The Plant Pathology Journal

The Korean Society of Plant Pathology (한국식물병리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Hypersensitive Response. A Cell Death during Disease Resistance

  • Park, Jeong-Mee (Plant Genomics Lab., Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology)
  • Published : 2005.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Host cell death occurs during many, but not all, interactions between plants and the pathogens that infect them. This cell death can be associated with disease resistance or susceptibility, depending on the nature of the pathogen. The most well-known cell death response in plants is the hypersensitive response (HR) associated with a resistance response. HR is commonly regulated by direct or indirect interactions between avirulence proteins from pathogen and resistance proteins from plant and it can be the result of multiple signaling pathways. Ion fluxes and the generation of reactive oxygen species commonly precede cell death, but a direct involvement of the latter seems to vary with the plant-pathogen combination. Exciting advances have been made in the identification of cellular protective components and cell death suppressors that might operate in HR. In this review, recent progress in the mechanisms by which plant programmed cell death (PCD) occurs during disease resistance will be discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Atkinson, M. M., Mildland, S. L., Sims, J. J. and Keen, N. T. 1996. Syringolide triggers $Ca^{2+}$ influx, $K^{+}$ efflux, and extracellular alkalization in soybean cells carrying the disease resistance gene rpG4. Plant Physiol. 112:297-302 https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.1.297
  2. Bendahmane, A., Kanyuka, K. and Baulcombe, D. C. 1999. The Rx gene from potato controls separate virus resistance and cell death responses. Plant Cell 11 :781-791 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.11.5.781
  3. Bent, A. 1996. Plant disease resistance genes: Function meets structure. Plant Cell 8: 1757-1771 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.8.10.1757
  4. Bestwick, C. S., Bennet, M. H. and Mansfield, J. W. 1995. Hrp mutant of Pseudomonas syringae pv. Phaseolicola induces alterations but not membrane damage leading to the hypersensitive reaction in lettuce. Plant Physiol. 108:503-516 https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.2.503
  5. Buchanan-Wollaston, V. 1997. The molecular biology of leaf senescence. J. Exp. Bot. 48:181-199 https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/48.2.181
  6. Delledonne, M., Zeier, J., Marocco, A. and Lamb, C. 2001. Signal interactions between nitric oxide and reactive oxygen intermediates in the plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:13454-13459
  7. Dixon, M. S., Hatzixanthis, K., Jones, D. A., Harrison, K. and Jones, J. D. G 1998. The tomato Cf-5 disease resistance gene and six homologs show pronounced allelic variation in leucine-rich repeat copy number. Plant Cell 10:1915-1925 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.10.11.1915
  8. Elbaz, M., Avni, A. and Weil, M. 2002. Constitutive caspase-like machinery executes programmed cell death in plant cells. Cell Death Differ 9:726-733 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4401030
  9. Ellingboe, A. H. 1980. Changing concepts in host-pathogen genetics. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 19:125-143 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.19.090181.001013
  10. Flor, H. H. 1971. Current status of the gene-for-gene concept. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 9:275-296 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.09.090171.001423
  11. Green, D. R. and Reed, J. C. 1998. Mitochondria and apoptosis. Science 281: 1309-1312 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5381.1309
  12. Graham, T. L. and Graham, M. Y. 1999. Role of hypersensitive cell death in conditioning elicitation competency and defense potentiation. Physiol. Mol. Plant Path. 55: 13-20 https://doi.org/10.1006/pmpp.1999.0179
  13. Heath, M. C. 1998. Apoptosis, programmed cell death and the hypersensitive response. Eur. J. Plant Path. 104: 117-124 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008645520976
  14. Jia, Y., McAdams, S. A., Bryan, G. T., Hershey, H. P. and Valent, B. 2000. Direct interaction of resistance gene and avirulence gene products confers rice blast resistance. EMBO J. 19:4004-4014 https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/19.15.4004
  15. Lam, E., Kato, N. and Lawton, M. 2001. Programmed cell death, mitochondria and the plant hypersensitive response. Nature 411 :848-853 https://doi.org/10.1038/35081184
  16. Leister, R. T. and Katagiri, F. 2000. A resistance gene product of the nucleotide binding site-leucine rich repeats class can form a complex with bacterial avirulence proteins in vivo. Plant J. 22:345-354 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00744.x
  17. Levine, A., Pennell, R. I., Alvarez, M. E., Palmer, R. and Lamb, C. 1996. Calcium-mediated apoptosis in a plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Curr. Biol. 6:427-437 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00510-9
  18. Lincoln, J. E., Richael, C., Overduin, B., Smith, K., Bostock, R. and Gilchrist, D. G. 2002. Expression of the antiapoptotic baculovirus p35 gene in tomato blocks programmed cell death and provides broad-spectrum resistance to disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:15217-15221 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.232579799
  19. Mittler, R., Simon, L. and Lam, E. 1997. Pathogen-induced programmed cell death in tobacco. J. Cell Sci. 110: 1333-1344
  20. Pontier, D., Gan, S., Amasino, R. M., Roby, D. and Lam, E. 1999. Markers for hypersensitive response and senescence show distinct patterns of expression. Plant Mol. Biol. 39: 1243-1255 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006133311402
  21. del Pozo, O. and Lam, E. 2003. Expression of the baculovirus p35 protein in tobacco affects cell death progression and compromises N gene-mediated disease resistance response to tobacco mosaic virus. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 16:485-494 https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.2003.16.6.485
  22. Richael, C. and Gilchrist, D. 1999. The hypersensitive response: a case of hold or fold? Physiol. Mol. Plant Path. 55:5-12 https://doi.org/10.1006/pmpp.1999.0209
  23. Ryerson, D. E. and Heath, M. C. 1996. Cleavage of nuclear DNA into oligonucleosomal fragments during cell death induced by fungal infection or be abiotic treatments. Plant Cell 8:393-402 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.8.3.393
  24. Scofield, S. R., Tobias, C. M., Rathjen, J. P., Chang, J. H., Lavelle, D. T., Michelmore, R. W. and Staskawicz, B. J. 1996. Molecular basis of gene-for-gene specificity in bacterial speck disease of tomato. Science 274:2063-2065 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5295.2063
  25. Seo, S., Okamoto, M., Iwai, T., Iwano, M., Fukui, K., Isogai, A., et al. 2000. Reduced levels of chloroplast FtsH protein in tobacco mosaic virus-infected tobacco leaves accelerate the hypersensitive reaction. Plant Cell 12:917-932 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.6.917
  26. Shao, F., Golstein, C, Ade, J., Stoutemyer, M., Dixon, J. E. and Innes, R. W. 2003. Cleavage of Arabidopsis PBS1 by a bacterial type III effector. Science 301: 1230-1233 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085671
  27. Tang, X., Frederick, R. D., Zhou, J., Halterman, D. A., Jia, Y. and Martin, G. B. 1996. Initiation of plant disease resistance by physical interaction of AvrPto and Pto kinase. Science 274: 2060-2063 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5295.2060
  28. Torres, M. A., Dangl, J. L. and Jones, J. D. G 2002. Arabidopsis gp91 phox homologues AtrbohD and AtrbohF are required for accumulation of reactive oxygen intermediates in the plant defense response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:517-522 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012452499
  29. Wakabayashi, Y. and Karbowski, M. 2001. Structural changes of mitochondria related to apoptosis. Biol. Signals Recept. 10:26-56 https://doi.org/10.1159/000046874
  30. Wendehenne, D., Lamotte, O., Frachisse, J.-M., Barbier-Brygoo, H. and Pugin, A. 2002. Nitrate efflux is an essential component of the cryptogein signaling pathway leading to defense responses and hypersensitive cell death in tobacco. Plant Cell 14:1937-1951 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.002295
  31. Yang, Y., Shah, J. and Klessig, D. 1997. Signal perception and transduction in plant defense responses. Genes Dev. 11:1621-1639 https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.13.1621
  32. Zhang, C., Czymmek, L. J. and Shapiro, A. D. 2003. Nitric oxide does not trigger early programmed cell death events but may contribute to cell-to-cell signaling governing progression of the Arabidopsis hypersensitive response. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 16:962-972 https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.2003.16.11.962

Cited by

  1. Distinct roles of the pepper hypersensitive induced reaction protein gene CaHIR1 in disease and osmotic stress, as determined by comparative transcriptome and proteome analyses vol.227, pp.2, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0628-6
  2. The Hypersensitive Induced Reaction and Leucine-Rich Repeat Proteins Regulate Plant Cell Death Associated with Disease and Plant Immunity vol.24, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-02-10-0030
  3. Characterization of a Hypersensitive Response-Induced Gene TaHIR3 from Wheat Leaves Infected with Leaf Rust vol.31, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-012-0504-9
  4. Expression and functional roles of the pepper pathogen-induced transcription factor RAV1 in bacterial disease resistance, and drought and salt stress tolerance vol.61, pp.6, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-006-0057-0
  5. Functional roles of the pepper antimicrobial protein gene, CaAMP1, in abscisic acid signaling, and salt and drought tolerance in Arabidopsis vol.229, pp.2, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-008-0837-7
  6. A subset of cells in tobacco mosaic virus (TMV)-induced local lesions in Datura stramonium leaves are tolerant to TMV vol.5, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1990519X11010135
  7. Overexpression of theMalus hupehensisMhTGA2Gene, a Novel bZIP Transcription Factor for Increased Tolerance to Salt and Osmotic Stress in Transgenic Tobacco vol.173, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1086/665262
  8. Enhanced resistance to bacterial and fungal pathogens by overexpression of a human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (hCAP18/LL-37) in Chinese cabbage vol.6, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-011-0193-0
  9. Functional analysis of plant NB-LRR gene L3 by using E. coli vol.478, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.08.154
  10. SP-LL-37, human antimicrobial peptide, enhances disease resistance in transgenic rice vol.12, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172936
  11. Infection of soybean by cucumber mosaic virus as determined by viral movement protein vol.152, pp.2, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-006-0847-3
  12. Enhanced resistance to bacterial pathogen in transgenic tomato plants expressing cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide vol.18, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-013-0392-3
  13. Effects of the leaf rust pathogen on expression of TaHIR4 at the gene and protein levels in wheat vol.8, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2013.823247
  14. Identification and functional expression of the pepper pathogen-induced gene, CAPIP2, involved in disease resistance and drought and salt stress tolerance vol.62, pp.1-2, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-006-9010-5
  15. Functional analysis of the promoter of the pepper pathogen-induced gene, CAPIP2, during bacterial infection and abiotic stresses vol.172, pp.2, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2006.08.015
  16. Xanthomonas campestrispv.vesicatoriaEffector AvrBsT Induces Cell Death in Pepper, but Suppresses Defense Responses in Tomato vol.23, pp.8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-23-8-1069
  17. Genome-wide analysis of the PHB gene family in Glycine max (L.) Merr. vol.39, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13258-017-0580-1
  18. Functional roles of the pepper pathogen-induced bZIP transcription factor, CAbZIP1, in enhanced resistance to pathogen infection and environmental stresses vol.224, pp.5, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-006-0302-4
  19. Role of a novel pathogen-induced pepper C3–H–C4 type RING-finger protein gene, CaRFP1, in disease susceptibility and osmotic stress tolerance vol.63, pp.4, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-006-9110-2