Differential effectiveness of microbially induced resistance against herbivorous insects in Arabidopsis.

Rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance (ISR) and pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR) have a broad, yet partly distinct, range of effectiveness against pathogenic microorganisms. Here, we investigated the effectiveness of ISR and SAR in Arabidopsis against the tissue-chewing insects Pieris rapae and Spodoptera exigua. Resistance against insects consists of direct defense, such as the production of toxins and feeding deterrents and indirect defense such as the production of plant volatiles that attract carnivorous enemies of the herbivores. Wind-tunnel experiments revealed that ISR and SAR did not affect herbivore-induced attraction of the parasitic wasp Cotesia rubecula (indirect defense). By contrast, ISR and SAR significantly reduced growth and development of the generalist herbivore S. exigua, although not that of the specialist P. rapae. This enhanced direct defense against S. exigua was associated with potentiated expression of the defense-related genes PDF1.2 and HEL. Expression profiling using a dedicated cDNA microarray revealed four additional, differentially primed genes in microbially induced S. exigua-challenged plants, three of which encode a lipid-transfer protein. Together, these results indicate that microbially induced plants are differentially primed for enhanced insect-responsive gene expression that is associated with increased direct defense against the generalist S. exigua but not against the specialist P. rapae.

Plants under attack: multiple interactions with insects and microbes.

To defend themselves, plants activate inducible defense mechanisms that are effective against the invader that is encountered. There is partial overlap in the defense signaling pathways that are induced by insect herbivores and microbial pathogens that may result in cross-resistance. We have previously shown that infestation by tissue-chewing Pieris rapae larvae induces resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana against subsequent attack by the microbial pathogens Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst), Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciae (Xca) and turnip crinkle virus (TCV). Phloem-feeding aphids, such as the generalist Myzus persicae, have a stealthy feeding strategy that is very different from chewing by lepidopteran larvae. Yet, M. persicae feeding results in a large transcriptomic change. Here, we report on the effectiveness of the defense response that is triggered by M. persicae infestation, as well as the sensitivity of M. persicae to microbially-induced resistance. M. persicae reproduction was not affected by prior conspecific feeding, nor was aphid-induced resistance effective against subsequent attack by Pst, Xca or TCV. Moreover, induced systemic resistance (ISR) triggered by beneficial Pseudomonas fluorescens rhizobacteria was not effective against M. persicae. However, systemic acquired resistance (SAR) induced by prior infection with avirulent Pst was associated with reduced aphid reproduction. These data provide insight into the effectiveness of pathogen and insect resistance and highlight the complexity of the defense responses that are triggered during multitrophic plant-attacker interactions.

Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack.

Plant defenses against pathogens and insects are regulated differentially by cross-communicating signaling pathways in which salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) play key roles. To understand how plants integrate pathogen- and insect-induced signals into specific defense responses, we monitored the dynamics of SA, JA, and ET signaling in Arabidopsis after attack by a set of microbial pathogens and herbivorous insects with different modes of attack. Arabidopsis plants were exposed to a pathogenic leaf bacterium (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), a pathogenic leaf fungus (Alternaria brassicicola), tissue-chewing caterpillars (Pieris rapae), cell-content-feeding thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), or phloem-feeding aphids (Myzus persicae). Monitoring the signal signature in each plant-attacker combination showed that the kinetics of SA, JA, and ET production varies greatly in both quantity and timing. Analysis of global gene expression profiles demonstrated that the signal signature characteristic of each Arabidopsis-attacker combination is orchestrated into a surprisingly complex set of transcriptional alterations in which, in all cases, stress-related genes are overrepresented. Comparison of the transcript profiles revealed that consistent changes induced by pathogens and insects with very different modes of attack can show considerable overlap. Of all consistent changes induced by A. brassicicola, Pieris rapae, and E occidentalis, more than 50% also were induced consistently by P. syringae. Notably, although these four attackers all stimulated JA biosynthesis, the majority of the changes in JA-responsive gene expression were attacker specific. All together, our study shows that SA, JA, and ET play a primary role in the orchestration of the plant's defense response, but other regulatory mechanisms, such as pathway cross-talk or additional attacker-induced signals, eventually shape the highly complex attacker-specific defense response.

The degradation of HFR1, a putative bHLH class transcription factor involved in light signaling, is regulated by phosphorylation and requires COP1.

All developmental transitions throughout the life cycle of a plant are influenced by light. In Arabidopsis, multiple photoreceptors including the UV-A/blue-sensing cryptochromes (cry1-2) and the red/far-red responsive phytochromes (phyA-E) monitor the ambient light conditions. Light-regulated protein stability is a major control point of photomorphogenesis. The ubiquitin E3 ligase COP1 (constitutively photomorphogenic 1) regulates the stability of several light-signaling components. HFR1 (long hypocotyl in far-red light) is a putative transcription factor with a bHLH domain acting downstream of both phyA and the cryptochromes. HFR1 is closely related to PIF1, PIF3, and PIF4 (phytochrome interacting factor 1, 3 and 4), but in contrast to the latter three, there is no evidence for a direct interaction between HFR1 and the phytochromes. Here, we show that the protein abundance of HFR1 is tightly controlled by light. HFR1 is an unstable phosphoprotein, particularly in the dark. The proteasome and COP1 are required in vivo to degrade phosphorylated HFR1. In addition, HFR1 can interact with COP1, consistent with the idea of COP1 directly mediating HFR1 degradation. We identify a domain, conserved among several bHLH class proteins involved in light signaling , as a determinant of HFR1 stability. Our physiological experiments indicate that the control of HFR1 protein abundance is important for a normal de-etiolation response.