![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007, American Society of Plant Biologists Genome-Wide Gene Expression Analysis Reveals a Critical Role for CRYPTOCHROME1 in the Response of Arabidopsis to High Irradiance1[W] Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University, S–901 87 Umeå, Sweden *Corresponding author; e-mail asa.strand/at/plantphys.umu.se; fax 46–90–786–6676. 2Present address: Department of Biology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, D–80638 Munich, Germany. Received February 21, 2007; Accepted May 1, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Exposure to high irradiance results in dramatic changes in nuclear gene expression in plants. However, little is known about the mechanisms by which changes in irradiance are sensed and how the information is transduced to the nucleus to initiate the genetic response. To investigate whether the photoreceptors are involved in the response to high irradiance, we analyzed expression of EARLY LIGHT-INDUCIBLE PROTEIN1 (ELIP1), ELIP2, ASCORBATE PEROXIDASE2 (APX2), and LIGHT-HARVESTING CHLOROPHYLL A/B-BINDING PROTEIN2.4 (LHCB2.4) in the phytochrome A (phyA), phyB, cryptochrome1 (cry1), and cry2 photoreceptor mutants and long hypocotyl5 (hy5) and HY5 homolog (hyh) transcription factor mutants. Following exposure to high intensity white light for 3 h (1,000 μmol quanta m−2 s−1) expression of ELIP1/2 and APX2 was strongly induced and LHCB2.4 expression repressed in wild type. The cry1 and hy5 mutants showed specific misregulation of ELIP1/2, and we show that the induction of ELIP1/2 expression is mediated via CRY1 in a blue light intensity-dependent manner. Furthermore, using the Affymetrix Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) 24 K Gene-Chip, we showed that 77 of the high light-responsive genes are regulated via CRY1, and 26 of those genes were also HY5 dependent. As a consequence of the misregulation of these genes, the cry1 mutant displayed a high irradiance-sensitive phenotype with significant photoinactivation of photosystem II, indicated by reduced maximal fluorescence ratio. Thus, we describe a novel function of CRY1 in mediating plant responses to high irradiances that is essential to the induction of photoprotective mechanisms. This indicates that high irradiance can be sensed in a chloroplast-independent manner by a cytosolic/nucleic component. Light is not only the primary energy source for plants but it also provides them with information to modulate developmental processes such as seed germination, seedling establishment, phototropism, chloroplast movement, shade avoidance, circadian rhythms, and flowering time (Fankhauser and Staiger, 2002; Chen et al., 2004). Plants can detect almost all facets of light, including direction, duration, and wavelength using three major classes of photoreceptors: the red/far-red light-absorbing phytochromes, the blue/UV-A light-absorbing cryptochromes and phototropins, and the UV-B-sensing UV-B receptors (Chen et al., 2004). These photoreceptors perceive light signals and initiate intracellular signaling pathways involving proteolytic degradation of signaling components and large reorganization of the transcriptional program to modulate plant growth and development (Chen et al., 2004). In photosynthesis, light energy is absorbed by the light-harvesting antennae and converted into chemical energy by the reaction centers. However, when photon fluence exceeds the photon utilization capacity of the chloroplast, photosynthesis becomes photoinhibited and the reaction centers, particularly PSII, become irreversibly damaged and require repair (Aro et al., 1993a, 1993b). Furthermore, elevated excitation pressure has been demonstrated to increase the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS; Karpinski et al., 1997; Huner et al., 1998; Foyer and Allen, 2003), and the damaging effects of ROS include oxidation of lipids, proteins, and enzymes necessary for proper function of the chloroplast and the cell as a whole (Foyer and Allen, 2003). To protect themselves against extensive damage, plants have the ability to sense when photon fluence exceeds the photon utilization capacity of the chloroplast and communicate this information to stimulate changes in nuclear and chloroplast gene expression. Recent microarray experiments have revealed that expression of a large number of nuclear-encoded genes is affected by exposure to high irradiance (Rossel et al., 2002; Kimura et al., 2003; Richly et al., 2003; Vanderauwera et al., 2005). The mechanisms by which excess irradiance is sensed and how the information is transduced to the nucleus to initiate a genetic response are unknown, but it is well established that the redox state of the plastoquinone electron carrier pool is correlated with the expression of photosynthetic genes encoded in both the chloroplast and the nucleus (Escoubas et al., 1995; Huner et al., 1998; Karpinski et al., 1999; Pfannschmidt et al., 1999, 2001; Pfannschmidt, 2003). Furthermore, a unique light- and redox-controlled protein phosphorylation system has evolved in plant thylakoid membranes where intrinsic protein kinases are activated by light or reducing conditions and subsequently phosphorylate the membrane proteins of PSII and its light-harvesting antenna, light-harvesting complex II (LHCII; Vener et al., 1998). The phosphorylation state of these proteins has been suggested to be involved in the regulation of LHC expression in the nucleus (Rintamaki et al., 1997). In addition, under high irradiance conditions where the equilibrium between different ROS (e.g. hydrogen peroxide and OH˙) production and scavenging is perturbed, subsequent changes in concentrations or rates of ROS production could also be initiators of signaling pathways originating in the chloroplast (Karpinski et al., 2003; Apel and Hirt, 2004). Despite extensive work, the mechanisms by which excess irradiance is sensed and how the information is transduced to the nucleus to initiate a genetic response have remained elusive. Are plastid signals alone responsible for the regulation of nuclear gene expression in response to excess irradiance? The dramatic impact on nuclear gene expression by exposure to high intensity white light suggests that several signaling pathways are involved. Hence, we wanted to test whether components known to control photomorphogenesis such as cryptochromes (CRY1 and 2), phytochromes (PHYA and B), and two of their downstream transcription factors (LONG HYPOCOTYL5 [HY5] and HY5 HOMOLOG [HYH]) also are involved in the response to excess irradiance. We tested the expression of genes encoding EARLY LIGHT-INDUCIBLE PROTEIN1 and 2 (ELIP1 and ELIP2), ASCORBATE PEROXIDASE2 (APX2), and LIGHT-HARVESTING CHLOROPHYLL A/B-BINDING PROTEIN2.4 (LHCB2.4) after high intensity white light treatment in the cry1, cry2, phyA, phyB, phyAphyB, hy5, and hyh mutants. The cry1 and hy5 mutants showed misregulation of ELIP1/2 in response to high intensity white light, and by using the Affymetrix Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) 24 K Gene-Chip representing 24,000 genes, we could demonstrate that a large group of the HL-responsive genes were regulated via a CRY1-mediated response and that 26 of those genes were also HY5 dependent. Our study demonstrates a novel function of CRY1 as a mediator of plant response to changes in irradiance and provides new insight into the high light stress-responsive transcriptome. RESULTS Exposure to High Light Results in Adaptive Changes of the Transcriptome Arabidopsis seedlings were grown for 7 d at 100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 continuous white light (growth light [GL]) and exposed for 3 h to a high intensity white light treatment of 1,000 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 (HL). Exposure to HL results in significant light stress, as shown by the gradual drop in the variable to maximal fluorescence ratio (Fv/Fm) following exposure (Table I). Long-term exposure (12 h) to HL results in a drop in Fv/Fm from 0.83 to 0.59 in wild type, indicative of PSII photoinactivation (Table I). To get a robust gene set responding to these experimental conditions, wild-type samples from three independent biological experiments were hybridized to ATH1 Genome Arrays (Affymetrix). Differentially expressed genes were identified with a combination of logit-t (Lemon et al., 2003) and the Filter on Fold Change tool in GeneSpring 7.3 (Agilent Technologies; Schmid et al., 2003). A total of 992 genes showed more than 2-fold change in expression in response to 3-h HL treatment. Thus, approximately 4% of all genes represented on the chip demonstrated changes in expression in response to HL, 660 genes were 2-fold up-regulated, and 332 were 2-fold down-regulated (Supplemental Table S1).
Under our experimental conditions, ELIP1 and ELIP2 showed a very strong induction of expression, 100-fold and 88-fold, respectively, in response to 3-h HL treatment. As described previously, ELIP1 was more strongly induced by HL compared to ELIP2 (Heddad et al., 2006). APX2 was induced 6-fold and LHCB2.4 was reduced to less than 25% of the control. The ELIP1, ELIP2, APX2, and LHCB2.4 genes all demonstrated a robust response to our HL exposure and they all encode key components of photosynthetic light stress response. In addition, the observed response to HL of these genes is well documented in plants exposed to somewhat different experimental, high irradiance conditions (Adamska et al., 1992; Karpinski et al., 1999; Kimura et al., 2001; Rossel et al., 2002; Vanderauwera et al., 2005; Heddad et al., 2006). Thus, these four genes were selected as marker genes for the HL response in our further analysis using the photoreceptor mutants cry1, cry2, phyA, phyB, and phyAphyB and the transcription factor mutants hy5 and hyh. The Role of Photoreceptors in the Response to High Irradiance To test a possible role of the photoreceptors CRY1, CRY2, PHYA, and PHYB in the response to high irradiance, we analyzed ELIP1/2, APX2, and LHCB2.4 expression in the cryptochrome mutants cry1 and cry2 and the phytochrome mutants phyA, phyB, and phyAphyB. Seven-day-old wild-type and mutant seedlings grown in continuous white light (100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1) were exposed to high irradiance conditions identical to the conditions used for the microarray experiment (HL). In wild type, HL exposure resulted in a strong induction of ELIP1 (55-fold) and ELIP2 (50-fold), respectively (Fig. 1, A and B
The basic Leu zipper transcription factor HY5 is involved in the promotion of light-induced gene expression (Ang et al., 1998; Chattopadhyay et al., 1998). ELIP1 and ELIP2 expression levels were investigated in the hy5 mutant and in a T-DNA knockout line of the HY5 homolog HYH, hyh. In the hy5 mutant, both ELIP1 and ELIP2 induction was suppressed to levels similar to those observed in the cry1 mutant, whereas the hyh mutant demonstrated wild-type induction (Fig. 1, A and B ELIP1/2 Expression Is Strongly Induced by High Intensity Blue Light The mutant analysis demonstrated that the blue light receptor CRY1 is involved in the HL-induced expression of ELIP1 and ELIP2. Consequently, we analyzed the response of ELIP1/2 in different intensities of blue light (400–540 nm). Wild-type seedlings were grown for 7 d in continuous white light of 100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 (10 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 blue light) and were subjected to 3 h of 25, 50, 100, and 200 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 blue light. ELIP1 and ELIP2 induction increased gradually with increasing intensities of blue light (Fig. 2
CRY1 and HY5 Regulate a Large Number of Genes in Response to High Light To determine the identities of the CRY1 and HY5 regulons in response to high irradiance, we performed expression profile analysis of cry1 and hy5 mutants in response to HL to be compared with the expression profile of wild type exposed to HL. In addition, we analyzed the expression profile analysis of wild type in response to BL. Seedlings were grown at 100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 continuous white light and then subjected to BL (wild type) or to HL for 3 h (wild type, cry1, and hy5). Samples from three independent biological experiments were hybridized to ATH1 Genome Arrays (Affymetrix). Wild-type, cry1, and hy5 seedlings grown and kept at 100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 continuous white light (GL) were used as controls. Analysis of the control, GL-grown seedlings demonstrated that 48 genes were differentially expressed in the CRY1-deficient seedlings (Supplemental Table S3), and 290 genes were differently expressed in the HY5-deficient seedlings (Supplemental Table S4) compared to wild type. Expression analysis of the cry1 and hy5 mutants during early light development or following a shift from darkness to light has been performed previously (Ma et al., 2001; Holm et al., 2002; Folta et al., 2003; Jiao et al., 2003; Ohgishi et al., 2004; Ulm et al., 2004). However, a direct comparison between our experiment and published results is difficult due to the usage of very different plant material. The 48 genes differentially expressed in the cry1 mutant compared to wild type under our growth conditions were classified into different categories according to The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR) gene ontology (http://www.arabidopsis.org/tools/bulk/go/index.jsp). A large proportion of those genes encoded proteins with unknown function. Three genes encoding redox-related proteins, peroxidase (At2g41480), an electron carrier (At5g44440), and glutathione dehydrogenase (At1g75270), were identified as genes misregulated in the cry1 mutant. Only three of the 48 genes differently expressed in the cry1 mutant encode transcription factors (At1g75240, At2g33860, and At5g60450; Supplemental Table S3). In the hy5 mutant, as many as 290 genes (Supplemental Table S4) were differentially expressed compared to wild type. Among these 290 genes were 14 transcription factors (At5g25190, At5g39860, At1g52830, At5g53980, At1g21910, At2g14210, At3g15540, At3g58120, At1g35560, AT5g25810, At2g47460, At2g17040, and At5g07690) and HY5 (At5g11260) was one of them (Supplemental Table S4). Several genes encoding enzymes in the phenylpropanoid pathway, CHALCONE SYNTHASE (CHS), FLAVANONE 3-HYDROXYLASE (F3H), and FLAVONOL SYNTHASE1 (FLS1), were differently expressed in hy5 compared to wild type (Supplemental Table S4). ELIP1 was more than 2-fold differentially expressed in hy5 compared to wild type under the control conditions (Supplemental Table S4), and HY5 has previously been shown to be involved in the induction of ELIP1 and establishment of PSII activity during a dark-to-light transition (Harari-Steinberg et al., 2001). The genes that showed a change in expression in the hy5 and cry1 mutants under control conditions were excluded from our further analysis, and we focused only on the genes that changed in wild type after HL treatment (992 genes) and that were at least 2-fold differentially expressed after HL treatment in the cry1 or hy5 mutants compared to wild type. Only four genes were excluded from the HL list due to misregulation under control conditions in the cry1 mutant, and 39 were excluded for the hy5 mutant (Fig. 3A
To understand the CRY1 regulon, we analyzed the expression profile of wild-type seedlings exposed to BL. Using the same cutoffs as for the HL microarrays (Supplemental Table S1), 858 genes changed 2-fold or more after exposure to BL in wild type (Fig. 3B
Expression of HY5 is induced by HL exposure and the response is dependent on CRY1. The genes encoding the transcription factors PAP1 (PRODUCTION OF AN-THOCYANIN PIGMENT1; MYB75 and At1g56650) and PAP2 (MYB90 and At1g66390; Borevitz et al., 2000) involved in the regulation of components in the flavonoid biosynthesis were misregulated in cry1 and in cry1 and hy5, respectively. The genes encoding components catalyzing the entry of metabolites into the phenylpropanoid pathway, such as CHORISMATE MUTASE1 (CM1; At3g29200) and PHE AMMONIA-LYASE1 (PAL1; At2g37040) and PAL2 (At3g53260), were found to be strongly induced by BL in wild type and misregulated in the cry1 and hy5 mutants (Table II; Supplemental Fig. S1). In the middle section of the pathway, expression of genes encoding 4-COUMARATE:CoA LIGASE3 (4CL3; At1g65060) and CHALCONE-FLAVANONE ISOMERASE (CHI; At3g55120) was inhibited in both cry1 and hy5 mutants (Table II; Supplemental Fig. S1). In addition, genes encoding the components catalyzing the final steps, F3H (At3g51240) and FLS (At5g08640), are regulated via CRY1 in response to HL (Table II; Supplemental Fig. S1). Stress-related genes, such as the putative GLUTATHIONE PEROXIDASE7 (GPX7) gene (At4g31870), were strongly up-regulated in wild type in response to HL and BL, and the induction of GPX7 was suppressed in cry1 and hy5. Furthermore, the expression of At1g10370 and At1g02940, both encoding glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), was misregulated in cry1 and hy5, respectively (Table II). Genes encoding further potential components in stress response such as ubiquinone methyltransferase (At2g41040) and PYRIDOXIN BIOSYNTHESIS2 (PDX2; At5g60540) were also misregulated in response to HL in the cry1 mutant (Table II). The microarray analysis also confirmed the suppressed induction of ELIP1/2 in the cry1 and hy5 mutants shown with real-time PCR. However, ELIP1 is not grouped as misregulated in hy5 (Table II) because it was already more than 2-fold differentially expressed in hy5 under the control growth conditions. CRY1 and HY5 Regulate HL-Responsive Genes via G-Box Promoter Elements HY5 has previously been demonstrated to bind a G-box motif (Gao et al., 2004). We examined the 500-bp promoter sequences of all cry1 and/or hy5 HL-misregulated genes (116 in total [77 + 65]) to determine the frequency of occurrence of the G-box consensus (Fig. 3A
The CRY1 and HY5 regulons identified in our array experiments using stringent statistical selection criteria (logit-t P < 0.025 and uniform 2-fold change in expression) were small and therefore prohibitive for further bioinformatic analyses such as in silico mutagenesis and novel cis-element detection. Subsequent cis-regulon analyses of our microarray data therefore used sliding-scale fold-change standards in combination with a novel motif bioactivity-testing protocol (Benedict et al., 2006; Geisler et al., 2006). The algorithm used reduces false positives by correlating the naturally occurring distribution of cis-elements in the Arabidopsis genome with the specific HL or cry1- and hy5-responsive genes (Geisler et al., 2006). Using the new fold-change criteria, the total size of the wild-type HL differentially expressed gene regulon increased to 1,577 genes (820 induced and 757 repressed), the wild-type BL regulon increased to 1,516 genes (634 induced and 882 repressed), the cry1 HL-misregulated gene regulon increased to 371 genes (217 induced and 154 repressed compared to wild type), and the hy5 HL-misregulated gene regulon increased to include 707 genes (348 induced and 359 repressed compared to wild type). Genes containing the classic G box within their 500-bp promoter demonstrated a strong overrepresentation in the wild-type HL- and BL-induced regulons (Table III). The G box was also overrepresented in the regulons of genes repressed in cry1 and hy5 HL-treated seedlings compared to wild type. By performing in silico mutagenesis (Benedict et al., 2006; Geisler et al., 2006) of the classic G-box sequence in wild-type HL, hy5 HL, and cry1 HL backgrounds, we were able to establish that the palindromic G-box consensus could vary at position 1 (or inversely, position 6) without loss of bioactivity (Supplemental Fig. S3). A more general survey of cis-elements previously reported to contribute to light-, phytochrome-, cryptochrome-, and HY5-regulated transcription (PLACE database; http://www.dna.affrc.go.jp/PLACE; Gao et al., 2004) showed that the promoters of genes differentially regulated during BL and HL treatment of wild type, and HL treatment of cry1 and hy5 seedlings, were also enriched for the I-box and myelocytomatosis oncogene (MYC) cis-elements. The respective cis-regulons were significantly more likely to be induced or repressed in response to HL than the general population of genes on the microarray (Table III). In an attempt to identify novel cis-elements, we used the Gibbs sampling-based Inclusive Motif Sampler program (Thijs et al., 2002) to identify 8- to 10-bp consensus sequences overrepresented in the 500-bp promoters of the genes associated with the CRY1- and HY5-mediated transcriptional responses to HL (Supplemental Tables S5 and S6). Excluding hits resembling the G box, the most significant cry1 HL-repressed, regulon-enriched element was GnTCKAG (CryR1; Table III). Bioactivity of CryR1 was indicated by the significant overrepresentation in the promoters of genes induced by HL in wild type. Another element identified in the list of cry1 HL-induced genes was ACATAwCT (CryR2; Table III). Bioactivity of the CryR2 element was also indicated by a significant repression at frequencies greater than that predicted by random chance of the genes where the promoter contains the element following HL and BL treatments in wild type. In addition, in silico mutagenesis of the CryR1 and CryR2 elements demonstrated that the CryR1 element could not vary without losing biological activity, whereas the CryR2 element could vary only at position 2 without loss of bioactivity (Supplemental Fig. S4). Thus, genes containing the CryR1 (GnTCKAG) and the two CryR2 variants (ACATAwCT and ADATAwCT) were all significantly induced and repressed, respectively, in response to HL in wild type (Supplemental Fig. S4). Furthermore, genes containing these elements were repressed or induced in the cry1 mutant compared to wild type (Supplemental Fig. S4). Another element, HycR1 (ACmyACAy), was identified from the cry1 HL-induced gene regulon, and bioactivity was confirmed in cry1 and hy5 HL-treated plants (with significant cis-regulon enrichment in the induced gene groups for these mutants; Table III). The cry1 and hy5 Mutants Demonstrate a Defective Stress Response In wild type, anthocyanin accumulation increased with prolonged exposure to high irradiance, and after 24-h exposure, more than a 3-fold increase was observed (Supplemental Fig. S2). In contrast, anthocyanin contents were unchanged in the cry1 and hy5 mutants after 9-h exposure to HL (Supplemental Fig. S2), supporting the misregulation of genes encoding components of the phenylpropanoid pathway observed in cry1 and hy5 (Supplemental Fig. S1). Reduced anthocyanin levels in CRY1-deficient Arabidopsis seedlings have been shown in continuous blue light (Ahmad et al., 1995; Lin et al., 1996) and in continuous white light (Neff and Chory, 1998). However, our results demonstrate that CRY1 and HY5 also play a key role in the high irradiance-induced accumulation of anthocyanin. HY5 is subject to regulation via COP9 signalosome-mediated degradation in the dark (Hardtke et al., 2000; Osterlund et al., 2000). To verify that HY5 protein itself was stable under HL conditions, western blots were performed, and no reduction in HY5 protein could be detected in HL samples compared to LL samples (Supplemental Fig. S5). Exposure to HL resulted in a gradual photoinactivation of PSII as demonstrated by a drop in Fv/Fm from 0.83 to 0.73 after only 3 h exposure and further down to 0.59 after 12 h in wild type (Table I). Despite the reduced accumulation of anthocyanin in the hy5 mutant, the sensitivity to HL exposure was similar to wild type in the mutant (Table I). In contrast, the cry1 mutant was twice as sensitive to the HL exposure as wild type, shown by a drop in Fv/Fm from 0.83 to 0.32 (Table I). Furthermore, photo bleaching after prolonged (24 h) exposure to HL was clear in the cry1 mutant compared to wild type and the hy5 mutant, both in seedlings and in 5-week-old plants (Fig. 4
DISCUSSION The role of cryptochromes during early light response (hours of light exposure) has been well established, and expression profiles of the Arabidopsis cry1 mutants revealed that a large number of genes are regulated via cryptochromes (Ma et al., 2001; Folta et al., 2003; Jiao et al., 2003; Ohgishi et al., 2004). However, in 7-d-old seedlings grown at 100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1, only 48 genes were differentially regulated in the cry1 mutant compared to wild type (Supplemental Table S3). Exposure of the cry1 mutant to HL revealed that 77 HL-responsive genes were differentially expressed in the mutant compared to wild type exposed to HL (Fig. 3A During exposure to high irradiance, CRY1 promotes the expression of genes associated with stress protection mechanisms such as GPX7, encoding a putative glutathione peroxidase (At4g31870) and the GST ERD9 (At1g10370; Table II). The GST proteins have been shown to respond to various stresses such as HL, cold, and drought (Wagner et al., 2002; Seki et al., 2003; Goulas et al., 2006). After exposure to HL, six different GST genes were induced, and four of them were induced in both HL and high intensity BL (Supplemental Tables S1 and S2). Thus, our results suggest that GSTs play an important role in the response to high light stress. In addition, genes encoding a potential ubiquinone methyltransferase (At2g41040) and PDX2 (At5g60540) are misregulated in response to HL in the cry1 mutant (Table II). The gene At2g41040 has a predicted ubiquinone methyltransferase domain and the encoded protein was recently reported to be found in plastoglobuli (Vidi et al., 2006; Ytterberg et al., 2006) and could potentially be involved in phylloquinone (vitamin K1) biosynthesis. Phylloquinones serve as electron acceptors in the PSI reaction center and are critical for photosynthetic function. PDX2 together with PDX1 form a Gln amidotransferase complex involved in vitamin B6 biosynthesis (Tambasco-Studart et al., 2005). Vitamin B6 has been shown to be a potent antioxidant with the ability to quench ROS such as singlet oxygen and superoxide in human erythrocytes (Jain and Lim, 2001) and fungus (Ehrenshaft et al., 1999) and prevents lipid peroxidation in human erythrocytes (Jain and Lim, 2001). Presumably, vitamin B6 could also protect photosynthetic membranes against lipid peroxidation caused by ROS production during high light stress. Taken together, these data indicate an important role of CRY1 in modulating the response of plants to changes in irradiance leading to oxidative damage. Blue light receptors have been described to regulate a range of different plant responses, including deetiolation, photo entrainment of the circadian clock, phototropic curvature, and chloroplast relocation. In addition to CRY1, three different blue light receptors with known functions have been described in Arabidopsis, CRY2, and the phototropins PHOT1 and PHOT2. The cry2 mutant did not show impaired expression of our HL marker genes after exposure to high irradiance (Fig. 1 Twenty-six genes of the 77 CRY1-dependent genes were also misregulated in response to HL in the hy5 mutant, and 23 of those 26 genes are also regulated by BL in wild type (Fig. 3, A and B
A large number of genes encoding components necessary for the photoprotective response in plants are misregulated in the cry1 mutant. The effect of this limited response was shown in the cry1 mutant with the 60% loss of Fv/Fm after a 12-h high light exposure compared to around 30% loss in hy5 and wild type (Table I). Furthermore, photo bleaching after prolonged (24 h) exposure to high light was exacerbated in the cry1 mutant compared to wild type both in seedlings and in 5-week-old plants (Fig. 4 Light-regulated protein degradation is central to cryptochrome signaling, and CRY1 was found to interact with the E3 ubiquitin ligase CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC1 (COP1; Yang et al., 2001). COP1 is required for light-regulated degradation of several transcription factors involved in light-regulated transcription, including HY5. It was proposed that a light-driven conformational change of the cryptochromes induces a structural modification of COP1 that releases HY5 bound by COP1 in the dark (Cashmore, 2003). Furthermore, a crucial role for COP1 as a positive regulator of the UV-B response was recently demonstrated (Oravecz et al., 2006). It is possible that COP1 is involved in the CRY1-mediated high irradiance response we have reported here, and future work will demonstrate if the CRY1-COP1-HY5 signaling system that is used to regulate photomorphogenesis also plays a role in the response to high irradiances. Two novel cis-elements were enriched in the list of CRY1-dependent HL-responsive genes, CryR1 (GnTCKAG) and CryR2 (ACATAwCT; Table III). CryR1 was significantly enriched in the promoters of genes induced by HL in wild type, suggesting interaction with an activator of gene expression. In contrast, the CryR2 element was significantly enriched in the promoters of genes repressed by HL in wild type, suggesting interaction with a repressor of gene expression (Table III). Thus, we have identified two novel potential CRY1-associated HL response elements, CryR1 and CryR2 (Fig. 5 CONCLUSION Analysis of the high irradiance response of the photoreceptor mutants phyA, phyB, cry1, and cry2 and the transcription factor mutants hy5 and hyh revealed a novel function of CRY1 in mediating plant responses to high irradiances. In addition to a role in photomorphogenesis, CRY1 is essential to the induction of photoprotective mechanisms against high light stress. Thus, we have demonstrated that high irradiance signals can be transduced in a chloroplast-independent manner by cytosolic/nucleic components. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant Material and Growth Conditions Seeds from Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) Columbia-0 (Col-0) and phyA-211, phyB-9, cry1-304 (Ahmad and Cashmore, 1993), cry2-1 (Guo et al., 1998), and hy5 (Maxwell et al., 2003) and hyh (WiscDsLox253D10) were obtained from TAIR. Arabidopsis seeds were sterilized (75% [v/v] ethanol, 0.01% [v/v] Triton X-100) for 15 min and washed three times with 95% (v/v) ethanol before spreading onto 0.27% (w/v) phytoagar plates containing 1× Murashige and Skoog basal salt mixture including vitamins (Duchefa) and 2% Suc. The plates were stratified 2 d in darkness at 4°C and then placed either 7 d into continuous white light (100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1, 23°C or were transferred to soil after 10 d. For HL treatment, seedlings or 4- to 5-week-old plants were transferred for 3 or 12 h to 1,000 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 (metal halide HQI-T 400 W daylight light bulbs, Osram). For BL exposure, the HQI-T 400 W lamps were filtered through color filter number 74, 400 to 540 nm with an absorption maximum of 470 nm (Night Blue; Rosco International). Air temperature was 22°C. Seedlings (at least 10) were harvested and directly frozen in liquid nitrogen. All experiments were performed using at least three biological replicates. Analysis of Anthocyanin Content Relative anthocyanin levels were determined according to Neff and Chory (1998). In brief, 50 to 70 mg seedlings were incubated overnight in 450 μL methanol acidified with 1% HCl. After the addition of 250 μL distilled water, anthocyanins were separated from chlorophylls with 625 μL chloroform. The anthocyanin content was determined by measuring A530 and A657 of the aqueous phase and subtracting 0.25 × A657 from the A530 value. PSII Photochemistry In vivo chlorophyll fluorescence was measured using a modulation fluorometer PAM 101-103 (Heinz Walz) from the adaxial side of excised leaf material. The nomenclature of van Kooten and Snel (1990) was used for the parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence. The maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII photochemistry in the dark-acclimated state was evaluated as Fv/Fm = (Fm − Fo)/Fm (van Kooten and Snel, 1990) after 1 h acclimation to darkness. In both the light- and dark-acclimated states, the minimal fluorescence intensity was measured by analytic modulated light, the maximal fluorescence intensity by saturating pulses (flash light intensity approximately 4,000 μmol photons m−2 s−1) of 0.8 s duration. RNA Isolation For total RNA isolation, the RNeasy Plant Mini kit (Qiagen) was used according to the manufacturer's instructions. The concentration of total RNA was determined with a Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer. cDNA Synthesis and Real-Time PCR cDNA was prepared from 1 μg of total RNA by using the iScript cDNA Synthesis kit (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturer's instructions. cDNA was diluted 10-fold, and 2 μL of the diluted cDNA was used in a 20-μL iQ SYBR Green Supermix reaction (Bio-Rad). All reactions were performed in triplicate. The following primers were used: ELIP1 (At3g22840) forward primer, 5′-CGTTGCCGAAGTCACCAT-3′, reverse primer, 5′-AATCCAACCATCGCTAAACG-3′; ELIP2 (At4g14690) forward primer, 5′-CACCACAAATGCCACAGTCT-3′, reverse primer, 5′-TGCTAGTCTCCCGTTGATCC-3′; LHCB2.4 (At3g27690) forward primer, 5′-GCCATCCAACGATCTCCTC-3′, reverse primer, 5′-TGGTCCGTACCAGATGCTC-3′; cytosolic APX2 (At3g09640) forward primer, 5′-CAAGGAGCTGTTCCCTATTCTG-3′, reverse primer, 5′-GAGGTGGCTCAACTTTGTCC-3′; and ubiquitin-protein ligase-like protein (At4g36800) forward primer, 5′-CTGTTCACGGAACCCAATTC-3′, reverse primer, 5′-GGAAAAAGGTCTGACCGACA-3′. The primers were designed to flank intron sites to make it possible to detect amplification of genomic DNA. Thermal cycling consisted of an initial step at 95°C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of 10 s at 95°C, 30 s at 55°C, and 10 s at 72°C, after which a melting curve was performed. Real-time PCR was monitored by using the MyiQ Single Color Real-Time PCR Detection system (Bio-Rad). The adjustment of baseline and threshold was done according to the manufacturer's instructions. The relative abundance of ELIP1, ELIP2, APX2, and LHCB2.4 transcripts was normalized to the constitutive expression level of ubiquitin-protein ligase-like protein mRNA. The data were analyzed by using LinRegPCR (Ramakers et al., 2003) and according to Pfaffl (2001). Microarray Analysis cRNA Synthesis and Hybridization to Affymetrix GeneChips RNA quality was assessed by agarose gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry. RNA was processed for use on Affymetrix Arabidopsis ATH1 GeneChip arrays, according to the manufacturer's protocol. Five micrograms of total RNA of each of the different pools of Col-0, cry1-4, and hy5-1 seedlings, treated with high light for 0 or 3 h and Col-0 subjected to 3 h high light plus a blue light filter (filter no. 74, Night Blue, 400–540 nm, absorption maximum of 470 nm; Rosco International) was processed and hybridized to a Genechip Arabidopsis ATH1 Genome Array according to the manufacturer's instructions (Affymetrix). In brief, 5 μg of total RNA was used in a reverse transcription reaction (Ambion MessageAmp kit) to generate first-strand cDNA. After second-strand synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was used in an in vitro transcription reaction to generate biotinylated cRNA. The quality of purified and fragmented cRNA was assessed by spectrophotometry and agarose gel electrophoresis. A total of 15 μg of fragmented, biotinylated cRNA was used for hybridization. Hybridization, washing, staining, and scanning procedures were performed as described in the Affymetrix technical manual. A Hybridization Oven 640, a Fluidics Station 450, and a GeneChip Scanner 3000 were used. MIAME information describing the samples, as well as raw microarray data, including Affymetrix.CEL files, have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE7743. Data Analysis Normalization and expression estimate computation were calculated from the .CEL output files from the Affymetrix GCOS 1.1 software using gcRMA implemented in R using standard settings. Statistical testing for differential expression was performed with logit-t analysis (P < 0.025; [21]). The .CHP and logit-t files were loaded into GeneSpring 7.3 (Agilent Technologies). Affymetrix present, marginal, and absent flags were used as an indicator of whether or not a gene was expressed. Genes called absent in both of the compared conditions were removed from subsequent analyses. Bioinformatic Analysis Analyses of the Affymetrix ATH1 microarray data to determine cis-regulon activity, in silico mutagenesis result, and novel cis-element enrichment were performed as previously described (Benedict et al., 2006; Geisler et al., 2006). Briefly, the normalized microarray data (reported as fold-change values for each comparison) were entered into a spreadsheet program so that the expression of each gene (in rows) could quickly be read across to find induction/suppression fold-change values for all treatments (in columns). Fold-change data were then numerically discretized for each gene on the array into the categories of not present (2), nonresponsive (0), induced (+1), or repressed (−1), using the sliding-scale fold-change standard described in Benedict et al. (2006). By downloading the list of all genes containing a cis-element of interest from TAIR (http://www.arabidopsis.org/) and filtering the whole array gene dataset/spreadsheet for only these genes, χ2 comparisons in the induction and repression frequencies for cis-regulons versus the array population as a whole could be performed to assess bioactivity. Novel cis-elements identified as enriched in the gene lists reported in Supplemental Tables S1 to S6 using the Inclusive Motif sampler program (Thijs et al., 2002; http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~thijs/Work/MotifSampler.html) were also tested using the χ2 comparison of cis-regulon induction/repression frequency versus general array population induction/repression frequency. Protein Extraction, Western Blot, and Chlorophyll Extraction Proteins were extracted according to Hurry et al. (2000) and the SDS-PAGE according to Lundmark et al. (2006). The HY5 antibody was provided by Santa Cruz Biotechnology. The chlorophyll was extracted and analyzed according to Porra et al. (1989). Supplemental Data The following materials are available in the online version of this article.
[Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Markus Schmid for help with the microarrays. Dr. Vaughan Hurry is acknowledged for critically reading the manuscript. Notes 1This work was supported by the Swedish Research Foundation and Foundation for Strategic Research (INGVAR grant to Å.S.). The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Åsa Strand (asa.strand/at/plantphys.umu.se). [W]The online version of this article contains Web-only data. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Planta. 2002 Nov; 216(1):1-16.
[Planta. 2002]Annu Rev Genet. 2004; 38():87-117.
[Annu Rev Genet. 2004]Plant Physiol. 1993 Nov; 103(3):835-843.
[Plant Physiol. 1993]Biochim Biophys Acta. 1993 Jul 5; 1143(2):113-34.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 1993]Plant Cell. 1997 Apr; 9(4):627-40.
[Plant Cell. 1997]Antioxid Redox Signal. 2003 Feb; 5(1):3-5.
[Antioxid Redox Signal. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2002 Nov; 130(3):1109-20.
[Plant Physiol. 2002]Genome Biol. 2003; 4(10):R67.
[Genome Biol. 2003]Development. 2003 Dec; 130(24):6001-12.
[Development. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2006 Sep; 142(1):75-87.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Apr 1; 89(7):2610-3.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992]Science. 1999 Apr 23; 284(5414):654-7.
[Science. 1999]Genes Cells. 2001 Jul; 6(7):607-17.
[Genes Cells. 2001]Plant Physiol. 2002 Nov; 130(3):1109-20.
[Plant Physiol. 2002]Mol Cell. 1998 Jan; 1(2):213-22.
[Mol Cell. 1998]Plant Cell. 1998 May; 10(5):673-83.
[Plant Cell. 1998]Plant Physiol. 1995 Apr; 107(4):1167-1175.
[Plant Physiol. 1995]Plant Cell. 2001 Dec; 13(12):2589-607.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Genes Dev. 2002 May 15; 16(10):1247-59.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Plant J. 2003 Oct; 36(2):203-14.
[Plant J. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2003 Dec; 133(4):1480-93.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 24; 101(8):2223-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Plant Physiol. 2001 Nov; 127(3):986-97.
[Plant Physiol. 2001]Plant Cell. 2000 Dec; 12(12):2383-2394.
[Plant Cell. 2000]Plant Mol Biol. 2004 Mar; 54(5):683-99.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2004]Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug; 141(4):1219-32.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Plant J. 2006 Feb; 45(3):384-98.
[Plant J. 2006]Plant Mol Biol. 2004 Mar; 54(5):683-99.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2004]J Comput Biol. 2002; 9(2):447-64.
[J Comput Biol. 2002]Plant J. 1995 Nov; 8(5):653-8.
[Plant J. 1995]Plant J. 1996 Nov; 10(5):893-902.
[Plant J. 1996]Plant Physiol. 1998 Sep; 118(1):27-35.
[Plant Physiol. 1998]EMBO J. 2000 Sep 15; 19(18):4997-5006.
[EMBO J. 2000]Nature. 2000 May 25; 405(6785):462-6.
[Nature. 2000]Plant Cell. 2001 Dec; 13(12):2589-607.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Plant J. 2003 Oct; 36(2):203-14.
[Plant J. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2003 Dec; 133(4):1480-93.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 24; 101(8):2223-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Mol Cell. 1998 Jun; 1(7):939-48.
[Mol Cell. 1998]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jul; 49(5):515-32.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2003 Apr; 14(2):194-9.
[Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2003]Plant J. 2006 Sep; 47(5):720-34.
[Plant J. 2006]J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 21; 281(16):11225-34.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]Plant Physiol. 2006 Mar; 140(3):984-97.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Plant Cell. 1998 Feb; 10(2):197-207.
[Plant Cell. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 3; 95(5):2686-90.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]Nature. 2002 Jun 13; 417(6890):763-7.
[Nature. 2002]Plant Cell. 2003 Oct; 15(10):2421-9.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Nature. 2001 Apr 19; 410(6831):952-4.
[Nature. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jul 31; 98(16):9437-42.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001]Plant Cell. 1996 Dec; 8(12):2347-57.
[Plant Cell. 1996]Plant Physiol. 2001 Nov; 127(3):986-97.
[Plant Physiol. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 3; 101(5):1397-402.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 13; 102(50):18225-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Planta. 1999 Oct; 209(4):517-27.
[Planta. 1999]Planta. 2000 Nov; 211(6):807-15.
[Planta. 2000]Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug; 141(4):1264-73.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Plant Cell. 2001 Dec; 13(12):2573-87.
[Plant Cell. 2001]Cell. 2003 Sep 5; 114(5):537-43.
[Cell. 2003]Plant Cell. 2006 Aug; 18(8):1975-90.
[Plant Cell. 2006]Nature. 1993 Nov 11; 366(6451):162-6.
[Nature. 1993]Science. 1998 Feb 27; 279(5355):1360-3.
[Science. 1998]Plant Physiol. 2003 Dec; 133(4):1565-77.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Plant Physiol. 1998 Sep; 118(1):27-35.
[Plant Physiol. 1998]Neurosci Lett. 2003 Mar 13; 339(1):62-6.
[Neurosci Lett. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 May 1; 29(9):e45.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug; 141(4):1219-32.
[Plant Physiol. 2006]Plant J. 2006 Feb; 45(3):384-98.
[Plant J. 2006]J Comput Biol. 2002; 9(2):447-64.
[J Comput Biol. 2002]Plant J. 2000 Nov; 24(3):383-96.
[Plant J. 2000]Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Sep; 29(9):1703-14.
[Plant Cell Environ. 2006]