Limits...
Evolutionary divergence of the plant elicitor peptides (Peps) and their receptors: interfamily incompatibility of perception but compatibility of downstream signalling.

Lori M, van Verk MC, Hander T, Schatowitz H, Klauser D, Flury P, Gehring CA, Boller T, Bartels S - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Bottom Line: Peps were not recognized by species outside of their plant family of origin, apparently because of a divergence of the Pep sequences.Three family-specific Pep motifs were defined and the integration of such a motif into the Pep sequence of an unrelated Pep enabled its perception.It was concluded that signalling machinery downstream of the PEPRs is highly conserved whereas the leucine-rich repeat domains of the PEPRs co-evolved with the Peps, leading to distinct motifs and, with it, interfamily incompatibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Zürich-Basel Plant Science Center, Department of Environmental Sciences - Botany, University of Basel, Hebelstrasse 1, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Interfamily incompatibility of Peps. Eight to ten leaf discs of indicated plant species were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). Columns represent averages of detected ethylene values of five biological replicates. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. Asterisks indicate significant differences of the labelled column to the control based on t-test results (*P < 0.05; *P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526913&req=5

Figure 2: Interfamily incompatibility of Peps. Eight to ten leaf discs of indicated plant species were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). Columns represent averages of detected ethylene values of five biological replicates. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. Asterisks indicate significant differences of the labelled column to the control based on t-test results (*P < 0.05; *P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001).

Mentions: Given the aforementioned variability of the PROPEP as well as Pep sequences, the question arises, what is the structural basis of Pep perception and specificity. A first report in 2013 indicated that aubergine and soybean do not perceive Peps originating from species outside the Solanaceae and Fabaceae, respectively (Huffaker et al., 2013). However, the authors used only these two species together with the monitoring of volatile production to characterize the perception of Peps and it is currently not certain if volatile emission is a typical response triggered by Pep binding to PEPRs. Here, the production of ethylene was used as a robust and reliable output. This has been used by multiple studies characterizing Pep responses, in conjunction with additional pattern-triggered immunity (PTI)-related responses like the production of reactive oxygen species or the phosphorylation of MAP kinases, to monitor the perception of Peps in a number of different species (Krol et al., 2010; Roux et al., 2011; Bartels et al., 2013; Flury et al., 2013). Two species from each of the distantly related plant families Brassicaceae (A. thaliana and B. rapa), Solanaceae (S. lycopersicum and N. benthamiana), and Poaceae (Z. mays and L. perenne) were chosen, together with a representative peptide (AtPep1, SlPep6, and ZmPep1, respectively), to determine interspecies and interfamily perception of Peps. As shown in Fig. 2, AtPep1 was only perceived by Arabidopsis and its close relative B. rapa, causing a highly significant release of ethylene absent in the more distantly related species. The same was true for the perception of SlPep6 and ZmPep1, which were only perceived by the species belonging to the same plant family (Fig. 2). Taken together, there seems to be an interfamily but not an interspecies incompatibility of Pep perception.


Evolutionary divergence of the plant elicitor peptides (Peps) and their receptors: interfamily incompatibility of perception but compatibility of downstream signalling.

Lori M, van Verk MC, Hander T, Schatowitz H, Klauser D, Flury P, Gehring CA, Boller T, Bartels S - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Interfamily incompatibility of Peps. Eight to ten leaf discs of indicated plant species were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). Columns represent averages of detected ethylene values of five biological replicates. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. Asterisks indicate significant differences of the labelled column to the control based on t-test results (*P < 0.05; *P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526913&req=5

Figure 2: Interfamily incompatibility of Peps. Eight to ten leaf discs of indicated plant species were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). Columns represent averages of detected ethylene values of five biological replicates. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. Asterisks indicate significant differences of the labelled column to the control based on t-test results (*P < 0.05; *P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001).
Mentions: Given the aforementioned variability of the PROPEP as well as Pep sequences, the question arises, what is the structural basis of Pep perception and specificity. A first report in 2013 indicated that aubergine and soybean do not perceive Peps originating from species outside the Solanaceae and Fabaceae, respectively (Huffaker et al., 2013). However, the authors used only these two species together with the monitoring of volatile production to characterize the perception of Peps and it is currently not certain if volatile emission is a typical response triggered by Pep binding to PEPRs. Here, the production of ethylene was used as a robust and reliable output. This has been used by multiple studies characterizing Pep responses, in conjunction with additional pattern-triggered immunity (PTI)-related responses like the production of reactive oxygen species or the phosphorylation of MAP kinases, to monitor the perception of Peps in a number of different species (Krol et al., 2010; Roux et al., 2011; Bartels et al., 2013; Flury et al., 2013). Two species from each of the distantly related plant families Brassicaceae (A. thaliana and B. rapa), Solanaceae (S. lycopersicum and N. benthamiana), and Poaceae (Z. mays and L. perenne) were chosen, together with a representative peptide (AtPep1, SlPep6, and ZmPep1, respectively), to determine interspecies and interfamily perception of Peps. As shown in Fig. 2, AtPep1 was only perceived by Arabidopsis and its close relative B. rapa, causing a highly significant release of ethylene absent in the more distantly related species. The same was true for the perception of SlPep6 and ZmPep1, which were only perceived by the species belonging to the same plant family (Fig. 2). Taken together, there seems to be an interfamily but not an interspecies incompatibility of Pep perception.

Bottom Line: Peps were not recognized by species outside of their plant family of origin, apparently because of a divergence of the Pep sequences.Three family-specific Pep motifs were defined and the integration of such a motif into the Pep sequence of an unrelated Pep enabled its perception.It was concluded that signalling machinery downstream of the PEPRs is highly conserved whereas the leucine-rich repeat domains of the PEPRs co-evolved with the Peps, leading to distinct motifs and, with it, interfamily incompatibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Zürich-Basel Plant Science Center, Department of Environmental Sciences - Botany, University of Basel, Hebelstrasse 1, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus