4.6 Article

Sensitivity of different ecotypes and mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana toward the bacterial elicitor flagellin correlates with the presence of receptor-binding sites

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 276, 期 49, 页码 45669-45676

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M102390200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flagellin, the main building block of the bacterial flagellum, acts as potent elicitor of defense responses in different plant species. Genetic analysis in Arabidopsis thaliana identified two distinct loci, termed FLS1 and FLS2, that are essential for perception of flagellin-derived elicitors. FLS2 was found to encode a leucine-rich repeat transmembrane receptor-like kinase with similarities to Toll-like receptors involved in the innate immune system of mammals and insects. Here we used a radiolabeled derivative of flg22, a synthetic peptide representing the elicitor-active domain of flagellin, to probe the interaction of flagellin with its receptor in A. thaliana The high affinity binding site detected in in- tact cells and membrane preparations exhibited specificity for flagellin-derived peptides with biological activity as agonists or antagonists of the elicitor responses. Specific binding activity was measurable in all ecotypes of A. thaliana that show sensitivity to flagellin but was barely detectable in the flagellin-insensitive ecotype Ws-O affected in FLS1. A strongly impaired binding of flagellin was observed also in several independent flagellin-insensitive mutants isolated from the flagellin-sensitive ecotype La-er. In particular, no binding was found in plants carrying a mutation in the LRR domain of FLS2. These data indicate that the formation of functional receptor-binding sites depends on genes encoded by both loci, FLS1 and FLS2. The tight correlation between the presence of the binding site and elicitor response provides strong evidence that this binding site acts as the physiological receptor of flagellin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据