Next Article in Journal
Evogliptin Directly Inhibits Inflammatory and Fibrotic Signaling in Isolated Liver Cells
Previous Article in Journal
TRAIL-R Deficient Mice Are Protected from Neurotoxic Effects of Amyloid-β
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 23
Issue 19
10.3390/ijms231911631
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The TGA Transcription Factors from Clade II Negatively Regulate the Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Arabidopsis

by
Alejandro Fonseca
1,2,
Tomás Urzúa
1,3,
Joanna Jelenska
4,
Christopher Sbarbaro
5,
Aldo Seguel
6,
Yorley Duarte
5,
Jean T. Greenberg
4,
Loreto Holuigue
6,
Francisca Blanco-Herrera
1,3,7,8 and
Ariel Herrera-Vásquez
1,3,7,*
1
Millennium Science Initiative Program (ANID), Millennium Institute for Integrative Biology (iBio), Santiago 8331150, Chile
2
Department of Plant Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
3
Millennium Science Initiative Program (ANID), Millennium Nucleus for the Development of Super Adaptable Plants (MN-SAP), Santiago 8331150, Chile
4
Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
5
Center for Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 8370146, Chile
6
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
7
Centro de Biotecnología Vegetal, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 8370146, Chile
8
Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Santiago 8320000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(19), 11631; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911631
Submission received: 4 September 2022 / Revised: 27 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 1 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Salicylic Acid Signalling in Plants 2022)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salicylic acid (SA) is a hormone that modulates plant defenses by inducing changes in gene expression. The mechanisms that control SA accumulation are essential for understanding the defensive process. TGA transcription factors from clade II in Arabidopsis, which include the proteins TGA2, TGA5, and TGA6, are known to be key positive mediators for the transcription of genes such as PR-1 that are induced by SA application. However, unexpectedly, stress conditions that induce SA accumulation, such as infection with the avirulent pathogen P. syringae DC3000/AvrRPM1 and UV-C irradiation, result in enhanced PR-1 induction in plants lacking the clade II TGAs (tga256 plants). Increased PR-1 induction was accompanied by enhanced isochorismate synthase-dependent SA production as well as the upregulation of several genes involved in the hormone’s accumulation. In response to avirulent P. syringae, PR-1 was previously shown to be controlled by both SA-dependent and -independent pathways. Therefore, the enhanced induction of PR-1 (and other defense genes) and accumulation of SA in the tga256 mutant plants is consistent with the clade II TGA factors providing negative feedback regulation of the SA-dependent and/or -independent pathways. Together, our results indicate that the TGA transcription factors from clade II negatively control SA accumulation under stress conditions that induce the hormone production. Our study describes a mechanism involving old actors playing new roles in regulating SA homeostasis under stress.

1. Introduction

Salicylic acid (SA) is a plant hormone present in the whole characterized plant kingdom. It is involved in the defense response against pathogens. SA accumulates when plant cells detect a microorganism by recognizing a Pathogen-Associated Molecular Pattern (PAMP) by a surface receptor, inducing a defense response called PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI). Additionally, plants have evolved to recognize virulence effectors produced by pathogens, which are translocated into the plant cell or produced there. This recognition induces the defense response called effector-triggered immunity (ETI). Both PTI and ETI generate and require SA accumulation; thus, plants defective in the SA accumulation are deficient in the defense response against biotrophic and many hemi-biotrophic pathogens (reviewed in [1]).
SA has been associated with developmental processes and can influence the tradeoff between plant growth and defense [2,3,4]. For instance, the hyper-accumulation of the hormone, coupled with increased defense, generates dwarf phenotypes [5,6,7,8]. Additionally, exogenous SA applications can modulate root architecture through modulation of the distribution of auxin [9,10] and impact pollen tube elongation [11]. Due to the participation of SA in this delicate countervailing between defense and developmental processes, the control of production and bioavailability of the hormone may be subject to negative as well as positive regulation.
In plants, SA is produced from chorismate in plastids through two different pathways that start in chloroplasts: the phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) pathway and the isochorismate (IC) pathway. In the PAL pathway, chorismate is converted into subsequent steps to phenylalanine, trans-cinnamic acid, and benzoic acid, and then into SA (reviewed on [12]). In the IC pathway, chorismate is converted into IC by the isochorismate synthase enzyme [13,14]. The IC is then exported from chloroplasts to the cytosol by the MATE transporter EDS5 [15], and it is transformed into isochorismate-9-glutamate (IC-9-Glu) by the PBS3 protein (and possibly other GH3 family proteins) in the cytoplasm [16]. Subsequently, IC-9-Glu is spontaneously converted into SA with the contribution of the EPS1 protein [16]. The IC pathway is the primary source of SA production in response to pathogens [14,17].
TGA transcription factors are a family of proteins involved in responses to stress, nutrition, and developmental processes. The Arabidopsis genome harbors 10 genes that code for TGA members. They are classified into five clades according to their sequence similarity [18]. Clades I to III have been associated with the defense response against pathogens. TGA3 from clade III participates in the activation of SA-dependent gene expression [19], and also defense triggered by cytokinins [20]. TGA1 and TGA4 from clade I participate in the root response to nitrate [21], but also function as positive regulators of the defense response [19,22]. They do this by controlling SA accumulation through the transcriptional control of CBP60g and SARD1 [23], which in turn control the expression of the ISOCHORISMATE SYNTHASE 1 (ICS1) gene [24]. TGA2, TGA5, and TGA6, which comprise clade II, are essential components in the control of redox homeostasis in response to stress and detoxification in response to oxylipins and xenobiotics [25,26,27,28]. In the defense response against pathogens, the TGA proteins from clade II play an essential role in the long-lasting and broad-spectrum whole plant defense process called systemic acquired resistance (SAR) that is induced after a local infection with pathogens that are typically avirulent [29,30]. These TGA proteins are also central players in the expression of genes downstream of SA production [31].
Here we describe a new function of the TGA transcription factors belonging to clade II. They act as negative regulators of SA biosynthesis in stress conditions that induce SA accumulation in Arabidopsis plants. This discovery provides a new understanding of the regulation of SA homeostasis.

2. Results

2.1. Treatments Known to Induce SA Accumulation in Wild-Type Upregulate PR-1 in tga256 Mutant Plants

In Arabidopsis, the expression of the defense gene PR-1 depends on members of the TGA transcription factors’ family [19]. In the tga256 triple mutant plant lacking the TGA clade II, PR-1 expression is highly reduced in response to SA treatments compared to WT plants (Figure 1a). This result supports the dependency of TGA transcription factors from clade II for the induction of PR-1 in response to isonicotinic acid (INA, a functional analog of SA) treatment, as previously reported by [29]. In contrast, the tga256 mutant showed higher levels of PR-1 than were seen in WT in response to UV-C or P. syringae pv tomato (Pst) DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Figure 1b,c). This was surprising since both treatments are known to induce SA accumulation in WT [32,33]. The tga2-1/tga5-1 double mutant did not show statistically significant differences in PR-1 expression compared to the control genotype (Figure S1). We also tested PR-1 expression in plants lacking TGA transcription factors from clade I (TGA1 and TGA4), described as positive regulators of SA accumulation [23]. These plants showed PR-1 expression that was lower than that seen in WT plants in response to either UV-C treatment or Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 inoculation (Figure 1b,c).
To further explore the roles of the clade II TGA factors, we evaluated PR-1 expression in the tga256 mutant plants during the PTI and effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS) triggered by a Pseudomonas strain able to produce disease in the host. The PTI response was induced by the P. syringae pv tomato DC3000 hrcC− strain that does not secrete virulence effectors [34], while the ETS response was triggered by the virulent Pseudomonas strain Pst DC3000 [35]. We measured PR-1 transcript 24 h after inoculation, and we found that Pst DC3000 and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 strains induced the PR-1 transcript accumulation compared to the mock condition on WT plants (p = 0.0093 and p = 0.0045, respectively). Nevertheless, we only found a statistically significant difference between WT and tga256 plants in the response (ETI) triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Figure 2). Even though we observed a slight difference in the PR-1 transcript in the response triggered by Pst hrcC− between the analyzed genotypes, it was not statistically significant (p = 0.297, Figure 2).
These results show multiple roles for clade II transcription factors: they are needed for the full PR-1 response to exogenous SA, but they somewhat suppress the PR-1 response to UV-C or, specifically, the ETI-inducing Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 strain, as indicated by the increased expression of PR-1 in the triple mutant tga256 plants.

2.2. TGA2 Negatively Regulates the Expression of Isochorismate Pathway-Related Genes upon Stress

As PR-1 induction is often associated with SA accumulation [36], we evaluated the possible involvement of the TGA factors from clade II on the SA biosynthetic pathway. To assess this, we evaluated the expression of biosynthetic and regulatory genes involved in the IC pathway in plants irradiated with UV-C (Figure 3) and in the ETI response triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Figure 4). The genes ENHANCED DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY-1 (EDS1) and PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT-4 (PAD4), which constitute a crucial regulatory node in the defense response [37], were both significantly induced 1 h after UV-C treatment in WT plants relative to the control condition (Figure 3a,b). In the tga256 mutant plants, the induction of EDS1 was similar to WT plants (Figure 3a), whereas the PAD4 gene was significantly increased at 1, 2, and 5 h post treatment (hpt, Figure 2b). Expression of the transcription factors SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED DEFENSE DEFICIENT-1 (SARD1) and CALMODULIN BINDING PROTEIN-60g (CBP60g), which transcriptionally control the expression of the ISOCHORISMATE SYNTHASE-1 (ICS1) gene [24], showed a maximal induction one hour after the UV-C treatment in WT plants (Figure 2c,d). In the tga256 mutant plant, the expression of SARD1 was significantly increased compared to WT plants at multiple early time points (Figure 3d). The expression of CBP60g was not affected in the tga256 mutant compared to WT plants (Figure 3c). ICS1 maximal induction was reached 2 h after the UV-C treatment (Figure 3e). This is consistent with the induction kinetics of SARD1 and CBP60g, which show peaks 1 h before that of the ICS1 transcript (Figure 3c,d). ICS1 expression was significantly increased in the tga256 mutant compared to WT plants at 2 hpt, with an approximately 2.9-fold increase. The expression of the IC transporter ENHANCED DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY-5 (EDS5) [15] showed a maximal induction 2 hpt in WT plants (Figure 3f). This induction was significantly increased in the tga256 mutant (Figure 3f). The PBS3 gene that participates in the conversion from isochorismate to SA [16], was hyper-induced in the tga256 mutants compared to the WT plants at 5 and 24 hpt (Figure 3g). Consistent with the results shown in Figure 1b, the expression of PR-1 was increased in the tga256 compared to WT plants at 24 hpt (Figure 3h). In summary, the transcripts of the PAD4, SARD1, ICS1, EDS5, PBS3, and PR-1 genes showed an increased expression in the tga256 mutant plants compared to the WT plants under UV-C treatment.
We evaluated expression of the same suite of genes in plants challenged with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 to induce the ETI response. The treatment increased the transcript level of the genes PAD4, SARD1, CBP60g, EDS5, ICS1, and PSB3 in WT plants after 24 h post infection (hpi, p < 0.05, Figure 4). Although EDS1 gene seemed to be upregulated in response to the infection after 24 hpi, statistical analysis showed no significant differences compared with the control condition (Figure 4a, p > 0.05, 2-way ANOVA). The comparison of gene expression between genotypes showed that the tga256 mutant plants displayed an increased transcript accumulation at 24 hpi in all genes induced by the treatment (Figure 4b–h). No differences were detected in the expression of EDS1 (Figure 4a).
To determine whether the altered expression profiles observed in the tga256 mutant were due to the lack of function of the TGA clade II, we used a rescued transgenic line that expresses V5 epitope-tagged TGA2 (TGA2-V5) controlled by a constitutive promoter (tga256/TGA2-V5 [28]). We evaluated the genes involved in SA biosynthesis that were differentially regulated in the tga256 mutant plants in response to the treatments (Figure 5). We made measurements at times in which WT and tga256 genotypes displayed statistically significant differences in the UV-C and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments (from Figure 4 and Figure 5). The expression of PAD4, SARD1, EDS5, PBS3, and PR-1 genes was fully restored to WT levels in the tga256/TGA2-V5 complemented line in UV-C treatment (Figure 5a). TGA2-V5 expression in the tga256 background partially rescued the gene expression of ICS1 (p = 0.0257 comparing WT and tga256/TGA2-V5, and p < 0.0001 comparing tga256 and the rescued line according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test). Additionally, the tga256/TGA2-V5 rescued line showed restored expression of all tested genes to levels similar to WT plants in the inoculation with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Figure 5b). These experiments show that TGA2 acts as a negative regulator of the expression of genes involved in SA signaling as well as SA accumulation in response to UV-C treatments and ETI triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1.

2.3. TGA2 Controls the Accumulation of ICS1 and SA under Stress

In Arabidopsis, the isochorismate (IC) pathway is responsible for 90% of the SA produced after UV-C irradiation [38] and in the response against pathogens [14]. The first and rate-limiting step in the IC pathway is the conversion of chorismate to isochorismate, catalyzed by the ICS1 enzyme. To test the role of the clade II TGA factors in impacting the IC pathway, we evaluated ICS1 accumulation after UV-C treatment and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 inoculation using an antibody that specifically recognizes the ICS1 protein [39].
WT plants showed a modest increase in ICS1 protein at 8 h after the UV-C treatment, whereas the tga256 mutants showed a higher accumulation of ICS1 upon stress. This difference reached its maximal effect 8 h after the UV-C treatment (Figure 6a, left panel). Consistent with the transcript evaluation (Figure 1b), the accumulation of the PR-1 protein was increased in the tga256 mutant plants compared to the WT starting at 8 hpt, reaching its maximal accumulation at 24 hpt (Figure 6a, left panel).
We detected the ICS1 protein at 24 hpi with the Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 strain in WT plants. Consistent with the result in response to UV-C, the tga256 mutant plants displayed increased ICS1 accumulation compared to WT plants at 24 hpi (Figure 6a, right panel). PR-1 protein levels were also higher in the tga256 mutant plants compared to the WT in the ETI response triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 at 24 and 30 hpi. The dynamics of ICS1 and PR-1 protein accumulation correlated very well with transcript induction patterns (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and were slower during Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 infection compared to UV-C treatment.
To test whether higher ICS1 was associated with higher SA accumulation, we evaluated SA accumulation in the plants treated with UV-C and inoculated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1. In both treatments, we observed an accumulation of the hormone in WT plants during the evaluated time-course (8 and 24 after in UV-C and 24 and 30 after Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 inoculation). SA accumulation was higher in tga256 plants compared to the WT. Production of the TGA2-V5 protein in the tga256 background (tga256/TGA2-V5) reversed the phenotype found in the tga256 mutant plant in both UV-C and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments. These experiments indicate that TGA2 acts as a negative regulator of SA accumulation through the activation of the IC pathway.
In order to evaluate whether the hyper-accumulation of SA in the tga256 mutant plant requires the IC pathway, we generated the tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1/sid2-2 (tga256/sid2) mutant plant by crossing the tga256 mutant with the sid2-2 mutant that lacks the ICS1 gene (Figure S2). The quadruple mutant did not show the SA increase displayed in the tga256 mutant plant after the UV-C treatment or Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1. This indicates that the IC pathway is the primary source of the SA hyper-accumulation in the tga256 mutant plant.

2.4. NPR1 Does Not Affect the Expression of IC Genes during Stress

Together with the TGA transcription factors, NPR1 co-regulates gene expression downstream of SA accumulation and is one of the SA receptors [40,41,42]. To evaluate the participation of NPR1 in the repression of the IC pathway during stress, we measured the SARD1 and ICS1 transcript levels in npr1 mutant plants. Unlike the tga256 plants, the transcripts of these genes were not upregulated in the npr1 mutant compared to the WT plants in response to UV-C (Figure 7). Additionally, we evaluated the PR-1 transcript, whose expression is activated by the NPR1 protein in response to SA [43]. As expected, we observed that the PR-1 expression was not activated in the npr1 mutant compared to the WT plants upon UV-C irradiation (Figure S3).

3. Discussion

The transcription factors belonging to clade II of the TGA family in Arabidopsis were previously described as positive regulators of the transcriptional response to an SA analog [29]. Here we described the participation of this clade of TGA genes as negative regulators of SA accumulation in response to both an abiotic and a biotic stress: UV-C and the ETI triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1, respectively.
PR-1 is a well-known SA-responsive gene [36]. TGA2 directs and positively regulates PR-1 expression in response to the SA analog isonicotinic acid (INA) [29]. As well, the clade II proteins are needed for PR-1 induction in response to SA (this work). It was initially surprising that tga256 plants subjected to stresses that induce SA were still able to induce PR-1 and had even higher expression than in WT. This result suggests that TGA2 is not required for PR-1 activation in response to stress, unlike previously described for SA analog treatments [29]. However, Tsuda et al. [44] showed that PR-1 is subject to both SA-dependent and SA-independent regulation during ETI responses triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 and Pst DC3000/AvrRPT2. They demonstrated that SA-independent upregulation is mediated by the activation of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase 3 and 6 (MPK3/6) in response to Pst DC3000/AvrRPT2 [44]. MPK3/6 activation is also triggered in response to Pst D3000/AvrRPM1 [45]. PR-1 activation in these conditions could be mediated by transcription factors induced by the ETI response in an SA-independent fashion. This is the case for WRKY50, described as a PR-1 positive regulator that binds to its promoter to control the expression in the absence of the TGA factors belonging to clade II [46].
The SA-independent gene induction during ETI is caused by the activation of MPK3/6 and includes the genes SARD1, CBP60g, EDS5, and PBS3 [44] that together can participate in promoting SA accumulation. Indeed, Lang et al. [45] showed that constitutive activation of MPK3 produces an enhanced defense against Pst DC3000, and a dwarf phenotype that depends on SA biosynthesis [45,47]. This suggests that strong MPK3 activation induces SA accumulation. According to these data, the increase in the genes that participate in the SA accumulation in the tga256 mutant (Figure 4), could be indicative of a negative regulation of TGA factors from clade II over the defense branch controlled by MPK3/6 in response to ETI triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1. This negative regulation could explain the PR-1 hyper-accumulation in the tga256 triple mutant in conditions that induce the SA accumulation (Figure 1). It is also possible that the TGA factors negatively regulate SA accumulation independent of (and/or in addition to) an effect on MPK activation. Figure 8 summarizes these possibilities.
Previously, a different clade of TGA transcription factors has been reported as regulators of the SA accumulation. Sun et al. described that TGA1 and TGA4 (from clade I) stimulate SA accumulation during PAMP-induced pathogen resistance and systemic acquired resistance [23]. TGA1 and TGA4 are required for fully activating both SARD1 and CBP60g expression, which in turn transcriptionally regulate ICS1 expression [24] and consequently SA accumulation. The SARD1 promoter possesses two putative TGA-binding elements in the proximal region. These TGACG boxes are located at −258 and −282 nucleotides from the translation start codon. As the TGA transcription factors recognize similar cis-elements, we hypothesize the TGA transcription factors from clade II share or compete for these putative binding elements with TGA from clade I to regulate the SARD1 expression and, consequently, the SA accumulation. Unlike TGA1, TGA2 expression does not change in response to Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Figure S4), suggesting the involvement of co-regulators of TGA2 that could repress genes associated with SA accumulation. NPR1 is described as the main co-regulator of the SA-mediated response [40,41]. It interacts in the nucleus with TGA2, increasing the DNA binding affinity of TGA to PR-1 promoter [43,48]. We did not detect statistically significant changes in the expression of SARD1 and ICS1 genes in the npr1 mutant plants compared to the WT (Figure 7), suggesting that NPR1 does not participate in the suppression of SA biosynthesis. This result is consistent with the hypothesis described by Rochon et al. [49], which indicates that TGA2 becomes a transcriptional activator when it interacts with transcriptional co-regulators such as NPR1 or SCL14 [50], but basally has a repressive function. Nevertheless, we cannot discard the possibility of other transcriptional co-regulators’ participation in the response, for instance, transcription factors described as TGA2-interacting proteins such as WRKY50 or TGA3, which also participate in PR-1 regulation [46].
The TGA transcription factors from clade II have a redundant function in the process involved in the survival in SA germination and SAR [29], response to oxylipins [26], and antioxidant response to UV-B [28]. PR-1 accumulation did not show differences between the WT and tga25 double mutant plants (Figure S1), suggesting that TGA2 and TGA5 are redundant with TGA6 in suppressing SA accumulation. This is supported by the experiments involving the tga256/TGA2-V5 transgenic plant, which indicate that the expression of TGA2 alone in the tga256 mutant background restores the gene expression and SA accumulation to WT levels (Figure 5 and Figure 8b).
According to our results, SA accumulation is negatively controlled by the TGA transcription factors from clade II in response to stresses that trigger the SA accumulation. This mechanism is a new step in the regulation of this hormone, which is fine-tune regulated due to the tradeoff between defense and developmental processes [4]. Interestingly, we detected the SA suppression by TGA class II in conditions in which the SA pathway is induced (after UV-C treatment and triggered ETI), and not in basal conditions, suggesting a feedback regulation after SA induction. Other transcription factors have been described as repressors of SA accumulation; ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3 (EIN3) and ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3-LIKE1 (EIL1) negatively regulate hormone accumulation by repressing the ICS1 promoter in activated and basal conditions [51]. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the suppression by TGA class II factors could act as a braking mechanism on SA accumulation, that together with biochemical modification of SA by conjugation with other molecules (reviewed in [52]), could contribute to the homeostasis of the hormone to alleviate the detrimental effects triggered by its elevated concentrations [5,6,7,8,53,54,55].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Growth Conditions and Treatments

Arabidopsis thaliana wild-type (WT) npr1-1 [56], tga1-1/tga4-1 [19], tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1, tga2-1/tga5-1 [29], and tga256/TGA2-V5 [28], sid2-2 [14], and tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1/sid2-2 (this report) plants were in Columbia (Col-0) background. For UV-C and SA treatments, 14-day-old seedlings were grown in vitro in ½ MS medium supplemented with 10 g/L sucrose and 2.6 g/L Phytagel (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) under controlled conditions (16 h light, 80 µmoles m−2 s−1, 22 ± 2 °C). UV-C treatments: plants were exposed for 20 min in a chamber equipped with two UV-C fluorescent tubes of 8 Watts each (λ = 254 nm) at a distance of 30 cm above the plates. UV-treated plants were subsequently placed in a growth chamber under controlled conditions for the indicated time periods. SA treatments: 14-day-old seedlings were transferred from plates to liquid ½ MS medium supplemented with 0.5 mM SA (treatment) or ½ MS alone as control. Seedling roots were in contact with the liquid media. Samples were incubated for the indicated periods of time under continuous light (80 µmoles m−2 s−1). For gene expression assays, whole seedlings were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until RNA isolation. For infection assays, 4-week-old plants were grown in a soil mixture containing turba soil–perlite–vermiculite (1:1:1) under standard conditions (12 h light/12 h dark, 80 µmoles m−2 s−1, 22 ± 2 °C).

4.2. Bacterial Strains and Plant Infections

Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato DC3000, the isogenic avirulent strain expressing the AvrRPM1 gene (Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1) [57] or the hrcC mutated strain (Pst DC3000 hrcC−) [58] were grown on King B media supplemented with Rifampicin (50 μg/mL) and Kanamycin (50 mg/mL). The strains were grown at 28 °C for 24 h, centrifuged, and resuspended in 10 mM MgCl2. The bacteria were inoculated by syringe infiltration on the abaxial side of the leaves (ODλ600nm = 0.01). Ten mM MgCl2 was used as a mock control.

4.3. Gene Expression Analysis

Total RNA was obtained from frozen samples using the TRIzol® Reagent (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA was synthesized from each sample (1 µg of total RNA) with M-MULV reverse transcriptase (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA) according to manufacturer’s indications. qPCR was performed with the AriaMX 3000 Real-time PCR system (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using the BRILLIANT III ULTRA-FAST SYBR GREEN reagent (Stratagene, San Diego, CA, USA). The expression levels of the different genes were calculated relative to the YLS8 (AT5G08290) gene. Three (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5a and Figure 6) or four (Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5b and Figure 7) biological replicates were used in each experiment. Primers used for each gene are listed in Supplementary Table S1.

4.4. Protein Extracts and Immunoblot

Total protein extracts were obtained from plants by homogenizing 0.2 g tissue per 0.5 mL extraction buffer (50 mM sodium phosphate buffer pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 0.2% Igepal, 5 mM EDTA, 1X complete Protease Inhibitor Cocktail solution (Roche, Basel, Switzerland)). After centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 10 min., supernatants were transferred to clean tubes and stored at –80 °C. Protein concentration was determined by the Bradford method (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA).
For immunoblot analysis, protein extracts (30 µg of protein per lane) were separated in 12% SDS–polyacrylamide gels (PAGE) and transferred to ImmobilonTM PDVF membranes (Millipore Co, Burlington, MA, USA). The membranes were blocked for one h in phosphate-buffered saline solution (PBS-T: 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 2 mM KH2PO4, and 0.1% Tween-20) with 5% of non-fat dried milk at room temperature. To detect PR-1, the rabbit polyclonal PR-1 antibody (Agrisera, Vännäs, Sweden, #AS10 687) was used at a 1:2500 dilution. ICS1 was detected with the rabbit polyclonal ICS1 antibody UCB68 at a 1:10,000 dilution [39]. After washing in PBS-T (three times), the membranes were incubated with the anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody (KPL, #074-1806, 1:10,000) or the anti-rabbit horseradish antibody (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA, #65-6120, 1:10,000). After washing in PBS-T (10 min three times), proteins immunodetected were visualized using chemiluminescence kits (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA, #34087 and #34095) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Chemiluminescence was detected by X-ray films, except the top right blot in Figure 1a, for which it was detected by a CCD camera (Bio-Rad ChemiDoc XRS+, Hercules, CA, USA).

4.5. Salicylic Acid Extraction and Quantitation

SA extracted from leaf tissues was quantified following the protocol described in Verbene et al. [59] adapted for the extraction from Arabidopsis leaves. Briefly, 0.2 to 0.3 g of tissue was collected from seedlings grown on plates or mature leaves from plants grown on soil. The collected tissue was frozen and ground in 1 ml of cold methanol (90%). Samples were homogenized with a Bioruptor®-Plus sonicator (Diagenode, Liege, Belgium) and centrifuged at 8000× g. The pellet was suspended in 500 µL of methanol 100%, and sonication and centrifugation steps were repeated. Combined supernatants were mixed with 10 mL NaOH 0.2 M and were dried using a SpeedVac (65 °C, 90 min). Then, the samples were suspended in 1 mL of TCA 5%–cyclohexane–ethyl acetate (1:2:2) and were centrifuged. The aqueous phase was rescued and combined with 800 mL cyclohexane–ethyl acetate (1:1). The organic phase was reserved. The aqueous phase was mixed with 300 μL of HCl 8 M and incubated at 80 °C for 60 min for a new organic extraction with 800 mL cyclohexane–ethyl acetate (1:1). The organic fractions obtained during the protocol were combined, mixed with 120 mL sodium acetate 0.2 M, and evaporated in a SpeedVac (45 °C, 20 min). The remainder was dissolved in 250 µL of mobile phase (water–methanol (1:1, v/v), adjusted to pH 2.0). These samples were filtered to subsequent quantitation. SA quantification was carried out by high-performance liquid chromatography equipped with a fluorescence detector (Agilent 1260 Infinity II HPLC—Agilent FLD 8 µL detector, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Analysis of SA was performed using a SunShell C18 column (150 mm × 4.60 mm i.d, pore size 2.6 µm) at 30 °C. Mobile phase was delivered through Agilent 1260 quaternary pump equipped with a degasser and autosampler using an isocratic elution. The injection volume was 20 μL, and the column flow rate was 1.0 mL/min. FLD was employed for SA detection with excitation and emission wavelengths set to 305 nm and 404 nm, respectively. The results show data from three independent experiments.

4.6. Genotyping

Plant DNA was extracted by cutting 5 mm2 of young leaves of soil-grown Arabidopsis plants. Tissue was ground in TNE/SDS buffer (200 mM TRIS, 250 mM NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 0.5% SDS, pH 8.0). The nucleic acids were precipitated with isopropanol, washed with ethanol 70%, and resuspended in TE buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). DNA was used in PCR reactions using the oligonucleotides described in Supplementary Table S1.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms231911631/s1.

Author Contributions

A.H.-V. conceived the study and designed the experimental strategy; A.H.-V., T.U. and A.F.: bioassays, expression analysis, and statistical analysis; A.S., Y.D. and C.S.: SA quantitation; J.J.: ICS1 immuno blots; A.H.-V. wrote the manuscript with inputs from L.H., A.F., T.U., J.J., J.T.G. and F.B.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (ANID-FONDECYT Iniciación 11200944), Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio—Instituto Milenio de Biología Integrativa (iBio) ICN17_022 to A.H.-V.; (ANID-FONDECYT Iniciación 11201113) to Y.D.; (ANID-FONDECYT Postdoctoral 3180328) to A.S.; National Science Foundation (NSF) IOS-1456904 to J.T.G.; (ANID-FONDECYT 1210320)—Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio NCN2021_010, and ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002 to F.B.-H.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jose Manuel Ugalde (University of Bönn) for the time dedicated to reading and discussing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yuan, M.; Ngou, B.P.M.; Ding, P.; Xin, X.F. PTI-ETI crosstalk: An integrative view of plant immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2021, 62, 102030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhong, Q.; Hu, H.; Fan, B.; Zhu, C.; Chen, Z. Biosynthesis and roles of salicylic acid in balancing stress response and growth in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Li, A.; Sun, X.; Liu, L. Action of Salicylic Acid on Plant Growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 878076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Van Butselaar, T.; Van den Ackerveken, G. Salicylic acid steers the growth–immunity tradeoff. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 566–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rate, D.N.; Cuenca, J.V.; Bowman, G.R.; Guttman, D.S.; Greenberg, J.T. The Gain-of-function arabidopsis acd6 mutant reveals novel regulation and function of the salicylic acid signaling pathway in controlling cell death, defenses, and cell growth. Plant Cell 1999, 11, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Bowling, S.A.; Clarke, J.D.; Liu, Y.; Klessig, D.F.; Dong, X. The cpr5 mutant of arabidopsis expresses both NPR1-dependent and NPR1-independent resistance. Plant Cell 1997, 9, 1573–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Li, Y.; Yang, S.; Yang, H.; Hua, J. The TIR-NB-LRR gene SNC1 is regulated at the transcript level by multiple factors. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2007, 20, 1449–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Scott, I.M.; Clarke, S.M.; Wood, J.E.; Mur, L.A.J. Salicylate accumulation inhibits growth at chilling temperature in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 1040–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Pasternak, T.; Groot, E.P.; Kazantsev, F.V.; Teale, W.; Omelyanchuk, N.; Kovrizhnykh, V.; Palme, K.; Mironova, V.V. Salicylic acid affects root meristem patterning via auxin distribution in a concentration-dependent manner. Plant Physiol. 2019, 180, 1725–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bagautdinova, Z.Z.; Omelyanchuk, N.; Tyapkin, A.V.; Kovrizhnykh, V.V.; Lavrekha, V.V.; Zemlyanskaya, E.V. Salicylic acid in root growth and development. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rong, D.; Luo, N.; Mollet, J.C.; Liu, X.; Yang, Z. Salicylic acid regulates pollen tip growth through an NPR3/NPR4-independent pathway. Mol. Plant 2016, 9, 1478–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Peng, Y.; Yang, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Salicylic acid: Biosynthesis and signaling. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2021, 72, 761–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Strawn, M.A.; Marr, S.K.; Inoue, K.; Inada, N.; Zubieta, C.; Wildermuth, M.C. Arabidopsis isochorismate synthase functional in pathogen-induced salicylate biosynthesis exhibits properties consistent with a role in diverse stress responses. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 5919–5933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wildermuth, M.C.; Dewdney, J.; Wu, G.; Ausubel, F.M. Erratum: Isochorismate synthase is required to synthesize salicylic acid for plant defence. Nature 2001, 417, 562–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nawrath, C.; Heck, S.; Parinthawong, N.; Métraux, J.P. EDS5, an essential component of salicylic acid-dependent signaling for disease resistance in arabidopsis, is a member of the MATE transporter family. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Torrens-Spence, M.P.; Bobokalonova, A.; Carballo, V.; Glinkerman, C.M.; Pluskal, T.; Shen, A.; Weng, J.K. PBS3 and EPS1 Complete Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis from Isochorismate in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nawrath, C.; Métraux, J.P. Salicylic acid induction-deficient mutants of Arabidopsis express PR-2 and PR-5 and accumulate high levels of camalexin after pathogen inoculation. Plant Cell 1999, 11, 1393–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gatz, C. From pioneers to team players: TGA transcription factors provide a molecular link between different stress pathways. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2012, 26, 120926072258005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Kesarwani, M.; Yoo, J.; Dong, X. Genetic interactions of TGA transcription factors in the regulation of pathogenesis-related genes and disease resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2007, 144, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Choi, J.; Huh, S.U.; Kojima, M.; Sakakibara, H.; Paek, K.H.; Hwang, I. The cytokinin-activated transcription factor ARR2 promotes plant immunity via TGA3/NPR1-dependent salicylic acid signaling in arabidopsis. Dev. Cell 2010, 19, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Alvarez, J.M.; Riveras, E.; Vidal, E.A.; Gras, D.E.; Contreras-López, O.; Tamayo, K.P.; Aceituno, F.; Gómez, I.; Ruffel, S.; Lejay, L.; et al. Systems approach identifies TGA1 and TGA4 transcription factors as important regulatory components of the nitrate response of Arabidopsis thaliana roots. Plant J. 2014, 80, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shearer, H.L.; Cheng, Y.T.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Boyle, P.; Després, C.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Fobert, P.R. Arabidopsis clade I TGA Transcription factors regulate plant defenses in an NPR1-independent fashion. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 1459–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sun, T.; Busta, L.; Zhang, Q.; Ding, P.; Jetter, R.; Zhang, Y. TGACG-BINDING FACTOR 1 (TGA1) and TGA4 regulate salicylic acid and pipecolic acid biosynthesis by modulating the expression of SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED RESISTANCE DEFICIENT 1 (SARD1) and CALMODULIN-BINDING PROTEIN 60g (CBP60g). New Phytol. 2018, 217, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Wang, L.; Tsuda, K.; Truman, W.; Sato, M.; Nguyen, L.V.; Katagiri, F.; Glazebrook, J. CBP60g and SARD1 play partially redundant critical roles in salicylic acid signaling. Plant J. 2011, 67, 1029–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mueller, S.; Hilbert, B.; Dueckershoff, K.; Roitsch, T.; Krischke, M.; Mueller, M.J.; Berger, S. General detoxification and stress responses are mediated by oxidized lipids through TGA transcription factors in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 768–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Stotz, H.U.; Mueller, S.; Zoeller, M.; Mueller, M.J.; Berger, S. TGA transcription factors and jasmonate-independent COI1 signalling regulate specific plant responses to reactive oxylipins. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 963–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, L.J.; Li, N.; Thurow, C.; Wirtz, M.; Hell, R.; Gatz, C. Ectopically expressed glutaredoxin ROXY19 negatively regulates the detoxification pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Herrera-Vásquez, A.; Fonseca, A.; Ugalde, J.M.; Lamig, L.; Seguel, A.; Moyano, T.C.; Gutiérrez, R.A.; Salinas, P.; Vidal, E.A.; Holuigue, L. TGA class II transcription factors are essential to restrict oxidative stress in response to UV-B stress in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 1891–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Tessaro, M.J.; Lassner, M.; Li, X. Knockout analysis of Arabidopsis transcription factors TGA2, TGA5, and TGA6 reveals their redundant and essential roles in Systemic Acquired Resistance. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 2647–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Durrant, W.E.; Dong, X. Systemic acquired resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2004, 42, 185–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Blanco, F.; Salinas, P.; Cecchini, N.M.; Jordana, X.; Van Hummelen, P.; Alvarez, M.E.; Holuigue, L. Early genomic responses to salicylic acid in Arabidopsis. Plant Mol. Biol. 2009, 70, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Shapiro, A.D.; Zhang, C. The role of NDR1 in avirulence gene-directed signaling and control of programmed cell death in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2001, 127, 1089–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kiefer, I.W.; Slusarenko, A.J. The pattern of systemic acquired resistance induction within the Arabidopsis rosette in relation to the pattern of translocation. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 840–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Deng, W.L.; Preston, G.; Collmer, A.; Chang, C.J.; Huang, H.C. Characterization of the hrpC and hrpRS operons of Pseudomonas syringae pathovars syringae, tomato, and glycinea and analysis of the ability of hrpF, hrpG, hrcC, hrpT, and hrpV mutants to elicit the hypersen. J. Bacteriol. 1998, 180, 4523–4531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Whalen, M.C.; Innes, R.W.; Bent, A.F.; Staskawicz, B.J. Identification of Pseudomonas syringae pathogens of Arabidopsis and a bacterial locus determining avirulence on both Arabidopsis and soybean. Plant Cell 1991, 3, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Breen, S.; Williams, S.J.; Outram, M.; Kobe, B.; Solomon, P.S. Emerging Insights into the Functions of Pathogenesis-Related Protein 1. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wiermer, M.; Feys, B.J.; Parker, J.E. Plant immunity: The EDS1 regulatory node. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2005, 8, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Garcion, C.; Lohmann, A.; Lamodière, E.; Catinot, J.; Buchala, A.; Doermann, P.; Métraux, J.P. Characterization and biological function of the Isochorismate Synthase2 gene of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 1279–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Seguel, A.; Jelenska, J.; Herrera-Vásquez, A.; Marr, S.K.; Joyce, M.B.; Gagesch, K.R.; Shakoor, N.; Jiang, S.C.; Fonseca, A.; Wildermuth, M.C.; et al. PROHIBITIN3 forms complexes with ISOCHORISMATE SYNTHASE1 to regulate stress-induced salicylic acid biosynthesis in arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2018, 176, 2515–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Dong, X. NPR1, all things considered. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2004, 7, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Backer, R.; Naidoo, S.; van den Berg, N. The Nonexpressor of Pathogenesis-Related Genes 1 (NPR1) and related family: Mechanistic insights in plant disease resistance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Wu, Y.; Zhang, D.; Chu, J.Y.; Boyle, P.; Wang, Y.; Brindle, I.D.; De Luca, V.; Despre, C. Report The Arabidopsis NPR1 Protein Is a Receptor for the Plant Defense Hormone Salicylic Acid. Cell Rep. 2012, 1, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Johnson, C.; Boden, E.; Arias, J. Salicylic acid and NPR1 induce the recruitment of trans-activating TGA factors to a defense gene promoter in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 1846–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Tsuda, K.; Mine, A.; Bethke, G.; Igarashi, D.; Botanga, C.J.; Tsuda, Y.; Glazebrook, J.; Sato, M.; Katagiri, F. Dual Regulation of Gene Expression Mediated by Extended MAPK Activation and Salicylic Acid Contributes to Robust Innate Immunity in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9, e1004015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lang, J.; Genot, B.; Bigeard, J.; Colcombet, J. MPK3 and MPK6 control salicylic acid signaling by up-regulating NLR receptors during pattern- and effector-triggered immunity. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 2190–2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hussain, R.M.F.; Sheikh, A.H.; Haider, I.; Quareshy, M.; Linthorst, H.J.M. Arabidopsis WRKY50 and TGA transcription factors synergistically activate expression of PR1. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lang, J.; Genot, B.; Hirt, H.; Colcombet, J. Constitutive activity of the Arabidopsis MAP Kinase 3 confers resistance to Pseudomonas syringae and drives robust immune responses. Plant Signal. Behav. 2017, 12, e1356533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Fan, W.; Dong, X. In vivo interaction between NPR1 and transcription factor TGA2 leads to salicylic acid-mediated gene activation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 1377–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Rochon, A.; Boyle, P.; Wignes, T.; Fobert, P.R.; Després, C. The coactivator function of Arabidopsis NPR1 requires the core of its BTB/POZ domain and the oxidation of C-terminal cysteines. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 3670–3685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Fode, B.; Siemsen, T.; Thurow, C.; Weigel, R.; Gatz, C. The arabidopsis GRAS protein SCL14 interacts with class II TGA transcription factors and is essential for the activation of stress-inducible promoters. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 3122–3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Chen, H.; Xue, L.; Chintamanani, S.; Germain, H.; Lin, H.; Cui, H.; Cai, R.; Zuo, J.; Tang, X.; Li, X.; et al. ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3 and ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3-LIKE1 repress SALICYLIC ACID INDUCTION DEFICIENT2 expression to negatively regulate plant innate immunity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 2527–2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Dempsey, D.A.; Vlot, A.C.; Wildermuth, M.C.; Klessig, D.F. Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis and Metabolism. Arab. Book 2011, 9, e0156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Rajjou, L.; Belghazi, M.; Huguet, R.; Robin, C.; Moreau, A.; Job, C.; Job, D. Proteomic investigation of the effect of salicylic acid on arabidopsis seed germination and establishment of early defense mechanisms. Plant Physiol. 2006, 141, 910–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Zhang, Y.J.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, J.Z.; Li, Y.J.; Wang, J.; Guo, R.; Gan, S.S.; Liu, C.J.; Zhanga, K.W. S5H/DMR6 encodes a salicylic acid 5-hydroxylase that fine-tunes salicylic acid homeostasis. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 1082–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Van Wersch, R.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Mighty dwarfs: Arabidopsis autoimmune mutants and their usages in genetic dissection of plant immunity. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Cao, H.; Bowling, S.A.; Gordon, A.S.; Dong, X. Characterization of an Arabidopsis mutant that is nonresponsive to inducers of systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 1583–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kim, M.G.; Geng, X.; Lee, S.Y.; Mackey, D. The Pseudomonas syringae type III effector AvrRpm1 induces significant defenses by activating the Arabidopsis nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat protein RPS2. Plant J. 2009, 57, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yuan, J.; He, S.Y. The Pseudomonas syringae Hrp regulation and secretion system controls the production and secretion of multiple extracellular proteins. J. Bacteriol. 1996, 178, 6399–6402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Verberne, M.C.; Brouwer, N.; Delbianco, F.; Linthorst, H.J.M.; Bol, J.F.; Verpoorte, R. Method for the extraction of the volatile compound salicylic acid from tobacco leaf material. Phytochem. Anal. 2002, 13, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 23 11631 g001 550
Figure 1. The TGA class II transcription factors negatively regulate PR-1 expression in conditions that induce SA accumulation. PR-1 transcript levels were evaluated in WT, tga256 triple mutants, and tga1/4 double mutants 24 h after (A) treatments with exogenous SA, (B) irradiation with UV-C, and (C) inoculation with avirulent P. syringae DC3000 (Pst) AvrRPM1. Fifteen-day-old plate-grown seedlings were used for SA and UV-C treatments, and 4-week-old soil-grown plants were used for the Pst inoculations. In (A), seedlings were transferred from plates to liquid ½MS media supplemented with 0.5 mM SA (+) or without the hormone (−). In (B), seedlings were irradiated with UV-C for 20 min (+). Plants covered with a UV-C filter were used as controls (−). After the treatments, plants were transferred to normal growth conditions. In (C) plants were infiltrated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01 (+) or 10 mM MgCl2 (−) as control. Plants were frozen after 24 h of the different treatments. RNA was extracted, cDNA was synthesized, and PR-1 expression was evaluated by qPCR. Bars indicate the mean of the relative expression of PR-1 ± SEM of three biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s post-test comparing the mutant genotypes with the WT plants (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in control conditions (−) between WT and tga256 mutant plants (p = 0.9037 in (A), p = 0.0640 in (B), and p = 0.9951 in (C)).
Figure 1. The TGA class II transcription factors negatively regulate PR-1 expression in conditions that induce SA accumulation. PR-1 transcript levels were evaluated in WT, tga256 triple mutants, and tga1/4 double mutants 24 h after (A) treatments with exogenous SA, (B) irradiation with UV-C, and (C) inoculation with avirulent P. syringae DC3000 (Pst) AvrRPM1. Fifteen-day-old plate-grown seedlings were used for SA and UV-C treatments, and 4-week-old soil-grown plants were used for the Pst inoculations. In (A), seedlings were transferred from plates to liquid ½MS media supplemented with 0.5 mM SA (+) or without the hormone (−). In (B), seedlings were irradiated with UV-C for 20 min (+). Plants covered with a UV-C filter were used as controls (−). After the treatments, plants were transferred to normal growth conditions. In (C) plants were infiltrated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01 (+) or 10 mM MgCl2 (−) as control. Plants were frozen after 24 h of the different treatments. RNA was extracted, cDNA was synthesized, and PR-1 expression was evaluated by qPCR. Bars indicate the mean of the relative expression of PR-1 ± SEM of three biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s post-test comparing the mutant genotypes with the WT plants (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in control conditions (−) between WT and tga256 mutant plants (p = 0.9037 in (A), p = 0.0640 in (B), and p = 0.9951 in (C)).
Ijms 23 11631 g001
Ijms 23 11631 g002 550
Figure 2. The TGA class II regulation of PR-1 expression is active during the ETI response triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1, but not during PTI or ETS responses. Four-week-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were syringe-infiltrated with a virulent Pseudomonas syringae DC3000 strain (DC3000), a non-pathogenic hrcC mutant of Pst DC3000 strain (hrcC−), or the Pst DC3000 avirulent strain carrying the AvrRPM1 gene (AvrRPM1). All strains were infiltrated at ODλ600 = 0.01 in a 10 mM MgCl2 solution. In total, 10 mM MgCl2 was used as a control (mock). Twenty-four hours post inoculation (hpi), the RNA was extracted, and PR-1 expression was evaluated. Bars represent the mean of PR-1 relative expression ± SEM of four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences compared to WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test (**: p < 0.01), ns = not significant.
Figure 2. The TGA class II regulation of PR-1 expression is active during the ETI response triggered by Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1, but not during PTI or ETS responses. Four-week-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were syringe-infiltrated with a virulent Pseudomonas syringae DC3000 strain (DC3000), a non-pathogenic hrcC mutant of Pst DC3000 strain (hrcC−), or the Pst DC3000 avirulent strain carrying the AvrRPM1 gene (AvrRPM1). All strains were infiltrated at ODλ600 = 0.01 in a 10 mM MgCl2 solution. In total, 10 mM MgCl2 was used as a control (mock). Twenty-four hours post inoculation (hpi), the RNA was extracted, and PR-1 expression was evaluated. Bars represent the mean of PR-1 relative expression ± SEM of four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences compared to WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test (**: p < 0.01), ns = not significant.
Ijms 23 11631 g002
Ijms 23 11631 g003 550
Figure 3. UV-C treatment upregulates the expression of genes that participate in SA accumulation in the tga256 triple mutant plants. Fifteen-day-old WT (black circles) and tga256 mutant (gray triangles) seedlings were treated with UV-C radiation for 20 min, and then were transferred to normal growth conditions. Samples were collected 1, 2, 5, and 24 h post treatment (hpt). Non-irradiated plants were used as controls (0 hpt). RNA was extracted and the gene expression of (A) EDS1, (B) PAD4, (C) CBP60g, (D) SARD1, (E) ICS1, (F) EDS5, (G) PBS3, and (H) PR-1 genes was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represent the mean of relative gene expression ± SEM from three biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test comparing the tga256 mutants with the WT plants at a given time point (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). § indicates statistically significant differences in the gene expression at the indicated time compared to the control condition (0) in the WT genotype (p < 0.05, Dunnet’s post-test).
Figure 3. UV-C treatment upregulates the expression of genes that participate in SA accumulation in the tga256 triple mutant plants. Fifteen-day-old WT (black circles) and tga256 mutant (gray triangles) seedlings were treated with UV-C radiation for 20 min, and then were transferred to normal growth conditions. Samples were collected 1, 2, 5, and 24 h post treatment (hpt). Non-irradiated plants were used as controls (0 hpt). RNA was extracted and the gene expression of (A) EDS1, (B) PAD4, (C) CBP60g, (D) SARD1, (E) ICS1, (F) EDS5, (G) PBS3, and (H) PR-1 genes was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represent the mean of relative gene expression ± SEM from three biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test comparing the tga256 mutants with the WT plants at a given time point (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). § indicates statistically significant differences in the gene expression at the indicated time compared to the control condition (0) in the WT genotype (p < 0.05, Dunnet’s post-test).
Ijms 23 11631 g003
Ijms 23 11631 g004 550
Figure 4. Inoculation with the avirulent P. syringae DC3000/AvrRPM1 induces the upregulation of genes that participate in SA accumulation in the tga256 mutant compared to the WT plants. Four-week-old WT (black circles) and tga256 mutant (gray triangles) plants were syringe-infiltrated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01. Samples were collected 2.5, 5, 8, and 24 h post inoculation (hpi). Non-inoculated plants were used as controls. RNA was extracted and the gene expression of (A) EDS1, (B) PAD4, (C) CBP60g, (D) SARD1, (E) ICS1, (F) EDS5, (G) PBS3, and (H) PR-1 genes was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represents the mean of the relative gene expression ± SEM from four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test comparing the tga256 mutants with the WT plants at a given time point (**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). § indicates statistically significant differences in the gene expression at the indicated time compared to the control condition (0) in the WT genotype (p < 0.05, Dunnet’s post-test).
Figure 4. Inoculation with the avirulent P. syringae DC3000/AvrRPM1 induces the upregulation of genes that participate in SA accumulation in the tga256 mutant compared to the WT plants. Four-week-old WT (black circles) and tga256 mutant (gray triangles) plants were syringe-infiltrated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01. Samples were collected 2.5, 5, 8, and 24 h post inoculation (hpi). Non-inoculated plants were used as controls. RNA was extracted and the gene expression of (A) EDS1, (B) PAD4, (C) CBP60g, (D) SARD1, (E) ICS1, (F) EDS5, (G) PBS3, and (H) PR-1 genes was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represents the mean of the relative gene expression ± SEM from four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistical differences according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test comparing the tga256 mutants with the WT plants at a given time point (**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). § indicates statistically significant differences in the gene expression at the indicated time compared to the control condition (0) in the WT genotype (p < 0.05, Dunnet’s post-test).
Ijms 23 11631 g004
Ijms 23 11631 g005 550
Figure 5. The expression of TGA2 in the tga256 mutant background rescues the upregulated expression of genes associated with SA accumulation upon UV-C and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments. WT, tga256, and tga256/TGA2-V5 plants were (A) irradiated with UV-C or (B) inoculated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Pst Avr). Unirradiated or non-inoculated plants were used as controls (−), respectively. The expression of the indicated genes was evaluated at the time when the genes were differentially expressed between the genotypes WT and tga256. In the case of pathogen inoculation, gene expression was measured at 24 hpi (+). Samples were frozen and RNA was extracted. Gene expression was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represents the mean of the relative gene expression ± SEM. Asterisks indicate statistical differences between the mutant genotypes compared to the WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). Three biological replicates were evaluated for UV-C treatments; four biological replicates were evaluated in the Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments.
Figure 5. The expression of TGA2 in the tga256 mutant background rescues the upregulated expression of genes associated with SA accumulation upon UV-C and Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments. WT, tga256, and tga256/TGA2-V5 plants were (A) irradiated with UV-C or (B) inoculated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 (Pst Avr). Unirradiated or non-inoculated plants were used as controls (−), respectively. The expression of the indicated genes was evaluated at the time when the genes were differentially expressed between the genotypes WT and tga256. In the case of pathogen inoculation, gene expression was measured at 24 hpi (+). Samples were frozen and RNA was extracted. Gene expression was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The data represents the mean of the relative gene expression ± SEM. Asterisks indicate statistical differences between the mutant genotypes compared to the WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA and Sidak’s post-test (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). Three biological replicates were evaluated for UV-C treatments; four biological replicates were evaluated in the Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 treatments.
Ijms 23 11631 g005
Ijms 23 11631 g006 550
Figure 6. TGA class II negatively regulates the SA accumulation in Arabidopsis plants under stress. (A) Fifteen-day-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were irradiated with UV-C as described in methods (left panel). Additionally, 4-week-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were inoculated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01 (right panel). Plants were frozen at indicated time points. ICS1 and PR-1 protein abundance was evaluated by Western blot. In the top right blot (ICS1), chemiluminescence was detected with CCD camera and all other blot signals were detected by X-ray film. Similar results were obtained in two additional experiments with UV-C and one additional experiment with Pst inoculation. (B) SA accumulation was measured in WT, tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1 (tga256), tga256/TGA2-V5 and tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1/sid2-2 (tga256/sid2) plants. Unirradiated and non-inoculated plants were used as control (−). Bars represent the mean of SA detected by HPLC relative to the fresh weight of the sample ± SEM (mg SA/g FW, three biological replicates). Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the mutant genotypes and the WT plants at a given time point according to a 2-way ANOVA analysis and Sidak’s post-test (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). nd indicates that SA was not detected in the samples.
Figure 6. TGA class II negatively regulates the SA accumulation in Arabidopsis plants under stress. (A) Fifteen-day-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were irradiated with UV-C as described in methods (left panel). Additionally, 4-week-old WT and tga256 mutant plants were inoculated with Pst DC3000/AvrRPM1 ODλ600 = 0.01 (right panel). Plants were frozen at indicated time points. ICS1 and PR-1 protein abundance was evaluated by Western blot. In the top right blot (ICS1), chemiluminescence was detected with CCD camera and all other blot signals were detected by X-ray film. Similar results were obtained in two additional experiments with UV-C and one additional experiment with Pst inoculation. (B) SA accumulation was measured in WT, tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1 (tga256), tga256/TGA2-V5 and tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1/sid2-2 (tga256/sid2) plants. Unirradiated and non-inoculated plants were used as control (−). Bars represent the mean of SA detected by HPLC relative to the fresh weight of the sample ± SEM (mg SA/g FW, three biological replicates). Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the mutant genotypes and the WT plants at a given time point according to a 2-way ANOVA analysis and Sidak’s post-test (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001). nd indicates that SA was not detected in the samples.
Ijms 23 11631 g006
Ijms 23 11631 g007 550
Figure 7. NPR1 does not participate in the regulation of genes related to SA accumulation under stress. Fifteen-day-old WT, tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1 (tga256), and npr1-1 (npr1) mutant seedlings were treated with UV-C. Non-irradiated seedlings were used as control (0). Treated seedlings were frozen at 2 h post treatment (hpt). RNA was extracted, and the SARD1 and ICS1 gene expression was evaluated by RT-qPCR. Bars represent the mean of the relative expression ± SEM from four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the mutant genotypes and the WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA analysis and Sidak’s post-test (**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001).
Figure 7. NPR1 does not participate in the regulation of genes related to SA accumulation under stress. Fifteen-day-old WT, tga2-1/tga5-1/tga6-1 (tga256), and npr1-1 (npr1) mutant seedlings were treated with UV-C. Non-irradiated seedlings were used as control (0). Treated seedlings were frozen at 2 h post treatment (hpt). RNA was extracted, and the SARD1 and ICS1 gene expression was evaluated by RT-qPCR. Bars represent the mean of the relative expression ± SEM from four biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the mutant genotypes and the WT plants according to a 2-way ANOVA analysis and Sidak’s post-test (**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001).
Ijms 23 11631 g007
Ijms 23 11631 g008 550
Figure 8. The ETI response activates PR-1 in an SA-dependent and an SA-independent fashion. The activation of PR-1 depends on TGA from clade II in the pathway dependent on SA. On the other hand, Mitogen–Activated Protein Kinases 3 and 6 (MPK3/6) activation triggers the SA-independent PR-1 induction [44]. Additionally, the activation of MPK3 induces the activation of genes that participate in SA accumulation (IC*) independently of SA [44]. According to our model, TGA factors from clade II (TGA) can repress the MPK3/6 branch. Thus, in the tga256 mutant plants, the repression of TGA over the MPK branch is absent, permitting increased SA accumulation (Figure 6), the genes (Figure 4), and the PR-1 expression (Figure 1) dependent on MPKs. It is also possible, and not mutually exclusive, that upon stimulation of SA accumulation by ETI, the TGA factors negatively feedback on SA accumulation by suppressing a step upstream of SA accumulation, independent of MPK3/6 signaling.
Figure 8. The ETI response activates PR-1 in an SA-dependent and an SA-independent fashion. The activation of PR-1 depends on TGA from clade II in the pathway dependent on SA. On the other hand, Mitogen–Activated Protein Kinases 3 and 6 (MPK3/6) activation triggers the SA-independent PR-1 induction [44]. Additionally, the activation of MPK3 induces the activation of genes that participate in SA accumulation (IC*) independently of SA [44]. According to our model, TGA factors from clade II (TGA) can repress the MPK3/6 branch. Thus, in the tga256 mutant plants, the repression of TGA over the MPK branch is absent, permitting increased SA accumulation (Figure 6), the genes (Figure 4), and the PR-1 expression (Figure 1) dependent on MPKs. It is also possible, and not mutually exclusive, that upon stimulation of SA accumulation by ETI, the TGA factors negatively feedback on SA accumulation by suppressing a step upstream of SA accumulation, independent of MPK3/6 signaling.
Ijms 23 11631 g008
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fonseca, A.; Urzúa, T.; Jelenska, J.; Sbarbaro, C.; Seguel, A.; Duarte, Y.; Greenberg, J.T.; Holuigue, L.; Blanco-Herrera, F.; Herrera-Vásquez, A. The TGA Transcription Factors from Clade II Negatively Regulate the Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Arabidopsis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911631

AMA Style

Fonseca A, Urzúa T, Jelenska J, Sbarbaro C, Seguel A, Duarte Y, Greenberg JT, Holuigue L, Blanco-Herrera F, Herrera-Vásquez A. The TGA Transcription Factors from Clade II Negatively Regulate the Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Arabidopsis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(19):11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911631

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fonseca, Alejandro, Tomás Urzúa, Joanna Jelenska, Christopher Sbarbaro, Aldo Seguel, Yorley Duarte, Jean T. Greenberg, Loreto Holuigue, Francisca Blanco-Herrera, and Ariel Herrera-Vásquez. 2022. "The TGA Transcription Factors from Clade II Negatively Regulate the Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Arabidopsis" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 19: 11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911631

APA Style

Fonseca, A., Urzúa, T., Jelenska, J., Sbarbaro, C., Seguel, A., Duarte, Y., Greenberg, J. T., Holuigue, L., Blanco-Herrera, F., & Herrera-Vásquez, A. (2022). The TGA Transcription Factors from Clade II Negatively Regulate the Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Arabidopsis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(19), 11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911631

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop