| Literature DB >> 25385766 |
Fuqing Wu1, Peike Sheng1, Junjie Tan1, Xiuling Chen1, Guangwen Lu2, Weiwei Ma1, Yueqin Heng1, Qibing Lin1, Shanshan Zhu1, Jiulin Wang1, Jie Wang1, Xiuping Guo1, Xin Zhang1, Cailin Lei1, Jianmin Wan3.
Abstract
Drought is a recurring climatic hazard that reduces the crop yields. To avoid the negative effects of drought on crop production, extensive efforts have been devoted to investigating the complex mechanisms of gene expression and signal transduction during drought stress. Receptor-like kinases (RLKs) play important roles in perceiving extracellular stimuli and activating downstream signalling responses. The rice genome contains >1100 RLK genes, of which only two are reported to function in drought stress. A leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RLK gene named Leaf Panicle 2 (LP2) was previously found to be strongly expressed in leaves and other photosynthetic tissues, but its function remains unclear. In the present study, it was shown that the expression of LP2 was down-regulated by drought and abscisic acid (ABA). Transgenic plants overexpressing LP2 accumulated less H₂O₂, had more open stomata in leaves, and showed hypersensitivity to drought stress. Further investigation revealed that transcription of LP2 was directly regulated by the zinc finger transcription factor DROUGHT AND SALT TOLERANCE (DST). In addition, LP2 was identified as a functional kinase localized to the plasma membrane and interacted with the drought-responsive aquaporin proteins OsPIP1; 1, OsPIP1; 3, and OsPIP2; 3. Thus, the findings provided evidence that the LRR-RLK LP2, transcriptionally regulated by the drought-related transcription factor DST, served as a negative regulator in drought response.Entities:
Keywords: Abiotic stress; LRR; Oryza sativa; RLK; leaf panicle 2; water channel.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25385766 PMCID: PMC4265162 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Protein domain structure and phylogenetic analysis of LP2. (A) Schematic depiction of the major domains in LP2. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of LP2 and other LRR receptor-like kinases constructed by the Neighbor–Joining method. The LP2 protein is shown in red.
Fig. 2.Transcript analysis and subcellular localization of LP2. (A) Determination of LP2 transcript levels by qRT–PCR in response to water, NaCl, ABA, and PEG. (B) Tissue-specific expression pattern of LP2 (means ±SD, n=3). (C) Subcellular localization of the fused LP2–GFP in onion epidermal cells. Bars=100 μm. (D) Subcellular localization of the fused LP2–GFP in rice protoplasts. Bar=5 μm.
Fig. 3.In vitro kinase assays with the LP2 kinase domain using MBP as substrate. Protein was visualized by Coomassie Blue staining (left panel), and protein phosphorylation was detected by autoradiography ([32P], right panel). The experiment was repeated twice with similar results.
Fig. 4.Drought tolerance testing of LP2-overexpressing rice. (A) Phenotypes of wild-type and transgenic plants before drought treatment (top panel), after withholding water for 1 week (middle panel), and after recovery for 3 d (bottom panel). (B) Survival of transgenic and wild-type plants. Data are means ±SD from three independent biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with the control (Student’s t-test: **P<0.01). (C) Water loss rate from transgenic and wild-type plants. Water loss was expressed as a percentage relative to the total water content. Error bars are based on three replicates. For each repeat, 20 fully expanded leaves from ~4-week-old plants were used.
Fig. 5.Down-regulation of H2O2 in LP2-overexpressing plants inhibits stomatal closure. (A) Scanning electron microscopy images of three levels of stomatal opening. Scale bar=10 μm. (B) Percentages of three levels of stomatal opening in wild-type and LP2-overexpressing plants (n=63 stomata for the wild type; n=55 stomata for OE-2; n=72 stomata for OE-8; n=42 stomata for OE-24). (C) Quantitative measurements of H2O2 in seedling leaves of wild-type and LP2-overexpressing plants. Data are means ±SD from three independent biological replicates. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with the control (Student’s t-test: *P<0.05).
Fig. 6.LP2 is transcriptionally regulated by DST via direct binding to the promoter. (A) Schematic diagram of the promoter regions of LP2. A black line represents the promoter region of LP2; the black box on the line represents the putative DST-binding site. Upper numbers indicate relative distances from the ATG initiation codon shown as +1 (scale bars=200bp). (B) Yeast one-hybrid assays showing that DST activates the LacZ reporter gene driven by the LP2 promoter containing the putative DST-binding motif, but not LacZ reporter genes driven by the LP2 promoter without the binding motif, or with mutations in the binding motif. Red bars in the construct of LP2p-1-m and LP2p-1d-m indicate the positions of mutations. AD, activation domain. (C) ChIP-qPCR assays showing that LP2 promoter fragments containing the putative DST-binding site are specifically enriched. Four pairs of primers were used for the ChIP-qPCR experiment (means ±SD, n=3). Immunoprecipitation with a pre-immune (Pre.) serum was used as the negative control. (D) Comparison of transcript abundance of LP2 in the wild type (ZH11) and dst mutant by qRT–PCR.
Fig. 7.LP2 physically interacts with plasma membrane aquaporins. Interaction of LP2 with three aquaporins as indicated by firefly luciferase complementation imaging assays in Nicotianana benthamiana leaves. nLUC-RAR1 and cLUC-AvrB were used as positive controls. nLUC and cLUC-OsPIP as well as nLUC-LP2 and cLUC were used as negative controls.