Do ethylene response factorS9 and -14 repress PR gene expression in the interaction between Piriformospora indica and Arabidopsis?

Camehl, Iris; Oelmüller, Ralf

doi:10.4161/psb.5.8.12036

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These are ethylene-responsive transcription factor ERF9 (VIT_12s0028g03270) and ethylene-responsive transcription factor ERF105 (VIT_16s0013g00950, VIT_16s0013g00990, VIT_16s0013g01050 and VIT_16s0013g01120). The ERF9 gene was shown to take part in repressing the activation of pathogen related genes in Arabidopsis [ 94 ]. The Arabidopsis homolog of ERF105 encodes a member of the ERF (ethylene response factor) subfamily B-3 of ERF/AP2 transcription factor family that is involved in processes such as regulation of transcription, respiratory burst involved in defense responses, as well as responses to mechanical stimulus and wounding [ 51 , 94 , 95 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcriptome analysis during berry development provides insights into co-regulated and altered gene expression between a seeded wine grape variety and its seedless somatic variant

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSeedless grapes are greatly appreciated for fresh and dry fruit consumption. Parthenocarpy and stenospermocarpy have been described as the main phenomena responsible for seedlessness in Vitis vinifera. However, the key genes underpinning molecular and cellular processes that play a significant role in seed development are not well characterized. To identify important regulators and mechanisms that may be altered in the seedless phenotype, we performed a comprehensive transcriptional analysis to compare the transcriptomes of a popular seeded wine cultivar (wild-type) and its seedless somatic variant (mutant) at three key developmental stages.ResultsThe transcriptomes revealed by Illumina mRNA-Seq technology had approximately 98% of grapevine annotated transcripts and about 80% of them were commonly expressed in the two lines. Differential gene expression analysis revealed a total of 1075 differentially expressed genes (DE) in the pairwise comparison of developmental stages, which included DE genes specific to the wild-type background, DE genes specific to the mutant background and DE genes commonly shared in both backgrounds. The analysis of differential expression patterns and functional category enrichment of wild-type and mutant DE genes highlighted significant coordination and enrichment of pollen and ovule developmental pathways. The expression of some selected DE genes was further confirmed by real-time RT-PCR analysis.ConclusionsThis study represents the most comprehensive attempt to characterize the genetic bases of seed formation in grapevine. With a high throughput method, we have shown that a seeded wine grape and its seedless somatic variant are similar in several biological processes. Nevertheless, we could identify an inventory of genes with altered expression in the mutant compared to the wild-type, which may be responsible for the seedless phenotype. The genes located within known genomic regions regulating seed content may be used for the development of molecular tools to assist table grape breeding. Therefore the data reported here have provided a rich genomic resource for practical use and functional characterization of the genes that potentially underpin seedlessness in grapevine.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-1030) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcriptome analysis during berry development provides insights into co-regulated and altered gene expression between a seeded wine grape variety and its seedless somatic variant

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another set of TFs had previously been linked to growth and the cell cycle, including E2Fc (del Pozo et al, 2006;Berckmans et al, 2011), G-BOX BINDING FACTOR2 (GBF2; Schindler et al, 1992;Menkens and Cashmore, 1994;Terzaghi et al, 1997), GROWTH REGULATING FACTOR (GRF; (Hewezi et al, 2012;Casadevall et al, 2013), and AINTEGUMENTA (ANT; Elliott et al, 1996;Klucher et al, 1996;Krizek et al, 2000;Liu et al, 2000;Mizukami and Fischer, 2000;Horstman et al, 2014). Of these previously characterized TFs, only ERF9 had been previously associated with biotic stress and the resistance to necrotrophic fungi (Camehl and Oelmüller, 2010;Maruyama et al, 2013). This diversity of TF functions suggests that the aliphatic GLS biosynthetic gene promoters can function as a site of integration for a complex set of signals integrating across growth and defense to both abiotic and biotic stresses with respect to GLS levels.…”

Section: Phenotypic Validation Of Gls Regulatory Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoter-Based Integration in Plant Defense Regulation

Li¹,

Gaudinier

Tang

et al. 2014

Plant Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key unanswered question in plant biology is how a plant regulates metabolism to maximize performance across an array of biotic and abiotic environmental stresses. In this study, we addressed the potential breadth of transcriptional regulation that can alter accumulation of the defensive glucosinolate metabolites in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). A systematic yeast one-hybrid study was used to identify hundreds of unique potential regulatory interactions with a nearly complete complement of 21 promoters for the aliphatic glucosinolate pathway. Conducting high-throughput phenotypic validation, we showed that .75% of tested transcription factor (TF) mutants significantly altered the accumulation of the defensive glucosinolates. These glucosinolate phenotypes were conditional upon the environment and tissue type, suggesting that these TFs may allow the plant to tune its defenses to the local environment. Furthermore, the pattern of TF/promoter interactions could partially explain mutant phenotypes. This work shows that defense chemistry within Arabidopsis has a highly intricate transcriptional regulatory system that may allow for the optimization of defense metabolite accumulation across a broad array of environments.An organism's growth and fitness within its environment are largely determined by its ability to efficiently obtain and utilize energy and elements to create biomass to survive. Central to this process is primary metabolism, which determines the use of energy and chemicals from the environment to produce all of the necessary building blocks for cells and the resulting biomass. To optimize fitness, metabolism must be precisely tuned and coordinated to make the most efficient use of available resources. This basic supposition is central to a wide range of biological fields from the study of organismal growth to the study of interactions with the environment, and has led to strong interest in understanding how metabolism is regulated (Karban and Baldwin, 1997;Smith and Stitt, 2007).The last decade has seen an upsurge in studies investigating the transcriptional control over metabolism. This has largely been driven by three key areas of focus: regulation of sugar metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and secondary metabolism (Desvergne et al., 2006). In most organisms, Glc levels cause transcriptional reprograming of sugar metabolism and organismal development often by a mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade (Moore et al., 2003;Rolland et al., 2006). Transcriptional control over amino acid metabolism frequently involves General Control Nonderepressible4, whereas other transcriptional activators play a role in coordinating amino acid metabolism (Hope and Struhl, 1986;Neuwald and Landsman, 1997;Li et al., 2013). Within plants, there are also amino acid pathway-specific transcription factors (TFs) known for a couple of plant amino acid biosynthetic pathways (Celenza et al., 2005;Maruyama-Nakashita et al., 2006). In plants, the transcriptional regulation of secondary metabolites has also received signifi...

show abstract

“…7A). This included ERF6, ERF9, and ERF72, which play key regulatory functions in biotic stress responses (Ogawa et al, 2005;Camehl and Oelmüller, 2010;Moffat et al, 2012;Maruyama et al, 2013;Meng et al, 2013;Chen et al, 2014;Xu et al, 2016), as well as ERF109, which regulates the accumulation of reactive oxygen species following biotic and abiotic stresses stimuli (Matsuo et al, 2015). Remarkably, a substantial number of genes associated with gibberellin, jasmonic acid, and abscisic acid signal transduction networks were directly or indirectly regulated by MYB83 in the syncytium (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative Regulatory Functions of miR858 and MYB83 during Cyst Nematode Parasitism

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ORCID IDs: 0000-0003-4046-1672 (J.H.R.); 0000-0001-5256-8878 (T.H.).MicroRNAs (miRNAs) recently have been established as key regulators of transcriptome reprogramming that define cell function and identity. Nevertheless, the molecular functions of the greatest number of miRNA genes remain to be determined. Here, we report cooperative regulatory functions of miR858 and its MYB83 transcription factor target gene in transcriptome reprogramming during Heterodera cyst nematode parasitism of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Gene expression analyses and promoter-GUS fusion assays documented a role of miR858 in posttranscriptional regulation of MYB83 in the Heterodera schachtii-induced feeding sites, the syncytia. Constitutive overexpression of miR858 interfered with H. schachtii parasitism of Arabidopsis, leading to reduced susceptibility, while reduced miR858 abundance enhanced plant susceptibility. Similarly, MYB83 expression increases were conducive to nematode infection because overexpression of a noncleavable coding sequence of MYB83 significantly increased plant susceptibility, whereas a myb83 mutation rendered the plants less susceptible. In addition, RNA-seq analysis revealed that genes involved in hormone signaling pathways, defense response, glucosinolate biosynthesis, cell wall modification, sugar transport, and transcriptional control are the key etiological factors by which MYB83 facilitates nematode parasitism of Arabidopsis. Furthermore, we discovered that miR858-mediated silencing of MYB83 is tightly regulated through a feedback loop that might contribute to fine-tuning the expression of more than a thousand of MYB83-regulated genes in the H. schachtii-induced syncytium. Together, our results suggest a role of the miR858-MYB83 regulatory system in finely balancing gene expression patterns during H. schachtii parasitism of Arabidopsis to ensure optimal cellular function.

show abstract

Do ethylene response factorS9 and -14 repress PR gene expression in the interaction between Piriformospora indica and Arabidopsis?

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Transcriptome analysis during berry development provides insights into co-regulated and altered gene expression between a seeded wine grape variety and its seedless somatic variant

Transcriptome analysis during berry development provides insights into co-regulated and altered gene expression between a seeded wine grape variety and its seedless somatic variant

Promoter-Based Integration in Plant Defense Regulation

Cooperative Regulatory Functions of miR858 and MYB83 during Cyst Nematode Parasitism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About