribute to plant pathogen resistance via secretion of antimicrobial compounds. These findings point to the importance of plant root exudates as belowground signalling molecules, particularly in defense responses. In our report,² we showed that under Fusarium attack the barley root system launched secretion of phenolic compounds with antimicrobial activity. The secretion of de novo biosynthesized t-cinnamic acid induced within 2 days illustrates the dynamic of plant defense mechanisms at the root level. We discuss the costs and benefits of induced defense responses in the rhizosphere. We suggest that plant defense through root exudation may be cultivar dependent and higher in wild or less domesticated varieties.Key words: root exudates, plant defense, t-cinnamic acid, fusarium, induced defensePlants grow and live in very complex and changing ecosystems. Because plants lack the mobility to escape from attack by pathogens or herbivores, they have developed constitutive and in addition inducible defenses that are triggered by spatiotemporally dynamic signaling mechanisms. These defenses counteract the aggressor directly via toxins or defense plant structures or indirectly by recruitment of antagonists of aggressors. Whereas induced defenses are well described in aboveground interactions, evidence of the occurrence of such mechanisms in belowground interactions remains limited. The biosynthesis of a defensive molecule could be both constitutive and inducible with a low level of a preformed pool (Fig. 1). In addition, upon encounter of an attacking organism, those levels could be induced to rise locally to a high level of active compound that is able to disarm the pathogen.^2,3 Only a few examples show that root exudates play a role in induced plant defense. Hairy roots of Ocimum basilicum secrete rosmarinic acid only when challenged by the pathogenic fungus Pythium ultimum.⁴ Wurst et al.⁵ reported on the induction of irridoid glycosides in root exudates of Plantago lanceolata in presence of nematodes. In vivo labelling experiments² with ¹³CO₂ showed the induction of phenolic compounds secreted by barley roots after Fusarium graminearum infection and the de novo biosynthesis of root secreted t-cinnamic acid within 2 days. These results show that the pool of induced t-cinnamic acid originated from both pre-formed and newly formed carbon pools (Fig. 1), highlighting a case of belowground induced defense inside and outside the root system.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Suggested mechanisms for the induction of root defense exudates in barley in response to Fusarium attack. Upon pathogen attack by Fusarium, the initial preformed pool of phenolic compounds is increased by the addition of inducible, de novo biosynthesized t-cinnamic acid. Both, the preformed pool and the de novo biosynthesized pool fuel the exudation of defense compounds from infected roots.The concept of fitness costs is frequently presented to explain the coexistence of both constitutive and induced defense.⁶ In the case of induced defense, resources are invested in defenses only when the plant is under attack. In the absence of an infection, plants can optimize allocation of their resources to reproduction and growth to compete with neighbours.⁷ Constitutive defenses are thought to be more beneficial when the probability of attack is high, whereas adjustable, induced defenses are more valuable to fight against an unpredictable pathogen. Non disturbed soil is a heterogeneous matrix where biodiversity is very high and patchy^8,9 and organism motility is rather restricted.¹⁰ As a consequence of the patchiness, belowground environment is expected to be favourable to selection for induced responses.¹¹ The absence of defense root exudates between two infections may form an unpredictable environment for soil pathogens and reduce the chance for adaptation of root attackers. Plants may also use escape strategies to reduce the effect of belowground pathogens. Henkes et al. (unpublished) showed that Fusarium-infected barley plants reduced carbon allocation towards infected roots within a day and increased allocation carbon to uninfected roots. These results illustrate how reallocation of carbon toward non infected root parts represents a way to limit the negative impact of root infection.We have demonstrated the potential of barley plants to defend themselves against soil pathogen by root exudation.² Even the barley cultivar ‘Barke’ used in our study, a modern cultivated variety, was able to launch defense machinery via exudation of antimicrobial compounds when infected by F. graminearum. We suggest that plant defense through root exudation might be cultivar dependent and perhaps higher in wild or less domesticated varieties. Taddei et al.¹² reported that constitutivelyproduced root exudates from a resistant Gladiolus cultivar inhibit spore germination of Fusarium oxysporum whereas root exudates from a susceptible cultivar do not affect F. oxysporum germination. Root exudates from the resistant cultivar contained higher amounts of aromaticphenolic compounds compared to the susceptible cultivar and these compounds may be responsible for the inhibition of spore germination. Metabolic profiling of wheat cultivars, ‘Roblin’ and ‘Sumai3’, respectively, susceptible and resistant to Fusarium Head Blight, showed that t-cinnamic acid was a discriminating factor responsible for resistance/defense function.¹³ Therefore it is likely that wild barley varieties hold higher defense capacities compare to cultivated varieties selected for high yield. In the future, plant breeders in organic and low-input farming could use root-system defense ability as new trait in varietal variation.     

The role of NDR1 in pathogen perception and plant defense signaling

The biochemical and cellular function of NDR1 in plant immunity and defense signaling has long remained elusive. Herein, we describe a novel role for NDR1 in both pathogen perception and plant defense signaling, elucidated by exploring a broader, physiological role for NDR1 in general stress responses and cell wall adhesion. Based on our predictive homology modeling, coupled with a structure-function approach, we found that NDR1 shares a striking similarity to mammalian integrins, well-characterized for their role in mediating the interaction between the extracellular matrix and stress signaling. ndr1-1 mutant plants exhibit higher electrolyte leakage following pathogen infection, compared to wild type Col-0. In addition, we observed an altered plasmolysis phenotype, supporting a role for NDR1 in maintaining cell wall-plasma membrane adhesions through mediating fluid loss under stress.Key words: NDR1, integrin, RGD, plant defenseNON-RACE SPECIFIC DISEASE RESISTANCE-1(NDR1) was first identified as playing an essential role in plant defense activation following the perception of the bacterial phytopathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato DC3000.¹ Over the past decade, the role of NDR1 in plant defense signaling has emerged through the elucidation of the genetic interactions in which NDR1 participates. This includes the activation of the coiled-coil nucleotide binding site leucine rich repeat (CC-NB-LRR) family of resistance (R) proteins. In parallel, the function of ENHANCED DISEASE SUCEPTIBILITY-1 (EDS1 ²) has been extensively described through its genetic and biochemical relationship with the activation of Toll-Interleukin Receptor (TIR)-NB-LRR R-proteins.³ As central activators required for defense signaling, NDR1 and EDS1 represent critical nodes required for the activation of host resistance.     

The novel GrCEP12 peptide from the plant-parasitic nematode Globodera rostochiensis suppresses flg22-mediated PTI

The potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis is a biotrophic pathogen that secretes effector proteins into host root cells to promote successful plant parasitism. In addition to the role in generating within root tissue the feeding cells essential for nematode development,¹ nematode secreted effectors are becoming recognized as suppressors of plant immunity.^2-4 Recently we reported that the effector ubiquitin carboxyl extension protein (GrUBCEP12) from G. rostochiensis is processed into free ubiquitin and a 12-amino acid GrCEP12 peptide in planta. Transgenic potato lines overexpressing the derived GrCEP12 peptide showed increased susceptibility to G. rostochiensis and to an unrelated bacterial pathogen Streptomyces scabies, suggesting that GrCEP12 has a role in suppressing host basal defense or possibly pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) during the parasitic interaction.³ To determine if GrCEP12 functions as a PTI suppressor we evaluated whether GrCEP12 suppresses flg22-induced PTI responses in Nicotiana benthamiana. Interestingly, we found that transient expression of GrCEP12 in N. benthamiana leaves suppressed reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and the induction of two PTI marker genes triggered by the bacterial PAMP flg22, providing direct evidence that GrCEP12 indeed has an activity in PTI suppression.     

Defence on demand: mechanisms behind optimal defence patterns

Background

The optimal defence hypothesis (ODH) predicts that tissues that contribute most to a plant''s fitness and have the highest probability of being attacked will be the parts best defended against biotic threats, including herbivores. In general, young sink tissues and reproductive structures show stronger induced defence responses after attack from pathogens and herbivores and contain higher basal levels of specialized defensive metabolites than other plant parts. However, the underlying physiological mechanisms responsible for these developmentally regulated defence patterns remain unknown.

Scope

This review summarizes current knowledge about optimal defence patterns in above- and below-ground plant tissues, including information on basal and induced defence metabolite accumulation, defensive structures and their regulation by jasmonic acid (JA). Physiological regulations underlying developmental differences of tissues with contrasting defence patterns are highlighted, with a special focus on the role of classical plant growth hormones, including auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins and brassinosteroids, and their interactions with the JA pathway. By synthesizing recent findings about the dual roles of these growth hormones in plant development and defence responses, this review aims to provide a framework for new discoveries on the molecular basis of patterns predicted by the ODH.

Conclusions

Almost four decades after its formulation, we are just beginning to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms responsible for the patterns of defence allocation predicted by the ODH. A requirement for future advances will be to understand how developmental and defence processes are integrated.     

Several MAMPs,including chitin fragments,enhance AtPep-triggered oxidative burst independently of wounding

AtPeps are a family of small peptides in Arabidopsis that are believed to act as endogenous amplifiers of the plant’s innate immune response. In our recent study,¹⁰ we showed that in Arabidopsis leaf disks, bacterial MAMPs (microbe-associated molecular patterns) such as the flagellin derived elicitor flg22, greatly enhanced the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) triggered by a subsequent AtPep-perception. This enhanced ROS production could be a hallmark either of improved local defense or of the initiation of ROS-based systemic signaling. Here, we established a superior ROS detection system based on a new derivative of luminol (L-012). With this sensitive system we were able to show that chitin, too, acts as an enhancer of AtPep-triggered ROS, linking this specific defense response amplification also to the recognition of fungal pathogens. In addition we used the more sensitive ROS assay to transfer the experimental setup from cut leaf disks to unwounded seedlings. Thereby we revealed that wounding is not a prerequisite to enable the MAMP-induced enhancement of the AtPep-triggered ROS response.     

Analyzing plant defenses in nature

A broad range of chemical plant defenses against herbivores has been studied extensively under laboratory conditions. In many of these cases there is still little understanding of their relevance in nature. In natural systems, functional analyses of plant traits are often complicated by an extreme variability, which affects the interaction with higher trophic levels. Successful analyses require consideration of the numerous sources of variation that potentially affect the plant trait of interest. In our recent study on wild lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) in South Mexico, we applied an integrative approach combining analyses for quantitative correlations of cyanogenic potential (HCNp; the maximum amount of cyanide that can be released from a given tissue) and herbivory in the field with subsequent feeding trials under controlled conditions. This approach allowed us to causally explain the consequences of quantitative variation of HCNp on herbivore-plant interactions in nature and highlights the importance of combining data obtained in natural systems with analyses under controlled conditions.Key words: natural systems, plant defensive traits, optimal defense hypothesis (ODH), cyanogenesis, lima bean, Phaseolus lunatus L., plant-herbivore interaction, plant-pathogen interaction, multiple defense syndromesAnalyzing plant defenses against herbivores in nature is often complicated by an extreme variability in multiple factors. Plant populations generally show high genetic variability resulting in substantial intraspecific variation of plant traits.¹ In addition to genotypic variability, phenotypic plasticity of plants is a source of variation.² At the level of individual plants, expression of defensive traits strongly depends on plant organ and ontogeny of plants or plant parts. Within an individual plant, it is quite common for reproductive structures and young leaves to be better chemically defended than older leaf tissues. To explain these within-plant variations of defenses, the optimal defense hypothesis (ODH) was formulated. Concerning the variability of chemical defenses of leaves, the ODH predicts that within the total foliage of a plant, young leaves make a larger contribution to plant fitness than old leaves as they have a higher potential photosynthetic value resulting from a longer expected life-time.^3–5 In addition, younger leaves are often more nutritious and thus more attractive to herbivores⁶ and should consequently be better defended.⁷ In this line, the basic assumption of the ODH is that three main factors—cost of defense, risk of attack and value of the respective plant organ—determine the investment in defensive secondary metabolites.^8,9 Thus, the higher the risk of a given plant tissue to be consumed by herbivores and the higher its value for plant fitness, the more energy should be allocated to its defense.^10,11 Beyond genotypic and ontogenetic variability of a given defense, potential co-variation with other defensive or nutritive traits expressed by the same plant individual can strongly affect its efficiency as defense against herbivores.^12,13 In addition to these endogenous sources of defensive variability, the expression of plant traits strongly depends on multiple external factors such as temperature or availability of plant nutrients, water or light (Fig. 1).¹⁴ At the same time, the outcome of herbivore-plant interactions is crucially determined by biotic interactions. Plant interactions with mutualistic microorganisms such as Rhizobia, mycorrhiza and above-ground fungal endophytes as well as tri-trophic interactions with predators and parasitoids of herbivores can all strongly impact plant fitness.¹⁵Open in a separate windowFigure 1Factors influencing variability of plant defenses. Plant defensive traits are affected by various endogenous and external factors. Endogenous factors comprise plant genotype and ontogeny of plants or plant parts. External factors can be categorized as abiotic or biotic. Important abiotic factors that can influence plant defenses are light exposure, temperature, soil salinity, as well as water and nutrient availability. Biotic factors that can have an effect on plant defense are interspecific interaction with Rhizobia (in the case of legumes), mycorrhizal and endophytic fungi, pathogens as well as the interaction with conspecifics or different plant species.Variability in herbivore-plant interactions can also be associated with herbivore variation. Different attackers of a particular plant species might be affected in different ways by toxins in food plants (Fig. 1). The efficiency of a specific defensive compound can also depend on the feeding mode, i.e., sucking or chewing, as well as on the degree of specialization of the herbivore to the respective plant.¹⁶ Defenses mediated by secondary plant compounds are generally believed not to affect specialist herbivores, because of their capacity to tolerate or to detoxify defensive compounds of their hosts by behavioral or physiological adaptations.^17–20 In this context, the specialist herbivore paradigm predicts that adapted herbivores are less affected by a given chemical defense than generalists,^21,22 although exceptions have been noted.^23–25While it is important to consider these numerous sources of variation affecting the outcome of herbivore-plant interactions when designing functional studies, a significant fraction of the variability in natural systems will always remain unidentified. Consequently, approaches combining field observations with experiments under controlled conditions provide a powerful tool to uncover functional interactions between plants and their multiple antagonists in nature.In a recent study, we analyzed the importance of wild lima bean''s cyanogenesis—i.e., the release of toxic hydrogen cyanide from preformed precursors in response to cell damage—as plant defense at a natural site in South Mexico.²⁵ Although cyanogenesis is generally considered an efficient direct defense against herbivores, in numerous studies plant cyanide production had little or no effect on herbivores.^26–28 One would like to think that most of these inconsistencies in cyanogenesis-based herbivore defense efficiency could be explained by one or more sources of variation mentioned above. Nevertheless, field studies analyzing the action of plant cyanogenesis on a quantitative basis have been scarce. In our study, a two-step approach was used to gain insight into the function of cyanogenesis in nature.²⁵ First, cyanide concentration and herbivore damage were quantified by measuring removed leaf area of individual leaves derived from different individual plants while considering microclimate conditions. Significant negative correlations between cyanogenesis and leaf damage were observed. Second, since existing correlations do not necessarily indicate causal associations, we conducted consecutive feeding experiments under controlled conditions. To consider natural variability of lima beans'' cyanogenesis observed in nature in our analysis, we prepared clones from field-grown plants with different but defined cyanogenic features. These clonal plants showed high constancy of cyanogenic traits compared to their respective mother plants and thus, could be used in comparative analyses. Every effort was made to duplicate natural conditions and so herbivore species selected for feeding trials represented those identified in the field as the most important plant consumers at the respective site (pers. observ.). Feeding trials supported our hypothesis that cyanogenesis has quantitative effects on herbivore behavior in nature and explained the negative correlation of lima bean''s cyanogenesis and herbivory observed in the field.Analytical approaches combining field observations with controlled experiments help to explain natural patterns and may represent a powerful methodological approach for functional analyses of herbivore-plant interactions.     

Peptide signals for plant defense display a more universal role

Hydroxyproline-rich systemins (HypSys) are small defense signaling glycopeptides found within the Solanaceae family that until recently were thought to only induce defense genes to herbivore attack. The glycopeptides are processed from larger proproteins with up to 3 different glycopeptides being processed out of a single precursor protein. A conserved central hydroxyproline motif within each HypSys is the site of pentose sugar attachment. Recently, it was found that in Petunia hybrida, these defense signaling glycopeptides did not induce protease inhibitor but instead, increased levels of defensin, a gene that is involved in pathogen attack. More recently, a HypSys peptide was isolated from Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato) of the Convolvulaceae family and found to induce sporamin. The proprotein precursor contained six putative peptide signals and had a propeptidase processing region with homology to solanaceous proHypSys. Thus, the HypSys defense peptides are no longer confined to defense against herbivory or exclusivity to the Solanaceae family, redefining both function and dispersion.Key words: systemin, hydroxyproline-rich systemin glycopeptides, HypSys, plant defense, proteinase inhibitorsPlants have evolved an arsenal of defense mechanisms for survival against the wide array of predators and pathogens that they encounter. Each species has evolved within its unique environment and the protective defense mechanisms must evolve and refine over time to allow a plant to compete in its niche.¹ Plant peptide signals have recently been discovered that induce defense genes for protection against both herbivores and pathogens.² This raises the issue of how these peptides, their receptors, signaling pathways, and the downstream regulated defense proteins and compounds have evolved to meet the unique and specific needs of each plant. Our recent papers^3,4 reveal that these defense signaling peptides are not confined to a single family of plants and that the end products of the signaling pathway may be more diverse than expected.Systemin was the first peptide signal discovered in plants.⁵ The 18 amino acid peptide is processed from the C-terminal of a 200 amino acid precursor; prosystemin.⁶ Although lacking a signal sequence, prosystemin reaches the apoplast and the mature peptide is processed upon insect attack, signaling downstream events leading to the production of defense proteins, such as polyphenol oxidase and protease inhibitors.⁷ Systemin has only been found in the Solanaceae family and more specifically, only in the subfamily Solanoideae, which contains tomato, potato, nightshade and pepper.The hydroxyproline-rich systemin glycopeptides are similar to systemin in size (18–20 amino acids in length) and, like systemin, are processed from larger precursors.^2,8 Both systemin and HypSys induce the production of methyl jasmonate and function to amplify the defense response. Each HypSys peptide contains a hydroxyproline-rich inner core that is the site of glycosylation and both the peptide backbone and the carbohydrate moieties are important for receptor recognition (9^,10 Although there is no sequence similarity between prosystemin and hydroxyproline-rich systemins, it has been suggested that because of their size, structure and functional similarities, they should be classified together.¹¹

Table 1

Comparisons of the amino acid sequences of isolated and putative Systemin and HypSys peptides

Emerging roles in plant defense for cis-jasmone-induced cytochrome P450 CYP81D11

Cis-jasmone is a volatile organic compound emitted constitutively by flowers or leaves of several plant species where it acts as an attractant for pollinators and as a chemical cue for host localization (or avoidance) for insects.^1–3 It is also released by some plant species after feeding damage inflicted by herbivorous insects and in this case might serve as a chemical cue for parasitoids to guide them to their prey (so called “indirect defense”).^4,5 Moreover, we have recently shown that plants can perceive cis-jasmone and that it acts as a signaling molecule in A. thaliana, inducing a discrete and distinctive suite of genes, of which a large subset is putatively involved in metabolism and defense responses.⁶ Cytochrome P450s feature prominently in these functional subsets and of these the highest fold change upon cis-jasmone treatment occurred with the cytochrome CYP81D11 (At3g28740).⁶ Hence this gene was chosen for a more thorough analysis of the potential biological relevance of the cis-jasmone induced defense response. Although the precise function of CYP81D11 remains to be determined, we could previously demonstrate its involvement in the indirect defense response in Arabidopsis, as plants exposed to cis-jasmone ceased to be attractive to the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi when this P450 was inactivated by T-DNA insertion mutagenesis.⁶ Here we report additional experiments which give further support to a role of CYP81D11 in the direct or indirect defense response of A. thaliana.Key words: cis-Jasmone, Cytochrome P450, indirect defense, tritrophic interactions, volatile signaling     

AGC kinases in plant development and defense

More than 100,000 publications demonstrate that AGC kinases are important regulators of growth, metabolism, proliferation, cell divison, survival and apoptosis in mammalian systems.¹ Mutation and/or dysregulation of these kinases contribute to the pathogenesis of many human diseases, including cancer and diabetes. Although AGC kinases are also present in plants, little is known about their functions. We demonstrated that the AGC kinase OXIDATIVE SIGNAL-INDUCIBLE1 (OXI1/AGC2-1) regulate important developmental processes and defense responses in plants. The summary of recent progress also demonstrates that we are only beginning to understand the role of this kinase pathway in plants.Key words: AGC kinases, reactive oxygen species, plant stress, plant microbe interaction, plant pathogen     

Potential defense-related prenylated isoflavones in lactofen-induced soybean

An integrated LC-MS and NMR metabolomic study was conducted to investigate metabolites whose formation was induced by lactofen (1), a soybean (Glycine max L.) disease resistance-inducing herbicide. First, LC-MS analyses of control and lactofen (1)-induced soybean extracts were performed. The LC-MS raw data were then processed by a custom designed bioinformatics program to detect the induced metabolites so formed. Finally, structures of unknown induced metabolites were determined on the basis of their 1D and 2D NMR spectroscopic data. Structure of two previously unreported compounds, 7,8-dihydroxy-4′-methoxy-3′-prenylisoflavone (2) and 7-hydroxy-4′,8-dimethoxy-3′-prenylisoflavone (3) were elucidated together with four known prenylated compounds, 3′-prenyldaidzein (4), 8-prenyldaidzein (5), 3′-prenylgenistein (6), and 4-prenylcoumestrol (7). Compounds (2-6) are reported for the first time in soybean, as are the ¹³C chemical shift assignments for compound (7). Formation of these six prenylated compounds was also induced by the primary defense glucan elicitor from the cell wall of the pathogen Phytophthora sojae (Kauf. and Gerde.), further suggesting a potential role in soybean defense. These results highlight the metabolic flexibility within soybean secondary product pathways and suggest that prenylation may be associated with defense responses. Moreover, this study demonstrates a promising future approach using metabolomics on elicitor-induced plants for discovery of unknown compounds even in relatively well studied plants.     

Plant defense pathways subverted by Agrobacterium for genetic transformation

The soil phytopathogen Agrobacterium has the unique ability to introduce single-stranded transferred DNA (T-DNA) from its tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid into the host cell in a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Following its entry into the host cell cytoplasm, the T-DNA associates with the bacterial virulence (Vir) E2 protein, also exported from Agrobacterium, creating the T-DNA nucleoprotein complex (T-complex), which is then translocated into the nucleus where the DNA is integrated into the host chromatin. VirE2 protects the T-DNA from the host DNase activities, packages it into a helical filament and interacts with the host proteins, one of which, VIP1, facilitates nuclear import of the T-complex and its subsequent targeting to the host chromatin. Although the VirE2 and VIP1 protein components of the T-complex are vital for its intracellular transport, they must be removed to expose the T-DNA for integration. Our recent work demonstrated that this task is aided by an host defense-related F-box protein VBF that is induced by Agrobacterium infection and that recognizes and binds VIP1. VBF destabilizes VirE2 and VIP1 in yeast and plant cells, presumably via SCF-mediated proteasomal degradation. VBF expression in and export from the Agrobacterium cell lead to increased tumorigenesis. Here, we discuss these findings in the context of the “arms race” between Agrobacterium infectivity and plant defense.Key words: Arabidopsis, defense response, proteasomal degradation, bacterial infection, F-box proteinAgrobacterium infection of plants consists of a chain of events that usually starts in physically wounded tissue which produces Plant defense pathways subverted by Agrobacterium for genetic transformation small phenolic molecules, such as acetosyringone (AS).¹ These phenolics serve as chemotactic agents and activating signals for the virulence (vir) gene region of the Ti plasmid.^2,3 The vir gene products then process the T-DNA region of the Ti plasmid to a single-stranded DNA molecule that is exported with several Vir proteins into the host cell cytoplasm, in which it forms a the T-DNA nucleoprotein complex (T-complex).^4,5 The plant responds to the coming invasion by expressing and activating several defense-related proteins,⁵ such as VBF⁶ and VIP1,⁷ aimed at suppressing the pathogen. However, the Agrobacterium has evolved mechanisms to take advantage of these host defense proteins.⁸ Some of the unique strategies for achieving this goal include (1) the use of VIP1 to bind the T-complex—via the VIP1 interaction with the T-DNA packaging protein VirE2,^9,10—and assist its nuclear import⁷ and chromatin targeting,¹¹ and (2) the use of VBF to mark VIP1 and its associated VirE2 for proteasomal degradation, presumably for uncoating the T-complex prior to the T-DNA integration into the plant genome.^6,12 Here, we examine these subversion strategies in the context of “arms race” between Agrobacterium and plants.