Transcriptional induction of capsidiol synthesis genes by wounding can promote pathogen signal-induced capsidiol synthesis.


Journal

BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Dec 2019
Historique:
received: 01 08 2019
accepted: 15 12 2019
entrez: 23 12 2019
pubmed: 23 12 2019
medline: 11 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Plants are exposed to various forms of environmental stress. Penetration by pathogens is one of the most serious environmental insults. Wounding caused by tissue damage or herbivory also affects the growth and reproduction of plants. Moreover, wounding disrupts physical barriers present at the plant surface and increases the risk of pathogen invasion. Plants cope with environmental stress by inducing a variety of responses. These stress responses must be tightly controlled, because their unnecessary induction is detrimental to plant growth. In tobacco, WIPK and SIPK, two wound-responsive mitogen-activated protein kinases, have been shown to play important roles in regulating wound responses. However, their contribution to downstream wound responses such as gene expression is not well understood. To identify genes regulated by WIPK and SIPK, the transcriptome of wounded WIPK/SIPK-suppressed plants was analyzed. Among the genes down-regulated in WIPK/SIPK-suppressed plants, the largest group consisted of those involved in the production of antimicrobial phytoalexins. Almost all genes involved in the biosynthesis of capsidiol, a major phytoalexin in tobacco, were transcriptionally induced by wounding in WIPK/SIPK-dependent and -independent manners. 5-epi-aristolochene synthase (EAS) is the committing enzyme for capsidiol synthesis, and the promoter of EAS4, a member of the EAS family, was analyzed. Reporter gene analysis revealed that at least two regions each 40-50 bp length were involved in activation of the EAS4 promoter by wounding, as well as by artificial activation of WIPK and SIPK. Unlike transcripts of the capsidiol synthesis genes, accumulation of EAS protein and capsidiol itself were not induced by wounding; however, wounding significantly enhanced their subsequent induction by a pathogen-derived elicitor. Our results suggest a so-called priming phenomenon since the induction of EAS by wounding is only visible at the transcript level. By inducing transcripts, not the proteins, of EAS and possibly other capsidiol synthesis genes at wound sites, plants can produce large quantities of capsidiol quickly if pathogens invade the wound site, whereas plants can minimize energy loss and avoid the cytotoxic effects of capsidiol where pathogens do not gain entry during wound healing.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Plants are exposed to various forms of environmental stress. Penetration by pathogens is one of the most serious environmental insults. Wounding caused by tissue damage or herbivory also affects the growth and reproduction of plants. Moreover, wounding disrupts physical barriers present at the plant surface and increases the risk of pathogen invasion. Plants cope with environmental stress by inducing a variety of responses. These stress responses must be tightly controlled, because their unnecessary induction is detrimental to plant growth. In tobacco, WIPK and SIPK, two wound-responsive mitogen-activated protein kinases, have been shown to play important roles in regulating wound responses. However, their contribution to downstream wound responses such as gene expression is not well understood.
RESULTS RESULTS
To identify genes regulated by WIPK and SIPK, the transcriptome of wounded WIPK/SIPK-suppressed plants was analyzed. Among the genes down-regulated in WIPK/SIPK-suppressed plants, the largest group consisted of those involved in the production of antimicrobial phytoalexins. Almost all genes involved in the biosynthesis of capsidiol, a major phytoalexin in tobacco, were transcriptionally induced by wounding in WIPK/SIPK-dependent and -independent manners. 5-epi-aristolochene synthase (EAS) is the committing enzyme for capsidiol synthesis, and the promoter of EAS4, a member of the EAS family, was analyzed. Reporter gene analysis revealed that at least two regions each 40-50 bp length were involved in activation of the EAS4 promoter by wounding, as well as by artificial activation of WIPK and SIPK. Unlike transcripts of the capsidiol synthesis genes, accumulation of EAS protein and capsidiol itself were not induced by wounding; however, wounding significantly enhanced their subsequent induction by a pathogen-derived elicitor.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest a so-called priming phenomenon since the induction of EAS by wounding is only visible at the transcript level. By inducing transcripts, not the proteins, of EAS and possibly other capsidiol synthesis genes at wound sites, plants can produce large quantities of capsidiol quickly if pathogens invade the wound site, whereas plants can minimize energy loss and avoid the cytotoxic effects of capsidiol where pathogens do not gain entry during wound healing.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31864296
doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-2204-1
pii: 10.1186/s12870-019-2204-1
pmc: PMC6925906
doi:

Substances chimiques

Plant Proteins 0
Sesquiterpenes 0
capsidiol 1O869T5P54

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

576

Subventions

Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : KAKENHI [grant Nos. 21880020, 23688005, 17K07665]
Organisme : Ministry of Education and Science, Japan
ID : the Program for Dissemination of the Tenure-Track System

Références

Plant Cell. 2007 Mar;19(3):1096-122
pubmed: 17400894
Nature. 2017 May 25;545(7655):487-490
pubmed: 28514447
Plant Cell. 1992 Oct;4(10):1333-44
pubmed: 1283354
Plant J. 2007 Mar;49(5):899-909
pubmed: 17253983
Plant Cell. 2011 Apr;23(4):1639-53
pubmed: 21498677
Phytochemistry. 2014 Feb;98:110-9
pubmed: 24359633
Plant Cell Physiol. 2013 Jun;54(6):1005-15
pubmed: 23574699
Plant J. 2010 Aug;63(4):599-612
pubmed: 20525005
Cell. 2015 Oct 22;163(3):684-97
pubmed: 26496608
Nature. 1985 Feb 28-Mar 6;313(6005):810-2
pubmed: 3974711
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015 Jun;25:17-22
pubmed: 25909859
Trends Plant Sci. 2002 Jul;7(7):301-8
pubmed: 12119167
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2014 Dec;27(12):1318-30
pubmed: 25122483
Nature. 1998 Jan 29;391(6666):485-8
pubmed: 9461215
Plant J. 2010 Oct;64(1):114-27
pubmed: 20659280
PLoS Genet. 2012 Jun;8(6):e1002767
pubmed: 22761583
Plant Cell. 2016 May;28(5):1163-81
pubmed: 27102667
Trends Biochem Sci. 2003 Apr;28(4):182-8
pubmed: 12713901
Plant Physiol. 2010 Jun;153(2):678-92
pubmed: 20357140
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2004 Jan;17(1):81-9
pubmed: 14714871
Plant Cell Physiol. 1996 Jan;37(1):49-59
pubmed: 8720924
Plant J. 1999 May;18(3):265-76
pubmed: 10377992
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2010 Sep;23(9):1130-42
pubmed: 20687803
J Exp Bot. 2019 Oct 15;70(19):5355-5374
pubmed: 31145794
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013 Aug;26(8):880-92
pubmed: 23617417
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jan 1;31(1):114-7
pubmed: 12519961
J Exp Bot. 2019 Oct 24;70(20):5895-5908
pubmed: 31294452
Plant Cell. 2011 Mar;23(3):1153-70
pubmed: 21386030
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jan 16;98(2):741-6
pubmed: 11209069
J Biol Chem. 2003 Jul 18;278(29):26666-76
pubmed: 12736259
Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2009 Sep;73(9):1962-70
pubmed: 19734678
Nature. 2006 Nov 16;444(7117):323-9
pubmed: 17108957
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 Feb;17(2):73-90
pubmed: 22209038
New Phytol. 2017 Aug;215(3):1115-1131
pubmed: 28649699
Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Jan 1;27(1):297-300
pubmed: 9847208
Plant Cell Physiol. 1999 Sep;40(9):993-8
pubmed: 10588069
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):325-7
pubmed: 11752327
Plant J. 2008 Aug;55(4):555-67
pubmed: 18452590
Plant Physiol. 1997 Oct;115(2):437-51
pubmed: 9342864
Biosci Rep. 2018 Mar 9;38(2):
pubmed: 29436485
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 8;105(14):5638-43
pubmed: 18378893
Physiol Rev. 1999 Jan;79(1):143-80
pubmed: 9922370
Plant Cell Physiol. 2007 Mar;48(3):498-510
pubmed: 17289794
Plant Cell. 2015 Sep;27(9):2645-63
pubmed: 26373453
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 1997 Jan;10(1):13-20
pubmed: 9002268

Auteurs

Tomoya Kojima (T)

Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan.

Nobuhide Asakura (N)

Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan.

Shiori Hasegawa (S)

Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan.

Taishi Hirasawa (T)

Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan.

Yuri Mizuno (Y)

Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8601, Japan.

Daigo Takemoto (D)

Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8601, Japan.

Shinpei Katou (S)

Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan. shinpei@shinshu-u.ac.jp.

Articles similaires

Amaryllidaceae Alkaloids Lycoris NADPH-Ferrihemoprotein Reductase Gene Expression Regulation, Plant Plant Proteins
Drought Resistance Gene Expression Profiling Gene Expression Regulation, Plant Gossypium Multigene Family
Triticum Transcription Factors Gene Expression Regulation, Plant Plant Proteins Salt Stress
Glycine max Photoperiod Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases Flowers Gene Expression Regulation, Plant

Classifications MeSH