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

Validation of family-specific Pep motifs with mutated Peps. Ten leaf discs of indicated plant species (with species in A representing Brassicaceae, in B Solanaceae, and in C Poaceae) were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). BRA indicates the introduction of the Brassicaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (A), SOL indicates the introduction of the Solanaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (B), and MONO marks mutated peptides containing the Poaceae (monocot)-specific motif in their sequence (C). 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 4: Validation of family-specific Pep motifs with mutated Peps. Ten leaf discs of indicated plant species (with species in A representing Brassicaceae, in B Solanaceae, and in C Poaceae) were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). BRA indicates the introduction of the Brassicaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (A), SOL indicates the introduction of the Solanaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (B), and MONO marks mutated peptides containing the Poaceae (monocot)-specific motif in their sequence (C). 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: Are family-specific Pep-motifs sufficient for Pep recognition? In order to address this question, sequences of AtPep1, SlPep6, and ZmPep1 were mutated to introduce the family-specific motif of non-origin plant families, resulting in AtPep1-SOL and AtPep1-MONO [containing the motifs of the Solanaceae (SOL) and the Poaceae (MONO, monocots)], SlPep6-BRA and SlPep6-MONO [containing the Brassicaceae (BRA) and Poaceae motifs, respectively], and ZmPep1-BRA and ZmPep1-SOL (Supplementary Table S1). As demonstrated by the ethylene production of leaf tissue taken from the Brassicaceae representatives (Arabidopsis and B. rapa), these modified peptides containing the BRA-Pep motifs were recognized. Likewise, the Solanaceae and Poaceae species responded to the SOL and the MONO peptides, respectively (Fig. 4). However, despite a significant response to all peptides, the ZmPep1-BRA and ZmPep1-SOL peptides did not trigger a level of ethylene production comparable to that triggered by perception of the species-specific control peptide, indicating that additional residues outside the motifs contribute to the Pep-PEPR interaction.


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)

Validation of family-specific Pep motifs with mutated Peps. Ten leaf discs of indicated plant species (with species in A representing Brassicaceae, in B Solanaceae, and in C Poaceae) were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). BRA indicates the introduction of the Brassicaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (A), SOL indicates the introduction of the Solanaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (B), and MONO marks mutated peptides containing the Poaceae (monocot)-specific motif in their sequence (C). 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 4: Validation of family-specific Pep motifs with mutated Peps. Ten leaf discs of indicated plant species (with species in A representing Brassicaceae, in B Solanaceae, and in C Poaceae) were treated for 5h with 1 µM of the indicated elicitor peptides or without any peptide (control). BRA indicates the introduction of the Brassicaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (A), SOL indicates the introduction of the Solanaceae-specific motif into the Pep sequence (B), and MONO marks mutated peptides containing the Poaceae (monocot)-specific motif in their sequence (C). 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: Are family-specific Pep-motifs sufficient for Pep recognition? In order to address this question, sequences of AtPep1, SlPep6, and ZmPep1 were mutated to introduce the family-specific motif of non-origin plant families, resulting in AtPep1-SOL and AtPep1-MONO [containing the motifs of the Solanaceae (SOL) and the Poaceae (MONO, monocots)], SlPep6-BRA and SlPep6-MONO [containing the Brassicaceae (BRA) and Poaceae motifs, respectively], and ZmPep1-BRA and ZmPep1-SOL (Supplementary Table S1). As demonstrated by the ethylene production of leaf tissue taken from the Brassicaceae representatives (Arabidopsis and B. rapa), these modified peptides containing the BRA-Pep motifs were recognized. Likewise, the Solanaceae and Poaceae species responded to the SOL and the MONO peptides, respectively (Fig. 4). However, despite a significant response to all peptides, the ZmPep1-BRA and ZmPep1-SOL peptides did not trigger a level of ethylene production comparable to that triggered by perception of the species-specific control peptide, indicating that additional residues outside the motifs contribute to the Pep-PEPR interaction.

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