Janet Laird

Cauliflower mosaic virus Protein P6 Inhibits Signaling Responses to Salicylic Acid and Regulates Innate Immunity

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) encodes a multifunctional protein P6 that is required for translation of the 35S RNA and also acts as a suppressor of RNA silencing. Here we demonstrate that P6 additionally acts as a pathogenicity effector of an unique and novel type, modifying NPR1 (a key regulator of salicylic acid (SA)- and jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent signaling) and inhibiting SA-dependent defence responses We find that that transgene-mediated expression of P6 in Arabidopsis and transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana has profound effects on defence signaling, suppressing expression of representative SA-responsive genes and increasing expression of representative JA-responsive genes. Relative to wild-type Arabidopsis P6-expressing transgenics had greatly reduced expression of PR-1 following SA-treatment, infection by CaMV or inoculation with an avirulent bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato (Pst). Similarly transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana of P6 (including a mutant form defective in translational transactivation activity) suppressed PR-1a transcript accumulation in response to Agrobacterium infiltration and following SA-treatment. As well as suppressing the expression of representative SA-regulated genes, P6-transgenic Arabidopsis showed greatly enhanced susceptibility to both virulent and avirulent Pst (titres elevated 10 to 30-fold compared to non-transgenic controls) but reduced susceptibility to the necrotrophic fungus Botrytis cinerea. Necrosis following SA-treatment or inoculation with avirulent Pst was reduced and delayed in P6-transgenics. NPR1 an important regulator of SA/JA crosstalk, was more highly expressed in the presence of P6 and introduction of the P6 transgene into a transgenic line expressing an NPR1:GFP fusion resulted in greatly increased fluorescence in nuclei even in the absence of SA. Thus in the presence of P6 an inactive form of NPR1 is mislocalized in the nucleus even in uninduced plants. These results demonstrate that P6 is a new type of pathogenicity effector protein that enhances susceptibility to biotrophic pathogens by suppressing SA- but enhancing JA-signaling responses.

Components of Arabidopsis Defense- and Ethylene-Signaling Pathways Regulate Susceptibility to Cauliflower mosaic virus by Restricting Long-Distance Movement

We analyzed the susceptibility of Arabidopsis mutants with defects in salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA)/ethylene (ET) signaling to infection by Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). Mutants cpr1-1 and cpr5-2, in which SA-dependent defense signaling is activated constitutively, were substantially more resistant than the wild type to systemic infection, implicating SA signaling in defense against CaMV. However, SA-deficient NahG, sid2-2, eds5-1, and pad4-1 did not show enhanced susceptibility. A cpr5 eds5 double mutant also was resistant, suggesting that resistance in cpr5 may function partially independently of SA. Treatment of cpr5 and cpr5 eds5, but not cpr1, with salicyl-hydroxamic acid, an inhibitor of alternative oxidase, partially restored susceptibility to wild-type levels. Mutants etr1-1, etr1-3, and ein2-1, and two mutants with lesions in ET/JA-mediated defense, eds4 and eds8, also showed reduced virus susceptibility, demonstrating that ET-dependent responses also play a role in susceptibility. We used a green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing CaMV recombinant to monitor virus movement. In mutants with reduced susceptibility, cpr1-1, cpr5-2, and etr1-1, CaMV-GFP formed local lesions similar to the wild type, but systemic spread was almost completely absent in cpr1 and cpr5 and was substantially reduced in etr1-1. Thus, mutations with enhanced systemic acquired resistance or compromised ET signaling show diminished long-distance virus movement.

Inappropriate annotation of a key defence marker in Arabidopsis: will the real PR-1 please stand up?

PR-1 has been extensively used as a marker for salicylic acid (SA)-mediated defence and systemic and local acquired resistance. The Arabidopsis Genome Project annotates At2g19990 as PR-1. This gene is also identified as PR-1 in two “full genome” Arabidopsis microarrays, and TAIR cites approximately 60 articles to describe its patterns of expression. However, most of these citations are incorrect; the probes used were not At2g19990, but a homologous gene At2g14610, which is annotated as “PR-1-like”. Because of the potential for confusion, we analyzed the expression of both genes in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. At2g14610 (PR-1-like) showed the archetypal patterns of SA-responsive expression: mRNA levels increased following SA-treatment, inoculation with an avirulent (but not a virulent) strain of Pseudomonas syringae, and in wild-type (but not NahG) Arabidopsis infected with cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). In cpr5 mutants it was expressed constitutively. In contrast, expression of At2g19990 (annotated as PR-1) was detectable in neither SA-treated Col-0 nor in cpr5. Infection by virulent and avirulent isolates of P. syringae up-regulated expression, but to a similar level, and infection by CaMV induced a modest increase in expression in both the wild type and NahG. At2g19990, although pathogen responsive, does not show the SA-dependent patterns of expression expected from a member of the PR-1 regulon, and its annotation as “PR-1” is inappropriate. The annotations should identify At2g14610 as the authentic PR-1.

Arabidopsis mutants that suppress the phenotype induced by transgene-mediated expression of cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) gene VI are less susceptible to CaMV-infection and show reduced ethylene sensitivity.

Protein P6 is the main symptom determinant of cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), and transgene-mediated expression in Arabidopsis induces a symptom-like phenotype in the absence of infection. Seeds of a P6-transgenic line, A7, were mutagenized by γ-irradiation and M2 seedlings were screened for mutants that suppressed the phenotype of chlorosis and stunting. We identified four mutants that were larger and less chlorotic than the A7 parent but which contained an intact and transcriptionally active transgene. The two mutants with the strongest suppression phenotype, were recessive and allelic. The transgene was eliminated by back-crossing with wild-type Arabidopsis. In progeny lines that were homozygous for the putative suppressor mutation the proportion of plants becoming infected following inoculation with CaMV was 40% that of wild-type, although in plants that did become infected, levels of virus DNA in mutants and wild-type did not differ significantly. Symptoms in the mutants were milder and delayed although this was somewhat dependent on the virus isolate. This phenotype was inherited stably. Both mutant alleles showed a partially ethylene-insensitive phenotype in an ethylene triple response assay. P6-transgenic plants were also almost completely insensitive to ethylene in the triple response assay. We suggest that the chlorosis and stunting in P6-transgenic and CaMV-infected plants are dependent on interactions between P6 and components involved in ethylene signalling, and that the suppressor gene product may function to augment these interactions.

Identification of the domains of cauliflower mosaic virus protein P6 responsible for suppression of RNA silencing and salicylic acid signalling

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) encodes a 520 aa polypeptide, P6, which participates in several essential activities in the virus life cycle including suppressing RNA silencing and salicylic acid-responsive defence signalling. We infected Arabidopsis with CaMV mutants containing short in-frame deletions within the P6 ORF. A deletion in the distal end of domain D-I (the N-terminal 112 aa) of P6 did not affect virus replication but compromised symptom development and curtailed the ability to restore GFP fluorescence in a GFP-silenced transgenic Arabidopsis line. A deletion in the minimum transactivator domain was defective in virus replication but retained the capacity to suppress RNA silencing locally. Symptom expression in CaMV-infected plants is apparently linked to the ability to suppress RNA silencing. When transiently co-expressed with tomato bushy stunt virus P19, an elicitor of programmed cell death in Nicotiana tabacum, WT P6 suppressed the hypersensitive response, but three mutants, two with deletions within the distal end of domain D-I and one involving the N-terminal nuclear export signal (NES), were unable to do so. Deleting the N-terminal 20 aa also abolished the suppression of pathogen-associated molecular pattern-dependent PR1a expression following agroinfiltration. However, the two other deletions in domain D-I retained this activity, evidence that the mechanisms underlying these functions are not identical. The D-I domain of P6 when expressed alone failed to suppress either cell death or PR1a expression and is therefore necessary but not sufficient for all three defence suppression activities. Consequently, concerns about the biosafety of genetically modified crops carrying truncated ORFVI sequences appear unfounded.

Organ specificity in the plant circadian system is explained by different light inputs to the shoot and root clocks

Summary Circadian clocks allow the temporal compartmentalization of biological processes. In Arabidopsis, circadian rhythms display organ specificity but the underlying molecular causes have not been identified. We investigated the mechanisms responsible for the similarities and differences between the clocks of mature shoots and roots in constant conditions and in light : dark cycles. We developed an imaging system to monitor clock gene expression in shoots and light‐ or dark‐grown roots, modified a recent mathematical model of the Arabidopsis clock and used this to simulate our new data. We showed that the shoot and root circadian clocks have different rhythmic properties (period and amplitude) and respond differently to light quality. The root clock was entrained by direct exposure to low‐intensity light, even in antiphase to the illumination of shoots. Differences between the clocks were more pronounced in conditions where light was present than in constant darkness, and persisted in the presence of sucrose. We simulated the data successfully by modifying those parameters of a clock model that are related to light inputs. We conclude that differences and similarities between the shoot and root clocks can largely be explained by organ‐specific light inputs. This provides mechanistic insight into the developing field of organ‐specific clocks.