|
|
||||||||
|
First published online May 18, 2007; 10.1105/tpc.106.048041 The Plant Cell 19:1665-1681 (2007) © 2007 American Society of Plant Biologists ABA Is an Essential Signal for Plant Resistance to Pathogens Affecting JA Biosynthesis and the Activation of Defenses in Arabidopsis[W]
a Departamento de Genética Molecular de Plantas, Centro Nacional de BiotecnologíaConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Campus Universidad Autónoma, 28049 Madrid, Spain 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail rsolano{at}cnb.uam.es; fax 34-91-5854506.
Analyses of Arabidopsis thaliana defense response to the damping-off oomycete pathogen Pythium irregulare show that resistance to P. irregulare requires a multicomponent defense strategy. Penetration represents a first layer, as indicated by the susceptibility of pen2 mutants, followed by recognition, likely mediated by ERECTA receptor-like kinases. Subsequent signaling of inducible defenses is predominantly mediated by jasmonic acid (JA), with insensitive coi1 mutants showing extreme susceptibility. In contrast with the generally accepted roles of ethylene and salicylic acid cooperating with or antagonizing, respectively, JA in the activation of defenses against necrotrophs, both are required to prevent disease progression, although much less so than JA. Meta-analysis of transcriptome profiles confirmed the predominant role of JA in activation of P. irregulareinduced defenses and uncovered abscisic acid (ABA) as an important regulator of defense gene expression. Analysis of cis-regulatory sequences also revealed an unexpected overrepresentation of ABA response elements in promoters of P. irregulareresponsive genes. Subsequent infections of ABA-related and callose-deficient mutants confirmed the importance of ABA in defense, acting partly through an undescribed mechanism. The results support a model for ABA affecting JA biosynthesis in the activation of defenses against this oomycete.
The success of plants in colonizing so many different environments where they have to cope with a plethora of biotic and abiotic challenges indicates that evolution has provided them with efficient defense mechanisms. Plants possess both preformed and inducible layers of defense to resist pathogen invasion. Constitutive physical and chemical barriers prevent the establishment of most plantpathogen interactions. However, should the pathogen overcome these constitutive defenses, its recognition leads to the induction of a multitude of defenses through the genetic reprogramming of the cell.
Our understanding of the complex mechanisms by which plants first detect, and then defend against, different microbial pathogens has advanced considerably over the last few decades. Central to this progress has been the identification and characterization of plant disease resistance genes that facilitate pathogen strainspecific recognition and the identification of signal transduction pathways that link pathogen recognition with a targeted response (Nimchuk et al., 2003
Although mechanistic explanations of this antagonistic and cooperative crosstalk are scarce, several examples suggest its regulation through the differential modulation of transcription factor (and cofactors) activity by the different hormones. Thus, antagonism between JA and SA pathways requires the activation of proteins such as NPR1 and WRKY70 that activate expression of SA-responsive genes while repressing JA-responsive genes (Spoel et al., 2003
The current understanding of plant defense responses described above has been achieved through the study of a limited number of models, which may be constraining our view of the plantpathogen interaction and the true capacity of plants to defend against pathogens. In fact, random sequencing approaches of microbial populations from seawater samples have recently demonstrated that we still only know a relatively small percentage of gene functions existing in nature (Venter et al., 2004
Pythium is commonly regarded as a soil-borne vascular pathogen. It is particularly virulent in seedlings, although it can infect mature aboveground tissue in several plant species, including Arabidopsis (van der Plaats-Niterink, 1981 To gain a deeper insight of the ArabidopsisP. irregulare hostpathogen interaction, it is imperative to understand both the physical infection process and the molecular consequences. To that end, we have (1) characterized the infection process and (2) studied the plant molecular defense pathways involved in resistance through genetic and genomic analysis. In addition to the comprehensive characterization of the interaction, this combined analysis has identified ABA as a signal required for plant resistance to P. irregulare and other necrotrophic pathogens.
Characterization of P. irregulare Colonization of Arabidopsis Tissue Appresoria were observed during early stages of infection of both roots and leaves of mature plants (Figure 1A ; see Supplemental Figure 1A online). Following penetration of the first host cell, hyphal ramification gave rise to multidigitate haustoria-like structures (Figure 1B; see Supplemental Figure 1B online). The individual lobes of the haustoria-like structures continued to lengthen until an opposing cell wall was encountered, whereupon constricted hyphae attempted penetration of the adjoining host cell wall (Figure 1C; see Supplemental Figure 1C online). Further ramification of hyphal tissue occurred frequently, giving rise to a dense network that penetrated all host tissue types. This colonization eventually lead to tissue collapse and ultimately wet rot. Fungal growth was predominantly but not exclusively intracellular (Figure 1C; see Supplemental Figure 1C online).
Hyphal swellings were occasionally produced where fungal growth was prolific and allowed to progress for 48 h (see Supplemental Figure 1D online). Oogonium and oospores were only observed in culture media (see Supplemental Figure 1E online), presumably because in planta infections were rarely allowed to progress beyond 24 h, this being the optimal time for discernment of differential resistance between defense mutants.
Trypan blue stain indicated that only infected cells in physical contact with the hyphae died (Figure 1D), suggesting that this oomycete does not produce lytic enzymes or phytotoxins during infection. Consistent with this, culture filtrates were not able to reproduce disease symptoms in Arabidopsis (data not shown). Thus, despite reports that P. irregulare produces both lytic enzymes (Deacon, 1979
Additionally, trailing necrosis occurred during infection of susceptible tissue, where hyphae were observed to extend ahead of dead cells (i.e., those retaining the Trypan blue stain) (Figure 1E) similar to that witnessed for Phytophthora infestans during infection of partially resistant plants (Kamoun et al., 1999
Characterization of Plant Defense Response
Contribution of the JA, ET, and SA Pathways
Consistent with results in transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants (Geraats et al., 2002 Interestingly, SA-related mutants (npr1 and sid2-1) showed a susceptibility similar to ET-insensitive mutants, indicating that SA, instead of antagonizing JA-dependent defenses, also contributes to overall resistance (Figure 2A).
To further understand this apparent cooperation between JA and SA, the levels of both hormones were measured in wild-type and JA/SA/ET-related mutants after P. irregulare infection. Supporting their role in defense against the oomycete, levels of both hormones increased rapidly in wild-type plants after infection (Figure 2B). The increase in JA levels was comparable in wild-type and sid2-1 plants and lower in coi1-16 mutants, indicating that SA does not prevent JA biosynthesis. In contrast with the assumed cooperation between ET and JA, but consistent with previous reports of ET-mediated repression of JA-regulated gene expression (Rojo et al., 2003 These results support a role for both defense pathways (JA/ET and SA) in the resistance against P. irregulare.
Involvement of Other Nonhormonal Defense Pathways
Transcriptomic Profiling of Arabidopsis Infection by P. irregulare Seven transcriptome comparisons were directly made in the two-color chips, four within-genotype comparisons between infected versus noninfected seedlings from each genotype (Col-0, coi1-1, ein2-5, and sid2-1), and three counter genotype comparisons between infected wild-type seedlings and each of the infected hormone-related mutants (Col-0 infected versus coi1-1 infected, Col-0 infected versus ein2-5 infected, and Col-0 infected versus sid2-1 infected). A cluster view of all genes differentially expressed in at least one of the seven comparisons can be found in Supplemental Figure 2 online. The complete list of genes can be found in Supplemental Table 1 online. The combination of these two types of comparison (within genotype and counter genotype) allowed for the differentiation of two gene classes of interest: (1) JA/ET/SA-dependent genes that are differentially expressed following P. irregulare infection in Col-0 and are also dependent on at least one of the three hormonal pathways being studied (129 genes) and (2) JA/ET/SA-independent genes that are differentially expressed following P. irregulare infection in wild-type plants but appear independent of the three hormonal pathways being studied (1385 genes). In addition to these two groups, 217 genes appear to be dependent upon at least one of the three hormonal pathways tested but are not differentially expressed in the wild type following P. irregulare infection. Most of these genes, being constitutively over/underexpressed in hormonal mutants, are of limited interest to this pathogen defense study and will not be considered further. In addition to the statistical methods described elsewhere in this article, validation of microarray data was achieved by RNA gel blot analysis. As shown in Supplemental Figure 3 online, expression of all randomly chosen genes correlated well with the microarray data. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of differentially expressed genes using FatiGO (http://fatigo.bioinfo.cipf.es/) further supported the quality of the microarray data. FatiGO analysis of JA/ET/SA-dependent gene data showed that most of these genes belong to defense-related GO categories (Figure 3A ). Among them, JA/ET-dependent defenses dominate (Figure 3A). Metabolism of amino acid derivatives, aromatic compounds, and phenylpropanoids were also among the categories containing many of these genes. Interestingly, many genes within this group (JA/ET/SA-dependent genes) belong to two categories related to ABA (response to ABA stimulus and response to water deprivation), suggesting a role for ABA in the plant response to P. irregulare (Figure 3A).
Analysis of JA/ET/SA-independent genes showed that most of these genes belong to two major categories: cellular physiological process and metabolism (Figure 3B). Significantly, a deeper analysis of the genes within these two categories (using more detailed GO levels) showed that the majority of the genes belong to metabolic processes involved in the biosynthesis of defensive secondary metabolites, such as lignin, indol-glucosinolates (Trp and glucose derivatives), flavonoids, and nicotinamide (Figure 3C).
JA/ET/SA-Dependent Genes Induced by P. irregulare
The extreme susceptibility of coi1 to P. irregulare indicates that the genes more effectively contributing to the overall resistance are those differentially expressed in the Col-0 versus COI profile (COI1-dependent genes). A complete list of these genes can be found in Supplemental Table 2 online. Among them, clusters 1 and 5 in Figure 4 exemplify genes coregulated by ET and JA (dependent on both ein2 and coi1), and cluster 3 includes genes specifically regulated by JA (COI1-dependent). Cluster 1 includes five PDF genes that, in addition to being among the genes most widely used as markers of JA/ET-dependent defenses, have been shown to confer resistance to fungal pathogens (Gao et al., 2000 In addition to the ET/JA cooperation (clusters 1 and 5), examples of other types of hormonal crosstalk can be found within this clustering analysis. For instance, positive and negative interactions between SA and ET are shown in clusters 2, 4, and 7.
Interestingly, although the negative interaction between ET/JA and SA has been widely documented, this antagonism does not appear to be relevant in the case of P. irregulare (only a few examples can be found within clusters 1, 5, and 6), and even positive interactions between SA and JA can be found within cluster 3 where several genes whose expression depends on COI1 are also dependent on SID2. This result, together with the increase in the levels of hormones and the increased susceptibility of the corresponding mutants, further supports at the molecular level the assertion that in this case (P. irregulareArabidopsis interaction), SA does not exert a negative effect on JA/ET-dependent defenses but rather cooperates with them. In spite of the generally assumed antagonistic interaction between SA- and JA/ET-dependent defenses, examples of cooperation have also been reported (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002
Meta-Analysis of JA/ET/SA-Dependent Genes
Interestingly, besides JA, the second signal more closely related to the pattern of gene activation by P. irregulare in wild-type plants is ABA. More than one-third (39 of 119) of the genes upregulated by P. irregulare are also upregulated by the hormone, suggesting that it may be an important signal in the activation of defenses against this oomycete. Furthermore, approximately half of these genes (19 of 39 ABA-regulated genes) are also regulated by JA, suggesting that either both signals cooperate or one hormone precedes the other in the activation of this set of genes. In addition to the ABA and JA signals, P. irregulare's infection profile also clusters with profiles of responses to herbivory (Pieris rapae) and a necrotrophic fungal pathogen (B. cinerea), indicating that the hormone-dependent response to P. irregulare is similar to that of necrotrophic pathogens and chewing insects. By contrast, profiles from two biotrophic fungal pathogens (Erysiphe orontii and Erysiphe cichoracearum) cluster together, distant from P. irregulare, indicating that plants regulate the expression of most of the genes in this set (JA/ET/SA-dependent induced by P. irregulare) in a different way (in many cases the opposite) depending on the lifestyle of the pathogen. This result fully agrees with the general view that defenses against biotrophs and necrotrophs are essentially antagonistic.
Identification of cis-Regulatory Elements
JA/ET/SA-Independent Genes Induced by P. irregulare To further understand the role of these genes in plant defense and to identify new signals/pathways involved in resistance to P. irregulare, meta-analysis was performed by clustering JA/ET/SA-independent gene data obtained in this work together with available expression data from the GENEVESTIGATOR database. A full view of the cluster including all genes can be found in Supplemental Figure 4 online. Figure 6 shows a clustered tree view of the experiments, and Figure 7 shows a full cluster view of the most related profiles to P. irregulare expression patterns. To facilitate the analysis, only genes with a false discovery rate <1% and log ratio >1.5 are shown.
Consistent with the JA/ET/SA-independent nature of the regulation of these genes, the four within-genotype profiles cluster tightly together, showing that once JA/ET/SA-dependent genes are eliminated, the response of all four genotypes is similar, further supporting the quality of the data (Figures 6 and 7). Similar to JA/ET/SA-dependent genes, P. irregulare response profiles clustered with the necrotroph B. cinerea and the only other oomycete (P. infestans) profile included within the analysis and show little similarity to the profiles of responses to biotrophs. This result is consistent with our previous conclusions from the genetic analysis and further supports the plant's necrotrophic-like response to this oomycete (Figure 6). In addition to B. cinerea and P. infestans, several profiles of responses to ABA and abiotic stresses, such as those induced by ozone and osmotic and salt treatments, clustered within this group (Figures 6 and 7). In fact, most of the genes up- or downregulated by P. irregulare infection are also regulated by these stresses (Figure 7). For instance, clusters 1 and 3 (a, b, c, and d) in Figure 7, representing >90% of the genes analyzed, are commonly regulated by most of the stresses in the cluster.
Interestingly, the only hormone profile clustering close to P. irregulare (and B. cinerea and P. infestans) profiles is ABA treatment. In fact, when analyzed in more detail, ABA was found to be the main signal regulating the expression of many of the P. irregulareresponsive genes, particularly those included within clusters 3b and 3d, which represent While the vast majority of gene clusters are nonspecific for P. irregulare infection, clusters specifically regulated by this oomycete can be identified (cluster 2, Figure 7; see Supplemental Table 4 online). The specificity of the regulation of these genes by P. irregulare suggests that they may have a defined role in the determination of particular responses to this oomycete.
As with JA/ET/SA-dependent genes, a search for sequences statistically overrepresented within promoters of JA/ET/SA-independent genes identified several candidate cis-regulatory elements (Figure 7). Among them, two are associated with ABA-regulated responses, ABRE and RY (an element recognized by B3 transcription factors, including ABI3, that regulate seed-specific promoters; Vicente-Carbajosa and Carbonero, 2005
ABA Is Required for Plant Defense
Two additional necrotrophs (Alternaria brassicicola and to B. cinerea) have been tested to further understand the breadth of ABA's role in pathogen resistance. As shown in Figure 8C, all three ABA-related mutants tested were more susceptible to A. brassicicola but (surprisingly) more resistant to B. cinerea. These results demonstrate that although the role of ABA in pathogen resistance is not restricted to P. irregulare, ABA is not a positive signal for plant defense against all necrotrophs. Thus, other properties of the pathogenic infection may be determinant of the role of ABA in each plantpathogen interaction, rather than the pathogen's assigned lifestyle.
ABA has been previously proposed to play a role in priming of callose biosynthesis after pathogen recognition, which suggests a putative mechanism explaining the role of ABA in defense activation (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004
Aniline blue staining for 1
Taken altogether, these results suggest that ABA may exert its role, at least in part, through priming of callose production (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004 To further understand this mechanism, microarray profiles of ABA biosynthesis mutants (aba2-12) were compared with those of wild-type plants following the infection of both with P. irregulare. This identified 38 ABA-dependent genes among those regulated by the pathogen in wild-type plants (Figure 9 ; see Supplemental Table 5 online). Meta-analysis showed that within this ABA-dependent group, two major classes of genes could be identified: ABA-regulated genes and JA-regulated genes.
These results reinforce the previous conclusion that ABA is an important signal in the activation of plant defenses through the transcriptional reprogramming of the cell. Moreover, the deficiency in the activation of JA-induced genes in aba2-12 indicates that ABA either precedes or cooperates with JA in the activation of this set of defense genes. To discriminate between these two possibilities, JA hormone levels as well as a JA precursor (12-oxo-phytodienoic acid) were measured in wild-type plants and aba2-12 mutants after P. irregulare infection. As shown in Figure 10 , the increase in JA (or its precursor) following infection (12 h after infection) is much lower in aba2-12 mutants than in wild-type plants. This indicates that ABA synthesis is required for JA production and the activation of plant defenses against P. irregulare.
The study of ArabidopsisP. irregulare hostpathogen interaction reported here highlights the importance of broadening our understanding of the interaction of diverse pathogens with this important model species. Microscopy analysis has shown that P. irregulare infection of Arabidopsis has neither purely typical necrotrophic nor biotrophic characteristics. The infection process starts with the production of appressoria and haustoria-like structures. Compatible hostpathogen interactions show further hyphal ingression to be primarily intracellular, moving more rapidly through the vasculature and invading all tissues. Although no lytic enzymes or toxins have been detected, this progressive invasion ultimately provokes plant cell death.
Analysis of defense-related mutants has shown that Arabidopsis resistance to the establishment and progression of disease by P. irregulare depends initially on avoidance of penetration, mediated by PEN2 and, very likely, other primary defense layers, since pen2 mutants are not fully susceptible to the pathogen. These results are in line with previous reports demonstrating that PEN2 (encoding a glucosyl hydrolase) controls the ingress of a broader range of pathogens, including both biotrophs and necrotrophs, than other penetration proteins (Lipka et al., 2005
Recognition and signaling of defense activation may start from ERECTA (and other partially redundant proteins, since erecta mutants are not fully susceptible). Due to its structural similarity to receptor-like kinases, ERECTA has been suggested to recognize a pathogen-associated molecular pattern (Godiard et al., 2003
Role of JA, ET, and SA in Defense against P. irregulare
In accordance with this and as shown by the extreme susceptibility of the JA-insensitive coi1 mutants, the main signal activating defenses is JA, the role of which in necrotrophic pathogen defense has been widely documented (Rojo et al., 2003 Transcriptomic analysis and meta-analysis confirmed these conclusions showing that JA regulates more than half the JA/ET/SA-dependent genes, whereas the contribution of ET and SA is more modest.
It is noteworthy, however, that profiles of responses to hemibiotrophic bacteria (both virulent and avirulent strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv maculicola ES4326) are very closely related to the P. irregularewild type profile, being particularly evident in the case of genes regulated by JA or ABA (clusters 2a and 4 in Figure 5). Interestingly, this particular P. syringae strain produces a JA analog (coronatine) as a mechanism of pathogenicity (Hendrickson et al., 2000
JA-, ET-, and SA-Independent Defenses
Role of ABA in Pathogen Defense
Interestingly, meta-analysis of transcriptomic data showed that ABA upregulated approximately one-third of the plant genes induced by P. irregulare, suggesting an important role of this hormone in defense activation. This hypothesis contrasts with previous analysis showing that induction of some ET/JA-regulated defense genes, such as PDF1.2, HEL, and b-CHI, is prevented by ABA (Anderson et al., 2004
The indication that ABA is a signal required for necrotrophic pathogen resistance was substantiated by the increase in ABA levels after infection and when analysis of ABA-deficient or -insensitive mutants showed them to be more sensitive to P. irregulare and A. brassicicola than wild-type plants. In accordance with these results, several groups have reported mutants (or transgenic plants) with altered resistance to both pathogens and ABA-dependent abiotic stresses, further supporting our hypothesis (Mengiste et al., 2003
However, ABA is not a positive signal for plant defense against all necrotrophs since it has a negative effect on plant resistance against B. cinerea and Fusarium oxysporum (Audenaert et al., 2002
The increased susceptibility of pmr4 mutants, impaired in callose biosynthesis, suggests that ABA may exert its role, at least in part, through priming of callose production (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004
In summary, our results indicate that ABA is a component of the signaling network activating plant defenses necessary for resistance against some (but not all) necrotrophic pathogens. ABA enhances defenses through at least two independent mechanisms: callose priming and regulation of defense gene expression through activation of JA biosynthesis. The differential role of the hormone within different plantpathogen interactions suggests that ABA levels may be key to the fine-tuning of plant defenses against particular pathogens, a modulation system previously suggested for ET (Pierik et al., 2006
Genetic Backgrounds of Material Pythium irregulare was identified by microscopy and the genotype confirmed by sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region using primers ITS1 (5'-TCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGG-3') and ITS4 (5'-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3') (Kageyama et al., 1997 With the exception of Ler, all mutants were in a Col-0 background.
Seed Sterilization and Growth
P. irregulare Growth Conditions
Disease Inoculation and Assessment of Soil-Grown Plants
Two diameters, perpendicular to each other, were measured for each disease lesion and a mean obtained. The production of runner hyphae and concomitant establishment of distinct lesions per single inoculum necessitated the conversion of lesion radii to area, thereby enabling total disease areas per leaf to be calculated. Thus, disease area per leaf was calculated as the sum of all disease lesion areas:
All infections of Arabidopsis thaliana mutant genotypes were repeated at least three times with similar results. Between six and nine plants of each genotype were infected per replicate experiment.
Hormone Analysis
Microarray Hybridization and Analysis Four Arabidopsis genotypes were included in the initial transcriptome analysis, comprising the wild type (Col-0) and three mutants (coi1-1, ein2-5, and sid2-1). The four genotypes were represented in each independent plate, divided into four equal sectors each containing 18 seedlings equally divided between the three rings. Nine replicate experiments were done on different days, each with an identical, but noninoculated, control plate. Additional transcriptome analyses of aba2-12 mutant plants were done identically to the initial analysis although with only one of the four plate sectors occupied.
RNA Gel Blot Analysis
RNA Quantification and Quality Determination
RNA Amplification and Labeling
Hybridization Microarray slides were composed of synthetic 70-mer oligonucleotides from the Operon Arabidopsis Genome Oligo Set Version 1.0 (Qiagen) spotted on aminosilane-coated slides (Telechem) by the University of Arizona. Slides were rehydrated and UV cross-linked according to the supplier's website (http://ag.arizona.edu/microarray/methods.html). The slides were then washed twice for 2 min in 0,1% SDS and in ethanol for 30 s. Arrays were drained with a 2000-rpm spin for 2 min. Slides were prehybridized in 6x SSC, 0.5% SDS (w/v), and 1% BSA (w/v) at 42°C for 1 h, followed by five rinses with milliQ water. Excess water was drained with a 2000-rpm spin for 2 min. For the hybridization, equal amounts of dye of each aRNA labeled with either Cy3 or Cy5, ranging from 200 to 300 pmol, were mixed with 20 ug of poly(A) and 20 µg of yeast tRNA (Sigma-Aldrich) in a volume of 9 µL. To this volume, 1 µL of RNA fragmentation buffer was added (RNA fragmentation reagents; Ambion) and after 15 min at 70°C, 1 µL of stop solution. Formamide, 20x SSC, 50x Denhardt's, and 20% SDS were added to a final concentration of 50% formamide, 6x SSC, 5x Denhardt's, and 0.5% SDS. This mix was boiled for 3 min at 95°C and then added to the prehybridized slide. Hybridization took place overnight at 37°C in a hybridization chamber. Arrays were then washed for 5 min at 37°C in 0.5x SSC and 0.1% SDS, twice for 5 min at room temperature (21°C) with 0.5x SSC and 0.1% SDS, three times with 0.5x SSC at room temperature, and 5 min with 0.1x SSC. The slides were then drained with a 2000-rpm spin for 2 min. The slides were stored in darkness until they were scanned. The scanning was done with a GenePix 400B scanner (Molecular Devices) at 10-µm resolution. The images were quantified with GenePix Pro 5.1. Images from Cy3 and Cy5 channels were equilibrated and captured with a GenePix 4000B (Axon) and spots quantified using GenPix Pro 5.1 software (Axon). The data from each scanned slide were first scaled and normalized using the Lowess method, before being log-transformed. The mean of the three replicate log-ratio intensities and their standard deviations were generated.
Microarray Analysis
Assessment of Differentially Expressed Genes Three biological replicates were made for each transcriptomic comparison.
Accession Number
Supplemental Data
We thank C. Castresana, J. Paz-Ares, and members of the R.S. lab for critical reading of the manuscript and stimulating discussions. We also thank P.L. Rodriguez-Egea who kindly provided seeds of ABA-related mutants. pmr4 mutants were kindly supplied by M. Nishimura and S. Sommerville. edr1 and pen mutants were kindly supplied by R. Innes and P. Schulze-Lefert, respectively. This work was financed by grants to R.S. from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (BIO2001-0567, BIO2004-02502, and GEN2003-20218-C02-02) and from the Comunidad de Madrid (07G/0048/2000, 07B/0044/2002, and GR/SAL/0674/2004) and by European Union Grant HPRN-CT-2000-00093 to J.-J.S.-S. B.A.T.A. was supported by postdoctoral fellowships from the European Union (CRISP project HPRN-CT-2000-00093) and by the Spanish Ministerio e Educación y Ciencia (GEN2003-20218-C02-02).
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: Roberto Solano (rsolano{at}cnb.uam.es).
[W] Online version contains Web-only data. www.plantcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1105/tpc.106.048041 Received October 19, 2006; Revision received March 14, 2007. accepted April 30, 2007.
Abuqamar, S., Chen, X., Dhawan, R., Bluhm, B., Salmeron, J., Lam, S., Dietrich, R.A., and Mengiste, T. (2006). Expression profiling and mutant analysis reveals complex regulatory networks involved in Arabidopsis response to Botrytis infection. Plant J. 48: 2844.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Aist, J. (1976). Papillae and related wound plugs of plant cells. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 14: 145163.[CrossRef][Web of Science] Anderson, J.P., Badruzsaufari, E., Schenk, P.M., Manners, J.M., Desmond, O.J., Ehlert, C., Maclean, D.J., Ebert, P.R., and Kazan, K. (2004). Antagonistic interaction between abscisic acid and jasmonate-ethylene signaling pathways modulates defense gene expression and disease resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 16: 34603479. Assaad, F.F., Qiu, J.L., Youngs, H., Ehrhardt, D., Zimmerli, L., Kalde, M., Wanner, G., Peck, S.C., Edwards, H., Ramonell, K., Somerville, C.R., and Thordal-Christensen, H. (2004). The PEN1 syntaxin defines a novel cellular compartment upon fungal attack and is required for the timely assembly of papillae. Mol. Biol. Cell 15: 51185129. Audenaert, K., De Meyer, G.B., and Hofte, M.M. (2002). Abscisic acid determines basal susceptibility of tomato to Botrytis cinerea and suppresses salicylic acid-dependent signaling mechanisms. Plant Physiol. 128: 491501. Benjamani, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate. J. R. Stat. Soc. [Ser A] 57: 289300. 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: 763770.[Web of Science][Medline] Berrocal-Lobo, M., Molina, A., and Solano, R. (2002). Constitutive expression of ETHYLENE-RESPONSE-FACTOR1 in Arabidopsis confers resistance to several necrotrophic fungi. Plant J. 29: 2332.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Boter, M., Ruiz-Rivero, O., Abdeen, A., and Prat, S. (2004). Conserved MYC transcription factors play a key role in jasmonate signaling both in tomato and Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 18: 15771591. Brandenburg, E. (1950). Uber die bildung von toxinen in der gattung Pythium und ihre wirkung auf die pflanzen. Nachrichtenbl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzdienst. 2: 6970. Chini, A., Grant, J.J., Seki, M., Shinozaki, K., and Loake, G.J. (2004). Drought tolerance established by enhanced expression of the CC-NBS-LRR gene, ADR1, requires salicylic acid, EDS1 and ABI1. Plant J. 38: 810822.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Clark, C.A., and Lorbeer, J.W. (1976). Comparative histopathology of Botrytis squamosa and B. cinerea on onion leaves. Phytopathology 66: 12791289.[Web of Science] Coego, A., Ramirez, V., Gil, M.J., Flors, V., Mauch-Mani, B., and Vera, P. (2005). An Arabidopsis homeodomain transcription factor, OVEREXPRESSOR OF CATIONIC PEROXIDASE 3, mediates resistance to infection by necrotrophic pathogens. Plant Cell 17: 21232137. Collins, N.C., Thordal-Christensen, H., Lipka, V., Bau, S., Kombrink, E., Qiu, J.L., Huckelhoven, R., Stein, M., Freialdenhoven, A., Somerville, S.C., and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2003). SNARE-protein-mediated disease resistance at the plant cell wall. Nature 425: 973977.[CrossRef][Medline] Cui, J., Bahrami, A.K., Pringle, E.G., Hernandez-Guzman, G., Bender, C.L., Pierce, N.E., and Ausubel, F.M. (2005). Pseudomonas syringae manipulates systemic plant defenses against pathogens and herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 17911796. Deacon, J.W. (1979). Cellulose decomposition by Pythium and its relevance to substrate-groups of fungi. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 72: 469477. Devadas, S.K., Enyedi, A., and Raina, R. (2002). The Arabidopsis hrl1 mutation reveals novel overlapping roles for salicylic acid, jasmonic acid and ethylene signalling in cell death and defence against pathogens. Plant J. 30: 467480.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Dietrich, R.A., Delaney, T.P., Uknes, S.J., Ward, E.R., Ryals, J.A., and Dangl, J.L. (1994). Arabidopsis mutants simulating disease resistance response. Cell 77: 565577.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Falk, A., Feys, B.J., Frost, L.N., Jones, J.D., Daniels, M.J., and Parker, J.E. (1999). EDS1, an essential component of R gene-mediated disease resistance in Arabidopsis has homology to eukaryotic lipases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 32923297. Farr, D.F., Bills, G.F., Chamuris, G.P., and Rossman, A.Y. (1989). Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. (St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press). Frye, C.A., and Innes, R.W. (1998). An Arabidopsis mutant with enhanced resistance to powdery mildew. Plant Cell 10: 947956. Gao, A.G., Hakimi, S.M., Mittanck, C.A., Wu, Y., Woerner, B.M., Stark, D.M., Shah, D.M., Liang, J., and Rommens, C.M. (2000). Fungal pathogen protection in potato by expression of a plant defensin peptide. Nat. Biotechnol. 18: 13071310.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Geraats, B.P., Bakker, P.A., and van Loon, L.C. (2002). Ethylene insensitivity impairs resistance to soilborne pathogens in tobacco and Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 15: 10781085.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Glazebrook, J. (2005). Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 43: 205227.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Godiard, L., Sauviac, L., Torii, K.U., Grenon, O., Mangin, B., Grimsley, N.H., and Marco, Y. (2003). ERECTA, an LRR receptor-like kinase protein controlling development pleiotropically affects resistance to bacterial wilt. Plant J. 36: 353365.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Govrin, E.M., and Levine, A. (2000). The hypersensitive response facilitates plant infection by the necrotrophic pathogen Botrytis cinerea. Curr. Biol. 10: 751757.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Gutterson, N., and Reuber, T.L. (2004). Regulation of disease resistance pathways by AP2/ERF transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7: 465471.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Hendrickson, E.L., Guevera, P., Penaloza-Vazquez, A., Shao, J., Bender, C., and Ausubel, F.M. (2000). Virulence of the phytopathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola is rpoN dependent. J. Bacteriol. 182: 34983507. Hildmann, T., Ebneth, M., Pena-Cortes, H., Sanchez-Serrano, J.J., Willmitzer, L., and Prat, S. (1992). General roles of abscisic and jasmonic acids in gene activation as a result of mechanical wounding. Plant Cell 9: 11571170. Ihaka, R., and Gentleman, R. (1996). R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Statist. 5: 299314.[CrossRef] Jacobs, A.K., Lipka, V., Burton, R.A., Panstruga, R., Strizhov, N., Schulze-Lefert, P., and Fincher, G.B. (2003). An Arabidopsis callose synthase, GSL5, is required for wound and papillary callose formation. Plant Cell 15: 25032513. Jirage, D., Tootle, T.L., Reuber, T.L., Frost, L.N., Feys, B.J., Parker, J.E., Ausubel, F.M., and Glazebrook, J. (1999). Arabidopsis thaliana PAD4 encodes a lipase-like gene that is important for salicylic acid signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 1358313588. Kageyama, K., Ohyama, A., and Hyakumachi, M. (1997). Detection of Pythium ultimum using polymerase chain reaction with species-specific primers. Plant Dis. 81: 11551160.[CrossRef] Kamoun, S. (2003). Molecular genetics of pathogenic oomycetes. Eukaryot. Cell 2: 191199. Kamoun, S., Huitema, E., and Vleeshouwers, V.G. (1999). Resistance to oomycetes: A general role for the hypersensitive response? Trends Plant Sci. 4: 196200.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Knoester, M., van Loon, L.C., van den Heuvel, J., Hennig, J., Bol, J.F., and Linthorst, H.J.M. (1998). Ethylene-insensitive tobacco lacks nonhost resistance against soil-borne fungi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 19331937. Koch, E., and Slusarenko, A. (1990). Arabidopsis is susceptible to infection by a downy mildew fungus. Plant Cell 2: 437445. Kunkel, B.N., and Brooks, D.M. (2002). Cross talk between signaling pathways in pathogen defense. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5: 325331.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Leon, J., Rojo, E., and Sanchez-Serrano, J.J. (2001). Wound signaling in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 52: 19. Li, J., Brader, G., and Palva, E.T. (2004). The WRKY70 transcription factor: A node of convergence for jasmonate-mediated and salicylate-mediated signals in plant defense. Plant Cell 16: 319331. Lipka, V., et al. (2005). Pre- and postinvasion defenses both contribute to nonhost resistance in Arabidopsis. Science 310: 11801183. 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: 165180.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Lorenzo, O., Chico, J.M., Sanchez-Serrano, J.J., and Solano, R. (2004). JASMONATE-INSENSITIVE1 encodes a MYC transcription factor essential to discriminate between different jasmonate-regulated defense responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 16: 19381950. Lorenzo, O., Piqueras, R., Sanchez-Serrano, J.J., and Solano, R. (2003). ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTOR1 integrates signals from ethylene and jasmonate pathways in plant defense. Plant Cell 15: 165178. Lorenzo, O., and Solano, R. (2005). Molecular players regulating the jasmonate signalling network. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8: 532540.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Martin, F.N. (1995). Pythium. In Pathogenesis and Host Specificity in Plant Diseases: Histopathological, Biochemical, Genetic and Molecular Bases, Vol. 2, U.S. Singh, K. Kohmoto, and R.P. Singh, eds (Oxford, UK: Elsevier), pp. 1736. Mauch-Mani, B., and Mauch, F. (2005). The role of abscisic acid in plant-pathogen interactions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8: 409414.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Melotto, M., Underwood, W., Koczan, J., Nomura, K., and He, S.Y. (2006). Plant stomata function in innate immunity against bacterial invasion. Cell 126: 969980.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Mengiste, T., Chen, X., Salmeron, J., and Dietrich, R. (2003). The BOTRYTIS SUSCEPTIBLE1 gene encodes an R2R3MYB transcription factor protein that is required for biotic and abiotic stress responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 15: 25512565. Miller, H.M., and Sauve, R.J. (1975). Etiology and control of Pythium stem rot of geranium. Plant Dis. Reptr. 59: 122126. Mohr, P., and Cahill, D. (2003). Abscisic acid influences the susceptibility of Arabidopsis thaliana to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Peronospora parasitica. Funct. Plant Biol. 30: 461469.[CrossRef] Nickstadt, A., Thomma, B.P.H.J., Feussner, I., Kangasjärvi, J., Zeier, J., Löffler, C., Scheel, D., and Berger, S. (2004). The jasmonate-insensitive mutant jin1 shows increased resistance to biotrophic as well as necrotrophic pathogens. Mol. Plant Pathol. 5: 425434.[CrossRef] Nimchuk, Z., Eulgem, T., Holt, B.F., and Dangl, J.L. (2003). Recognition and response in the plant immune system. Annu. Rev. Genet. 37: 579609.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Nishimura, M.T., Stein, M., Hou, B.H., Vogel, J.P., Edwards, H., and Somerville, S.C. (2003). Loss of a callose synthase results in salicylic acid-dependent disease resistance. Science 301: 969972. Nurnberger, T., and Lipka, V. (2005). Non-host resistance in plants: New insights into an old phenomenon. Mol. Plant Pathol. 6: 335345.[CrossRef] O'Donnell, P.J., Schmelz, E., Block, A., Miersch, O., Wasternack, C., Jones, J.B., and Klee, H.J. (2003). Multiple hormones act sequentially to mediate a susceptible tomato pathogen defense response. Plant Physiol. 133: 11811189. Pena-Cortes, H., Fisahn, J., and Willmitzer, L. (1995). Signals involved in wound-induced proteinase inhibitor II gene expression in tomato and potato plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92: 41064113. Pierik, R., Tholen, D., Poorter, H., Visser, E.J., and Voesenek, L.A. (2006). The Janus face of ethylene: growth inhibition and stimulation. Trends Plant Sci. 11: 176183.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Reymond, P., Bodenhausen, N., Van Poecke, R.M., Krishnamurthy, V., Dicke, M., and Farmer, E.E. (2004). A conserved transcript pattern in response to a specialist and a generalist herbivore. Plant Cell 16: 31323147. Reymond, P., Weber, H., Damond, M., and Farmer, E.E. (2000). Differential gene expression in response to mechanical wounding and insect feeding in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 12: 707720. Rojo, E., Solano, R., and Sanchez-Serrano, J.J. (2003). Interactions between signaling compounds involved in plant defense. J. Plant Growth Regul. 22: 8298.[CrossRef][Web of Science] Saeed, A.I., et al. (2003). TM4: A free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis. Biotechniques 34: 374378.[Web of Science][Medline] Schmelz, E.A., Engelberth, J., Tumlinson, J.H., Block, A., and Alborn, H.T. (2004). The use of vapor phase extraction in metabolic profiling of phytohormones and other metabolites. Plant J. 39: 790808.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Siberil, Y., Doireau, P., and Gantet, P. (2001). Plant bZIP G-box binding factors. Modular structure and activation mechanisms. Eur. J. Biochem. 268: 56555666.[Web of Science][Medline] Smyth, G.K. (2004). Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 3, Article3. Smyth, G.K., and Speed, T. (2003). Normalization of cDNA microarray data. Methods 31: 265273.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Spoel, S.H., et al. (2003). NPR1 modulates cross-talk between salicylate- and jasmonate-dependent defense pathways through a novel function in the cytosol. Plant Cell 15: 760770. Staswick, P.E., Yuen, G.Y., and Lehman, C.C. (1998). Jasmonate signaling mutants of Arabidopsis are susceptible to the soil fungus Pythium irregulare. Plant J. 15: 747754.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Thaler, J.S., and Bostock, R.M. (2004). Interactions between abscisic-acid-mediated responses and plant resistance to pathogens and insects. Ecology 85: 4858.[CrossRef][Web of Science] Thijs, G., Marchal, K., Lescot, M., Rombauts, S., De Moor, B., Rouze, P., and Moreau, Y. (2002). A Gibbs sampling method to detect overrepresented motifs in the upstream regions of coexpressed genes. J. Comput. Biol. 9: 447464.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Thomma, B.P., Penninckx, I.A., Broekaert, W.F., and Cammue, B.P. (2001). The complexity of disease signaling in Arabidopsis. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 13: 6368.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Ton, J., and Mauch-Mani, B. (2004). Beta-amino-butyric acid-induced resistance against necrotrophic pathogens is based on ABA-dependent priming for callose. Plant J. 38: 119130.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Turner, J.G., Ellis, C., and Devoto, A. (2002). The jasmonate signal pathway. Plant Cell 14(Suppl): S153S164. van der Plaats-Niterink, A.J. (1981). Monograph of the genus Pythium. Stud. Mycol. 21: 1242. van Loon, L.C., Geraats, B.P., and Linthorst, H.J. (2006). Ethylene as a modulator of disease resistance in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11: 184191.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Venter, J.C., et al. (2004). Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science 304: 6674. Vicente-Carbajosa, J., and Carbonero, P. (2005). Seed maturation: Developing an intrusive phase to accomplish a quiescent state. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 49: 645651.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Vijayan, P., Shockey, J., Levesque, C.A., Cook, R.J., and Browse, J. (1998). A role for jasmonate in pathogen defense of Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 72097214. Zimmermann, P., Hirsch-Hoffmann, M., Hennig, L., and Gruissem, W. (2004). GENEVESTIGATOR. Arabidopsis microarray database and analysis toolbox. Plant Physiol. 136: 26212632. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | THE PLANT CELL | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY | |
|---|---|---|---|