i a mechanistic exploration of signaling crosstalk regulating light
Post on 11-Sep-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
i
A MECHANISTIC EXPLORATION OF SIGNALING CROSSTALK REGULATING
LIGHT RESPONSES, GROWTH AND IMMUNITY IN ARABIDOPSIS
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School
At the University of Missouri
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Philosophy
By
DANIEL LOUIS LEUCHTMAN
Dr. Emmanuel Liscum, III, Doctoral Supervisor
JULY 2016
i
The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the
Thesis entitled
A MECHANISTIC EXPLORATION OF SIGNALING CROSSTALK REGULATING LIGHT
RESPONSES, GROWTH AND IMMUNITY IN ARABIDOPSIS
Presented by Daniel L. Leuchtman
A candidate for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy,
And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
Dr. Emmanuel Liscum, III
Dr. Walter Gassmann
Dr. Paula McSteen
Dr. Michael L. Garcia
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to start by thanking my advisor Dr. Mannie Liscum, co-advisor Dr.
Walter Gassmann, current committee members Drs. Paula McSteen and Michael L.
Garcia, and former committee member Dr. David Braun. Each and every one of you
has been a critical part in my education through thoughtful questions and constructive
criticism. I thank you all for turning me into a scientist.
To The Boss Man, Mannie: You have been a key part of my education since my
undergraduate career in 2007. My grades were nothing special, but you saw enough
potential in me to provide me with an opportunity to prove myself as a plant biologist in
a PhD program. Your guidance and advice has helped immensely in my development.
You have also given me the freedom and opportunity to explore other avenues of
growth and learning both scientifically and professionally.
To Walter: I thank you for always being willing to provide guidance or a look at
new data, even at the most random or haphazard of times. I also thank you for being
my guide to the world of plant-microbe interactions. Learning new subjects is one of my
biggest motivators and having an expert guide the way makes it that much easier and
enjoyable.
iii
To the knucklheads that make even the most difficult days in the lab tolerable
and distract me from my biggest pressures, all of my labmates in the Liscum and
Gassmann labs: thank you. Starting with my first graduate student mentor Brandon
Celaya, I thank you for introducing me to lab life and making me aware of my potential.
I thank Ullas Pedmale and Jen Holland for always being there when I had questions.
To Diana Roberts for dragging me through the process of learning quality experimental
design and lab practices, thank you for being patient. I thank Jo Morrow for being the
Cloning Queen and always being willing to chat. I thank Kyle Willenburg, Scott
Askinosie and Katelynn Koskie for being there to challenge my thoughts and ideas and
helping to make them better. I thank Chris Garner, Morgan Halane, Ben Spears, Sange
He Kim andSaikat Bhattacharjee for always being willing to help, with whatever random
questions I walk in with. And finally I would like to thank Anthony Shumate for allowing
me to practice the art of mentoring. You have turned into an exceptional young scientist
and I see no limit to your potential. There isn’t much more I have to offer and I now
consider you a peer and a close friend. Good luck and have fun in Portland.
I must also thank the wonderful communities I am fortunate enough to be a part
of. I thank the community in BLSC and 3-west for always being willing help or lend a
reagent I need on the spot. I thank the IPG for creating an amazing place to study plant
biology that is truly world class. I thank the DBS for caring for me as a scientist and as
an individual.
iv
To my amazing wife Celsi Cowan: Thank you for enduring this with me, keeping
me stable, and for making sure I remember to eat, exercise and take a break now and
then. The future may be uncertain, but I’m not afraid of anything because I’m with you,
and I cannot wait for our next big step.
Lastly, I want to thank my parents and sister, Rick, Libby and Allie Leuchtman.
You have all supported me my entire life and are always there for comfort and
guidance. I would not be the person I am today without your constant love and
encouragement.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................... 1
The phototropins ........................................................................................................... 1
Phototropism ................................................................................................................. 2
Plant immunity .............................................................................................................. 3
Self-regulation of immune activity ................................................................................. 5
Influences of light in immune signaling and pathogen defense .................................... 6
Phytochromes ........................................................................................................... 6
Cryptochromes .......................................................................................................... 7
Phototropins .............................................................................................................. 8
Influence of the circadian clock ................................................................................. 9
Variation in methods used to assess photoreceptor involvement in defense produce
disparate results ...................................................................................................... 11
Thesis synopsis .......................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2. SHINING A LIGHT ON IMMUNITY: CROSSTALK BETWEEN LIGHT AND
DEFENSE SIGNALING .................................................................................................. 16
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 17
Experimental Procedures ........................................................................................... 19
Results ........................................................................................................................ 23
vi
HopA1 mediated resistance does not show dependency on PHOT1, PHOT2 or
PIXL under normal or monochromatic light ............................................................. 23
Phototropin double mutants show reduced PR2 accumulation ............................... 27
Prolonged induction of PIXL-HA results in seedling death ...................................... 29
TNL mutants tested have altered phototropic phenotypes ...................................... 31
No detectible difference in chloroplast movements in select group of defense
mutants ................................................................................................................... 33
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER 3. WHEN IN ROME: CROSS KINGDOM SUBSTITUTION OF A KEY
IMMUNE REGULATOR IN PLANTS ............................................................................. 39
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 40
Experimental Procedures ........................................................................................... 42
Results ........................................................................................................................ 44
srfr1-4 root growth is severely stunted in the presence of hygromcin, and this
phenotype is diminished in mutants transformed with MmSRFR1 .......................... 44
Select MmSRFR1 transgenic lines also exhibit an increase in shoot growth
compared to srfr1-4 srfrEV-1 control ....................................................................... 46
MmSRFR1 transgenic lines are indistinguishable from srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 controls
on normal media, and the srfrEV-1 shortened root phenotype is hygromycin
dependent ............................................................................................................... 48
Non-lethal doses of paraquat induce root stunting .................................................. 52
vii
Hygromycin resistant Col plants show increased root growth compared to
hygromycin resistant srfr1-4 plants. ........................................................................ 54
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 60
Resistance to Pst DC3000 hopA1 does not show a strong phototropin or PIXL
dependency ................................................................................................................ 62
Phototropins influence PR2 accumulation in response to Pst DC3000 hopA1 and
avrRpt2 ....................................................................................................................... 62
Extended induction of PIXL-HA results in seedling death .......................................... 63
Certain defense mutants exhibit increased phototropic curvature, but do not show
changes in chloroplast accumulation or avoidance .................................................... 64
Hygromycin resistant srfr1-4 exhibits a hygromycin dependent shortened root
phenotype ................................................................................................................... 65
Transgenic MmSRFR1 in the srfr1-4 background shows an increase in root and shoot
growth ......................................................................................................................... 66
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 67
VITA................................................................................................................................ 84
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2. SHINING A LIGHT ON IMMUNITY: CROSSTALK BETWEEN LIGHT AND
DEFENSE SIGNALING .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.1 HopA1 mediated resistance does not show a dependency on PHOT1,
PHOT2 or PIXL. ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.2 HopA1 mediated resistance does not show a phototropin dependency
under BL or RL conditions. .................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.3 Phototropin double mutant shows decreased PR2 accumulation. ..... 28
Figure 2.4 Prolonged induction of PIXL expression results in seedling death. .... 30
Figure 2.5 Mutants lacking PIXL, RPS6 or RPS4 exhibit increased phototropic
curvature. ............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 2.6 No change in chloroplast movement was observed in mutants lacking
PIXL, RPS6, EDS1-2 or RPS2 ............................................................................ 34
Figure 2.7 Model summarizing the association between phot1 and defense
proteins ................................................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER 3. WHEN IN ROME: CROSS KINGDOM SUBSTITUTION OF A KEY
IMMUNE REGULATOR IN PLANTS ............................................................................. 39
Figure 3.1 In the presence of hygromycin, resistant srfr1-4 shows a stunted root
growth phenotype and MmSRFR1 transgenic lines show increased growth. ..... 45
Figure 3.2. Shoot growth of MmSRFR1 transgenic lines. ................................... 47
ix
Figure 3.3. In the absence of hygromycin, MmSRFR1 transgenic root growth is
indistinguishable from srfr1-4. ............................................................................. 50
Figure 3.4. srfrEV-1 stunted root phenotype is hygromycin dependent .............. 51
Figure 3.5 Root growth of Col, srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 in the presence of paraquat.
............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3.6 Root growth analysis of hygromycin resistant Col and srfr1-4 ........... 55
Figure 3.7 Model summarizing the association between hygromycin, SRFR1 and
the HPT hygromycin resistance protein ............................................................... 55
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 60
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 The phototropins
Optimizing photocapture is paramount to plant health. Plants evolved complex
response mechanisms to seek and optimize utilization of the best available light.
Examples of these responses include entrainment of the circadian clock, shade
avoidance syndrome and phototropism (Hsu and Harmer, 2014; de Wit et al., 2016;
Kutschera and Briggs, 2016). Phototropins are blue light photoreceptors that mediate a
variety of physiological responses including chloroplast movements, stomatal opening,
cotyledon/leaf expansion and the aforementioned phototropism, which is the process of
oriented growth towards directional light (Goyal et al., 2013; Okajima, 2016).
Phototropism has been studied for centuries and is one of the most well characterized
of these responses. In the path from light perception to oriented growth, many areas of
active research remain. This list includes determining structure, biochemical function,
sub-cellular localization, intracellular movement, interaction partners, and downstream
signaling targets of key proteins (Hohm et al., 2014; Liscum et al., 2014; Okajima,
2016). However, investigation of signal integration and cross-communication are more
recent areas of study.
The phototropins, phot1 and phot2, were originally identified in a screen for
mutants that failed to exhibit phototropism (Liscum and Briggs, 1995). Protein structure
is similar between the two phototropins, with two conserved amino-terminal FMN (Flavin
2
MonoNucleotide)-binding LOV (Light, Oxygen, and Voltage) domains and a carboxyl-
terminal PKD (Ser/Thr Protein Kinase Domain). Following perception of UV-A/blue light
by the FMN chromophore, a covalent adduct is formed at the LOV domain and results in
a conformational change (Okajima, 2016). Change in protein shape allows for
autophosphorylation, which has been shown to be essential for phototropism (Inoue et
al., 2008). phot1 and phot2 exhibit partially overlapping function in intermediate light,
with phot1 being predominantly responsible for the responses to low light intensities
(Christie et al., 2015).
1.2 Phototropism
Asymmetric growth between the shaded and irradiated sides of the stem/shoot is
what enables the canonical bending response. This difference in growth is due to
redistribution of the plant growth hormone auxin, IAA (indole-3-acetic acid). While
several phot1 interacting partners and downstream signaling components have been
identified, the exact mechanism by which active phototropins induce lateral auxin
gradients remains elusive. The most detailed models involve modulation of auxin efflux
carriers, via direct or indirect regulation, with some also implicating intracellular Ca2+ flux
(Hohm et al., 2013).
Attempts to resolve precise mechanisms leading from light recognition to
physiological response has resulted in many attempts to identify new phot1 interacting
partners, with some unexpected outcomes. One such example is the identification of
PIXL (phot1 interacting cross-linked), which is a previously uncharacterized R
3
(resistance)-like protein belonging to the TNL (Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor, nucleotide-
binding site, leucine-rich repeat) sub-family.
1.3 Plant immunity
The plant immune system is conceptualized as a two-tier system (Asai and
Shirasu, 2015; Cui et al., 2015). The first system is involved in recognizing invading
pathogens outside the cells via extracellular receptors known as PRRs (Pattern
Recognition Receptors). These receptors recognize conserved microbial molecular
patterns such as bacteria flagellin, chitin, and other structural carbohydrates commonly
found in various microbes known as MAMPs (Microbial Associated Molecular Patterns),
PAMPs (Pathogen Associated Molecular Patterns), or DAMPs (Damage Associated
Molecular Patterns) from molecules found in the apoplast following damage to the plant
due to pathogens or herbivores (Zipfel, 2014). Upon recognition of the pathogen, a
cascade of defense responses is elicited known as PTI (PAMP Triggered Immunity).
Examples of such responses include closure of stomates, synthesis of antimicrobial
compounds such as phytoalexins, strengthening of the cell wall by mechanisms such as
deposition of callose, and translation of defense related proteins and peptides (Zipfel,
2014; Asai and Shirasu, 2015; Bigeard et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2016). Pathogens,
however, have evolved to circumvent these responses by injecting molecules known as
effectors directly into the host cell in order to disrupt PTI. Such strategies include re-
opening of stomates, suppressing defense related gene expression, or manipulating
hormonally regulated defense responses (Nomura et al., 2006; Jelenska et al., 2007;
4
Jelenska et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2012; Lozano-Duran et al., 2014). To counter
these measures, plants have in turn evolved the means to then recognize these foreign
molecules in order to activate the second tier of the immune system known as ETI
(Effector Triggered Immunity). ETI restores and amplifies PTI basal transcription and is
typically characterized by a rapid release of ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) that serve
as both antimicrobial compounds as well as signaling molecules to neighboring cells
(Cui et al., 2015; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS accumulation results in a form of
programmed cell death known as a HR (Hypersensitive Response) and can be seen in
leaves as local lesions of necrotic tissue surrounded by healthy tissue. It is important to
note that a detectible HR is not always found upon R protein mediated recognition of
effectors and ETI (Gassmann, 2005).
In response to primarily biotrophic and hemi-biotrophic pathogens, signals are
sent throughout the rest of the plant where defenses are then upregulated resulting in
SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) (Fu and Dong, 2013). SAR is characterized by
accumulation of the defense hormone SA (Salicylic Acid), massive transcriptional
reprogramming and chromatin modifications that prime systemic tissues for defense
related gene expression (Gruner et al., 2013; Kachroo and Robin, 2013). Other
hormones that play decisive roles in defense include ET (Ethylene) and JA (Jasmonic
Acid) with these two playing more pivotal roles in defense against necrotrophic
pathogens and herbivores (Kachroo and Kachroo, 2012; Verma et al., 2016).
Additionally, SA and JA have been found as mutually antagonistic with respect to the
defense mechanisms each induces, with increased resistance to biotrophic pathogens
5
increasing susceptibility to necrotrophic pathogens and vice versa (Robert-Seilaniantz
et al., 2011). Some pathogens have even evolved to exploit this disparity by stimulating
the opposite hormone, an example being biotrophic pathogens stimulating JA mediated
responses (Jiang et al., 2013; Gimenez-Ibanez et al., 2014).
1.4 Self-regulation of immune activity
The plant immune system must be under strict control to ensure that defense is only
activated when necessary in order to prevent energy loss and deleterious side effects.
Mechanisms by which plants control activation and suppression of the immune system
are still being elucidated. SRFR1 is a gene originally identified in a screen for negative
regulators of immunity by assaying for reactivation of resistance to Pst avrRps4 in the
normally susceptible Arabidopsis accession RLD (Kwon et al., 2004). Investigation of
the amino acid sequence reveals several key features with implications in transcriptional
regulation, protein-protein interaction and complex formation. Cross kingdom homology
is seen across the length of the protein with the most notable region being a N-terminal
tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain (Kwon et al., 2009). TPR domain containing
proteins in animal systems are also associated with immune system regulation (Zeytuni
and Zarivach, 2012). In certain genetic backgrounds, plants lacking SRFR1 have
markedly different morphology, reduced viability, appear stunted and constitutively
express several defense related genes (Kim et al., 2010; Li et al., 2010).
6
1.5 Influences of light in immune signaling and pathogen defense
Light has been shown as a necessary component of an effective immune
response. Using the model pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola in a series
of experiments with varying light conditions Zeier and colleagues (2004) showed an
uncoupling of certain defense responses, namely PR-1 expression, free SA, camalexin,
HR, SAR and apoplastic bacterial growth. The authors suggest that light directly
functions as a signal in immune signaling rather that contributing via indirect effects
through photosynthesis and energetic needs. Additionally, this study highlighted the
importance of light in SA mediated resistance as certain JA inducible genes show no
light depend expression patterns.
1.5.a.1 Phytochromes
The phytochromes phyA and phyB are thought to have a synergistic effect on
HR, PR1 expression and apoplastic growth of incompatible pathogen Pseudomonas
syringae pv. tomato DC3000 avrRpt2 with a strong influence of phytochrome on SA
mediated PR1 expression (Genoud et al., 2002). When studying a variegation mutant,
it was found that white areas (those with low chloroplast counts) showed a significant
reduction in HR, assayed via conductivity, while PR1 expression was comparable to
green areas with typical chloroplast abundance. The authors concluded that
phytochrome signaling modulates SA perception in Arabidopsis, and speculated that
plastids may be an alternative source of ROS in addition to a plasmalemma-associated
NADPH oxidase. However, PR expression is still light-dependent presenting a crucial
7
role for light, independent of the photosynthetic machinery. Calcium is noted as a
potential point of crosstalk due to the fact that calcium signaling has been implicated in
both light and defense signaling responses (Genoud et al., 2002).
1.5.a.2 Cryptochromes
To test for additional influences of photoreceptors in defense responses,
infections using Psm avrRpm1 and photoreceptor double mutants phyA phyB, cry1 cry2
and phot1 phot2 were performed. The cryptochromes CRY1 and CRY2 are blue light
photoreceptors that entrain the circadian clock and mediate certain developmental
responses such as seedling de-etiolation (Galvao and Fankhauser, 2015). SA
accumulation was significantly higher in the cry1cry2 plants and significantly lower in
phyA phyB plants. HR was no different among the lines tested. SA and PR1
expression was detectible in phyA phyB mutant plants, but at levels lower than Col.
This was consistent with results from Genoud and colleagues, though results testing for
HR using trypan blue staining showed no significance. It is important to note that
Genoud and colleagues did see significant differences in HR between wild type plants
and photoreceptor mutants but investigated this using an electrolyte leakage assay.
This experiment quantifies the release of ions from infected leaves and can thus be
used as a quantitative indicator of HR.
In inoculations with incompatible bacteria, no significant differences were seen in
the photoreceptor mutants. In inoculations with compatible bacteria, however, the phyA
phyB double mutant showed a 3-fold higher growth than wild type. When the authors
8
investigated systemic tissues (or re stimulated with inoculum) they found that cry1 cry2
and phot1 phot2 were able to mount an effective immune response against an
incompatible pathogen compared to the same assay preformed with a compatible
pathogen. Similar leaves were taken prior to infection to see if this result could be
attributed to presence of SA. Indeed, phyA phyB mutants accumulated significantly less
SA, and there was no noticeable difference between bacteria present from either the
incompatible or compatible interactions. Together these data suggest that SAR is
abolished in the phyA phyB mutant due to an inability to spread systemic signal post
infection. The authors proposed two mechanisms by which light may be influencing the
system. (1) Energetic status and metabolic environment of the cell through
photosynthesis. (2) Cross talk between photoreceptor and defense associated
signaling components. Based on these studies, photoreceptors alone are not
responsible for the critical dependency on light the immune system has. Work on
phytochrome has demonstrated an important role in SA mediated defenses soon after
infection. However, evidence such as expression of certain defense markers post
infection and the presence of a HR response in the phyA phyB mutant show that
phytochromes have a limited influence on SA mediated defenses at sites of infection.
1.5.a.3 Phototropins
Studies performed by Jeong and colleagues (2010) studying Arabidopsis
resistance to TCV (Turnip Crinkle Virus) found that stability of R protein, HRT, is light
and photoreceptor dependent (Jeong et al., 2010). By investigating possible influences
9
of photoreceptors in light dependent stability of HRT, specifically phyC, phyD, phyE,
cry1, cry2, phot1, phot2, phyA and phyB, it was found that mutations in phytochromes
did not alter HRT mediated resistance but instead phot1, phot2, cry1 and cry2 showed
altered susceptibility, suggesting that blue light photoreceptors are necessary for
resistance to TCV through HRT. Although transcript levels of HRT were comparable to
wild type in all genetic backgrounds, protein levels were greatly reduced in phot2 and
cry2 mutant backgrounds. While phot1 and CRY1 were not needed for the stability of
the HRT protein, susceptibility data suggests they still play a role elsewhere in the HRT
mediated resistance. The authors found that although altered levels of HRT were found
between cry1 and cry2, phot1 and phot2, SA accumulation was significantly lower in
both phot1 and phot2 mutant despite the fact that these mutants still showed HR and
PR-1 expression at levels similar to wild type. It was hypothesized that blue light
photoreceptors act redundantly, possibly in conjunction with factors other than the
photoreceptors themselves. These data demonstrate a particularly important role for
CRY2 in HRT mediated resistance to TCV. In addition, the study found that HRT
interacted with COP1, an E3 ubiquitin ligase known to negatively regulate phot2
mediated activity (Mao et al., 2005).
1.5.a.4 Influence of the circadian clock
The circadian clock allows plants to anticipate pattern changes in the
environment as well as biotic threats. According to Ingle and colleagues (2015),
Arabidopsis has altered susceptibility to necrotrophic pathogen Botrytis cinerea based
10
on inoculation time. Plants infected at subjective dawn were more resistant than those
infected at subjective dusk under constant light treatments and this was abolished in
clock mutants elf3-1 and cca1 lhy. Microarray analysis revealed that a core set of clock
target genes related to defense were induced faster in plants infected at subjective
dawn. In addition, enhanced susceptibility seen in plants infected at subjective night
was lost in jaz6 mutants, suggesting a role for jasmonates in circadian mediated
defense regulation (Ingle et al., 2015).
Transcriptome data has been used to investigate circadian and light dependent
changes to Pst DC3000 interactions. In tomato, Yang and colleagues (2015) observed
that Pst DC3000 susceptibility is highest before midnight. Light treatment, especially
red light treatment, given at this time point enhances resistance. This phenomenon is
correlated with increased SA accumulation and expression of defense related genes.
Analysis of the transcriptome revealed that red light induces expression of genes
implicated in maintaining circadian rhythms as well as phytochrome and SA mediated
defenses, further highlighting the ability of red light to influence SA mediated defenses
against Pst DC3000. Additionally, genes involved in redox homeostasis, calcium
signaling, transcriptional regulation and cellulose synthesis were differentially expressed
in response to red light and pathogen challenge (Yang et al., 2015).
Within a set photocycle, the specific time a plant is exposed to a pathogen can
have a profound influence on defense output. When challenged with incompatible
bacteria Psm avrRpm1, HR, PR expression and SA accumulation were higher in tissues
inoculated early in the day and significantly lower in plants infected in the evening or at
11
night. Testing for circadian regulation of SA mediated defenses, Griebel and Zeier
(2008) performed infections in the subjective morning and subjective evening with
plants that had been acclimated to continuous light or continuous darkness. Under
continuous darkness SA was indistinguishable between the subjective day and
subjective night time points. In the continuous light treatment, SA was higher at
subjective night compared to subjective day. Circadian regulation of SA would predict
lower levels at subjective night, but this result showed the opposite. This highlights how
the duration of light exposure immediately following infection can influence SA
production.
1.5.b Variation in methods used to assess photoreceptor involvement in defense
produce disparate results
Results from various studies of photoreceptor activity in plant immunity may vary
however, as Jeong and colleagues (2010) did not detect a notable difference in
bacterial proliferation in phot and cry single mutants compared to wildtype when
challenged with Pst avrRpt2 or Pst avrRps4. It is important however, to keep in mind
the redundancies between photoreceptor paralogs when interpreting these results,
especially under routine lighting conditions. In contrast, We and Yang (2010) noticed a
dependency on CRY1 for AvrRpt2 mediated resistance specifically under continuous
light. In these conditions, Pst avrRpt2 showed increased proliferation in cry1 mutants
but decreased growth in CRY1 overexpressing lines. These authors also performed
experiments under blue and red light conditions to test for dependency on
12
active/inactive CRY1. Blue-light treated plants displayed the same pattern as those
grown under white-light with CRY1-overexpressing plants showing less bacterial growth
than wild type and cry1 mutant plants showing increased growth. However, this pattern
was abolished in plants grown in red-light following infection, suggesting that active
CRY1 influences resistance to Pst avrRpt2 under these conditions. As compatible
pathogen Pst DC3000 grew to normal levels in all backgrounds tested, the authors
conclude that basal resistance is not influenced by CRY1 but rather R-protein mediated
resistance.
Genoud and colleagues (2002) found light dependency for PR-1 when treated
with SA, and HR when challenged with Pst avrRpt2. There was also light dependency
of defense against Pst avrRpt2, as well as phytochrome dependency for all of the
aforementioned results. Zeier and colleagues (2004) used Psm avrRpm1 and also
found a light dependency on HR and PR-1 expression, as well as SA accumulation.
Griebel and Zeier (2008), again, found light dependency of SA accumulation and PR-1
expression and HR using Psm avrRpm1. These authors also found, to a lesser extent,
phytochrome dependency on SA accumulation and PR-1 expression qualitatively in
agreement with results from Genoud and colleagues (2002), however they did not find
HR to be phytochrome dependent. Two different methods were used to come to these
conclusions, Genoud and colleagues (2002) assessed HR measuring electrolyte
leakage and trypan blue staining was used by Griebel and Zeier (2008).
Additionally, defense during incompatible interactions in the phyA phyB double
mutant were not found to be significantly impaired by Griebel and Zeier (2008), but
13
instead defense during compatible interactions. Genoud and colleagues (2002),
however, did see a significant increase in incompatible pathogen growth between phyA
phyB double mutants and wild type seedlings. Differences between the two studies
could be attributed to the different strains of bacteria used (Pst avrRpt2 vs Psm
avrRpm1), or growth conditions. Genoud and colleagues (2002) used a growth
chamber with 30µmol m-2 s-1 white light, a 9h L: 15h D photocycle, 20ºC temperature,
and 60% humidity. Seedlings used were approximately 3 weeks old. Griebel and Zeier
(2008) used growth conditions set to 70µmol m-2 s-1, 9h L: 15h D, 18ºC and used 6
week old plants. Age of the plants, specific pathogen used and intensity of light in the
growth space could attribute to the differences seen.
In the same conditions mentioned above, Griebel and Zeier (2008) found no
difference between cry1 cry2 or phot1 phot2 and their respective wild type backgrounds.
However, Wu and Yang (2010) saw increased growth in cry1 when challenged with Pst
avrRpt2 when grown in continuous light at 18-22ºC and light at 120µmol m-2 s-1 using 4-
5 week old seedlings. In comparison, Jeong and colleagues (2010) found no significant
difference between phot or cry single mutants when challenged with Pst avrRpt2 or Pst
avrRps4, consistent with the study conducted by Griebel and Zeier (2008) using Psm
avrRpm1 on phot and cry double mutants. Jeong and colleagues (2010) used growth
conditions as follows 14h L: 10h D, 22ºC, 65% relative humidity, 106.7µmol m-2 s-1. To
summarize, these results highlight the variation in environments, pathogens used to
challenge plants, and subtle influence photoreceptors have on pathogen defense. On
the contrary, the results demonstrate the clear influence light has on HR and SA
14
mediated defenses in Arabidopsis. Interestingly, light dependency on HR has also been
demonstrated in Arabidopsis challenged with viruses (Chandra-Shekara et al., 2006;
Jeong et al., 2010).
1.6 Thesis synopsis
The goal of my thesis was to begin bridging the molecular signaling mechanisms
behind light mediated growth and development and plant immunity. Both of these
processes have been studied for decades, but typically in isolation, and for very good
reason since only under strict growth environments have findings thus far been
possible. However, now that major players in most principle signaling pathways have
been identified, we may begin studying these systems in synergy. Additionally, while in
silico methods to study network organization are quite powerful, only through tandem
use with mechanistic examination and validation may concise and concrete conclusions
be made.
The PIXL-phot1 interaction in Arabidopsis represented a potential mechanistic
starting point to connect the well characterized systems of light/phototropin mediated
developmental physiology and immune function. Balancing adaptations to varied
lighting environments with defense responses is an excellent example of the challenges
behind resource allocation and utilization in plants. For instance, studies on the
influence of phytochrome B and UV-B receptor, UVR8, have highlighted a fulcrum that
either tips the system in the direction of increased defense potential in the way of
increased R:FR and high UV-B, or a focus on growth and elongation in low R:FR and
15
UV-B (Mazza and Ballare, 2015). A better understanding of these turning points help
explicate energetic commitments made by plants and could result in improved
agricultural management strategies.
Furthermore, while study of light dependent physiology, plant defense and the
respective signaling components have excellent potential to reveal possible crosstalk,
our studies have also led us to investigate the balance between immunity and normal
growth and development, specifically through influences of SRFR1. While functions as
a negative regulator of defense remains clear, other possible functions present an open
question. TPR domain containing proteins can be found across all kingdoms, and while
many also participate in immunity others have diverse roles ranging from protein
trafficking, vesicle formation and organelle function (Zeytuni and Zarivach, 2012). The
sequence of SRFR1 shows marked similarity across kingdoms and presence of the
conserved TPR domain, but portions of conserved sequence are still of unknown
function. It is quite possible that the roles of SRFR1 extend beyond simply regulating
defense signaling and these possibilities provide another exceptional model for
signaling crosstalk. Substitution of SRFR1 with MmSRFR1 is a unique opportunity to
investigate this possibility.
16
CHAPTER 2
SHINING A LIGHT ON IMMUNITY: CORSSTALK BETWEEN LIGHT AND DEFENSE
SIGNALING
Authors: Daniel L. Leuchtman, Anthony Shumate, Ullas V. Pedmale, Walter Gassmann
and Emmanuel Liscum
2.1 Abstract
For plants, light serves not only as a source of energy, but also as a source of
key environmental information. Recent studies have found that light also plays a critical
role for the plant immune system, and this requirement has been found to be
independent of the energy which light provides. Photoreceptors are molecules that
equip plants with a means to sense the quantity and quality of surrounding light and
allow anticipation of important changes throughout the growing season. Phototropins
are blue-light photoreceptors that arbitrate several physiological processes such as
stomatal opening, chloroplast movements and phototropism. In our research, we are
investigating the potential crosstalk between light signaling and pathogen defense using
Arabidopsis as a model. PIXL is a putative resistance protein found to be an interactor
of phototropin1. Mutants lacking PIXL have altered light responsiveness, suggesting
the wild-type protein could act as an intermediary between light and defense signaling.
Further characterization of this system will provide a mechanism to connect these two
seemingly unrelated molecular networks.
17
2.2 Introduction
While several studies have highlighted the importance of light environments
during pathogen defense, research on precise mechanistic bases for this phenomenon
is still new and quite active. Many hypotheses exist including photosynthetic
implications on ROS accumulation, biosynthesis of defense related compounds,
chloroplast modifications, influences of the circadian clock and light signaling events
mediated by photoreceptors (Hua, 2013; Karpinski et al., 2013; Ballare, 2014;
Kangasjarvi et al., 2014; Trotta et al., 2014). Associations between proteins traditionally
studied for their roles in light signaling and R proteins have been demonstrated (Jeong
et al., 2010). Further analysis of R proteins in the context of light signaling could reveal
further signaling overlap between these two systems.
Most R proteins, as well as RGAs (Resistance Gene Analogs), are intracellular
NB-LRR (Nucleotide Binding – Leucine Rich Repeat) proteins that can be grouped
according to an amino-terminal CC (Coiled Coil) domain, known as the CNLs, or TIR
(Toll/Interleukin 1 Receptor-like) domain, known as the TNLs. In the off state, NB-LRR
proteins bind ADP. Stimulation by an elicitor, which may be through direct or indirect
recognition of a pathogen effector, results in a conformational change allowing for the
exchange of ADP for ATP resulting in the active state of the molecule. ATP is then
hydrolyzed to return to the off state. EDS1 (Enhanced Disease Susceptibility 1) has
been found necessary for elicitation of resistance via TNLs, while NDR1 (Non-Race
specific Disease Resistance 1) is essential for CNL mediated resistance (Wu et al.,
2014; Sukarta et al., 2016). Recognition of effector molecules is typically associated
18
with cell death and a HR, but these phenomena are not absolute as resistance initiated
through these proteins can be uncoupled from this response by the host cell (Oh et al.,
2006; Senthil-Kumar and Mysore, 2013). Recent insights have highlighted the
mechanisms behind protein function and how multiple NB-LRR proteins may work in
concert to initiate defense. For example, TNL resistance proteins RRS1 and RPS4
have been shown to elicit defense responses to several effector proteins coordinately
(Williams et al., 2014).
Most characterized resistance proteins have been discovered from screens
testing for resistance or susceptibility to certain effector molecules or pathogens.
Several other roles for these proteins have been identified. Some NB-LRRs, known as
‘helper NB-LRRs’, have demonstrated the ability to initiate resistance through atypical
mechanisms relative to what their structure would suggest. Helper NB-LRRs cannot
initiate resistance independently and must do so in conjunction with multiple immune
receptors, even those normally involved in basal defense (Bonardi et al., 2011; Jacob et
al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2013). While lacking the LRR domain, CHS1 (Chilling
Sensitive 1) and CHL1 (CHS Like 1) are TIR-NB genes involved in acclimation to
temperature stress (Zbierzak et al., 2013). Several other NB-LRRs, including RPP4,
have roles in coordinating acclimation to temperature stress with defense (Huang et al.,
2010; Zhu et al., 2010; Heidrich et al., 2013). These examples show that NB-LRR
proteins can play key roles intersecting biotic and abiotic stress.
PIXL is a RGA (Resistance Gene Analog), or resistance-like gene, belonging to
the TNL sub-group that was identified as a phot1-interacting protein. BLAST analysis
19
shows PIXL has closest similarity with R-protein RPS6 (Meyers et al., 2003). RPS6
was identified by screening for mutants susceptible to Pst DC3000 hopA1, where
HopA1 normally acts as an avirulence effector that signals through EDS1 (Kim et al.,
2009). Another proposed R-protein-phototropin interactor is RPS2, a CNL R protein.
phot1 and phot2 were identified in a screen for RPS2 interacting partners with the phot2
interaction being confirmed (Qi and Katagiri, 2009; Jeong et al., 2010). However, no
implications in RPS2 mediated resistance have been identified for phot1 or phot2 thus
far. The PIXL-phot1 interaction presented us with an opportunity to explore mechanistic
explanations associating light and defense signaling using reverse genetics to search
for physiological relevance.
2.3 Experimental Procedures
Plant material: Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings used in this study were all in the
Columbia (Col) accession. Phototropin and defense mutants have been described
previously: phot1-5 (Huala et al., 1997), phot2-1 (Kagawa et al., 2001), phot1-5/2-1
(Kinoshita et al., 2001), rps4-2 and srfr1-4 (Kim et al., 2010), eds1-2 (Bartsch et al.,
2006), ndr1-1 (Century et al., 1995), rps2-201 (Kunkel et al., 1993), and fls2
(SALK_093905) (Heese et al., 2007). The rps6-3 allele (SALK_029541) is from the
Salk Arabidopsis insertion library and was obtained from the Arabidopsis Biological
Resource Center. The second exon was determined to be the site of T-DNA insertion
using PCR and is consistent with the suggested position of insertion from the T-DNA
Express website (http://signal.salk.edu/cgi-bin/tdnaexpress). The pixl-1 allele
20
(SAIL_259_B09) is from the Syngenta Arabidopsis insertion library (Sessions et al.,
2002), and was obtained from the Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center. The first
exon was determined to be the site of T-DNA insertion using sequencing. This is
consistent with the suggested position of insertion determined by raw flanking sequence
from the T-DNA Express website (http://signal.salk.edu/cgi-bin/tdnaexpress).
Syringe inoculation assay: Arabidopsis plants were grown in a reach-in growth chamber
under an 8 h light/16 h dark cycle at 24°C, 70% relative humidity, and a light intensity of
90 to 140 µmol m-2 s-1. Four week old plants were infiltrated with plate grown bacteria
isolated and diluted to a suspension of 5 x 104 cfu/mL in 10mM MgCl2 using a 1mL
needleless syringe. Leaf discs with a total area of 0.5 cm2 were ground in 10mM MgCl2
and serial dilutions were plated on selective medium in triplicate at the time points
indicated.
Flood inoculation assay: Two week old seedlings were grown in high wall plates
containing 1/2x MS, 1x Gamborg vitamins, 1% sucrose and 0.3% phytagel kept in a
walk-in growth chamber under 12 h light/ 12 h dark cycle at 22ºC and light intensity of
50 to 70 µmol m-2 s-1. Plates were flooded with 40 ml of bacterial suspension made in
sterile water containing 0.025% silwet L-77 resulting in a final concentration of 1 x 105
cfu/mL and incubated at room temperature for 2-3 minutes. Bacterial growth was
assessed immediately after bacterial treatment and at day 4 post infection. Internal
bacterial populations were evaluated from three biological replicates and each replicate
represented a pooled sample of four independent rosette seedlings from the same petri
plate. The total weight of inoculated seedlings was measured and used to normalize
21
bacterial growth. After weighing, seedlings were surface-sterilized with 5% H2O2 and
rinsed three times with sterile distilled water. Each pooled biological replicate was then
separately ground in 10mM MgCl2 and serial dilutions were plated on selective medium.
Western blotting analysis: 2-3 week old Arabidopsis seedlings, grown in a walk-in
growth chamber under 16 h light/ 8 h dark cycle at 22ºC and light at an intensity of 50 to
70 µmol m-2 s-1, were infected with bacteria suspended in 10 mM MgCl2 at a
concentration of 2.5 x 108 CFU/mL via the dip method. Approximately 50mg of tissue
was ground in 6M urea, centrifuged at 16,000 RCF for 5 minutes to separate debris and
then supernatants were separated and quantified using a Bradford assay. After diluting
to 20µg of protein per lane, samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE and transferred to
nitrocellulose membrane. After blocking with 5% milk in Tris buffered saline containing
0.1% Tween-20 (TBST), the membrane was incubated overnight at 4°C with the
indicated primary α-PR2 antibody (Agrisera, Vännäs, Sweden) followed by HRP
conjugated secondary antibodies (Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX). Membranes were then
washed three times in TBST, exposed to HRP substrate and visualized using
autoradiography film. Ponceau stain is included as a loading control.
Transgenic constructs: PIXL was amplified from genomic DNA prepared from Col leaf
tissue using a cTAB extraction protocol. Using approximately 100ng of template DNA,
10µM forward (5’ CACC ATG GCT TCT TCG TCC TCC TCT TCT 3’) and reverse (5’
CGT GTC TTC TTC TGC CTC TAA ATT A 3’) primers, Phusion High-Fidelity DNA
Polymerase (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA) with provided GC buffer, dNTPs and
recommended thermocycler settings. Products in the range of 3.9 kb were isolated via
22
agarose gel electrophoresis, excised, purified and used in a TOPO reaction for insertion
into the pENTR entry cloning vector. PIXL was then inserted into the binary destination
vector pLN604, which is derived from pER8, using Gateway LR Clonase II Enzyme Mix
(ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA) (Zuo et al., 2000; Nicaise et al., 2013). ß-Estradiol
inducible PIXL-HA was then stably transformed into pixl-1 mutants using the floral dip
method. Transgenic plants were screened to homozygosity on media containing
Hygromycin B.
ß-Estradiol growth assay: Eight individual seeds were sown per genotype and per
treatment on a plate containing 1/2x MS, 2% sucrose, 1x Gamborg Vitamins and either
2 µM ß-Estradiol diluted from a 10mM stock suspended in DMSO or an equivalent
volume of DMSO without ß-Estradiol (mock).
Phototropism assay: Seedlings were sown on vertical oriented plates with 1/2x MS
media in darkness of 3 days and then exposed to unilateral low blue light
(0.1 mmol m−2 s−1) for 4 hours. Images were acquired using an Epson Perfection V37
Scanner and angles were determined using FIJI software.
Chloroplast movement assay: Chloroplast movements of live cells was assessed using
a 96-well plate reader to measure change is transmittance and a blue LED light source
to stimulate chloroplast movements. 96-well plates were loaded with 100 µL of 1/2x MS
with 0.6% phytagel and a leaf punches with a diameter of ~ 6mm were placed adaxial
side up with the addition of 20 µL of liquid 1/2x MS to avoid dehydration. The plate
reader followed a program taking readings at 10 min intervals while ejecting the plate for
outside exposure (darkness or blue light) between intervals.
23
2.4 Results
HopA1 mediated resistance does not show dependency on PHOT1, PHOT2 or
PIXL under normal or monochromatic light
Bacterial growth assays analyzing photoreceptor dependencies have shown
varying results. Because of this, we wanted to test for possible phototropin involvement
in resistance using our own growth conditions and experimental procedures. Due to
homology with RPS6, we chose to use Pst DC3000 (hopA1) to both test PIXL for a
possible role as a helper NB-LRR, and to assess TNL mediated ETI in phototropin
mutant backgrounds. Additionally, the gl1 mutation, while most famous for its role in
trichome development, has been implicated in cuticle formation and establishment of
SAR (Xia et al., 2010). Because the phototropin double mutant is in the gl1
background, we must compare phot1-5/2-1 specifically to gl1 to ensure any effect is due
to the phototropins and not the gl1 mutation.
Wild-type Pst DC3000 is normally a virulent pathogen on Col plants, but
recognition of a single effector molecule can result in substantially less apoplastic
growth, as can be seen by the 100-fold difference in CFU (Colony Forming Unit)
between wild-type Col-0, which has a functional RPS6 and EDS1, and rps6-3, which
cannot recognize HopA1 and initiate defenses (Figure 2.1). These experiments were
repeated several times, and while occasionally the phototropin mutants exhibited
increased susceptibility relative to gl1, the results were too inconsistent for us to infer
any significance, leading us to conclude that phototropins are not essential for HopA1
mediated resistance under our experimental conditions, nor was PIXL found to be
24
necessary as can be seen by comparison to Col (Figure 2.1). A more reproducible and
sensitive pathogen growth assay may reveal a subtle role for phototropins in
DC3000(hopA1) mediated resistance.
Similar to previous studies, we also conducted bacterial growth assays under
various light treatments in order to test active vs. inactive states of phototropins under
pathogen challenge (Wu and Yang, 2010). Resistance in mutants grown under blue or
red light was indistinguishable from wild-type against DC3000 (hopA1) (Figure 2.2).
25
Figure 2.1 HopA1 mediated resistance does not show a dependency on PHOT1,
PHOT2 or PIXL
Bacterial growth was measured in Col, gl1, rps6-3, phot1-5, phot2-1, phot1-5/2-1 (phot1-5/phot2-1) and
pixl-1 on day 0 (white columns) and day 3 (black columns) after inoculation with DC3000(hopA1). Plants
were inoculated with a bacterial suspension at a density of either 1 x 106 cfu/mL (A) or 5 x 104 cfu/mL (B).
Values represent log averages of cfu/cm2 leaf tissue from triplicate samples with error bars denoting
standard deviation. While individual replicates of this experiment varied, the most representative are
depicted above. Statistical significance was determined using a Student’s t-test comparing mutants to
their respective background, Col (rps6-3, phot2-1, pixl-1) or gl1 (phot1-5, phot1-5/2-1) (p, ** ≤ 0.01, *** ≤
0.001).
26
Figure 2.2 HopA1 mediated resistance does not show a phototropin dependency
under BL or RL conditions.
Col, gl1, eds1-2 and phot1-5/2-1 (phot1-5/phot2-1) that were light adapted under BL (A) or RL (B) 3 days
pre- and up to 4 days post-inoculation. Bacterial growth was measured on day 0 (lighter columns) and
day 4 (darker columns) after inoculation with DC3000(hopA1). Plants were inoculated with a bacterial
suspension at a density of 1 x 105 cfu/mL. Values represent averages of cfu/mg leaf tissue from triplicate
samples with error bars denoting standard deviation. Statistical significance was determined using a
Student’s t-test comparing mutants to their respective background, Col (eds1-2) or gl1 (phot1-5/2-1) (p, *
≤ 0.05, ** ≤ 0.01).
27
Phototropin double mutants show reduced PR2 accumulation
We chose to test the phot1-5/2-1 mutant for PR2 protein levels in order to assess
if phototropins are involved in defense protein abundance rather than transcript level as
seen before with phot2 and HRT (Jeong et al., 2010). Testing for PR2 abundance is a
more sensitive assay and would allow us to detect smaller changes in defense than
other methods such as pathogen growth assays. Previously, PR1 expression in
photoreceptor mutants under pathogenic stress has been analyzed with only
phytochrome mutants showing altered expression (Griebel and Zeier, 2008). To test
ETI via CNL or TNL mediated resistance, we challenged plants with either DC3000
(avrRpt2), or DC3000 (hopA1). AvrRpt2 detection is mediated by RPS2 and defense
initiation requires NDR1 (Kunkel et al., 1993; Century et al., 1995). EDS1 is required for
defense initiation following RPS6 mediated recognition of HopA1 (Gassmann, 2005;
Kim et al., 2009). As expected, eds1-2 and ndr1-1 have a delayed accumulation of
PR2. A srfr1-4 mutation results in constitutively active defense responses and thus PR2
can be seen at uniform abundance across all time points, even prior to pathogen
challenge. PR2 levels were increased in the gl1 background relative to Col wild type.
We were surprised to see decreased PR2 levels in the phot1-5/2-1 double mutant
(Figure 2.3). This result suggests a role in establishing or maintaining PR2 protein
levels.
28
Figure 2.3 Phototropin double mutant shows decreased PR2 accumulation.
2-3 week old seedlings were inoculated with DC300 secreting HopA1 (A) or AvrRpt2 (B). PR2 was
detected via western blot at time-points throughout the infection. Ponceau stain is included as a loading
control. hpi = hours post inoculation.
29
Prolonged induction of PIXL-HA results in seedling death
Overexpression of R-genes can result in seedling death (Zhang et al., 2003; Yi
and Richards, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2012). To prevent rapid silencing of a
PIXL transgene in the event its presence resulted in overstimulation of the immune
system, we chose to use an inducible expression system, specifically an estrogen
receptor based system originally developed by Zuo and colleagues but then modified by
Nicaise and colleagues to include a C-terminal HA epitope tag (Zuo et al., 2000; Nicaise
et al., 2013). Transgenic PIXL-HA lines were produced in the pixl-1 mutant background.
Control lines in the pixl-1 background were also generated with an empty binary vector
(EV). In a mock treatment, an equivalent volume of DMSO needed to create 2 µM ß-
estradiol plate media was not found to have any ill effects. Additionally, 2 µM ß-
estradiol did not appear to induce any stress in the wild-type Col, mutant pixl-1 or any of
the EV backgrounds. PIXL transgenic lines, however, were dead within one week of
growth, presumably due to prolonged induction of the PIXL transgene.
30
Figure 2.4 Prolonged induction of PIXL expression results in seedling death.
Transgenic PIXL-HA or EV-HA (empty vector) driven by a ß-Estradiol inducible promoter were sown on
plates with either 2 µM ß-Estradiol (bottom) or mock treated (equivalent volume DMSO) and allowed to
grow for one week. Each letter corresponds to an independent insertional event for the designated
construct.
31
TNL mutants tested have altered phototropic phenotypes
While many experiments have been done to assess possible phototropin
involvement in defense responses, there have been no studies investigating phototropin
dependent physiology in response to immune activity. We began to address this
question by performing a standard phototropism assay on various defense mutants.
This experiment was physiologically relevant as the hypocotyl was the organ where the
phot1-PIXL interaction was originally identified. These experiments were done under
low blue light conditions (0.1 mmol m−2 s−1) where phot1 is the primary photoreceptor as
can be seen by the lack of bending in phot1-5 mutants which still possess a functional
phot2 (Figure 2.5). It is important to note that exact bending response can vary from
experiment to experiment due to temperature and other environmental conditions.
Because of this, comparisons may only be made between plants from the same
replicate experiment. pixl-1, along with rps4-2 and rps6 were chosen to probe the TNL
side of ETI for possible effects along with eds1-2. rps2-201 was tested to investigate
the CNL side of ETI, and fls2 was assayed to investigate possible involvement of PRRs
in the PTI branch of immune function. pixl-1, rps4-2 and rps6-3 all displayed an
increased phototropic phenotype relative to wild-type suggesting roles as negative
regulators of phototropism (Figure 2.5). It is interesting to note that of all the lines
tested only the TNL mutants had altered phototropic phenotypes, while the CNL mutant
rps2-201 did not.
32
Figure 2.5 Mutants lacking PIXL, RPS6 or RPS4 exhibit increased phototropic
curvature.
Phototropic curvatures of Col, phot1-5, pixl-1, rps6-3, rps4-2, eds1-2, rps2-201 and fls2 seedlings
exposed to 4 h of unidirectional BL (0.1 mmol m−2 s−1). Columns represent mean response of
approximately 300 seedlings from at least three replicate experiments. Error bars represent standard
error. ANOVA revealed a significant effect of genotype on curvature (p ≤ 0.001). Significant differences
compared to Col were determined using Holm-Bonferroni post-hoc analysis (p, ** ≤ 0.01, *** ≤ 0.001).
33
No detectible difference in chloroplast movements in select group of defense
mutants
Chloroplasts have been implicated in a variety of physiological responses from
HR and ROS accumulation, cell death, SA biosynthesis and production of other defense
related compounds (Genoud et al., 2002; Dong and Chen, 2013; Zbierzak et al., 2013;
Serrano et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). For these reasons we wanted to test defense
mutants for alterations in chloroplast movements, which are phototropin mediated
responses. Under low light conditions, chloroplasts will accumulate upon the top and
bottom of palisade cells in order to maximize photocapture (Trojan and Gabrys, 1996;
Kong and Wada, 2014). However, under high light conditions chloroplasts will stack
underneath one another in order to prevent excess excitation energy and damage to
photosynthetic machinery (Park et al., 1996; Cazzaniga et al., 2013). As the
predominant low light photoreceptor, phot1 is primarily responsible for the accumulation
response (Luesse et al., 2010) as can be seen in the phot1-5 mutant which has a
diminished accumulation response but a typical avoidance response (Figure 2.6).
Under highlight, however, phot2 is the main photoreceptor (Jarillo et al., 2001; Kagawa
et al., 2001) as can been seen in the phot2-1 mutant which shows normal accumulation,
but chloroplasts fail to stack and display an avoidance phenotype under high light
(Figure 2.6). pixl-1, rps6-3, rps4-2 and rps2-201 were all tested due to their involvement
in several points of ETI signaling with none of these mutants showing any difference
from wild-type under low or high light conditions (Figure 2.6).
34
Figure 2.6 No change in chloroplast movement was observed in mutants lacking
PIXL, RPS6, EDS1-2 or RPS2
Leaf discs from 3-4 week old plants were suspended in 1/2x MS in a 96-well plate. The plate was
wrapped in foil for 3 hours to return chloroplasts to dark-state. Absorbance at 660nm and 800nm was
measured in the dark to establish a baseline (black line). The plate was exposed to 1 μmol·m-2·sec-1 (light
blue line) and 75 μmol·m-2·sec-1 (dark blue line) blue-light. Absorbance was measured at 10 minute
intervals. Change in ∆%Transmittance was calculated by conversion of absorbance to transmittance by
referencing against the final dark-state measurement (t = 0). Three-way repeated measures ANOVA
revealed a significant effect of genotype (p ≤ 0.001), time (p ≤ 0.001) and light treatment (p ≤ 0.001) on
transmittance. Significant differences compared to Col were determined using Holm-Bonferroni post-hoc
analysis (p, * ≤ 0.05).
35
Figure 2.7 Model summarizing the association between phot1 and defense
proteins
The schematic depicts the associations between phot1, phototropism, PIXL, resistance proteins, and PR2
accumulation. Arrows represent stimulation. Perpendicular lines represent inhibition. Circles represent
interaction. Broken lines represent hypothesized activity.
36
2.5 Discussion
While it can certainly be concluded that phototropins are not essential for
resistance against Pst, involvement can still not be ruled out. Specific environmental
conditions can have profound effects on resistance phenotypes, as well as
morphological phenotypes. For example, fluctuations in temperature disrupt R-protein
mediated resistance with ranges of change as low as 6ºC (Kim et al., 2010).
Additionally, phototropin involvement in defense may be more pronounced when
challenged with other pathogens such as the necrotrophic pathogen Botrytis cinerea.
Investigating this association under various lighting conditions is worth considering as
well, as populations of phototropin interaction partners change under quality and
quantity of incoming light (Goyal et al., 2013). A thorough investigation under multiple,
precisely controlled growing conditions and challenged with a broad array of pathogens
must be completed before any concrete conclusions regarding phototropin involvement
in pathogen defense can be made. Lastly, an effect of phototropin mutations on PR2
accumulation was observed (Figure 2.6). PR2 accumulation following R protein
activation has been demonstrated (Figure 2.3), but implicating photoreceptors is a novel
finding (Figure 2.7). This result is reminiscent of the phot2 requirement for HRT stability
(Jeong et al., 2010), although regulation of PR protein stability has not previously been
shown. Further analysis at earlier and more frequent time points will help decipher if the
phototropins have a more pronounced function in establishment or stability of PR2.
In potato, NRL1 (NPH3/RPT2-Like1) was identified as a susceptibility factor
targeted by a Phytophthora infestans effector. In Arabidopsis, NPH3 is a critical phot1
37
interactor and acts as a substrate adaptor in a CULLIN3-based E3 ubiquitin ligase
system, which ubiquitinates phot1 differentially under various lighting conditions,
targeting it for degradation or altering localization patterns. Incorporating this finding
with the role phot2, and to a lesser extent phot1, play in stabilizing levels of R-protein
HRT through inhibition of COP1 activity, generates the notion of phototropin
involvement in defense being mediated through NPH3 and its homologs (Jeong et al.,
2010). The hypothesis that phototropins are involved in stabilization of defense related
proteins could explain the decrease of PR2 accumulation seen in phot1-5/2-1.
In the ß-estradiol inducible PIXL-HA lines, seedling death due to prolonged
exposure to ß-estradiol is consistent with PIXL being able to initiate defense responses
(Figure 2.4). Induction over shorter periods of time and analysis of defense markers will
provide a better understandings of the actions that lead to this response and a
mechanistic look at PIXL as a R-protein. For example, it is still not known if stimulation
of PIXL can induce PR2 accumulation (Figure 2.7). Additionally, testing if these
responses remain the same while in the eds1-2 mutant background will allow for
designation of PIXL as a canonical TNL R protein if the death phenotype observed is
abolished in the absence of EDS1. Conversely, if the PIXL induced death phenotypes
observed remain the same in the eds1-2 mutant background it would suggest PIXL is a
novel member of the TNL sub-family in terms of defense initiation.
Removal of certain TNL proteins resulted in increased phototropic output (Figure
2.5) while no changes in behavior were seen in chloroplast movements (Figure 2.6).
Further analysis is necessary to determine the exact mechanism by which phototropic
38
inhibition occurs. Inhibition by PIXL could be mediated through the interaction with
phot1, however RPS2 is also a phot1 interactor and rps2-201 mutants show no change
in phototropic curvature (Figure 2.7). Additionally, rps6-3 and rps4-2 mutants also
display increased phototropic curvature, but there is no evidence for interaction with
phot1 (Figure 2.7). One possible explanation for differences in phenotypes seen
between phototropic curvature and chloroplast movements could be due to the function
of TNL R proteins in the tissues tested as mutants showed significant changes in
hypocotyls but not leaves (Figure 2.6). An alternative hypothesis is that modulation of
phototropin-mediated responses by TNL R proteins are dependent on specific signaling
partners as the mechanisms behind chloroplast movements and phototropism are very
different. It is interesting to again address the possibility of phototropins and defense
machinery being linked through NPH3. This hypothesis is supported by the fact nph3
mutants are defective in phototropism while chloroplast movements show no detectable
difference (Inada et al., 2004), and that TNL mutants have increased phototropic
curvature but show no changes in chloroplast movement. In depth analysis of
resistance responses with more attention drawn to NPH3 could reveal a better
understanding of how plants govern crosstalk between resistance responses and other
cellular processes.
39
CHAPTER 3
WHEN IN ROME: CROSS KINGDOM SUBSTITUTION OF A KEY IMMUNE
REGULATOR IN PLANTS
Authors: Daniel L. Leuchtman, Anthony Shumate, Stephen Shannon, Saikat
Bhattacharjee, Michael L. Garcia, Walter Gassmann, Emmanuel Liscum
3.1 Abstract
In order to prevent unnecessary energetic costs and detrimental side effects, the
plant immune system must be kept tightly in check to ensure utilization only when a
threat is present. The mechanisms behind immune system regulation are still an active
area of research. In Arabidopsis, SRFR1 has been identified as a negative regulator of
immune responses. Sequence analysis reveals several key features that suggest
involvement in transcriptional regulation, protein-protein interaction and complex
formation. Cross kingdom homology is seen across the length of the protein with the
most notable region being an amino-terminal tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain.
Some TPR domain containing proteins in animal systems have also been implicated in
immune system regulation, although they are involved in many other cellular functions
as well. In certain genetic backgrounds, plants lacking SRFR1 have markedly different
morphology, reduced viability, appear stunted and constitutively express several
defense related genes. When a srfr1 mutant plant is transformed with orthologous
MmSRFR1 from Mus musculus, the drastic srfr1 phenotype is reduced. This
40
observation suggests a level of conserved function for MmSRFR1 in Arabidopsis.
Further investigation will enable a deeper understanding of immune system regulation
and TPR protein function across kingdoms.
3.2 Introduction
Initiation and maintenance of pathogen defense is an energetically costly process
that must be kept under tight regulation in order to prevent unnecessary expenditures at
the expense of growth and development (Huot et al., 2014). Stimulation of the immune
system over prolonged periods of time can result in detrimental morphological
phenotypes or even tissue collapse (Howles et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2010). For
example, constitutive activation of R genes can result in elevated defense responses
and cell death (Howles et al., 2005; Tameling et al., 2006). As ETI is typically
associated with HR and an oxidative burst, it is especially important to keep it under
strict control as to not unnecessarily destroy otherwise healthy tissues.
SRFR1 is a protein originally discovered in a genetic screen for mutations that
would re-establish resistance against DC3000 avrRp4 in the normally susceptible RLD
background (Kwon et al., 2004). Sequence analysis of SRFR1 reveals conserved TPR
domains, typically involved in protein-protein interaction, as well as a domain of
unknown function at the C-terminus of the protein that is also conserved among
SRFR1-like TPR proteins in other eukaryotes. TPRs are found across all kingdoms and
have been implicated in various cellular processes. Most notably, Ssn6 of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae and OGT1 of Caenorhabditis elegans are part of
41
transcriptional repressor complexes (Lubas and Hanover, 2000; Smith and Johnson,
2000; Yang et al., 2002).
In Arabidopsis, srfr1 mutants constitutively exhibit several markers for defense
and it is believed that mitigation of SRFR1 dependent defense repression leads to
increased resistance to DC3000 avrRps4 in a susceptible background. Additionally,
mutant srfr1 elevated resistance is dependent on EDS1, a central regulator of TNL R
protein mediated defense activation (Kwon et al., 2009). SRFR1 and EDS1 form a
protein complex in addition with at least two other R proteins, and this complex is
targeted by AvrRps4 and HopA1 (Bhattacharjee et al., 2011). In the Col and RLD
backgrounds, srfr mutants have increased defense gene expression including RPS4,
PR1 and PR2 (Kim et al., 2009; Kwon et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010). At temperatures
around 22ºC, srfr1-4 null mutants have a severely stunted phenotype that is abated at
higher temperatures around 28ºC. This morphological phenotype is due to the TNL R
gene SNC1.
Orthologous SRFR1 can not only be found in the plant kingdom but outside as
well, including mammalian MmSRFR1 (TTC13). Although MmSRFR1 is much smaller,
approximately half the amino acid length, homology with SRFR1 can be seen across
the length of the protein. Homologs of MmSRFR1 in mammals, known as TTCs
(Tetratricopeptide repeat domain) are involved in processes ranging from cell cycle
control, cancer metastasis and immune regulation (Helms et al., 2005; Cao et al., 2008;
Dmitriev et al., 2009; Suizu et al., 2009). In mice, MmSRFR1 expression is pervasive
with transcript particularly high in the thymus, liver, testis and kidney and protein
42
detected in kidney, liver, testis, lung, heart and B-cells, consistent with the hypothesis of
MmSRFR1 being involved in immune regulation (Shannon, 2012). Flow cytometry
experiments suggest a role in cell cycle regulation as overexpression of pFLAG-
MmSRFR1 resulted in increased DNA synthesis (Shannon, 2012). Cell proliferation
assays show that overexpression of pFLAG-MmSRFR1 results in increased cell
proliferation and supports the hypothesis of MmSRFR1 functioning in cell cycle
regulation (Shannon, 2012). Further studies are necessary in order to elucidate precise
mechanistic roles of MmSRFR1 in mammals.
To gain a better understanding of SRFR1 function, we transformed mutant srfr1-
4 plants with GFP tagged MmSRFR1. These constructs would allow us to test for
conserved functions of SRFR1 across kingdoms and help reveal any additional roles
the protein might play. Tagging the protein with GFP would also allow us to examine
localization and interacting partners in addition to any physiological effects the
transgene may have. Through these studies we can gain a better understanding of
TPR protein activity across evolutionary time and further characterize both SRFR1 and
MmSRFR1.
3.3 Experimental Procedures
Root growth assay: Seeds were sown on vertical petri plates containing 1/2x MS, 2%
sucrose, 1x Gamborg Vitamins, and 90µg/mL Timentin for normal growth experiments.
Additions were added where indicated: Hygromycin B at 15 µg/mL (1x HYG), 30 µg/mL
(2x HYG) or 7.5 µg/mL (1/2x HYG), glufosinate ammonium at 45µg/mL (1x BAR),
43
Paraquat at 0.1µM or 1µM (PAR). Plates were then placed in a growth chamber under
16 h light/ 8 h dark cycle at an intensity of 50 to 70 µmol photons m-2 s-1 at 22ºC and
allowed to germinate and grow for four to five days. Seedlings were then selected
based on similar size and transplanted six per plate onto a fresh plate, identical to the
original in composition. The bottom of each root was then marked and images were
taken each subsequent day for two weeks. Length post-transplant was measured as
the distance between the bottom of the root and the initial marking created on the day
seedlings were transplanted using FIJI software.
Shoot growth assay: Seeds were sown on horizontal petri plates containing 1/2x MS,
2% sucrose, 1x Gamborg Vitamins, and 90µg/mL Timentin. Where indicated, 15 µg/mL
Hygromycin B was added. Plates were then placed on a light rack with constant light at
room temperature and allowed to germinate and grow for 10 days. Seedlings were then
selected based on similar size and transplanted onto soil with different genotypes
randomized within the flat to avoid positional effects. Images were taken on the
transplantation day and every seven days for the next three weeks. Shoot area was
measured using FIJI software and the SIOX segmentation plugin. Shoot weight was
measured using an analytical scale.
44
3.4 Results
srfr1-4 root growth is severely stunted in the presence of hygromcin, and this
phenotype is diminished in mutants transformed with MmSRFR1
In the presence of hygromycin, srfr1-4 transformed with empty binary vector
containing the hygromycin resistance gene, HPT (Hygromycin Phospho Transferase)
(srfrEV-1) displays a stunted root phenotype (Figure 3.1). This phenotype was first
noted during transgenic screens of MmSRFR1 transformed plants. We then wished to
quantify this response in the same conditions as those used for the transgenic screen.
Plants instead transformed with MmSRFR1 relieve this phenotype (Figure 3.1). Two
inferences can be made. First, the normally reduced root growth phenotype seen in
srfr1-4 plants is severely exaggerated in the presence of hygomycin. Hygromycin
toxicity is due to inhibition of protein synthesis in prokaryotic ribosomes and targets
mitochondria and chloroplasts in plants (Borovinskaya et al., 2008; Oung et al., 2015).
This finding suggests a novel role of SRFR1 in chloroplast/mitochondria activity and/or
management of oxidative stress, as increasing ROS accumulation was seen as an
influential part of hygromycin toxicity in plants (Oung et al., 2015). Second, this finding
suggests that MmSRFR1 can function in Arabidopsis in such a way as to relieve the
hygromycin-induced srfr1-4 stunted root phenotype.
45
Figure 3.1 In the presence of hygromycin, resistant srfr1-4 shows a stunted root
growth phenotype and MmSRFR1 transgenic lines show increased growth.
Root length was measured on plants grown in normal media (A) and those grown in the presence of
hygromycin (B). Seeds were sown on vertical plates and allowed to grow for 4 days. On day 0 seedlings
were then selected based on similar size and transplanted onto a fresh plate. Root length post-transplant
was measured each day thereafter and the mean of approximately 20 seedlings was calculated. Error
bars represent standard deviation. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect of
genotype (p ≤ 0.001), and day (p ≤ 0.001) on root length. Significant differences compared to srfr1-4 (A)
or srfrEV-1 (B) were determined using Holm-Bonferroni post-hoc analysis (p, * ≤ 0.05, ** ≤ 0.01, *** ≤
0.001). B) Significant differences between srfrEV-1 and each transgenic line tested were observed on
each day of the experiment.
46
Select MmSRFR1 transgenic lines also exhibit an increase in shoot growth
compared to srfr1-4 srfrEV-1 control
MmSRFR1 transgenic lines were also subjected to a shoot growth assay in order
to test if attenuation of the srfr1-4 rosette stunting phenotype could also be seen.
Relative to srfrEV-1, certain MmSRFR1 transgenic lines showed increased shoot size
while others exhibited a decrease in size (Figure 3.2). Transgenic seedlings at
generation T3 were first selected on hygromycin plates before being transplanted onto
soil for shoot growth analysis. Silencing of the transgenes would increase hygromycin
sensitivity and could explain the reduction in growth seen in N-1, N-9 and N-13. It is
worth noting that these transgenic lines did show increased root growth in the T2
generation (Figure 3.1). Increased rosette area was seen in lines N-4 and N-8, with N-8
falling out of statistical significance on the last week of the experiment (Figure 3.2).
These two lines also showed increased shoot weight (Figure 3.2). This result presented
another instance where presence of MmSRFR1 relieved the reduction in growth seen in
srfr1-4 plants. Further analysis of SRFR1 and MmSRFR1 activity in the root and shoot
is necessary to explore the extent that shoot size is influenced by root size and the role
SRFR1 plays in this relationship.
47
Figure 3.2. Shoot growth of MmSRFR1 transgenic lines.
Seeds were sown on horizontal plates containing normal media (Col and srfr1-4) or media containing
hygromycin (transgenic lines) and allowed to grow for 10 days. On day 0 seedlings were then selected
based on similar size and transplanted into soil in a randomized pattern. Shoot area (A) was measured
every week starting on day 0 and the mean of approximately 20 seedlings was calculated for each time
point. Average shoot weight (B) was calculated from the same seedlings at the end of the experiment.
Error bars represent standard deviation. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant
effect of genotype (p ≤ 0.001), and day (p ≤ 0.001) on rosette area (A). One-way between groups
ANOVA revealed a significant effect of genotype (p ≤ 0.001) on shoot weight (B). Significant differences
between srfr1-4 and Col, or srfrEV-1 and transgenic lines were determined using Holm-Bonferroni post-
hoc analysis (larger than control p, * ≤ 0.05 ** ≤ 0.01, *** ≤ 0.001; smaller than control p, † ≤ 0.05 †† ≤
0.01, ††† ≤ 0.001).
48
MmSRFR1 transgenic lines are indistinguishable from srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1
controls on normal media, and the srfrEV-1 shortened root phenotype is
hygromycin dependent
To test if the MmSRFR1 transgene increased root growth or relieved the srfr1-4
dependent hygromycin phenotype, the same transgenic lines in the T3 generation were
subjected to a root growth assay without hygromycin in the media. MmSRFR1
transgenic lines, srfrEV-1 and srfr1-4 were all indistinguishable from one another
(Figure 3.3). We conclude that MmSRFR1 does not cause increased root growth, but
instead relieves growth inhibition caused by presence of hygromycin and lack of
SRFR1.
To confirm hygromycin dependency, srfrEV-1 and Col lines were subjected to a
root growth assay on plates with either no hygromycin or various concentrations. As
hygromycin concentration increases, the stunting of the roots and decrease in growth
becomes more severe (Figure 3.4). Furthermore, Col and srfrEV-1 root growth was
analyzed in the presence of glufosinate (BAR). Glufosinate is a broad-spectrum
herbicide that is commonly used in transgenic screens with the combined use of the
bialaphos resistance gene. The srfr1-4 mutant is a member of the Syngenta
Arabidopsis Insertion Library (Sessions et al., 2002). This library was constructed to
generate mutant populations and used glufosinate resistance as part of the screen.
Thus, srfrEV-1 is resistant to glufosinate in addition to hygromycin. As expected, Col
growth was severely inhibited on glufosinate media and were eventually killed (Figure
3.4). It is interesting to note how, despite susceptibility, Col roots are much larger on
49
glufosinate media compared to those grown in the presence of hygromycin (Figure 3.4).
Conversely, srfrEV-1 plants showed no difference in root growth between the
glufosinate and control treatments (Figure 3.4).
Glufosinate induces toxicity by inhibition of glutamine synthesis, causing
accumulation of ammonia and eventual inhibition of photosystem I and photosystem II
reactions (Lea et al., 1984; Sauer et al., 1987). ROS accumulation is a consequence of
both hygromycin and glufosinate sensitivity, but is highlighted as being a key part of
hygromycin toxicity (Sauer et al., 1987; Oung et al., 2015). Differences in srfrEV-1 root
length seen between control, hygromycin or glufosinate treatments reveals a
hygromycin specific effect on root growth. We hypothesize that the precise
mechanism behind srfrEV-1 hygromycin sensitivity is due to novel SRFR1 activity in the
mitochondria, chloroplast, and/or involvement in managing ROS homeostasis.
50
Figure 3.3. In the absence of hygromycin, MmSRFR1 transgenic root growth is
indistinguishable from srfr1-4.
Root length was measured on plants grown in normal media. Seeds were sown on vertical plates and
allowed to grow for 4 days. On day 0 seedlings were then selected based on similar size and
transplanted onto a fresh plate. Root length post-transplant was measured each day thereafter and the
mean of approximately 20 seedlings was calculated. Error bars represent standard deviation. Two-way
repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect of genotype (p ≤ 0.001), and day (p ≤ 0.001) on
root length. Significant differences compared to srfr1-4 were determined using Holm-Bonferroni post-hoc
analysis (p, * ≤ 0.05, ** ≤ 0.01, *** ≤ 0.001).
51
Figure 3.4. srfrEV-1 stunted root phenotype is hygromycin dependent
Root length was assessed on plants grown in normal media containing various concentrations of
hygromycin (A) or glufosinate (B). Seeds were sown on vertical plates with their respective treatment and
allowed to grow for 4 days. Seedlings were then selected based on similar size and transplanted onto a
fresh plate with the same composition as the original. Images are of plants 12 days after transplantation.
52
Non-lethal doses of paraquat induce root stunting
To further examine root growth in the presence of oxidative stress, we grew Col,
srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 in the presence of paraquat. Paraquat is a common herbicide
known to cause oxidative stress through inhibition of electron transport during
photosynthesis (Moreland, 1982). All three lines were also grown on control plates with
no herbicide as well as those with hygromycin for comparison. Paraquat was lethal to
all lines tested at a concentration of 1µM and caused a large reduction in root growth at
a concentration of 0.1µM (Figure 3.5). As seen before (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3), srfr1-4
and srfrEV-1 roots were slightly shorter when compared to Col on control plates (Figure
3.5). There was no noticeable difference between Col, srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 in the
0.1µM paraquat treatment plates. This result suggests that the increased sensitivity to
hygromycin seen in srfrEV-1 is due to a mechanism independent of those that cause
paraquat sensitivity.
53
Figure 3.5 Root growth of Col, srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 in the presence of paraquat.
Root length was assessed on plants grown in media with control, hygromycin or paraquat treatments.
Seeds were sown on vertical plates with their respective treatment and allowed to grow for 4 days.
Seedlings were then selected based on similar size and transplanted onto a fresh plate with the same
composition as the original. Images are of plants 12 days after transplantation.
54
Hygromycin resistant Col plants show increased root growth compared to
hygromycin resistant srfr1-4 plants.
To confirm the increased sensitivity of srfr1-4 plants to hygromycin, Col plants
were transformed and srfr1-4 plants were re-transformed with the same empty binary
vector used previously. This procedure yielded six independent insertion sites in Col
(ColEV) and one additional insertion site in srfr1-4 (srfrEV-2). The same srfrEV-1 line
used from previous experiments was included for comparison. ColEV lines showed no
apparent reduction in root growth (Figure 3.6), although no concrete conclusions can be
made until the same lines are grown alongside plates without hygromycin. srfrEV-2
displayed a great reduction in root growth when compared to the ColEV lines, but
slightly increased root growth when compared to srfrEV-1 (Figure 3.6). This disparity
could be due to positional effects from their respective insertional events or multiple
insertion events in the srfrEV-2 line. Multiple insertion events could increase levels of
the HPT protein, thus increasing tolerance. It can be concluded, however, that mutants
lacking SRFR1 have increased sensitivity to hygromycin as can be seen by a reduction
in root growth.
55
Figure 3.6 Root growth analysis of hygromycin resistant Col and srfr1-4
Root length was assessed on plants grown in media containing hygromycin. Seeds were sown on
vertical plates with hygromycin and allowed to grow for 4 days. Seedlings were then selected based on
similar size and transplanted onto a fresh plate with the same composition as the original. Images are of
plants 12 days after transplantation.
56
Figure 3.7 Model summarizing the association between hygromycin, SRFR1 and
the HPT hygromycin resistance protein.
The schematic depicts the associations between hygromycin induced toxicity, the HPT hygromycin
resistance protein and SRFR1 in A) susceptible wildtype Col B) resistant wildtype Col and C) resistant
srfr1-4 (srfrEV-1 and srfrEV-2). Arrows represent stimulation. Perpendicular lines represent inhibition.
Broken lines represent hypothesized activity.
57
3.5 Discussion
Additional roles for SRFR1, outside of immune regulation, have not been
thoroughly investigated. There are enticing pieces of information that suggest
involvement in other areas of physiology. For example, SRFR1 has been shown to
interact with several TCP transcription factors and can form protein complexes in both
the nucleus and the cytoplasm (Kim et al., 2014). While potential roles for at least a
subset of TCPs in immune function is still an active area of research, many have
already been implicated in growth and development (Lopez et al., 2015). Thus, SRFR1
may represent a potential node in molecular cross-talk between signals promoting
normal developmental progression and those involved in responding to potential
threats.
There is a clear hygromycin dependent root stunting phenotype in srfrEV-1 and
srfrEV-2 plants, which again is simply srfr1-4 with hygromycin resistance HPT and GFP
genes (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3, Figure 3.4, Figure 3.6). Sensitivity to hygromycin is due
not only to inhibition of protein synthesis, but to ROS accumulation as well. In studies
conducted by Oung and colleagues (2015), it was discovered that introducing the
antioxidant ascorbate into hydroponics systems gave an increase in hygromycin
tolerance to otherwise susceptible rice plants. Additionally, overexpression of genes
involved in ROS scavenging reduced sensitivity while overexpression of ROS inducing
genes increased sensitivity (Oung et al., 2015). Because a burst of ROS is a canonical
part of several ETI responses, it is feasible that a negative regulator of ETI could be
58
involved in maintaining ROS homeostasis. This would represent a novel function of
SRFR1.
Further analysis is necessary, however, as disruption of protein synthesis in the
chloroplast and mitochondria is also believed to be a key part of hygromycin toxicity. A
more prevalent role for SRFR1 in chloroplast and mitochondria regulation is supported
by the lack of difference seen between Col, srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 plants in the presence
of paraquat (Figure 3.5). If SRFR1 played a more prevalent role in regulating redox
homeostasis, one would expect to see shortened roots in srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 lines
compared to Col in the presence of paraquat. However, implications of ROS on srfrEV-
1 and srfrEV-2 hygromycin sensitivity cannot be ruled out as mechanisms by which
paraquat induces oxidative stress may be independent of SRFR1 influence. In addition
to ROS accumulation and inhibition of prokaryotic protein synthesis, there could also be
other toxic influences of hygromycin that SRFR1 is also associated with (Figure 3.7).
Chloroplasts have also been implicated in immune function by processes such
as biosynthesis of several defense related compounds and SA, and serving as an
additional source of ROS during pathogen defense (Serrano et al., 2016). More
experiments are needed to test if ROS accumulation is 1) part of the srfrEV-1 and
srfrEV-2-hygromycin root phenotype 2) due to absence of SRFR1 involvement
suppressing oxidative bursts typically associated with HR and 3) due to absence of
SRFR1 association with chloroplasts and mitochondria, making ROS accumulation an
indirect effect of chloroplast or mitochondrial perturbation.
59
Kanamycin also works through disruption of protein synthesis, but has not been
implicated in increasing oxidative stress like hygromycin (Oung et al., 2015). By using a
similar system as above and transforming kanamycin resistance with and without
MmSFR1 into srfr1-4 plants we can test for similar results, which would suggest
disruption of normal chloroplast and/or mitochondrial function is a key part of the
mechanism giving rise to our original result. Or, root growth in this system could be
more similar to results found on media with no selection, which would suggest that ROS
accumulation is a causal agent of the srfrEV-1 shortened root phenotype.
Mitigation of the srfrEV-1-hygromcin phenotype by MmSRFR1 transgenic lines
was a striking result (Figure 3.1). Study of MmSRFR1 in the Col background, with native
SRFR1 present as well, would allow us to decipher if MmSRFR1 was originally rescuing
normal SRFR1 function. The alternative hypothesis is that MmSRFR1 was stimulating
mechanisms not associated with SRFR1. Determining the interacting partners of
MmSRFR1, as well as cross-testing with SRFR1, is an obvious next step. Investigating
interaction partners in planta would allow us to advance our understanding of SRFR1
activity in immune regulation and possibly other areas as well. The question then
becomes, are these interactions conserved throughout evolutionary time? Are we
studying ancient associations that have been present since at least the divergence of
plants and animals? Further investigation with SRFR1 orthologues from a wide array of
species and movement into other model systems will help unravel these questions.
60
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
Immune regulation is of critical importance to plant health. If underutilized, plants
risk becoming consumed or exploited by the vast microbial community in which they
exist. Overutilization creates an energetic deficit and results in costs of growth and
development (Huot et al., 2014). It should be no surprise that plants have evolved strict
control of immune regulation, allowing for fine adjustment of defense responses under
an immense array of environmental stressors. Immune regulation thus becomes an
excellent subject in the quest for a better understanding of crosstalk between molecular
signaling networks. Light, as a source of energy and key spatial-temporal information, is
also a critical system for enabling plants to adapt to an ever-changing environment. As
plants are constantly surveying and responding to their microbial environment, they are
also doing so with their light environment. Investigating these two systems concurrently
creates an excellent model for studying signaling crosstalk and signaling integration
between biotic and abiotic stress.
While other photoreceptors have already been implicated in defense signaling, a
definitive role for phototropins has not yet been found (Ballare, 2014). On the pathogen
side, it has been demonstrated that light quality can determine pathogen behavior, such
as attachment to leaf surfaces or motility, which is crucial for entry into the leaf and
onset of pathogenesis. Under blue and white light, Pst DC3000 will attach to leaf
surfaces and reduce motility, whereas in red light or dark conditions will instead become
61
more mobile. Numerous Pseudomonads possess putative LOV domain containing
proteins and in Pst DC3000 mutation in the lone gene significantly reduced leaf entry
and proliferation (Río‐Álvarez et al., 2014). The causal agent of citrus canker disease,
Xanthomonas citri, also has a LOV domain containing protein that drastically changes
symptom development when mutagenized (Kraiselburd et al., 2012). Precise roles for
bacterial LOV proteins are still under investigation, but the fact that both plant and
pathogen are closely monitoring blue light conditions highlights a key point in
pathogenesis and suggests that exciting developments are still to come.
The phot1-PIXL interaction is an excellent opportunity for mechanistic exploration
of the interactions between photobiology and pathogen defense. To date, RPS2 has
been the only clear member of the immune signaling network found to interact with
phot1 (Qi and Katagiri, 2009; Jeong et al., 2010). In my dissertation, I have provided an
initial characterization of PIXL and influences on phototropin dependent physiology. In
addition to results from already published literature, I have also investigated phototropin
involvement in defense signaling. Lastly, while investigating the interaction between
light and immune signaling I have also furthered examination of immune regulation with
regard to normal growth and development during the investigation of MmSRFR1 in the
morphologically distinct srfr1-4 mutant background. These studies have provided novel
insights to the question of how molecular stress signals overlap and coalesce within the
same organism.
62
4.1 Resistance to Pst DC3000 hopA1 does not show a strong phototropin or PIXL
dependency
In an effort to further characterize phototropin/PIXL involvement in ETI, we chose
to challenge Arabidopsis mutants with Pst hopA1 due to sequence similarity between
PIXL and RPS6. Phototropin double and single mutants did not show a difference in
bacterial proliferation when compared to the gl control (Figure 2.1). Additionally, to test
if pathogenesis is differentially affected by light quality, like Pst DC3000, we challenged
phototropin mutants again with Pst hopA1, but under blue and red monochromatic light.
Similar to experiments done under normal lighting conditions, bacterial proliferation was
not altered under these lighting conditions, suggesting that the phototropins are not
essential for HopA1 mediated initiation of ETI (Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2).
4.2 Phototropins influence PR2 accumulation in response to Pst DC3000 hopA1
and avrRpt2
We also examined the phot1-5/2-1 double mutants for the presence of defense
associated protein PR2. To our surprise, we discovered that the phot1-5/2-1 double
mutant showed a marked reduction in PR2 accumulation (Figure 2.3). This result
suggests that any fine influence phototropins may have in defense signaling could be
involved in regulating stability of certain defense related proteins, in agreement with
results found by Jeong and colleagues (2010). Additionally, there was an increase in
PR2 accumulation in the gl1 mutant (Figure 2.3). Because GL1 has been implicated in
establishment of SAR (Xia et al., 2010), our results suggest that phototropin influence in
63
defense may be more pronounced when taken out of the gl1 background. These
results highlight the need to reassess previous results investigating phototropin
involvement in pathogen defense. To date, no study has tested the double mutant
specifically, which is essential as the phototropins act redundantly especially under
moderate lighting intensities, in the GL1 background to avoid any confounding
influences from absence of GL1. These studies must first be done in order for any
definitive conclusions to be made.
4.3 Extended induction of PIXL-HA results in seedling death
To test if PIXL could induce any defense responses, we transgenically introduced
PIXL-HA into the pixl-1 mutant background driven by a ß-Estradiol inducible promoter.
Within one week after plating, transgenic PIXL-HA plants did not survive on plates
containing ß-Estradiol while those on mock plates remained alive (Figure 2.4).
Overexpression of R proteins can result in stunting and damaging side effects, thus the
seedling death phenotypes we observed suggest PIXL involvement in defense
elicitation (Zhang et al., 2003; Yi and Richards, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2012).
Further analysis of defense markers such as PR2 would confirm this hypothesis. This
finding also adds noteworthiness to the phot1 interaction with a R protein which would
signify a closer association with immunity than if PIXL were, for example, a helper NB-
LRR.
64
4.4 Certain defense mutants exhibit increased phototropic curvature, but do not
show changes in chloroplast accumulation or avoidance
To assess the reverse hypothesis, that defense regulatory components influence
phototropin mediated physiological changes, we subjected several defense mutants to
phototropism and chloroplast movement assays. Despite the notable importance of
chloroplasts in pathogen defense, we observed no noticeable changes in chloroplast
avoidance or accumulation (Figure 2.6) (Serrano et al., 2016). We did, however,
observe an increase in phototropic curvature in select TNL mutants, but not in the eds1-
2 mutant (Figure 2.5). Several possible explanations could help clarify these results
such as the presence of an additional signaling hub common to TNLs and associated
with phot1 but independent of EDS1. An attractive candidate is NPH3, a substrate
adaptor in the CULLIN3-based E3 ubiquitin ligase complex essential for phototropism
(Liscum and Briggs, 1996; Roberts et al., 2011). This hypothesis is especially attractive
because in addition to blue light photoreceptors influencing defense through modulation
of an E3 ubiquitin ligase in Arabidopsis, COP1, a NPH3/RPT2-like protein was identified
as a susceptibility factor and target of a Phytophthora infestans effector in potato (Jeong
et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2016). Perhaps the phot1 association with PIXL and defense
machinery is through association with NPH3.
65
4.5 Hygromycin resistant srfr1-4 exhibits a hygromycin dependent shortened root
phenotype
While screening MmSRFR1 transgenic lines, we observed a severe stunting of
root growth in the srfrEV-1 control on hygromycin plates, but to a much lesser extent on
normal plates (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3). To further assess hygromycin dependency, we
tested srfrEV-1 plants using a concentration gradient and saw a negative relationship
between root/shoot size and hygromycin presence, but did not see a noticeable root
growth phenotype with glufosinate treatment (Figure 3.4). This result confirms
hygromycin dependent sensitivity of srfrEV-1. The induction of ROS caused by
hygromycin combined with the pivotal role ROS plays in defense responses argues for
a potential role of SRFR1 in mediating ROS homeostasis (Pastor et al., 2013; Oung et
al., 2015). However, since hygromycin also has a toxic effect on plastids and
mitochondria, the alternative hypothesis of SRFR1 involvement in maintenance and
regulation of these organelles cannot be ruled out based on our findings (Borovinskaya
et al., 2008). The latter hypothesis becomes more attractive due to the fact that no
reduction in root growth was observed during glufosinate treatment (Figure 3.4), and no
noticeable difference was observed between Col, srfr1-4 and srfrEV-1 when challenged
with non-lethal doses of paraquat (Figure 3.5).
66
4.6 Transgenic MmSRFR1 in the srfr1-4 background shows an increase in root
and shoot growth
MmSRFR1 transgenic lines in the srfr1-4 background were created to investigate
potential cross kingdom conservation. When compared to the srfrEV-1 control and
exposed to hygromycin, all MmSRFR1 lines tested displayed increased root growth and
two lines tested showed a statistically significant increase in shoot growth (Figure 3.1;
Figure 3.2). Taken together these results suggest a level of conserved function for
MmSRFR1. Since no differences were seen between srfr1-4 and MmSRFR1
transgenic lines in the absence of hygromycin, it appears that any conserved function
that exists in the processes we tested relates to relieving the increased sensitivity of
srfrEV-1 to hygromycin (Figure 3.3). More experiments are needed in order to find a
definitive role of SRFR1 in relation to hygromycin toxicity and how MmSRFR1 can act
as a substitute.
67
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson RG, Casady MS, Fee RA, Vaughan MM, Deb D, Fedkenheuer K, Huffaker
A, Schmelz EA, Tyler BM, McDowell JM (2012) Homologous RXLR effectors
from Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis and Phytophthora sojae suppress
immunity in distantly related plants. Plant J 72: 882-893
Asai S, Shirasu K (2015) Plant cells under siege: plant immune system versus
pathogen effectors. Curr Opin Plant Biol 28: 1-8
Ballare CL (2014) Light regulation of plant defense. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65: 335-363
Bartsch M, Gobbato E, Bednarek P, Debey S, Schultze JL, Bautor J, Parker JE
(2006) Salicylic acid-independent ENHANCED DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY1
signaling in Arabidopsis immunity and cell death is regulated by the
monooxygenase FMO1 and the Nudix hydrolase NUDT7. Plant Cell 18: 1038-
1051
Bhattacharjee S, Halane MK, Kim SH, Gassmann W (2011) Pathogen effectors target
Arabidopsis EDS1 and alter its interactions with immune regulators. Science 334:
1405-1408
Bigeard J, Colcombet J, Hirt H (2015) Signaling mechanisms in pattern-triggered
immunity (PTI). Mol Plant 8: 521-539
Bonardi V, Tang S, Stallmann A, Roberts M, Cherkis K, Dangl JL (2011) Expanded
functions for a family of plant intracellular immune receptors beyond specific
recognition of pathogen effectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 16463-16468
68
Borovinskaya MA, Shoji S, Fredrick K, Cate JH (2008) Structural basis for
hygromycin B inhibition of protein biosynthesis. RNA (New York, N.Y.) 14: 1590-
1599
Borovinskaya MA, Shoji S, Fredrick K, Cate JH (2008) Structural basis for
hygromycin B inhibition of protein biosynthesis. RNA 14: 1590-1599
Cao S, Ho GH, Lin VC (2008) Tetratricopeptide repeat domain 9A is an interacting
protein for tropomyosin Tm5NM-1. BMC Cancer 8: 231
Cazzaniga S, Dall' Osto L, Kong SG, Wada M, Bassi R (2013) Interaction between
avoidance of photon absorption, excess energy dissipation and zeaxanthin
synthesis against photooxidative stress in Arabidopsis. Plant J 76: 568-579
Century KS, Holub EB, Staskawicz BJ (1995) NDR1, a locus of Arabidopsis thaliana
that is required for disease resistance to both a bacterial and a fungal pathogen.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 92: 6597-6601
Chandra-Shekara AC, Gupte M, Navarre D, Raina S, Raina R, Klessig D, Kachroo
P (2006) Light-dependent hypersensitive response and resistance signaling
against Turnip Crinkle Virus in Arabidopsis. Plant J 45: 320-334
Christie JM, Blackwood L, Petersen J, Sullivan S (2015) Plant flavoprotein
photoreceptors. Plant & cell physiology 56: 401-413
Cui H, Tsuda K, Parker JE (2015) Effector-triggered immunity: from pathogen
perception to robust defense. Annu Rev Plant Biol 66: 487-511
69
de Wit M, Galvao VC, Fankhauser C (2016) Light-Mediated Hormonal Regulation of
Plant Growth and Development. Annu Rev Plant Biol 67: 513-537
Dmitriev RI, Okkelman IA, Abdulin RA, Shakhparonov MI, Pestov NB (2009)
Nuclear transport of protein TTC4 depends on the cell cycle. Cell Tissue Res
336: 521-527
Dong J, Chen W (2013) The Role of Autophagy in Chloroplast Degradation and
Chlorophagy in Immune Defenses during Pst DC3000 (AvrRps4) Infection. PLoS
ONE 8
Fu ZQ, Dong X (2013) Systemic acquired resistance: turning local infection into global
defense. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64: 839-863
Galvao VC, Fankhauser C (2015) Sensing the light environment in plants:
photoreceptors and early signaling steps. Curr Opin Neurobiol 34: 46-53
Gassmann W (2005) Natural variation in the Arabidopsis response to the avirulence
gene hopPsyA uncouples the hypersensitive response from disease resistance.
Molecular plant-microbe interactions : MPMI 18: 1054-1060
Gassmann W (2005) Natural variation in the Arabidopsis response to the avirulence
gene hopPsyA uncouples the hypersensitive response from disease resistance.
Mol Plant Microbe Interact 18: 1054-1060
Genoud T, Buchala AJ, Chua NH, Metraux JP (2002) Phytochrome signalling
modulates the SA-perceptive pathway in Arabidopsis. Plant J 31: 87-95
Gimenez-Ibanez S, Boter M, Fernandez-Barbero G, Chini A, Rathjen JP, Solano R
(2014) The bacterial effector HopX1 targets JAZ transcriptional repressors to
70
activate jasmonate signaling and promote infection in Arabidopsis. PLoS Biol 12:
e1001792
Goyal A, Szarzynska B, Fankhauser C (2013) Phototropism: at the crossroads of
light-signaling pathways. Trends Plant Sci 18: 393-401
Griebel T, Zeier J (2008) Light regulation and daytime dependency of inducible plant
defenses in Arabidopsis: phytochrome signaling controls systemic acquired
resistance rather than local defense. Plant Physiol 147: 790-801
Gruner K, Griebel T, Navarova H, Attaran E, Zeier J (2013) Reprogramming of plants
during systemic acquired resistance. Front Plant Sci 4: 252
Heese A, Hann DR, Gimenez-Ibanez S, Jones AM, He K, Li J, Schroeder JI, Peck
SC, Rathjen JP (2007) The receptor-like kinase SERK3/BAK1 is a central
regulator of innate immunity in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 12217-
12222
Heidrich K, Tsuda K, Blanvillain-Baufume S, Wirthmueller L, Bautor J, Parker JE
(2013) Arabidopsis TNL-WRKY domain receptor RRS1 contributes to
temperature-conditioned RPS4 auto-immunity. Front Plant Sci 4: 403
Helms C, Pelsue S, Cao L, Lamb E, Loffredo B, Taillon-Miller P, Herrin B,
Burzenski LM, Gott B, Lyons BL, Keppler D, Shultz LD, Bowcock AM (2005)
The Tetratricopeptide repeat domain 7 gene is mutated in flaky skin mice: a
model for psoriasis, autoimmunity, and anemia. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 230:
659-667
71
Hohm T, Demarsy E, Quan C, Allenbach Petrolati L, Preuten T, Vernoux T,
Bergmann S, Fankhauser C (2014) Plasma membrane H(+) -ATPase regulation
is required for auxin gradient formation preceding phototropic growth. Mol Syst
Biol 10: 751
Hohm T, Preuten T, Fankhauser C (2013) Phototropism: translating light into
directional growth. American journal of botany 100: 47-59
Howles P, Lawrence G, Finnegan J, McFadden H, Ayliffe M, Dodds P, Ellis J (2005)
Autoactive alleles of the flax L6 rust resistance gene induce non-race-specific
rust resistance associated with the hypersensitive response. Mol Plant Microbe
Interact 18: 570-582
Hsu PY, Harmer SL (2014) Wheels within wheels: the plant circadian system. Trends
Plant Sci 19: 240-249
Hua J (2013) Modulation of plant immunity by light, circadian rhythm, and temperature.
Current Opinion in Plant Biology 16: 406-413
Huala E, Oeller PW, Liscum E, Han IS, Larsen E, Briggs WR (1997) Arabidopsis
NPH1: a protein kinase with a putative redox-sensing domain. Science 278:
2120-2123
Huang X, Li J, Bao F, Zhang X, Yang S (2010) A gain-of-function mutation in the
Arabidopsis disease resistance gene RPP4 confers sensitivity to low
temperature. Plant Physiol 154: 796-809
Huot B, Yao J, Montgomery BL, He SY (2014) Growth-defense tradeoffs in plants: a
balancing act to optimize fitness. Mol Plant 7: 1267-1287
72
Inada S, Ohgishi M, Mayama T, Okada K, Sakai T (2004) RPT2 is a signal transducer
involved in phototropic response and stomatal opening by association with
phototropin 1 in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 16: 887-896
Ingle RA, Stoker C, Stone W, Adams N, Smith R, Grant M, Carre I, Roden LC,
Denby KJ (2015) Jasmonate signalling drives time-of-day differences in
susceptibility of Arabidopsis to the fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea. Plant J 84:
937-948
Inoue S, Kinoshita T, Matsumoto M, Nakayama KI, Doi M, Shimazaki K (2008) Blue
light-induced autophosphorylation of phototropin is a primary step for signaling.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 5626-5631
Jacob F, Vernaldi S, Maekawa T (2013) Evolution and Conservation of Plant NLR
Functions. Frontiers in immunology 4: 297
Jarillo JA, Gabrys H, Capel J, Alonso JM, Ecker JR, Cashmore AR (2001)
Phototropin-related NPL1 controls chloroplast relocation induced by blue light.
Nature 410: 952-954
Jelenska J, van Hal JA, Greenberg JT (2010) Pseudomonas syringae hijacks plant
stress chaperone machinery for virulence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 13177-
13182
Jelenska J, Yao N, Vinatzer BA, Wright CM, Brodsky JL, Greenberg JT (2007) A J
domain virulence effector of Pseudomonas syringae remodels host chloroplasts
and suppresses defenses. Current Biology 17: 499-508
73
Jeong R-D, Kachroo A, Kachroo P (2010) Blue light photoreceptors are required for
the stability and function of a resistance protein mediating viral defense in
Arabidopsis. Plant Signaling & Behavior 5: 15041509
Jeong RD, Chandra-Shekara AC, Barman SR, Navarre D, Klessig DF, Kachroo A,
Kachroo P (2010) Cryptochrome 2 and phototropin 2 regulate resistance
protein-mediated viral defense by negatively regulating an E3 ubiquitin ligase.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 13538-13543
Jiang S, Yao J, Ma KW, Zhou H, Song J, He SY, Ma W (2013) Bacterial effector
activates jasmonate signaling by directly targeting JAZ transcriptional repressors.
PLoS Pathog 9: e1003715
Kachroo A, Robin GP (2013) Systemic signaling during plant defense. Curr Opin Plant
Biol 16: 527-533
Kachroo P, Kachroo A (2012) 4 The Roles of Salicylic Acid and Jasmonic Acid in Plant
Immunity. 4 The Roles of Salicylic Acid and Jasmonic Acid in Plant Immunity
Kagawa T, Sakai T, Suetsugu N, Oikawa K, Ishiguro S, Kato T, Tabata S, Okada K,
Wada M (2001) Arabidopsis NPL1: a phototropin homolog controlling the
chloroplast high-light avoidance response. Science 291: 2138-2141
Kagawa T, Sakai T, Suetsugu N, Oikawa K, Ishiguro S, Kato T, Tabata S, Okada K,
Wada M (2001) Arabidopsis NPL1: A Phototropin Homolog Controlling the
Chloroplast High-Light Avoidance Response. Science 291: 2138-2141
74
Kangasjarvi S, Tikkanen M, Durian G, Aro EM (2014) Photosynthetic light reactions--
an adjustable hub in basic production and plant immunity signaling. Plant Physiol
Biochem 81: 128-134
Karpinski S, Szechynska-Hebda M, Wituszynska W, Burdiak P (2013) Light
acclimation, retrograde signalling, cell death and immune defences in plants.
Plant Cell Environ 36: 736-744
Kim SH, Gao F, Bhattacharjee S, Adiasor JA, Nam JC, Gassmann W (2010) The
Arabidopsis resistance-like gene SNC1 is activated by mutations in SRFR1 and
contributes to resistance to the bacterial effector AvrRps4. PLoS Pathog 6:
e1001172
Kim SH, Kwon SI, Bhattacharjee S, Gassmann W (2009) Regulation of defense gene
expression by Arabidopsis SRFR1. Plant Signal Behav 4: 149-150
Kim SH, Kwon SI, Saha D, Anyanwu NC, Gassmann W (2009) Resistance to the
Pseudomonas syringae effector HopA1 is governed by the TIR-NBS-LRR protein
RPS6 and is enhanced by mutations in SRFR1. Plant Physiol 150: 1723-1732
Kim SH, Son GH, Bhattacharjee S, Kim HJ, Nam JC, Nguyen PD, Hong JC,
Gassmann W (2014) The Arabidopsis immune adaptor SRFR1 interacts with
TCP transcription factors that redundantly contribute to effector-triggered
immunity. The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology 78: 978-989
Kim TH, Kunz HH, Bhattacharjee S, Hauser F, Park J, Engineer C, Liu A, Ha T,
Parker JE, Gassmann W, Schroeder JI (2012) Natural variation in small
75
molecule-induced TIR-NB-LRR signaling induces root growth arrest via EDS1-
and PAD4-complexed R protein VICTR in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 24: 5177-5192
Kinoshita T, Doi M, Suetsugu N, Kagawa T, Wada M, Shimazaki K (2001) Phot1 and
phot2 mediate blue light regulation of stomatal opening. Nature 414: 656-660
Kong SG, Wada M (2014) Recent advances in understanding the molecular
mechanism of chloroplast photorelocation movement. Biochim Biophys Acta
1837: 522-530
Kraiselburd I, Alet AI, Tondo M, Petrocelli S, Daurelio LD, Monzón J, Ruiz OA, Losi
A, Orellano EG (2012) A LOV Protein Modulates the Physiological Attributes of
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri Relevant for Host Plant Colonization. PLoS
ONE 7
Kunkel BN, Bent AF, Dahlbeck D, Innes RW, Staskawicz BJ (1993) RPS2, an
Arabidopsis disease resistance locus specifying recognition of Pseudomonas
syringae strains expressing the avirulence gene avrRpt2. Plant Cell 5: 865-875
Kutschera U, Briggs WR (2016) Phototropic solar tracking in sunflower plants: an
integrative perspective. Ann Bot 117: 1-8
Kwon SI, Kim SH, Bhattacharjee S, Noh JJ, Gassmann W (2009) SRFR1, a
suppressor of effector-triggered immunity, encodes a conserved tetratricopeptide
repeat protein with similarity to transcriptional repressors. Plant J 57: 109-119
Kwon SI, Koczan JM, Gassmann W (2004) Two Arabidopsis srfr (suppressor of rps4-
RLD) mutants exhibit avrRps4-specific disease resistance independent of RPS4.
Plant J 40: 366-375
76
Lea PJ, Joy KW, Ramos JL, Guerrero MG (1984) The action of 2-amino-4-
(methylphosphinyl)-butanoic acid (phosphinothricin) and its 2-oxo-derivative on
the metabolism of cyanobacteria and higher plants. Phytochemistry 23: 1-6
Lehmann S, Serrano M, L'Haridon F, Tjamos SE, Metraux JP (2015) Reactive
oxygen species and plant resistance to fungal pathogens. Phytochemistry 112:
54-62
Li Y, Li S, Bi D, Cheng YT, Li X, Zhang Y (2010) SRFR1 negatively regulates plant
NB-LRR resistance protein accumulation to prevent autoimmunity. PLoS Pathog
6: e1001111
Liscum E, Askinosie SK, Leuchtman DL, Morrow J, Willenburg KT, Coats DR
(2014) Phototropism: growing towards an understanding of plant movement.
Plant Cell 26: 38-55
Liscum E, Briggs WR (1995) Mutations in the NPH1 locus of Arabidopsis disrupt the
perception of phototropic stimuli. Plant Cell 7: 473-485
Liscum E, Briggs WR (1996) Mutations of Arabidopsis in potential transduction and
response components of the phototropic signaling pathway. Plant Physiol 112:
291-296
Lopez JA, Sun Y, Blair PB, Mukhtar MS (2015) TCP three-way handshake: linking
developmental processes with plant immunity. Trends Plant Sci 20: 238-245
Lozano-Duran R, Bourdais G, He SY, Robatzek S (2014) The bacterial effector
HopM1 suppresses PAMP-triggered oxidative burst and stomatal immunity. New
Phytol 202: 259-269
77
Lubas WA, Hanover JA (2000) Functional expression of O-linked GlcNAc transferase.
Domain structure and substrate specificity. J Biol Chem 275: 10983-10988
Luesse DR, DeBlasio SL, Hangarter RP (2010) Integration of Phot1, Phot2, and PhyB
signalling in light-induced chloroplast movements. J Exp Bot 61: 4387-4397
Mao J, Zhang YC, Sang Y, Li QH, Yang HQ (2005) From The Cover: A role for
Arabidopsis cryptochromes and COP1 in the regulation of stomatal opening.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 12270-12275
Mazza CA, Ballare CL (2015) Photoreceptors UVR8 and phytochrome B cooperate to
optimize plant growth and defense in patchy canopies. New Phytol 207: 4-9
Meyers BC, Kozik A, Griego A, Kuang H, Michelmore RW (2003) Genome-wide
analysis of NBS-LRR-encoding genes in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 15: 809-834
Moreland DE, J. B. St John, and F. Dana Hess (1982) Biochemical responses
induced by herbicides. In Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 57-77
Nicaise V, Joe A, Jeong B-rR, Korneli C, Boutrot F, Westedt I, Staiger D, Alfano
JR, Zipfel C (2013) Pseudomonas HopU1 modulates plant immune receptor
levels by blocking the interaction of their mRNAs with GRP7. The EMBO journal
32: 701-712
Nicaise V, Joe A, Jeong BR, Korneli C, Boutrot F, Westedt I, Staiger D, Alfano JR,
Zipfel C (2013) Pseudomonas HopU1 modulates plant immune receptor levels
by blocking the interaction of their mRNAs with GRP7. EMBO J 32: 701-712
78
Nomura K, Debroy S, Lee YH, Pumplin N, Jones J, He SY (2006) A bacterial
virulence protein suppresses host innate immunity to cause plant disease.
Science 313: 220-223
Oh SK, Lee S, Chung E, Park JM, Yu SH, Ryu CM, Choi D (2006) Insight into Types I
and II nonhost resistance using expression patterns of defense-related genes in
tobacco. Planta 223: 1101-1107
Okajima K (2016) Molecular mechanism of phototropin light signaling. J Plant Res 129:
149-157
Oung H-MM, Lin K-CC, Wu T-MM, Chandrika NN, Hong C-YY (2015) Hygromycin B-
induced cell death is partly mediated by reactive oxygen species in rice (Oryza
sativa L.). Plant molecular biology 89: 577-588
Oung HM, Lin KC, Wu TM, Chandrika NN, Hong CY (2015) Hygromycin B-induced
cell death is partly mediated by reactive oxygen species in rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Plant Mol Biol 89: 577-588
Park YI, Chow WS, Anderson JM (1996) Chloroplast Movement in the Shade Plant
Tradescantia albiflora Helps Protect Photosystem II against Light Stress. Plant
Physiol 111: 867-875
Pastor V, Luna E, Ton J, Cerezo M, Garcia-Agustin P, Flors V (2013) Fine tuning of
reactive oxygen species homeostasis regulates primed immune responses in
Arabidopsis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 26: 1334-1344
79
Qi Y, Katagiri F (2009) Purification of low-abundance Arabidopsis plasma-membrane
protein complexes and identification of candidate components. Plant J 57: 932-
944
Río‐Álvarez I, Rodríguez‐Herva J, Martínez P, González‐Melendi P, García‐Casado
G, Rodríguez‐Palenzuela P, López‐Solanilla E (2014) Light regulates motility,
attachment and virulence in the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv
tomato DC3000. Environmental Microbiology 16: 2072-2085
Robert-Seilaniantz A, Grant M, Jones JD (2011) Hormone crosstalk in plant disease
and defense: more than just jasmonate-salicylate antagonism. Annu Rev
Phytopathol 49: 317-343
Roberts D, Pedmale UV, Morrow J, Sachdev S, Lechner E, Tang X, Zheng N,
Hannink M, Genschik P, Liscum E (2011) Modulation of phototropic
responsiveness in Arabidopsis through ubiquitination of phototropin 1 by the
CUL3-Ring E3 ubiquitin ligase CRL3(NPH3). Plant Cell 23: 3627-3640
Roberts M, Tang S, Stallmann A, Dangl JL, Bonardi V (2013) Genetic requirements
for signaling from an autoactive plant NB-LRR intracellular innate immune
receptor. PLoS Genet 9: e1003465
Sauer H, Wild A, Rühle W (1987) The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on
photosynthesis II. The causes of inhibition of photosynthesis. Zeitschrift für
Naturforschung C 42: 270-278
Senthil-Kumar M, Mysore KS (2013) Nonhost resistance against bacterial pathogens:
retrospectives and prospects. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51: 407-427
80
Serrano I, Audran C, Rivas S (2016) Chloroplasts at work during plant innate
immunity. Journal of experimental botany
Serrano I, Audran C, Rivas S (2016) Chloroplasts at work during plant innate
immunity. J Exp Bot 67: 3845-3854
Sessions A, Burke E, Presting G, Aux G, McElver J, Patton D, Dietrich B, Ho P,
Bacwaden J, Ko C, Clarke JD, Cotton D, Bullis D, Snell J, Miguel T,
Hutchison D, Kimmerly B, Mitzel T, Katagiri F, Glazebrook J, Law M, Goff
SA (2002) A high-throughput Arabidopsis reverse genetics system. Plant Cell 14:
2985-2994
Shannon SG (2012) The Characterization of the Tetratricopeptide Repeat Protein 13 in
Mammals (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Missouri
Smith RL, Johnson AD (2000) Turning genes off by Ssn6-Tup1: a conserved system
of transcriptional repression in eukaryotes. Trends Biochem Sci 25: 325-330
Suizu F, Hiramuki Y, Okumura F, Matsuda M, Okumura AJ, Hirata N, Narita M,
Kohno T, Yokota J, Bohgaki M, Obuse C, Hatakeyama S, Obata T, Noguchi
M (2009) The E3 ligase TTC3 facilitates ubiquitination and degradation of
phosphorylated Akt. Dev Cell 17: 800-810
Sukarta OC, Slootweg EJ, Goverse A (2016) Structure-informed insights for NLR
functioning in plant immunity. Semin Cell Dev Biol
Tameling WI, Vossen JH, Albrecht M, Lengauer T, Berden JA, Haring MA,
Cornelissen BJ, Takken FL (2006) Mutations in the NB-ARC domain of I-2 that
impair ATP hydrolysis cause autoactivation. Plant Physiol 140: 1233-1245
81
Trojan A, Gabrys H (1996) Chloroplast Distribution in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.)
Depends on Light Conditions during Growth. Plant Physiol 111: 419-425
Trotta A, Rahikainen M, Konert G, Finazzi G, Kangasjarvi S (2014) Signalling
crosstalk in light stress and immune reactions in plants. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
B Biol Sci 369: 20130235
Verma V, Ravindran P, Kumar PP (2016) Plant hormone-mediated regulation of stress
responses. BMC Plant Biol 16: 86
Wang W, Tang W, Ma T, Niu D, Jin JB, Wang H, Lin R (2016) A pair of light signaling
factors FHY3 and FAR1 regulates plant immunity by modulating chlorophyll
biosynthesis. J Integr Plant Biol 58: 91-103
Williams SJ, Sohn K, Wan L, Bernoux M, Sarris PF, Segonzac C, Ve T, Ma Y,
Saucet SB, Ericsson DJ (2014) Structural basis for assembly and function of a
heterodimeric plant immune receptor. Science 344: 299-303
Wu L, Chen H, Curtis C, Fu ZQ (2014) Go in for the kill. Virulence 5: 710-721
Wu L, Yang HQ (2010) CRYPTOCHROME 1 is implicated in promoting R protein-
mediated plant resistance to Pseudomonas syringae in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant 3:
539-548
Xia Y, Yu K, Navarre D, Seebold K, Kachroo A, Kachroo P (2010) The glabra1
mutation affects cuticle formation and plant responses to microbes. Plant Physiol
154: 833-846
Yang L, McLellan H, Naqvi S, He Q, Boevink PC, Armstrong M, Giuliani LM, Zhang
W, Tian Z, Zhan J, Gilroy EM, Birch PR (2016) Potato NPH3/RPT2-Like Protein
82
StNRL1, Targeted by a Phytophthora infestans RXLR Effector, Is a Susceptibility
Factor. Plant physiology 171: 645-657
Yang X, Zhang F, Kudlow JE (2002) Recruitment of O-GlcNAc transferase to
promoters by corepressor mSin3A: coupling protein O-GlcNAcylation to
transcriptional repression. Cell 110: 69-80
Yang YX, Wang MM, Yin YL, Onac E, Zhou GF, Peng S, Xia XJ, Shi K, Yu JQ, Zhou
YH (2015) RNA-seq analysis reveals the role of red light in resistance against
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 in tomato plants. BMC Genomics 16:
120
Yi H, Richards EJ (2007) A cluster of disease resistance genes in Arabidopsis is
coordinately regulated by transcriptional activation and RNA silencing. Plant Cell
19: 2929-2939
Yu Y, Jiao L, Fu S, Yin L, Zhang Y, Lu J (2016) Callose Synthase Family Genes
Involved in the Grapevine Defense Response to Downy Mildew Disease.
Phytopathology 106: 56-64
Zbierzak AM, Porfirova S, Griebel T, Melzer M, Parker JE, Dormann P (2013) A TIR-
NBS protein encoded by Arabidopsis Chilling Sensitive 1 (CHS1) limits
chloroplast damage and cell death at low temperature. Plant J 75: 539-552
Zeytuni N, Zarivach R (2012) Structural and functional discussion of the tetra-trico-
peptide repeat, a protein interaction module. Structure 20: 397-405
Zhang Y, Goritschnig S, Dong X, Li X (2003) A gain-of-function mutation in a plant
disease resistance gene leads to constitutive activation of downstream signal
83
transduction pathways in suppressor of npr1-1, constitutive 1. Plant Cell 15:
2636-2646
Zhu Y, Qian W, Hua J (2010) Temperature modulates plant defense responses through
NB-LRR proteins. PLoS pathogens 6
Zipfel C (2014) Plant pattern-recognition receptors. Trends Immunol 35: 345-351
Zipfel C (2014) Plant pattern-recognition receptors. Trends in immunology 35: 345-351
Zuo J, Niu QW, Chua NH (2000) Technical advance: An estrogen receptor-based
transactivator XVE mediates highly inducible gene expression in transgenic
plants. The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology 24: 265-273
Zuo J, Niu QW, Chua NH (2000) Technical advance: An estrogen receptor-based
transactivator XVE mediates highly inducible gene expression in transgenic
plants. Plant J 24: 265-273
84
VITA
I was born in St. Louis, Missouri on April 15, 1988 to father Richard R.
Leuchtman and mother Elizabeth L. Leuchtman. I have one sister with which I am very
close. Science was my best subject throughout my education. In high school I took two
science courses at a time instead of taking electives. I completed all but two science
classes offered by my school. My love of plant biology probably stems from spending
summers working in my grandparent’s garden, where I developed my green thumb. In
high school, I fell in love with genetics and wanted to work on the human genome
project. Upon arriving to the University of Missouri for a bachelor’s degree, I quickly
learned that I could combine my love of genetics and plant biology. I then developed an
interest in research and started working in the Galen lab as a greenhouse assistant.
Through this work I was introduced to Dr. Liscum and began exploring molecular
genetics. After I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciencs in 2010
took a summer off before enrolling in my PhD program at the University of Missouri. I
will earn my Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri in
2016.
top related