TY - JOUR
AU - Durner, Jörg
AB - Abiotic and biotic stress, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy, legume nodules, nitric oxide (NO), nitrosyl–leghemoglobin (Lb2+NO), NO detection/production, NO sensor proteins Nitric oxide (NO) is involved in regulation of plant growth and development, as well as the response to biotic and abiotic stressors. However, its instability makes NO methodology a complex and often controversial field. A new method fromCalvo-Begueria et al. (2018)to examine NO production in intact nodules uses electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy to detect nitrosyl–leghemoglobin (Lb2+NO). NO sensor proteins are an optimal tool for NO detection/quantification in vivo and have the potential to revolutionize the field of plant NO research. Nitric oxide (NO) is an important redox molecule fulfilling a wide variety of signalling functions. These cover growth and development, as well as stress responses, in humans, animals, plants, fungi and bacteria (Besson-Bard et al., 2008; Sudhamsu and Crane, 2009; Murad, 2011; Arasimowicz-Jelonek and Floryszak-Wieczorek, 2016; Byung-Wook et al., 2016; Canovas et al., 2016). In plants, NO is involved in seed germination, root development, gravitropism, iron homeostasis, stomatal closure, flowering, and pollen tube growth (Bellin et al., 2013; Freschi et al., 2013; Simontacchi et al., 2015; Corpas et al., 2017). Moreover, programmed cell death, activation of defence genes and genes involved in UV, heat, drought and salinity stress tolerance require the function of NO (Groß et al., 2013; Kulik et al., 2015; Domingos et al., 2015; Simontacchi et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2017). As a diffusible gas it can be present in all extra- and intracellular spaces, where it easily interacts with the surrounding environment. NO can be produced by oxidative and reductive pathways (Moreau et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2014) and is sensed within the cell through redox modification of proteins, such as cysteine nitrosation, tyrosine nitration and metal nitrosylation (Astier et al., 2012; Astier and Lindermayr, 2012; Mata-Perez et al., 2016). One of its most important modes of action is protein S-nitrosation, the covalent attachment of NO to the thiol group of protein cysteine residues. Tyrosine nitration refers to the addition of a nitro group to susceptible tyrosine residues in the ortho position to the hydroxyl group yielding 3-nitrotyrosine. The main nitrating species is peroxynitrite which is produced in a diffusion-controlled reaction between NO and superoxide. In a direct metal nitrosylation reaction, NO (Lewis base) binds to the transition metal (Lewis acid) of metalloproteins yielding a metal–nitrosyl complex. Detection difficulties Understanding the ‘conduct’ of NO in biological systems is important. However, investigation of NO production and NO signalling is challenging because many available methods suffer from a lack of specificity and/or sensitivity, or are just unsuitable for the detection of NO in vivo. Additionally, in some cases, the production might be restricted to a few cells, such as guard cells or pollen (Corpas et al., 2004; Prado et al., 2004; Neil et al., 2008). NO is a reactive molecule with a lifetime in the order of seconds to minutes. Moreover, in physiological buffers, it diffuses rapidly with a diffusion coefficient approaching 3300 µm2 s–1(Malinski et al., 1993; Lancaster, 1997). Thus, any detection method must be very sensitive to be able to chase intraorganismic NO production. In sum, NO research requires a broad spectrum of complementary methods, which together allow an accurate identification of NO and its physiological function. Sensitive and specific analytical tools for measuring NO in vivo are rare. NO-specific fluorescent dyes, electrodes and sensor proteins are the only options for detecting and quantifying NO in living cells/tissues (Arasimowicz et al., 2009; Eroglu et al., 2016). Others, such as the Griess assay, oxyhemoglobin assay, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy, mass spectrometry or chemiluminescence, are used to detect/quantify NO or NO-derived metabolites in (plant) extracts or in the headspace of plants (Zeidler et al., 2004; Mur et al., 2011). However, these probably do not reflect the concentrations inside the intact plant cell. Breakthrough methodology The paper presented by Laura Calvo-Begueria and colleagues describes a method that enables detection of NO in vivo (Calvo-Begueria et al., 2018). They investigated the formation of the nitrosyl–leghemoglobin complex (Lb2+NO) and the production of NO in legume nodules using EPR spectroscopy and the fluorescent specific dye 4,5-diaminofluorescein diacetate (DAF-2 DA), respectively. The EPR method established by the authors allows the detection of Lb2+NO in the infection zone of intact nodules (Box 1). Moreover, their work demonstrates that Lb2+NO is generated as an artefact when nodules are not analysed immediately after detachment and hence quantification of Lb2+NO in nodule extracts is not valid. This confirms that analysis of such reactive compounds should be done using non-invasive methods or at least immediately after sample collection. Finally, their results indicate that EPR complemented by fluorometric methods does allow reliable conclusions about NO production in plants. Box 1. Monitoring NO production in planta using EPR spectroscopy NO binds to the Fe2+ of leghemoglobin and forms an Lb2+NO nitrosyl complex (left). Calvo-Begueria et al. (2018) have demonstrated that this complex can be detected by EPR spectroscopy in intact soybean nodules, allowing a direct monitoring of NO production. Nodules containing Lb2+NO show spectra with a clear diagnostic signal in the range of 320–345 mT (right; see Calvo-Begueria et al., 2018). Here, a numerical addition of the spectrum of intact soybean nodules and the spectra of authentic Lb2+NO at variable proportions is shown. Perspectives Although significant progress has been made in developing methods for NO research, future efforts should still concentrate on enhancing the sensitivity and specificity of these methods and focus on in vivo detection and quantification of NO. Although the method presented by Calvo-Begueria et al. (2018) is restricted to NO detection in the nodule-infected tissue containing leghemoglobin, it is certainly a very promising approach that can be further developed as a general NO sensing technique for analysing NO production in other biological systems. For example, transformation of the leghemoglobin coding sequence into other plant species would enable the use of this protein as an NO sensor and thereby the analysis of NO production/quantification via Lb2+NO detection. However, the availability of EPR spectroscopy might be a restriction for using this technology as a standard method in NO research. In general, an NO sensor protein is an optimal tool for NO detection/quantification in vivo. A fluorescence quenching-based NO probe was designed by Eroglu et al. (2016). Fusing a bacteria-derived NO-binding domain close to distinct fluorescent protein variants enables a direct observation and quantification of NO. Such genetically encoded NO probes (geNOps) provide a selective, specific and real-time read-out of cellular NO dynamics and, hence, open a new era for NO bio-imaging. Furnished with compartment-specific signal peptides, high-resolution, intracellular NO detection would be possible. Despite an increasing number of reports on the biological action of NO in plants, the validity of such work should be questioned depending on the manner in which NO has been measured and/or the solution composition used for NO quantification. Therefore, a re-evaluation of past findings is probably needed in some cases. The different measurement techniques that can be used for a given sample type are highlighted in Box 2. Ideally, methods for determination/quantification of NO should exhibit a high degree of sensitivity and specificity, and should in particular facilitate the detection of NO in planta. NO sensor proteins (Lb2+NO and geNOps) have the potential to fulfil all these ideal characteristics and could revolutionize the field of NO research in plants. Further development of such NO measurement approaches, including the use of appropriate signal peptides and spatiotemporal-specific promotor elements, will allow an accurate determination of NO production in different plant systems, tissues and cells, and help to reveal exactly how, when and where NO is produced. Such a method would provide robust results and assuage the controversial discussions on the detection of NO in plants. Box 2. Methods used for NO detection in headspace, in planta or in plant extracts The different methods available to detect and quantify NO are based on its particular physical and chemical properties. The method of choice depends on the biological question that needs to be answered. Some assays detect NO gas emitted from cells, whereas others allow measurement of NO and its derivatives (e.g. N2O3, NO2–) in liquid solutions. NO-sensitive dyes, electrodes and sensor proteins allow detection and quantification of NO in planta. NO sensor proteins (Lb2+NO) under the control of tissue- or cell-specific promotors are especially promising specific and sensitive tools for spatiotemporal detection of NO in planta. However, the use of NO sensor proteins requires suitable detection instruments, such as an EPR spectrometer, a confocal laser scanning microscope, or a chemiluminescence detector. The high cost of these pieces of equipment and the considerable expertise needed to work with them may limit their use for standard methods in NO research. References Arasimowicz-Jelonek M , Floryszak-Wieczorek J. 2016 . Nitric oxide in the offensive strategy of fungal and oomycete plant pathogens . Frontiers in Plant Science 7 , 252 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Arasimowicz M , Floryszak-Wieczorek J, Milczarek G, Jelonek T. 2009 . Nitric oxide, induced by wounding, mediates redox regulation in pelargonium leaves . Plant Biology 11 , 650 – 663 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Astier J , Kulik A, Koen E, Besson-Bard A, Bourque S, Jeandroz S, Lamotte O, Wendehenne D. 2012 . Protein S-nitrosylation: what’s going on in plants ? Free Radical Biology & Medicine 53 , 1101 – 1110 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Astier J , Lindermayr C. 2012 . Nitric oxide-dependent posttranslational modification in plants: an update . International Journal of Molecular Sciences 13 , 15193 – 15208 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Bellin D , Asai S, Delledonne M, Yoshioka H. 2013 . Nitric oxide as a mediator for defense responses . Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 26 , 271 – 277 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Besson-Bard A , Pugin A, Wendehenne D. 2008 . New insights into nitric oxide signaling in plants . Annual Review of Plant Biology 59 , 21 – 39 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Byung-Wook Y , Skelly MJ, Yin M, Yu M, Mun BG, Lee SU, Hussain A, Spoel SH, Loake GJ. 2016 . Nitric oxide and S-nitrosoglutathione function additively during plant immunity . New Phytologist 211 , 516 – 526 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Calvo-Begueria L , Rubio MC, Martínez JI, Pérez-Rontomé C, Delgado MJ, Bedmar EJ, Becana M. 2018 . Redefining nitric oxide production in legume nodules through complementary insights from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy and specific fluorescent probes . Journal of Experimental Botany 69 , 3703–3714. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Cánovas D , Marcos JF, Marcos AT, Strauss J. 2016 . Nitric oxide in fungi: is there NO light at the end of the tunnel ? Current Genetics 62 , 513 – 518 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Corpas FJ , Barroso JB, Carreras A, et al. . 2004 . Cellular and subcellular localization of endogenous nitric oxide in young and senescent pea plants . Plant Physiology 136 , 2722 – 2733 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Corpas FJ , Freschi L, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, Mioto PT, González-Gordo S, Palma JM. 2017 . Nitro-oxidative metabolism during fruit ripening . Journal of Experimental Botany . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx453 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Crossref Domingos P , Prado AM, Wong A, Gehring C, Feijo JA. 2015 . Nitric oxide: a multitasked signaling gas in plants . Molecular Plant 8 , 506 – 520 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Eroglu E , Gottschalk B, Charoensin S, et al. . 2016 . Development of novel FP-based probes for live-cell imaging of nitric oxide dynamics . Nature Communications 7 , 10623 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Freschi L. 2013 . Nitric oxide and phytohormone interactions: current status and perspectives . Frontiers in Plant Science 4 , 398 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Groß F , Durner J, Gaupels F. 2013 . Nitric oxide, antioxidants and prooxidants in plant defence responses . Frontiers in Plant Science 4 , 419 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Hu J , Yang H, Mu J, et al. . 2017 . Nitric oxide regulates protein methylation during stress responses in plants . Molecular Cell 67 , 702 – 710.e4 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Kulik A , Noirot E, Grandperret V, et al. . 2015 . Interplays between nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species in cryptogein signalling . Plant, Cell & Environment 38 , 331 – 348 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Lancaster JR Jr. 1997 . A tutorial on the diffusibility and reactivity of free nitric oxide . Nitric Oxide 1 , 18 – 30 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Malinski T , Taha Z, Grunfeld S, Patton S, Kapturczak M, Tomboulian P. 1993 . Diffusion of nitric oxide in the aorta wall monitored in situ by porphyrinic microsensors . Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 193 , 1076 – 1082 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Mata-Pérez C , Begara-Morales JC, Chaki M, Sánchez-Calvo B, Valderrama R, Padilla MN, Corpas FJ, Barroso JB. 2016 . Protein tyrosine nitration during development and abiotic stress response in plants . Frontiers in Plant Science 7 , 1699 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Moreau M , Lindermayr C, Durner J, Klessig DF. 2010 . NO synthesis and signaling in plants–where do we stand ? Physiologia Plantarum 138 , 372 – 383 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Mur LA , Mandon J, Cristescu SM, Harren FJ, Prats E. 2011 . Methods of nitric oxide detection in plants: a commentary . Plant Science 181 , 509 – 519 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Murad MD. 2011 . Nitric oxide: the coming of the second messenger . Rambam Maimonnides Medical Journal 2 , e0038 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Neill S , Barros R, Bright J, Desikan R, Hancock J, Harrison J, Morris P, Ribeiro D, Wilson I. 2008 . Nitric oxide, stomatal closure, and abiotic stress . Journal of Experimental Botany 59 , 165 – 176 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Prado AM , Porterfield DM, Feijó JA. 2004 . Nitric oxide is involved in growth regulation and re-orientation of pollen tubes . Development 131 , 2707 – 2714 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Simontacchi M , Galatro A, Ramos-Artuso F, Santa-María GE. 2015 . Plant survival in a changing environment: the role of nitric oxide in plant responses to abiotic stress . Frontiers in Plant Science 6 , 977 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Sudhamsu J , Crane BR. 2009 . Bacterial nitric oxide synthases: what are they good for ? Trends in Microbiology 17 , 212 – 218 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Yu M , Lamattina L, Spoel SH, Loake GJ. 2014 . Nitric oxide function in plant biology: a redox cue in deconvolution . New Phytologist 202 , 1142 – 1156 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Zeidler D , Zähringer U, Gerber I, Dubery I, Hartung T, Bors W, Hutzler P, Durner J. 2004 . Innate immunity in Arabidopsis thaliana: lipopolysaccharides activate nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and induce defense genes . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101 , 15811 – 15816 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology.
TI - Nitric oxide sensor proteins with revolutionary potential
JO - Journal of Experimental Botany
DO - 10.1093/jxb/ery193
DA - 2018-06-27
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/nitric-oxide-sensor-proteins-with-revolutionary-potential-fOU00iO1W7
SP - 3507
EP - 3510
VL - 69
IS - 15
DP - DeepDyve
ER -