| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
First published online April 27, 2007; 10.1105/tpc.107.050096 The Plant Cell 19:1235-1250 (2007) © 2007 American Society of Plant Biologists OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
Heterotrimeric G Protein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
and Gß subunit genes and two G
subunit genes (AGG1 and AGG2), raising the possibility that the two potential G protein complexes mediate different cellular processes. Mutants with reduced expression of one or both G genes revealed specialized roles for each G subunit. AGG1-deficient mutants, but not AGG2-deficient mutants, showed impaired resistance against necrotrophic pathogens, reduced induction of the plant defensin gene PDF1.2, and decreased sensitivity to methyl jasmonate. By contrast, both AGG1- and AGG2-deficient mutants were hypersensitive to auxin-mediated induction of lateral roots, suggesting that Gß1 and Gß2 synergistically inhibit auxin-dependent lateral root initiation. However, the involvement of each G subunit in this root response differs, with Gß1 acting within the central cylinder, attenuating acropetally transported auxin signaling, while Gß2 affects the action of basipetal auxin and graviresponsiveness within the epidermis and/or cortex. This selectivity also operates in the hypocotyl. Selectivity in Gß signaling was also found in other known AGB1-mediated pathways. agg1 mutants were hypersensitive to glucose and the osmotic agent mannitol during seed germination, while agg2 mutants were only affected by glucose. We show that both G subunits form functional Gß dimers and that each provides functional selectivity to the plant heterotrimeric G proteins, revealing a mechanism underlying the complexity of G protein–mediated signaling in plants. |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
, ß, and , which are organized in a highly conserved structure and typically bound to specific G protein–coupled receptors. Activation of the receptor by ligand binding induces a conformational change in G, catalyzing the exchange of GDP to GTP. GTP loading causes a protein conformational change that promotes dissociation of the heterotrimer into two functional signaling elements: the G subunit and the Gß dimer. These two elements (functional subunits) interact with specific effector molecules controlling downstream signaling. The inherent GTPase activity of the G subunit hydrolyzes its bound GTP, leading to the reassociation of G and the Gß dimer, returning the heterotrimer to its inactive GDP-bound state. While interaction between G and the Gß dimer is dependent on the conformational status of the G subunit, interaction between Gß and G is essentially nondissociable; therefore, the Gß dimer acts as a single functional unit in the cell (Gautam et al., 1998
).
It was initially thought that signaling in animals only occurred via the activated G subunit, with the role of Gß being to inhibit the action of G by reforming the inactive heterotrimer and guiding G back to the receptor for reactivation. However, it is now established that the Gß dimer is an active signaling factor in at least as many processes as the G subunit (Clapham and Neer, 1997). Among others, the Gß dimer is able to interact with adenylyl cyclases, potassium channels, and phospholipases (Clapham and Neer, 1993; Scott et al., 2001). Aside from the activation of specific downstream effectors, the Gß dimer is involved in receptor recognition (Lim et al., 2001), membrane targeting, and activation of the G subunit (Evanko et al., 2000, 2001). Binding between G and Gß occurs at a molecular interface largely contained within the ß-propeller structure of Gß. With the exception of Gß5, there is little binding preference between G and Gß pairs. Therefore, it is assumed that G provides a major share of the structural requisite for the selective coupling of the heterotrimer to the receptor and the Gß dimer to its effectors (Gautam et al., 1990; Simon et al., 1991; Hou et al., 2000; Myung and Garrison, 2000; Azpiazu and Gautam, 2002; Chen et al., 2005; Myung et al., 2006). Recent evidence indicates that some animal Gß dimers can move from the plasma membrane to the Golgi upon receptor activation, providing an extra element of spatial segregation to the Gß dimer in G protein–mediated signaling. The G subunit type and the G subunit nucleotide exchange properties strongly influence the rate of translocation (Akgoz et al., 2004, 2006; Azpiazu et al., 2006).
A characteristic of mammalian systems is the existence of gene families for each of the G protein subunits. At least 23 G subunits, 6 Gß subunits (including an alternatively spliced variant), and 12 G subunits (Gautam et al., 1998; Balcueva et al., 2000) have been reported in humans, but not all possible combinations are present in the cell, with combinatorial multiplicity of Gß dimers being restricted by the specific expression patterns of the genes and selective interactions between different Gß and G subunits. Nevertheless, a wide range of Gß dimers, serving as distinct signal transduction elements involved in different processes, have been described (Camps et al., 1992; Katz et al., 1992; Chen et al., 1997; Clapham and Neer, 1997; Gautam et al., 1998; Bommakanti et al., 2000; Mirshahi et al., 2002; Krystofova and Borkovich, 2005).
In contrast with mammalian systems, only one canonical G subunit gene (GPA1) (Ma et al., 1990), one canonical Gß subunit gene (AGB1) (Weiss et al., 1994), and two G subunit genes (AGG1 and AGG2) (Mason and Botella, 2000, 2001) have been found in the Arabidopsis thaliana genome. The same number of G protein subunits were reported in the monocot species rice (Oryza sativa) (Ishikawa et al., 1995, 1996; Iwasaki et al., 1997; Kato et al., 2004); however, two G subunits were described for legume species (Kim et al., 1995; Gotor et al., 1996; Marsh and Kaufman, 1999). G proteins are implicated in a large variety of processes in plants (Jones and Assmann, 2004; Perfus-Barbeoch et al., 2004; Assmann, 2005; McCudden et al., 2005; Temple and Jones, 2007); nevertheless, specific signaling roles for the G subunit or Gß dimers remained elusive until recently. Analysis of T-DNA and ethyl methanesulfonate mutants lacking functional G or Gß subunits showed that both G and Gß could be involved in specific and independent pathways (Ullah et al., 2003; Joo et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2006a; Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2006) as well as in the same processes (Ullah et al., 2003; Pandey et al., 2006). Studies using Arabidopsis demonstrated that the Gß-deficient agb1-1 and agb1-2 mutants have flowers with elongated peduncles, shortened flat-top siliques, rounded rosette leaves with crinkled surfaces, and increased root mass (Lease et al., 2001; Ullah et al., 2003). Detailed studies revealed that Gß modulates lateral root formation by interfering with auxin-dependent cell division (Ullah et al., 2003). It was shown that Gß-mediated signaling, but not G, plays a distinct part in plant resistance against necrotrophic pathogens (Llorente et al., 2005; Trusov et al., 2006). Specific changes in seed germination were also ascribed to Gß activity (Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2006). Finally, analysis of transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants with reduced Gß subunit levels due to antisense expression of the Gß subunit mRNA suggested that the Gß subunit is involved in regulation of the reproductive phase of the tobacco life cycle, particularly in stamen development and pollen maturation (Peskan-Berghofer et al., 2005).
Strong interaction between plant Gß and each G subunit was demonstrated in vitro (Mason and Botella, 2000, 2001) as well as in vivo (Kato et al., 2004; Adjobo-Hermans et al., 2006, Chakravorty and Botella, 2007). However, despite sequence similarity (48% amino acid identity), the interaction between each of the two Arabidopsis G subunits and Gß seems to be centered in different domains of the protein (Mason and Botella, 2000, 2001; Temple and Jones, 2007).
Nothing is known about the cellular and physiological roles of either of the two known G subunits, their possible functional redundancy, and whether the two potential dimers, Gß1 and Gß2, are involved in the same or different signaling pathways. We took advantage of the extensive phenotypic characterization of loss-of-function agb1 mutants, and using this inventory of phenotypes, we asked which of the G subunits acts with Gß to regulate a specific function. Fungal resistance, root development, and glucose sensing were the three well-characterized AGB1-signaling pathways examined in this study. By a genetic approach, we dissected the roles of the G subunits in G protein signaling in these pathways. Our results show that the different G subunits form independent signal-transducing Gß dimers and impart functional selectivity to the heterotrimeric G protein signaling network.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
and Gß subunit genes were previously reported in various plant species (Weiss et al., 1993; Huang et al., 1994; Kaydamov et al., 2000; Perroud et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2006c). In order to study the tissue-specific and developmental regulation of the AGB1, AGG1, and AGG2 genes, transgenic Arabidopsis (Col-0) plants were produced containing the promoter regions of each gene fused to the ß-glucuronidase (GUS) reporter gene. At least three independent lines were characterized for each of the promoter constructs. Transgenic plants did not show any obvious morphological alterations, suggesting that inserts did not disrupt functional genes. GUS histochemical assays revealed that all three genes are active during early seedling development, with GUS activity detected throughout the plant but highest at the hypocotyl–root junction in 2-d-old AGB1:GUS seedlings (Figure 1A
). AGG1:GUS staining was observed in the hypocotyl, while AGG2:GUS staining occurred in the upper part of the root, including root hairs, and gradually declined along the root (Figure 1A).
|
|
). Three distinct expression patterns were observed in AGB1:GUS plants: only in the stele, the cortex, or the entire section, with the least intensity or no staining in endodermis/pericycle cells (Figure 1E). It is interesting that throughout the plant, AGG1 and AGG2 expression patterns rarely overlapped and together matched the expression of AGB1 in most tissues (with the exception of flowers and siliques).
Loss-of-Function Mutants for the G Subunits
In order to study the function of both G subunits in Arabidopsis, mutants carrying T-DNA insertions in AGG1 (agg1-1w, on the Wassilewskija [Ws] ecotype) and AGG2 (agg2-1, on the Columbia-0 [Col-0] background) genes were identified. An AGG1-deficient mutant in the Col-0 background was generated by genetic introgression over eight successive generations, resulting in a line designated agg1-1c (backcross to Col-0). In agg1-1w, the T-DNA insertion is positioned within the second intron, splitting the protein in approximately two equal halves, while in agg2-1, two tandem and opposing T-DNA insertions are located in the third intron, disrupting the C-terminal region of the hypothetical protein (Figure 2A
). RT-PCR analysis showed that neither allele (agg1-1c or agg2-1) produces a detectable functional transcript for its respective gene (Figure 2C). In addition, the absence of AGG1 expression in the agg1-1c mutants did not result in any observable changes in AGG2 expression, due to possible compensatory effects (Figure 2C; data not shown). The reverse applies to agg2-1 mutants. A double knockout of the AGG1 and AGG2 genes was obtained by hybridization of the agg1-1c and agg2-1 mutants (agg1 agg2). As expected, this line lacked detectable expression of each of the two G subunit genes (Figure 2C).
|
Gß-Mediated Defense against Necrotrophic Fungi Is Selectively Mediated by AGG1 but Not AGG2
It was shown previously that Gß-mediated signaling, but not G-mediated signaling, is involved in resistance against necrotrophic fungi (Llorente et al., 2005; Trusov et al., 2006). Therefore, we sought to determine whether there is a specific G subunit engaged with Gß in this process or whether both subunits play redundant or synergistic roles. In preliminary experiments, we analyzed the behavior of all three genes (AGB1, AGG1, and AGG2) in response to attack by necrotrophic pathogens using transgenic plants carrying the promoter:GUS fusion constructs. Alternaria brassicicola is an air-borne avirulent pathogenic fungus of Arabidopsis ecotype Columbia (Penninckx et al., 1996; Schenk et al., 2000, 2003; Thomma et al., 2000; van Wees et al., 2003), even though some isolates can reproduce at a very low rate under favorable conditions (van Wees et al., 2003). When plants were inoculated with a suspension of A. brassicicola spores, elevated GUS activity was detected 24 h after infection in AGB1:GUS and AGG1:GUS but not in AGG2:GUS transgenic plants (Figure 3A
). GUS staining was restricted to the inoculation site and did not spread throughout the entire leaf.
Fusarium oxysporum (f. sp conglutinans) is a soil-borne necrotrophic fungus that uses the root tip, secondary root formation foci, and wounds as entry points. It subsequently colonizes the plant by traveling through the vascular system (Mauchmani and Slusarenko, 1994; Agrios, 2005). In contrast with A. brassicicola, F. oxysporum is a virulent pathogen of Arabidopsis (Berrocal-Lobo and Molina, 2004). Surprisingly, inoculation of roots with F. oxysporum did not induce GUS activity in root tissue above background levels in any of the three reporter lines; however, significant induction was detected in leaves of AGB1:GUS and AGG1:GUS plants (Figure 3B). No induction was observed in AGG2:GUS plants; rather, a slight decrease in gene expression was observed in leaves and roots. Taken together, our findings indicate that leaf expression of AGB1 and AGG1 is systemically activated by F. oxysporum and locally by A. brassicicola.
To understand the roles of G1 and G2 in resistance against necrotrophic pathogens, we assayed the response of the T-DNA mutants agb1-2, agg1-1c, agg2-1, agg1 agg2, and the RNAi lines (agg1RNAi and agg2RNAi) to A. brassicicola and F. oxysporum inoculation. Roots of 2-week-old mutant and wild-type plants were infected with bud cell suspensions of F. oxysporum, and disease progression was monitored over time from the development of the first symptoms until plants died. Figure 3C illustrates the appearance of typical disease symptoms at an early stage of infection. The advanced chlorosis observed in veins and leaves of agb1-2, agg1-1c, agg1RNAi, and agg1 agg2 mutants gives a qualitative indication that there is increased susceptibility to F. oxysporum in these lines compared with the wild type as well as agg2-1 and agg2RNAi mutants. To quantify the levels of resistance, the number of decayed plants in all mutant lines and wild-type controls was determined (Figure 4A
). Plants lacking green leaves were considered decayed. agg1-1c, agg1RNAi, and agg1 agg2 lines showed similar dynamics to agb1-2, all of them exhibiting a faster rate of disease progression than wild-type plants, while the behavior of agg2-1 and agg2RNAi mutants resembled that of the wild type. To test whether the loss of AGG1 had a similar effect in the Ws background, we compared the agg1-1w mutant (in Ws) with wild-type Ws and the G subunit null mutant gpa1-1 (also in the Ws ecotype) (Ullah et al., 2001). Unfortunately, no agb1 mutants are yet available in the Ws background. We previously showed that the G subunit null mutants gpa1-3 and gpa1-4 (Col-0 ecotype) have slightly enhanced resistance to F. oxysporum (Trusov et al., 2006). After performing inoculation and disease evaluation as for Col-0 lines, it was evident that disease progressed faster in agg1-1w plants than in the Ws wild type, while gpa1-1, as expected, displayed slightly enhanced resistance (Figure 4C). The differences in disease progression observed between agg1, agb1, and agg1 agg2 mutants compared with wild-type Col-0 and agg2 mutants were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Similarly, the differences observed between agg1-1w and the wild type and between gpa1-1 and the wild type in the Ws ecotype were statistically significant (P < 0.01). All experiments were repeated at least twice with similar results.
|
We previously showed that Gß is also involved in resistance to A. brassicicola (Trusov et al., 2006). Application of spores (106 spores/mL) on the leaf surface of Arabidopsis plants causes necrotic lesions that are clearly different in the wild type and Gß-deficient mutants. agb1-2, agg1, agg2, and agg1 agg2 mutants along with wild-type Col-0 plants were inoculated with A. brassicicola (Figure 3D), and disease progression was quantified by measuring the necrotic lesion area (given as a percentage of the droplet-inoculated area) (Figure 4E). Statistical analysis showed two very distinct groups that are significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). Lesions on agb1-2, agg1, and agg1 agg2 mutant leaves occupied 
50 to 60% of the inoculated area, in contrast with wild-type plants and agg2 mutants, in which an average of 30% of the inoculated area became necrotic. In agreement with these observations, RNA gel blot hybridization revealed that 20 h after infection with A. brassicicola, steady state levels of the plant defensin PDF1.2 transcript were reduced in agb1-2, agg1, and agg1 agg2 mutants compared with the wild type and agg2 mutants (Figure 4D).
It was previously established that the increased susceptibility to fungal necrotrophic pathogens that was observed in Gß-deficient mutants correlates with a decreased sensitivity to methyl jasmonate (MeJA). Therefore, we assayed MeJA sensitivity using a germination assay. All mutants showed reduced sensitivity to MeJA compared with wild-type plants (Figure 4F), although to different degrees: agb1-2 = agg1 agg2 < agg1 < agg2 < wild type. MeJA sensitivity was also assayed using root length inhibition assays (Figure 4G). Two statistically different groups (P < 0.05) were observed, the first one showing decreased sensitivity to MeJA in agb1-2, agg1 agg2, and agg1 mutants and the second one containing the wild type and agg2 mutants.
AGG1 and AGG2 Act Additively in Gß-Mediated Lateral Root Development
It has been established that Gß, but not G, attenuates auxin-induced cell division leading to lateral root proliferation, although it does not directly couple auxin signaling (Ullah et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2006a). Figure 5A
shows the number of lateral roots in 2-week-old wild-type plants and mutants deficient in Gß, G1, G2, or both G subunits grown on vertical plates (0.5x MS, 1% sucrose, and 0.8% agar, 16:8 day:night cycle, 23°C). All mutants produced more lateral roots than wild-type plants, but three statistically distinct groups (P < 0.05) were observed within the mutants: agb1-2 and double agg1 agg2 mutants had the highest number of lateral roots, agg2-1 and agg2RNAi mutants produced fewer lateral roots, while agg1-1c and agg1RNAi had even fewer roots (Figure 5A). Alteration of the growth conditions, such as an increase in MS salt concentration (from 0.5x to 1x) and reduced temperature (from 23 to 21°C) substantially (more than three times) decreased the total number of lateral roots (Figure 5C, white bars) as well as the differences among the various mutants and between mutants and the wild type.
|
; Ullah et al., 2003). All of the tested G protein mutants showed increased sensitivity to NAA compared with wild-type plants. The ratio of lateral roots developed on NAA-containing medium versus control medium gives an additional indication of the relative sensitivity to NAA: Col-0, 2.2; agb1-2, 3.9; agg1-1c, 4.1; agg1RNAi, 3.6; agg2-1, 3.4; agg2RNAi, 3.6; and agg1 agg2, 4.0.
Exposure of Arabidopsis plants to high temperature (29°C) results in an increase in endogenous auxin levels (Gray et al., 1998). Although that original work focused on the effect of endogenous auxin induction on hypocotyl elongation, an increased number of lateral roots was also observed (Gray et al., 1998). In addition, it has been established that shoot-derived auxin is required for the emergence of lateral root primordia (Reed et al., 1998). agb1-2, agg1, agg2, and agg1 agg2 mutants along with wild-type Col-0 plants were grown at either 21 or 29°C (1x MS), and the number of lateral roots was determined in 2-week-old plants. All genotypes showed a marked increase in the number of lateral roots when grown at high temperature, with the smallest effect (2.5-fold increase) observed in wild-type plants (Figure 5C). agg1-1c and agg1RNAi mutants displayed 5.5- and 4.6-fold increases, respectively, while agg2-1 and agg2RNAi showed 3.2- and 3.5-fold increases, respectively. Both agb1-2 and double agg1-1 agg2-1 mutants produced approximately seven times more lateral roots when grown at 29°C (Figure 5C). In addition, adventitious roots were frequently observed (80 to 90% of seedlings) on hypocotyls of agb1-2, agg1 agg2, and agg1 mutants but never in wild-type plants or agg2 mutants (data not shown).
AGG1 and AGG2 Are Involved in the Modulation of Acropetally and Basipetally Transported Auxin Activity, Respectively
AGG1 and AGG2 expression in roots is cell-specific (Figure 1D), correlating with acropetal and basipetal auxin streams, respectively (Mitchell and Davies, 1975; Jones, 1998). Therefore, we hypothesized that Gß1 represses lateral root development from the central cylinder by attenuating the activity of acropetally transported auxin, while Gß2 represses lateral root formation or growth through the cortex/epidermis by affecting basipetal auxin. It was established that shoot-derived auxin is the predominant source of auxin in young (5- to 7-d-old) Arabidopsis roots, controlling lateral root emergence during early development, while later in development, the root system gradually reduces the dependence on shoot-derived auxin by synthesizing a sufficient amount within the root tip at 10 d after germination (although shoot-derived auxin is still important for primordial outgrowth) (Bhalerao et al., 2002; Ljung et al., 2005). Therefore, seedlings were grown for 7 d (1x MS) to allow maximal root elongation before the root tip started to produce auxin, and then acropetal auxin transport was inhibited by the method described by Reed et al. (1998). Seedlings with the auxin transport inhibitor NPA block placed at the root tip had only acropetal auxin transport in the area of the root above the block, while seedlings with the NPA block placed at the shoot–root junction should develop lateral roots mainly under the control of basipetal transport, with the exception of the fraction of roots initiated by early acropetal auxin. The dynamics of lateral root emergence was recorded during the 2-week period after the application of the NPA block (Figures 6A and 6B
). As expected, the rate of lateral root production after both treatments was highest in the agb1-2 and agg1 agg2 mutants and lowest in wild-type plants. agg1-1c seedlings produced abundant lateral roots (statistically indistinguishable from agb1-2 and agg1 agg2), despite the arrest of basipetal transport (Figure 6A). Inhibition of acropetal transport resulted in an initially high number of lateral roots in agg1-1c seedlings (day 13 in Figure 6B), probably as a result of early acropetal auxin flux before the block was applied. After the initial peak, the rate of lateral root formation was similar to that in wild-type plants (Figure 6B). By contrast, suppression of basipetal transport reduced lateral root numbers in agg2-1 to wild-type levels (Figure 6A), while arrest of acropetal transport resulted in elevated levels of lateral roots, statistically indistinguishable from those of agb1-2 and agg1 agg2 mutants (Figure 6B). Similar behavior was exhibited by the RNAi lines (data not shown).
|
1 and G2 subunits in roots, we analyzed two specific processes dependent upon the two different auxin streams, adventitious root formation in hypocotyls and root gravitropism. Adventitious root formation predominantly relies on auxin transported within the hypocotyl stele (Liu and Reid, 1992; Nicolas et al., 2004). Aseptically excised wild-type and mutant hypocotyls were incubated with the synthetic auxin NAA. agb1-2, agg1-1c, and agg1 agg2 mutants formed adventitious roots throughout the entire hypocotyl, while in wild-type plants and the agg2-1 mutant adventitious roots were not formed or were present only near the ends of the hypocotyl segments (Figure 6C).
Rashotte and coworkers (2000) showed that inhibition of basipetal auxin transport in roots completely blocked its gravity response, while inhibition of acropetal transport only partially reduced it. Therefore, we assayed the gravitropic response of wild-type and G protein mutant roots by measuring the root angle (measured from the horizontal position) at 24 h after gravistimulation. Figure 6D shows that agb1-2, agg2-1, and agg1 agg2 mutants were less responsive to gravistimulation than wild-type plants and agg1-1c (P < 0.001). Interestingly, agg1-1c was slightly less responsive than the wild type (P < 0.05), probably due to a limited participation of the acropetal auxin in the gravity response (Rashotte et al., 2000).
AGG1 and AGG2 Are Involved in Different Responses during Germination
Two recent reports established that Gß signaling plays a role in germination (Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2006). To determine the specific roles of each of the partner G subunits in this process, mutants lacking Gß, G1, G2, or both G subunits were subjected to germination tests. Since germination efficiency is extremely sensitive to the growth conditions experienced by the parental plant and postharvest storage, all seed lots were collected at the same time from plants grown simultaneously under the same conditions and were stored for 2 months at 4°C in the dark. Approximately 100 sterilized seeds of all tested lines were planted on the same Petri dish for a single treatment.
Germination and early development are regulated by many Gß-mediated signals, and glucose is arguably the best characterized of those signals to date (Ullah et al., 2002; Pandey et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006). As shown in Figure 7A
, there was a clear difference between wild-type and mutant plants when germinated in the presence of 6% glucose, while 4% glucose did not discriminate among the different genotypes and 2% glucose resulted in nearly 100% germination. Because light intensity also has an effect on germination, we used two different intensities of continuous light irradiation (63 and 150 µmol·m–2·s–1). The higher light intensity resulted in faster germination rates, reaching 90% by day 6 on glucose and by day 3 on mannitol (Figures 7C and 7E, respectively), obscuring any differences between genotypes. By contrast, the slower germination rates observed using a lower light intensity accentuated the differences among genotypes. When sown on glucose under low light intensity, agb1-2, agg1, and agg1 agg2 mutant seeds showed drastically reduced germination rates compared with wild-type seeds, with <50% germination after 2 weeks (Figure 7B). By contrast, at higher light intensities, the differences between wild-type and agb1 and agg1 mutant seeds were only observed at day 2 (Figure 7C). Interestingly, agg2 mutants also displayed significant inhibition of germination on glucose, albeit at notably lower levels than agg1 mutants. Again, the difference was statistically significant in lower light (Figure 7B), while at higher light this difference was insignificant (Figure 7C).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
subunits was largely unrecognized, with the general view that G function is limited to anchoring the Gß dimer to the membrane. However, G recently emerged as an important element that provides effector specificity as well as receptor selectivity for the heterotrimer (Gautam et al., 1990; Hou et al., 2000; Akgoz et al., 2002; Azpiazu and Gautam, 2002; Myung et al., 2006).
The initial discovery of single G and Gß subunits in Arabidopsis challenged the concept that plants use combinatorial subunit composition to define G protein receptor/effector specificity (Arabidopsis Genome Initiative, 2000), as proven in mammalian systems (Robishaw and Berlot, 2004). With the recent discovery of two G subunits in Arabidopsis (Mason and Botella, 2000, 2001), we must now address this possibility. Since both plant G subunits share a number of similarities with animal G subunits, such as the strong interaction with Gß and the presence of isoprenylation domains, it is reasonable to expect that there are two operational Gß subunits in Arabidopsis. A number of logical questions follow, such as whether the two subunits mediate the same processes or whether they specialize in different developmental, biotic, or abiotic responses. In this respect, it is interesting that AGG1 and AGG2 in situ expression profiles show a high degree of tissue specificity and that, even though the sum of their individual expression patterns mimics the overall Gß expression, the two G gene expression patterns rarely overlap. This raises the possibility that G subunits impose selective functionality restricted by expression patterns.
The functions of the two G subunits are intrinsically linked to Gß, since, based on mammalian studies, the Gß dimer operates as a single signaling unit. The Gß subunit has been associated with a number of processes using loss-of-function mutants (Lease et al., 2001; Ullah et al., 2003; Llorente et al., 2005; Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2006). However, according to the classical mechanism of heterotrimeric G protein action, the lack of a functional Gß subunit affects not only processes directly mediated by Gß but also those mediated by G; therefore, some of the processes affected in Gß mutants are actually regulated by G (Ullah et al., 2003). In general, those phenotypes shared by G- and Gß-deficient mutants are most likely due to disruption in processes mediated by G, while disruption of processes mediated by Gß results in different or even opposite phenotypes (Ullah et al., 2003). Therefore, to avoid complications in interpretation, we chose processes with predominant Gß signaling, namely, resistance against necrotrophic pathogens (Llorente, et al., 2005; Trusov, et al., 2006), auxin-regulated lateral root development (Ullah et al., 2003), and D-glucose inhibition of germination (Ullah et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006b; Pandey et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006).
Involvement of Gß1 in Resistance against Fungal Pathogens
Quantitative and in situ gene expression studies in transgenic Arabidopsis reporter lines using two different pathogens gave the first indication of the involvement of G1 along with Gß in the defense mechanisms against necrotrophic fungi. These observations were confirmed by the fact that the Gß-deficient mutant agb1-2 and all of the mutants lacking AGG1 (agg1-1c, agg1RNAi, and agg1 agg2) showed increased susceptibility to F. oxysporum, with no statistically significant differences observed between them. The increased susceptibility of G1-deficient mutants to F. oxysporum was shown for Col-0 and Ws. The slight increase in resistance observed for G-deficient mutants suggests that, in defense-related processes, G acts by sequestering the Gß1 dimer to the inactive heterotrimeric complex, thus effectively lowering the free available Gß1 pool (Llorente et al., 2005; Trusov et al., 2006). This is consistent with the finding that the expression of GPA1 is not altered by pathogen exposure (Y. Trusov and J.R. Botella, unpublished data). Even though A. brassicicola and F. oxysporum are both necrotrophic fungi, their infection mechanisms are different. As for F. oxysporum, the responses of all AGG1-deficient mutants and agb1-2 to A. brassicicola were statistically indistinguishable, being more severely affected than in the wild type. This finding suggests that the complete Gß1 dimer is required for defense. By contrast, mutants deficient in AGG2 but not AGG1 (agg2-1 and agg2RNAi) showed a wild-type phenotype in their behavior against both pathogens, thus precluding any significant role of the Gß2 dimer in pathogen resistance.
The susceptibility data are consistent with the molecular observations showing reduced induction of the plant defensin PDF1.2 by A. brassicicola in agb1-2 and all mutants lacking AGG1 (agg1-1c, agg1RNAi, and agg1 agg2) but wild-type induction in agg2 mutants. In addition, all AGG1-deficient mutants showed reduced responses to MeJA (statistically indistinguishable from Gß-deficient mutants), supporting the hypothesis that MeJA signaling could be the link between G proteins and the defense response (Trusov et al., 2006).
Regulation of Lateral Root Development by Gß1- and Gß2-Mediated Signaling
In the young Arabidopsis primary root, auxin transport occurs acropetally through the stele tissue from the first true leaves, where it is primarily synthesized (Bhalerao et al., 2002). This auxin stream initiates early lateral root primordia (Reed et al., 1998; Bhalerao et al., 2002) and augments root-mediated auxin synthesis (Ljung et al., 2005). At a later stage, the root meristem synthesizes auxin, which moves up from the root tip through the epidermis (Mitchell and Davies, 1975; Tsurumi and Ohwaki, 1978; Jones, 1990, 1998; Rashotte et al., 2001), influencing lateral root initiation (Bhalerao et al., 2002; Ljung et al., 2005). Thus, auxin in both streams initiates lateral root formation, but different signaling mechanisms had not been distinguished previously.
We showed that AGB1, AGG1, and AGG2 are each expressed in roots, with AGB1 expression being observed in the stele, cortex, and epidermis, whereas AGG1 expression is restricted to the stele and AGG2 is predominantly active in the cortex and epidermis. Interestingly, none of the genes was expressed in lateral root primordia or in pericycle cells, which become the initials to lateral root meristems. Gß attenuates auxin signaling during lateral root formation (Ullah et al., 2003), and we extended this finding by showing the G subunits provide specificity in this response. While both AGG1 and AGG2 are involved in the inhibition of auxin-dependent lateral root initiation and both possible dimers, Gß1 and Gß2, exert a synergistic effect in auxin signaling attenuation, neither Gß dimer type is able to compensate for loss of the other. A likely explanation is that each dimer acts on different branches of the auxin/lateral root pathway. This duality does not occur in hypocotyls, as Gß1, and not Gß2, attenuates auxin-induced adventitious roots in the hypocotyl.
Considering that AGG1 is expressed in the root stele, where acropetal auxin transport occurs, while AGG2 is expressed in the cortex and epidermis, which are known to accommodate basipetal auxin transport, we hypothesized that Gß1 and Gß2 could be specifically involved in signaling for each of the two auxin streams. Consistent with this, we found that inhibition of acropetal auxin transport at the shoot–root junction affected agg1 mutants, while agg2 mutants were more responsive to the inhibition of basipetal auxin transport arising from the root tip. Furthermore, support for our hypothesis was provided by studying the gravitropic response, a process that is dependent on basipetal auxin transport. The reduced responsiveness of agb1-2 and the agg2 mutants is consistent with a signaling role for basipetally moving auxin in the root. Taking into account the localization of the proteins, we speculate that Gß1 could mediate internal signals while Gß2 could be involved in external/environmental signaling. Brassinosteroids and ethylene are logical candidates to be such internal signals, since both brassinosteroids and ethylene signal transduction pathways are influenced by heterotrimeric G proteins at various stages of plant development (Ullah et al., 2002) and there is evidence that brassinosteroids and ethylene promote lateral root development by increasing acropetal auxin transport (Bao et al., 2004) and by increasing auxin content locally at pericycle founder cells (Aloni et al., 2006). On the other hand, it is well known that a wide range of soil characteristics, such as availability of water or nutrients, can dramatically affect lateral root development (Vanneste et al., 2005). Signaling from one or more of these factors could be coupled by Gß2.
Germination and G Protein Signaling
The role of G proteins in seed germination is intriguing and complicated, since these proteins affect gibberellic acid, abscisic acid, brassinosteroids, MeJA, ethylene, and auxin signaling (Ashikari et al., 1999; Ueguchi-Tanaka et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2001; Ullah et al., 2002; Lapik and Kaufman, 2003; Chen et al., 2004; Pandey et al., 2006) as well as D-glucose sensitivity (Ullah et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006b; Pandey et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006). The gpa1 and agb1 null mutants show a number of alterations in seed germination, suggesting that GPA1 and AGB1 are involved in this process, although their specific roles are not known (Ullah et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006b; Pandey et al., 2006). Here, we focused on traits dependent on Gß-mediated signaling to establish the specificity of the G subunits. The D-glucose hypersensitive phenotype of the Gß null mutants is more severe than that for the G null mutants, implying that the predominant signaling element in D-glucose–regulated germination is the Gß dimer (Pandey et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006). Our results indicate that both Gß1 and Gß2 dimers mediate this response, although their involvements are different. Gß1 is mostly involved in the osmotic component of the glucose response, although involvement in glucose signaling cannot be discounted, while Gß2 plays a role in glucose signaling but not in osmotic stress. The apparent contradiction of our results with the previously reported wild-type sensitivity of agb1-2 to a different osmotic agent, sorbitol (Pandey et al., 2006), can be explained by the masking effect that light intensity (used in that study) has on osmotic response (cf. Figure 6E with 6D). These data further illustrate the complexity of the germination process, implicating at least two independent signaling pathways involving Gß1 and Gß2 dimers and the additional effect of light intensity.
The fact that AGB1- and AGG1-deficient mutants are hypersensitive to osmotica raises the attractive possibility of the involvement of Gß1 signaling in osmoregulation (Zhu, 2002). The high expression levels observed for AGB1 and AGG1 in hydathods, highly specialized osmoregulatory organs, also suggests such a speculation.
Subunits Provide Functional Selectivity to the Gß Dimer
There are substantial similarities, but also important differences, between animal and plant heterotrimeric G proteins. They are structurally similar, suggesting a conserved mechanism of action (i.e., once a G protein–coupled receptor is activated, the associated G protein will dissociate and transduce the signal to downstream effectors through two functionally distinct subunits, G and Gß). However, plant G proteins lack the multiplicity of genes encoding each of the subunits, as in animals. It is this multiplicity that provides numerous combinatorial possibilities to the whole heterotrimer in order to mediate the action of hundreds of receptors in animal systems. Having single G and Gß subunits begs the question of how plant G proteins are involved in a large variety of plant processes (Jones, 2002; Assmann, 2004; Jones and Assmann, 2004). The existence of two different G subunits provides functional diversity to the entire heterotrimer for effector activation and receptor specificity. The similarities of the phenotypes displayed by Gß- and G-deficient mutants provide a functional association between the Gß subunit and each of the G subunits in plants, showing that both G subunits form functional Gß dimers. We also showed that the two G subunits serve independent, redundant, or complementary roles in planta, depending on the process and the tissue being studied. In some processes, such as defense against necrotrophic fungi, only one G subunit is involved (AGG1). In other processes, such as auxin signaling and the development of lateral roots, both subunits are involved but are mechanistically different in their operation. In other processes, such as germination, both G subunits are involved but with independent roles, with AGG2 implicated in glucose signaling and AGG1 mediating the response to osmotica (Figure 8
).
|
mutants in known Gß-mediated response pathways demonstrates that G subunits provide functional selectivity to the plant heterotrimeric G proteins, providing a mechanism underlying the complexity in G protein–mediated signaling in plants. |
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
; Samson et al., 2002). The AGG2 allele agg2-1 in the Col-0 ecotype was obtained from the Salk Arabidopsis T-DNA mutant collection (Alonso et al., 2003) (SALK_010956). For each line, homozygous plants were selected using a three-primer PCR approach. PCR products across the insertion points were sequenced to confirm the exact position of the T-DNA.
The agg1-1 allele was introgressed into the Col-0 background by crossing agg1-1w with wild-type Col-0 plants and the hybrids backcrossed to wild-type Col-0 for eight successive generations. Isolation of the hybrids and backcrosses carrying the agg1-1 allele was performed by selecting for BASTA resistance conferred by the BAR gene present on the T-DNA (Samson et al., 2002). The final mutant line was designated agg1-1c. The double agg1 agg2 mutant was obtained by crossing agg1-1c with agg2-1. Plants carrying both homozygous alleles were identified from the segregating F2 population using BASTA selection and PCR analysis.
AGG1 and AGG2 RNAi constructs were generated as follows. An 400-bp cDNA fragment for each of the genes was amplified by PCR using elongase (Invitrogen) and the following primers: for AGG1, 5'-CTCGAGGAATTCCTCTCTCTGACGTTGTCAGATC-3' and 5'-ATCGATTGGTACCCATGTAAAATGATATCCTAGC-3'; for AGG2, 5'-CTCGAGATCTAGAGATGGAAGCGGGTAGCTCAA-3' and 5'-AAGCTTGGATCCCCAATTACATCAAATTCACTG-3'. Restriction sites (underlined) were added at the ends of each primer for cloning into the pKANNIBAL vector (Wesley et al., 2001). Subsequently, the hairpin cassette was cloned into the binary vector pUQC477 obtained from Bernard J. Carroll (University of Queensland, Australia). Arabidopsis plants (Col-0 ecotype) were transformed by floral dipping (Clough and Bent, 1998). Primary transformants were selected with BASTA. Fifteen and 12 independent transgenic lines were obtained for agg1RNAi and agg2RNAi, respectively, and analyzed by RNA gel blot hybridization for downregulation of the corresponding genes. Lines with no detectable levels of mRNA were subjected to RT-PCR to confirm the lack of detectable message.
The promoter regions of AGB1, AGG1, and AGG2 were amplified from wild-type Arabidopsis (Col-0 ecotype) genomic DNA using the following primers: for AGG1, 5'-CACCGCCGAGGAATCGATCTGGCAT-3' and 5'-TTGCAGAAAAATGCCAAAACGCCCAA-3'; for AGG2, 5'-CACCCTTGGCTCGTACTTCGAT-3' and 5'-CAAAATTTCTCGAATTCAACCCTCA-3'; for AGB1, 5'-AACTCGAGTTACAAGCGAGCTTG-3' and 5'-TTGGATCCATTCCGGGATCAGACTTAGGCTTC-3'. Restriction sites (underlined) were added at the ends of each primer for cloning purposes. Primers were generally designed to amplify the 5' upstream region of each gene starting immediately upstream of the start codon. AGG1:GUS and AGG2:GUS lines were generated as described by Chen et al. (2006c). The AGB1 promoter fragment was cloned into pGEM-T Easy vector (Promega) and then transferred using XhoI and BamHI into the pAOV-intron-GUS vector (Mylne and Botella, 1998). The constructs were transformed into Arabidopsis (Col-0 ecotype) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens–mediated transformation (Bechtold et al., 1993). GUS staining was performed as described by Petsch et al. (2005).
Pathogen Preparation and Inoculations
Fusarium oxysporum (f. sp conglutinans) (BRIP 5176; Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Australia) and Alternaria brassicicola (isolate UQ4273) were grown and plants were inoculated as described previously (Trusov et al., 2006).
Plate Assays
All plates contained 0.5x or 1x MS basal salts (PhytoTechnology Laboratories), 0.8% agar, and 1% sucrose unless stated otherwise. Stock solutions of MeJA and abscisic acid were added to autoclaved medium cooled to 55°C at the designated concentrations. Seeds were sterilized in a 50% ethanol:1.5% peroxide solution and washed with sterile water or by incubation in a chamber filled with chlorine gas. After sowing, all seeds were stratified for 72 h at 4°C in darkness. Germination was determined as an obvious protrusion of the radicle. For root assays, seedlings were grown on vertical plates for 14 or 21 d, and the number of lateral roots was counted using a microscope. For gravitropic response assays, sterilized seeds were germinated and seedlings were grown vertically for 5 d under continuous light on square plates and then moved into darkness for another 24 h. Then, the plates were rotated 90° and left in darkness for 24 h. Seedlings were photographed and angle was measured from the digital images using NIH ImageJ software.
Isolation of RNA and Transcription Analysis
Total RNA for RNA gel blot analysis and RT-PCR was extracted as described previously (Purnell and Botella, 2007). Probes for RNA gel blots were labeled using the Rediprime II 32P radiolabeling kit (Amersham). Membranes were hybridized overnight in Church buffer (Church and Gilbert, 1984) at 65°C, washed twice in 0.1% SSC (1x SSC is 0.15 M NaCl and 0.015 M sodium citrate) and 0.1% SDS solution, and exposed to PhosphorImager plates for analysis (Molecular Dynamics). For RT-PCR, reverse transcription and PCR amplification were performed as described by Cazzonelli et al. (2005). PCR amplifications were performed using 35 cycles with the following parameters: 94°C for 30 s, 54°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min. The primers used for the AGG1 and AGG2 genes were as follows: agg1f, 5'-TGCGAGAGGAAACTGTGGTTTACG-3'; agg1r, 5'-CATCTGCAGCCTTCTCCTCCATTT-3'; agg2f, 5'-TGTATCCAACCAGTAACAAATGG-3'; agg2r, 5'-CGGCAGTGAATTTGATGTAATTG-3'. The ACTIN2 gene was used as a control for the RT-PCR experiments.
Accession Numbers
The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative identifiers for the genes described in this article are as follows: GPA1 (At2g26300), AGB1 (At4g34460), AGG1 (At3g63420), AGG2 (At3g22942), PDF1.2 (At5g44420), and ACT2 (At3g18780).
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantcell.org) is: José Ramón Botella (j.botella{at}uq.edu.au).
[OA] Open Access articles can be viewed online without a subscription.
www.plantcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1105/tpc.107.050096
Received January 8, 2007; Revision received March 22, 2007. accepted April 10, 2007.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONMETHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
and G and do not dissociate upon activation. J. Cell Sci. 119: 5087–5097.Agrios, G.N. (2005). Plant Pathology. (New York: Elsevier Academic Press).
Akgoz, M., Azpiazu, I., Kalyanaraman, V., and Gautam, N. (2002). Role of the G protein subunit in ß complex modulation of phospholipase C ß function. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 19573–19578.
Akgoz, M., Kalyanaraman, V., and Gautam, N. (2004). Receptor-mediated reversible translocation of the G protein ß complex from the plasma membrane to the Golgi complex. J. Biol. Chem. 279: 51541–51544.
Akgoz, M., Kalyanaraman, V., and Gautam, N. (2006). G protein ß complex translocation from plasma membrane to Golgi complex is influenced by receptor subunit interaction. Cell. Signal. 18: 1758–1768.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Aloni, R., Aloni, E., Langhans, M., and Ullrich, C.I. (2006). Role of cytokinin and auxin in shaping root architecture: Regulating vascular differentiation, lateral root initiation, root apical dominance and root gravitropism. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 97: 883–893.
Alonso, J.M., et al. (2003). Genome-wide insertional mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 301: 653–657.
Arabidopsis Genome Initiative (2000). Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 408: 796–815.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ashikari, M., Wu, J.Z., Yano, M., Sasaki, T., and Yoshimura, A. (1999). Rice gibberellin-insensitive dwarf mutant gene Dwarf 1 encodes the -subunit of GTP-binding protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 10284–10289.
Assmann, S.M. (2004). Plant G proteins, phytohormones, and plasticity: Three questions and a speculation. Sci. STKE 2004: re20.
Assmann, S.M. (2005). G proteins go green: A plant G protein signaling FAQ sheet. Science 310: 71–73.
Azpiazu, I., Akgoz, M., Kalyanaraman, V., and Gautam, N. (2006). G protein ß 11 complex translocation is induced by Gi, Gq and Gs coupling receptors and is regulated by the subunit type. Cell. Signal. 18: 1190–1200.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Azpiazu, I., and Gautam, N. (2002). Role of G protein ß complex in receptor-G protein interaction. Methods Enzymol. 344: 112–125.[Web of Science][Medline]
Balcueva, E.A., Wang, Q., Hughes, H., Kunsch, C., Yu, Z.H., and Robishaw, J.D. (2000). Human G protein (11) and (14) subtypes define a new functional subclass. Exp. Cell Res. 257: 310–319.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bao, F., Shen, J.J., Brady, S.R., Muday, G.K., Asami, T., and Yang, Z.B. (2004). Brassinosteroids interact with auxin to promote lateral root development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 134: 1624–1631.
Bechtold, N., Ellis, J., and Pelletier, G. (1993). In planta Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer by infiltration of adult Arabidopsis thaliana plants. C. R. Acad. Sci. III 316: 1194–1199.
Berrocal-Lobo, M., and Molina, A. (2004). Ethylene response factor 1 mediates Arabidopsis resistance to the soilborne fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 17: 763–770.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bhalerao, R.P., Eklof, J., Ljung, K., Marchant, A., Bennett, M., and Sandberg, G. (2002). Shoot-derived auxin is essential for early lateral root emergence in Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant J. 29: 325–332.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bommakanti, R.K., Vinayak, S., and Simonds, W.F. (2000). Dual regulation of Akt/protein kinase B by heterotrimeric G protein subunits. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 38870–38876.
Brunaud, W., et al. (2002). T-DNA integration into the Arabidopsis genome depends on sequences of pre-insertion sites. EMBO Rep. 3: 1152–1157.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Camps, M., Hou, C.F., Sidiropoulos, D., Stock, J.B., Jakobs, K.H., and Gierschik, P. (1992). Stimulation of phospholipase-C by guanine-nucleotide-binding protein ß subunits. Eur. J. Biochem. 206: 821–831.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cazzonelli, C.I., McCallum, E.J., Lee, R., and Botella, J.R. (2005). Characterization of a strong, constitutive mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) promoter with a complex mode of regulation in planta. Transgenic Res. 14: 941–967.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Chakravorty, D., and Botella, J.R. (2007). Over-expression of a truncated Arabidopsis thaliana heterotrimeric G protein gamma subunit results in a phenotype similar to alpha and beta subunit knockouts. Gene 393: 163–170.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, J.-G., Gao, Y., and Jones, A.M. (2006a). Differential roles of Arabidopsis heterotrimeric G-protein subunits in modulating cell division in roots. Plant Physiol. 141: 887–897.
Chen, J.G., Pandey, S., Huang, J.R., Alonso, J.M., Ecker, J.R., Assmann, S.M., and Jones, A.M. (2004). GCR1 can act independently of heterotrimeric G-protein in response to brassinosteroids and gibberellins in Arabidopsis seed germination. Plant Physiol. 135: 907–915.
Chen, S.H., Lin, F., and Hamm, H.E. (2005). RACK1 binds to a signal transfer region of Gß and inhibits phospholipase Cß2 activation. J. Biol. Chem. 280: 33445–33452.
Chen, Y., Ji, F., Xie, H., Liang, J., and Zhang, J. (2006b). The regulator of G-protein signaling proteins involved in sugar and abscisic acid signaling in Arabidopsis seed germination. Plant Physiol. 140: 302–310.
Chen, Y., Weng, G., Li, J., Harry, A., Pieroni, J., Dingus, J., Hildebrandt, J.D., Guarnieri, F., Weinstein, H., and Iyengar, R. (1997). A surface on the G protein ß-subunit involved in interactions with adenylyl cyclases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 2711–2714.
Chen, Z.Y., Hartmann, H.A., Wu, M.J., Friedman, E.J., Chen, J.G., Pulley, M., Schulze-Lefert, P., Panstruga, R., and Jones, A.M. (2006c). Expression analysis of the AtMLO gene family encoding plant-specific seven-transmembrane domain proteins. Plant Mol. Biol. 60: 583–597.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Church, G.M., and Gilbert, W. (1984). Genomic sequencing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81: 1991–1995.
Clapham, D., and Neer, E. (1993). New roles for G-protein ß-dimers in transmembrane signalling. Nature 365: 403–406.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clapham, D., and Neer, E. (1997). G protein ß subunits. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 37: 167–203.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Clough, S.J., and Bent, A.F. (1998). Floral dip: A simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 16: 735–743.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Evanko, D.S., Thiyagarajan, M.M., Siderovski, D.P., and Wedegaertner, P.B. (2001). G ß isoforms selectively rescue plasma membrane localization and palmitoylation of mutant G (s) and G (q). J. Biol. Chem. 276: 23945–23953.
Evanko, D.S., Thiyagarajan, M.M., and Wedegaertner, P.B. (2000). Interaction with G ß is required for membrane targeting and palmitoylation of G (s) and G (q). J. Biol. Chem. 275: 1327–1336.
Gautam, N., Downes, G.B., Yan, K., and Kisselev, O. (1998). The G-protein ß complex. Cell. Signal. 10: 447–455.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gautam, N., Northup, J., Tamir, H., and Simon, M.I. (1990). G protein diversity is increased by associations with a variety of -subunits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 7973–7977.
Gotor, C., Lam, E., Cejudo, F.J., and Romero, L.C. (1996). Isolation and analysis of the soybean SGA2 gene (cDNA), encoding a new member of the plant G-protein family of signal transducers. Plant Mol. Biol. 32: 1227–1234.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gray, W.M., Ostin, A., Sandberg, G., Romano, C.P., and Estelle, M. (1998). High temperature promotes auxin-mediated hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 7197–7202.
Himanen, K., Boucheron, E., Vanneste, S., Engler, J.D., Inze, D., and Beeckman, T. (2002). Auxin-mediated cell cycle activation during early lateral root initiation. Plant Cell 14: 2339–2351.
Hou, Y.M., Azpiazu, I., Smrcka, A., and Gautam, N. (2000). Selective role of G protein subunits in receptor interaction. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 38961–38964.
Huang, H., Weiss, C.A., and Ma, H. (1994). Regulated expression of the Arabidopsis G-protein -subunit gene Gpa1. Int. J. Plant Sci. 155: 3–14.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ishikawa, A., Iwasaki, Y., and Asahi, T. (1996). Molecular cloning and characterization of a cDNA for the ß subunit of a G protein from rice. Plant Cell Physiol. 37: 223–228.
Ishikawa, A., Tsubouchi, H., Iwasaki, Y., and Asahi, T. (1995). Molecular cloning and characterization of a cDNA for the -subunit of a G-protein from rice. Plant Cell Physiol. 36: 353–359.
Iwasaki, Y., Kato, T., Kaidoh, T., Ishikawa, A., and Asahi, T. (1997). Characterization of the putative subunit of a heterotrimeric G protein in rice. Plant Mol. Biol. 34: 563–572.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jones, A.M. (1990). Location of transported auxin in etiolated maize shoots using 5-azidoindole-3-acetic acid. Plant Physiol. 93: 1154–1161.
Jones, A.M. (1998). Auxin transport: Down and out and up again. Science 282: 2201–2202.
Jones, A.M. (2002). G-protein-coupled signaling in Arabidopsis. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5: 402–407.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jones, A.M., and Assmann, S.M. (2004). Plants: The latest model system for G-protein research. EMBO Rep. 5: 572–578.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Joo, J., Wang, S., Chen, J., Jones, A., and Fedoroff, N. (2005). Different signaling and cell death roles of heterotrimeric G protein and ß subunits in the Arabidopsis oxidative stress response to ozone. Plant Cell 17: 957–970.
Kato, C., Mizutani, T., Tamaki, H., Kumagai, H., Kamiya, T., Hirobe, A., Fujisawa, Y., Kato, H., and Iwasaki, Y. (2004). Characterisation of heterotrimeric G protein complexes in rice plasma membrane. Plant J. 38: 320–331.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Katz, A., Wu, D.Q., and Simon, M.I. (1992). Subunits ß of heterotrimeric G-protein activate beta-2 isoform of phospholipase C. Nature 360: 686–689.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kaydamov, C., Tewes, A., Adler, K., and Manteuffel, R. (2000). Molecular characterization of cDNAs encoding G protein and ß subunits and study of their temporal and spatial expression patterns in Nicotiana plumbaginifolia Viv. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1491: 143–160.[Medline]
Kim, W.Y., Cheong, N.E., Lee, D.C., Je, D.Y., Bahk, J.D., Cho, M.J., and Lee, S.Y. (1995). Cloning and sequencing analysis of a full-length cDNA-encoding a G-protein alpha-subunit, SGA1, from soybean. Plant Physiol. 108: 1315–1316.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Krystofova, S., and Borkovich, K.A. (2005). The heterotrimeric G-protein subunits GNG-1 and GNB-1 form a Gß dimer required for normal female fertility, asexual development, and G protein levels in Neurospora crassa. Eukaryot. Cell 4: 365–378.
Lapik, Y.R., and Kaufman, L.S. (2003). The Arabidopsis cupin domain protein AtPirin1 interacts with the G protein -subunit GPA1 and regulates seed germination and early seedling development. Plant Cell 15: 1578–1590.
Lease, K.A., Wen, J., Li, J., Doke, J.T., Liscum, E., and Walker, J.C. (2001). A mutant Arabidopsis heterotrimeric G-protein ß subunit affects leaf, flower, and fruit development. Plant Cell 13: 2631–2641.
Lim, W.K., Myung, C.S., Garrison, J.C., and Neubig, R.R. (2001). Receptor-G protein specificity: 11 shows unique potency for A(1) adenosine and 5-HT1A receptors. Biochemistry 40: 10532–10541.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, J.H., and Reid, D.M. (1992). Adventitious rooting in hypocotyls of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) seedlings. IV. The role of changes in endogenous free and conjugated indole-3-acetic-acid. Physiol. Plant. 86: 285–292.[CrossRef]
Ljung, K., Hull, A.K., Celenza, J., Yamada, M., Estelle, M., Normanly, J., and Sandberg, G. (2005). Sites and regulation of auxin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis roots. Plant Cell 17: 1090–1104.
Llorente, F., Alonso-Blanco, C., Sanchez-Rodriguez, C., Jorda, L., and Molina, A. (2005). ERECTA receptor-like kinase and heterotrimeric G protein from Arabidopsis are required for resistance to the necrotrophic fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina. Plant J. 43: 165–180.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ma, H., Yanofsky, M.F., and Meyerowitz, E.M. (1990). Molecular cloning and characterization of GPA1, a G protein alpha subunit gene from Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 3821–3825.
Marsh, J.F., and Kaufman, L.S. (1999). Cloning and characterisation of PGA1 and PGA2: Two G protein -subunits from pea that promote growth in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Plant J. 19: 237–247.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mason, M.G., and Botella, J.R. (2000). Completing the heterotrimer: Isolation and characterization of an Arabidopsis thaliana G protein -subunit cDNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 14784–14788.
Mason, M.G., and Botella, J.R. (2001). Isolation of a novel G-protein -subunit from Arabidopsis thaliana and its interaction with Gß. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1520: 147–153.[Medline]
Mauchmani, B., and Slusarenko, A.J. (1994). Systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana induced by a predisposing infection with a pathogenic isolate of Fusarium oxysporum. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 7: 378–383.[Web of Science]
McCudden, C.R., Hains, M.D., Kimple, R.J., Siderovski, D.P., and Willard, F.S. (2005). G-protein signaling: Back to the future. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 62: 551–577.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mirshahi, T., Robillard, L., Zhang, H., Hebert, T.E., and Logothetis, D.E. (2002). Gß residues that do not interact with G underlie agonist-independent activity of K+ channels. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 7348–7355.
Mitchell, E.K., and Davies, P.J. (1975). Evidence for three different systems of movement of indoleacetic acid in intact roots of Phaseolus coccineus. Physiol. Plant. 33: 290–294.[CrossRef]
Mylne, J., and Botella, J.R. (1998). Binary vectors for sense and antisense expression of Arabidopsis ESTs. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 16: 257–262.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Myung, C.S., and Garrison, J.C. (2000). Role of C-terminal domains of the G protein ß subunit in the activation of effecters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 9311–9316.
Myung, C.S., Lim, W.K., DeFilippo, J.M., Yasuda, H., Neubig, R.R., and Garrison, J.C. (2006). Regions in the G protein subunit important for interaction with receptors and effectors. Mol. Pharmacol. 69: 877–887.
Nicolas, J.I.L., Acosta, M., and Sanchez-Bravo, J. (2004). Role of basipetal auxin transport and lateral auxin movement in rooting and growth of etiolated lupin hypocotyls. Physiol. Plant. 121: 294–304.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pandey, S., Chen, J.-G., Jones, A.M., and Assmann, S.M. (2006). G-protein complex mutants are hypersensitive to abscisic acid regulation of germination and postgermination development. Plant Physiol. 141: 243–256.
Penninckx, I., Eggermont, K., Terras, F., Thomma, B., Samblanx, G., Buchala, A., Metraux, J.P., Manners, J.M., and Broekaert, W.F. (1996). Pathogen induced systemic activation of a plant defensin gene in Arabidopsis follows a salicylic acid-independent pathway. Plant Cell 8: 2309–2323.[Abstract]
Perfus-Barbeoch, L., Jones, A.M., and Assmann, S.M. (2004). Plant heterotrimeric G protein function: Insights from Arabidopsis and rice mutants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7: 719–731.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Perroud, P.F., Diogon, T., Crevecoeur, M., and Greppin, H. (2000). Molecular cloning, spatial and temporal characterization of spinach SOGA1 cDNA, encoding an subunit of G protein. Gene 248: 191–201.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Peskan-Berghofer, T., Neuwirth, J., Kusnetsov, V., and Oelmuller, R. (2005). Suppression of heterotrimeric G-protein beta-subunit affects anther shape, pollen development and inflorescence architecture in tobacco. Planta 220: 737–746.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Petsch, K.A., Mylne, J., and Botella, J.R. (2005). Cosuppression of eukaryotic release factor 1-1 in Arabidopsis affects cell elongation and radial cell division. Plant Physiol. 139: 115–126.
Purnell, M.P., and Botella, J.R. (2007). Tobacco isoenzyme 1 of NAD(H)-dependent glutamate dehydrogenase catabolizes glutamate in vivo. Plant Physiol. 143: 530–539.
Rashotte, A.M., Brady, S.R., Reed, R.C., Ante, S.J., and Muday, G.K. (2000). Basipetal auxin transport is required for gravitropism in roots of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 122: 481–490.
Rashotte, A.M., DeLong, A., and Muday, G.K. (2001). Genetic and chemical reductions in protein phosphatase activity alter auxin transport, gravity response, and lateral root growth. Plant Cell 13: 1683–1697.
Reed, R.C., Brady, S.R., and Muday, G.K. (1998). Inhibition of auxin movement from the shoot into the root inhibits lateral root development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 118: 1369–1378.
Robishaw, J.D., and Berlot, C.H. (2004). Translating G protein subunit diversity into functional specificity. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 16: 206–209.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Samson, F., Brunaud, V., Balzergue, S., Dubreucq, B., Lepiniec, L., Pelletier, G., Caboche, M., and Lecharny, A. (2002). FLAGdb/FST: A database of mapped flanking insertion sites (FSTs) of Arabidopsis thaliana T-DNA transformants. Nucleic Acids Res. 30: 94–97.
Schenk, P.M., Kazan, K., Manners, J.M., Anderson, J.P., Simpson, R.S., Wilson, I.W., Somerville, S.C., and Maclean, D.J. (2003). Systemic gene expression in Arabidopsis during an incompatible interaction with Alternaria brassicicola. Plant Physiol. 132: 999–1010.
Schenk, P.M., Kazan, K., Wilson, I., Anderson, J.P., Richmond, T., Somerville, S.C., and Manners, J.M. (2000). Coordinated plant defense responses in Arabidopsis revealed by microarray analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 11655–11660.
Scott, J.K., Huang, S.F., Gangadhar, B.P., Samoriski, G.M., Clapp, P., Gross, R.A., Taussig, R., and Smrcka, A.V. (2001). Evidence that a protein-protein interaction ‘hot spot’ on heterotrimeric G protein ß subunits is used for recognition of a subclass of effectors. EMBO J. 20: 767–776.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Simon, M.I., Strathmann, M.P., and Gautam, N. (1991). Diversity of G-proteins in signal transduction. Science 252: 802–808.
Temple, B., and Jones, A.M. (2007). The plant heterotrimeric G-protein complex. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 58: 249–266.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thomma, B.P.H.J., Eggermont, K., Broekaert, W.F., and Cammue, B.P.A. (2000). Disease development of several fungi on Arabidopsis can be reduced by treatment with methyl jasmonate. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 38: 421–427.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Trusov, Y., Rookes, J.E., Chakravorty, D., Armour, D., Schenk, P.M., and Botella, J.R. (2006). Heterotrimeric G-proteins facilitate Arabidopsis resistance to necrotrophic pathogens and are involved in jasmonate signaling. Plant Physiol. 140: 210–220.
Tsurumi, S., and Ohwaki, Y. (1978). Transport of C14 labeled indoleacetic acid in Vicia root segments. Plant Cell Physiol. 19: 1195–1206.
Ueguchi-Tanaka, M., Fujisawa, Y., Kobayashi, M., Ashikari, M., Iwasaki, Y., Kitano, H., and Matsuoka, M. (2000). Rice dwarf mutant d1, which is defective in the subunit of the heterotrimeric G protein, affects gibberellin signal transduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 11638–11643.
Ullah, H., Chen, J.-G., Temple, B., Boyes, D.C., Alonso, J.M., Davis, K.R., Ecker, J.R., and Jones, A.M. (2003). The ß-subunit of the Arabidopsis G protein negatively regulates auxin-induced cell division and affects multiple developmental processes. Plant Cell 15: 393–409.
Ullah, H., Chen, J.-G., Wang, S., and Jones, A.M. (2002). Role of a heterotrimeric G protein in regulation of Arabidopsis seed germination. Plant Physiol. 129: 897–907.
Ullah, H., Chen, J.G., Young, J.C., Im, K.H., Sussman, M.R., and Jones, A.M. (2001). Modulation of cell proliferation by heterotrimeric G protein in Arabidopsis. Science 292: 2066–2069.
Vanneste, S., Maes, L., De Smet, I., Himanen, K., Naudts, M., Inze, D., and Beeckman, T. (2005). Auxin regulation of cell cycle and its role during lateral root initiation. Physiol. Plant. 123: 139–146.[CrossRef]
van Wees, S.C.M., Chang, H.S., Zhu, T., and Glazebrook, J. (2003). Characterization of the early response of Arabidopsis to Alternaria brassicicola infection using expression profiling. Plant Physiol. 132: 606–617.
Wang, H.X., Weerasinghe, R.R., Perdue, T.D., Cakmakci, N.G., Taylor, J.P., Marzluff, W.F., and Jones, A.M. (2006). A Golgi-localized hexose transporter is involved in heterotrimeric G protein-mediated early development in Arabidopsis. Mol. Biol. Cell 17: 4257–4269.
Wang, X.-Q., Ullah, H., Jones, A.M., and Assmann, S.M. (2001). G protein regulation of ion channels and abscisic acid signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells. Science 292: 2070–2072.
Weiss, C., Garnaat, C., Mukai, K., Hu, Y., and Ma, H. (1994). Isolation of cDNAs encoding guanine nucleotide-binding protein ß-subunit homologues from maize (ZGB1) and Arabidopsis (AGB1). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 9554–9558.
Weiss, C.A., Huang, H., and Ma, H. (1993). Immunolocalization of the G-protein -subunit encoded by the Gpa1 gene in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 5: 1513–1528.[Abstract]
Wesley, S.V., et al. (2001). Construct design for efficient, effective and high-throughput gene silencing in plants. Plant J. 27: 581–590.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Zhu, J.-K. (2002). Salt and drought stress signal trunsduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 53: 247–273.[CrossRef][Medline]
Related articles in Plant Cell:
Subunits Provide Functional Selectivity
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y. Izawa, Y. Takayanagi, N. Inaba, Y. Abe, M. Minami, Y. Fujisawa, H. Kato, S. Ohki, H. Kitano, and Y. Iwasaki Function and Expression Pattern of the {alpha} Subunit of the Heterotrimeric G Protein in Rice Plant Cell Physiol., February 1, 2010; 51(2): 271 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Baena-Gonzalez Energy Signaling in the Regulation of Gene Expression during Stress Mol Plant, January 15, 2010; (2010) ssp113v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Huizinga, R. Denton, K. G. Koehler, A. Tomasello, L. Wood, S. E. Sen, and D. N. Crowell Farnesylcysteine Lyase is Involved in Negative Regulation of Abscisic Acid Signaling in Arabidopsis Mol Plant, January 1, 2010; 3(1): 143 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Mudgil, J. F. Uhrig, J. Zhou, B. Temple, K. Jiang, and A. M. Jones Arabidopsis N-MYC DOWNREGULATED-LIKE1, a Positive Regulator of Auxin Transport in a G Protein-Mediated Pathway PLANT CELL, November 1, 2009; 21(11): 3591 - 3609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Steffens and M. Sauter Heterotrimeric G Protein Signaling Is Required for Epidermal Cell Death in Rice Plant Physiology, October 1, 2009; 151(2): 732 - 740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Zhu, G.-J. Li, L. Ding, X. Cui, H. Berg, S. M. Assmann, and Y. Xia Arabidopsis Extra Large G-Protein 2 (XLG2) Interacts with the G{beta} Subunit of Heterotrimeric G Protein and Functions in Disease Resistance Mol Plant, May 1, 2009; 2(3): 513 - 525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Gerber, A. Hemmerlin, M. Hartmann, D. Heintz, M.-A. Hartmann, J. Mutterer, M. Rodriguez-Concepcion, A. Boronat, A. Van Dorsselaer, M. Rohmer, et al. The Plastidial 2-C-Methyl-D-Erythritol 4-Phosphate Pathway Provides the Isoprenyl Moiety for Protein Geranylgeranylation in Tobacco BY-2 Cells PLANT CELL, January 1, 2009; 21(1): 285 - 300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Huizinga, O. Omosegbon, B. Omery, and D. N. Crowell Isoprenylcysteine Methylation and Demethylation Regulate Abscisic Acid Signaling in Arabidopsis PLANT CELL, October 1, 2008; 20(10): 2714 - 2728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Gao, S. Wang, T. Asami, and J.-G. Chen Loss-of-Function Mutations in the Arabidopsis Heterotrimeric G-protein {alpha} Subunit Enhance the Developmental Defects of Brassinosteroid Signaling and Biosynthesis Mutants Plant Cell Physiol., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 1013 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L.-M. Fan, W. Zhang, J.-G. Chen, J. P. Taylor, A. M. Jones, and S. M. Assmann Abscisic acid regulation of guard-cell K+ and anion channels in G{beta}- and RGS-deficient Arabidopsis lines PNAS, June 17, 2008; 105(24): 8476 - 8481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Trusov, W. Zhang, S. M. Assmann, and J. R. Botella G{gamma}1 + G{gamma}2 != G{beta}: Heterotrimeric G Protein G{gamma}-Deficient Mutants Do Not Recapitulate All Phenotypes of G{beta}-Deficient Mutants Plant Physiology, June 1, 2008; 147(2): 636 - 649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Wang, S. M. Assmann, and N. V. Fedoroff Characterization of the Arabidopsis Heterotrimeric G Protein J. Biol. Chem., May 16, 2008; 283(20): 13913 - 13922. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | THE PLANT CELL | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY | |
|---|---|---|---|
Subunits Provide Functional Selectivity in Gß
