Floral nectar of the obligate outcrossing Canavalia gladiata (Jacq.) DC. (Fabaceae) contains only one predominant protein, a class III acidic chitinase

Characterization of soybean chitinase genes induced by rhizobacteria involved in the defense against Fusarium oxysporum

Rhizobacteria are capable of inducing defense responses via the expression of pathogenesis-related proteins (PR-proteins) such as chitinases, and many studies have validated the functions of plant chitinases in defense responses. Soybean (Glycine max) is an economically important crop worldwide, but the functional validation of soybean chitinase in defense responses remains limited. In this study, genome-wide characterization of soybean chitinases was conducted, and the defense contribution of three chitinases (GmChi01, GmChi02, or GmChi16) was validated in Arabidopsis transgenic lines against the soil-borne pathogen Fusarium oxysporum. Compared to the Arabidopsis Col-0 and empty vector controls, the transgenic lines with GmChi02 or GmChi16 exhibited fewer chlorosis symptoms and wilting. While GmChi02 and GmChi16 enhanced defense to F. oxysporum, GmChi02 was the only one significantly induced by Burkholderia ambifaria. The observation indicated that plant chitinases may be induced by different rhizobacteria for defense responses. The survey of 37 soybean chitinase gene expressions in response to six rhizobacteria observed diverse inducibility, where only 10 genes were significantly upregulated by at least one rhizobacterium and 9 genes did not respond to any of the rhizobacteria. Motif analysis on soybean promoters further identified not only consensus but also rhizobacterium-specific transcription factor-binding sites for the inducible chitinase genes. Collectively, these results confirmed the involvement of GmChi02 and GmChi16 in defense enhancement and highlighted the diverse inducibility of 37 soybean chitinases encountering F. oxysporum and six rhizobacteria.

Floral nectar production: what cost to a plant?

Floral nectar production is central to plant pollination, and hence to human wellbeing. As floral nectar is essentially a solution in water of various sugars, it is likely a valuable plant resource, especially in terms of energy, with plants experiencing costs/trade-offs associated with its production or absorption and adopting mechanisms to regulate nectar in flowers. Possible costs of nectar production may also influence the evolution of nectar volume, concentration and composition, of pollination syndromes involving floral nectar, and the production of some crops. There has been frequent agreement that costs of floral nectar production are significant, but relevant evidence is scant and difficult to interpret. Convincing direct evidence comes from experimental studies that relate either enhanced nectar sugar production (through repeated nectar removal) to reduced ability to produce seeds, or increased sugar availability (through absorption of additional artificial nectar) to increased seed production. Proportions of available photosynthate allocated by plants to nectar production may also indicate nectar cost. However, such studies are rare, some do not include treatments of all (or almost all) flowers per plant, and all lack quantitative cost-benefit comparisons for nectar production. Additional circumstantial evidence of nectar cost is difficult to interpret and largely equivocal. Future research should repeat direct experimental approaches that relate reduced or enhanced nectar sugar availability for a plant with consequent ability to produce seeds. To avoid confounding effects of inter-flower resource transfer, each plant should experience a single treatment, with treatment of all or almost all flowers per plant. Resource allocation by plants, pathways used for resource transfer, and the locations of resource sources and sinks should also be investigated. Future research should also consider extension of nectar cost into other areas of biology. For example, evolutionary models of nectar production are rare but should be possible if plant fitness gains and costs associated with nectar production are expressed in the same currency, such as energy. It should then be possible to understand observed nectar production for different plant species and pollination syndromes involving floral nectar. In addition, potential economic benefits should be possible to assess if relationships between nectar production and crop value are evaluated.

Comparing the contents, functions and neonicotinoid take-up between floral and extrafloral nectar within a single species (Hemerocallis citrina Baroni)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many angiosperms can secrete both floral (FN) and extrafloral (EFN) nectar. However, much remains unclear about how EFN and FN differ in secretion, composition and ecological function, especially when both FN and EFN are secreted on flowers of the same species.

METHODS

Hemerocallis citrina flowers secrete both FN and EFN. The FN and EFN traits including volume, presentation pattern and temporal rhythms of secretion were compared by field observation. Sugar and amino acid contents were analysed using regular biochemical methods, whereas the proteome was investigated by combined gel-based and gel-free approaches. Animal feeders on FN and EFN were investigated by field observation. Hemerocallis citrina plants were exposed by soil drenching to two systemic insecticides, acetamiprid and imidacloprid, and the concentration of these in FN and EFN was measured by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry.

KEY RESULTS

Hemerocallis citrina FN was concentrated and sucrose dominant, secreted in the mature flower tube and served as a reward for pollinators. Conversely, EFN was hexose rich, more dilute and less rich in sugar and amino acids. EFN was secreted on the outside of developing floral buds, and was likely to attract predatory animals for defence. EFN had fewer phenolics, but more pathogenesis-related components, such as chitinase and glucanase. A significantly different proteomic profile and enzymatic activities between FN and EFN suggest that they had different biosynthesis mechanisms. Both neonicotinoid insecticides examined became present in both nectar types soon after application, but in greater concentration within EFN; EFN also attracted a wider range of insect species than FN.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemerocallis citrina FN and EFN differed in production, composition and ecological function. The EFN pathway could be a significant way for neonicotinoids to enter the wild food chain, and must be considered when evaluating the risks to the environment of other systemic insecticides.

Nectar- and stigma exudate-specific expression of an acidic chitinase could partially protect certain apple cultivars against fire blight disease

MAIN CONCLUSION

Certain apple cultivars accumulate to high levels in their nectar and stigma exudate an acidic chitinase III protein that can protect against pathogens including fire blight disease causing Erwinia amylovora. To prevent microbial infections, flower nectars and stigma exudates contain various antimicrobial compounds. Erwinia amylovora, the causing bacterium of the devastating fire blight apple disease, is the model pathogen that multiplies in flower secretions and infects through the nectaries. Although Erwinia-resistant apples are not available, certain cultivars are tolerant. It was reported that in flower infection assay, the 'Freedom' cultivar was Erwinia tolerant, while the 'Jonagold' cultivar was susceptible. We hypothesized that differences in the nectar protein compositions lead to different susceptibility. Indeed, we found that an acidic chitinase III protein (Machi3-1) selectively accumulates to very high levels in the nectar and the stigma exudate of the 'Freedom' cultivar. We show that three different Machi3-1 alleles exist in apple cultivars and that only the 5B-Machi3-1 allele expresses the Machi3-1 protein in the nectar and the stigma exudate. We demonstrate that the 5B-Machi3-1 allele was introgressed from the Malus floribunda 821 clone into different apple cultivars including the 'Freedom'. Our data suggest that MYB-binding site containing repeats of the 5B-Machi3-1 promoter is responsible for the strong nectar- and stigma exudate-specific expression. As we found that in vitro, the Machi3-1 protein impairs growth and biofilm formation of Erwinia at physiological concentration, we propose that the Machi3-1 protein could partially protect 5B-Machi3-1 allele containing cultivars against Erwinia by inhibiting the multiplication and biofilm formation of the pathogen in the stigma exudate and in the nectar.

Proteomics and post-secretory content adjustment of Nicotiana tabacum nectar

MAIN CONCLUSION

The tobacco nectar proteome mainly consists of pathogenesis-related proteins with two glycoproteins. Expression of nectarins was non-synchronous, and not nectary specific. After secretion, tobacco nectar changed from sucrose rich to hexose rich. Floral nectar proteins (nectarins) play important roles in inhibiting microbial growth in nectar, and probably also tailoring nectar chemistry before or after secretion; however, very few plant species have had their nectar proteomes thoroughly investigated. Nectarins from Nicotiana tabacum (NT) were separated using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and then analysed using mass spectrometry. Seven nectarins were identified: acidic endochitinase, β-xylosidase, α-galactosidase, α-amylase, G-type lectin S-receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase, pathogenesis-related protein 5, and early nodulin-like protein 2. An eighth nectarin, a glycoprotein with unknown function, was identified following isolation from NT nectar using a Qproteome total glycoprotein kit, separation by SDS-PAGE, and identification by mass spectrometry. Expression of all identified nectarins, plus four invertase genes, was analysed by qRT PCR; none of these genes had nectary-specific expression, and none had synchronous expression. The total content of sucrose, hexoses, proteins, phenolics, and hydrogen peroxide were determined at different time intervals in secreted nectar, both within the nectar tube (in vivo) and following extraction from it during incubation at 30 °C for up to 40 h in plastic tubes (in vitro). After secretion, the ratio of hexose to sucrose substantially increased for in vivo nectar, but no sugar composition changes were detected in vitro. This implies that sucrose hydrolysis in vivo might be done by fixed apoplastic invertase. Both protein and hydrogen peroxide levels declined in vitro but not in vivo, implying that some factors other than nectarins act to maintain their levels in the flower, after secretion.

Yeast-Bacterium Interactions: The Next Frontier in Nectar Research

Beyond its role as a reward for pollinators, floral nectar also provides a habitat for specialized and opportunistic yeasts and bacteria. These microbes modify nectar chemistry, often altering mutualistic relationships between plants and pollinators in ways that we are only beginning to understand. Many studies on this multi-partite system have focused on either yeasts or bacteria without consideration of yeast-bacterium interactions, but recent evidence suggests that such interactions drive the assembly of nectar microbial communities and its consequences for pollination. Unexplored potential mechanisms of yeast-bacterium interactions include the formation of physical complexes, nutritional interactions, antibiosis, signaling-based interactions, and horizontal gene transfer. We argue that studying these mechanisms can elucidate how nectar microbial communities are established and affect plant fitness via pollinators.

Characterization of a L-Gulono-1,4-Lactone Oxidase Like Protein in the Floral Nectar of Mucuna sempervirens, Fabaceae

Floral nectar plays important roles in the interaction between animal-pollinated plants and pollinators. Its components include water, sugars, amino acids, vitamins, and proteins. Growing empirical evidence shows that most of the proteins secreted in nectar (nectarines) are enzymes that can tailor nectar chemistry for their animal mutualists or reduce the growth of microorganisms in nectar. However, to date, the function of many nectarines remains unknown, and very few plant species have had their nectar proteome thoroughly investigated. Mucuna sempervirens (Fabaceae) is a perennial woody vine native to China. Nectarines from this species were separated using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, and analyzed using mass spectrometry. A L-gulonolactone oxidase like protein (MsGulLO) was detected, and the full length cDNA was cloned: it codes for a protein of 573 amino acids with a predicted signal peptide. MsGulLO has high similarity to L-gulonolactone oxidase 5 (AtGulLO5) in Arabidopsis thaliana, which was suggested to be involved in the pathway of ascorbate biosynthesis; however, both MsGulLO and AtGulLO5 are divergent from animal L-gulonolactone oxidases. MsGulLO was expressed mainly in flowers, and especially in nectary before blooming. However, cloning and gene expression analysis showed that L-galactonolactone dehydrogenase (MsGLDH), a vital enzyme in plant ascorbate biosynthesis, was expressed in all of flowers, roots, stems, and especially leaves. MsGulLO was purified to near homogeneity from raw MS nectar by gel filtration chromatography. The enzyme was determined to be a neutral monomeric protein with an apparent molecular mass of 70 kDa. MsGulLO is not a flavin-containing protein, and has neither L-galactonolactone dehydrogenase activity, nor the L-gulonolactone activity that is usual in animal GulLOs. However, it has weak oxidase activity with the following substrates: L-gulono-1,4-lactone, L -galactono-1,4-lactone, D-gluconic acid-δ-lactone, glucose, and fructose. MsGulLO is suggested to function in hydrogen peroxide generation in nectar but not in plant ascorbate biosynthesis.