| Abstract: | Nectars are rich in primary metabolites and attract mutualistic animals, which serve as pollinators or as an indirect defense against herbivores. Their chemical composition makes nectars prone to microbial infestation. As protective strategy, floral nectar of ornamental tobacco (Nicotiana langsdorffii × Nicotiana sanderae) contains “nectarins,” proteins producing reactive oxygen species such as hydrogen peroxide. By contrast, pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins were detected in Acacia extrafloral nectar (EFN), which is secreted in the context of defensive ant-plant mutualisms. We investigated whether these PR proteins protect EFN from phytopathogens. Five sympatric species (Acacia cornigera, A. hindsii, A. collinsii, A. farnesiana, and Prosopis juliflora) were compared that differ in their ant-plant mutualism. EFN of myrmecophytes, which are obligate ant-plants that secrete EFN constitutively to nourish specialized ant inhabitants, significantly inhibited the growth of four out of six tested phytopathogenic microorganisms. By contrast, EFN of nonmyrmecophytes, which is secreted only transiently in response to herbivory, did not exhibit a detectable inhibitory activity. Combining two-dimensional sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis with nanoflow liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis confirmed that PR proteins represented over 90% of all proteins in myrmecophyte EFN. The inhibition of microbial growth was exerted by the protein fraction, but not the small metabolites of this EFN, and disappeared when nectar was heated. In-gel assays demonstrated the activity of acidic and basic chitinases in all EFNs, whereas glucanases were detected only in EFN of myrmecophytes. Our results demonstrate that PR proteins causally underlie the protection of Acacia EFN from microorganisms and that acidic and basic glucanases likely represent the most important prerequisite in this defensive function.Plants secrete nectar to attract mutualistic animals, which mainly function as pollinators in the case of floral nectar or as defenders against herbivores in the case of extrafloral nectar (EFN; Simpson and Neff, 1981; Heil, 2008; González-Teuber and Heil, 2009a). Because nectars usually represent aqueous solutions of monosaccharides and disaccharides together with amino acids, they are prone to infestation by microbial organisms. When present in the nectar, fungi (González-Teuber et al., 2009) and yeast (Herrera et al., 2009) in particular can alter the chemical composition of the nectar and thereby reduce its suitability for the plant''s animal mutualists (Herrera et al., 2008). Moreover, several phytopathogenic organisms may use the nectar-secreting tissues as entries to infect other plant organs (Bubán et al., 2003; Farkas et al., 2007). Therefore, being an excellent growing medium for yeast, fungi, and bacteria, nectar requires an efficient antimicrobial protection.Unfortunately, our knowledge of the means by which plants protect nectar from microorganisms is extremely limited. Although the first reports on nectar proteins date back to the 1960s and 1970s (Lüttge, 1961; Baker and Baker, 1975), most studies that considered the defensive function of nectar focused on secondary compounds such as alkaloids and phenols. These metabolites commonly protect nectar from consumption by nectar robbers (animals that feed on nectar without providing a mutualistic service to the plant [Stephenson, 1981; Johnson et al., 2006]) or limit the duration of pollinator visits (Kessler et al., 2008). Only during the last decade did a series of studies discover defensive proteins in the floral nectar of ornamental tobacco (Nicotiana langsdorffii × Nicotiana sanderae; Carter et al., 1999). In this species, floral nectar contains a limited array of proteins termed “nectarins.” Nectarins serve the protection from microbial infestation through a biochemical pathway called the nectar redox cycle (Carter and Thornburg, 2004a), in which mainly three of the five nectarins are involved: NEC1, NEC3, and NEC5. NEC1 was characterized as a manganese superoxide dismutase (Carter and Thornburg, 2000), NEC3 has carbonic anhydrase and monodehydroascorbate reductase activity (Carter and Thornburg, 2004b), and NEC5 is a Glc oxidase that functions together with NEC1 in the production of high peroxide levels (Carter and Thornburg, 2004c): nectar of ornamental tobacco can accumulate up to 4 mm hydrogen peroxide, concentrations that are clearly high enough to exhibit toxicity on microorganisms. Thus, the floral nectar of ornamental tobacco is kept free of microbes mainly via the production of small reactive oxygen species.By contrast, a proteomic study on EFN of the ant-plant, Acacia cornigera, revealed the presence of several pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (González-Teuber et al., 2009). Myrmecophytes (ant-plants) are constitutively inhabited by specialized ant species, which serve as a very efficient indirect defense against herbivores (Heil, 2008). In the most specialized cases, both the ant and the plant depend on this interaction, which thus represents an obligate mutualism. In the EFN of A. cornigera, activities of chitinase, β -1,3-glucanase, and peroxidase were detected together with proteins similar to PR-1, osmotin-like proteins, and thaumatin-like proteins (González-Teuber et al., 2009). Most of these proteins, however, were only investigated by tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and characterized via MS-BLAST searches. Because no activity assays had been performed, the presence of these proteins could not be causally linked to the protection of EFN from microorganisms.This study was conducted to determine whether the antimicrobial protection of Acacia EFN can be directly and exclusively allotted to the enzymatic activity of its protein fraction, which would contrast the protective strategy of this nectar from the one that has been described by Carter, Thornburg, and colleagues (Carter et al., 1999; Carter and Thornburg, 2004a). We also aimed at investigating whether Acacia EFN inhibits the growth of phytopathogens and thus can serve in the protection from infection by pathogens that may use nectaries to enter the plant (Bubán et al., 2003). We used four sympatric Acacia species and a closely related Prosopis species, which exhibit different types of ant-plant mutualism and therefore differ in their EFN secretion schemes (Heil et al., 2004) and composition (Heil et al., 2005; González-Teuber and Heil, 2009b). The obligate myrmecophytes among Central American Acacia species secrete EFN constitutively at high rates, and the EFN of these species possesses a much higher level of proteins and of antimicrobial defense than the EFN of congeneric nonmyrmecophytes (González-Teuber et al., 2009). The nonmyrmecophytes, by contrast, secrete EFN at lower rates and only transiently in response to leaf damage; this EFN contains few proteins but high levels of Suc (Heil et al., 2005; González-Teuber et al., 2009).We studied the EFN of the obligate myrmecophytes A. cornigera, Acacia hindsii, and Acacia collinsii and of the two nonmyrmecophytes Acacia farnesiana and Prosopis juliflora. Bioassays were employed to detect inhibitory activities of the nectars against phytopathogens, and in-gel assays were used to determine the presence and functionality of basic and acidic chitinases and glucanases. Size exclusion filtration and heating of the EFN was used to investigate whether the antimicrobial activity of EFN is exclusively caused by the protein fraction. The results demonstrate that the antimicrobial protection of Acacia EFN is caused by the fraction of enzymatically active PR proteins and independent of small, soluble molecules, an observation that represents, to our knowledge, a new strategy by which plants can protect nectar from infestation by potentially deleterious microorganisms. |
