Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 53, No. 372, pp. 1283-1304,
May 15, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
Original Papers |
Interactions between biosynthesis, compartmentation and transport in the control of glutathione homeostasis and signalling
1 Institut de Biotechnologie des Plantes, Bât 630 Université Paris VII, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
2 Instituto de Fitopatologia y Fisiologia Vegetal, CNIA-INTA, Cno. 60 Cuadras Km 51/2, X5020ICA Cordova, Argentina
3 Crop Performance and Improvement, IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK
Received 10 July 2001; Accepted 10 December 2001
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Glutathione has numerous roles in cellular defence and in sulphur metabolism. These functions depend or impact on the concentration and/or redox state of leaf glutathione pools. Effective function requires homeostatic control of concentration and redox state, with departures from homeostasis acting as signals that trigger adaptive responses. Intercellular and intracellular glutathione pools are linked by transport across membranes. It is shown that glutathione can cross the chloroplast envelope at rates similar to the speed of biosynthesis. Control of glutathione concentration and redox state is therefore due to a complex interplay between biosynthesis, utilization, degradation, oxidation/reduction, and transport. All these factors must be considered in order to evaluate the significance of glutathione as a signalling component during developement, abiotic stress, or pathogen attack.
Key words:
Chloroplasts, 
-glutamylcysteine synthetase, glutathione, maize, plant–pathogen interaction, transporter, Triticum aestivum, wheat, Zea mays.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Glutathione (
-Glu-Cys-Gly) is a multifunctional metabolite in plants (Fig. 1
). It is a major reservoir of non-protein reduced sulphur, and has crucial functions in cellular defence and protection. Glutathione reacts chemically with a range of active oxygen species (AOS), while enzyme-catalysed reactions link GSH to the detoxification of H2O2 in the ascorbate–glutathione cycle. Importantly, GSH protects proteins against the denaturation that is caused by oxidation of protein thiol groups during stress. All these functions involve the oxidation of the thiol group, principally to form glutathione disulphide (GSSG). Cellular GSH:GSSG ratios are maintained by glutathione reductase (GR), a homodimeric flavoprotein that uses NADPH to reduce GSSG to two GSH. Like all other aerobic organisms, plants maintain cytoplasmic thiols in the reduced (–SH) state because of the low thiol-disulphide redox potential imposed by millimolar amounts of glutathione, which acts, therefore, as a thiol buffer. Although transient disulphide bonds do occur during the catalytic cycle of some enzymes, stable protein disulphide bonds are relatively rare except in quiescent tissues such as seeds. The multiple roles of GSH within the cell, together with the stability of GSSG, may make this redox couple ideally suited to information transduction. The GSH/GSSG ratio is likely to be far more influential in the control of gene expression and protein function than the absolute size of the glutathione pool. This review specifically addresses the key factors involved in glutathione homeostasis (synthesis, sinks, partitioning, and transport) that are central to the putative roles of this compound in signalling.
|
In addition to its antioxidant functions, glutathione is a precursor of phytochelatins and a substrate for glutathione-S-transferase (GST: Fig. 1
). Over and above its function in the ascorbate–glutathione cycle, glutathione acts as a direct electron donor to peroxides in reactions catalysed by glutathione peroxidase (GPX). The animal GPX is a selenoprotein that detoxifies H2O2 at high rates. By contrast, plant GPXs are not constitutive but are induced in response to stress. They do not contain selenium and only catalyse GSH-dependent reduction of H2O2 at rates which are very low compared with the high rates of H2O2 generation in plants (Foyer and Noctor, 2000). In plants, ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and catalase (CAT) are predominant in the detoxification of H2O2 while GPXs are more important in other areas of oxidant metabolism, including the removal of lipid and alkyl peroxides (Eshdat et al., 1997). The only clear demonstration of GPX targeting thus far has shown direction to the chloroplast (Mullineaux et al., 1998). In addition to their role in conjugation, GSTs can use GSH to reduce peroxides (Cummins et al., 1999). Transgenic tobacco lines overexpressing plant GST/GPX were reported to show enhanced antioxidant capacity and substantial improvement in seed germination and seedling growth under stress (Roxas et al., 1997). GSTs form a large, heterogeneous family of proteins that share the defining characteristic of catalysing the nucleophilic attack of the sulphur atom of GSH (or homologue) on the electrophilic centre of their substrates. They are therefore responsible for the removal of compounds that are potentially genotoxic or cytotoxic by virtue of their reaction with electrophilic sites in DNA, RNA and proteins. It has become clear, however, that the function of GSTs is not limited to these reactions: GSTs also seem to be involved in a ‘ligandin’ function important, for example, in the anthocyanin synthesis pathway (Marrs, 1996). It may be that certain GSTs function as flavonoid-binding proteins as suggested recently for AN9, a GST required for efficient anthocyanin export from the cytosol in petunia (Mueller et al. 2000). Consistent with this is the observation that the anthocyanin content of Arabidopsis leaves correlated with GSH content in plants with modified capacity for GSH biosynthesis (Xiang et al., 2001).
While it has long been accepted that glutathione is essential for vigour, it has only recently been recognized that this tripeptide cannot be functionally replaced, except perhaps by one of its homologues. The rml1 mutant of Arabidopsis, which is deficient in -ECS and contains no detectable glutathione, has a marked phenotype with an absence of root development and a small shoot system, and can survive only in tissue culture supplied with GSH (May et al., 1998a). Similarly, transgenic Arabidopsis with less than 5% wild-type leaf glutathione contents were shown to be significantly decreased in size and biomass, and were more sensitive to environmental stress (Xiang et al., 2001). A strong correlation has also been demonstrated beween root GSH content and the capacity of the cells in the root apical meristem to proliferate (May et al., 1998a). However, although a 96% reduction of shoot glutathione contents was associated with shorter roots in transformed Arabidopsis, the decrease in root length was only of the order of 40% (Xiang et al., 2001).
All these recent developments underline the importance of the control of glutathione concentration and redox state in plant cells. This review discusses the many advances made over the last decade in the understanding of glutathione biosynthesis, and also begins to address the key issue of compartmentation and related transport processes. These processes, complex and poorly defined, are discussed here in the light of new data obtained in the authors’ laboratory.
|
Biosynthesis of glutathione |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Enzymes and genes
The pathway of glutathione biosynthesis is well established and is similar in plants, animals and micro-organisms. In two ATP-dependent steps, catalysed by
-glutamylcysteine synthetase (-ECS) and glutathione synthetase (GSH-S), the constituent amino acids are linked to form the complete tripeptide (Fig. 1). The N-terminal peptide bond linking glutamic acid to cysteine in GSH is unusual in that glutamic acid is linked via the - rather than the 
-carboxyl group. The low activities of -ECS and GSH-S in plants, and the complexities of the procedures for enzyme extraction and assay, have precluded extensive purification and kinetic characterization. Consequently, much of the current knowledge of their structure, regulation and function has been gleaned from molecular techniques and plant transformation. It is clear that the two-step reaction sequence occurs in both chloroplastic and non-chloroplastic compartments and is found in photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic tissues (Foyer and Noctor, 2001). A gene encoding -ECS, here denoted as gsh1, was originally cloned from Arabidopsis thaliana by complementation of an E. coli mutant deficient in this enzyme (May and Leaver, 1994). Heterologous expression of the Arabidopsis -ECS in a yeast mutant recovered only 10% of the GSH measured in the wild-type yeast (May and Leaver, 1994). This discrepancy provoked much speculation concerning the identity of the cloned gene, but further complementation studies have now confirmed that this gene does indeed encode a protein with true -ECS activity (May et al., 1998a).
Functional complementation of an E. coli mutant deficient in GSH-S activity was also used to clone the Arabidopsis thaliana gene for this enzyme, which is denoted here as gsh2 (Rawlins et al., 1995). The ability of several plant species to make homologues of glutathione depends on the specificity of the synthetases involved. Specific legume GSH-Ss use either glycine to form GSH or ß-alanine to form homoglutathione. Recent work in Medicago truncatula suggests that separate genes encode GSH-S and homoglutathione synthetase (hGSH-S) and that the divergence in specificity has arisen by gene duplication after the evolutionary divergence of the Leguminosae (Frendo et al., 1999). The two genes are very homologous and are found on the same fragment of genomic DNA. In a consideration of the distribution of the biosynthetic enzymes in legume nodules, Becana et al. have suggested that -ECS is plastidic, hGSH-S is cytosolic and GSH-S isoforms exist in both the cytosol and mitochondria in several legume species (Becana et al., 2000).
Regulation of biosynthesis
Glutathione synthesis is controlled primarily by -ECS activity and cysteine availability: As in animals, the activity of -ECS limits the rate of glutathione synthesis in plants under most conditions. Consistent with this notion is the observation that the cad-2 Arabidopsis mutant, which has a mutation in the gsh1 gene, has only one-third of the tissue glutathione contents of the wild-type (Cobbett et al., 1998). Antisense suppression of -ECS in Arabidopsis also causes substantial decreases in leaf glutathione (Xiang et al., 2001). A key role for -ECS in controlling the rate of glutathione synthesis is supported by the increases in extractable enzyme activity in tissues treated with cadmium (Rüegsegger and Brunold, 1992). Most tellingly, overexpression of an E. coli -ECS but not GSH-S, in poplar or tobacco substantially increases leaf glutathione contents (Strohm et al., 1995; Noctor et al., 1996, 1998; Creissen et al., 1999), as does homologous overexpression of the Arabidopsis -ECS (Xiang et al., 2001).
Bacterial genes encoding -ECS and GSH-S have been introduced into poplar, mustard and tobacco (Strohm et al., 1995; Foyer et al., 1995; Noctor et al., 1996, 1998; Zhu et al., 1999; Pilon-Smits et al., 1999; Creissen et al., 1999). Over-expression, with targeting of the bacterial enzyme protein to either the chloroplast or cytosol, led to marked increases in enzyme activity. Increases in -ECS, but not GSH-S, not only led to constitutive increases in leaf glutathione (up to 400%: Noctor et al., 1996, 1998; Creissen et al., 1999) but glutathione was also increased in xylem sap, phloem exudates and roots (Herschbach et al., 2000). Of particular note is the observation that the cysteine pool was not depleted by the increased demand for thiols, but was even slightly enhanced in response to increased -ECS activities, pointing to co-ordinate regulation of cysteine synthesis and glutathione synthesis. This observation is supported by leaf thiol contents in plants homologously overexpressing the plant -ECS (Xiang et al., 2001). Despite enhanced GSH contents in the phloem of poplar, sulphur uptake by the roots was markedly enhanced to meet the requirements of increased demand for sulphur (Herschbach et al., 2000). Nevertheless, incubation of leaf discs with cysteine increased glutathione contents substantially in untransformed and transformed poplars, particularly in the light, suggesting that cysteine supply remains a key limitation (Strohm et al., 1995; Noctor et al., 1996, 1997).
The dipeptide produced by the -ECS reaction is present at very low levels in most untransformed plants. In the poplars overexpressing -ECS, however, -EC was greatly increased. In some conditions, this was attributable to insufficient availability of Gly (Noctor et al., 1997). Even when Gly was abundant, however, -EC was still much higher than in untransformed plants, reflecting a shift in control from -ECS to GSH-S, whether the bacterial -ECS was present in the cytosol or chloroplast (Noctor et al., 1998). This suggested that overexpression of both enzymes together would increase the potential for constitutive enhancement of tissue glutathione contents even further than that achieved by -ECS overexpression alone. This effect was observed when tobacco lines overexpressing each of the biosynthetic enzymes from E. coli were crossed to produce hybrids over-producing both enzymes although, suprisingly, -EC contents were found to be higher in the hybrid lines than in those lines overexpressing -ECS alone (Creissen et al., 1999). The marked phenotype produced by chloroplastic -ECS overexpression in tobacco complicates the interpretation of these results. By contrast, a phenotype linked to chloroplastic -ECS overexpression was not observed in poplar (Noctor et al., 1998) or Brassica juncea (Zhu et al., 1999; Pilon-Smits et al., 1999), except that these transformed plants were more, rather than less, stress tolerant. Similar results have been reported in transformed Arabidopsis overexpressing the endogenous -ECS (Xiang et al., 2001). The above evidence demonstrates that the most important factors controlling plant glutathione are the activity of -ECS and the availability of cysteine, and recent work suggests that these two factors may be co-ordinated (H Rennenberg, personal communication). The in vivo activity of -ECS is determined by control at multiple levels, and these are discussed in the following sections.
Control of transcription and translation of -ECS and GSH-S:
Studies in animals, particularly on cancer cells challenged with chemotherapeutic agents, have shown that transcription of the -ECS gene is regulated by protein factors and by conserved antioxidant response elements upstream of the coding sequence (Foyer and Noctor, 2001). Relatively little is known about the co-ordinate regulation of expression of gsh1 and gsh2 in plants, but it is clear that GSH and GSSG per se exercise little or no control over transcription (Xiang and Oliver, 1998). Similarly, H2O2 did not affect transcript abundance. The abundance of gsh1 and gsh2 transcripts was increased by cadmium in Brassica juncea (Schäfer et al., 1998) and by both cadmium and copper in Arabidopsis (Xiang and Oliver, 1998). Jasmonic acid (JA) also increased gsh1 and gsh2 transcripts and a common signal transduction pathway may be involved (Xiang and Oliver, 1998). Interestingly, JA is involved in the control of glucosinolate synthesis, activation of which can represent a significant increase in sulphur demand in the Brassiceae (Doughty et al., 1995). Although transcript abundance was increased by heavy metals and JA, oxidative stress was required for the translation of the transcripts, implicating regulation at the post-transcriptional level and a possible role for factors such as H2O2 or modified GSH/GSSG ratios in de-repressing translation of the existing mRNA (Xiang and Oliver, 1998). It is interesting to note that among the most spectacular increases in glutathione are those observed when plants deficient in CAT are placed in conditions favouring photorespiration (Smith et al., 1984; Willekens et al., 1997), where the accumulation in total glutathione is accompanied by a marked decrease in the reduction state of the pool. A similar response was elicited by exposing poplar leaves to ozone (Sen Gupta et al., 1991). The 5'untranslated region (5'UTR) of the gsh1 gene was found to interact with a repressor-binding protein that was released upon addition of H2O2 or changes in the GSH/GSSG ratio (Xiang and Bertrand, 2000). A redox-sensitive 5'UTR-binding complex is thus suggested to control -ECS mRNA translation in A. thaliana (Xiang and Bertrand, 2000).
Post-translational control of -ECS:
Post-translational regulation of -ECS through end-product inhibition by GSH is a crucial factor in controlling GSH concentration in animals and plants. Covalent modification may also be influential. There is some evidence to suggest that rat -ECS is regulated by protein phosphorylation (Sun et al., 1996) but this has not yet been found in studies on -ECS from plants. May et al. concluded that protein factors are involved in post-translational control of -ECS and are required for full activity (May et al., 1998b). The failure of the plant enzyme to operate ectopically was explained by the absence of such endogenous plant factors (May et al., 1998a, b). In the animal enzyme system, a smaller regulatory subunit acts to increase the catalytic potential of the larger catalytic subunit by increasing its Ki value for GSH and decreasing the Km for glutamate, thereby alleviating feedback control and allowing the enzyme to operate under in vivo conditions (Huang et al., 1993). It is nevertheless clear that even in the absence of the smaller subunit, the large catalytic subunit is capable of effective catalysis, since overexpression of this polypeptide alone yielded increased glutathione levels in transfected human cells (Mulcahy et al., 1995). The highest glutathione contents were, however, obtained by dual overexpression of both subunits (Mulcahy et al., 1995).
While protein factors have not been identified in plants, and there is as yet no evidence for control of -ECS by phosphorylation, several enzymes in plants are controlled by interactions between phosphorylation status and factors such as 14-3-3 proteins, regulatory components found in several compartments of the plant cell (DeLille et al., 2001). This interaction inactivates enzymes such as nitrate reductase, but also confers stability against proteolytic attack. It is as yet unclear whether this type of regulation might be important in glutathione synthesis in plants, but it is perhaps worth considering a potential role in the post-translational control of glutathione synthesis. Non-linearity of the specific activity of -ECS with protein concentration has been alluded to previously (Hell and Bergmann, 1990). As part of a study on the intracellular distribution of GSH metabolism in wheat (see below), -ECS activity was measured in unfractionated leaf extracts and in purified chloroplasts. In both cases, specific activity increased substantially as protein was increased (Fig. 2). At the highest amounts of protein in the assay, the activity in wheat leaf extracts was very similar to that reported previously (approximately 0.5 nmol mg-1 protein min-1: cf. Fig. 2 and Hell and Bergmann, 1990). In chloroplast extracts, the activity showed an almost linear increase with protein and, at the highest protein concentration, attained values that were more than 4-fold higher than those found in whole leaf extracts (Fig. 2). On a chlorophyll basis, maximal -ECS activity was approximately twice as high in chloroplast extracts as in whole leaf extracts. These effects are unlikely to be due to low-molecular-weight effectors since similar results were obtained whether or not extracts were desalted prior to assay.
|
-ECS from whole tobacco and parsley cells has been shown to be subject to inhibition by GSH, in a manner that is competitive with respect to glutamate (Hell and Bergmann, 1990; Schneider and Bergmann, 1995). The KiGSH was 0.27–0.45 mM at a glutamate concentration of 10–20 mM (Hell and Bergmann, 1990). Figure 3 shows that the enzyme extracted from purified wheat chloroplasts, assayed at a constant protein concentration, was also sensitive to GSH. -ECS from wheat chloroplast and whole leaf material showed a similar sensitivity to inhibition by GSH and by buthionine sulphoximine (Table 1). It would appear, therefore, that chloroplastic and extrachloroplastic isoforms possess similar regulatory properties, although this notion can only be definitely confirmed by biochemical studies of the extrachloroplastic enzyme(s). Given the likely difficulties of isolating cytosolic -ECS through classical techniques, purification through heterologous expression of a cloned cDNA offers the best approach to this question.
|
|
|
Intercellular compartmentation of glutathione synthesis
The implications of heterogeneity of cells with regard to glutathione metabolism have only recently become the focus of research effort. Apart from the pioneering studies of Rennenberg (see below), little information on this question had appeared in the literature. Given that the sensitivity of certain cells may be explained by their lack of adequate glutathione production or recycling, this question is key.
Compartmentation in C3 leaves:
Glutathione is not produced at equivalent rates by all tissues or, indeed, by all cells within a tissue. Of particular note is the high capacity for GSH biosynthesis in some types of trichomes. These specialized unicellular or multicellular structures on the epidermis can have a protective function in excreting toxic compounds such as cadmium. The trichomes found on the stem and leaf surface of various A. thaliana ecotypes, show much higher expression of enzymes involved in the synthesis of cysteine and GSH and have GSH contents 2–3 times higher than the surrounding basal and epidermal cells (Gutierrez-Alcala et al., 2000). The evidence for GSH, GSSG and GS-conjugate transport systems on the plasma membrane associated with systemic transport has recently been discussed (Foyer et al., 2001) and hence these systems will not be elaborated upon here further.
Compartmentation in maize leaves:
An extreme example of the differential intercellular partitioning of glutathione metabolism is observed in maize. In common with other plants that show ‘Kranz anatomy’ and C4 photosynthesis, maize leaves have two photosynthetic cell types whose functions are very different. The enzymes of the Benson–Calvin cycle, which are very sensitive to redox regulation, are localized in bundle sheath chloroplasts. In contrast to the mesophyll, the bundle sheath cells have very low amounts of photosystem II, ferredoxin and ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase and, therefore, a lower capacity for the photochemical production of reducing power. H2O2 was found only in the mesophyll compartment in optimal growth conditions (Doulis et al., 1997) but accumulated in the bundle sheath cells at low temperatures (Pastori et al., 2000a). Following exposure to cold stress, oxidative damage was found almost exclusively in the bundle sheath (Kingston-Smith and Foyer, 2000).
Recent evidence suggests that the sensitivity of maize leaves to chilling-induced precocious senescence is related to the ability to synthesize and regenerate GSH (Kocsy et al., 2000) and to the absence of antioxidant generation and recycling capacity in the bundle sheath cells (Kingston-Smith and Foyer, 2000). Like DHAR, GR is localized only in the leaf mesophyll cells. By contrast, other antioxidant enzymes are either restricted to the bundle sheath cells (APX and superoxide dismutase) or are found to be approximately equally distributed between the two cell types (CAT and MDHAR; Doulis et al., 1997; Pastori et al., 2000a). The exclusive localization of GR activity in the mesophyll cells may be explained by the comparative lack of reductant in the bundle sheath cells (Doulis et al., 1997). Because of their low water-splitting capacity, bundle sheath cells may not generate sufficient NADPH to support the reduction of GSSG and DHA. GSSG and DHA produced in the bundle sheath tissues must, therefore, be transported to the mesophyll tissues to be reduced.
The absence of GR from the maize bundle sheath is due to post-transcriptional regulation, since GR transcripts are found in both cell types (Pastori et al., 2000b). Cysteine is synthesized in the bundle sheath whereas GSH-S activity is located predominantly in the mesophyll cells (Burgener et al., 1998). It appears, therefore, that glutathione is synthesized in the cells where GR is present and that the bundle sheath relies on the mesophyll for both the synthesis of glutathione and the reduction of GSSG. cDNAs corresponding to maize -ECS and GSH-S mRNA have recently been isolated. The 1664 bp nucleotide sequence obtained for -ECS mRNA (EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database Acc. No. AJ302783) consists of a 38 nt 5' untranslated region that precedes the first ATG, a 1317 nt open reading frame encoding 437 amino acids and a 309 nt 3' untranslated region. No transit peptide could be identified from the amino acid sequence and analysis with the PSORT program showed high probability of a cytosolic localization. The 1608 bp nucleotide sequence of the mRNA isolated for GSH-S (EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database Acc. No. AJ302784) presents an open reading frame between nucleotides 278 and 1510 that encodes a peptide of 409 amino acids, with no transit peptide. Southern blot analysis indicates that the gene encoding GSH-S is present as a single copy. Screening of a BAC library from the flint inbred F2 line with probes obtained in this work confirmed this result. Although the analysis of several clones of the -ECS cDNA showed only one sequence of mRNA, the screening of the BAC library indicated that this gene is present in two copies. Northern blot analysis showed that the expression of both enzymes is higher in leaves than in roots but there are no results to date on the intracellular regulation of the expression of these genes.
|
Intracellular compartmentation of glutathione metabolism |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Intercompartmental variations (e.g. chloroplast versus cytosol, apoplast versus cytosol) in glutathione concentration and redox state may be crucial in signalling. By the end of the 1970s, it was known that spinach chloroplasts contained high concentrations of glutathione (Foyer and Halliwell, 1976
) and that photoautotrophic tobacco cells exported glutathione into the culture medium much faster than did hetrotrophically grown cells (Bergmann and Rennenberg, 1978). It was subsequently shown that GSH is translocated from source leaves in the phloem (see references in Herschbach et al., 2000). As discussed above, -ECS and GSH-S activities were shown to be located both inside and outside the chloroplast (Klapheck et al., 1987; Hell and Bergmann, 1988, 1990) and the ability of photosynthetic cells to synthesize GSH in chloroplastic and cytosolic compartments was confirmed by overexpression studies (Noctor et al., 1996, 1998; Creissen et al., 1999). Together, these observations indicate that photosynthetic cells are likely to be able to export chloroplastically-produced glutathione from the cell. Studies have been conducted of 35S-GSH uptake into tobacco cells and bean leaf protoplasts (Schneider et al., 1992; Jamaï et al., 1996), and a GS-conjugate transporter is known to operate at the tonoplast (Foyer et al., 2001), but nothing is known about glutathione transport across the chloroplast envelope. The following sections present results that have recently been obtained on compartmentation and transport, and these findings are discussed within the context of published literature data in order to evaluate the role of different processes in the control of the intracellular distribution of glutathione metabolism.
Distribution of glutathione metabolism between the chloroplast and the rest of the cell
Because of the agronomic importance of wheat, the compartmentation of glutathione metabolism was undertaken by isolating intact chloroplasts from wheat leaves. Although highly intact wheat chloroplasts can be prepared by lysis of protoplasts prepared via enzymatic digestion (Edwards et al., 1978), this method is of questionable suitability for the study of the distribution of stress-linked components because the isolation procedure itself affects AOS production and the antioxidant system (Ishii, 1987; Papadakis et al., 2001). Therefore, the development of a more direct and rapid method for the isolation of intact wheat chloroplasts was sought, using the mechanical homogenization of leaf tissue. While mechanical homogenization is easily applied to species with soft leaf tissue (notably spinach and pea), the literature contains very few reports of the successful use of this technique in the isolation of wheat chloroplasts, probably because fragments of fibrous bundle-sheath strands are released during tissue homogenization and cause rupture of the fragile chloroplasts. Nevertheless, by using young leaves, it was possible to develop a method producing an adequate yield (0.5–1 mg chlorophyll) of predominantly intact chloroplasts (Table 2). This method allowed chloroplasts to be liberated and separated from the homogenate in under 5 min and to be purified in less than 30 min. Given that all leaf antioxidative enzymes, including chloroplastic isoforms, have thus far been shown to be nuclear-encoded, this rapid isolation technique should avoid possible artefactual changes in enzyme distribution. The chloroplasts were photosynthetically competent, as judged by their high rates of electron transport (Table 2). Although unable to catalyse CO2-dependent O2 evolution at appreciable rates, the chloroplasts were competent in O2 evolution when supplied with 3-phosphoglyceric acid (Table 2). This indicates activity of the phosphate translocator and at least two enzymes of the Calvin cycle, as well as retention of nucleotides (NADP(H), adenylates). The chloroplast volume (Table 2) was within the range of that measured in other species (Heldt, 1980).
Expressed with respect to chlorophyll, NADP-GAPDH activity in the wheat chloroplasts was similar to that measurable in the unfractionated homogenate (Table 3). The latency of this activity in the chloroplast preparation was greater than 80%. While a large part of GR activity was located in the chloroplasts, the proportion of DHAR associated with the organelle was rather less (Table 3). The fraction of GSH-S found in the chloroplasts was low (Table 3). The use of chlorophyll to calculate the distribution of enzymes within the photosynthetic cell is complicated by the existence of significant numbers of non-photosynthetic cells within leaves. In an analysis of wheat of the same age as that used here, only 50% of the leaf cells were found to be mesophyll cells, with only slightly higher values found in other monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous species, including spinach and pea (Jellings and Leech, 1982). Values for the chloroplastic enzyme fraction based on chlorophyll (Table 3) must therefore be treated as lower limits for the chloroplast allocation within photosynthetic cells: true values would be higher if a significant fraction of enzyme is also present in non-photosynthetic cells.
|
Four thiols were detected in wheat leaves and chloroplasts (Table 4
). The glutathione homologue -Glu-Cys-Ser (hmGSH) was first described in 1992 and reported to exist in numerous grass species (Klapheck et al., 1992). It was not possible to detect the formation of this compound in GSH-S assays where Gly was replaced by Ser, consistent with this thiol being produced by hydroxymethylation of the Gly residue of GSH. Contents of all thiols on a chlorophyll basis were much lower in chloroplasts, only 8% of the total leaf glutathione being recovered in the purified chloroplasts (Table 4). Assuming that the vacuole occupies 80–90% of the cell volume, and that glutathione concentration is low in this compartment (Wolf et al., 1996), a leaf content of 199 nmol mg-1 chl (Table 4) yields a global concentration outside the chloroplast of 1–2 mM (chlorophyll content of the wheat leaves was around 1 mg g-1 FW). This value is in agreement with estimations of root cytosolic concentration using in situ imaging techniques (1.8–4 mM: Fricker and Meyer, 2001). The glutathione content of the isolated chloroplasts (Table 4) can be converted directly, using the measured chloroplast volume (Table 2), to a concentration of around 0.5 mM. This would suggest that the glutathione concentration in young wheat leaves is lower in the chloroplast than in other compartments such as the cytosol. Several observations speak against this notion. First, a higher chloroplast glutathione concentration (63–81 nmol mg-1 chl) was reported in spinach, representing a mean concentration of 3.5 mM (Foyer and Halliwell, 1976). Second, a higher proportion of glutathione was also found in chloroplasts isolated non-aqueously from barley (Smith et al., 1985). Here, more than 50% of leaf glutathione was recovered in the chloroplasts, although this method may lead to overestimation due to adhesion of extrachloroplastic material to the isolated chloroplasts. Using marker enzymes to correct for this artefact, a value of 35% leaf glutathione in pea chloroplasts isolated in non-aqueous media was calculated (Klapheck et al., 1987). By contrast, the same article reported that chloroplasts prepared in aqueous media from pea protoplasts retained only 5% of glutathione present in the parent protoplasts (Klapheck et al. 1987). When isolated in aqueous media, pea chloroplasts had glutathione contents of 7–22 nmol mg-1 chl, values very similar to those we found in wheat (cf. Table 3). Moreover, another study in pea found only 10% of the leaf glutathione in percoll-purified chloroplasts (Bielawski and Joy, 1986). It was concluded that pea chloroplasts lose glutathione during extraction in aqueous media, probably due to leakiness to small molecules during the isolation (Klapheck et al., 1987). Another possibility is the operation of transporters (see below). Whatever the processes responsible for low contents following aqueous isolation, it seems clear that chloroplasts from wheat, like those from pea, lose glutathione and other thiols during this method of extraction while retention of glutathione is higher in spinach chloroplasts. Interestingly, it was reported that, expressed on a chlorophyll basis, the glutathione content of pea protoplasts was similar to that of pea leaves (Klapheck et al., 1987). By contrast, mesophyll protoplasts have been purified from wheat (authors’ unpublished results) that have high photosynthetic activity (100–170 µmol O2 mg-1 chl h-1 in the presence of NaHCO3) but that contain only approximately 30% of the initial leaf glutathione content (c. 60 and 200 nmol mg-1 chl in protoplasts and leaves, respectively).
|
Table 5
presents a summary of the principal literature data on the chloroplast complement of glutathione, together with values for the four enzymes that were measured in wheat. In the leaves of dicotyledonous species, -ECS and GSH-S have been found to be more or less equally divided betwen chloroplastic and non-chloroplastic compartments, with a somewhat higher proportion of -ECS found in the chloroplast (Table 5). The effects of protein concentration on -ECS activity (Fig. 2) prevented estimating the distribution of this enzyme in wheat leaves, but it seems clear that, whatever the precise distribution, a higher proportion of this enzyme is found in the wheat chloroplast than GSH-S. In nmol chloroplast protein-1 min-1, maximal activities were 2.3 (-ECS: Fig. 2) and 0.23 (GSH-S). This is surprising considering that overexpression studies strongly suggest that the first enzyme exercizes the major limitation on synthesis of GSH in both cytosolic and chloroplastic compartments (Strohm et al., 1995; Noctor et al., 1996, 1998). However, studies of spinach chloroplasts, and of barley and pea chloroplasts isolated non-aqueously, indicate a chloroplastic GSH concentration close to 5 mM (Foyer and Halliwell, 1976; Smith et al., 1984; Klapheck et al., 1987) which would be sufficient to inhibit the chloroplastic -ECS by about 90% (Fig. 3) at 10–20 mM Glu, a likely chloroplastic concentration of this amino acid (Winter et al., 1994). It is perhaps worth noting that analysis of maize roots also found only a small fraction of GSH-S in the plastid (Table 5). The distribution of these enzymes could be dependent on developmental stage. Even though the wheat leaves used here were photosynthetically competent, they were nevertheless young. Literature data suggest, perhaps, that in more mature leaves, GSH-S is more strongly associated with the chloroplast (Table 5).
|
The data presented in Table 2
for GR are in agreement with literature studies (Table 5). In leaves, the bulk of GR activity is found in the chloroplast whereas root plastids may contain a lower proportion of the total cellular activity (Table 5). About 20% of the pea leaf activity was associated with the cytosol (Edwards et al., 1990). Lower GR activities have been reported in isolated mitochondria and peroxisomes (Edwards et al., 1990; Jimenez et al., 1997). Of the four enzymes discussed here, GR is by far the best characterized at the gene level. The first gene sequence encoding plant GR was isolated from pea, shown to encode a product with an N-terminal sequence characteristic of chloroplast-targeting sequences (Creissen et al., 1992), and later the product was found to be targeted to both chloroplasts and mitochondria (Creissen et al., 1995). Subsequently, cDNAs for other isoforms have been isolated from various species. Multiple activity bands have been identified in protein extracts from pea and spinach (Edwards et al., 1990; Foyer et al., 1991).
Less is known about the compartmentation of DHAR. The data in wheat (Table 3) give a value intermediate between those found in spinach and pea (Table 5). Because various enzymes can catalyse GSH-dependent reduction of dehydroascorbate as a ‘secondary’ reaction, the presence of a specific DHAR activity in chloroplasts has been the subject of controversy (Foyer and Mullineaux, 1998). Very recently in spinach, however, a chloroplast DHAR has been purified and a corresponding gene cloned and sequenced (Shimaoka et al., 2000). The authors reported a stromal DHAR activity of 34 µmol mg-1 chl h-1 (Shimaoka et al., 2000). Since DHAR activities from leaf tissue are typically 100–400 µmol mg-1 chl h-1, this would also represent a fairly small proportion associated with the chloroplast, although part of the high extrachloroplastic activity may be attributable to proteins other than a specific DHAR. It is interesting that GR/DHAR ratios appear to be markedly higher in the chloroplast than outside this organelle: on the basis of differential effects on the ascorbate and glutathione redox states observed in transgenic and mutant plants, it was suggested that DHAR activity in the chloroplast may be too low to couple the ascorbate and glutathione pools effectively (Noctor et al., 2000). In a recent theoretical article, the first attempt to model flux through the chloroplast Mehler-peroxidase and ascorbate–glutathione cycles is reported (Polle, 2001). It was concluded that chloroplastic DHAR is likely to be unimportant in chloroplast redox cycling, but that the chemical reduction of DHA by GSH would be sufficiently fast to allow an effective ascorbate–glutathione cycle (Polle, 2001). It is nevertheless clear that the redox states of the leaf ascorbate and glutathione pools can vary independently: decreased expression of the chloroplastic protein 2-cys peroxiredoxin led to a more oxidized ascorbate pool without effect on the highly reduced glutathione pool (Baier et al., 2000). Both thermodynamic and kinetic considerations predict that glutathione should be oxidized before ascorbate (Noctor et al., 2000; Polle, 2001), and this is indeed observed in plants deficient in CAT (see below). The factors that may allow DHA to accumulate in the presence of abundant GSH have been discussed, and include microcompartmentation within the chloroplast (Noctor et al., 2000; Polle, 2001). Polle's model is an excellent first step towards the comprehensive evaluation of oxidant processing and antioxidant cycling within the chloroplast, and presents or reinforces several important conclusions concerning the importance of non-enzymatic reduction and the likely location of ‘rate-limitations’ (Polle, 2001). Such approaches are likely to be very useful in understanding the response of chloroplast-derived stress to leaf physiology. Nevertheless it is noted that the common assumption that the chloroplast is the predominant site of AOS production in leaf cells may not be valid under many conditions (Noctor et al., 2002), and that it cannot be excluded that the chloroplast antioxidative system may sometimes be subject to oxidative loads of both chloroplastic and extra-chloroplastic origin.
|
|
Transport of glutathione across the chloroplast envelope
It has previously been reported that incubation of wheat chloroplasts with 35S-labelled GSH at 1 and 100 µM resulted in time-dependent uptake that was linear for at least 15 and 8–10 min, respectively (Noctor et al., 2000
). To characterize the uptake process, rates were measured over the first 5 min following addition of 35S-GSH, within which time uptake was linear at all concentrations between 1 µM and 1 mM (Fig. 4). Regression analysis was used to calculate rates: fitted lines gave a positive intercept on the y-axis (Fig. 4), probably indicating a rapid binding to the external surface of the chloroplast followed by a constant rate of uptake. At low concentrations (1–50 µM) the time-dependent uptake results in an accumulation of glutathione to a calculated chloroplast concentration of up to 5-fold the external concentration. Given that these external concentrations represent values at least 10-fold lower than the internal chloroplast concentration before addition of labelled GSH (c. 0.5 mM: see above), the data suggest active uptake of external glutathione. This conclusion is supported by the concentration dependence of GSH uptake (Fig. 5). Uptake was linear up to 20–30 µM GSH then showed saturation at around 100–200 µM GSH followed by a further increase in rate up to a concentration of 1 mM (Fig. 5). The results suggest that at least two systems are able to take up GSH across the chloroplast envelope, one showing half-saturation at around 30–50 µM GSH with a maximal capacity of approximately 0.6–0.8 nmol mg-1 chl min-1 and a second with lower affinity and higher capacity. Transport at 50 µM GSH was not affected by added ATP or by light (data not shown). No difference in uptake was observed if the possible oxidation of GSH was countered by the presence of NADPH and yeast GR in the external medium. Although direct uptake of the disulphide form has not been examined, the presence of GSSG at 10 and 500 µM significantly inhibited uptake of GSH at 10, 50 and 500 µM. At a constant GSH concentration of 50 µM, inhibition by GSSG was half-maximal at approximately 0.4 mM (Fig. 6). These data suggest that the two forms of glutathione can be transported by common systems, although GSH appears to be preferred. GSSG was also reported to inhibit GSH uptake by bean protoplasts (Jamaï et al., 1996), but not by tobacco cells (Schneider et al., 1992). It is conceivable that the weak effect of GSSG in wheat chloroplasts (Fig. 6) could be due to an effect on 35S-GSH concentration rather than an effect on the transport process itself. However, mixtures of GSSG and GSH are relatively stable at neutral pH so an effect of GSSG on the chemical GSH concentration is unlikely given the brevity of each incubation. It is possible, nonetheless, that thiol-disulphide exchange reactions result in conversion of 35S-GSH to 35S-GSSG, particularly when GSSG is in excess of GSH. Here, it is worth noting that Schneider reported no effect of 0.25 mM GSSG on the uptake of 35S-GSH (50 µM) into tobacco cells during a 2 h incubation at pH 6.0 (Schneider et al., 1992). Although this study's experiments were conducted at pH 7.6, which is likely to be more conducive to thiol-disulphide exchange, all solutions were prepared immediately before assay and the incubation period used (5 min) was much shorter than those employed previously in studies of glutathione uptake across the plasmalemma. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the effect of GSSG is mediated at the level of transport.
|
|
The capacity of the high-affinity wheat chloroplast glutathione uptake system was 40–60 nmol mg-1 chl h-1 while, at physiological GSH concentrations (1 mM), the uptake rate was about 200 nmol mg-1 chl h-1 (Fig. 5
). By applying a modified but similar method, it was not possible to detect significant uptake into wheat mesophyll protoplasts within 60 min, at either pH 7.6 or pH 5.5. This contrasts with the literature report of significant GSH uptake into broad bean protoplasts, where transport was shown to be due to a single saturable phase with Km 0.4 mM and Vmax of 2.1 nmol 107 protoplasts min-1 (Jamaï et al. 1996). This difference may be attributable to differences in methodology or to inactivation of the wheat plasmalemma translocator during protoplast isolation. It is worth comparing maximum GSH transport rates across the plasmalemma with those measured in wheat chloroplasts. A mean chl content per wheat protoplast of 11.8±2.0 pg (n=five independent protoplast preparations) was measured. Assuming a similar chl content, a rate of 2.1 nmolx107 broad bean protoplasts min-1 converts to around 1 µmol mg-1 chl h-1, though this capacity is unlikely to be reached at physiological extracellular GSH concentrations. In photoheterotrophic tobacco cells, as in wheat chloroplasts, two phases were identified in kinetic characterization of GSH uptake (Schneider et al., 1992). A high-affinity system displayed a Km of 18 µM and a capacity of 19–20 nmol GSH g-1 dry weight min-1, while at higher concentrations a second phase was observed with Km 780 µM and a capacity of c. 170 nmol GSH g-1 dry weight min-1 (Schneider et al., 1992). The physiological significance of the second system is unclear. Given a chl content in the region of 10–20 mg g-1 dry weight, high-affinity transport by the tobacco cells would proceed at about 60–120 nmol mg chl-1 h-1. The capacity of wheat chloroplast transport is therefore intermediate between those previously measured in photoheterotrophic tobacco cells and broad bean protoplasts.
The bean protoplast plasmalemma transports GSSG at higher rates than GSH (Jamaï et al., 1996), consistent with a predominant physiological role in the recovery of glutathione oxidized in the apoplast, where GR activity is low or nil. Further work is required to identify possible chloroplast envelope transporters which might preferentially transport GSSG. It remains unclear whether GSSG and GSH are transported by the same system at the plasmalemma. The two species had distinct kinetics, GSH showing a single saturable phase with Km 0.4 mM whereas GSSG showed two saturable phases (Jamaï et al., 1996). Protoplast transport of the two species were similarly dependent on pH and both resulted in decreased acidification of the extracellular medium in leaf pieces (Jamaï et al., 1996).
A high-affinity glutathione transporter has recently been cloned from yeast, with a Km value close to that of the high-affinity system characterized in tobacco cells and wheat chloroplasts (54 µM: Bourbouloux et al., 2000). Negligible inhibition was observed with other peptides or amino acids, but glutathione conjugates and GSSG both competed significantly with GSH. A database search of amino acid sequences identified homologues from other organisms, including five from Arabidopsis, which had 38–51% identity with the cloned yeast gene (Bourbouloux et al., 2000).
Although glutathione concentrations in the vacuole are thought to be low, it is clear that the compound enters via transport of conjugates. Transport from the cytosol to the vacuole occurs via a Mg-ATP glutathione-S-conjugate transporter which is up-regulated along with GSTs upon exposure to xenobiotics (Martinoia et al., 1993; Li et al., 1995). The glutathione S-conjugates formed with anthocyanin and medicarpin are also transported into the vacuole by a specific glutathione S-conjugate transporter (Li et al., 1995), where they are further metabolized (Marrs, 1996; for further discussion of vacuolar uptake, see Foyer et al., 2001).
A key question concerning glutathione transporters is whether they catalyse net transport. Many plastid envelope translocators involved in primary C and N metabolism generally catalyse strict exchange reactions (e.g. phosphate translocator, dicarboxylic acid transporter, glutamate transporter, adenylate translocator). An obvious candidate for exchange with glutathione is not apparent, and further work is required to resolve this question. If an exchange mechanism is not involved, a unidirectional transport of glutathione would presumably require energy input. Evidence was obtained that uptake of both GSH and GSSG into bean protoplasts was driven by the proton gradient across the plasmalemma (Jamaï et al., 1996). On the other hand, the rate of GSH uptake into photoheterotrophic tobacco cells by the high-affinity system decreased as the pH was lowered from 7.0 to 5.0 (Schneider et al., 1992). The pH gradient across the chloroplast envelope is smaller than that across the plasmalemma and is very light-dependent (Werdan et al., 1975). The mechanism of chloroplast envelope transport of glutathione requires further investigation. Another interesting question is whether specificity to glutathione, observed in plasmalemma transport (Jamaï et al., 1996; Bourbouloux et al., 2000), is conferred by the Glu-Cys -carboxy peptide bond, or whether the transporter recognizes the thiol group. The work of Schneider et al., which reported inhibition by pretreatment of the cells with the alkylating reagent iodoacetate but not by the presence of GSSG during the uptake assay, suggests that the transport may involve thiol-binding (Schneider et al., 1992). On the other hand, the results of Jamaï et al. suggest that the characteristic N-terminal peptide link may be crucial (Jamaï et al., 1996). It is interesting to note, however, that the cloned yeast transporter showed little activity with -EC (Bourbouloux et al., 2000).
|
Glutathione homeostasis: the relationship between concentration and redox state |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
It is an interesting question whether many plant processes are subject to strict homeostasis in the sense in which this term is applied to mammalian systems. Plant metabolism is generally less insulated from environmental variation and, as a result, has evolved considerable flexibility and redundancy. Two independent properties of any given pool of glutathione are obvious: its concentration and its redox state. The first, although subject to regulation at multiple levels (notably, as far as homeostasis is concerned, by end-product feedback inhibition), can vary considerably. Leaf glutathione concentrations fluctuate seasonally, diurnally, and are influenced by plant nutrition, particularly sulphur availability. Earlier evidence that glutathione acts homeostatically in sulphur metabolism, being synthesized primarily in the leaves then translocated in the phloem to regulate sulphate uptake at root level, has been succeeded by a more complex picture in which the phloem sulphate to glutathione ratio may be key (Herschbach et al., 2000
). The second property of the glutathione pool, its redox state, is perhaps more likely to be the subject of strict homeostatic control, as part of the maintenance of general cellular redox poise. In leaves at least, the glutathione redox state is remarkably constant. Only under fairly sustained stress conditions does the leaf glutathione pool fall much below 90% reduced. The centrality of a highly reduced glutathione pool to photosynthetic metabolism may be such that departures from the highly reduced state are sensed by the cell and acclimatory changes in gene expression initiated.
It is important to point out that redox state is a term used widely, though sometimes without precise and correct meaning, in the glutathione research field (Schafer and Buettner, 2001). The redox potential of a given redox couple, existing in two forms, Ared and Aox, is given by the Nernst equation.
 |
It is clear from this equation that changes in glutathione redox potential do not occur if GSH/GSSG remains constant, even if the total concentration of the pool changes dramatically. Hence, the total glutathione concentration and its redox state may be independent parameters, from a chemical point of view. However, signalling initiated by changes in the redox state may lead to up-regulation of glutathione synthesis and, hence, increases in the total concentration. A likely redox potential for the chloroplastic glutathione redox couple is-0.23 V (Foyer and Noctor, 2000). The glutathione redox potential of animal cells has been estimated to vary from about -0.24 V in actively dividing cells to approximately -0.17 V in cells undergoing apoptosis (Schafer and Buettner, 2001).
Maintenance of homeostasis in the face of all the metabolic demands placed on the glutathione pool involves a complex interplay between synthesis, degradation, transport, storage, oxidation–reduction, further metabolism and catabolism as plants respond to environmental, developmental and nutritional cues. Redox cycling is much faster than synthesis, transport or degradation. However, the antioxidant systems ensure that any changes in glutathione redox state are relatively slow. Although it is difficult to know the rate of redox turnover of glutathione in vivo (though see Polle, 2001, for a thorough analysis of flux through the chloroplast antioxidative system), plants deficient in CAT display probably the best documented and most striking perturbation of the glutathione pool. Low activities of the major leaf peroxisomal form of this enzyme mean that the copious amounts of H2O2 generated in C3 plants in photorespiration must be metabolized by an alternative route. This imposes a marked increase in the oxidative load on the photosynthetic cell which, ultimately, results in cell death and necrosis (Smith et al., 1984; Willekens et al., 1997). For a limited period of a few days, however, barley CAT mutants can cope with photorespiratory H2O2 without showing deleterious effects on either photosynthesis or phenotype (Smith et al., 1984; Noctor et al., 2000). Their ability to do so presumably reflects enhanced engagement of other pathways of H2O2 detoxification, notably the ascorbate–glutathione cycle, as evidenced by the sustained oxidation of glutathione accompanied by increases in the total glutathione pool. In the barley mutant, the net accumulation of GSSG 4 d after transfer to air was around 0.7 µmol g-1 FW (Smith et al., 1984). Very similar effects are observed in transformed tobacco deficient in CAT (Willekens et al., 1997). At least in barley, H2O2 does not accumulate to any great extent within this time (Noctor et al., 2001). Since the mutant has negligible leaf CAT activity and rates of H2O2 generation via photorespiration can be estimated relatively easily, a rough estimate can be made of the relationship between redox cycling and net oxidation of the glutathione pool. In a recent study of this mutant (Noctor et al., 2002), results very similar to those of Smith et al. were obtained (Smith et al., 1984). These experiments were carried out at 250 µmol quanta m-2 s-1, at which a typical rate of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate oxygenation in barley leaves is around 180 µmol g-1 FW h-1 (Noctor et al., 2002: for comparison, typical whole leaf GR capacity measured under standard conditions is about 70 µmol g-1 FW h-1). At this rate, the photorespiratory process generates approximately 10 mmol H2O2 g-1 FW in 4 d with a 14 h light period. The proportion of H2O2 detoxification that involves redox turnover of the glutathione pool is difficult to estimate. Polle concluded that in the chloroplast this value was probably low and that oxidation of glutathione by chemical reaction with superoxide was equally if not more important than GSH oxidation by DHA (Polle, 2001). Outside the chloroplast, however, in CAT-deficient plants, glutathione may be much more closely involved in H2O2 detoxification: (1) in the illuminated leaves of C3 plants, under many conditions, the major source of AOS production outside the chloroplast is the direct production of H2O2 by glycollate oxidase activity; (2) although monodehydroascorbate (MDHA) reductase activity is found outside the chloroplast, ferredoxin-dependent regeneration of ascorbate from MDHA is not possible; (3) in most cases, as discussed above, extrachloroplastic DHAR activities are higher than those within the chloroplast; (4) extrachloroplastic GPX/GST activities may make a more substantial contribution to H2O2 processing outside the chloroplast. Even if it assumed that, when CAT activity is negligible, only 1–10% of the H2O2 generated in photorespiration drives oxidative turnover of glutathione (either directly or via the ascorbate–glutathione couple), the net accumulation of GSSG is still only around 0.07–0.7% of the rate of redox turnover of the glutathione pool. This figure will be lower if a higher proportion of H2O2 detoxification involves engagement of the glutathione pool. It is evident that accumulation of GSSG can result from small imbalances in the rates of oxidation and reduction of glutathione. Although rates of synthesis and transport are probably around two orders of magnitude slower than redox cycling (Fig. 7), they are likely to be much closer to the imbalance between reduction and oxidation, and could therefore exert some influence on glutathione redox state in a given compartment.
The data of Smith et al. suggest that the changes in glutathione concentration and redox observed in the barley mutant occur both within and outside the chloroplast (Smith et al., 1985). Generation of H2O2 within the peroxisome is therefore capable of influencing the chloroplastic glutathione pool. Whether the changes in chloroplastic glutathione redox state are due to movement of H2O2 into the chloroplast or transport of GSSG from the cytosol is unclear. The increase in the glutathione pool presumably results from up-regulation of synthesis, perhaps through effects on translation of -ECS and/or GSH-S, as discussed above. It is worth considering the factors that determine the intracellular distribution of glutathione (Fig. 7). Although the capacity of chloroplast transport is in the same range as the maximum extractable activities of the enzymes that catalyse glutathione synthesis, these data suggest that the transporter would operate much closer to its maximum capacity than the enzymes under in vivo conditions. Under most conditions, the enzymes probably work at considerably less than half maximal capacity because of kinetically limiting substrate concentrations and competitive inhibition of -ECS by glutathione. Increased glutathione in one compartment will (a) counteract further glutathione synthesis through feedback inhibition and (b) favour transport of glutathione out of that compartment, if net transport does occur. These processes would tend to equalize glutathione concentrations between chloroplast and cytosol, and compartment-specific increases would require sustained differential increases in the expression of enzyme isoforms. The extent to which compartment-specific changes occur is unclear, but there are several cytosolic processes (e.g. phytochelatin synthesis, GST activity) for which an increased synthesis of chloroplastic glutathione would seem inappropriate. However, it may well be that chloroplastic synthesis contributes to the supply of glutathione to these processes via transport across the envelope. As noted above, emerging evidence points to the existence of glutathione transporters with similar kinetic properties on different membranes of the leaf cell. Perhaps the physiological significance of these transporters is to minimize perturbations of glutathione homeostasis that would otherwise result from differential demands in distinct compartments.
Catabolism of glutathione could also impact on glutathione homeostasis. Three routes of breakdown, involving GSH, GSSG and glutathione-S-conjugates, are possible and each pathway may fulfil an essentially different function. Catabolic destruction of GSSG may serve as a detoxification process. GSSG is involved in thiolation reactions forming mixed disulphides with proteins in conditions of oxidative stress. Since this process inactivates many biosynthetic enzymes the presence of a large GSSG pool is not compatible with many metabolic reactions; catabolism of GSSG would essentially return the system to pre-stress homeostasis. Catabolism of GSH, on the other hand, largely concerns the remobilization of cysteine, for example, during seed storage protein synthesis or during periods of sulphur deprivation. This requires the successive breakage of the two peptide bonds.
Glutathione catabolism is well characterized in animals, failure of this process resulting in death (Meister, 1988). Transpeptidases, which catalyse the reversible hydrolysis of the N-terminal peptide bond, initiate catabolism by removing the -linked Glu from GSH, GSSG, glutathione conjugates, and other peptides. The Glu moiety is either hydrolysed or donated to an amino acid acceptor or even to another GSH molecule. The second step in catabolism is less well characterized. The Cys–Gly bond is not unique to the glutathione tripeptide and several enzymes, including aminopeptidase M and Cys–Gly dipeptidase, are able to hydrolyse the bond (Meister, 1988). The transpeptidases are part of the -glutamyl cycle and as such are involved in amino acid transport in some tissues (Meister, 1988). The -glutamyl moiety is metabolized by a -glutamylcyclotransferase to oxo-proline which is subsequently converted to glutamate by oxo-prolinase. Homologous activities are also present in plants (Rennenberg et al., 1981; Steinkamp et al., 1987; Steinkamp and Rennenberg, 1984). In addition, however, a carboxypeptidase exists which is able to remove Gly as the first step of degradation, leaving -EC (Steinkamp and Rennenberg, 1985). These enzymes are cytosolic but, more recently, a vacuolar carboxypeptidase has been identified that cleaves the Gly moiety from glutathione-S-conjugates (Wolf et al., 1996): it is thus possible that cleavage of conjugated glutathione in the vacuole may be a major route of catabolism in certain conditions. Moreover, since GSSG can be considered as a glutathione-S-glutathione conjugate, transport of GSSG by the vacuolar conjugate transporter may play a role in removing this species from the cytosol. The failure to detect significant accumulation of glutathione-S-conjugates in vacuoles suggests that they are rapidly catabolized in this compartment (Marrs, 1996).
|
Glutathione and signalling |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The GSH/GSSG couple is well suited to the role of redox sensor, indicative of the general cellular thiol-disulphide redox balance, and producing profound effects on metabolism and gene expression. Regulation of gene expression by GSH and GSSG may be specific, i.e. these compounds may be irreplaceable by other redox components. Alternatively, reported effects may reflect general changes in the cellular redox state, which are known to regulate gene expression in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The glutathione pool is an important redox component in plant cells. Changes in intracellular glutathione status may, therefore, be expected to have important consequences for the cell, through modification of the metabolic functions associated with glutathione-regulated genes. In animal cells redox regulation of the transcription factor NF
B involves glutathione. This regulation is important for T cell function since glutathione augments the activity of T cell lymphocytes (Suthanthiran et al., 1990). Application of exogenous glutathione can elicit changes in the transcription of genes encoding cytosolic Cu,Zn superoxide dismutase and GR in tobacco and pine (Hérouart et al., 1993; Wingsle and Karpinski, 1996) and 2-cys peroxiredoxins in Arabidopsis (Baier and Dietz, 1997). Glutathione-inducible hypersensitive elements have been identified in the proximal region of the chalcone synthase (CHS) promoter (Dron et al., 1988).
Glutathione has been implicated in defence reactions against biotic stresses. Marked changes in the glutathione pool, such as those shown in Fig. 8, occur during the hypersensitive response to pathogen attack. In barley resistant to powdery mildew a transient decrease in the leaf GSH/GSSG ratio, linked to H2O2 accumulation around the mesophyll cells immediately below the attacked epidermal cell, precedes the increase in the total leaf glutathione pool (Fig. 8). Although pathogen-induced increases in the intracellular concentration of glutathione and GSH-dependent induction of phenylalanine ammonia lyase and CHS have been demonstrated (Wingate et al., 1988; Vanacker et al., 2000), it is unlikely that GSH is the primary signal responsible for the increase in phytoalexins following pathogen attack. Using an artificial precursor of glutathione biosynthesis, L-oxothiazolidine-4-carboxylate, to increase intracellular thiol concentrations it was shown that enhanced intracellular GSH concentrations alone did not induce phytoalexin synthesis (Edwards et al., 1991). It was concluded that changes in the intracellular glutathione concentration in response to pathogen attack were too slow to be consistent with the initiation of the elicitation response. In interactions between powdery mildew and oat or barley, however, induction of glutathione precedes maximal induction of transcripts for phenylpropanoid metabolism (Zhang et al., 1997; Vanacker et al., 2000). There are differences in the signal transduction pathways for elicitation of CHS transcription by fungal elicitor and glutathione (Choudhary et al., 1990), suggesting that increases in glutathione are not primarily responsible for the elicitation of the defence response. A role for glutathione in subsequent parts of the signal transduction pathway is nevertheless possible.
|
H2O2-mediated orchestration of gene expression may be central to the ability of plants to elicit antioxidative defences in response to abiotic and biotic threats and hence develop pre-emptive cross-tolerance. Similarities between the oxidative stress caused by ozone fumigation and pathogen-induced responses suggest common elements in signal transduction routes involving SA, JA and ethylene (Rao and Davis, 1999
). Transformed tobacco plants, deficient in the H2O2-scavenging enzyme CAT, also show symptoms that are linked to the activation of pathways involved in apoptosis, such as the induction of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (Chamnongpol et al., 1996). Hydrogen peroxide-mediated induction of glutathione has been demonstrated in different systems (May and Leaver, 1993). It is apparent that the symptoms which develop in CAT-deficient plants subjected to prolonged exposure to photorespiratory conditions do not simply result from chemical damage. Rather, they resemble a precocious senescence, a regulated shutdown of leaf cell function that involves components common to signal transduction in response to pathogen attack (Chamnongpol et al., 1996; Takahashi et al., 1997). A central player is the phenolic molecule SA, but disruption of glutathione homeostasis may also be a vital piece of the signalling jigsaw (Fig. 8).
AOS modulate nitric oxide signalling in the hypersensitive response, leading to cell death in the region close to the pathogen attack (Delledonne et al., 1998) and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in surrounding tissues. SAR involves the pre-emptive deployment of gene expression to modify cell metabolism to cope with future attacks. Increases in the SA concentration are observed at the site of infection, and to a lesser extent at remote sites. H2O2 and SA (and perhaps also glutathione) are potential systemic messengers carrying information concerning attack to unchallenged plant tissues. Of the complex array of antioxidants found in plant cells, glutathione alone shows strong induction and rapid accumulation in response to pathogen attack (Fig. 8; Edwards et al., 1991; Vanacker et al., 2000). The effect on biosynthesis is specific to glutathione and not a general effect on the synthesis of low molecular weight antioxidants. It appears to be a universal response in plants faced by pathogen attack or environmental stress, where the antioxidant defences are temporarily overwhelmed by an oxidative burst or by the accumulation of AOS as a result of impaired metabolism.
The signalling mechanisms involved in induction of GSH biosynthesis during pathogen attack are unknown. As noted earlier, H2O2 increases tissue glutathione contents, whereas JA increases the transcript abundance of the enzymes of GSH synthesis, but does not affect GSH concentration (Xiang and Oliver, 1998). Pathogen-induced increases in glutathione in the cells surrounding the site of attack could have two possible roles in defence. First, they would increase protection from excessive damage caused by the accumulation of AOS during the oxidative burst, which could occur chemically or through increased substrate availability for enzymes such as GSTs and GPXs. Second, changes in the redox state and concentration of glutathione may be an essential secondary messenger mediating the signalling effects of hydrogen peroxide (Foyer et al., 1997; May et al., 1998a).
Crucial to signal transduction processes associated with defence responses appears to be the interaction between SA, H2O2 and glutathione (Rao and Davis, 1999). There is also evidence that glutathione is involved in the regulation of cell division (May et al., 1998a). In plants, as in animals, cell growth and death responses appear to be coupled. Morphogenesis involves differential cell division and cell expansion in response to positional cues generated during development by cell-to-cell communication. At maturity, tissue homeostasis can be influenced by the action of growth regulators, which act singly or in combination. Growth and development are also influenced by cell death, which is required for processes such as the formation of tracheary elements, the release of mature pollen, the selective elimination of organs during embryogenesis and, in some species, during flower development. Damaged cells that are not eliminated via programmed cell death can proliferate and form tumours. Glutathione is necessary for the cell to enter the G1 phase, the pre-mitotic phase of the cell cycle in which the cell is capable of responding to extracellular stimuli that determine whether it will enter the S phase, or enter quiescence, differentiation or death (May et al., 1998a).
Like GSH, GSSG may initiate or potentiate signalling cascades. GSSG can regulate GR expression as the pea GR gene contains a putative GSSG binding site (Creissen et al., 1992). A second, potentially more important mechanism of GSSG action, involves the spontaneous oxidation of protein sulphydryl groups to form mixed disulphides, a reaction termed thiolation. While disulphide bonds form spontaneously through a chemical reaction, re-reduction in vivo requires the intervention of a protein (e.g. GR, thioredoxin, protein-disulphide isomerase). Hence, some disulphide bonds are transient, but others can be very long-lived. Reversible disulphide bond formation has long been recognized as an important mechanism of modulating protein activity. It has only recently, however, been shown that this mechanism could also be a crucial initial signalling event. The formation of such intramolecular disulphide bonds within proteins alters their configuration and biological activity (Demple, 1998). Reversible protein thiolation protects essential thiol groups on key proteins from irreversible inactivation during oxidative stress and also plays an important regulatory role in controlling metabolism, protein turnover and gene transcription (Foyer and Noctor, 2001). There are many examples of proteins that undergo thiolation in animals, but relatively few have been described in plants. Thiolation has been found, for example, to activate microsomal GSTs (Dafré et al., 1996), while thiolation of proteins such as phosphotyrosine-specific protein phosphatases may also mediate signal transduction pathways that initiate key stress responses (Fordham-Skelton et al., 1999).
Thiolation may be a particularly important phenomenon in seed development. Some key seed proteins such as acyl carrier protein are known to be thiolated in the latter stages of seed development and dethiolated during imbibition (Butt and Ohlrogge, 1991). Dry seeds often have a higher glutathione content than other tissues (Klapheck, 1988; Kranner and Grill, 1996) but much of the pool is present as GSSG. The seed GSH/GSSG ratio not only controls protein function but is considered to regulate protein synthesis as well, in a manner similar to that observed in mammalian cells (Kranner and Grill, 1996), since low GSH/GSSG ratios block protein synthesis and prevent germination (Fahey et al., 1980). As soon as germination starts GSSG and protein-thiols are re-reduced and protein synthesis and function are re-established. Thiolation of proteins in the dry seeds could have three functions: firstly, if oxidation of critical cysteine residues marks proteins for degradation, thiolation will protect both the protein and glutathione from degradation; secondly, it could modulate protein activity by interfering with protein cysteine residues; thirdly, it could be involved in signal transduction associated with the quiescent state. In addition, low GSH/GSSG ratios (like low ascorbate/DHA ratios; de Pinto et al., 1999) block or delay cell division.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The concentration and redox state of intracellular glutathione pools depends on the complex interplay of numerous factors. Glutathione redox state is remarkably constant, but extreme oxidative stress leads to oxidation of the pool, as observed during ozone exposure or pathogen attack or in plants with low CAT activities (Smith et al., 1984
; Sen Gupta et al., 1991; Willekens et al., 1997; Vanacker et al., 2000; Noctor et al., 2001). Oxidation in these cases is accompanied by increases in total glutathione. During drought, however, oxidation of glutathione is not always accompanied by increases in the pool size (Smirnoff, 1993). The redox state of glutathione will depend on the balance between oxidative processes and the in vivo GR activity. GR activity may well reflect reductant supply as much as enzyme capacity, particularly, perhaps, outside the chloroplast. Interestingly, however, chloroplastic overexpression of either plant or bacterial GR can increase the leaf GSH:GSSG ratio and mitigate damage due to certain stresses (Foyer and Noctor, 2001). Furthermore, several studies have shown a correlation between GR activity and the absolute size of the glutathione pool.
The operation of translocators may minimize intercompartmental fluctuations in glutathione concentration and redox state, and allow different compartments to co-operate in glutathione synthesis, redox turnover and degradation. The results presented here on uptake of GSH into the chloroplast are preliminary, and an understanding of the influence of chloroplast envelope transporters will require further characterization of this process. Transport of other thiols such as Cys and -EC is worthy of investigation, particularly in view of the differential intracellular distribution of -ECS and GSH-S observed in tissues such as young wheat leaves. Another important question is the origin of mitochondrial glutathione and the possibility of a transporter located on the inner mitochondrial membrane. Identification of genes encoding plant transporters will be facilitated by the recent cloning of a yeast glutathione transporter (Bourbouloux et al., 2000).
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Serge Delrot for discussion, Xiao-Li He for technical assistance, Julian Coleman for the kind loan of a Beckman microfuge, and Wacker Chemie GmbH (Munich, Germany) for the gift of silicone oil. This work was supported by CONICET Argentina, the European Union, and the UK Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council.
|
Notes |
|---|
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: +44 (0)1582 763010. E-mail: christine.foyer{at}bbsrc.ac.uk
|
Abbreviations |
|---|
AOS, active oxygen species; CAT, catalase; chl chlorophyll; CHS, chalcone synthase; DHA, dehydroascorbate; DHAR, dehydroascorbate reductase;
-EC, -glutamylcysteine; -ECS, -glutamylcysteine synthetase; FW, fresh weight; GPX, glutathione peroxidase; GR, glutathione reductase; GSH, reduced glutathione; GSH-S, glutathione synthetase; GSSG, glutathione disulphide; GST, glutathione S-transferase; JA, jasmonic acid; PGA, 3-phosphoglyceric acid; SA, salicylic acid; SAR, systemic acquired resistance.. |
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionBiosynthesis of glutathioneIntracellular compartmentation...Glutathione homeostasis: the...Glutathione and signallingConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Anderson JW, Foyer CH, Walker DA. 1983. Light-dependent reduction of dehydroascorbate and uptake of exogenous ascorbate by spinach chloroplasts. Planta 158, 442–450.
Baier M, Dietz K-J. 1997. The plant 2-Cys peroxiredoxin BAS1 is a nuclear-encoded chloroplast protein: its expressional regulation, phylogenetic origin, and implications for its specific physiological function in plants. The Plant Journal 12, 179–190.[Web of Science][Medline]
Baier M, Noctor G, Foyer CH, Dietz KJ. 2000. Antisense suppression of 2-cysteine peroxiredoxin in Arabidopsis specifically enhances the activities and expression of enzymes associated with ascorbate metabolism but not glutathione metabolism. Plant Physiology 124, 823–832.
Becana M, Dalton DA, Moran JF, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Matamoros MA, Rubio MC. 2000. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in legume nodules. Physiologia Plantarum 109, 372–381.
Bergmann L, Rennenberg H. 1978. Efflux and production of glutathione in suspension cultures of Nicotiana tabacum. Zeitschrift für Planzenphysiologie Bd 88, 175–185.
Bielawski W, Joy KW. 1986. Reduced and oxidized glutathione and glutathione reductase activity in tissues of Pisum sativum. Planta 169, 267–272.[Web of Science]
Bourbouloux A, Shahi P, Chakladar A, Delrot S, Bachhawat AK. 2000. Hgt1p, a high affinity glutathione transporter from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275, 13259–13265.
Burgener M, Suter M, Jones S, Brunold C. 1998. Cyst(e)ine is the transport metabolite of assimilated sulfur from bundle-sheath to mesophyll cells in maize leaves. Plant Physiology 116, 1315–1322.
Butt AD, Ohlrogge. 1991. Acyl carrier protein is conjugated to glutathione in spinach seed. Plant Physiology 96, 937–942.
Chamnongpol S, Willekens H, Langebartels C, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, Van Camp W. 1996. Transgenic tobacco with a reduced catalase activity develops necrotic lesions and induces pathogenesis-related expression under high light. The Plant Journal 10, 491–503.
Choudhary AD, Lamb CJ, Dixon RA. 1990. Stress responses in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). VI. Differential responsiveness of chalcone synthase induction to fungal elicitor or glutathione in electroporated protoplasts. Plant Physiology 94, 1802–1807.
Cobbett CS, May MJ, Howden R, Rolls B. 1998. The glutathione-deficient, cadmium-sensitive mutant, cad2-1, of Arabidopsis thaliana is deficient in -glutamylcysteine synthetase. The Plant Journal 16, 73–78.[Web of Science][Medline]
Creissen G, Edwards EA, Enard C, Wellburn A, Mullineaux P. 1992. Molecular characterization of glutathione reductase cDNAs from pea (Pisum sativum L.) The Plant Journal 2, 129–131.[Web of Science][Medline]
Creissen G, Reynolds H, Xue YB, Mullineaux P. 1995. Simultaneous targeting of pea glutathione reductase and of a bacterial fusion protein to chloroplasts and mitochondria. The Plant Journal 8, 167–175.[Web of Science][Medline]
Creissen G, Firmin J, Fryer M, Kular B, Leyland N, Reynolds H, Pastori G, Wellburn F, Baker N, Wellburn A, Mullineaux P. 1999. Elevated glutathione biosynthetic capacity in the chloroplasts of transgenic tobacco plants paradoxically causes increased oxidative stress. The Plant Cell 11, 1277–1291.
Cummins I, Cole DJ, Edwards R. 1999. A role for glutathione transferases functioning as glutathione peroxidases in resistance to multiple herbicides in black grass. The Plant Journal 18, 285–292.[Web of Science][Medline]
Dafré AL, Sies H, Akerboom T. 1996. Protein S-thiolation and regulation of microsomal glutathione transferase activity by the glutathione redox couple. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 332, 288–294.[Web of Science][Medline]
DeLille JM, Sehnke PC, Ferl RJ. 2001. The Arabidopsis 14-3-3 family of signaling regulators. Plant Physiology 126, 35–38.
Delledonne M, Xia Y, Dixon RA, Lamb C. 1998. Nitric oxide functions as a signal in plant disease resistance. Nature 394, 585–588.[Medline]
De Pinto MC, Francis D, De Gara L. 1999. The redox state of the ascorbate–dehydroascorbate pair as a specific sensor of cell division in tobacco BY-2 cells. Protoplasma 209, 90–97.[Medline]
Demple B. 1998. Signal transduction—a bridge to control. Science 279, 1655–1656.
Doughty KJ, Kiddle GA, Pye BJ, Wallsgrove RM, Pickett JA. 1995. Selective induction of glucosinolates in oilseed rape leaves by methyl jasmonate. Phytochemistry 38, 347–350.[Web of Science]
Doulis AG, Debian N, Kingston-Smith AH, Foyer CH. 1997. Differential localization of antioxidants in maize leaves. Plant Physiology 114, 1031–1037.[Abstract]
Dron M, Clouse SD, Dixon RA, Lawton MA, Lamb CJ. 1988. Glutathione and fungal elicitor regulation of a plant defense gene promoter in electroporated protoplasts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 85, 6738–6742.
Edwards EA, Rawsthorne S, Mullineaux PM. 1990. Subcellular distribution of multiple forms of glutathione reductase in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Planta 180, 278–284.[Web of Science]
Edwards GE, Robinson SP, Tyler NJC, Walker DA. 1978. Photosynthesis by isolated protoplasts, protoplast extracts and chloroplasts of wheat. Influence of orthophosphate, pyrophosphate and adenylates. Plant Physiology 62, 313–319.
Edwards R, Blount JW, Dixon RA. 1991. Glutathione and elicitation of the phytaolexin response in legume cultures. Planta 184, 403–409.
Eshdat Y, Holland D, Faltin Z, Ben-Hayyim G. 1997. Plant glutathione peroxidases. Physiologia Plantarum 100, 234–240.
Fahey RC, Deena L, Di Stefano G, Meier P, Bryan RN. 1980. Role of hydration state and thiosulfide in the control of thermal stability and protein synthesis in wheat embryos. Plant Physiology 65, 1062–1066.
Fordham-Skelton AP, Skipsey M, Evans IM, Edwards R, Gatehouse JA. 1999. Higher plant tyrosine-specific phosphatases (PTPs) contain novel amino-terminal domains: expression during embryogenesis. Plant Molecular Biology 39, 593–605.[Web of Science][Medline]
Foyer CH, Halliwell B. 1976. The presence of glutathione and glutathione reductase in chloroplasts: a proposed role in ascorbic acid metabolism. Planta 133, 21–25.[Web of Science]
Foyer CH, Lelandais M, Galap C, Kunert K-J. 1991. Effects of elevated cytosolic glutathione reductase activity on the cellular glutathione pool and photosynthesis in leaves under normal and stress conditions. Plant Physiology 97, 863–872.
Foyer CH, Lopez-Delgado H, Dat JF, Scott IM. 1997. Hydrogen peroxide- and glutathione-associated mechanisms of acclimatory stress tolerance and signalling. Physiologia Plantarum 100, 241–254.
Foyer CH, Mullineaux PM. 1998. The presence of dehydroascorbate and dehydroascorbate reductase in plant tissues. FEBS Letters 425, 528–529.
Foyer CH, Noctor G. 2000. Oxygen processing in photosynthesis: regulation and signalling. New Phytologist 146, 359–388.[Web of Science]
Foyer CH, Noctor G. 2001. The molecular biology and metabolism of glutathione. In: Grill D, Tausz, M, De KoK L, eds. Significance of glutathione in plant adaptation to the environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 27–57.
Foyer CH, Souriau N, Perret S, Lelandais M, Kunert KJ, Pruvost C, Jouanin L. 1995. Overexpression of glutathione reductase but not glutathione synthetase leads to increases in antioxidant capacity and resistance to photoinhibition in poplar trees. Plant Physiology 109, 1047–1057.[Abstract]
Foyer CH, Theodoulou FL, Delrot S. 2001. The functions of intercellular and intracellular glutathione transport systems. Trends in Plant Science 6, 486–492.[Web of Science][Medline]
Frendo P, Gallesi D, Turnbull R, Van de Sype G, Hérouart D, Puppo A. 1999. Localization of glutathione and homoglutathione in Medicago truncatula is correlated to a differential expression of genes involved in their synthesis. The Plant Journal 17, 215–219.[Web of Science]
Fricker MD, Meyer AJ. 2001. Confocal imaging of metabolism in vivo: pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of Experimental Botany 52, 631–640.
Gillham DJ, Dodge AD. 1986. Hydrogen peroxide scavenging systems within pea chloroplasts. A quantitative study. Planta 167, 246–251.[Web of Science]
Gutierrez-Alcala G, Gotor C, Meyer AJ, Fricker M, Vega JM, Romero LC. 2000. Glutathione biosynthesis in Arabidopsis trichome cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97, 11108–11113.
Heldt HW. 1980. Measurement of metabolite movement across the envelope and of the pH in the stroma and the thylakoid space in intact chloroplasts. Methods in Enzymology 69, 604–613.
Hell R, Bergmann L. 1988. Glutathione synthetase in tobacco suspension cultures: catalytic properties and localization. Physiologia Plantarum 72, 70–76.
Hell R, Bergmann L. 1990. -Glutamylcysteine synthetase in higher plants: catalytic properties and subcellular localization. Planta 180, 603–312.[Web of Science]
Hérouart D, Van Montagu M, Inzé D. 1993. Redox-activated expression of the cytosolic copper/zinc superoxide dismutase gene in Nicotiana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 90, 3108–3112.
Herschbach C, van der Zalm E, Schneider A, Jouanin L, De Kok LJ, Rennenberg H. 2000. Regulation of sulfur nutrition in wild-type and transgenic poplar over-expressing -glutamylcysteine synthetase in the cytosol as affected by atmospheric H2S. Plant Physiology 124, 461–473.
Huang CS, Chang LS, Anderson ME, Meister A. 1993. Catalytic and regulatiory properties of the heavy subunit of rat kidney -glutamylcysteine synthetase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 268, 19675–19680.
Ishii S. 1987. Generation of active oxygen species during enzymic isolation of protoplasts from oat leaves. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology 23, 653–658.
Jamaï A, Tommasini R, Martinoia E, Delrot S. 1996. Characterization of glutathione uptake in broad bean leaf protoplasts. Plant Physiology 111, 1145–1152.[Abstract]
Jellings AJ, Leech RM. 1982. The importance of quantitative anatomy in the interpretation of whole leaf biochemistry in species of Triticum, Hordeum and Avena. New Phytologist 92, 39–48.
Jiménez A, Hernández JA, del Río L, Sevilla F. 1997. Evidence for the presence of the ascorbate–glutathione cycle in mitochondria and peroxisomes of pea leaves. Plant Physiology 114, 275–284.[Abstract]
Kingston-Smith AH, Foyer CH. 2000. Bundle sheath proteins are more sensitive to oxidative damage than those of the mesophyll in maize leaves exposed to paraquat or low temperatures. Journal of Experimental Botany 51, 123–130.
Klapheck S. 1988. Homoglutathione: isolation, quantification and occurrence in legumes. Physiologia Plantarum 74, 727–732.
Klapheck S, Chrost B, Starke J, Zimmermann H. 1992. -Glutamylcysteinylserine—a new homologue of glutathione in plants of the family Poaceae. Botanica Acta 105, 174–179.
Klapheck S, Latus C, Bergmann L. 1987. Localization of glutathione synthetase and distribution of glutathione in leaf cells of Pisum sativum L. Journal of Plant Physiology 131, 123–131.
Kocsy G, von Ballmoos S, Suter M, Ruegsegger A, Galli U, Szalai G, Galiba G, Brunold C. 2000. Inhibition of glutathione synthesis reduces chilling tolerance in maize. Planta 211, 528–536.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kranner I, Grill D. 1996. Significance of thiol-disulfide exchange in resting stages of plant development. Botanica Acta 109, 8–14.
Li Z-S, Zhao Y, Rea PA. 1995. Magnesium adenosine 5'-triphosphate-energized transport of glutathione-S-conjugates by plant vacuolar membrane vesicles. Plant Physiology 107, 1257–1268.[Abstract]
Marrs KA. 1996. The functions and regulation of glutathione S-transferases in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 47, 127–158.[Web of Science]
Martinoia E, Grill E, Tommasini R, Kreuz K, Amrhein N. 1993. An ATP-dependent glutathione-S-conjugate ‘export’ pump in the vacuolar membrane of plants. Nature 364, 247–249.
May MJ, Leaver CJ. 1993. Oxidative stimulation of glutathione synthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana suspension cultures. Plant Physiology 130, 621–627.
May MJ, Leaver CJ. 1994. Arabidopsis thaliana -glutamylcysteine synthetase is structurally unrelated to mammalian, yeast and E. coli homologs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 91, 10059–10063.
May MJ, Vernoux T, Leaver C, van Montagu M, Inzé D. 1998a. Glutathione homeostasis in plants: implications for environmental sensing and plant development. Journal of Experimental Botany 49, 649–667.
May MJ, Vernoux T, Sánchez-Fernández R, van Montagu M, Inzé D. 1998b. Evidence for post-transcriptional activation of -glutamylcysteine synthetase during plant stress responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 95, 12049–12054.
Meister A. 1988. Glutathione metabolism and its selective modification. Journal of Biological Chemistry 263, 17205–17208.
Mueller LA, Goodman CD, Silady RA, Walbot V. 2000. AN9, a petunia glutathione S-transferase required for anthocyanin sequestration, is a flavonoid-binding protein. Plant Physiology 123, 1561–1570.
Mulcahy RT, Bailey HH, Gipp JJ. 1995. Transfection of complementary DNAs for the heavy and light subunits of human -glutamylcysteine synthetase results in an elevation of intracellular glutathione and resistance to melphalan. Cancer Research 55, 4771–4775.
Mullineaux PM, Karpinski S, Jimenez A, Cleary SP, Robinson C, Creissen GP. 1998. Indentification of cDNAs encoding plastid-targeted glutathione peroxidase. The Plant Journal 13, 375–379.[Web of Science][Medline]
Noctor G, Arisi A-CM, Jouanin L, Foyer CH. 1998. Manipulation of glutathione and amino acid biosynthesis in the chloroplast. Plant Physiology 118, 471–482.
Noctor G, Arisi A-CM, Jouanin L, Valadier M-H, Roux Y, Foyer CH. 1997. The role of glycine in determining the rate of glutathione synthesis in poplars. Possible implications for glutathione production during stress. Physiologia Plantarum 100, 255–263.
Noctor G, Foyer CH. 1998. Simultaneous measurement of foliar glutathione, -glutamylcysteine and amino acids by high-performance liquid chromatography: comparison with two other assay methods for glutathione. Analytical Biochemistry 264, 98–110.[Web of Science][Medline]
Noctor G, Strohm M, Jouanin L, Kunert KJ, Foyer CH, Rennenberg H. 1996. Synthesis of glutathione in leaves of transgenic poplar (Populus tremulaxP. alba) overexpressing -glutamylcysteine synthetase. Plant Physiology 112, 1071–78.[Abstract]
Noctor G, Veljovic-Jovanovic S, Driscoll S, Novitskaya L, Foyer CH. 2002. Drought and oxidative load: a predominant role for photorespiration? Annals of Botany (in press).
Noctor G, Veljovic-Jovanovic S, Foyer CH. 2000. Peroxide processing in photosynthesis: antixoidant coupling and redox signalling. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 355, 1465–1475.
Papadakis AK, Siminis CI, Roubelakis-Angelakis A. 2001. Reduced activity of antioxidant machinery is correlated with suppression of totipotency in plant protoplasts. Plant Physiology 126, 434–444.
Pastori G, Foyer CH, Mullineaux P. 2000a. Low temperature-induced changes in the distribution of H2O2 and antioxidants between the bundle sheath and mesophyll cells of maize leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany 51, 107–113.
Pastori G, Mullineaux P, Foyer CH. 2000b. Post-transcriptional regulation prevents accumulation of glutathione reductase protein and activity in the bundle sheath cells of maize. Plant Physiology 122, 667–675.
Pilon-Smits EAH, Ahu YL, Pilon M, Terry N. 1999. Overexpression of glutathione synthesizing enzymes enhances cadmium accumulation in Brassica juncea. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements, Vienna ’99, 890–891.
Polle A. 2001. Dissecting the superoxide dismutase-ascorbate–glutathione pathway in chloroplasts by metabolic modeling. Computer simulations as a step towards flux analysis. Plant Physiology 126, 445–462.
Rao MV, Davis KR. 1999. Ozone-induced cell death occurs via two distinct mechanisms in Arabidopsis: the role of salicylic acid. The Plant Journal 17, 603–614.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rawlins MR, Leaver CJ, May MJ. 1995. Characterization of an Arabidopsis thaliana cDNA encoding glutathione synthetase. FEBS Letters 376, 81–86.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rennenberg H, Steinkamp R, Kesselmeier J. 1981. 5-oxo-prolinase in Nicotiana tabacum: catalytic properties and subcellular localization. Physiologia Plantarum 62, 211–216.
Roxas VP, Smith RK, Allen ER, Allen RD. 1997. Overexpression of glutathione S-transferase/glutathione peroxidase enhances the growth of transgenic tobacco seedlings during stress. Nature Biotechnology 15, 988–991.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rüegsegger A, Brunold C. 1992. Effect of cadmium on -glutamylcysteine synthesis in maize seedlings. Plant Physiology 99, 428–433.
Rüegsegger A, Brunold C. 1993. Localization of -glutamylcysteine syntetase and glutathione synthetase activity in maize seedlings. Plant Physiology 101, 561–566.[Abstract]
Schafer FQ, Buettner GH. 2001. Redox environment of the cell as viewed through the redox state of the glutathione disulfide/glutathione couple. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 30, 1191–1212.[Web of Science][Medline]
Schäfer HJ, Haag-Kerwer A, Rausch T. 1998. cDNA cloning and expression analysis of genes encloding GSH synthesis in roots of the heavy-metal accumulator Brassica juncea L.: evidence for Cd-induction of a putative mitochondrial -glutamylcysteine synthetase isoform. Plant Molecular Biology 37, 87–97.[Web of Science][Medline]
Schneider S, Bergmann L. 1995. Regulation of glutathione synthesis in suspension cultures of parsley and tobacco. Botanica Acta 108, 34–40.
Schneider A, Schatten T, Rennenberg H. 1992. Reduced glutathione (GSH) transport in cultured tobacco cells. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 30, 29–38.
Sen Gupta A, Alscher RG, McCune D. 1991. Response of photosynthesis and cellular antioxidants to ozone in Populus leaves. Plant Physiology 96, 650–655.
Shimaoka T, Yokota A, Miyake C. 2000. Purification and characterization of chloroplast dehydroascorbate reductase fom spinach leaves. Plant Cell Physiology 41, 1110–1118.
Smirnoff N. 1993. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist 125, 27–58.[Web of Science]
Smith IK, Kendall AC, Keys AJ, Turner JC, Lea PJ. 1984. Increased levels of glutathione in a catalase-deficient mutant of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Science Letters 37, 29–33.
Smith IK, Kendall AC, Keys AJ, Turner JC, Lea PJ. 1985. The regulation of the biosynthesis of glutathione in leaves of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Science 41, 11–17.
Steinkamp R, Rennenberg H. 1984. -Glutamyltranspeptidase in tobacco suspension cultures: catalytic properties and subcellular localization. Physiologia Plantarum 61, 251–256.
Steinkamp R, Rennenberg H. 1985. Degradation of glutathione in plant cells: evidence against the participation of a -glutamyltranspeptidase. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung Teil C 40, 29–33.
Steinkamp R, Schweihofen B, Rennenberg H. 1987. -Glutamylcyclotransferase in tobacco suspension cultures: catalytic properties and subcellular localization. Physiologia Plantarum 69, 499–503.
Strohm M, Jouanin L, Kunert K-J, Pruvost C, Polle A, Foyer CH, Rennenberg H. 1995. Regulation of glutathione synthesis in leaves of transgenic poplar (Populus tremula x P. alba) overexpressing glutathione synthetase. The Plant Journal 7, 141–145.[Web of Science]
Sun WM, Huang ZZ, Lu SC. 1996. Regulation of -glutamycysteine synthetase by protein phophorylation. Biochem Journal 320, 321–328.
Suthanthiran M, Anderson ME, Sharma VK, Meister A. 1990. Glutathione regulates activation-dependent DNA synthesis in highly purified normal human T lymphocytes stimulated via the CD2 and CD3 antigens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 87, 3343–3347.
Takahashi H, Chen Z, Du H, Liu Y, Klessig DF. 1997. Development of necrosis and activation of disease resistance in transgenic tobacco plants with severely reduced catalase levels. The Plant Journal 11, 993–1005.[Web of Science][Medline]
Vanacker H, Carver TLW, Foyer CH. 2000. Early H2O2 accumulation in mesophyll cells leads to induction of glutathione during the hypersensitive response in the barley-powdery mildew interaction. Plant Physiology 123, 1289–1300.
Werdan K, Heldt HW, Milovancev M. 1975. The role of pH in the regulation of carbon fixation in the chloroplast stroma. Studies of CO2 fixation in the light and dark. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 396, 276–292.[Medline]
Willekens H, Chamnongpol S, Davey M, Schraudner M, Langebartels C, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, Van Camp W. 1997. Catalase is a sink for H2O2 and is indispensable for stress defence in C3 plants. EMBO Journal 16, 4806–4816.[Web of Science][Medline]
Wingate VPM, Lawton MA, Lamb CJ. 1988. Glutathione causes a massive and selective induction of plant defense genes. Plant Physiology 87, 206–210.
Wingsle G, Karpinski S. 1996. Differential redox regulation by glutathione of glutathione reductase and CuZn-superoxide dismutase gene expression in Pinus sylvestris L. needles. Planta 198, 151–157.[Web of Science][Medline]
Winter H, Robinson G, Heldt HW. 1994. Subcellular volumes and metabolite concentrations in spinach leaves. Planta 193, 530–535.[Web of Science]
Wolf AE, Dietz KJ, Schröder P. 1996. Degradation of glutathione S-conjugates by a carboxypeptidase in the plant vacuole. FEBS Letters 384, 31–34.[Web of Science][Medline]
Xiang C, Bertrand D. 2000. Glutathione synthesis in Arabidopsis: multilevel controls coordinate responses to stress. In: Brunold C, Rennenberg H, De Kok LJ, Stulen I, Davidian JC, eds. Sulphur nutrition and sulphur assimilation in higher plants. Bern, Switzerland: Paul Haupt, 409–412.
Xiang C, Werner BL, Christensen EM, Oliver DJ. 2001. The biological functions of glutathione revisited in Arabidopsis transgenic plants with altered glutathione levels. Plant Physiology 126, 564–574.
Xiang C, Oliver DJ. 1998. Glutathione metabolic genes coordinately respond to heavy metals and jasmonic acid in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 10, 1539–1550.
Zhang L, Robbins MP, Carver TLW, Zeyen RJ. 1997. Induction of phenylpropanoid gene transcripts in oat attacked by Erysiphe graminis at 20 °C and 10 °C. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 51, 15–33.
Zhu Y, Pilon-Smits EAH, Jouanin L, Terry N. 1999. Overexpression of glutathione synthetase in Brassica juncea enhances cadmium tolerance and accumulation. Plant Physiology 119, 73–79.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Urbanek Krajnc A temporal analysis of antioxidative defense responses in the phloem of Picea abies after attack by Ips typographus Tree Physiol, June 17, 2009; (2009) tpp041v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Srivastava, A. K. Srivastava, P. Suprasanna, and S. F. D'Souza Comparative biochemical and transcriptional profiling of two contrasting varieties of Brassica juncea L. in response to arsenic exposure reveals mechanisms of stress perception and tolerance J. Exp. Bot., June 15, 2009; (2009) erp181v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Queval, D. Thominet, H. Vanacker, M. Miginiac-Maslow, B. Gakiere, and G. Noctor H2O2-Activated Up-Regulation of Glutathione in Arabidopsis Involves Induction of Genes Encoding Enzymes Involved in Cysteine Synthesis in the Chloroplast Mol Plant, March 1, 2009; 2(2): 344 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. X. Kim and E. Steudle Gating of aquaporins by light and reactive oxygen species in leaf parenchyma cells of the midrib of Zea mays J. Exp. Bot., February 1, 2009; 60(2): 547 - 556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H.-R. Liu, L. Tao, E. Gao, Y. Qu, W. B. Lau, B. L. Lopez, T. A. Christopher, W. Koch, T.-L. Yue, and X.-L. Ma Rosiglitazone inhibits hypercholesterolaemia-induced myeloperoxidase upregulation--a novel mechanism for the cardioprotective effects of PPAR agonists Cardiovasc Res, February 1, 2009; 81(2): 344 - 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Zechmann, F. Mauch, L. Sticher, and M. Muller Subcellular immunocytochemical analysis detects the highest concentrations of glutathione in mitochondria and not in plastids J. Exp. Bot., October 1, 2008; 59(14): 4017 - 4027. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Watanabe, K. Mochida, T. Kato, S. Tabata, N. Yoshimoto, M. Noji, and K. Saito Comparative Genomics and Reverse Genetics Analysis Reveal Indispensable Functions of the Serine Acetyltransferase Gene Family in Arabidopsis PLANT CELL, September 1, 2008; 20(9): 2484 - 2496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Rouached, M. Wirtz, R. Alary, R. Hell, A. B. Arpat, J.-C. Davidian, P. Fourcroy, and P. Berthomieu Differential Regulation of the Expression of Two High-Affinity Sulfate Transporters, SULTR1.1 and SULTR1.2, in Arabidopsis Plant Physiology, June 1, 2008; 147(2): 897 - 911. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Norton, D. E. Lou-Hing, A. A. Meharg, and A. H. Price Rice-arsenate interactions in hydroponics: whole genome transcriptional analysis J. Exp. Bot., May 2, 2008; (2008) ern097v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Heeg, C. Kruse, R. Jost, M. Gutensohn, T. Ruppert, M. Wirtz, and R. Hell Analysis of the Arabidopsis O-Acetylserine(thiol)lyase Gene Family Demonstrates Compartment-Specific Differences in the Regulation of Cysteine Synthesis PLANT CELL, January 1, 2008; 20(1): 168 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y.-P. Chen, L.-P. Xing, G.-J. Wu, H.-Z. Wang, X.-E Wang, A.-Z. Cao, and P.-D. Chen Plastidial Glutathione Reductase from Haynaldia villosa is an Enhancer of Powdery Mildew Resistance in Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Plant Cell Physiol., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 1702 - 1712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Hung, C. C. Wang, S. V. Ivanov, V. Alexieva, and C. W. Yu Repetition of Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment Induces a Chilling Tolerance Comparable to Cold Acclimation in Mung Bean J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., November 1, 2007; 132(6): 770 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Hansen, M. Lange, C. Friis, G. Dionisio, P. B. Holm, and E. Vincze Antisense-mediated suppression of C-hordein biosynthesis in the barley grain results in correlated changes in the transcriptome, protein profile, and amino acid composition J. Exp. Bot., November 1, 2007; 58(14): 3987 - 3995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. I. Muglia, D. H. Grasso, and O. M. Aguilar Rhizobium tropici response to acidity involves activation of glutathione synthesis Microbiology, April 1, 2007; 153(4): 1286 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Bellin, B. Schulz, T. R. Soerensen, F. Salamini, and K. Schneider Transcript profiles at different growth stages and tap-root zones identify correlated developmental and metabolic pathways of sugar beet J. Exp. Bot., February 1, 2007; 58(3): 699 - 715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Qi, N. R. Stephens, and E. P. Spalding Calcium Entry Mediated by GLR3.3, an Arabidopsis Glutamate Receptor with a Broad Agonist Profile Plant Physiology, November 1, 2006; 142(3): 963 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Liu, B.-C. Yoo, J.-Y. Lee, W. Pan, and A. C. Harmon Calcium-regulated Phosphorylation of Soybean Serine Acetyltransferase in Response to Oxidative Stress J. Biol. Chem., September 15, 2006; 281(37): 27405 - 27415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. FEDOROFF Redox Regulatory Mechanisms in Cellular Stress Responses Ann. Bot., August 1, 2006; 98(2): 289 - 300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Wawrzynski, E. Kopera, A. Wawrzynska, J. Kaminska, W. Bal, and A. Sirko Effects of simultaneous expression of heterologous genes involved in phytochelatin biosynthesis on thiol content and cadmium accumulation in tobacco plants J. Exp. Bot., July 1, 2006; 57(10): 2173 - 2182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. G. Cairns, M. Pasternak, A. Wachter, C. S. Cobbett, and A. J. Meyer Maturation of Arabidopsis Seeds Is Dependent on Glutathione Biosynthesis within the Embryo Plant Physiology, June 1, 2006; 141(2): 446 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Mateo, D. Funck, P. Muhlenbock, B. Kular, P. M Mullineaux, and S. Karpinski Controlled levels of salicylic acid are required for optimal photosynthesis and redox homeostasis J. Exp. Bot., May 1, 2006; 57(8): 1795 - 1807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.-Y. Kim, L. Bovet, S. Kushnir, E. W. Noh, E. Martinoia, and Y. Lee AtATM3 Is Involved in Heavy Metal Resistance in Arabidopsis Plant Physiology, March 1, 2006; 140(3): 922 - 932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Pavet, E. Olmos, G. Kiddle, S. Mowla, S. Kumar, J. Antoniw, M. E. Alvarez, and C. H. Foyer Ascorbic Acid Deficiency Activates Cell Death and Disease Resistance Responses in Arabidopsis Plant Physiology, November 1, 2005; 139(3): 1291 - 1303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Ortega-Villasante, R. Rellan-Alvarez, F. F. Del Campo, R. O. Carpena-Ruiz, and L. E. Hernandez Cellular damage induced by cadmium and mercury in Medicago sativa J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2005; 56(418): 2239 - 2251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Kuzniak and M. Sklodowska Compartment-specific role of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle in the response of tomato leaf cells to Botrytis cinerea infection J. Exp. Bot., March 1, 2005; 56(413): 921 - 933. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Riemenschneider, K. Riedel, R. Hoefgen, J. Papenbrock, and H. Hesse Impact of Reduced O-Acetylserine(thiol)lyase Isoform Contents on Potato Plant Metabolism Plant Physiology, March 1, 2005; 137(3): 892 - 900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Kranner, W. J. Cram, M. Zorn, S. Wornik, I. Yoshimura, E. Stabentheiner, and H. W. Pfeifhofer Antioxidants and photoprotection in a lichen as compared with its isolated symbiotic partners PNAS, February 22, 2005; 102(8): 3141 - 3146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Cohen, J. A. Knopf, V. Irihimovitch, and M. Shapira A Proposed Mechanism for the Inhibitory Effects of Oxidative Stress on Rubisco Assembly and Its Subunit Expression Plant Physiology, February 1, 2005; 137(2): 738 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Ball, G.-P. Accotto, U. Bechtold, G. Creissen, D. Funck, A. Jimenez, B. Kular, N. Leyland, J. Mejia-Carranza, H. Reynolds, et al. Evidence for a Direct Link between Glutathione Biosynthesis and Stress Defense Gene Expression in Arabidopsis PLANT CELL, September 1, 2004; 16(9): 2448 - 2462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Saito Sulfur Assimilatory Metabolism. The Long and Smelling Road Plant Physiology, September 1, 2004; 136(1): 2443 - 2450. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sirko, A. Blaszczyk, and F. Liszewska Overproduction of SAT and/or OASTL in transgenic plants: a survey of effects J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2004; 55(404): 1881 - 1888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Jones, J. Hughes, A. Tregova, J. Milne, A. B. Tomsett, and H. A. Collin Biosynthesis of the flavour precursors of onion and garlic J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2004; 55(404): 1903 - 1918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tausz, H. Sircelj, and D. Grill The glutathione system as a stress marker in plant ecophysiology: is a stress-response concept valid? J. Exp. Bot., August 1, 2004; 55(404): 1955 - 1962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Lutts, I. Lefevre, C. Delperee, S. Kivits, C. Dechamps, A. Robledo, and E. Correal Heavy Metal Accumulation by the Halophyte Species Mediterranean Saltbush J. Environ. Qual., July 1, 2004; 33(4): 1271 - 1279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Cagnac, A. Bourbouloux, D. Chakrabarty, M.-Y. Zhang, and S. Delrot AtOPT6 Transports Glutathione Derivatives and Is Induced by Primisulfuron Plant Physiology, July 1, 2004; 135(3): 1378 - 1387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hesse, V. Nikiforova, B. Gakiere, and R. Hoefgen Molecular analysis and control of cysteine biosynthesis: integration of nitrogen and sulphur metabolism J. Exp. Bot., June 1, 2004; 55(401): 1283 - 1292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Bechtold, D. J. Murphy, and P. M. Mullineaux Arabidopsis Peptide Methionine Sulfoxide Reductase2 Prevents Cellular Oxidative Damage in Long Nights PLANT CELL, April 1, 2004; 16(4): 908 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. D. Gomez, H. Vanacker, P. Buchner, G. Noctor, and C. H. Foyer Intercellular Distribution of Glutathione Synthesis in Maize Leaves and Its Response to Short-Term Chilling Plant Physiology, April 1, 2004; 134(4): 1662 - 1671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Yosef, V. Irihimovitch, J. A. Knopf, I. Cohen, I. Orr-Dahan, E. Nahum, C. Keasar, and M. Shapira RNA Binding Activity of the Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate Carboxylase/Oxygenase Large Subunit from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii J. Biol. Chem., March 12, 2004; 279(11): 10148 - 10156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Kuzniak and M. Sklodowska The effect of Botrytis cinerea infection on the antioxidant profile of mitochondria from tomato leaves J. Exp. Bot., March 1, 2004; 55(397): 605 - 612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Yanagida, M. Mino, M. Iwabuchi, and K.'i. Ogawa Reduced Glutathione is a Novel Regulator of Vernalization-Induced Bolting in the Rosette Plant Eustoma grandiflorum Plant Cell Physiol., February 15, 2004; 45(2): 129 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.'i. Ogawa, A. Hatano-Iwasaki, M. Yanagida, and M. Iwabuchi Level of Glutathione is Regulated by ATP-Dependent Ligation of Glutamate and Cysteine through Photosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana: Mechanism of Strong Interaction of Light Intensity with Flowering Plant Cell Physiol., January 15, 2004; 45(1): 1 - 8. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-Y. Zhang, A. Bourbouloux, O. Cagnac, C. V. Srikanth, D. Rentsch, A. K. Bachhawat, and S. Delrot A Novel Family of Transporters Mediating the Transport of Glutathione Derivatives in Plants Plant Physiology, January 1, 2004; 134(1): 482 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||