Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M610135200 on December 19, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 8, 5249-5255, February 23, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/8/5249    most recent
M610135200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wrzaczek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jonak, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wrzaczek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jonak, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A Proteasome-regulated Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3 Modulates Disease Response in Plants*Formula

Michael Wrzaczek1, Wilfried Rozhon2, and Claudia Jonak3

From the Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna, Vienna Biocenter, Dr. Bohrgasse 9, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Received for publication, October 30, 2006 , and in revised form, December 18, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) is a key player in various important signaling pathways in animals. The activity of GSK-3 is known to be modulated by protein phosphorylation and differential complex formation. However, little information is available regarding the function and regulation of plant GSK-3/shaggy-like kinases (GSKs). Analysis of the in vivo kinase activity of MsK1, a GSK from Medicago sativa, revealed that MsK1 is active in healthy plants and that MsK1 activity is down-regulated by the elicitor cellulase in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Surprisingly, cellulase treatment triggered the degradation of the MsK1 protein in a proteasome-dependent manner suggesting a novel mechanism of GSK-3 regulation. Inhibition of MsK1 kinase activity and degradation of the protein were two successive processes that could be uncoupled. In a transgenic approach, stimulus-induced inhibition of MsK1 was impeded by constant replenishment of MsK1 by a strong constitutive promoter. MsK1 overexpressing plants exhibited enhanced disease susceptibility to the virulent bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae. MAP kinase activation in response to pathogen infection was compromised in plants with elevated MsK1 levels. These data strongly suggest that tight regulation of the plant GSK-3, MsK1, may be important for innate immunity to limit the severity of virulent bacterial infection.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3)4 was originally identified in mammals as a regulator of glycogen metabolism (1, 2). Despite its name, GSK-3 is a multifunctional serine/threonine protein kinase that acts as a regulator of numerous signaling pathways (3–5). As a component of the Wnt signaling pathway, GSK-3 participates in the regulation of cell proliferation, cell fate specification, and differentiation throughout the animal kingdom (6, 7). Misregulation of this pathway promotes degenerative diseases and cancer. GSK-3 is present in a multiprotein complex that can have variable constituents. In the absence of Wnt, GSK-3 phosphorylates the transcriptional regulator beta-catenin and thereby targets beta-catenin for degradation. When cells receive Wnt signals, the protein complex undergoes rearrangement (8–10) and GSK-3 activity is inhibited by an as yet not fully understood mechanism. As a consequence, beta-catenin accumulates and modulates gene expression.

GSK-3 is also an integral part of the mammalian phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway, which is involved in controlling cell survival, proliferation, apoptosis as well as metabolism. Upon stimulation of this pathway by insulin, growth factors, or stress, GSK-3 is phosphorylated by protein kinase B (11, 12). Biochemical and structural work suggest that the phosphorylated N terminus of GSK-3 prevents substrate binding and blocks access to the catalytic center (13–15). GSK-3 activity appears to be inhibited by this means in several animal signaling pathways (3).

GSK-3 is evolutionary conserved among eukaryotes. Mammals have two GSK-3 genes, whereas Drosophila melanogaster generates numerous isoforms from a single SHAGGY-locus by differential splicing. Saccharomyces cerevisiae encodes four GSK-3 homologs involved in mitotic chromosome segregation, meiosis, stress response, and metabolic regulation. Plants have a family of GSK-3/SHAGGY-like kinases (GSKs) that can be grouped into four classes according to sequence similarity (16, 17). Based on recent functional data plant GSKs appear to be involved in hormone signaling, development, and stress responses (16). RNA expression analyses in several plant species have shown that different GSKs display distinct, organ-specific developmental RNA expression patterns and respond differently to diverse stimuli (18–28).

Cloning of the brassinosteroid-insensitive mutant bin2 (brassinosteroid-insensitive 2) from Arabidopsis thaliana revealed that BIN2 encodes a GSK (29). bin2 is allelic to dwarf12 (30) and ucu1 (31). Brassinosteroids (BRs) are plant steroid hormones that are important for cell growth and development. BIN2 is a negative regulator of the Arabidopsis BR response. Genetic analyses place BIN2 downstream of the plasma-membrane leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase BRI1 (brassinosteroid-insensitive 1), which mediates the perception of BR signals (32, 33). Conceptually, BIN2 phosphorylates and negatively regulates the BR-responsive transcription factors, BES1 (BRI1-EMS-suppressor 1) and BZR1 (brassinazole-resistant 1) (34–39). It has been proposed that BR signaling inhibits BIN2 activity; however, to date no BR-dependent regulation of BIN2 at the level of the transcript, the protein, or protein activity has been demonstrated. Recently, two additional BIN2-related GSKs have been implicated in BR signaling (39).

Some data point to a role for GSKs in plant stress responses. In Medicago sativa, WIG (wound-induced GSK) is activated upon wounding of leaves. Activation of WIG appears to be a post-translational process, whereas inactivation requires the transcription and translation of one or more proteins (20). MsK4 activity is rapidly induced in alfalfa roots by high salinity stress. Overexpression of MsK4 modulates stress tolerance and carbohydrate metabolism (40). In A. thaliana, plants overexpressing AtGSK-1 showed enhanced salt and drought tolerance (41).

Plant growth and development is severely affected by a multitude of adverse environmental conditions. To respond to these threats, plants have developed sophisticated signal transduction mechanisms that mediate and coordinate physiological responses. Although our knowledge about plant stress signaling has advanced, major gaps still remain. We aimed at identifying novel components in plant stress signal transduction. In a screen for stress-induced alteration of in vivo GSK kinase activities, we identified MsK1, an alfalfa GSK, as an elicitor-responsive GSK. Molecular and phenotypical analyses of transgenic plants indicate that MsK1 has a defense-related function in the plant innate immune response. Moreover, a novel molecular mechanism for GSK regulation is presented.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Plant Cultivation—M. sativa cv. Europa plants were grown hydroponically for 4 days. After treatment with the indicated concentrations of cellulase (Fluka) or proteasome inhibitor MG115 (Sigma), roots were detached beneath the hypocotyl and shock-frozen in liquid nitrogen.

A. thaliana ecotype Columbia (Col-0) seeds were germinated on 0.5x MS medium (Sigma). After 9 days, seedlings were transferred to soil. Plants were grown under long day conditions (16 h light/8 h dark) at 50 µE/(m2 s) cool white light. For infection with Pseudomonas syringae, plants were grown under short day conditions (8 h light/16 h dark). For kinase assays and Western analysis, leaves were detached at the petioles and incubated for 2 h in 0.5x MS medium plus 2% glucose prior to addition of cycloheximide (Sigma), cellulase, or treatment with P. syringae as indicated.

Generation of MsK1-Myc Overexpression Plants—The MsK1 cDNA was tagged with the Myc epitope and put under control of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35 S-promotor and cloned into the binary plant expression vector pGreenII 0029 (42). This construct was used to transform A. thaliana Col-0 plants with the floral dipping method (43). Transformed plants were selected by germination on kanamycin-containing medium.

MsK1-specific Antibody—A rabbit polyclonal antibody was raised against the synthetic peptide QCPFLGL from the C terminus of MsK1 (Davids Biotechnologie). Crude serum antibody was used for immunocomplex kinase assays. For Western analysis, peptide affinity-purified antibody was used. T3/T7 coupled in vitro translation kit (Amersham Biosciences) was used to in vitro translate MsK1, MsK2, MsK4, WIG, and SIMK. Immunodepletion assays were performed by preincubation of 2 µl of MsK1 antibody with 20 µg of immunization peptide at 4 °C prior to Western blotting.

Protein Extraction from Plant Material—Total proteins were extracted from A. thaliana leaves and M. sativa roots by grinding in homogenization buffer (25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 10 mM MgCl2, 15 mM EGTA, 75 mM NaCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM NaF, 0.5 mM NaVO3, 5 mM beta-glycerophosphate, 15 mM 4-nitrophenyl phosphate bis-[tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane], 0.1% Tween 20, 0.5 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 5 µg/ml leupeptin, 5 µg/ml aprotinin) as described (44). Protein amounts were determined by the Bio-Rad Protein Assay (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturer's specifications.

Western Analysis—Equal amounts of proteins were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE and blotted to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Milipore). Membranes were probed with anti-MsK1 or anti-Myc (A-15, Santa-Cruz) antibodies. Alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Santa-Cruz) was used as a secondary antibody. The reaction was detected by enhanced chemiluminescence using the CDP-StarTM detection reagent (Amersham Biosciences).

Immunocomplex Kinase Assays—100 µg of total protein extracts were used for immunocomplex kinase assays as previously described (44). Depending on the batch, the substrate myelin basic protein (MBP; Sigma) was a single or a double band. MsK1-antibody was used to immunoprecipitate MsK1. MsK1-Myc was immunoprecipitated with Myc antibody, 9E10. Specific antibodies against AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 (45, 46) were used to determine MAP kinase activities.

P. syringae Growth Curve Assay—Virulent P. syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (Pst) or avirulent Pst DC3000 AvrRpt2+ was used in all experiments (47–49). Bacteria were grown on NYGA medium (0.5% trypton peptone, 0.3% yeast extract, 2% glycerol, 1.5% Bacto-agar) at 28 °C. For plant infection, liquid cultures were inoculated from plates and grown in NYG medium (0.5% trypton peptone, 0.3% yeast extract, 2% glycerol) at 28 °C overnight. Plants were vacuum infiltrated and bacterial titers were determined as described in Ref. 48.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
MsK1 Activity and Protein Levels Are Regulated by Cellulase—To identify novel functions for plant GSKs, we transiently expressed alfalfa GSKs in protoplasts and analyzed their kinase activities in response to various treatments (50). MsK1 emerged as a potential stress-regulated signaling component. Previously, MsK1 was shown to be expressed in leaves, stems, flowers, and roots (19). To study the function of the MsK1 protein kinase in response to stress, we produced an antibody against MsK1 (supplemental Fig. 1) and used this antibody to determine the in vivo kinase activity of MsK1 by immunokinase assays after exposure of plants to various challenges. We found MsK1 activity to be high under normal growth conditions, whereas exposure to cellulase, which has been described as an elicitor of plant defense responses (46), caused reduced MsK1 activity in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Alfalfa seedlings were exposed to increasing concentrations of cellulase for 10 min. Protein extracts from roots of these seedlings were immunoprecipitated with the MsK1 antibody. Subsequent kinase assays using MBP as a substrate showed that exposure to 0.05% or higher concentrations of cellulase abated MsK1 kinase activity (Fig. 1A, upper panel). Protein gel blot analyses of the same cell extracts revealed that MsK1 protein levels also decreased with increasing cellulase concentrations concomitant with the appearance of a high molecular smear (Fig. 1A, middle panel). Staining of the membrane with Ponceau controlled for equal protein loading (Fig. 1A, lower panel). Cellulase treatment did not affect the steady state RNA expression level of MsK1 (data not shown).


Figure 1
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
Cellulase-induced decrease in MsK1 kinase activity and protein levels in a dose- and time-dependent manner. A, alfalfa seedlings were exposed to increasing concentrations of cellulase for 10 min. B, seedlings were treated with 0.1% cellulase and harvested at the given time points. Protein extracts from roots were immunoprecipitated with MsK1 antibody. Subsequently, kinase activities were determined by kinase assays with [{gamma}-32P]ATP and MBP as a substrate (upper panel). The same protein extracts were used for Western blot analysis (middle panel). Ponceau staining after Western blotting is shown as a loading control (lower panel).

 


Figure 2
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
Proteasome-dependent regulation of MsK1 protein levels. Seedlings were preincubated with 100 µM N-carbobenzoxyl-Leu-Leu-norvalinal (MG115) for 2 h prior to treatment with 0.1% cellulase for the indicated time points. Control seedlings (Ctrl) were not pretreated. MsK1 kinase activity was measured in immunocomplex kinase assays using MBP as a substrate (upper panel). MsK1 protein levels were detected by Western blot analysis (middle panel). Ponceau staining after Western blotting is shown as a loading control (lower panel).

 
To examine the kinetics of MsK1 down-regulation by cellulase, roots were treated with 0.1% cellulase and samples were taken at different time points. Immunokinase assays with the MsK1 antibody showed that MsK1 activity dropped as early as 30 s after application of cellulase and stayed low during the experimental period of 1 h (Fig. 1B, upper panel). In contrast to the rapid decline in MsK1 activity, MsK1 protein levels remained high for 5 min before decreasing (Fig. 1B, middle panel). The high molecular smear appeared after only 30 s of cellulase treatment. These data indicate that the inhibition of MsK1 activity precedes the degradation of the MsK1 protein.

Proteasome-dependent Regulation of MsK1—Proteasome-mediated protein degradation plays an important role in many signaling pathways (51–53). To test whether the disappearance of the MsK1 protein and the concomitant appearance of the high molecular smear depend on the 26 S proteasome, seedlings were pretreated with the proteasome inhibitor N-carbobenzoxyl-Leu-Leu-norvalinal (MG115) prior to cellulase exposure. Immunokinase assays showed that MsK1 activity was comparable in untreated and MG115-treated roots. Application of cellulase decreased MsK1 activity irrespective of the proteasome-inhibitor pretreatment (Fig. 2, upper panel). However, in contrast to roots that had been directly challenged with cellulase, MsK1 protein levels of MG115-pretreated roots remained high (Fig. 2, middle panel). Taken together, inhibition of the proteasome with MG115 prevented MsK1 degradation but did not prevent inhibition of MsK1 kinase activity. These results indicate that MsK1 is controlled at two levels that can be uncoupled: MsK1 kinase activity is first blocked by cellulase and MsK1 protein is then subsequently degraded by a proteasome-dependent mechanism.

Post-transcriptional Regulation of Constitutively Overexpressed MsK1—To investigate the functional role of MsK1, transgenic plants with constitutively high levels of MsK1 activity were analyzed. We generated A. thaliana plants expressing a Myc-tagged version of MsK1 under the control of the strong Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35 S-promoter. Several transgenic lines were obtained. Lines 3 and 13 carried a single T-DNA insertion and were thus selected for further characterization. Protein gel blot analysis using a Myc antibody showed that MsK1-Myc protein was present in lines 3 and 13. No signal was obtained in wild-type plants or in plants transformed with the empty vector (Fig. 3A, upper panel). Immunokinase assays using a Myc antibody revealed that MsK1-Myc kinase was active under normal growth conditions in lines 3 and 13 (Fig. 3A, lower panel).

To analyze the regulation MsK1 in Arabidopsis, MsK1 protein kinase activity was determined in MsK1 overexpressing plants of line 3 after cellulase treatment. Immunokinase assays with the Myc antibody revealed that MsK1-Myc kinase activity was high in untreated plants and was only marginally reduced by cellulase treatment (Fig. 3B, upper panel). Similarly, MsK1 steady state protein levels remained high in cellulase-treated plants (Fig. 3B, middle panel). In wild-type Medicago plants, MsK1 is rapidly inactivated and degraded when exposed to cellulase (Fig. 1). The constant supply of MsK1-Myc by the strong constitutive 35 S-promoter might mask the regulation of MsK1-Myc in the transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Indeed, when protein synthesis was inhibited by cycloheximide (CHX) prior to application of cellulase, MsK1-Myc activity and protein levels decreased in response to cellulase (Fig. 3B). Similar results were obtained with transgenic line 13 (data not shown). Wild-type plants showed neither any Myc-kinase activity nor any protein recognized by the Myc antibody in protein gel blot analysis. These data suggest that MsK1 is regulated post-transcriptionally both in Arabidopsis and Medicago.


Figure 3
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
MsK1-Myc protein stability in overexpressor plants. A, detection of MsK1-Myc protein and kinase activity. Western blot analysis with Myc antibody was performed on total protein extracts from MsK1-Myc overexpressing lines 3 and 13, vector control (V) and wild-type (WT) A. thaliana (upper panel). To determine MsK1-Myc kinase activity, immunocomplex kinase assays with a Myc antibody and MBP as substrate were performed with the same protein extracts (lower panel). B, MsK1-Myc kinase activity and protein amount after cellulase treatment. Seven-day-old seedlings of line 3 and wild-type plants were either untreated (lane 1), treated with 0.2% cellulase for 1 h (lane 2), incubated with 100 µM CHX for 2 h (lane 3), or preincubated with CHX for 1 h prior to a 1-h incubation with cellulase (lane 4). MsK1-Myc kinase activity was determined by immunocomplex kinase assays using a Myc anti-body and MBP as a substrate (upper panel). Protein amounts were analyzed by Western blot analysis using a Myc antibody (middle panel). Ponceau staining after Western blotting is shown as a loading control (lower panel).

 
MsK1 Overexpressing Plants Are More Sensitive to Virulent P. syringae—The MsK1-Myc overexpressing plants were indistinguishable from wild-type and vector control plants when grown under standard conditions. Because cellulase can induce defense responses, the sensitivity of MsK1-Myc overexpressing plants to the bacterial pathogen P. syringae pv. tomato (Pst) DC3000 was assessed. Pst is an agriculturally important plant pathogen that is also strongly pathogenic toward A. thaliana. Pst encodes cell wall degrading enzymes implicated in virulence (54) and belongs to the {gamma} subgroup of Proteobacteria that include a number of important animal and plant pathogens.


Figure 4
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.
MsK1-Myc overexpression plants are more susceptible to virulent Pseudomonas syringae. A, bacterial growth assay. Five-week-old plants overexpressing MsK1-Myc (3 and 13), wild-type (WT), and vector control (V) plants were vacuum infiltrated with 104 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml of Pst DC3000. Immediately after infiltration (0) and 1, 2, 3, and 4 days post-infection, leaf disks were harvested from infected plants and bacterial titers calculated. Error bars indicate the standard deviation calculated from differences between 8 plants per line. The experiment was repeated independently 3 times with similar results. B, MsK1-Myc kinase activity and protein amount upon infection with Pst DC3000. Detached leaves from 5-week-old wild-type and MsK1-Myc overexpressing (line 3) plants were either pretreated with 100 µM CHX or directly vacuum infiltrated with Pst DC3000 at a concentration of 108 colony forming units/ml in 10 mM MgCl2 for 2 min. Control leaves (Ctrl) were infiltrated with 10 mM MgCl2. Leaves incubated with CHX, but not infiltrated, were harvested together with seedlings 1 h after infiltration with Pst DC3000 or MgCl2. MsK1-Myc kinase activity was measured at the indicated time points by immunocomplex kinase assays with Myc antibodies and MBP as a substrate. MsK1-Myc protein levels were detected by Western blot analysis with Myc antibodies. Ponceau staining after Western blotting is shown as a loading control (lower panel).

 
Five-week-old MsK1 overexpressing and control plants were vacuum infiltrated with 104 colony forming units/ml of Pst DC3000. Samples were taken immediately after infiltration and 1, 2, 3, and 4 days post-infection and colony forming units/cm2 leaf area were calculated for each line (Fig. 4A). 1 h after infiltration (Day 0), similar amounts of bacteria were present in MsK1 overexpressing lines 3 and 13 as in wild-type and vector controls. One day post-infection, slightly more bacteria grew in MsK1 overexpressors than in wild-type and vector control plants. This effect was enhanced on day 2 post-infiltration. On day 3, ~8-fold more bacteria were present in MsK1 overexpressors as compared with control plants. On day 4, both transgenic and control plants started to show symptoms of disease and bacterial titers decreased. When plants were infected with the avirulent strain, Pst DC3000 AvrRpt2+, no difference was observed in the susceptibility between MsK1 overexpressing and control plants (supplemental Fig. 2).


Figure 5
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.
Activation of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 is reduced in MsK1-Myc overexpressors upon infection with virulent Pseudomonas. Leaves from 5-week-old wild-type, vector control, and MsK1-Myc overexpressing (line #3 and #13) plants were vacuum-infiltrated with Pst DC3000 at a concentration of 108 colony forming units/ml in 10 mM MgCl2 for 2 min. MAPK activity was analyzed 15, 30, and 60 min after infiltration with Pseudomonas (+). Control leaves were infiltrated with MgCl2 alone (–). AtMPK3 (A) and AtMPK6 (B) kinase activities were determined by immunocomplex kinase assays with AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 antibodies, respectively, using MBP as a substrate.

 
To elucidate the MsK1 kinase activity and protein levels after infection with virulent Pseudomonas, leaves of wild-type and line 3 where either infiltrated with Pst DC3000 or with MgCl2 as control (Fig. 4B). Neither MsK1-Myc kinase activity nor protein levels changed significantly upon bacterial infection. However, when protein synthesis was inhibited by CHX prior to infection with Pseudomonas, both MsK1-Myc kinase activity and protein levels dropped. Infiltration of CHX-incubated leaves with MgCl2 did not change MsK1-Myc activity or protein amounts.

MsK1 Modulates MAP Kinase Activation in Response to Pseudomonas Infection—MAP kinases are integral components of defense pathways (55, 56). The MAP kinases AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 are activated in response to elicitors (46, 57–59). To place MsK1 action within the signaling network, we analyzed AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 activation by Pseudomonas infection in MsK1 overexpressors and wild-type plants. Leaves from 5-week-old plants were detached at the petioles and incubated in MS medium for 2 h to abate MAP kinase activation by leaf abscission. Subsequently, leaves were vacuum infiltrated with either MgCl2 as a control or with Pst DC3000 in MgCl2. Kinase activity of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 were low in control leaves. In wild-type plants, infection with Pst DC3000 transiently induced AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 activity (Fig. 5, A and B, respectively). MAP kinase activities were elevated after 15 min, peaked at 30 min, and decreased again after 60 min. A similar MAP kinase activation pattern was observed in vector control plants. However, in MsK1 overexpressing lines 3 and 13, AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 activation by Pst DC3000 infection was substantially reduced, suggesting that MsK1 down-regulation in response to virulent Pseudomonas infection is a prerequisite for proper induction of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 activity.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Whereas GSK-3 is recognized as a crucial component of diverse cellular processes and much effort has been put into analyzing the molecular regulation of GSK-3 in animals, cellular functions of plant GSKs are just beginning to emerge and their regulation remains obscure. In this study, we discovered that cellulase inhibits the activity of MsK1. Interestingly, we found that following inhibition of MsK1 activity by cellulase, MsK1 protein is degraded in a proteasome-dependent manner. In a transgenic approach, we abrogated the reduction of MsK1 activity and protein levels by stress. These plants showed an enhanced pathogen susceptibility phenotype, indicating a defense-regulatory function for MsK1.

In natural environments, plants are constantly exposed to pathogens that can severely reduce host fitness. Plants have developed an array of constitutive and inducible defense strategies to combat pathogen attack (60). Preformed barriers including the plant cell wall effectively repel many pathogens. In a second line of defense, plants respond to pathogen invasion by a complex web of signaling pathways aimed at restricting pathogen growth. Significant progress has been made in understanding defense-related pathways in incompatible interactions between avirulent microbes and plants. However, little is known about the signaling mechanisms that restrict the growth of virulent pathogens in compatible interactions.

Here, we provide evidence that MsK1 might serve as a negative regulatory component involved in limiting the growth of the virulent bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae. MsK1 kinase activity was found to be high in healthy plants but was inhibited following elicitor treatment. In transgenic plants, expressing MsK1 from a strong constitutive promoter MsK1 was not impaired by pathogen infection. However, when translation was blocked, infection with Pseudomonas led to inhibition of MsK1 activity and reduction of MsK1 protein levels, indicating that the constant replenishment of MsK1 by the constitutive promoter could override the pathogen-induced repression of MsK1. Overexpression of MsK1 allowed significantly more growth of Pst DC3000 as compared with wild-type plants, indicating a negative regulatory role of MsK1 in basal resistance. Basal resistance to invasive pathogens is an important defense mechanism as without it, plants become extremely susceptible to even mild infections.

Interestingly, MsK1 overexpressors showed enhanced susceptibility to virulent Pseudomonas but retained the ability to restrict growth of an isogenic avirulent strain carrying the avirulence gene AvrRpt2+. This observation indicates a role for MsK1 in the basal defense response rather than in R gene-mediated resistance. In line with our results, some eds (enhanced disease susceptibility) mutants also show enhanced growth of virulent bacteria but maintain full resistance to avirulent bacteria (61). In addition, coi1 (coronatine-insensitive 1) and bik1 (botrytis-induced kinase 1) mutants show increased resistance to virulent Pst DC3000 but a normal response to an avirulent strain (62, 63). In future, it will be interesting to elucidate whether MsK1 functions together with these components in a signaling pathway.

Plant defense responses involve a complex interplay of plant hormones (64). Salicylic acid (SA) levels increase in response to bacterial infection, and plants that cannot accumulate SA are highly susceptible to infection with Pseudomonas. The enhanced disease susceptibility of MsK1 overexpressing plants could be due to a defect in SA accumulation. However, determination of SA levels following Pst infection showed normal accumulation of free SA and SA glycoside as compared with wild-type plants. Similarly, ethylene and jasmonic acid levels were comparable in wild-type and in MsK1 overexpressing plants (data not shown), indicating that the enhanced disease susceptibility of MsK1 overexpressors is not an effect of impaired hormone levels. These observations suggest that MsK1-based signaling functions independently or downstream of SA, ethylene, and jasmonic acid.

In this study, we show that AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 are activated by virulent Pst DC3000 and that full activation of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 depends on MsK1. MAP kinases are integral elements of defense signaling pathways and mediate the activation of innate immune responses in plants and animals (55, 56, 65). In plants, AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 are activated in response to elicitors (46, 57–59) and silencing of AtMPK6 has been reported to compromise resistance to avirulent and virulent P. syringae (66). In the presence of constitutive high levels of MsK1 (that do not decrease after pathogen infection), we observed a reduced pathogen-induced activation of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6. The compromised activation of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 by Pst DC3000 infection in MsK1 overexpressing plants positions MsK1 in the defense signaling network upstream of these MAP kinases.

Our results imply that MsK1 might act as a negative regulatory component in a signal transduction pathway important for basal immunity. Inhibition of MsK1 activity and the subsequent degradation of MsK1 by the proteasome appear to be important for restricting pathogen growth. Over the past few years, the proteasome has been recognized as a crucial regulator of plant responses to pathogens. SGT1 (suppressor of the G2 allele of skp1–4) is a key component of SCF (Skp1/cullin/F-box protein) E3-ligase complex-regulated pathways necessary for early defense against pathogens (67–69). The F-box proteins COI1 (coronatine insensitive 1) (70) and SON1 (supressor of nim1–1) (71) are positive and negative regulators of plant defense, respectively. Moreover, components of the COP9 (constitutive photomorphogenic 9) signalosome are involved in protein degradation by the proteasome essential for pathogen resistance (68). Our data indicate that the abundance of MsK1 is controlled by the proteasome. In healthy plants, MsK1 protein levels and MsK1 activity are high, whereas the activities of AtMPK3 and AtMPK6 are low. After infection with virulent Pseudomonas, MsK1 is down-regulated and MAP kinase activity can be induced to further relay the signal to trigger downstream defense responses.

In contrast to most protein kinases, animal GSK-3 is generally present in an active form and is inactivated in response to upstream signaling events. It is currently thought that inhibition of GSK-3 is either attained by phosphorylation of an N-terminal serine residue by upstream kinases or by sequestration into a repressive protein complex (5). Similar to animals, MsK1 is active under normal growth conditions and its activity is inhibited upon stimulation by extracellular signals. However, treatment with cellulase or infection with virulent Pseudomonas not only repressed MsK1 kinase activity but also induced MsK1 protein degradation. Inhibitor studies indicate that, upon elicitor treatment, MsK1 becomes degraded by the proteasome, which is a novel mechanism for GSK-3 regulation. Moreover, our observation that inhibition of the proteasome stabilizes MsK1 protein but does not prevent inhibition of MsK1 kinase activity indicates that inhibition of MsK1 kinase activity and degradation of MsK1 protein are two distinct processes that can be uncoupled.

The N-terminal serine residue involved in the regulation of GSK-3 activity in mammals and Drosophila is not conserved in plant GSKs (16). This observation does not exclude a role of protein phosphorylation in regulating MsK1 activity. We intend to study this as well as the possibility that MsK1 associates with proteins in different complexes in the future.

Inhibition of GSK-3 activity by upstream signaling events might be a conserved regulatory mechanism for plant GSKs. Analysis of bin2 suggests that BR signaling represses BIN2 activity by a yet unknown mechanism to allow BR-mediated cellular responses (29). On the other hand, there are studies that indicate that distinct GSK family members are regulated by different mechanisms. There is evidence that GSKs are activated in response to different signals. Wounding transiently activates WIG (20) at the post-translational level and hyperosmotic stress induces MsK4 activity (40). Similarly, in Caenorhabditis elegans and Dictyostelium GSK-3 is activated in response to specific stimuli (72). Thus, distinct GSKs might serve as positive or negative regulators and the kinase activity could either be induced or inhibited upon pathway stimulation, opening the possibility that GSK-3 signaling is highly complex in nature.

The molecular basis for innate immunity is remarkably conserved across kingdom borders (73). In this regard, it is interesting that GSK-3 was recently shown to be involved in modulating the innate immune system in mammals (74, 75). In response to pathogenic stimuli, GSK-3 exerts a critical function in differentially controlling the production of pro- versus anti-inflammatory cytokinins. However, whereas the regulatory function of GSK-3 in defense appears to be evolutionary conserved between animals and plants, MsK1 seems to be regulated by a novel mechanism involving targeted protein degradation by the proteasome.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

Formula The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains supplemental Figs. S1–S3. Back

1 Current address: Dept. of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, PL 65 Viikinkaari 1, Fi-00014 Finland. Back

2 Current address: Gregor Mendel Institute of Molecular Plant Biology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Biocenter, Dr. Bohrgasse 3, A-1030 Vienna, Austria. Back

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Current address: Gregor Mendel Institute of Molecular Plant Biology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Biocenter, Dr. Bohrgasse 3, A-1030 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: 43-1-79044-9850; Fax: 43-1-79044-9001; E-mail: claudia.jonak{at}gmi.oeaw.ac.at.

4 The abbreviations used are: GSK-3, glycogen synthase kinase-3; CHX, cycloheximide; SA, salicylic acid; Pst, P. syringae pv. tomato; BR, brassinosteroid; MAP kinase, mitogen-activated protein kinase; WIG, wound-induced GSK; GSKs, glycogen synthase kinase-3/shaggy-like kinases; MBP, myelin basis protein. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank A. Bent for the Pseudomonas strains, G. Brader and J. Kangasjärvi for jasmonic acid and ethylene measurements, H. Hirt for the MAP kinase antibodies and discussions, and A. Auer for technical assistance. We are grateful to M. Brosche, P. Jaspers, K. Overmyer, and J. Vahala for critically reading the manuscript.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Embi, N., Rylatt, D. B., and Cohen, P. (1980) Eur. J. Biochem. 107, 519–527[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Woodgett, J. R., and Cohen, P. (1984) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 788, 339–347[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Cohen, P., and Frame, S. (2001) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2, 769–776[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Doble, B. W., and Woodgett, J. R. (2003) J. Cell Sci. 116, 1175–1186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Jope, R. S., and Johnson, G. V. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci 29, 95–102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Logan, C. Y., and Nusse, R. (2004) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 20, 781–810[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. van Amerongen, R., and Berns, A. (2005) Cell Cycle 4, 1065–1072[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Li, L., Yuan, H., Weaver, C. D., Mao, J., Farr, G. H., 3rd, Sussman, D. J., Jonkers, J., Kimelman, D., and Wu, D. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 4233–4240[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Thomas, G. M., Frame, S., Goedert, M., Nathke, I., Polakis, P., and Cohen, P. (1999) FEBS Lett. 458, 247–251[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Yost, C., Farr, G. H., 3rd, Pierce, S. B., Ferkey, D. M., Chen, M. M., and Kimelman, D. (1998) Cell 93, 1031–1041[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Cross, D. A., Alessi, D. R., Cohen, P., Andjelkovich, M., and Hemmings, B. A. (1995) Nature 378, 785–789[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Shaw, M., Cohen, P., and Alessi, D. R. (1998) Biochem. J. 336, 241–246
  13. Frame, S., Cohen, P., and Biondi, R. M. (2001) Mol. Cell 7, 1321–1327[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Dajani, R., Fraser, E., Roe, S. M., Young, N., Good, V., Dale, T. C., and Pearl, L. H. (2001) Cell 105, 721–732[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. ter Haar, E., Coll, J. T., Austen, D. A., Hsiao, H. M., Swenson, L., and Jain, J. (2001) Nat. Struct. Biol. 8, 593–596[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Jonak, C., and Hirt, H. (2002) Trends Plant Sci. 7, 457–461[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Yoo, M. J., Albert, V. A., Soltis, P. S., and Soltis, D. E. (2006) BMC Plant Biol. 6, 3–17[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Piao, H. L., Pih, K. T., Lim, J. H., Kang, S. G., Jin, J. B., Kim, S. H., and Hwang, I. (1999) Plant Physiol. 119, 1527–1534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Pay, A., Jonak, C., Bogre, L., Meskiene, I., Mairinger, T., Szalay, A., Heberle-Bors, E., and Hirt, H. (1993) Plant J. 3, 847–856[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Jonak, C., Beisteiner, D., Beyerly, J., and Hirt, H. (2000) Plant Cell 12, 1467–1476[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Jonak, C., Heberle-Bors, E., and Hirt, H. (1995) Plant Mol. Biol. 27, 217–221[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Charrier, B., Champion, A., Henry, Y., and Kreis, M. (2002) Plant Physiol. 130, 577–590[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Dornelas, M. C., Wittich, P., von Recklinghausen, I., van Lammeren, A., and Kreis, M. (1999) Plant Mol. Biol. 39, 137–147[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Dornelas, M. C., Van Lammeren, A. A., and Kreis, M. (2000) Plant J. 21, 419–429[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Tichtinsky, G., Tavares, R., Takvorian, A., Schwebel-Dugue, N., Twell, D., and Kreis, M. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1442, 261–273[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Einzenberger, E., Eller, N., Heberle-Bors, E., and Vicente, O. (1995) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1260, 315–319[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Decroocq-Ferrant, V., Van Went, J., Bianchi, M. W., de Vries, S. C., and Kreis, M. (1995) Plant J. 7, 897–911[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Richard, O., Paquet, N., Haudecoeur, E., and Charrier, B. (2005) J. Mol. Evol. 61, 99–113[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Li, J., and Nam, K. H. (2002) Science 295, 1299–1301[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Choe, S., Schmitz, R. J., Fujioka, S., Takatsuto, S., Lee, M. O., Yoshida, S., Feldmann, K. A., and Tax, F. E. (2002) Plant Physiol. 130, 1506–1515[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Perez-Perez, J. M., Ponce, M. R., and Micol, J. L. (2002) Dev. Biol. 242, 161–173[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Li, J., and Chory, J. (1997) Cell 90, 929–938[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Kinoshita, T., Cano-Delgado, A., Seto, H., Hiranuma, S., Fujioka, S., Yoshida, S., and Chory, J. (2005) Nature 433, 167–171[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Zhao, J., Peng, P., Schmitz, R. J., Decker, A. D., Tax, F. E., and Li, J. (2002) Plant Physiol. 130, 1221–1229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. He, J. X., Gendron, J. M., Yang, Y., Li, J., and Wang, Z. Y. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 11, 11[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Yin, Y., Wang, Z. Y., Mora-Garcia, S., Li, J., Yoshida, S., Asami, T., and Chory, J. (2002) Cell 109, 181–191[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Yin, Y., Vafeados, D., Tao, Y., Yoshida, S., Asami, T., and Chory, J. (2005) Cell 120, 249–259[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. He, J. X., Gendron, J. M., Sun, Y., Gampala, S. S., Gendron, N., Sun, C. Q., and Wang, Z. Y. (2005) Science 307, 1634–1638[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Vert, G., and Chory, J. (2006) Nature 441, 96–100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Kempa, S., Rozhon, W., Samaj, J., Erban, A., Baluska, F., Becker, T., Haselmayer, J., Schleiff, S., Kopka, J., Hirt, H., and Jonak, C. (2007) Plant J., in press
  41. Piao, H. L., Lim, J. H., Kim, S. J., Cheong, G. W., and Hwang, I. (2001) Plant J. 27, 305–314[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Hellens, R. P., Edwards, E. A., Leyland, N. R., Bean, S., and Mullineaux, P. M. (2000) Plant Mol. Biol. 42, 819–832[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Clough, S. J., and Bent, A. F. (1998) Plant J. 16, 735–743[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Jonak, C., Kiegerl, S., Ligterink, W., Barker, P. J., Huskisson, N. S., and Hirt, H. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 11274–11279[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Cardinale, F., Jonak, C., Ligterink, W., Niehaus, K., Boller, T., and Hirt, H. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 36734–36740[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Rentel, M. C., Lecourieux, D., Ouaked, F., Usher, S. L., Petersen, L., Okamoto, H., Knight, H., Peck, S. C., Grierson, C. S., Hirt, H., and Knight, M. R. (2004) Nature 427, 858–861[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Cuppels, D. A. (1986) Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51, 323–327[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Whalen, M. C., Innes, R. W., Bent, A. F., and Staskawicz, B. J. (1991) Plant Cell 3, 49–59[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Yu, I. C., Parker, J., and Bent, A. F. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 7819–7824[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Wrzaczek, M. (2004) MsK1, a Glycogen Synthase Kinase from Medicago sativa, Modulates Plant Stress Tolerance. Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna
  51. Moon, J., Parry, G., and Estelle, M. (2004) Plant Cell 16, 3181–3195[Free Full Text]
  52. Smalle, J., and Vierstra, R. D. (2004) Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55, 555–590[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Sullivan, J. A., Shirasu, K., and Deng, X. W. (2003) Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 948–958[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Buell, C. R., Joardar, V., Lindeberg, M., Selengut, J., Paulsen, I. T., Gwinn, M. L., Dodson, R. J., Deboy, R. T., Durkin, A. S., Kolonay, J. F., Madupu, R., Daugherty, S., Brinkac, L., Beanan, M. J., Haft, D. H., Nelson, W. C., Davidsen, T., Zafar, N., Zhou, L., Liu, J., Yuan, Q., Khouri, H., Fedorova, N., Tran, B., Russell, D., Berry, K., Utterback, T., Van Aken, S. E., Feldblyum, T. V., D'Ascenzo, M., Deng, W. L., Ramos, A. R., Alfano, J. R., Cartinhour, S., Chatterjee, A. K., Delaney, T. P., Lazarowitz, S. G., Martin, G. B., Schneider, D. J., Tang, X., Bender, C. L., White, O., Fraser, C. M., and Collmer, A. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 10181–10186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Nakagami, H., Pitzschke, A., and Hirt, H. (2005) Trends Plant Sci. 10, 339–346[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  56. Pedley, K. F., and Martin, G. B. (2005) Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8, 541–547[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Asai, T., Tena, G., Plotnikova, J., Willmann, M. R., Chiu, W. L., Gomez-Gomez, L., Boller, T., Ausubel, F. M., and Sheen, J. (2002) Nature 415, 977–983[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Desikan, R., Hancock, J. T., Ichimura, K., Shinozaki, K., and Neill, S. J. (2001) Plant Physiol. 126, 1579–1587[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Nuhse, T. S., Peck, S. C., Hirt, H., and Boller, T. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 7521–7526[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Thordal-Christensen, H. (2003) Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 6, 351–357[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Volko, S. M., Boller, T., and Ausubel, F. M. (1998) Genetics 149, 537–548[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Kloek, A. P., Verbsky, M. L., Sharma, S. B., Schoelz, J. E., Vogel, J., Klessig, D. F., and Kunkel, B. N. (2001) Plant J. 26, 509–522[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Veronese, P., Nakagami, H., Bluhm, B., Abuqamar, S., Chen, X., Salmeron, J., Dietrich, R. A., Hirt, H., and Mengiste, T. (2006) Plant Cell 18, 257–273[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Kunkel, B. N., and Brooks, D. M. (2002) Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5, 325–331[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Zhang, Y. L., and Dong, C. (2005) Cell Mol. Immunol. 2, 20–27[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Menke, F. L., van Pelt, J. A., Pieterse, C. M., and Klessig, D. F. (2004) Plant Cell 16, 897–907[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Azevedo, C., Sadanandom, A., Kitagawa, K., Freialdenhoven, A., Shirasu, K., and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2002) Science 295, 2073–2076[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Liu, Y., Schiff, M., Serino, G., Deng, X. W., and Dinesh-Kumar, S. P. (2002) Plant Cell 14, 1483–1496[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Austin, M. J., Muskett, P., Kahn, K., Feys, B. J., Jones, J. D., and Parker, J. E. (2002) Science 295, 2077–2080[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Xie, D. X., Feys, B. F., James, S., Nieto-Rostro, M., and Turner, J. G. (1998) Science 280, 1091–1094[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Kim, H. S., and Delaney, T. P. (2002) Plant Cell 14, 1469–1482[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Kim, L., and Kimmel, A. R. (2000) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10, 508–514[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  73. Jones, D. A., and Takemoto, D. (2004) Curr. Opin. Immunol. 16, 48–62[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  74. Jing, H., Yen, J. H., and Ganea, D. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 55176–55186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Martin, M., Rehani, K., Jope, R. S., and Michalek, S. M. (2005) Nat. Immunol. 6, 777–784[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
Z. Yan, J. Zhao, P. Peng, R. K. Chihara, and J. Li
BIN2 Functions Redundantly with Other Arabidopsis GSK3-Like Kinases to Regulate Brassinosteroid Signaling
Plant Physiology, June 1, 2009; 150(2): 710 - 721.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol PlantHome page
P. Peng, Z. Yan, Y. Zhu, and J. Li
Regulation of the Arabidopsis GSK3-like Kinase BRASSINOSTEROID-INSENSITIVE 2 through Proteasome-Mediated Protein Degradation
Mol Plant, March 1, 2008; 1(2): 338 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/8/5249    most recent
M610135200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wrzaczek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jonak, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wrzaczek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jonak, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement