Visualization and analysis of vascular receptors using confocal laser scanning microscopy and fluorescent ligands

Interplay of EXO70 and MLO proteins modulates trichome cell wall composition and susceptibility to powdery mildew

Exocyst component of 70-kDa (EXO70) proteins are constituents of the exocyst complex implicated in vesicle tethering during exocytosis. MILDEW RESISTANCE LOCUS O (MLO) proteins are plant-specific calcium channels and some MLO isoforms enable fungal powdery mildew pathogenesis. We here detected an unexpected phenotypic overlap of Arabidopsis thaliana exo70H4 and mlo2 mlo6 mlo12 triple mutant plants regarding the biogenesis of leaf trichome secondary cell walls. Biochemical and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic analyses corroborated deficiencies in the composition of trichome cell walls in these mutants. Transgenic lines expressing fluorophore-tagged EXO70H4 and MLO exhibited extensive colocalization of these proteins. Furthermore, mCherry-EXO70H4 mislocalized in trichomes of the mlo triple mutant and, vice versa, MLO6-GFP mislocalized in trichomes of the exo70H4 mutant. Expression of GFP-marked PMR4 callose synthase, a known cargo of EXO70H4-dependent exocytosis, revealed reduced cell wall delivery of GFP-PMR4 in trichomes of mlo triple mutant plants. In vivo protein-protein interaction assays in plant and yeast cells uncovered isoform-preferential interactions between EXO70.2 subfamily members and MLO proteins. Finally, exo70H4 and mlo6 mutants, when combined, showed synergistically enhanced resistance to powdery mildew attack. Taken together, our data point to an isoform-specific interplay of EXO70 and MLO proteins in the modulation of trichome cell wall biogenesis and powdery mildew susceptibility.

Localization of α-adrenoceptors: JR Vane Medal Lecture

This review is based on the JR Vane Medal Lecture presented at the BPS Winter Meeting in December 2011 by J.C. McGrath. A recording of the lecture is included as supporting information. It covers his laboratory's work from 1990 to 2010 on the localization of vascular α1 -adrenoceptors in native tissues, mainly arteries.

MAIN POINTS

(i) α1 -adrenoceptors are present on several cell types in arteries, not only on medial smooth muscle, but also on adventitial, endothelial and nerve cells; (ii) all three receptor subtypes (α1 A , α1 B , α1 D ) are capable of binding ligands at the cell surface, strongly indicating that they are capable of function and not merely expressed. (iii) all of these cell types can take up an antagonist ligand into the intracellular compartments to which endocytosing receptors move; (iv) each individual subtype can exist at the cell surface and intracellularly in the absence of the other subtypes. As functional pharmacological experiments show variations in the involvement of the different subtypes in contractions of different arteries, it is concluded that the presence and disposition of α1 -adrenoceptors in arteries is not a simple guide to their involvement in function. Similar locations of the subtypes, even in different cell types, suggest that differences between the distribution of subtypes in model systems do not directly correlate with those in native tissues. This review includes a historical summary of the alternative terms used for adrenoceptors (adrenergic receptors, adrenoreceptors) and the author's views on the use of colours to illustrate different items, given his partial colour-blindness.

Biophysical Detection of Diversity and Bias in GPCR Function

Guanine nucleotide binding protein (G protein)-coupled receptors (GPCRs) function in complexes with a range of molecules and proteins including ligands, G proteins, arrestins, ubiquitin, and other receptors. Elements of these complexes may interact constitutively or dynamically, dependent upon factors such as ligand binding, phosphorylation, and dephosphorylation. They may also be allosterically modulated by other proteins in a manner that changes temporally and spatially within the cell. Elucidating how these complexes function has been greatly enhanced by biophysical technologies that are able to monitor proximity and/or binding, often in real time and in live cells. These include resonance energy transfer approaches such as bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET). Furthermore, the use of fluorescent ligands has enabled novel insights into allosteric interactions between GPCRs. Consequently, biophysical approaches are helping to unlock the amazing diversity and bias in G protein-coupled receptor signaling.