Next Article in Journal
Concepts of Regeneration for Spinal Diseases in 2021
Next Article in Special Issue
Signaling Pathways and Downstream Effectors of Host Innate Immunity in Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Bispecific Antibody-Based Platform for Retargeting of Capsid Modified AAV Vectors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Insights into the Role of Cysteine-Rich Peptides in Induced Resistance to Fusarium oxysporum Infection in Tomato Based on Transcriptome Profiling
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Activation of Local and Systemic Defence Responses by Flg22 Is Dependent on Daytime and Ethylene in Intact Tomato Plants

1
Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, 6726 Szeged, Hungary
2
Doctoral School of Biology, University of Szeged, 6726 Szeged, Hungary
3
Department of Plant Physiology, Agricultural Institute, Centre for Agricultural Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2462 Martonvásár, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(15), 8354; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms22158354
Submission received: 17 June 2021 / Revised: 29 July 2021 / Accepted: 31 July 2021 / Published: 3 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Innate Immunity 4.0)

Abstract

:
The first line of plant defence responses against pathogens can be induced by the bacterial flg22 and can be dependent on various external and internal factors. Here, we firstly studied the effects of daytime and ethylene (ET) using Never ripe (Nr) mutants in the local and systemic defence responses of intact tomato plants after flg22 treatments. Flg22 was applied in the afternoon and at night and rapid reactions were detected. The production of hydrogen peroxide and nitric oxide was induced by flg22 locally, while superoxide was induced systemically, in wild type plants in the light period, but all remained lower at night and in Nr leaves. Flg22 elevated, locally, the ET, jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) levels in the light period; these levels did not change significantly at night. Expression of Pathogenesis-related 1 (PR1), Ethylene response factor 1 (ERF1) and Defensin (DEF) showed also daytime- and ET-dependent changes. Enhanced ERF1 and DEF expression and stomatal closure were also observable in systemic leaves of wild type plants in the light. These data demonstrate that early biotic signalling in flg22-treated leaves and distal ones is an ET-dependent process and it is also determined by the time of day and inhibited in the early night phase.

1. Introduction

Plants have co-evolved with microbes, including bacterial and fungal pathogens, under diverse environmental stimuli, which have resulted in the formation of a number of signalling pathways regulating local and systemic defence responses in higher plants. Transmembrane pattern recognition receptors (PRR) of plants recognize attacks of a wide variety of these pathogens by detecting microbial- or pathogen-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs or PAMPs), promote well-characterised processes, such as changes in cytosolic free calcium level, production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activation of protein kinases, and cause rapid closure of the epidermis-localised stomata as a part of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI), as well as inducing the synthesis of antimicrobial compounds and changes in cell wall composition [1,2]. Defence responses of plants are regulated by several phytohormones which orchestrate the production of defensive proteins (e.g., pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, defensins) or secondary metabolites (e.g., phytoalexins). The principal hormonal defence regulators are salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), ethylene (ET) and abscisic acid (ABA) [3,4]. SA plays a pivotal role in many plant–pathogen interactions, typically in defence against biotrophs and in the biotrophic stage of hemibiotrophs, by inducing localized death of infected cells, the hypersensitive response (HR) and the systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in long-distance tissues [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The other important defence regulators are JA and ET, which take part, generally, in defence responses against necrotrophic pathogens [12,13,14]. At the same time, ET functions as a hormonal fine regulator of defence responses in a time- and concentration-dependent manner [15,16], while ABA plays a crucial role in stomatal closure, serving as the first line of defence against pathogen entry [17]. Meanwhile, the hormonal crosstalk-mediated responses of plants to pathogens are highly dependent on internal and external factors, such as the circadian regulation, or environmental conditions, such as light, temperature or water availability [18,19,20,21,22]. Light is one of the major external factors that influences not only the optimal plant growth and development but also plant defence responses [21,23,24,25,26]. Thus, the presence or absence, period, quality, intensity and timing of light can alter and influence plant defence responses and metabolism [27]. Plants have evolved various types of photoreceptors, namely, the red/far-red light-sensing phytochromes (phyA–phyE), the blue light-sensing cryptochromes (cry1-3) and phototropins (phot1 and phot2), the Zeitlupe family members (ZTL, FKF1, LKP2) and the UV-B receptor UVR8, which are capable to perceive and mediate responses to the quantity and quality of light [28,29]. These photoreceptors are also important components in the resistance to various pathogens [21]. Both HR and SAR are light-dependent and mediated by phyA and phyB photoreceptors [18,20]. Moreover, it was found that the defence responses of plants are attenuated and delayed in the dark [24,30]. Similarly to plants, several physiological features of plant–pathogen bacteria, especially motility, adhesion and virulence, are also influenced by light. However, in contrast to plants, increased infection capability was detected under darkness in the case of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae B728a (Psy) [31,32], Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pto) [33,34], Pseudomonas cichorii JBC1 [35,36], Agrobacterium fabrum [37] and Xanthomonas campestris [38]. Thus, plants can be subjected to a greater challenge by many bacterial plant pathogens at night in the dark, than during the day [24]; however, the light-dependent defence responses of plants, especially in crops, are less investigated.
In addition, the basic levels of SA and JA, thus plant immune responses, are regulated by the circadian clock [22,39]. TIME FOR COFFEE (TIC), a night-expressed clock gene, inhibits JA signalling in the evening and contributes to a stronger JA responsiveness in the morning. The peak of JA accumulation is in the middle of the day, while the concentration of SA is the highest around the middle of the night, because the expression of the ISOCHORISMATE SYNTHASE 1 gene, a key enzyme of SA biosynthesis, is driven by the evening-phased clock transcription factor CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED 1 (CCA1) HIKING EXPEDITION (CHE) [40]. In addition, the early-night-expressed TIMING OF CAB EXPRESSION 1 (TOC1) and the dawn-expressed CCA1 also control the ET emission, which was peaked around midday of the light period in Arabidopsis seedlings [41]. However, ET signalling was not mediated by the phase or period of circadian rhythms during the growth and development of seedlings [41]. Based on the results of molecular studies, understanding the role of defence hormones in plant responses to pathogen infection in different day/night-time provides an important perspective for plant stress physiology and plant protection.
Infection of bacterial pathogens can be mimicked by elicitor molecules, such as the PAMP molecule flg22, which comprises 22 amino acids from a conserved region of the N-terminus of the bacterial flagellin [42]. Flg22 is perceived by the RLK receptor complex FLS2-BAK1 [43,44] which phosphorylates the kinase BIK1, which than activates the plasma membrane-localized NADPH oxidase AtRBOHD in Arabidopsis [45,46]. In tomato, the FLS2 receptor was also described to sense flg22 and other epitopes of bacterial flagellin derived from Escherichia coli, flg15E coli. Both epitopes resulted in significant ROS production and ET emission in tomato [47]. In addition, others characterised the FLS3 receptor to sense other epitopes of flagellin, such as flgII-28, which also induces ROS-mediated signalling in tomato [48]. Increased ROS production by NADPH oxidase promotes the activation of plasma membrane-localized Ca2+ channels in guard cells within minutes in vitro [49,50,51] and, subsequently, of the SLAC1 anion channel and aquaporin PIP2;1, which leads to rapid stomatal closure upon flg22 treatment [52,53,54]. Not only RBODH, but also mitogen-activated kinases MPK3 and MPK6 are activated upon flg22, thus regulating the stomatal closure [50,55,56]. Furthermore, flg22 induces callose deposition several hours later—already after 8–12 h—in the treated leaves as a part of defence responses [57,58,59].
The role of defence hormones, especially the role of ET in plant responses upon flg22, is contradictory. Analysis of mutants and transgenic plants related to SA, JA and ET sensing and signalling resulted that the tested genes are not required for flg22-induced bacterial disease resistance in Arabidopsis after 24 h [44]. At the same time, it was found that flg22 elevated the expression of the SA-mediated marker gene PR1 after 24 h in Arabidopsis [60]. Later, it was measured that flg22 induced both SA and JA accumulation after 8 h [61]. In addition, flg22 activates the production of ET within 2 h and triggers a rapid oxidative burst in tomato leaves [42]. The study of Denoux et al. [62] showed, for the first time, that the treatment with flg22 triggers a fast (1 h) and transient response in the early stages of multiple defence signalling pathways mediated by all, SA, JA and ET. Early responses are associated with JA and late responses are mostly mediated by SA. In addition, the activation of ET biosynthesis was also detected in flg22-treated Arabidopsis. Application of flg22 induced the transcript accumulation of Amino–cyclopropane–carboxylate synthase (ACS) genes already after 1 h, which catalyses the rate-limiting step of ET biosynthesis [62]. Others also found that expression of ACS genes (ACS2, ACS6 and ACS8) was elevated by flg22 infiltration into Arabidopsis leaves [63]. Moreover, significant ET emission induced by different concentration of flg22 was also described, after 2 h, in tobacco leaves [64]. The role of ET in defence responses upon flg22 was firstly described by Mersmann et al. [65]. Based on the investigation of ethylene-insensitive etr1-1 and ein2-1 receptor and signalling mutants, the expression of FLS2 was under the control of basal ET, which influenced the FLS2 steady-state levels. Moreover, several ET response elements can be found in the FLS2 promoter region [65]. The main findings of this research are that flg22-triggered ROS production remained significantly lower, but activation of MPK3 and MPK6 remained unaltered in the ET-insensitive mutants. In addition, stomatal closure caused by flg22 was not detected in these ET-insensitive mutants. These data suggest that ET plays a significant role in ROS production and stomatal closure, locally, at the early stages of infection [65]. Later, the positive effects of ET on FLS2 expression were also confirmed by using the ET precursor ACC as a pre-treatment [66]. Others found that the activation of MPK6 was similar after 15 min in the case of flg22 treatments, but it was activated later, only after 10 min in etr1-1 and ein2-1 ET-insensitive mutants, as compared to the wild type (WT), where it was already activated after 5 min [67]. Interestingly, activation of MPK6 caused the phosphorylation of ACS2 and ACS6, leading to the accumulation of the ACS protein, thus elevating ACS activity and ET production in Arabidopsis [68]. Although the role of ET in flg22-induced fast defence responses has been carefully described, the effects of gaseous ET in the response of distal leaves of intact plants were not investigated. Moreover, the local and systemic responses of plants could be dependent on the presence/absence of light and day/night-time. Thus, understanding the role of these factors in ET-mediated local and systemic defence responses could be significant, because the flg22-induced gene expression is highly dependent on the presence of light [69]. Not only ET production and signalling [70] but also nitric oxide (NO), as well as ROS production via NADPH oxidase and ROS metabolism, are different under darkness [71,72,73].
Using ET receptor and signalling mutants provides a more precise analysis of the physiological and molecular functions of ET. The ET receptor SlETR3 in tomato is known as Never ripe (Nr) [74], which is the ortholog of the Arabidopsis ETR1 receptor [75]. This mutant exhibits insensitivity to ET not only in fruit ripening, but in all vegetative tissues. However, Nr is able to produce ET upon pathogen attack, indicating that the mutants are not impaired in ET biosynthesis [76]. At the same time, the mutation in ET sensing results in complex physiological and biochemical changes in Nr vegetative tissues, compared to WT [77], as well as in significant changes in basic phytohormone levels, such as SA [78] or ABA [79], influencing the outcome of defence responses
In this work, our aim is to investigate the daytime- and ET-dependent effects of flg22 on intact leaves of tomato plants. The local and systemic daytime- and ET-dependent ROS/NO production and stomatal closure, as well as defence-related phytohormone levels (ET, JA and SA) and signalling, based on the expression profile of their response marker genes, were also analysed in leaves of intact WT and ET receptor mutant Never ripe (Nr) plants.

2. Results

2.1. Flg22 Elevates ROS Production in a Daytime- and ET-Dependent Manner

To test the ET-dependent effects of 5 μg mL−1 of flg22 on defence responses, changes in ROS production (superoxide and hydrogen peroxide) in leaves of intact WT and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr) plants were firstly investigated using spectrophotometric methods. Measurements were carried out 30 and 60 min after the flg22 treatments (at 5:00 p.m. in the light period and at 9:00 p.m. in the dark period) to reveal the role of daytime-dependent effects of the bacterial elicitor in treated (6th leaf levels from the shoot apex, local effect) and in distal, systemic leaves (5th leaf levels from the shoot apex) of intact tomato plants. The treatment with flg22 only slightly elevated the superoxide production locally in WT plants at the selected two time points, but a significant increase was detected in distal leaves to flg22-treated ones, one hour later, measured in the light period (Figure 1A). At the same time, this increment in superoxide production was neither detected in the evening (Figure 1B) nor in Nr leaves at all (Figure 1A,B), suggesting a daytime- and ethylene-dependent regulation of superoxide production. Other ROS, such as H2O2 levels, were basically lower in Nr leaves (Figure 1C,D). Treatment with flg22 significantly increased this after 30 min in WT leaves, but it did not change upon flg22 one hour later in WT plants (Figure 1C). H2O2 levels did not change in leaves of Nr plants nor in the evening after the elicitor treatments (Figure 1C,D).

2.2. NO Accumulation Induced by flg22 Is Mediated by ET and Light

The ET- and daytime-dependent production of NO, as another cell signalling component and effector molecule in defence responses, was also analysed in the leaves of WT and Nr plants using the fluorescent staining method. NO production did not change significantly after the 30-minute-long flg22 exposure, but it increased after 60 min locally and in the distal leaves of WT plants upon flg22; however, it was basically higher in the upper-leaf level from the control (Figure 2A). Nevertheless, levels of NO did not change significantly in Nr leaves, where it was basically higher (Figure 2). At the same time, there was no significant detectable change in the generation of NO in WT leaves at night, in the dark (Figure 2B).

2.3. Flg22 Contributes to Local Accumulation of ET, JA and SA, Which Is Inhibited at Night

The activation of defence responses is highly regulated by various phytohormones. In the next experiments, the levels of ET, JA and SA were measured using chromatography methods after flg22 treatments in WT and Nr leaves. Flg22 treatment in intact leaves of tomato significantly promoted ET emission locally both in WT and Nr plants in the late afternoon (Figure 3A). Surprisingly, the production of this gaseous phytohormone did not change in the early night period under darkness (Figure 3B). Similar changes in JA contents were observed in WT leaves treated with flg22 at 5:00 p.m. (Figure 3C), but, in Nr leaves and in the evening, JA content was not elevated by the bacterial elicitor treatments (Figure 3D). SA levels increased, locally, after flg22 treatments at the end of the light period and it was basically higher in the upper leaf level from the control (Figure 3E). At the same time, the accumulation of SA was not detected at night in any of the genotypes (Figure 3F). Moreover, SA contents were basically lower in Nr leaves, as compared to WT ones; furthermore, flg22 treatments did not cause any significant changes in SA levels in the mutant leaves (Figure 3E,F).

2.4. Expression of ERF1, DEF and PR1 upon flg22 Is Determined by Daytime and ET Both Locally and Systemically

Phytohormone-mediated signalling can be analysed using marker genes, such as ERF1, DEF and PR1. Relative transcript levels of these genes were detected after RNA extraction from the flg22-treated and systemic leaves via quantitative real-time PCR analysis. Treatment with flg22 induced the ET response factor ERF1 expression within 1 h in the distal leaves of the elicitor-treated ones of WT plants in the late light phase (Figure 4A). At the same time, these changes in ERF1 transcript levels were not observable in the dark at 9:00 p.m., neither in WT nor in Nr leaves (Figure 4B). Moreover, exposure to flg22 elevated the transcript levels of DEF both locally and systemically in WT leaves and was independent from the daytime of the treatments, but the effect of the elicitor seemed to be more significant in the light (Figure 4C,D). Similar to DEF, the expression of the SA-related PR1 was also significantly promoted locally by flg22 in WT leaves, as compared to the control, but only in the light period (Figure 4E).

2.5. Flg22-Induced Local and Systemic Stomatal Closure Is Inhibited in Nr Mutants and at Night

Finally, the ET- and daytime-dependent effects of flg22 on plant physiological responses were investigated based on the responses of stomata using microscopic detection. Interestingly, while flg22 treatment significantly decreased, locally, the stomatal pore size at 5:00 p.m. in the light, it did not induce significant stomatal closure when compared to the control at 9:00 p.m. in the dark (Figure 5). In addition, flg22 treatments caused significant stomatal closure in distal leaves to flg22-treated ones 1 h after the elicitor treatment in the afternoon (Figure 5A), but not at night (Figure 5B). In contrast to these, the size of the stomatal aperture in ethylene-insensitive Nr plants did not change significantly upon flg22 in any of the times of day (Figure 5).

3. Discussion

Successful defence mechanisms of plants are related to the timing of molecular and physiological responses regulated by several phytohormones, such as ET [3,15,16]. However, these processes are dependent on external factors, such as the presence/absence of light, or on internal factors, such as the effects of the circadian clock [22,27,80]. At the same time, it was found that the ET-mediated signalling is not dependent on circadian rhythms during plant growth and development [41]. In contrast, ET was described as a hormonal fine regulator beside JA and SA, but these hormone levels are highly regulated by the circadian clock [16,22]. Nevertheless, the action of ET was highly dependent on daytime and on its concentration, as well as on light intensity [81,82,83]. In this article, the ET- and daytime-dependent effects of the bacterial elicitor flg22 were examined locally and systemically using intact tomato plants, which can provide new results to understand the complexity of early defence responses of plants. Although the concentration-dependent effects of bacterial flagellin cannot be disclosed in the activation of defence responses of plants, a widely used micro-molar concentration of flg22 was selected for these experiments [49,53,56]. While it is hard to distinguish the direct effect of external light/darkness from the internal effect of circadian rhythm on plants, the two closest time points were chosen in the late light and early dark period of the day (p.m. 5:00 and 9:00 p.m.) for the experiments. In the afternoon, stomata start to close and finish to accumulate photoassimilates [84]. At the same time, circadian-regulated JA levels show a peak [85]; thus, signalling of stomatal closure and defence could be different, compared with those measured in the morning. Nevertheless, to mimic the natural environmental conditions, we wanted to choose a time-point in the early night period to compare and describe plant defence responses, instead of using artificial darkening, because most of the plant bacteria are more active at night [33]. Time-point for nocturnal investigation was selected at 9:00 p.m., 3 h after the end of the light period, when light-dependent processes of photosynthesis and active phytochrome signalling are inactive [86,87]. At the same time, in the case of these selected time points, there could be no significant differences in the availability of carbohydrate and starch providing metabolic energy [88], which could influence the defence responses of plants. The flg22-induced local and systemic defence responses were investigated after 30 and 60 min of the bacterial elicitor treatment. Based on previous results, these time-periods seem to be optimal for the activation and detection of the rapid molecular and physiological changes in intact plants, such as ROS production [53,89,90], activation of defence- and phytohormone-related genes [62,69] and stomatal closure [52]. These selected time-points after the bacterial elicitor treatments provide the possibility for the comparison of the daytime-dependent local and systemic effects of flg22-induced defence responses detected in intact tomato plants.
It is well-known that, after the recognition of pathogens by detecting MAMPs or PAMPs by PRRs, rapid production of ROS is induced [1]. The plasma membrane-localized flavoenzyme NADPH oxidase, also known as respiratory burst oxidase homologue (RBOH), can translocate electrons from cytosolic NADPH to oxygen, leading to the generation of superoxide anion radicals. This rapid production of superoxide plays a crucial role in the local activation of intracellular signalling and in facilitating rapid signal propagation, which is prerequisite for mounting systemic defences at distal sites of the whole plant [91,92,93]. Based on our results, the superoxide production was promoted but it was not significant after the flg22 treatment in WT plants in the light period; however, at the same time, a significant increase was detected in superoxide production in distal leaves. This superoxide production and H2O2 levels were lower in Nr leaves, as compared to WT ones. In addition, superoxide production did not change in the systemic leaves of Nr, as compared to WT, confirming the role of ET in the systemic superoxide production after flg22 exposure. Under darkness, in the evening, significant changes were not detectable neither in flg22-treated WT nor in Nr leaves. Thus, these results confirmed the daytime- and ET-dependent superoxide production after the bacterial elicitor flg22 exposure in intact tomato plants. Earlier, it was described, using leaf disks (with a luminol-based assay in a microplate), that flg22 induced a rapid ROS burst within minutes [47,89,90,94,95]. This in situ detection of ROS suggests that the peak in superoxide production was a fast response of plant leaves locally upon flg22 treatment. Based on our investigation, increased levels of superoxide were detected only in the systemic leaves of intact WT plants and were missing at night and in Nr leaves. Activation of NADPH oxidase and fast superoxide production result in an “ROS wave” and rapid systemic response in distal parts of plants from the stress stimuli [96]. It is known that ET, in a concentration-dependent manner, can induce a rapid production of superoxide and H2O2 in the leaves [82]. Mersmann et al. [65] found that ROS production after flg22 exposure was diminished in ET-insensitive receptor mutant seedlings and confirmed that ET plays a crucial role in the early stage of the plant immune response. Moreover, a dark exposure can also delay and inhibit the activity of NADPH oxidase, which contributes to the first, priming oxidative burst after pathogen infection [71]. Thus, in the dark, at night, the inhibition and/or decreased activity of NADPH oxidase and the “ROS wave” could contribute to the delay of defence responses both locally and systemically. In addition, it is known that a number of (30%) genes induced by flg22 require light for their rapid expression based on whole-transcriptome analysis of 30-minute-long flg22-treated Arabidopsis seedlings [69]. Thus, the absence of light could also contribute to delayed or inhibited defence responses of plants on a molecular level by influencing sensing and signalling of the stress stimuli by regulating ROS- and phytohormone metabolism. It can be concluded that ET plays a role in the systemic response of tomato plants by superoxide production in the light period.
Dismutation of the superoxide radical into molecular oxygen and hydrogen peroxide is mediated by superoxide dismutase, an enzyme also regulated by phytohormones such as ET or SA [72,78]. H2O2 content increased significantly 30 min after the flg22 treatment locally in WT leaves, but it did not change in the evening hours and in Nr plants. H2O2 production is also part of the local response of leaves following flg22 exposure, which plays a crucial role in a fast defence response by regulating the redox state of cells and expression of many defence-related genes [97]. Deger et al. [52] also observed a peak in H2O2 production after minutes in mesophyll tissue of Arabidopsis measured with a platinum microdisk electrode. It is well known that H2O2 can act together with SA and ET in a self-amplifying feedback loop, where SA and ET induce H2O2 production and H2O2 enhances the accumulation of both hormones [98], but it has to be mentioned that the dark can also decrease H2O2 accumulation [71]. Thus, both ET and the dark can modulate ROS levels locally and systemically upon flg22 treatment and influence the activation of defence responses of plants. It can be concluded that H2O2 production 30 min after flg22 treatment in the light period can play a significant role in the activation of local phytohormone-mediated defence responses of intact tomato plants. In addition, superoxide production, as a result of NADPH oxidase activity [99], plays a crucial role in cell–cell interaction and establishment of the “ROS wave”, thus the activation of a rapid systemic response in the distal part of intact plants [96]. At the same time, the role of antioxidant machinery and the effects of phytohormones on it cannot be disclosed in the regulation of superoxide/H2O2 levels at these time points [78,100].
ROS can interplay with NO in a variety of ways and it is a crucial partner in determining the cell fate or in the signalling responses in a number of physiological and stress-related conditions [64,101]. Based on our results, NO production increased locally only 1 h after flg22 treatment in WT plants in the light, but not at night and in Nr leaves. These results confirmed that the active ET signalling and the presence of light can determine the local NO production in the intact leaves of tomato plants influencing defence responses. Earlier, it was observed that flg22 triggered NO production in leaf discs of different maize lines after 2 h [102], but its effect in the development of systemic responses was not investigated. However, NO did not take part in the rapid systemic response of tomato after 1 h of flg22 treatment, based on our results. It is also known that the activity of nitrate reductase, which is associated with the direct synthesis of NO, is inhibited by the dark [73]. Based on our results, NO levels did not change after flg22 treatments in WT at night either. Thus, NO could be an integral part of local defence responses of plants in the light, whose absence could contribute to delayed or inhibited defence responses under darkness at night. It is also well known that both ROS and NO take part in the induction of rapid stomatal closure, thus mediating fast defence responses of plants [49,64]. These reactive species could also contribute to the stomatal closure upon flg22 in tomato in the light phase. Moreover, it is well known that NO plays a role in post-translational modification of some defence-related proteins and it is in tight interaction with ET, JA and SA biosynthesis and signalling during the daytime [103,104,105,106].
ET is a fine regulator of JA/SA-mediated short- and long-term defence responses of plants. However, the rapid local and systemic effects of ET are less-known, especially its daytime-dependent role, while the function of other mobile signals of SAR in phloem is well-characterised [105]. It was earlier found that treatment with flg22 already initiated the expression of ET biosynthetic ACS genes within 1 h in Arabidopsis and, in parallel, early stages of multiple defence signalling pathways mediated by all, SA, JA and ET, were activated in the daytime [62]. Others also measured significant ET emission after flg22 exposure within hours in the light [42,64], but the effects of ET in the response of distal leaves of intact plants were not investigated. Here, we also observed that flg22 significantly promoted ET production locally both in WT and Nr plants in the late afternoon, but ET emission did not change at night under darkness. This flg22-induced ET production can contribute to elevated ERF1 expression in the distal leaves of WT plants within 1 h, which was not observed at night and in Nr leaves. This can be dependent on the ROS and NO in these leaves, based on our results, because both can enhance the production of ET [98,103]. This observation provides evidence, for the first time, that ET can not only play a role locally, but also systemically, in the fast and rapid response of defence in the light period. One-hour-long flg22 treatment significantly elevated ERF1 expression, which can promote the expression of the ET -and JA-regulated defence response defensin gene, PDF1.2, in Arabidopsis [62]. Moreover, it was also found that ET and JA play a role in the rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance (ISR), which enhanced the defensive capacity of plants against the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae by inducing ET production within hours [107]. The role of ET in the systemic response of tomato against another bacterial pathogen, Xanthomonas campestris, was also described beside JA, where a rapid ET- and pathogenesis-related gene induction was measured [108]. Moreover, local and systemic induction of ERFs were observed after Pseudomonas syringae or Xanthomonas translucens infection in barley [109]. Here, we found that flg22 induced, locally, both JA and DEF transcript accumulation only in WT, not in Nr plants. These results suggest that ET plays a role in the JA-mediated signalling under flg22 exposure locally. Surprisingly, in contrast to Arabidopsis, systemic immunity was not associated with the expression of PR1 or the local or systemic accumulation of SA in this plant species [109]. In addition, elevated levels of both SA and PR1 transcripts were measured locally after flg22 treatment and were not detected at 21:00 and in Nr leaves. These suggest the significant regulatory role of ET in local flg22-induced SA signalling in the light period. Earlier, it was found that flg22 increased the expression of SA-mediated marker gene PR1 [60] and it induced both SA and JA accumulation in Arabidopsis [61]. It can be concluded that flg22 triggers the accumulation of all defence hormones and their signalling locally within one hour in intact plants, but systemic responses after flg22 treatments were recorded based on the analysis of the key response genes of the investigated defence hormones in the daytime. Namely, higher expression of ERF1 and DEF was measured in systemic leaves of WT plants in the light period, the transcript levels of which did not change in Nr leaves, confirming the role of ET in rapid systemic response upon flg22 in this time of day. These results verified the possible daytime-dependent priming role of ET in distal leaves to flg22-treated ones, similarly to ISR [109]. In addition, the fine regulator role of ET in the defence-related phytohormone network was also confirmed by our result in the locally flg22-treated leaves in the light.
Closure of stomata in response to pathogens is one of the earliest events of plant defence responses [5,110]. Stomatal movements are not only regulated by phytohormones (e.g., ET, JA and SA), ROS and NO, but also by the environment, such as light or dark [53,110,111]. Earlier, it was observed that flg22 inhibited the light-induced stomatal opening in epidermal peels of Arabidopsis [49], or it closed stomata of intact leaves of Arabidopsis within 50 min using the nanoinfusion technique [52]. While the ABA-independent stomatal closure was described [56], in which positive effects of ET [65], as well as the role of the circadian clock, were verified [112], the systemic effect of ET was not analysed. We also found significant stomatal closure after flg22 exposure in the treated and distal leaves of WT plants in the light phase, but neither in Nr leaves nor in the dark. Thus, ET not only promotes stomatal closure locally after flg22 treatment, but also systemically in the light period—but not at night. Based on the results, flg22-induced ET-dependent ROS and NO production could contribute to this rapid systemic stomatal closure. Taken together, these data highlight the importance of ET in the fast control of different immune responses locally and systemically at distinct times of the day in intact tomato plants.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and Experimental Growth Conditions

Healthy seeds of wild type (WT) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr) mutant tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Ailsa Craig) were germinated in the dark (3 days at 26 °C) and seedlings were transferred to perlite for another two weeks. Healthy plants were placed in modified Hoagland nutrient solution as described earlier by Poór et al. [71] and they were grown for at least 5 weeks in a controlled environment (200 μmol m−2 s−1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD; white LED (5700 K) illumination with supplementary FAR LEDs; PSI, Drásov, Czech Republic), 12/12 h light/dark period (light from 06:00 to 18:00 h and 12 h dark period during the remaining daytime), 24/22 °C day/night temperatures and relative humidity of 55–60%). The nutrient solution was changed three times a week. For the experiments, from 7- to 8-week-old intact plants in 8–9 developed leaf-level stages were used.

4.2. Flagellin Treatments

To study the daytime- and ethylene-dependent effects of flagellin in WT and Nr tomato plants, the abaxial side of leaves on the 6th leaf level of intact plants were treated with 5 μM flg22 (Genscript Biotech Corporation, Piscataway, NJ, USA), using a squirrel-hair brush, in the late afternoon (5:00 p.m.) and in the evening (9:00 p.m.), without wounding or disturbing the leaves [49,113,114]. Local and systemic defence responses of plants were detected after 30 and 60 min on the 6th leaf level from the shoot apex and on the distal 5th leaf level above the flg22-treated ones. As a control, sterile distilled water was used without flg22 (Figure 6).

4.3. Determination of Superoxide Production

A total of 100 mg of leaf tissues from the control and flg22-treated leaves of intact plants, as well as from the leaves above them, was homogenized in 1 mL of ice-cold sodium phosphate buffer (100 mM, pH 7.2) containing 1 mM sodium diethyldithiocarbamate trihydrate (SDDT; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA); then, the homogenate was centrifuged (13,000× g for 15 min at 4 °C). A volume of 300 µL of the supernatant was added to the reaction mixture which contained 650 µL of 100 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) and 50 µL of 12 mM nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The absorbance of samples was determined before the incubation (A0) and after the 5-minute-long incubation period (AS) at 540 nm using a spectrophotometer (KONTRON, Milano, Italy). Superoxide production was calculated using the formula ΔA540 = AS − A0 and it was expressed as ΔA540 (min−1 g−1 fresh mass) [115]. Leaves of three different plants were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations.

4.4. Determination of Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) Content

Samples of 200 mg of leaf tissue as described at the determination of superoxide production were homogenized with 1 mL of ice-cold, 0.1% trichloroacetic acid (TCA), then centrifuged (11,500× g at 4 °C) for 10 min. A volume of 250 µL of the supernatant was added to the reaction mixture which contained 250 µL of 50 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) and 500 µL of 1 M potassium iodide (KI). After 10 min, the absorbance of the mixture was recorded at 390 nm with a spectrophotometer [116]. The amount of H2O2 was calculated using a standard curve of H2O2 solution (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Leaves of three different plants in three technical replications were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations.

4.5. Detection of Nitric Oxide (NO) Production

Leaf disks from the control and flg22-treated leaves of intact plants, as well as from the leaves above them, in three replications, were infiltrated with 10 μM 4-amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate (DAF-FM DA) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and dissolved in 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) under vacuum for 30 min in the dark at room temperature. After incubation, samples were rinsed twice with 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer solution (pH 7.4). The fluorescence intensity of DAF-FM DA was detected in the samples with a Zeiss Axiowert 200M-type fluorescence microscope (Carl Zeiss Inc., Jena, Germany) equipped with a high-resolution digital camera (Axiocam HR, Carl Zeiss Inc., Jena, Germany). Data were evaluated by the AXIOVISION REL. 4.8 software (Carl Zeiss Inc., Munich, Germany) [117,118]. Leaves of three different plants were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations.

4.6. Determination of Ethylene (ET) Emission

A total of 500 mg from the control and flg22-treated leaves of intact plants, as well as from the leaves above them, in six replications, was incubated in 25 mL gas-tight vials sealed with rubber serum caps at 25 °C for 1 h under dark condition. After incubation, 2.5 mL of the gas was removed manually from the tubes with a gas-tight syringe and injected into the gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector and a column packed with activated alumina (Hewlett-Packard 5890 Series II; Palo Alto, CA, USA). A set of ET standards was used to calculate the amount of ET emitted by the leaves [119]. Leaves of six different plants were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations.

4.7. Determination of Salicylic Acid (SA) and Jasmonic Acid (JA) Contents

One gram of the control and flg22-treated leaves of intact plants, as well as from the leaves above them, in five replications, was ground in liquid nitrogen and the powder was transferred to a centrifuge tube containing 2 mL of 70% methanol with 250 ng of O-anisic acid (oANI) and 25 mg of para-hydroxybenzoic acid (pHBA) for SA determination. The extract was centrifuged (10.000× g for 20 min) and the pellet was resuspended in 2 mL of 90% methanol; then, it was evaporated at room temperature under vacuum. A volume of 1 mL of 5% (w/v) TCA was added to the residual aqueous phase and the mixture was again centrifuged (15.000× g for 10 min). The supernatant was partitioned twice against 3 mL of 1:1 (v/v) mixture of ethyl acetate/cyclohexane and free phenolic acids accumulated in the upper organic layers. The aqueous phases with the methanol-soluble phenolics were acid hydrolysed. A total of 250 ng oANI, 25 μg pHBA and 1.3 mL 8 N HCl was added to the aqueous phase and incubated (60 min at 80 °C) before partitioning twice as above. The organic phases were evaporated under vacuum and resuspended in 1 mL of the HPLC initial mobile phase. Free SA content was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) on a reverse-phase column (Supelcosil ABZ Plus, 5 μm; 150 × 4.6 mm) at 25 °C (WATERS, Milford, MA, USA) and monitored with a UV/VIS detector (W474 scanning fluorescence detector, Waters, MA, USA) with excitation at 305 nm and emission at 407 nm [120].
JA content was determined according to Pál et al. [121], using ultra performance liquid chromatography with a Waters Acquity I class UPLC system (Milford, MA, USA). After that, the separation mass spectrometry detection was performed by a Waters Xevo TQXS (Milford, MA, USA) equipped with a Unispray Source (Milford, MA, USA). The Waters MassLynx 4.2 and TargetLynx software was used for data processing. Leaves of six different plants were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated two times using new plant generations.

4.8. Gene Expression Analyses by Quantitative Real-Time PCR

Total RNA was isolated from the control and flg22-treated leaves of intact plants, as well as from the leaves above them, using the TRI reagent method [122]. Leaves of three different plants were mixed and used for sampling in the case of each treatment. Measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations. DNase I (Fermentas UAB, Vilnius, Lithuania) was used for genomic DNA digestions and the first-strand cDNA was synthesized using MMLV reverse transcriptase (Fermentas UAB, Vilnius, Lithuania). Analysis of the expression pattern of the selected tomato genes was performed using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR; qTOWER Real-Time qPCR System, Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany). Tomato genes (SlPR1 (Solyc01g106620): F, 5′-CATCCCGAGCACAAAACTATG-3′; R, 5′-CCCCAGCACCAGAATGAAT-3′. SlERF1 (Solyc05g051200): F, 5′-GGAACATTTGATACTGCTGAAGA-3′; R, 5′-AGAGACCAAGGACCCCTCAT-3′. SlDEF1 (Solyc07g007760): R, 5′-GGCACAATCCATTCGTTTCT-3′; F, 5′-TTGGTCCCATTTCAGTAGCC-3′) were mined from the Sol Genomics Network (SGN; http://solgenomics.net; last accessed on 31 January 2021) database [123]. The PCR reaction mixture contained 10 ng of cDNA template, 400–400 nM forward and reverse primers, 5 µL of Maxima SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix (2X) (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and nuclease-free water in 10 μL volume (denaturation at 95 °C for 7 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 15 s and annealing extension at 60 °C for 60 s). To analyse the data, the qTOWER Software 2.2 (Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany) was applied [78]. The specificity of the qRT-PCR reaction was confirmed using melting curve analyses in all cases. Reference genes were the tomato 18S rRNA and elongation factor-1α subunit and the expression data were calculated by the 2(−∆∆Ct) formula [124].

4.9. Stomatal Aperture Measurements

Abaxial epidermal strips were rapidly prepared from the control and flg22-treated, as well as distal, leaves of intact WT or Nr plants, then immediately observed under a microscope (Nikon Eclipse TS-100, Nikon Instruments, Tokyo, Japan) as earlier described by Melotto et al. [125]. The width of stomatal pores was measured using the Image-Pro Plus 5.1 software (Media Cybernetics, Inc., Rockville, MD, USA). Leaves of three different plants were used for sampling in the case of each treatment. A total of 30–40 stomata of three different plants was recorded and the measurements were repeated 3 times using new plant generations.

4.10. Statistical Analysis

Experiments were repeated at least two times. The results are expressed as means ± S.E. The effects of flg22 treatments and the differences among the times of day were analysed by two-way ANOVA, supplemented with post hoc pairwise comparisons using Duncan’s multiple range test. All statistical analyses were performed using the SigmaPlot 11 software (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Mean values denoted with different letters and differed significantly at p < 0.05.

5. Conclusions

Understanding the mechanism that can regulate plant defence mechanisms at the molecular and physiological or whole plant levels is an important problem in current plant biology, as well as in agriculture. It can be concluded that flg22-induced rapid local and systemic defence responses in the first hour are dependent on the day/night-time of the bacterial elicitor treatment. In addition, local and systemic responses of intact tomato plants are mediated by ET in the light period. ET influences H2O2 and NO production, as well as JA and SA levels and signalling based on the expression of PR1 and DEF locally and superoxide production systemically, contributing to the initiation of stomatal closure in WT plants in the light phase of the day. Enhanced ERF1 and DEF expression was also observable in systemic leaves of WT plants in the light and was dependent on the active ET signalling. This research provides new results to understand the local and systemic role of ET in the biotic stress responses of intact plants in the context of other defence-related phytohormones, such as SA and JA. In addition, our results demonstrate the differences in plant defence responses in the daytime and at night. Based on this knowledge, the potential modification of phytohormone levels, such as the ET production at night, when most of the plant pathogens are more active, as compared to daytime, may be used to increase the yield and stress tolerance under biotic stress conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P.; investigation, Z.C., A.K., K.Á.H., G.S., A.Ö. and P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P.; writing—review and editing, Z.C., A.Ö., I.T. and P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the grant from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary, NKFIH (Grant No. NKFIH FK 124871), and by the ÚNKP-20-3 and ÚNKP-20-5, New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation. Péter Poór was supported by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Tomato genes originated from the Sol Genomics Network (SGN; http://solgenomics.net/, accessed on 31 January 2021) database. The authors affirm that all data necessary for confirming the conclusions of the article are present within the article and figures.

Acknowledgments

We thank Bécsné for her excellent technical assistance. We are grateful to editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions to this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jones, J.D.; Dangl, J.L. The plant immune system. Nature 2006, 444, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bigeard, J.; Colcombet, J.; Hirt, H. Signaling mechanisms in pattern-triggered immunity (PTI). Mol. Plant 2015, 8, 521–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pieterse, C.M.; Van der Does, D.; Zamioudis, C.; Leon-Reyes, A.; Van Wees, S.C. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2012, 28, 489–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Derksen, H.; Rampitsch, C.; Daayf, F. Signaling cross-talk in plant disease resistance. Plant Sci. 2013, 207, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Glazebrook, J. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2005, 43, 205–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Spoel, S.H.; Johnson, J.S.; Dong, X. Regulation of tradeoffs between plant defenses against pathogens with different lifestyles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18842–18847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Vlot, A.C.; Dempsey, D.M.A.; Klessig, D.F. Salicylic acid, a multifaceted hormone to combat disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2009, 47, 177–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Klessig, D.F. SOS—Too many signals for systemic acquired resistance? Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 538–545. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dempsey, D.M.A.; Klessig, D.F. How does the multifaceted plant hormone salicylic acid combat disease in plants and are similar mechanisms utilized in humans? BMC Biol. 2017, 15, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Salicylic acid: Biosynthesis, perception, and contributions to plant immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019, 50, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ding, P.; Ding, Y. Stories of salicylic acid: A plant defense hormone. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 549–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wasternack, C.; Hause, B. Jasmonates: Biosynthesis, perception, signal transduction and action in plant stress response, growth and development. An update to the 2007 review in Annals of Botany. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 1021–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wasternack, C.; Song, S. Jasmonates: Biosynthesis, metabolism, and signaling by proteins activating and repressing transcription. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 68, 1303–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wasternack, C.; Strnad, M. Jasmonates: News on occurrence, biosynthesis, metabolism and action of an ancient group of signaling compounds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Vos, I.A.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Wees, S.C.M. Costs and benefits of hormone-regulated plant defences. Plant Pathol. 2013, 62, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Broekgaarden, C.; Caarls, L.; Vos, I.A.; Pieterse, C.M.; Van Wees, S.C. Ethylene: Traffic controller on hormonal crossroads to defense. Plant Physiol. 2015, 169, 2371–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Melotto, M.; Underwood, W.; He, S.Y. Role of stomata in plant innate immunity and foliar bacterial diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2008, 46, 101–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Genoud, T.; Buchala, A.J.; Chua, N.H.; Métraux, J.P. Phytochrome signalling modulates the SA-perceptive pathway in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2002, 31, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mueller, D.S.; Buck, J.W. Effects of light, temperature, and leaf wetness duration on daylily rust. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 442–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Griebel, T.; Zeier, J. Light regulation and daytime dependency of inducible plant defenses in Arabidopsis: Phytochrome signaling controls systemic acquired resistance rather than local defense. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 790–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ballaré, C.L. Light regulation of plant defense. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014, 65, 335–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Karapetyan, S.; Dong, X. Redox and the circadian clock in plant immunity: A balancing act. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2018, 119, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chandra-Shekara, A.C.; Gupte, M.; Navarre, D.; Raina, S.; Raina, R.; Klessig, D.; Kachroo, P. Light-dependent hypersensitive response and resistance signaling against Turnip Crinkle Virus in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2006, 45, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Roberts, M.R.; Paul, N.D. Seduced by the dark side: Integrating molecular and ecological perspectives on the influence of light on plant defence against pests and pathogens. New Phytol. 2006, 170, 677–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Kazan, K.; Manners, J.M. The interplay between light and jasmonate signalling during defence and development. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 4087–4100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Fernández-Milmanda, G.L.; Crocco, C.D.; Reichelt, M.; Mazza, C.A.; Köllner, T.G.; Zhang, T.; Cargnel, M.D.; Lichy, M.Z.; Fiorucci, A.S.; Fankhauser, C.; et al. A light-dependent molecular link between competition cues and defence responses in plants. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Carvalho, S.D.; Castillo, J.A. Influence of light on plant–phyllosphere interaction. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Demarsy, E.; Goldschmidt-Clermont, M.; Ulm, R. Coping with ‘dark sides of the sun’through photoreceptor signaling. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Paik, I.; Huq, E. Plant photoreceptors: Multi-functional sensory proteins and their signaling networks. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 92, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Liu, P.P.; von Dahl, C.C.; Klessig, D.F. The extent to which methyl salicylate is required for signaling systemic acquired resistance is dependent on exposure to light after infection. Plant Physiol. 2011, 157, 2216–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wu, L.; McGrane, R.S.; Beattie, G.A. Light regulation of swarming motility in Pseudomonas syringae integrates signaling pathways mediated by a bacteriophytochrome and a LOV protein. mBio 2013, 4, e00334-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. McGrane, R.; Beattie, G.A. Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae B728a regulates multiple stages of plant colonization via the bacteriophytochrome BphP1. mBio 2017, 8, e01178-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Santamaría-Hernando, S.; Rodríguez-Herva, J.J.; Martínez-García, P.M.; Río-Álvarez, I.; González-Melendi, P.; Zamorano, J.; Tapia, C.; Rodríguez-Palenzuela, P.; López-Solanilla, E. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato exploits light signals to optimize virulence and colonization of leaves. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 20, 4261–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Moyano, L.; Carrau, A.; Petrocelli, S.; Kraiselburd, I.; Gärtner, W.; Orellano, E.G. Bacteriophytochromes from Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 modulate the early stages of plant colonization during bacterial speck disease. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 156, 659–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nagendran, R.; Lee, Y.H. Green and red light reduces the disease severity by Pseudomonas cichorii JBC1 in tomato plants via upregulation of defense-related gene expression. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rajalingam, N.; Lee, Y.H. Effects of green light on the gene expression and virulence of the plant pathogen Pseudomonas cichorii JBC1. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 150, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bai, Y.; Rottwinkel, G.; Feng, J.; Liu, Y.; Lamparter, T. Bacteriophytochromes control conjugation in Agrobacterium fabrum. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2016, 161, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bonomi, H.R.; Toum, L.; Sycz, G.; Sieira, R.; Toscani, A.M.; Gudesblat, G.E.; Leskow, F.C.; Goldbaum, F.A.; Vojnov, A.A.; Malamud, F. Xanthomonas campestris attenuates virulence by sensing light through a bacteriophytochrome photoreceptor. EMBO Rep. 2016, 17, 1565–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lu, H.; McClung, C.R.; Zhang, C. Tick tock: Circadian regulation of plant innate immunity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2017, 55, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Zheng, X.Y.; Zhou, M.; Yoo, H.; Pruneda-Paz, J.L.; Spivey, N.W.; Kay, S.A.; Dong, X. Spatial and temporal regulation of biosynthesis of the plant immune signal salicylic acid. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 9166–9173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Thain, S.C.; Vandenbussche, F.; Laarhoven, L.J.; Dowson-Day, M.J.; Wang, Z.Y.; Tobin, E.M.; Harren, F.J.M.; Millar, A.J.; Van Der Straeten, D. Circadian rhythms of ethylene emission in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2004, 136, 3751–3761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Felix, G.; Duran, J.D.; Volko, S.; Boller, T. Plants have a sensitive perception system for the most conserved domain of bacterial flagellin. Plant J. 1999, 18, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gómez-Gómez, L.; Boller, T. FLS2: An LRR receptor-like kinase involved in the perception of the bacterial elicitor flagellin in Arabidopsis. Mol. Cell 2000, 5, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zipfel, C.; Robatzek, S.; Navarro, L.; Oakeley, E.J.; Jones, J.D.; Felix, G.; Boller, T. Bacterial disease resistance in Arabidopsis through flagellin perception. Nature 2004, 428, 764–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kadota, Y.; Sklenar, J.; Derbyshire, P.; Stransfeld, L.; Asai, S.; Ntoukakis, V.; Jones, J.D.G.; Shirasu, K.; Menke, F.; Jones, A.; et al. Direct regulation of the NADPH oxidase RBOHD by the PRR-associated kinase BIK1 during plant immunity. Mol. Cell 2014, 54, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Li, L.; Li, M.; Yu, L.; Zhou, Z.; Liang, X.; Liu, Z.; Cai, G.; Gao, L.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; et al. The FLS2-associated kinase BIK1 directly phosphorylates the NADPH oxidase RbohD to control plant immunity. Cell Host Microbe 2014, 15, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Robatzek, S.; Bittel, P.; Chinchilla, D.; Köchner, P.; Felix, G.; Shiu, S.H.; Boller, T. Molecular identification and characterization of the tomato flagellin receptor LeFLS2, an orthologue of Arabidopsis FLS2 exhibiting characteristically different perception specificities. Plant Mol. Biol. 2007, 64, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hind, S.R.; Strickler, S.R.; Boyle, P.C.; Dunham, D.M.; Bao, Z.; O’Doherty, I.M.; Baccile, J.A.; Hoki, J.S.; Viox, E.G.; Clarke, C.R.; et al. Tomato receptor FLAGELLIN-SENSING 3 binds flgII-28 and activates the plant immune system. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Zhang, W.; He, S.Y.; Assmann, S.M. The plant innate immunity response in stomatal guard cells invokes G-protein-dependent ion channel regulation. Plant J. 2008, 56, 984–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ranf, S.; Eschen-Lippold, L.; Pecher, P.; Lee, J.; Scheel, D. Interplay between calcium signalling and early signalling elements during defence responses to microbe-or damage-associated molecular patterns. Plant J. 2011, 68, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thor, K.; Peiter, E. Cytosolic calcium signals elicited by the pathogen-associated molecular pattern flg22 in stomatal guard cells are of an oscillatory nature. New Phytol. 2014, 204, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deger, A.G.; Scherzer, S.; Nuhkat, M.; Kedzierska, J.; Kollist, H.; Brosché, M.; Unyayar, S.; Boudsocq, M.; Hedrich, R.; Roelfsema, M.R.G. Guard cell SLAC1-type anion channels mediate flagellin-induced stomatal closure. New Phytol. 2015, 208, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Toum, L.; Torres, P.S.; Gallego, S.M.; Benavídes, M.P.; Vojnov, A.A.; Gudesblat, G.E. Coronatine inhibits stomatal closure through guard cell-specific inhibition of NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS production. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Rodrigues, O.; Reshetnyak, G.; Grondin, A.; Saijo, Y.; Leonhardt, N.; Maurel, C.; Verdoucq, L. Aquaporins facilitate hydrogen peroxide entry into guard cells to mediate ABA-and pathogen-triggered stomatal closure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9200–9205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Asai, T.; Tena, G.; Plotnikova, J.; Willmann, M.R.; Chiu, W.L.; Gomez-Gomez, L.; Boller, T.; Ausubel, F.M.; Sheen, J. MAP kinase signalling cascade in Arabidopsis innate immunity. Nature 2002, 415, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Montillet, J.L.; Leonhardt, N.; Mondy, S.; Tranchimand, S.; Rumeau, D.; Boudsocq, M.; Garcia, A.V.; Douki, T.; Biegard, J.; Laurière, C.; et al. An abscisic acid-independent oxylipin pathway controls stomatal closure and immune defense in Arabidopsis. PLoS Biol. 2013, 11, e1001513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Qi, C.H.; Zhao, X.Y.; Jiang, H.; Liu, H.T.; Wang, Y.X.; Hu, D.G.; Hao, Y.J. Molecular cloning and functional identification of an apple flagellin receptor MdFLS2 gene. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 2694–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Luna, E.; Pastor, V.; Robert, J.; Flors, V.; Mauch-Mani, B.; Ton, J. Callose deposition: A multifaceted plant defense response. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2011, 24, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Hong, C.Y.; Zheng, J.L.; Chen, T.Y.; Chao, H.R.; Lin, Y.H. PFLP-intensified disease resistance against bacterial soft rot through the MAPK pathway in PAMP-Triggered Immunity. Phytopathology 2018, 108, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Gómez-Gómez, L.; Felix, G.; Boller, T. A single locus determines sensitivity to bacterial flagellin in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 1999, 18, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gravino, M.; Savatin, D.V.; Macone, A.; De Lorenzo, G. Ethylene production in Botrytis cinerea- and oligogalacturonide-induced immunity requires calcium-dependent protein kinases. Plant J. 2015, 84, 1073–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Denoux, C.; Galletti, R.; Mammarella, N.; Gopalan, S.; Werck, D.; De Lorenzo, G.; Ferrari, S.; Ausubel, F.M.; Dewdney, J. Activation of defense response pathways by OGs and Flg22 elicitors in Arabidopsis seedlings. Mol. Plant 2008, 1, 423–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Park, H.C.; Lee, S.; Park, B.; Choi, W.; Kim, C.; Lee, S.; Chung, W.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Sabir, J.; Bressan, R.A.; et al. Pathogen associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity is compromised under C-limited growth. Mol. Cells 2015, 38, 40. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mur, L.A.; Laarhoven, L.J.; Harren, F.J.; Hall, M.A.; Smith, A.R. Nitric oxide interacts with salicylate to regulate biphasic ethylene production during the hypersensitive response. Plant Physiol. 2008, 148, 1537–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mersmann, S.; Bourdais, G.; Rietz, S.; Robatzek, S. Ethylene signaling regulates accumulation of the FLS2 receptor and is required for the oxidative burst contributing to plant immunity. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Beck, M.; Wyrsch, I.; Strutt, J.; Wimalasekera, R.; Webb, A.; Boller, T.; Robatzek, S. Expression patterns of FLAGELLIN SENSING 2 map to bacterial entry sites in plant shoots and roots. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6487–6498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bethke, G.; Unthan, T.; Uhrig, J.F.; Pöschl, Y.; Gust, A.A.; Scheel, D.; Lee, J. Flg22 regulates the release of an ethylene response factor substrate from MAP kinase 6 in Arabidopsis thaliana via ethylene signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 8067–8072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Liu, Y.; Zhang, S. Phosphorylation of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthase by MPK6, a stress-responsive mitogen-activated protein kinase, induces ethylene biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 3386–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Sano, S.; Aoyama, M.; Nakai, K.; Shimotani, K.; Yamasaki, K.; Sato, M.H.; Tojo, D.; Suwastika, I.N.; Nomura, H.; Shiina, T. Light-dependent expression of flg22-induced defense genes in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Liebsch, D.; Keech, O. Dark-induced leaf senescence: New insights into a complex light-dependent regulatory pathway. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Poór, P.; Takács, Z.; Bela, K.; Czékus, Z.; Szalai, G.; Tari, I. Prolonged dark period modulates the oxidative burst and enzymatic antioxidant systems in the leaves of salicylic acid-treated tomato. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 213, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Poór, P.; Ördög, A.; Czékus, Z.; Borbély, P.; Takács, Z.; Kovács, J.; Tari, I. Regulation of the key antioxidant enzymes by developmental processes and environmental stresses in the dark. Biol. Plant 2018, 62, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Poór, P.; Czékus, Z.; Ördög, A. Role of nitric oxide in physiological and stress responses of plants under darkness. In Reactive Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulfur Species in Plants: Production, Metabolism, Signaling and Defense Mechanisms; Hasanuzzaman, M., Fotopoulos, V., Nahar, K., Fujita, M., Eds.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 515–531. [Google Scholar]
  74. Klee, H.; Tieman, D. The tomato ethylene receptor gene family: Form and function. Physiol. Plant 2002, 115, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Yen, H.C.; Lee, S.; Tanksley, S.D.; Lanahan, M.B.; Klee, H.J.; Giovannoni, J.J. The tomato Never-ripe locus regulates ethylene-inducible gene expression and is linked to a homolog of the Arabidopsis ETR1 gene. Plant Physiol. 1995, 107, 1343–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Lanahan, M.B.; Yen, H.C.; Giovannoni, J.J.; Klee, H.J. The never ripe mutation blocks ethylene perception in tomato. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Nascimento, V.L.; Pereira, A.M.; Pereira, A.S.; Silva, V.F.; Costa, L.C.; Bastos, C.E.; Ribeiro, D.M.; Caldana, C.; Sulpice, R.; Nunes-Nesi, A.; et al. Physiological and metabolic bases of increased growth in the tomato ethylene-insensitive mutant Never ripe: Extending ethylene signaling functions. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Takács, Z.; Poór, P.; Borbély, P.; Czékus, Z.; Szalai, G.; Tari, I. H2O2 homeostasis in wild-type and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe tomato in response to salicylic acid treatment in normal photoperiod and in prolonged darkness. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 126, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hansen, H.; Grossmann, K. Auxin-induced ethylene triggers abscisic acid biosynthesis and growth inhibition. Plant Physiol. 2000, 124, 1437–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Roden, L.C.; Ingle, R.A. Lights, rhythms, infection: The role of light and the circadian clock in determining the outcome of plant-pathogen interactions. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 2546–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Mühlenbock, P.; Plaszczyca, M.; Plaszczyca, M.; Mellerowicz, E.; Karpinski, S. Lysigenous aerenchyma formation in Arabidopsis is controlled by LESION SIMULATING DISEASE1. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 3819–3830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Borbély, P.; Bajkán, S.; Poór, P.; Tari, I. Exogenous 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid controls photosynthetic activity, accumulation of reactive oxygen or nitrogen species and macroelement content in tomato in long-term experiments. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 1110–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Harkey, A.F.; Yoon, G.M.; Seo, D.H.; DeLong, A.; Muday, G. Light modulates ethylene synthesis, signaling, and downstream transcriptional networks to control plant development. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Lawson, T. Guard cell photosynthesis and stomatal function. New Phytol. 2009, 181, 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Goodspeed, D.; Chehab, E.W.; Min-Venditti, A.; Braam, J.; Covington, M.F. Arabidopsis synchronizes jasmonate-mediated defense with insect circadian behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 4674–4677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Graf, A.; Schlereth, A.; Stitt, M.; Smith, A.M. Circadian control of carbohydrate availability for growth in Arabidopsis plants at night. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 9458–9463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Medzihradszky, M.; Bindics, J.; Ádám, É.; Viczián, A.; Klement, É.; Lorrain, S.; Kunkel, T. Phosphorylation of phytochrome B inhibits light-induced signaling via accelerated dark reversion in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Graf, A.; Smith, A.M. Starch and the clock: The dark side of plant productivity. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Bhattarai, K.; Louws, F.J.; Williamson, J.D.; Panthee, D.R. Differential response of tomato genotypes to Xanthomonas-specific pathogen-associated molecular patterns and correlation with bacterial spot (Xanthomonas perforans) resistance. Hortic. Res. 2016, 3, 16035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Zhang, H.; Hong, Y.; Huang, L.; Li, D.; Song, F. Arabidopsis AtERF014 acts as a dual regulator that differentially modulates immunity against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Botrytis cinerea. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mittler, R.; Vanderauwera, S.; Suzuki, N.; Miller, G.A.D.; Tognetti, V.B.; Vandepoele, K.; Gollery, M.; Shulaev, V.; Van Breusegem, F. ROS signaling: The new wave? Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dubiella, U.; Seybold, H.; Durian, G.; Komander, E.; Lassig, R.; Witte, C.P.; Schulze, W.X.; Romeis, T. Calcium-dependent protein kinase/NADPH oxidase activation circuit is required for rapid defense signal propagation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8744–8749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Baxter, A.; Mittler, R.; Suzuki, N. ROS as key players in plant stress signalling. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lyons, R.; Iwase, A.; Gänsewig, T.; Sherstnev, A.; Duc, C.; Barton, G.J.; Hanada, K.; Higuchi-Takeuchi, M.; Matsui, M.; Sugimoto, K.; et al. The RNA-binding protein FPA regulates flg22-triggered defense responses and transcription factor activity by alternative polyadenylation. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shi, H.; Shen, Q.; Qi, Y.; Yan, H.; Nie, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, T.; Katagiri, F.; Tang, D. BR-SIGNALING KINASE1 physically associates with FLAGELLIN SENSING2 and regulates plant innate immunity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 1143–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Devireddy, A.R.; Liscum, E.; Mittler, R. Phytochrome B is required for systemic stomatal responses and reactive oxygen species signaling during light stress. Plant Physiol. 2020, 184, 1563–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Van Aken, O.; Van Breusegem, F. Licensed to kill: Mitochondria, chloroplasts, and cell death. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xia, X.J.; Zhou, Y.H.; Shi, K.; Zhou, J.; Foyer, C.H.; Yu, J.Q. Interplay between reactive oxygen species and hormones in the control of plant development and stress tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2839–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Fichman, Y.; Mittler, R. Rapid systemic signaling during abiotic and biotic stresses: Is the ROS wave master of all trades? Plant J. 2020, 102, 887–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Foyer, C.H.; Noctor, G. Stress-Triggered redox signalling: What’s in pROSpect? Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 951–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kocsy, G.; Tari, I.; Vanková, R.; Zechmann, B.; Gulyás, Z.; Poór, P.; Galiba, G. Redox control of plant growth and development. Plant Sci. 2013, 211, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, X.; Valdés-López, O.; Arellano, C.; Stacey, G.; Balint-Kurti, P. Genetic dissection of the maize (Zea mays L.) MAMP response. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2017, 130, 1155–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Freschi, L. Nitric oxide and phytohormone interactions: Current status and perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Mur, L.A.; Prats, E.; Pierre, S.; Hall, M.A.; Hebelstrup, K.H. Integrating nitric oxide into salicylic acid and jasmonic acid/ethylene plant defense pathways. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Shine, M.B.; Xiao, X.; Kachroo, P.; Kachroo, A. Signaling mechanisms underlying systemic acquired resistance to microbial pathogens. Plant Sci. 2019, 279, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kolbert, Z.; Feigl, G.; Freschi, L.; Poór, P. Gasotransmitters in action: Nitric oxide-ethylene crosstalk during plant growth and abiotic stress responses. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Pieterse, C.M.; Van Pelt, J.A.; Ton, J.; Parchmann, S.; Mueller, M.J.; Buchala, A.J.; Métraux, J.P.; Van Loon, L.C. Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) in Arabidopsis requires sensitivity to jasmonate and ethylene but is not accompanied by an increase in their production. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2000, 57, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Block, A.; Schmelz, E.; O’Donnell, P.J.; Jones, J.B.; Klee, H.J. Systemic acquired tolerance to virulent bacterial pathogens in tomato. Plant Physiol. 2005, 138, 1481–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Hase, S.; Van Pelt, J.A.; Van Loon, L.C.; Pieterse, C.M. Colonization of Arabidopsis roots by Pseudomonas fluorescens primes the plant to produce higher levels of ethylene upon pathogen infection. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 62, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Dey, S.; Wenig, M.; Langen, G.; Sharma, S.; Kugler, K.G.; Knappe, C.; Hause, B.; Bichlmeier, M.; Babaeizad, V.; Imani, J.; et al. Bacteria-triggered systemic immunity in barley is associated with WRKY and ETHYLENE RESPONSIVE FACTORs but not with salicylic acid. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 2133–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Zeng, W.; Melotto, M.; He, S.Y. Plant stomata: A checkpoint of host immunity and pathogen virulence. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010, 21, 599–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Panchal, S.; Melotto, M. Stomate-based defense and environmental cues. Plant Signal. Behav. 2017, 12, e1362517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Korneli, C.; Danisman, S.; Staiger, D. Differential control of pre-invasive and post-invasive antibacterial defense by the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 1613–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Breitenbach, H.H.; Wenig, M.; Wittek, F.; Jordá, L.; Maldonado-Alconada, A.M.; Sarioglu, H.; Colby, T.; Knappe, C.; Bichlmeier, M.; Pabst, E.; et al. Contrasting roles of the apoplastic aspartyl protease Apoplastic, enhanced disease susceptibility1-dependent1 and Legume Lectin-like protein1 in Arabidopsis systemic acquired resistance. Plant Physiol. 2014, 165, 791–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Johnson, N.; Litt, P.K.; Kniel, K.E.; Bais, H. Evasion of plant innate defense response by Salmonella on Lettuce. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Chaitanya, K.K.; Naithani, S.C. Role of superoxide, lipid peroxidation and superoxide dismutase in membrane perturbation during loss of viability in seeds of Shorea robusta Gaertn. f. New Phytol. 1994, 126, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Velikova, V.; Yordanov, I.; Edreva, A. Oxidative stress and some antioxidant system in acid rain treated bean plants: Protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Sci. 2000, 151, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Czékus, Z.; Csíkos, O.; Ördög, A.; Tari, I.; Poór, P. Effects of jasmonic acid in ER stress and unfolded protein response in tomato plants. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Poór, P.; Kovács, J.; Borbély, P.; Takács, Z.; Szepesi, Á.; Tari, I. Salt stress-induced production of reactive oxygen-and nitrogen species and cell death in the ethylene receptor mutant Never ripe and wild type tomato roots. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 97, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Pál, M.; Horváth, E.; Janda, T.; Páldi, E.; Szalai, G. Cadmium stimulates the accumulation of salicylic acid and its putative precursors in maize (Zea mays) plants. Physiol. Plant 2005, 125, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pál, M.; Ivanovska, B.; Oláh, T.; Tajti, J.; Hamow, K.Á.; Szalai, G.; Khalil, R.; Vanková, R.; Dobrev, P.; Misheva, S.P.; et al. Role of polyamines in plant growth regulation of Rht wheat mutants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 137, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chomczynski, P.; Sacchi, N. The single-step method of RNA isolation by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction: Twenty-something years on. Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Takács, Z.; Poór, P.; Tari, I. Comparison of polyamine metabolism in tomato plants exposed to different concentrations of salicylic acid under light or dark conditions. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 108, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Melotto, M.; Underwood, W.; Koczan, J.; Nomura, K.; He, S.Y. Plant stomata function in innate immunity against bacterial invasion. Cell 2006, 126, 969–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Changes in the superoxide production (A,B) and H2O2 content (C,D) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out 30 min and 60 min after treatments. Whole leaves from different leaf levels and genotypes were ground and superoxide production, as well as H2O2 content, were determined using spectrophotometric methods. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Figure 1. Changes in the superoxide production (A,B) and H2O2 content (C,D) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out 30 min and 60 min after treatments. Whole leaves from different leaf levels and genotypes were ground and superoxide production, as well as H2O2 content, were determined using spectrophotometric methods. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Ijms 22 08354 g001
Figure 2. Changes in the nitric oxide (NO) production in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) (A) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.) (B). Measurements were carried out 30 and 60 min after treatments. Leaf discs prepared immediately from the whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were incubated in DAF-FM DA fluorescent dye; then, fluorescence intensities were determined by microscope. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Figure 2. Changes in the nitric oxide (NO) production in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) (A) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.) (B). Measurements were carried out 30 and 60 min after treatments. Leaf discs prepared immediately from the whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were incubated in DAF-FM DA fluorescent dye; then, fluorescence intensities were determined by microscope. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Ijms 22 08354 g002
Figure 3. Changes in the ethylene (ET) emission (A,B), jasmonic acid (JA) content (C,D) and salicylic acid (SA) content (E,F) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were collected and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen; then, hormone levels were determined by chromatography methods. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Figure 3. Changes in the ethylene (ET) emission (A,B), jasmonic acid (JA) content (C,D) and salicylic acid (SA) content (E,F) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were collected and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen; then, hormone levels were determined by chromatography methods. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Ijms 22 08354 g003
Figure 4. Changes in the relative transcript levels of ERF1 (A,B), DEF (C,D) and PR1 (E,F) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were collected and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen; then, after RNA extraction, gene expression was analysed using qRT-PCR. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Figure 4. Changes in the relative transcript levels of ERF1 (A,B), DEF (C,D) and PR1 (E,F) in leaves of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes were collected and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen; then, after RNA extraction, gene expression was analysed using qRT-PCR. Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Ijms 22 08354 g004
Figure 5. Changes in the size of stomatal apertures on the abaxial epidermal strips of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) (A) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.; (B). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Epidermal peels were prepared immediately from the whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes; then, microscopic photos were taken rapidly and the stomatal pore size was determined digitally (C). Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Figure 5. Changes in the size of stomatal apertures on the abaxial epidermal strips of intact wild type (WT; white columns) and ethylene-insensitive Never ripe (Nr; black columns) tomato plants treated foliar using a squirrel-hair brush with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin (flg22) in the late afternoon under light (at 5:00 p.m.) (A) or at night under darkness (at 9:00 p.m.; (B). Measurements were carried out one hour after treatments (at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Epidermal peels were prepared immediately from the whole leaves from the different leaf levels and genotypes; then, microscopic photos were taken rapidly and the stomatal pore size was determined digitally (C). Means ± SE, n = 3. Means were analysed by two-way ANOVA; significant differences among the data were analysed by Duncan’s test. Mean values significantly different at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters, upper case letters indicate the effects of the treatment at the same time of day and lower case letters indicate the effects of daytime under the same treatment. (Control, treatment with sterile distilled water; Control+1, untreated distal leaf level to the control; flg22, treatment with 5 μg mL−1 of flagellin dissolved in sterile distilled water; flg22+1, untreated distal leaf level to the flg22-treated one).
Ijms 22 08354 g005
Figure 6. Experimental setup of flg22 treatments and time of samplings in intact tomato plants.
Figure 6. Experimental setup of flg22 treatments and time of samplings in intact tomato plants.
Ijms 22 08354 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Czékus, Z.; Kukri, A.; Hamow, K.Á.; Szalai, G.; Tari, I.; Ördög, A.; Poór, P. Activation of Local and Systemic Defence Responses by Flg22 Is Dependent on Daytime and Ethylene in Intact Tomato Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8354. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms22158354

AMA Style

Czékus Z, Kukri A, Hamow KÁ, Szalai G, Tari I, Ördög A, Poór P. Activation of Local and Systemic Defence Responses by Flg22 Is Dependent on Daytime and Ethylene in Intact Tomato Plants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(15):8354. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms22158354

Chicago/Turabian Style

Czékus, Zalán, András Kukri, Kamirán Áron Hamow, Gabriella Szalai, Irma Tari, Attila Ördög, and Péter Poór. 2021. "Activation of Local and Systemic Defence Responses by Flg22 Is Dependent on Daytime and Ethylene in Intact Tomato Plants" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 15: 8354. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms22158354

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop