Transgene-induced lesion mimic

  • Ron Mittler
  • Ludmila Rizhsky

Abstract

Lesion mimic, i.e., the spontaneous formation of lesions resembling hypersensitive response (HR) lesions in the absence of a pathogen, is a dramatic phenotype occasionally found to accompany the expression of different, mostly unrelated, transgenes in plants. Recent studies indicated that transgene-induced lesion formation is not a simple case of necrosis, i.e., direct killing of cells by the transgene product, but results from the activation of a programmed cell death (PCD) pathway. Moreover, activation of HR-like cell death by transgene expression is viewed as an important evidence for the existence of a PCD pathway in plants. The study of lesion mimic transgenes is important to our understanding of PCD and the signals that control it in plants. PCD-inducing transgenes may provide clues regarding the different entry points into the cell death pathway, the relationships between the different branches of the pathway (e.g., developmental or environmental), or the different mechanisms involved in its induction or execution. Cell death-inducing transgenes may also be useful in biotechnology. Some lesion mimic transgenes were found to be induced in plants a state of systemic acquired resistance (SAR). These genes can be used in the development of pathogen-resistant crops. Other cell death-inducing transgenes may be used as specific cell ablation tools. Although mainly revealed unintentionally, and at times considered ‘an adverse phenotype’, lesion mimic transgenes should not be ignored because they may prove valuable for studying PCD as well as developing useful traits in different plants and crops.

Keywords

biotechnology lesion mimic plant-pathogen interactions programmed cell death 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachmair, A., Becker, E., Masterson, R.V. and Schell, J. 1990. Perturbation of the ubiquitin system causes leaf curling, vascular tissue alterations and necrotic lesions in higher plants. EMBO J. 9: 4543 1549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, F., Buschfeld, E., Schell, J. and Bachmair, A. 1993. Altered response to viral infection by tobacco plants perturbed in ubiquitin system. Plant J. 3: 875–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beffa, R., Szell, M., Meuwly, P., Pay, A., Vogeli-Lange, R., Metraux, J.P., Neuhaus, G., Meins, F. Jr. and Nagy, F. 1995. Cholera toxin elevates pathogen resistance and induces pathogenesis-related gene expression in tobacco. EMBO J. 14: 5753–5761.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bent, A.F 1996. Plant disease resistance genes: function meets structure. Plant Cell 8: 1757–1771.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamnongpol, S., Willekens, H., Langebartels, C., Van Montagu, M., Inze, D. and Van Camp, W. 1996. Transgenic tobacco with reduced catalase activity develops necrotic lesions and induces pathogenesis-related expression under high light. Plant J. 10: 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamnongpol, S., Willekens, H., Moeder, W., Langebartels, C., Sandermann, H., Van Montagu, M., Inze, D. and Van Camp, W. 1998. Defense activation and enhanced pathogen tolerance induced by H2O2 in transgenic tobacco. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sei. USA 95: 5818–5823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Culver, J.N. and Dawson, W.O. 1991. Tobacco mosaic virus elicitor coat protein genes produce a hypersensitive phenotype in transgenic Nicotiana sylvestris plants. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 4: 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dangl, J.L., Dietrich, R.A. and Richberg, M.H. 1996. Death don’t have no mercy: cell death programs in plant-microbe interactions. Plant Cell 8: 1793–1807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. del Pozo, O. and Lam, E. 1998. Caspases and programmed cell death in the hypersensitive response of plants to pathogens. Curr. Biol. 8: 1129–1132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Tapia, M., Himmelbach, A. and Hohn, T. 1993. Molecular dissection of the cauliflower mosaic virus translation transactivator. EMBO J. 12: 3305–3314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich, R.A., Delaney, T.P., Uknes, S.J., Ward, E.R., Ryals, J.A. and Dangl, J.L. 1994. Arabidopsis mutants simulating disease resistance response. Cell 77: 565–577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerson, R.A. 1923. The inheritance of blotch leaf maize. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Mem. 70: 3–16.Google Scholar
  13. Flor, H.H. 1956. The complementary genie systems in flax and flax rust. Adv. Genet 8: 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, A. and Evan, G. 1996. A license to kill. Cell 85: 781–784.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukuda, H. 1997. Tracheary element differentiation. Plant Cell 9: 1147–1156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gatz, C. 1995. Novel inducible/repressible gene expression systems. Meth. Cell Biol. 50:411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, J.T. 1996. Programmed cell death: a way of life for plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sei. USA 93: 12094–12097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg, J.T. and Ausubel, F.M. 1993. Arabidopsis mutants compromised for the control of cellular damage during pathogenesis and aging. Plant J. 4: 327–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg, J.T., Ailan, G., Klessig, D.R and Ausubel, F.M. 1994. Programmed cell death in plants: a pathogen-triggered response activated coordinately with multiple defence functions. Cell 77: 551–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, R.N. and Novacky, A.J. 1994. The Hypersensitive Response Reaction in Plants to Pathogens: A Resistance Phenomenon, American Phytopathological Society Press. St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  21. Hammond-Kosack, K.E. and Jones, J.D.G. 1996. Resistance genedependent plant defense responses. Plant Cell 8: 1773–1791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammond-Kosack, K.E., Harrison, K. and Jones, J.D.G. 1994. Developmentally regulated cell death on expression of the fungal avirulence gene Avr9 in tomato seedlings carrying the disease-resistance gene CF-9. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 91: 10445–10449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammond-Kosack, K.E., Tang, S., Harrison, K. and Jones, J.D.G. 1998. The tomato Cf-9 disease resistance gene functions in tobacco and potato to confer responsiveness to the fungal avirulance gene product avr9. Plant Cell 10: 1251–1266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. He, S.Y., Bauer, D.W., Collmer, A. and Beer, S.V. 1994. Hypersensitive response elicited by Erwinia amylovora harpin requires active plant metabolism. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 7: 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herbers, K., Meuwly, P., Frommer, W.B., Metraux, J.R and Sonnewald, U. 1996. Systemic acquired resistance mediated by the ectopic expression of invertase: possible hexose sensing in the secretory pathway. Plant Cell 8: 793–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Karrer, E.E., Beachy, R.N. and Holt, C.A. 1998. Cloning of tobacco genes that elicit the hypersensitive response. Plant Mol. Biol. 36: 681–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller, H., Pamboukdjian, N., Ponchet, M., Poupet, A., Delon, R., Verrier, J.L., Roby, D. and Ricci, P. 1999. Pathogen-induced elicitin production in transgenic tobacco generates a hypersensitive response and nonspecific disease resistance. Plant Cell 11: 223–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Langford, A.N. 1948. Autogenous necrosis in tomatoes immune from Cladosporium flavum Cooke. Can. J. Res. 26: 35–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine, A., Tenhaken, R., Dixon, R. and Lamb, C. 1994. H2O2 from the oxidative burst orchestrates the plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Cell 79: 583–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lotan, T., Ori, N. and Fluhr, R. 1989. Pathogenesis-related proteins are developmentally regulated in tobacco flowers. Plant Cell 1: 881–887.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McNellis, T.W., Mudgett, M.B., Li, K., Aoyama, T., Horvath, D., Chua, N.H. and Staskawicz, B.J. 1998. Glucocorticoid-inducible expression of a bacterial avirulence gene in transgenic Arabidopsis induces hypersensitive cell death. Plant J. 14: 247–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mittler, R. and Lam, E. 1996. Sacrifice in the face of foes: pathogen-induced programmed cell death in higher plants. Trends Microbiol. 4: 10–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mittler, R., Shulaev, V. and Lam, E. 1995. Coordinated activation of programmed cell death and defense mechanisms in transgenic tobacco plants expressing a bacterial proton pump. Plant Cell 7: 29–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Molina, A., Volrath, S., Guyer, D., Maleck, K., Ryals, J. and Ward, E. 1999. Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase expression in Arabidopsis causes a lesion-mimic phenotype that induces systemic acquired resistance. Plant J. 17: 667–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilsson, O., Wu, E., Wolfe, D.S. and Weigel, D. 1998. Genetic ablation of flowers in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant J. 15: 799–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orvar, B.L. and Elfi, B.E. 1997. Transgenic tobacco plants expressing antisense RNA for cytosolic ascorbate peroxidase show increased susceptibility to ozone injury. Plant J. 11: 1297–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pennel, R.I. and Lamb, C. 1997. Programmed cell death in plants. Plant Cell 9: 1157–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raff, CM. 1992. Social controls on cell survival and cell death. Nature 356: 397–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sano, H., Seo, S., Orudgev, E., Youssefian, S., Ishizuka, K. and Ohashi, Y. 1994. Expression of the gene for a small GTP binding protein in transgenic tobacco elevates endogenous cytokinin levels, abnormally induces salicylic acid in response to wounding and increases resistance to tobacco mosaic virus infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 91: 10556–10560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartzman, R.A. and Cidlowski, J.A. 1993. Apoptosis: the biochemistry and molecular biology of programmed cell death. Endocrine Rev. 14: 133–151.Google Scholar
  41. Strittmatter, G., Janssens, J., Opsomer, C. and Botterman, J. 1995. Inhibition of fungal disease development in plants by engineering controlled cell death. Bio/technology 13: 1085–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Takahashi, H., Shimamoto, K. and Ehara, Y. 1989. Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI causes growth suppression, development of necrotic spots and expression of defence-related genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Mol. Gen. Genet. 216: 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Takahashi, H., Chen, Z., Du, H., Liu, Y. and Klessig, D.F. 1997. Development of necrosis and activation of disease resistance in transgenic tobacco plants with severely reduced catalase levels. Plant J. 11: 993–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walbot, V., Hoisington, D.A. and Neuffer, M.G. 1983. Disease lesion mimics in maize. In: T. Kosuge and C. Meredith (Eds.) Genetic Engineering of Plants, Plenum, New York, pp. 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolter, M., Hollricher, K., Salamini, F. and Schulze-Lefert, P. 1993. The mlo resistance alleles to powdery mildew infection in barley trigger a developmentally controlled defence mimic phenotype. Mol. Gen. Genet. 239: 122–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang, Y., Shah, J. and Klessig, D.F. 1997. Signal perception and transduction in plant defense responses. Genet. Dev. 11: 1621–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron Mittler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ludmila Rizhsky
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of BiologyTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyTechnion City, HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations