Rhizobia preferentially enter legume root hairs via infection threads, after which root hairs undergo tip swelling, branching, and curling. However, the mechanisms underlying such root hair deformation are poorly understood. Here, we showed that a type II small GTPase, ROP10, of Medicago truncatula is localized at the plasma membrane (PM) of root hair tips to regulate root hair tip growth. Overexpression of ROP10 and a constitutively active mutant (ROP10CA) generated depolarized growth of root hairs, whereas a dominant negative mutant (ROP10DN) inhibited root hair elongation. Inoculated with Sinorhizobium meliloti, the depolarized swollen and ballooning root hairs exhibited extensive root hair deformation and aberrant infection symptoms. Upon treatment with rhizobia-secreted nodulation factors (NFs), ROP10 was transiently upregulated in root hairs, and ROP10 fused to green fluorescent protein was ectopically localized at the PM of NF-induced outgrowths and curls around rhizobia. ROP10 interacted with the kinase domain of the NF receptor NFP in a GTP-dependent manner. Moreover, NF-induced expression of the early nodulin gene ENOD11 was enhanced by the overexpression of ROP10 and ROP10CA. These data suggest that NFs spatiotemporally regulate ROP10 localization and activity at the PM of root hair tips and that interactions between ROP10 and NF receptors are required for root hair deformation and continuous curling during rhizobial infection.

SummaryThe ta-siRNA pathway is required for lateral organ development, including leaf patterning, flower differentiation and lateral root growth. Legumes can develop novel lateral root organs -nodules -resulting from symbiotic interactions with rhizobia. However, ta-siRNA regulation in nodule formation remains unknown. To explore ta-siRNA regulation in nodule formation, we investigated the roles of REL3, a key component of TAS3 ta-siRNA biogenesis, during nodulation in Lotus japonicus.We characterized the symbiotic phenotypes of the TAS3 ta-siRNA defective rel3 mutant, and analyzed the responses of the rel3 mutant to auxin and ethylene in order to gain insight into TAS3 ta-siRNA regulation of nodulation.The rel3 mutant produced fewer pink nitrogen-fixing nodules, with substantially decreased infection frequency and nodule initiation. Moreover, the rel3 mutant was more resistant than wild-type to 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) and N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) in root growth, and exhibited insensitivity to auxins but greater sensitivity to auxin transport inhibitors during nodulation. Furthermore, the rel3 mutant has enhanced root-specific ethylene sensitivity and altered responses to ethylene during nodulation; the low-nodulating phenotype of the rel3 mutant can be restored by ethylene synthesis inhibitor L-a-(2-aminoethoxy vinyl)-glycine (AVG) or action inhibitor Ag + . The REL3-mediated TAS3 ta-siRNA pathway regulates nodulation by integrating ethylene and auxin signaling.

Tens of thousands of chimeric RNAs, i.e., RNAs with sequences of two genes, have been identified in human cells. Most of them are formed by two neighboring genes on the same chromosome and are considered to be derived via transcriptional readthrough, but a true readthrough event still awaits more evidence and trans-splicing that joins two transcripts together remains as a possible mechanism. We regard those genomic loci that are transcriptionally read through as unannotated genes, because their transcriptional and posttranscriptional regulations are the same as those of already-annotated genes, including fusion genes formed due to genetic alterations. Therefore, readthrough RNAs and fusion-gene-derived RNAs are not chimeras. Only those two-gene RNAs formed at the RNA level, likely via trans-splicing, without corresponding genes as genomic parents, should be regarded as authentic chimeric RNAs. However, since in human cells, procedural and mechanistic details of trans-splicing have never been disclosed, we doubt the existence of trans-splicing. Therefore, there are probably no authentic chimeras in humans, after readthrough and fusion-gene derived RNAs are all put back into the group of ordinary RNAs. Therefore, it should be further determined whether in human cells all two-neighboring-gene RNAs are derived from transcriptional readthrough and whether trans-splicing truly exists.

Organisms and their different component levels, whether organelle, cellular or other, come by birth and go by death, and the deaths are often balanced by new births. Evolution on the one hand has built demise program(s) in cells of organisms but on the other hand has established external controls on the program(s). For instance, evolution has established death program(s) in animal cells so that the cells can, when it is needed, commit apoptosis or senescent death (SD) in physiological situations and stress-induced cell death (SICD) in pathological situations. However, these programmed cell deaths are not predominantly regulated by the cells that do the dying but, instead, are controlled externally and remotely by the cells' superior(s), i.e. their host tissue or organ or even the animal's body. Currently, it is still unclear whether a cell has only one death program or has several programs respectively controlling SD, apoptosis and SICD. In animals, apoptosis exterminates, in a physiological manner, healthy but no-longer needed cells to avoid cell redundancy, whereas suicidal SD and SICD, like homicidal necrosis, terminate ill but useful cells, which may be followed by regeneration of the live cells and by scar formation to heal the damaged organ or tissue. Therefore, “who dies” clearly differentiates apoptosis from SD, SICD and necrosis. In animals, apoptosis can occur only in those cell types that retain a lifelong ability of proliferation and never occurs in those cell types that can no longer replicate in adulthood. In cancer cells, SICD is strengthened, apoptosis is dramatically weakened while SD has been lost. Most published studies professed to be about apoptosis are actually about SICD, which has four basic and well-articulated pathways involving caspases or involving pathological alterations in the mitochondria, endoplasmic reticula, or lysosomes.

There are four basic cell death modes in animals, i.e. physiological senescent death (SD) and apoptosis as well as pathological necrosis and stress-induced cell death (SICD). There have been numerous publications describing “apoptosis” in cancer, mostly focused on killing cancer cells using radio- or chemo-therapy, with few on exploring how cancer cells die naturally without such treatments. Spontaneous benign or malignant neoplasms are immortal and autonomous, but they still retain some allegiance to their parental tissue or organ and thus are still somewhat controlled by the patient's body. Because of these properties of immortality, semi-autonomy, and semi-allegiance to the patient's body, spontaneous tumors have no redundant cells and resemble “semi-new organisms” parasitizing the patients, becoming a unique tissue type possessing a hitherto unannotated cell death mode besides SD, apoptosis, necrosis and SICD. Particularly, apoptosis aims to expunge redundant cells, whereas this new mode does not. In contrast to spontaneous tumors, many histologically malignant tumors induced in experimental animals, before they reach an advanced stage, regress after withdrawal of the inducer. This mortal and non-autonomous nature disqualifies these animal lesions as authentic neoplasms and as semi-new organisms but makes them a good tissue type for apoptosis studies. Ruminating over cell death in spontaneous cancers and many inauthentic tumors induced in animals from these new slants makes us realize that “whether cancer cells undergo apoptosis” is not an easy question with a simple answer. Our answer is that cancer cells have an uncharacterized programmed cell death mode, which is not apoptosis.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract