Phloem unloading in Arabidopsis roots is convective and regulated by the phloem-pole pericycle

  1. Timothy J Ross-Elliott
  2. Kaare H Jensen
  3. Katrine S Haaning
  4. Brittney Michaelle Wager
  5. Jan Knoblauch
  6. Alexander H Howell
  7. Daniel L Mullendore
  8. Alexander G Monteith
  9. Danae Paultre
  10. Dawei Yan
  11. Sofia Otero-Perez
  12. Matthieu Bourdon
  13. Ross Sager
  14. Jung-Youn Lee
  15. Ykä Helariutta
  16. Michael Knoblauch  Is a corresponding author
  17. Karl John Oparka  Is a corresponding author
  1. Washington State University, United States
  2. Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
  3. Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom
  4. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  5. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  6. University of Delaware, United States

Abstract

In plants, a complex mixture of solutes and macromolecules is transported by the phloem. Here we examined how solutes and macromolecules are separated when they exit the phloem during the unloading process. We used a combination of approaches (non-invasive imaging, 3D-electron microscopy, and mathematical modelling) to show that phloem unloading of solutes in Arabidopsis roots occurs through plasmodesmata by a combination of mass flow and diffusion (convective phloem unloading). During unloading, solutes and proteins are diverted into the phloem-pole pericycle, a tissue connected to the protophloem by a unique class of 'funnel plasmodesmata'. While solutes are unloaded without restriction, large proteins are released through funnel plasmodesmata in discrete pulses, a phenomenon we refer to as 'batch unloading'. Unlike solutes, these proteins remain restricted to the phloem-pole pericycle. Our data demonstrate a major role for the phloem-pole pericycle in regulating phloem unloading in roots.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Timothy J Ross-Elliott

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kaare H Jensen

    Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Katrine S Haaning

    Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Brittney Michaelle Wager

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jan Knoblauch

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alexander H Howell

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Daniel L Mullendore

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Alexander G Monteith

    Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1731-0446
  9. Danae Paultre

    Institute of Molecular Plant Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dawei Yan

    Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Sofia Otero-Perez

    Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matthieu Bourdon

    Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ross Sager

    Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jung-Youn Lee

    Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ykä Helariutta

    Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Michael Knoblauch

    School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
    For correspondence
    knoblauch@wsu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0391-9891
  17. Karl John Oparka

    Institute of Molecular Plant Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    karl.oparka@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Science Foundation (1146500)

  • Michael Knoblauch

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  • Karl John Oparka

Carlsbergfondet

  • Kaare H Jensen

Villum Fonden (13166)

  • Kaare H Jensen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Christian S Hardtke, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Version history

  1. Received: December 10, 2016
  2. Accepted: February 17, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 23, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 24, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: November 13, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Ross-Elliott et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 9,728
    views
  • 1,768
    downloads
  • 173
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Timothy J Ross-Elliott
  2. Kaare H Jensen
  3. Katrine S Haaning
  4. Brittney Michaelle Wager
  5. Jan Knoblauch
  6. Alexander H Howell
  7. Daniel L Mullendore
  8. Alexander G Monteith
  9. Danae Paultre
  10. Dawei Yan
  11. Sofia Otero-Perez
  12. Matthieu Bourdon
  13. Ross Sager
  14. Jung-Youn Lee
  15. Ykä Helariutta
  16. Michael Knoblauch
  17. Karl John Oparka
(2017)
Phloem unloading in Arabidopsis roots is convective and regulated by the phloem-pole pericycle
eLife 6:e24125.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24125

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24125

Further reading

    1. Plant Biology
    Ivan Kulich, Julia Schmid ... Jiří Friml
    Research Article

    Root gravitropic bending represents a fundamental aspect of terrestrial plant physiology. Gravity is perceived by sedimentation of starch-rich plastids (statoliths) to the bottom of the central root cap cells. Following gravity perception, intercellular auxin transport is redirected downwards leading to an asymmetric auxin accumulation at the lower root side causing inhibition of cell expansion, ultimately resulting in downwards bending. How gravity-induced statoliths repositioning is translated into asymmetric auxin distribution remains unclear despite PIN auxin efflux carriers and the Negative Gravitropic Response of roots (NGR) proteins polarize along statolith sedimentation, thus providing a plausible mechanism for auxin flow redirection. In this study, using a functional NGR1-GFP construct, we visualized the NGR1 localization on the statolith surface and plasma membrane (PM) domains in close proximity to the statoliths, correlating with their movements. We determined that NGR1 binding to these PM domains is indispensable for NGR1 functionality and relies on cysteine acylation and adjacent polybasic regions as well as on lipid and sterol PM composition. Detailed timing of the early events following graviperception suggested that both NGR1 repolarization and initial auxin asymmetry precede the visible PIN3 polarization. This discrepancy motivated us to unveil a rapid, NGR-dependent translocation of PIN-activating AGCVIII kinase D6PK towards lower PMs of gravity-perceiving cells, thus providing an attractive model for rapid redirection of auxin fluxes following gravistimulation.

    1. Plant Biology
    Daniel S Yu, Megan A Outram ... Simon J Williams
    Research Article

    Plant pathogens secrete proteins, known as effectors, that function in the apoplast or inside plant cells to promote virulence. Effector recognition by cell-surface or cytosolic receptors results in the activation of defence pathways and plant immunity. Despite their importance, our general understanding of fungal effector function and recognition by immunity receptors remains poor. One complication often associated with effectors is their high sequence diversity and lack of identifiable sequence motifs precluding prediction of structure or function. In recent years, several studies have demonstrated that fungal effectors can be grouped into structural classes, despite significant sequence variation and existence across taxonomic groups. Using protein X-ray crystallography, we identify a new structural class of effectors hidden within the secreted in xylem (SIX) effectors from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol). The recognised effectors Avr1 (SIX4) and Avr3 (SIX1) represent the founding members of the Fol dual-domain (FOLD) effector class, with members containing two distinct domains. Using AlphaFold2, we predicted the full SIX effector repertoire of Fol and show that SIX6 and SIX13 are also FOLD effectors, which we validated experimentally for SIX6. Based on structural prediction and comparisons, we show that FOLD effectors are present within three divisions of fungi and are expanded in pathogens and symbionts. Further structural comparisons demonstrate that Fol secretes effectors that adopt a limited number of structural folds during infection of tomato. This analysis also revealed a structural relationship between transcriptionally co-regulated effector pairs. We make use of the Avr1 structure to understand its recognition by the I receptor, which leads to disease resistance in tomato. This study represents an important advance in our understanding of Fol-tomato, and by extension plant–fungal interactions, which will assist in the development of novel control and engineering strategies to combat plant pathogens.