Microbial Pathogens Trigger Host DNA Double-Strand Breaks Whose Abundance Is Reduced by Plant Defense Responses
Multicellular organisms are continuously exposed to microbes and have developed sophisticated defense mechanisms to counter attack by microbial pathogens. Organisms also encounter many types of DNA damage and have evolved multiple mechanisms to maintain their genomic integrity. Even though these two fundamental responses have been characterized extensively, the relationship between them remains largely unclear. Our study demonstrates that microbial plant pathogens with diverse life styles, including bacteria, oomycete and fungal pathogens, induce double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the genomes of infected host plant cells. DSB induction is apparently a common feature during plant-pathogen interactions. DSBs are the most deleterious form of DNA damage and can lead to chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations. In response to pathogen infection, plant immune responses are activated and contribute to suppressing pathogen-induced DSBs, thereby maintaining better genome integrity and stability. The findings identify important ways that the plant immune and DNA damage repair responses are interconnected. Awareness of the above phenomena may foster future development of disease management approaches that improve crop productivity under biotic stress.
Vyšlo v časopise:
Microbial Pathogens Trigger Host DNA Double-Strand Breaks Whose Abundance Is Reduced by Plant Defense Responses. PLoS Pathog 10(4): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004030
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004030
Souhrn
Multicellular organisms are continuously exposed to microbes and have developed sophisticated defense mechanisms to counter attack by microbial pathogens. Organisms also encounter many types of DNA damage and have evolved multiple mechanisms to maintain their genomic integrity. Even though these two fundamental responses have been characterized extensively, the relationship between them remains largely unclear. Our study demonstrates that microbial plant pathogens with diverse life styles, including bacteria, oomycete and fungal pathogens, induce double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the genomes of infected host plant cells. DSB induction is apparently a common feature during plant-pathogen interactions. DSBs are the most deleterious form of DNA damage and can lead to chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations. In response to pathogen infection, plant immune responses are activated and contribute to suppressing pathogen-induced DSBs, thereby maintaining better genome integrity and stability. The findings identify important ways that the plant immune and DNA damage repair responses are interconnected. Awareness of the above phenomena may foster future development of disease management approaches that improve crop productivity under biotic stress.
Zdroje
1. JacksonSP, BartekJ (2009) The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461: 1071–1078.
2. CicciaA, ElledgeSJ (2010) The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell 40: 179–204.
3. SedelnikovaOA, RedonCE, DickeyJS, NakamuraAJ, GeorgakilasAG, et al. (2010) Role of oxidatively induced DNA lesions in human pathogenesis. Mutat Res 704: 152–159.
4. AmburOH, DavidsenT, FryeSA, BalasinghamSV, LagesenK, et al. (2009) Genome dynamics in major bacterial pathogens. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 453–470.
5. WeitzmanMD, LilleyCE, ChaurushiyaMS (2010) Genomes in conflict: maintaining genome integrity during virus infection. Annu Rev Microbiol 64: 61–81.
6. NougayredeJP, HomburgS, TaiebF, BouryM, BrzuszkiewiczE, et al. (2006) Escherichia coli induces DNA double-strand breaks in eukaryotic cells. Science 313: 848–851.
7. TollerIM, NeelsenKJ, StegerM, HartungML, HottigerMO, et al. (2011) Carcinogenic bacterial pathogen Helicobacter pylori triggers DNA double-strand breaks and a DNA damage response in its host cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 14944–14949.
8. ChakrabortySP, Kar MahapatraS, SahuSK, DasS, TripathyS, et al. (2011) Internalization of Staphylococcus aureus in lymphocytes induces oxidative stress and DNA fragmentation: possible ameliorative role of nanoconjugated vancomycin. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2011: 942123.
9. RakkestadKE, SkaarI, AnsteinssonVE, SolhaugA, HolmeJA, et al. (2010) DNA damage and DNA damage responses in THP-1 monocytes after exposure to spores of either Stachybotrys chartarum or Aspergillus versicolor or to T-2 toxin. Toxicol Sci 115: 140–155.
10. TouatiE (2010) When bacteria become mutagenic and carcinogenic: lessons from H. pylori. Mutat Res 703: 66–70.
11. MangerichA, KnutsonCG, ParryNM, MuthupalaniS, YeW, et al. (2012) Infection-induced colitis in mice causes dynamic and tissue-specific changes in stress response and DNA damage leading to colon cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: E1820–1829.
12. ArthurJC, Perez-ChanonaE, MuhlbauerM, TomkovichS, UronisJM, et al. (2012) Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science 338: 120–123.
13. DoddsPN, RathjenJP (2010) Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions. Nat Rev Genet 11: 539–548.
14. Murphy K, Travers P, Walport M, Janeway C (2012) Janeway's immunobiology. New York: Garland Science. xix, 868 p. p.
15. Rakoff-NahoumS, MedzhitovR (2009) Toll-like receptors and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 9: 57–63.
16. LambC, DixonRA (1997) The Oxidative Burst in Plant Disease Resistance. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48: 251–275.
17. O'BrienJA, DaudiA, ButtVS, BolwellGP (2012) Reactive oxygen species and their role in plant defence and cell wall metabolism. Planta 236: 765–779.
18. Roldan-ArjonaT, ArizaRR (2009) Repair and tolerance of oxidative DNA damage in plants. Mutat Res 681: 169–179.
19. WaterworthWM, DruryGE, BrayCM, WestCE (2011) Repairing breaks in the plant genome: the importance of keeping it together. New Phytol 192: 805–822.
20. BalestrazziA, ConfalonieriM, MacoveiA, DonaM, CarboneraD (2011) Genotoxic stress and DNA repair in plants: emerging functions and tools for improving crop productivity. Plant Cell Rep 30: 287–295.
21. RogakouEP, PilchDR, OrrAH, IvanovaVS, BonnerWM (1998) DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem 273: 5858–5868.
22. IacovoniJS, CaronP, LassadiI, NicolasE, MassipL, et al. (2010) High-resolution profiling of gammaH2AX around DNA double strand breaks in the mammalian genome. EMBO J 29: 1446–1457.
23. AbrahamRT (2001) Cell cycle checkpoint signaling through the ATM and ATR kinases. Genes Dev 15: 2177–2196.
24. SperkaT, WangJ, RudolphKL (2012) DNA damage checkpoints in stem cells, ageing and cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13: 579–590.
25. FriesnerJD, LiuB, CulliganK, BrittAB (2005) Ionizing radiation-dependent gamma-H2AX focus formation requires ataxia telangiectasia mutated and ataxia telangiectasia mutated and Rad3-related. Mol Biol Cell 16: 2566–2576.
26. KinnerA, WuW, StaudtC, IliakisG (2008) Gamma-H2AX in recognition and signaling of DNA double-strand breaks in the context of chromatin. Nucleic Acids Res 36: 5678–5694.
27. LuchtJM, Mauch-ManiB, SteinerHY, MetrauxJP, RyalsJ, et al. (2002) Pathogen stress increases somatic recombination frequency in Arabidopsis. Nat Genet 30: 311–314.
28. KovalchukI, KovalchukO, KalckV, BoykoV, FilkowskiJ, et al. (2003) Pathogen-induced systemic plant signal triggers DNA rearrangements. Nature 423: 760–762.
29. YaoY, KathiriaP, KovalchukI (2013) A systemic increase in the recombination frequency upon local infection of Arabidopsis thaliana plants with oilseed rape mosaic virus depends on plant age, the initial inoculum concentration and the time for virus replication. Front Plant Sci 4: 61.
30. ChoiJJ, KlostermanSJ, HadwigerLA (2001) A comparison of the effects of DNA-damaging agents and biotic elicitors on the induction of plant defense genes, nuclear distortion, and cell death. Plant Physiol 125: 752–762.
31. KunzBA, CahillDM, MohrPG, OsmondMJ, VonarxEJ (2006) Plant responses to UV radiation and links to pathogen resistance. Int Rev Cytol 255: 1–40.
32. DurrantWE, WangS, DongXN (2007) Arabidopsis SNI1 and RAD51D regulate both gene transcription and DNA recombination during the defense response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 4223–4227.
33. WangS, DurrantWE, SongJ, SpiveyNW, DongX (2010) Arabidopsis BRCA2 and RAD51 proteins are specifically involved in defense gene transcription during plant immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 22716–22721.
34. SongJ, DurrantWE, WangS, YanS, TanEH, et al. (2011) DNA repair proteins are directly involved in regulation of gene expression during plant immune response. Cell Host Microbe 9: 115–124.
35. Adams-PhillipsL, WanJ, TanX, DunningFM, MeyersBC, et al. (2008) Discovery of ADP-ribosylation and other plant defense pathway elements through expression profiling of four different Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas R-avr interactions. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 646–657.
36. Adams-PhillipsL, BriggsAG, BentAF (2010) Disruption of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation mechanisms alters responses of Arabidopsis to biotic stress. Plant Physiol 152: 267–280.
37. MurLA, KentonP, LloydAJ, OughamH, PratsE (2008) The hypersensitive response; the centenary is upon us but how much do we know? J Exp Bot 59: 501–520.
38. RyersonDE, HeathMC (1996) Cleavage of nuclear DNA into oligonucleosomal fragments during cell death induced by fungal infection or by abiotic treatments. Plant Cell 8: 393–402.
39. KunkelBN, BentAF, DahlbeckD, InnesRW, StaskawiczBJ (1993) RPS2, an Arabidopsis disease resistance locus specifying recognition of Pseudomonas syringae strains expressing the avirulence gene avrRpt2. Plant Cell 5: 865–875.
40. YuGL, KatagiriF, AusubelFM (1993) Arabidopsis mutations at the RPS2 locus result in loss of resistance to Pseudomonas syringae strains expressing the avirulence gene avrRpt2. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 6: 434–443.
41. BochJ, JoardarV, GaoL, RobertsonTL, LimM, et al. (2002) Identification of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato genes induced during infection of Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Microbiol 44: 73–88.
42. WhalenMC, InnesRW, BentAF, StaskawiczBJ (1991) Identification of Pseudomonas syringae pathogens of Arabidopsis and a bacterial locus determining avirulence on both Arabidopsis and soybean. Plant Cell 3: 49–59.
43. RitterC, DanglJL (1996) Interference between two specific pathogen recognition events mediated by distinct plant disease resistance genes. Plant Cell 8: 251–257.
44. YuI-C, ParkerJ, BentAF (1998) Gene-for-gene disease resistance without the hypersensitive response in Arabidopsis dnd1 mutant. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 7819–7824.
45. GaoX, ChenX, LinW, ChenS, LuD, et al. (2013) Bifurcation of Arabidopsis NLR immune signaling via Ca(2)(+)-dependent protein kinases. PLoS Pathog 9: e1003127.
46. ZhangC, GutscheAT, ShapiroAD (2004) Feedback control of the Arabidopsis hypersensitive response. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17: 357–365.
47. GrantM, BrownI, AdamsS, KnightM, AinslieA, et al. (2000) The RPM1 plant disease resistance gene facilitates a rapid and sustained increase in cytosolic calcium that is necessary for the oxidative burst and hypersensitive cell death. Plant J 23: 441–450.
48. CollinsAR, AzquetaA (2012) DNA repair as a biomarker in human biomonitoring studies; further applications of the comet assay. Mutat Res 736: 122–129.
49. DhawanA, BajpayeeM, ParmarD (2009) Comet assay: a reliable tool for the assessment of DNA damage in different models. Cell Biol Toxicol 25: 5–32.
50. MishinaTE, ZeierJ (2007) Pathogen-associated molecular pattern recognition rather than development of tissue necrosis contributes to bacterial induction of systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant J 50: 500–513.
51. HuynhTV, DahlbeckD, StaskawiczBJ (1989) Bacterial blight of soybean: Regulation of a pathogen gene determining host cultivar specificity. Science 245: 1374–1377.
52. PieterseCM, van WeesSC, HofflandE, van PeltJA, van LoonLC (1996) Systemic resistance in Arabidopsis induced by biocontrol bacteria is independent of salicylic acid accumulation and pathogenesis-related gene expression. Plant Cell 8: 1225–1237.
53. HaasD, DefagoG (2005) Biological control of soil-borne pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Nat Rev Microbiol 3: 307–319.
54. LukasJ, LukasC, BartekJ (2011) More than just a focus: The chromatin response to DNA damage and its role in genome integrity maintenance. Nat Cell Biol 13: 1161–1169.
55. SrivastavaN, GochhaitS, de BoerP, BamezaiRN (2009) Role of H2AX in DNA damage response and human cancers. Mutat Res 681: 180–188.
56. HuenMS, GrantR, MankeI, MinnK, YuX, et al. (2007) RNF8 transduces the DNA-damage signal via histone ubiquitylation and checkpoint protein assembly. Cell 131: 901–914.
57. SongJ, BradeenJM, NaessSK, RaaschJA, WielgusSM, et al. (2003) Gene RB cloned from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to potato late blight. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9128–9133.
58. KramerLC, ChoudoirMJ, WielgusSM, BhaskarPB, JiangJ (2009) Correlation between transcript abundance of the RB gene and the level of the RB-mediated late blight resistance in potato. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 447–455.
59. GardnerRG, PantheeDR (2010) NC 1 CELBR and NC 2 CELBR: Early Blight and Late Blight-resistant Fresh Market Tomato Breeding Lines. Hortscience 45: 975–976.
60. BowlerC, van MontaguM, InzeD (1992) Superoxide dismutase and stress tolerance. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 43: 83–116.
61. LevineA, TenhakenR, DixonR, LambCJ (1994) H2O2 from the oxidative burst orchestrates the plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Cell 79: 583–593.
62. SuzukiN, MillerG, MoralesJ, ShulaevV, TorresMA, et al. (2011) Respiratory burst oxidases: the engines of ROS signaling. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14: 691–699.
63. TorresMA, DanglJL, JonesJD (2002) Arabidopsis gp91phox homologues AtrbohD and AtrbohF are required for accumulation of reactive oxygen intermediates in the plant defense response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 517–522.
64. RaoMV, PaliyathG, OrmrodDP, MurrDP, WatkinsCB (1997) Influence of salicylic acid on H2O2 production, oxidative stress, and H2O2-metabolizing enzymes. Salicylic acid-mediated oxidative damage requires H2O2. Plant Physiol 115: 137–149.
65. DurrantWE, DongX (2004) Systemic acquired resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42: 185–209.
66. PieterseCM, Van der DoesD, ZamioudisC, Leon-ReyesA, Van WeesSC (2012) Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 28: 489–521.
67. CaoH, BowlingSA, GordonS, DongX (1994) Characterization of an Arabidopsis mutant that is nonresponsive to inducers of systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell 6: 1583–1592.
68. KirikV, BouyerD, SchobingerU, BechtoldN, HerzogM, et al. (2001) CPR5 is involved in cell proliferation and cell death control and encodes a novel transmembrane protein. Curr Biol 11: 1891–1895.
69. BowlingSA, ClarkeJD, LiuY, KlessigDF, DongX (1997) The cpr5 mutant of Arabidopsis expresses both NPR1-dependent and NPR1-independent resistance. Plant Cell 9: 1573–1584.
70. BollerT, FelixG (2009) A renaissance of elicitors: perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol 60: 379–406.
71. KunzeG, ZipfelC, RobatzekS, NiehausK, BollerT, et al. (2004) The N terminus of bacterial elongation factor Tu elicits innate immunity in Arabidopsis plants. Plant Cell 16: 3496–3507.
72. YanS, WangW, MarquesJ, MohanR, SalehA, et al. (2013) Salicylic acid activates DNA damage responses to potentiate plant immunity. Mol Cell 52: 602–610.
73. MartinV, ChahwanC, GaoH, BlaisV, WohlschlegelJ, et al. (2006) Sws1 is a conserved regulator of homologous recombination in eukaryotic cells. Embo J 25: 2564–2574.
74. CulliganK, TissierA, BrittA (2004) ATR regulates a G2-phase cell-cycle checkpoint in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 16: 1091–1104.
75. GarciaV, BruchetH, CamescasseD, GranierF, BouchezD, et al. (2003) AtATM is essential for meiosis and the somatic response to DNA damage in plants. Plant Cell 15: 119–132.
76. VespaL, CouvillionM, SpanglerE, ShippenDE (2005) ATM and ATR make distinct contributions to chromosome end protection and the maintenance of telomeric DNA in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev 19: 2111–2115.
77. AmiardS, DepeigesA, AllainE, WhiteCI, GallegoME (2011) Arabidopsis ATM and ATR kinases prevent propagation of genome damage caused by telomere dysfunction. Plant Cell 23: 4254–4265.
78. AdachiS, MinamisawaK, OkushimaY, InagakiS, YoshiyamaK, et al. (2011) Programmed induction of endoreduplication by DNA double-strand breaks in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 10004–10009.
79. MenendezD, ShatzM, AzzamK, GarantziotisS, FesslerMB, et al. (2011) The Toll-like receptor gene family is integrated into human DNA damage and p53 networks. PLoS Genet 7: e1001360.
80. GasserS, OrsulicS, BrownEJ, RauletDH (2005) The DNA damage pathway regulates innate immune system ligands of the NKG2D receptor. Nature 436: 1186–1190.
81. JakobekJL, LindgrenPB (1993) Generalized Induction of Defense Responses in Bean Is Not Correlated with the Induction of the Hypersensitive Reaction. Plant Cell 5: 49–56.
82. PieterseCMJ, van WeesSCM, van PeltJA, KnoesterM, LaanR, et al. (1998) A novel signaling pathway controlling induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10: 1571–1580.
83. VerhagenBW, GlazebrookJ, ZhuT, ChangHS, van LoonLC, et al. (2004) The transcriptome of rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance in arabidopsis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17: 895–908.
84. SumitR, SahuBB, XuM, SandhuD, BhattacharyyaMK (2012) Arabidopsis nonhost resistance gene PSS1 confers immunity against an oomycete and a fungal pathogen but not a bacterial pathogen that cause diseases in soybean. BMC Plant Biol 12: 87.
85. ParkEJ, ChanDW, ParkJH, OettingerMA, KwonJ (2003) DNA-PK is activated by nucleosomes and phosphorylates H2AX within the nucleosomes in an acetylation-dependent manner. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 6819–6827.
86. KuhneM, RiballoE, RiefN, RothkammK, JeggoPA, et al. (2004) A double-strand break repair defect in ATM-deficient cells contributes to radiosensitivity. Cancer Res 64: 500–508.
87. KarlssonKH, StenerlowB (2004) Focus formation of DNA repair proteins in normal and repair-deficient cells irradiated with high-LET ions. Radiat Res 161: 517–527.
88. JiangM, ZhaoL, GamezM, ImperialeMJ (2012) Roles of ATM and ATR-mediated DNA damage responses during lytic BK polyomavirus infection. PLoS Pathog 8: e1002898.
89. KatagiriF, ThilmonyR, HeSY (2002) The Arabidopsis thaliana-pseudomonas syringae interaction. Arabidopsis Book 1: e0039.
90. GengerRK, JurkowskiGI, McDowellJM, LuH, JungHW, et al. (2008) Signaling pathways that regulate the enhanced disease resistance of Arabidopsis “defense, no death” mutants. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 1285–1296.
91. JacksonJP, JohnsonL, JasencakovaZ, ZhangX, PerezBurgosL, et al. (2004) Dimethylation of histone H3 lysine 9 is a critical mark for DNA methylation and gene silencing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Chromosoma 112: 308–315.
Štítky
Hygiena a epidemiológia Infekčné lekárstvo LaboratóriumČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Pathogens
2014 Číslo 4
- Parazitičtí červi v terapii Crohnovy choroby a dalších zánětlivých autoimunitních onemocnění
- Očkování proti virové hemoragické horečce Ebola experimentální vakcínou rVSVDG-ZEBOV-GP
- Koronavirus hýbe světem: Víte jak se chránit a jak postupovat v případě podezření?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- The 2010 Cholera Outbreak in Haiti: How Science Solved a Controversy
- Coxsackievirus-Induced miR-21 Disrupts Cardiomyocyte Interactions via the Downregulation of Intercalated Disk Components
- An Overview of Respiratory Syncytial Virus
- , , , Genetic Variability: Cryptic Biological Species or Clonal Near-Clades?