Advertisement

Protoplasma

, Volume 254, Issue 2, pp 1127–1137 | Cite as

Quantifying the plant actin cytoskeleton response to applied pressure using nanoindentation

  • Rémi Branco
  • Eliza-Jane Pearsall
  • Chelsea A. Rundle
  • Rosemary G. White
  • Jodie E. Bradby
  • Adrienne R. HardhamEmail author
New Methods in Cell Biology

Abstract

Detection of potentially pathogenic microbes through recognition by plants and animals of both physical and chemical signals associated with the pathogens is vital for host well-being. Signal perception leads to the induction of a variety of responses that augment pre-existing, constitutive defences. The plant cell wall is a highly effective preformed barrier which becomes locally reinforced at the infection site through delivery of new wall material by the actin cytoskeleton. Although mechanical stimulation can produce a reaction, there is little understanding of the nature of physical factors capable of triggering plant defence. Neither the magnitude of forces nor the contact time required has been quantified. In the study reported here, mechanical stimulation with a tungsten microneedle has been used to quantify the response of Arabidopsis plants expressing an actin-binding protein tagged with green fluorescent protein (GFP) to reveal the organisation of the actin cytoskeleton. Using confocal microscopy, the response time for actin reorganisation in epidermal cells of Arabidopsis hypocotyls was shown to be 116 ± 49 s. Using nanoindentation and a diamond spherical tip indenter, the magnitude of the forces capable of triggering an actin response has been quantified. We show that Arabidopsis hypocotyl cells can detect a force as small as 4 μN applied for as short a time as 21.6 s to trigger reorganisation of the actin cytoskeleton. This force is an order of magnitude less than the potential invasive force determined for a range of fungal and oomycete plant pathogens. To our knowledge, this is the first quantification of the magnitude and duration of mechanical forces capable of stimulating a structural defence response in a plant cell.

Keywords

Applied force Arabidopsis GFP-tagged cell component Mechanical stimulation Speed of plant response 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

709_2016_984_Fig6_ESM.gif (382 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1

Actin microfilament aggregation beneath the second site of contact with a tungsten microneedle in an Arabidopsis hypocotyl epidermal cell. The first point of contact resulted in the formation of the actin patch on the left (black arrow). The microneedle was then moved to a second position on the right (white arrowhead). The seven images are maximum projections of seven optical sections taken 56–104 s after the second contact was initiated. In this experiment, the first indication of actin aggregation (arrows) at the second point of stimulation was observed 80 s after probe contact. Scale bar = 20 μm. (GIF 382 kb)

709_2016_984_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2.1 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 2188 kb)
709_2016_984_Fig7_ESM.gif (5 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2

The width of Arabidopsis hypocotyl epidermal cells as a function of plant age. Cell widths were measured from maximal projections used for actin response time determinations. Error bars show standard deviation. (GIF 5 kb)

709_2016_984_MOESM2_ESM.tif (62 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 61 kb)
709_2016_984_Fig8_ESM.gif (11 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 3

Diagram showing indenter probe positioning in the centre (green) or flanks (red) of epidermal cells. Contact on the flanks of the cell can lead to slippage of the probe (blue arrows) towards the groove overlying the anticlinal cell wall between adjacent epidermal cells. (GIF 11 kb)

709_2016_984_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.4 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 1396 kb)
709_2016_984_MOESM4_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Response time (in s) for actin aggregation in Arabidopsis hypocotyl epidermal cells after microneedle contact under different conditions (DOCX 14 kb)
709_2016_984_MOESM5_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 Actin aggregation responses observed with different indenter tip geometries. (DOCX 12 kb)
709_2016_984_MOESM6_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary Table 3 Summary of measurements of turgor pressure and invasive forces generated by fungal and oomycete plant pathogens reported in the literature. (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. Bastmeyer M, Deising HB, Bechinger C (2002) Force exertion in fungal infection. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 31:321–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebber DP, Gurr SJ (2015) Crop-destroying fungal and oomycete pathogens challenge food security. Fungal Genet Biol 74:62–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechinger C, Giebel K-F, Schnell M, Leiderer P, Deising HB, Bastmeyer M (1999) Optical measurements of invasive forces exerted by appressoria of a plant pathogenic fungus. Science 285:1896–1899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Benikhlef L et al (2013) Perception of soft mechanical stress in Arabidopsis leaves activates disease resistance. BMC Plant Biol 13:133CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackman LM, Cullerne DP, Hardham AR (2014) Bioinformatic characterisation of genes encoding cell wall degrading enzymes in the Phytophthora parasitica genome. BMC Genom 15:785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpita NC, Gibeaut DM (1993) Structural models of primary cell walls in flowering plants: consistency of molecular structure with the physical properties of the walls during growth. Plant J 3:1–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins NC et al (2003) SNARE-protein-mediated disease resistance at the plant cell wall. Nature 425:973–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de Borst K, Bader TK, Wikete C (2012) Microstructure-stiffness relationships of ten European and tropical hardwood species. J Struct Biol 177:532–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Derbyshire P, Findlay K, McCann MC, Roberts K (2007) Cell elongation in Arabidopsis hypocotyls involves dynamic changes in cell wall thickness. J Exp Bot 58:2079–2089CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodds PN, Rathjen JP (2010) Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions. Nat Rev Genet 11:539–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Enkerli K, Hahn MG, Mims CW (1997) Ultrastructure of compatible and incompatible interactions of soybean roots infected with the plant pathogenic oomycete Phytophthora sojae. Can J Bot 75:1493–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer-Cripps AC (2006) Critical review of analysis and interpretation of nanoindentation test data. Surf Coat Tech 200:4153–4165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher MC, Henk DA, Briggs CJ, Brownstein JS, Madoff LC, McCraw SL, Gurr SJ (2012) Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature 484:186–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry WE et al (2015) Five reasons to consider Phytophthora infestans a reemerging pathogen. Phytopathology 105:966–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gindl W, Gupta HS, Schöberl T, Lichtenegger HC, Fratzl P (2004) Mechanical properties of spruce wood cell walls by nanoindentation. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 79:2069–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gus-Mayer S, Naton B, Hahlbrock K, Schmelzer E (1998) Local mechanical stimulation induces components of the pathogen defense response in parsley. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:8398–8403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hadjiantoniou S, Guolla L, Pelling AE (2012) Mechanically induced deformation and strain dynamics in actin stress fibers. Commun Integr Biol 5:627–630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamann T (2015) The plant cell wall integrity maintenance mechanism—a case study of a cell wall plasma membrane signaling network. Phytochemistry 112:100–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardham AR, Takemoto D, White RG (2008) Rapid and dynamic subcellular reorganization following mechanical stimulation of Arabidopsis epidermal cells mimics responses to fungal and oomycete attack. BMC Plant Biol 8:63–77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Henty-Ridilla JL, Shimono M, Li J, Chang JH, Day B, Staiger CJ (2013) The plant actin cytoskeleton responds to signals from microbe-associated molecular patterns. PLoS Pathog 9:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard RJ, Valent B (1996) Breaking and entering: host penetration by the fungal rice blast pathogen Magnaporthe grisea. Annu Rev Microbiol 50:491–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard RJ, Ferrari MA, Roach DH, Money NP (1991) Penetration of hard substrates by a fungus employing enormous turgor pressures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:11281–11284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Hückelhoven R (2014) The effective papilla hypothesis. New Phytol 204:438–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurusu T, Kuchitsu K, Nakano M, Nakayama Y, Iida H (2013) Plant mechanosensing and Ca2+ transport. Trends in Plant Sci 18:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linkert M, Rueden CT, Allan C, Burel JM, Moore W, Patterson A, et al. (2010) Metadata matters: Access to image data in the real world. J Cell Biol 189:777–782Google Scholar
  26. Loehrer M et al (2014) In vivo assessment by Mach-Zehnder double-beam interferometry of the invasive force exerted by the Asian soybean rust fungus (Phakopsora pachyrhizi). New Phytol 203:620–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDonald E, Millward L, Ravishankar JP, Money NP (2002) Biomechanical interaction between hyphae of two Pythium species (Oomycota) and host tissues. Fungal Genet Biol 37:245–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendoza L, Vilela R (2013) The mammalian pathogenic oomycetes. Curr Fungal Infect Rep 7:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Money NP (2004) The fungal dining habit: a biomechanical perspective. Mycologist 18:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Money NP (2007) Mycota VIII: biology of the fungal cell. In: Biomechanics of invasive hyphal growth. Springer, Berlin, pp 238–249Google Scholar
  31. Monshausen GB, Gilroy S (2009) Feeling green: mechanosensing in plants. Trends Cell Biol 19:228–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) Improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res 7:1564–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penisi E (2010) Armed and dangerous. Science 327:804–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pryce-Jones E, Carver T, Gurr SJ (1999) The roles of cellulase enzymes and mechanical force in host penetration by Erysiphe graminis f. sp hordei. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 55:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Routier-Kierzkowska A-L, Weber A, Kochova P, Felekis D, Nelson BJ, Kuhlemeier C, Smith RS (2012) Cellular force microscopy for in vivo measurements of plant tissue mechanics. Plant Physiol 158:1514–1522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandoval-Sierra JV, Latif-Eugenin F, Martín MP, Zaror L, Diéguez-Uribeondo J (2014) Saprolegnia species affecting the salmonid aquaculture in Chile and their associations with fish developmental stage. Aquaculture 434:462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seifert GJ, Blaukopf C (2010) Irritable walls: the plant extracellular matrix and signaling. Plant Physiol 153:467–478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Shih H-W, Miller ND, Dai C, Spalding EP, Monshausen GB (2014) The receptor-like kinase FERONIA is required for mechanical signal transduction in Arabidopsis seedlings. Curr Biol 24:1887–1892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Takemoto D, Hardham AR (2004) The cytoskeleton as a regulator and target of biotic interactions in plants. Plant Physiol 136:3864–3876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Takemoto D, Jones DA, Hardham AR (2003) GFP-tagging of cell components reveals the dynamics of subcellular re-organization in response to infection of Arabidopsis by oomycete pathogens. Plant J 33:775–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Underwood W (2012) The plant cell wall: a dynamic barrier against pathogen invasion. Front Plant Sci 3:85CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Voigt CA (2014) Callose-mediated resistance to pathogenic intruders in plant defense-related papillae. Front Plant Sci 5:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang J-HC, Goldschmidt-Clermont P, Moldovan N, Yin FCP (2000) Leukotrienes and tyrosine phosphorylation mediate stretching-induced actin cytoskeletal remodeling in endothelial cells. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 46:137–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang Q, Li W, Liu Z, Su L (2011) Nanoindentation experiment and modeling for biomechanical behavior of red blood cell. In: 2011 I.E. International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, ICMA 2011, pp 227–231Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rémi Branco
    • 1
  • Eliza-Jane Pearsall
    • 2
  • Chelsea A. Rundle
    • 1
  • Rosemary G. White
    • 3
  • Jodie E. Bradby
    • 2
  • Adrienne R. Hardham
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Plant Science Division, Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and EnvironmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Electronic Materials Engineering, Research School of Physics and Engineering, College of Physical and Mathematical SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO AgricultureCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations