Polyamine oxidases (PAOs) are FAD-dependent enzymes involved in polyamine catabolism. All so far characterized PAOs from monocotyledonous plants, such as the apoplastic maize PAO, oxidize spermine (Spm) and spermidine (Spd) to produce 1,3-diaminopropane, H(2)O(2), and an aminoaldehyde, and are thus considered to be involved in a terminal catabolic pathway. Mammalian PAOs oxidize Spm or Spd (and/or their acetyl derivatives) differently from monocotyledonous PAOs, producing Spd or putrescine, respectively, in addition to H(2)O(2) and an aminoaldehyde, and are therefore involved in a polyamine back-conversion pathway. In Arabidopsis thaliana, five PAOs (AtPAO1-AtPAO5) are present with cytosolic or peroxisomal localization and three of them (the peroxisomal AtPAO2, AtPAO3, and AtPAO4) form a distinct PAO subfamily. Here, a comparative study of the catalytic properties of recombinant AtPAO1, AtPAO2, AtPAO3, and AtPAO4 is presented, which shows that all four enzymes strongly resemble their mammalian counterparts, being able to oxidize the common polyamines Spd and/or Spm through a polyamine back-conversion pathway. The existence of this pathway in Arabidopsis plants is also evidenced in vivo. These enzymes are also able to oxidize the naturally occurring uncommon polyamines norspermine and thermospermine, the latter being involved in important plant developmental processes. Furthermore, data herein reveal some important differences in substrate specificity among the various AtPAOs, which suggest functional diversity inside the AtPAO gene family. These results represent a new starting point for further understanding of the physiological role(s) of the polyamine catabolic pathways in plants.

No abstract

Polyamine oxidases (PAOs) are FAD-dependent enzymes involved in polyamine catabolism. In Arabidopsis thaliana, five PAOs (AtPAO1-5) are present with cytosolic or peroxisomal localization. Here, we present a detailed study of the expression pattern of AtPAO1, AtPAO2, AtPAO3 and AtPAO5 during seedling and flower growth and development through analysis of promoter activity in AtPAO::β-glucuronidase (GUS) transgenic Arabidopsis plants. The results reveal distinct expression patterns for each studied member of the AtPAO gene family. AtPAO1 is mostly expressed in the transition region between the meristematic and the elongation zone of roots and anther tapetum, AtPAO2 in the quiescent center, columella initials and pollen, AtPAO3 in columella, guard cells and pollen, and AtPAO5 in the vascular system of roots and hypocotyls. Furthermore, treatment with the plant hormone abscisic acid induced expression of AtPAO1 in root tip and AtPAO2 in guard cells. These data suggest distinct physiological role(s) for each member of the AtPAO gene family.

The infection of Arabidopsis thaliana plants with avirulent pathogens causes the accumulation of cGMP with a biphasic profile downstream of nitric oxide signalling. However, plant enzymes that modulate cGMP levels have yet to be identified, so we generated transgenic A. thaliana plants expressing the rat soluble guanylate cyclase (GC) to increase genetically the level of cGMP and to study the function of cGMP in plant defence responses. Once confirmed that cGMP levels were higher in the GC transgenic lines than in wild-type controls, the GC transgenic plants were then challenged with bacterial pathogens and their defence responses were characterized. Although local resistance was similar in the GC transgenic and wild-type lines, differences in the redox state suggested potential cross-talk between cGMP and the glutathione redox system. Furthermore, large-scale transcriptomic and proteomic analysis highlighted the significant modulation of both gene expression and protein abundance at the infection site, inhibiting the establishment of systemic acquired resistance. Our data indicate that cGMP plays a key role in local responses controlling the induction of systemic acquired resistance in plants challenged with avirulent pathogens.

This Article contains an error in Figure 3c, where the y-axis ' ASC + DHA (μmol/mg prot)' is incorrectly given as ' ASC + DHA (nmol/mg prot)'. The correct Figure 3 appears below as Figure 1.