Abscisic Acid and photosynthesis in isolated leaf mesophyll cell

Abscisic acid (AbA) treatments of concentrations of up to 135 micromolar did not inhibit photosynthesis in enzymatically isolated leaf mesophyll cells of Phaseolus vulgaris, Nicotiana tabacum, and Lycopersicum esculentum over periods of up to 5 hours. Thin slices of leaves preincubated in hypertonic solutions identical to those used to isolate cells were shown to synthesize AbA rapidly, although accumulation of AbA in the cells was low due to extensive release of the newly synthesized AbA into the medium. The levels of endogenously made AbA in leaf cells of Phaseolus vulgaris rose from a low of 0.27 micromolar to a high of 6.74 micromolar during 2 hours preincubation. Exogenously applied AbA can be taken up by the cells as was demonstrated using ¹⁴[C]AbA. Thus, AbA applied at concentrations 19 times higher than endogenous levels does not change the rate of photosynthesis.     

Patterns of roost site selection and use by Southern Ground-Hornbills in north-eastern South Africa

Different habitats may be used for the needs of various aspects of an animal’s life. Southern Ground-Hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri groups announce their presence within year-round territories by calling at dawn from their overnight roost sites. Knowledge on ground-hornbill roosting habits is limited. Groups roost in large trees, apparently close to where they end up after daily foraging. We investigated patterns of roost site selection and use for four Southern Ground-Hornbill groups in the Associated Private Nature Reserves, north-eastern South Africa, based on data from GPS-satellite transmitters. The number of roost sites used per month averaged 15.4 ± 4.7 across all groups, indicating little evidence of strong preferences for specific sites. This number was least when groups were breeding, decreasing throughout the early wet season (October–December) and was lowest during the late wet season (January–March) when actively breeding groups frequently roosted close to the nest (54–83% of roosts <1 000 m of the nest). As might be expected, the mean monthly number of nights per roost peaked during the breeding season (December–January). Riparian habitats were preferred for roosting during the breeding season, whereas disturbed areas, as well as Combretumand mopane-dominated habitats were preferred during the dry non-breeding season. Adequate large trees not only for nesting, but also for roosting, particularly in riparian habitats, may therefore be an important and potentially limiting factor for the successful reproduction of Southern Ground-Hornbills.     

Are there multiple circadian clocks in plants?

We have reported that Arabidopsis might have genetically distinct circadian oscillators in multiple cell-types.¹ Rhythms of CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN2 (CAB2) promoter activity are 2.5 h longer in phytochromeB mutants in constant red light and in cryptocrome1 cry2 double mutant (hy4-1 fha-1) in constant blue light than the wild-type.² However, we found that cytosolic free Ca²⁺ ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) oscillations were undetectable in these mutants in the same light conditions.¹ Furthermore, mutants of CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1 (CCA1) have short period rhythms of leaf movement but have arrhythmic [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations. More important, the timing of cab1-1 (toc1-1) mutant has short period rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity (∼21 h) but, surprisingly, has a wild-type period for circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼24 h). In contrast, toc1-2, a TOC1 loss-of-function mutant, has a short period of both CAB2 and [Ca²⁺]_cyt rhythms (∼21 h). Here we discuss the difference between the phenotypes of toc1-1 and toc1-2 and how rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations might be regulated differently.Key words: circadian rhythms, TOC1, multiple oscillators, CAB2, Ca²⁺ signalling, arabidopsis, circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations, aequorin, luciferase, central oscillatorThe plant circadian clock controls a multitude of physiological processes such as photosynthesis, organ and stomatal movements and transition to reproductive growth. A plant clock that is correctly matched to the rhythms in the environment brings about a photosynthetic advantage that results in more chlorophyll, more carbon assimilation and faster growth.³ One of the first circadian clock mutants to be described in plants was the short period timing of cab1-1 (toc1-1), which was identified using the rhythms of luciferase under a CHLOROPHYLL A/B BINDING PROTEIN2 (CAB2) promoter as a marker for circadian period.⁴Circadian rhythms of both CAB2 promoter activity and cytosolic-free Ca²⁺ ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) oscillations depend on the function of a TOC1, CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1 and LATE ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL (TOC1/CCA1/LHY) negative feedback loop.⁵ In tobacco seedlings, CAB2:luciferase (CAB2:luc) rhythms and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations can be uncoupled in undifferentiated calli.⁶ In Arabidopsis, we reported that toc1-1 has different periods of rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity (∼21 h) and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼24 h). The mutant allele toc1-1 has a base pair change that leads to a full protein that has an amino acid change from Ala to Val in the CCT domain (CONSTANS, CONSTANS-LIKE and TOC1).⁷ On the other hand, the mutant toc1-2 has short period of both rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations (∼21 h).^1,7 This allele has a base pair change that results in changes to preferential mRNA splicing, resulting in a truncated protein with only 59 residues.⁷ Thus, the mutated CCT domain in toc1-1 might lead to the uncoupling of rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations while the absence of TOC1 in toc1-2 causes the shortening of the period of both rhythms. Indeed, zeitlupe-1 (ztl-1) mutants, that have higher levels of TOC1, have long periods of both rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations.¹ The biochemical function of the CCT domain is unknown but it is predicted to play an important role in protein-protein interactions⁸ and nuclear localization.⁹One model to explain the period difference of CAB2:luc expression and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation is that the toc1-1 mutation has uncoupled two oscillators in the same cell. Uncoupled oscillators are a predicted outcome of certain mutations in the recently described three-loop mathematical model.^10–11 However, both rhythms of TOC1 and CCA1/LHY expression, which would be in uncoupled oscillators accordingly to the model, are described as short-period in toc1-1.⁵ Thus, we have favored the model in which CAB2:luc expression and circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation are reporting cell-types with different oscillators that are affected differently by toc1-1.It is possible that TOC1 could interact with a family of cell-type specific proteins. The interaction of TOC1 with each member of the family could be affected differently by the mutation in the CCT domain (Fig. 1). Two-hybrid assays have shown that TOC1 interacts with PIF proteins (PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR3 and PIF4) and related PIL proteins (PIF3-LIKE PROTEIN 1, PIL2, PIL5 and PIL6).⁸ In fact, TOC1 interaction with both PIF3 and PIL1 is stronger when the N-terminus receiver domain is taken out and the CCT domain is left intact.⁸ Thus, it is possible that TOC1 and different PIF/PIL proteins interact to regulate the central oscillator. This interaction could be impaired by the Ala to Val change in the toc1-1 mutation, leading to the period shortening. However, lines misexpressing PIF3, PIL1 and PIL6 showed no changes in their circadian rhythms.^12–16Open in a separate windowFigure 1Models of how the toc1-1 mutation might differently affect cell-type specific circadian oscillators. The single mutant toc1-1 have 21 h rhythms of CAB2 promoter activity and 24 h-rhythms of [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations. The toc1-1 mutation is a single amino acid change in the CCT domain. The CCT domain is involved in protein-protein interaction and/or nuclear localization. We have proposed that circadian oscillators with different periods are present in different cell-types. The luminescence generated by CAB2 promoter-drived luciferase (from the CAB2:luc) is probably originated in the epidermis and mesophyll cells. In this model, we propose that the mutation on the CCT domain impairs the mutated TOC1 interaction with the hypothetical protein Z in these cells-types. In contrast, in other cell-types, the mutated TOC1 still interacts with other hypothetical proteins (W), despite the mutation in the CCT domain. In those cell-types, the circadian oscillator could still run with a 24 h period for [Ca²⁺]_cyt rhythms (from the 35S:AEQ construct). One possible identity for Z and W are the members of the PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR (PIF) related PIF3-LIKE (PIL) family.One possible explanation for the absence of alterations in the period of circadian rhythms in lines misexpressing PIF/PIL is that they only have roles in certain cell-types. As an example, PIL6 and PIF3 are involved with flowering time and hypocotyl growth in red light^12–15 while PIL1 and PIL2 are involved with hypocotyl elongation in shade-avoidance responses.¹⁶ Both hypocotyl growth and flowering time require cell-type specific regulation: vascular bundle cells in the case of the flowering time¹⁷ and the cells in the shoot in the case of the hypocotyl elongation.¹⁶ If TOC1 interaction with certain PIF/PIL is indeed cell-type specific, the mutated CCT domain found in the toc1-1 mutant could affect the clock in different ways, depending on the type of PIF/PIL protein expressed in each cell-type. Therefore, a question that arises is: which cell-types are sensitive to the toc1-1 mutation?There is evidence that CAB2 and CATALASE3 (CAT3) are regulated by two oscillators that respond differently to temperature signals.¹⁸ These genes might be regulated by two distinct circadian oscillators within the same tissues or a single cell.¹⁸ Interestingly, the spatial patterns of expression of CAB2 and CATALASE3 overlap in the mesophyll of the cotyledons.¹⁸ Furthermore, rhythms of CAB2 and CHALCONE SYNTHASE (CHS) promoter activity have different periods and they are equally affected by toc1-1 mutation.¹⁹ Whereas CAB2 is mainly expressed in the mesophyll cells, CHS is mainly expressed in epidermis and root cells.¹⁹ However, rhythms of AEQUORIN luminescence, which reports [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillation, were insensitive to toc1-1 mutation and appear to come from the whole cotyledon.²⁰ One cell-type which is found in the whole cotyledon but is distinct from either mesophyll or epidermis cells is the vascular tissue and associated cells.Another approach to determine which cell-types are insensitive to toc1-1 mutation is to compare the toc1-1 and toc1-2 phenotypes. The period of circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations is not the only phenotype that is different in toc1-1 and toc1-2 mutants. Rhythms in CAB2 promoter activity in constant red light are short period in toc1-1 but arrhythmic in toc1-2.^21,22 COLD, CIRCADIAN RHYTHM AND RNA BINDING 2/GLYCINE-RICH RNA BINDING PROTEIN 7 (CCR2/GRP7) is also arrhythmic in toc1-2 but short period in toc1-1 in constant darkness.^7,22 When the length of the hypocotyl was measured for both toc1-1 and toc1-2 plants exposed to various intensities of red light, only toc1-2 had a clear reduction in sensitivity to red light. Therefore, toc1-2 has long hypocotyl when maintained in constant red light while hypocotyl length in toc1-1 is nearly identical to that in the wild-type.²² These differences may allow us to separate which cell-types are sensitive to the toc1-1 mutation and which not.Hypocotyl growth is regulated by a large number of factors such as light, gravity, auxin, cytokinins, ethylene, gibberellins and brassinosteroids.²³ There is also a correlation between the size of the hypocotyl in red light and defects in the circadian signaling network.^24,25 The fact that toc1-1 has different hypocotyl sizes from toc1-2 suggests that circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations could be involved in the light-dependent control of hypocotyl growth. Circadian [Ca²⁺]_cyt oscillations might encode temporal information to control cell expansion and hypocotyl growth.^26–28 toc1-1 have short-period rhythms of hypocotyl elongation, which indicates that the cells in the hypocotyl have a 21 h oscillator.²⁹ However, toc1-1 might also have a wild-type hypocotyl length in continuous red light because cells which generate the signal to regulate hypocotyl growth might have 24 h oscillators.The toc1-1 mutation was the first to be directly associated with the plant circadian clock, revitalizing the field of study.⁴ Now, by either uncoupling two feedback loops or by distinct TOC1 protein-protein interaction in different cell-types, toc1-1 has shown new properties of the circadian clock that may deepen our understanding of this system.     

The coleoptile chloroplast: Distinct distribution of xanthophyll cycle pigments,and enrichment in Photosystem II

Recent studies have shown that coleoptile chloroplasts operate the xanthophyll cycle, and that their zeaxanthin concentration co-varies with their sensitivity to blue light. The present study characterized the distribution of photosynthetic pigments in thylakoid pigment–protein complexes from dark-adapted and light-treated coleoptile and mesophyll chloroplasts, the low temperature fluorescence emission spectra, and the rates of PS I and PS II electron transport in both types of chloroplasts from 5-day-old corn seedlings. Pigments were extracted from isolated PS I holocomplex, LHC IIb trimeric and LHC II monomeric complexes and analyzed by HPLC. Chlorophyll distribution in coleoptile thylakoids showed 31% of the total collected Chl in PS I and 65% in the light harvesting complexes of PS II. In mesophyll thylakoids, the values were 44% and 54%, respectively. Mesophyll and coleoptile PS I holocomplexes differed in their Chl t a/Chl t b ratios (8.1 and 6.1, respectively) and -carotene content. In contrast, mesophyll and coleoptile LHC IIb trimers and LHC II monomers had similar Chl t a/Chl t b ratios and -carotene content. The three analyzed pigment–protein complexes from dark-adapted coleoptile chloroplasts contained zeaxanthin, whereas there was no detectable zeaxanthin in the complexes from dark-adapted mesophyll chloroplasts. In both chloroplast types, zeaxanthin and antheraxanthin increased markedly in the three pigment–protein complexes upon illumination, while violaxanthin decreased. In mesophyll thylakoids, zeaxanthin distribution as a percentage of the xanthophyll cycle pool was: LHC II monomers > LHC IIb trimers > PS I holocomplex, and in coleoptile thylakoids, it was: LHC IIb trimers > LHC II monomers = PS I holocomplex. Low temperature (77 K) fluorescence emission spectra showed that the 686 nm emission of coleoptile chloroplasts was approximately 50% larger than that of mesophyll chloroplasts when normalized at 734 nm. The pigment and fluorescence analysis data suggest that there is relatively more PS II per PS I and more LHC I per CC I in coleoptile chloroplasts than in mesophyll chloroplasts. Measurements of t in vitro uncoupled photosynthetic electron transport showed approximately 60% higher rates of electron flow through PS II in coleoptile chloroplasts than in mesophyll chloroplasts. Electron transport rates through PS I were similar in both chloroplast types. Thus, when compared to mesophyll chloroplasts, coleoptile chloroplasts have a distinct PS I pigment composition, a distinct chlorophyll distribution between PS I and PS II, a distinct zeaxanthin percentage distribution among thylakoid pigment–protein complexes, a higher PS II-related fluorescence emission, and higher PS II electron transport capacity. These characteristics may be associated with a sensory transducing role of coleoptile chloroplasts.