Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Review

Differential responses to salt-induced oxidative stress in three phylogenetically related plant species: Arabidopsis thaliana (glycophyte), Thellungiella salsuginea and Cakile maritima (halophytes). Involvement of ROS and NO in the control of K+/Na+ homeostasis

  • Salinity, which is usually associated with a nitro-oxidative stress component, is one of the major environmental factors limiting plant growth and development. Plants have thus developed specific ways of dealing with this problem. The compartmentalization of sodium (Na+) ions in vacuoles and the capacity to sharply discriminate between potassium (K+) and Na+ in order to maintain high K+/Na+ ratios are two of the most effective strategies to overcome salt stress. Plants require large amounts of K+ to maximize growth and yields. This macronutrient is involved in physiological processes such as growth, photosynthesis, osmoregulation, enzyme activation, stomatal movement, water and nutrient transport via the xylem and protein synthesis. Resistance to salt stress is mainly related to the capacity of plants to maintain improved K+ uptake despite competition from Na+. The Brassicaceae family includes species such as Arabidopsis thaliana (plant model for glycophytes), Thellungiella salsuginea and Cakile maritima (plant models for halophytes), which exhibit significant variations in response to salt stress. In this review, we provide a comprehensive update with respect to differential responses to salt stress in these three plant species, with particular emphasis on the potential involvement of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) in maintaining K+/Na+ homeostasis and their contribution to salt tolerance.

    Citation: Hayet Houmani, Francisco J Corpas. Differential responses to salt-induced oxidative stress in three phylogenetically related plant species: Arabidopsis thaliana (glycophyte), Thellungiella salsuginea and Cakile maritima (halophytes). Involvement of ROS and NO in the control of K+/Na+ homeostasis[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(3): 380-397. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.3.380

    Related Papers:

    [1] Lars H. Wegner . Cotransport of water and solutes in plant membranes: The molecular basis, and physiological functions. AIMS Biophysics, 2017, 4(2): 192-209. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.2.192
    [2] Nita R. Shah, Keni Vidilaseris, Henri Xhaard, Adrian Goldman . Integral membrane pyrophosphatases: a novel drug target for human pathogens?. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(1): 171-194. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.1.171
    [3] Mary Jane Beilby, Sabah Al Khazaaly . Re-modeling Chara action potential: II. The action potential form under salinity stress. AIMS Biophysics, 2017, 4(2): 298-315. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.2.298
    [4] Alexander G. Volkov, Yuri B. Shtessel . Propagation of electrotonic potentials in plants: Experimental study and mathematical modeling. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(3): 358-379. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.3.358
    [5] Keleabetswe L. Mpye, Samantha Gildenhuys, Salerwe Mosebi . The effects of temperature on streptavidin-biotin binding using affinity isothermal titration calorimetry. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(4): 236-247. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020018
    [6] Mary Jane Beilby, Sabah Al Khazaaly . Re-modeling Chara action potential: I. from Thiel model of Ca2+transient to action potential form. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(3): 431-449. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.3.431
    [7] Charles O. Nwamba, Ferdinand C. Chilaka, Ali Akbar Moosavi-Movahedi . Cation modulation of hemoglobin interaction with sodium n-dodecyl sulphate (SDS) iv: magnesium modulation at pH 7.20. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(1): 146-170. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.1.146
    [8] Ashwani Kumar Vashishtha, William H. Konigsberg . The effect of different divalent cations on the kinetics and fidelity of Bacillus stearothermophilus DNA polymerase. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(2): 125-143. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.2.125
    [9] Yoshiji Hantani, Hiroshi Imamura, Tsubasa Yamamoto, Akane Senga, Yuri Yamagami, Minoru Kato, Fusako Kawai, Masayuki Oda . Functional characterizations of polyethylene terephthalate-degrading cutinase-like enzyme Cut190 mutants using bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate as the model substrate. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(4): 290-302. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.4.290
    [10] Sudarat Tharad, Chontida Tangsongcharoen, Panadda Boonserm, José L. Toca-Herrera, Kanokporn Srisucharitpanit . Local conformations affect the histidine tag-Ni2+ binding affinity of BinA and BinB proteins. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(3): 133-143. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020011
  • Salinity, which is usually associated with a nitro-oxidative stress component, is one of the major environmental factors limiting plant growth and development. Plants have thus developed specific ways of dealing with this problem. The compartmentalization of sodium (Na+) ions in vacuoles and the capacity to sharply discriminate between potassium (K+) and Na+ in order to maintain high K+/Na+ ratios are two of the most effective strategies to overcome salt stress. Plants require large amounts of K+ to maximize growth and yields. This macronutrient is involved in physiological processes such as growth, photosynthesis, osmoregulation, enzyme activation, stomatal movement, water and nutrient transport via the xylem and protein synthesis. Resistance to salt stress is mainly related to the capacity of plants to maintain improved K+ uptake despite competition from Na+. The Brassicaceae family includes species such as Arabidopsis thaliana (plant model for glycophytes), Thellungiella salsuginea and Cakile maritima (plant models for halophytes), which exhibit significant variations in response to salt stress. In this review, we provide a comprehensive update with respect to differential responses to salt stress in these three plant species, with particular emphasis on the potential involvement of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) in maintaining K+/Na+ homeostasis and their contribution to salt tolerance.


    1. Introduction

    Before eukaryotes, the life of DNA was somewhat simpler. Bacterial genomes are compact, ranging in size from 1 to 10 Mb, and they contain very little non-coding DNA (on average, less than 15%) [1]. Most of the bacterial DNA is readily accessible for sequence-specific DNA binding proteins making gene regulation transparent [2,3,4]. Genes are switched “ON” or “OFF” in response to environmental signals through unperturbed binding of transcription activators or repressors respectively. The logic of bacterial gene control can be effectively described knowing the affinities of regulatory proteins to DNA and their concentrations under the framework of François Jacob and Jacques Monod model [5,6,7,8]. In brief, following the classic Jacob and Monod example of Escherichia coli lactose (lac) operon gene switch, it has been shown that in the absence of lactose, a lac repressor protein (LacI) binds DNA sequence located downstream of lac operon promoter. When lactose is available, it binds to the LacI repressor resulting in LacI displacement from DNA. Following LacI removal, RNA polymerase is free to bind to lac operon promoter sequence initiating the transcription of lacZ, lacY and lacA effector genes. The activation of lac operon is aided by the sigma factor and CAP (Catabolite Activator Protein) in complex with cAMP (Figure 1A). The proteins translated from lac operon mRNA are used then by E. coli to metabolize lactose [5,9]. Thus, a simple allosteric modulation of repressor affinity to DNA triggered by environmental/metabolic signal s can switch bacterial gene circuitries “ON”/”OFF” to guarantee adequate cellular response to new conditions.

    Figure 1. A Jacob-Monod model for E. coli lac operon (A) in comparison with Ashburner’s model for ecdysone signalling cascade (B).

    By large, since its inception in 1961, the paradigm of Jacob and Monod remains instrumental in the dissection of regulatory mechanisms of gene activation and repression. This model led to the establishment of common principles of gene regulation not only for prokaryotes, but also for eukaryotes [10]. In eukaryotes, one of the first demonstrations of Jacob-Monod model came from pioneering studies of Michael Ashburner on regulation of Drosophila melanogaster ecdysone inducible genes. During Drosophila development, pulses of ecdysone hormone trigger sequential activation of a number of genes required for developmental transitions from embryo to larvae, to pupae and to adult. Ligand-bound ecdysone receptor (EcR) induces the expression of “early” but inhibits “late” genes. The products of “early” ecdysone inducible genes activate the expression of “late” genes leading to a cascade of genetic switches (Figure 1B) [11,12]. In essence, quoting Jacques Monod this shows that “what is true for E. coli is also true for the elephant”. However, there are a number of aspects unique for eukaryotes, where the standard Jacob-Monod model is limited. In this review, I will highlight the parallels and differences between prokaryote and eukaryote gene regulation, and I will attempt to illustrate the limitations of gene-centric view imposed by Jacob-Monod interpretation.

    2. DNA Packaging Problem

    To begin, let’s firstly note that the size of eukaryotic genomes is orders of magnitude larger than that of bacteria, which ranges from about 10 Mb to 100 Gb [1]. Secondly, eukaryotic DNA is split into many linear chromosomes confined within a nucleus. If we take all chromosomes from a single human diploid cell and stretch them, the resulting length of DNA will be enormous totalling about 2 meters. This is 200’000 times longer than average diameter of cell nuclei. Thus, these initial conditions necessitate to keep DNA molecules compact enough—to fit into the nucleus, and ordered—to ensure the fidelity of replication, segregation and expression. But how can it be achieved?

    There are several imaginable strategies to solve DNA packaging problem. Firstly, DNA can be randomly coiled into a globule within the nuclear interior. In a simplistic model, DNA can be described as a chain consisting of freely joint stiff links with Kuhn length (lk) of ~ 100 nm (two times the persistence length of DNA) [13,14,15]. Then, given an average length for human chromosomes of ~ 120 Mb (~ 40 mm), the average radius of randomly compacted DNA globule would be ~ 60 µm (r= N1/2lk; where N is the number of Kuhn segments). This already provides a good level of compaction, but it still exceeds the nuclear diameter 6 times and there are 46 of such DNA coils that have to be packaged within a single nucleus. Fortunately, given a rather low density of Gaussian coils, they can, in principle, be squeezed into the nuclear volume before incurring insurmountable energy costs [16].

    Although simple and energetically attractive, Gaussian coils formed by random walk are expected to be in a disordered state, in which DNA threads are mixed and tangled [17]. Intuitively, this does not seem to be compatible with cellular demands for organized control over genetic material. To address the needs of keeping DNA packaged inside the nucleus but yet ordered, nucleosome emerged in evolution of eukaryotes. Nucleosome, a term coined by Pierre Chambon [18], defines a protein-DNA complex, in which a 147 bp of DNA is wrapped in ~ 1.7 left-handed superhelical turns around a positively-charged protein spool comprising one tetramer of histones H3 and H4, and two dimers of histones H2A and H2B [19,20,21]. On the exit, adjacent stretch of DNA wraps around another histone spool separated from the previous by 10-50 bp of linker DNA, and this wrapping process is repeated until all DNA is packaged (Figure 2A) [22]. When visualised by electron microscopy, at a low ionic strength the resulting structure resembles a collection of beads (histone octamers) on a DNA string, and, hence, it is known as “beads on a string” [18,23,24]. In total, depending on the organism and cell type, 75-90% of eukaryotic DNA is wrapped onto histone spools [25], which corresponds to 20-25 million nucleosomes per diploid human genome.

    Figure 2. Three DNA packaging strategies found in eukaryotes. A) In most of eukaryotes DNA is assembled into nucleosome arrays forming a 10 nm chromatin fiber. Stacking between nucleosomes in two-start helix (alternatively one-start solenoid) results in 30 nm chromatin fiber. Dimensions are shown for two-start chromatin helix of 12 nucleosomes with repeat length of 187 bp according to [26]. Histone H1 (green circles) binds linker DNA near the entry and exit sites of nucleosomal DNA. Chromatin fiber folds further into fractal globule through a combination of short- and long-range interactions (Koch snowflake is shown for illustration purposes). Fractal globules occupy individual chromosome territories in the nucleus. B) In sperm chromatin, DNA is packaged into toroids by protamines. C) Dinoflagellates lack histones and their DNA is condensed into cholesteric liquid crystalline chromosomes.

    “Beads on a string” is the most basal and fundamental level of DNA packaging into chromatin found in most of the species from Eukaryota domain. Of note, however, there are several exceptions to that. 1) In many sexually reproducing animal species, sperm DNA is tightly packaged into a compact, needle-shaped nucleus by protamines, a diverse group of fast-evolving basic (positively-charged) proteins distinct from core histones [27,28]. Protamines coil DNA into toroids, each containing ~ 50 kb of DNA and scaling ~ 90 nm in outer diameter with a hole of ~ 15 nm. Toroids are separated by nuclease-sensitive DNA linkers, which are assembled into remaining nucleosomes and are attached to sperm nuclear matrix (Figure 2B) [28,29,30,31,32]. Such extreme packaging enhances sperm hydrodynamicity and protects paternal genome from damage while it is on its way to oocyte. DNA often assumes toroidal shape in vitro in the presence of multivalent (+3 or greater) cations, such as spermidine3+, spermine4+, Co3+, etc., and, in many viruses, DNA is packaged into viral capsid as toroid [30,33,34,35,36]. 2) In dinoflagellates, a group of mixotrophic flagellate protists, DNA is packaged in the absence of core histones into a cholesteric liquid crystalline chromosomes with the help of bivalent counterions, such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ [37,38,39,40]. In cholesteric liquid crystalline phase, DNA molecules are ordered into the stacks of highly condensed discs, in which DNA strands are aligned along director axes, connected by DNA loops. Director axes twist along the cholesteric axis with half the helical pitch (P/2) ranging from 0.15 to 0.3 mm depending on the species (Figure 2C) [41]. Dinoflagellate genomes are among the largest known eukaryotic genomes reaching in size ~ 100-150 Gb [42]. The nuclear concentration of DNA in dinoflagellates is up to 80 times higher than that in human cells (~ 200 mg/ml), while protein to DNA ratio is 10 times less (~ 1:10) than for the typical nucleosome-based chromatin [43,44]. Interestingly, at such extreme concentrations, DNA naturally transits to cholesteric liquid crystalline phase [45,46]. Although beyond the scope of this review, these non-canonical DNA condensation approaches emphasize the diversity of possible solutions to DNA packaging problem explored by nature.

    Upon assembly of DNA into array of nucleosome, in vitro, the resulting 10-nm chromatin fiber tends to coil into a more compact 30-nm fiber due to stacking interactions between neighbouring nucleosome core particles. Since the discovery of the 30-nm chromatin fiber, there were two major competing models of how nucleosomes can be arranged within the fiber [47,48]. In the first model, nucleosome array is thought to coil into a one-start solenoid helix [47,49]. In the second model, nucleosomes are arranged into two stacks separated by the linker DNA zigzagging back and forth between the stacks [26,48,50,51]. Although the exact geometry of 30-nm fiber and whether it even exists in living cells is actively debated [52,53,54,55,56,57], recent cryo-EM studies of in vitro assembled chromatin fibers support the latter two-start model with the linker histone H1 zipped between two stacks (Figure 2A) [26,58]. However, it has to be noted that in most of these studies nucleosome arrays with fixed nucleosome repeat length are often used to reconstitute a 30 nm fiber; a condition difficult to expect in living cells.

    Assembly of DNA into nucleosome arrays achieves the packaging ratio of ~ 5-10 for 10 nm chromatin fiber and ~ 50 for 30 nm chromatin fiber [59], but the resulting fibers are still too long to fit into nuclear dimensions. If we coil 30 nm chromatin fiber randomly, the expected globule radius for average human chromosome (~ 120 Mb) would be ~ 20 µm (r = (Lclk)1/2; where Lc is the contour length—1333.33 µm at mass density of 90 bp/nm and lk is the Kuhn length— ~ 0.3 µm for 30 nm fiber) [60]. This globule is already 3 times more compact than that formed by the “naked” DNA (~ 60 µm for 120 Mb), but it exceeds nuclear diameter (~ 10 µm), necessitating an additional level of compaction. This is achieved through a combination of short- and long-range interactions on chromatin fiber mediated by non-histone proteins. A wealth of data has been accumulated recently on pair-wise associations between distinct chromosomal loci by 3C (Chromatin Conformation Capture) related techniques, such as 4C, 5C, Hi-C, etc., on genome-wide scale [61,62,63,64]. These studies reveal that 1) the majority of interactions are intra-chromosomal substantiating earlier observations that chromosomes are confined within chromosome territories; and 2) the probability of contacts depends on genomic distance (s) as power low with exponent −1 or so (P(s)~ s-1) suggesting that chromatin fiber is folded into fractal globule (Figure 2A) [63,64,65,66]. Fractal globule (FG) has a number of useful implications for eukaryotic genome organization and regulation: 1) folding of chromatin fiber into FG ensures separation of chromosomes into distinct territories; 2) FG is demixed (unknotted) at all length scales allowing for rapid unfolding of any region to make it accessible for regulatory proteins [17,67,68,69]. However, the precise configuration and dynamics of chromatin globule remains an actively investigated issue and alternative models have been proposed including Dynamic Loop model [70,71] and Strings and Binders Switch model [72,73]. For more detailed overview of current approaches to modelling of chromatin fiber folding please refer to the studies by Moscalets A.P. et al., and Caré B.R. et al. appearing in this issue of AIMS Biophysics [74,75].

    Being tightly wrapped around the histone core, 147 bp of nucleosomal DNA is inaccessible for most of the DNA binding proteins unless nucleosome is moved or removed. At the same time, however, N-terminal tails of the core histones protrude from nucleosome particle creating an accessible binding surface on a nucleosome. Histone tails are subjected to various combinations of post-translational modifications (PTMs) comprising “histone code”. These PTMs allow for specific tethering of various transcription regulators to selective promoters at selective genomic loci [76,77,78,79,80,81]. Thus, modulation of nucleosome positioning and PTMs comprise a whole new layer of eukaryotic genome regulation, which is absent in prokaryotes. Consequently, this raises the question of how eukaryotic gene regulation is realised on chromatin templates, and how and whether does it fit into Jacob-Monod model.

    3. Pioneers—Setting the Stage for Execution of Eukaryotic Gene Circuitries on Chromatin

    None of the gene switches would be ever possible without sequence-specific DNA binding transcription factors [82]. In recent years, it has been recognized that, in eukaryotes, there are two types transcription factors: pioneers and non-pioneers [for detailed review see [83]]. Although it is commonly believed that DNA wrapped around a core histone octamer is inaccessible for DNA-binding proteins, it is only true for non-pioneer factors. Pioneer factors can recognize their sites on nucleosomal DNA and initiate transcription on nucleosome arrays [83]. In fact, several studies indicate that pioneer transcription factors preferentially target motifs occluded by nucleosomes rather than nucleosome-free sites [84,85,86]. However, their binding depends on rotational settings of the target motif embedded in the core nucleosome particle [87]. For example, a tumor suppressor protein p53 binds to response elements in cell cycle arrest genes (CCA-sites) with high affinity, while its binding affinity to sites in apoptosis-associated genes (Apo-sites) is low. CCA-sites often locate at ~ 5 bp from nucleosome dyad and are exposed in conformation favourable for p53. In contrast, Apo-sites are separated by ~10 bp from nucleosome dyad. This little, half helical turn shift rotates the site by 180° inhibiting p53-DNA interaction [87].

    Upon binding to nucleosome-occluded sites, pioneers mediate nucleosome repositioning and displacement in the absence of any enzymatic activities facilitating the recruitment of other non-pioneer transcription factors [88,89]. Interestingly, pioneers are represented by early factors, which act upstream of many developmental gene cascades [83,88,90,91,92,93,94]. For example, Oct4, Sox2 and Klf4 transcription factors are not intimidated by nucleosome and recognize their respective sites on the histone core. Along with the c-Myc (a non-pioneer transcription factor), they trigger cellular reprogramming, converting differentiated cells into induced pluripotent cells [94,95,96]. Thus, it is rational to place pioneers on top of eukaryotic gene hierarchy, while most of the chromatin transactions, which will be discussed further, occur downstream.

    4. “Histone Code” Hypothesis—Extension of the Jacob-Monod Model to Chromatin

    Before diving into the histone core, let’s take a look into the tails. Approximately 1/3 of core histones protein mass consists of structurally undefined, but evolutionary conserved N-terminal tail domains, which are subjected to PTMs. Numerous of such PTMs have been identified up to date and their combinations constitute the “histone code” [for the detailed catalog of histone modifications see 81]. In its original formulation, the “histone code” hypothesis asserts that “multiple histone modifications, acting in a combinatorial or sequential fashion on one or multiple histone tails, specify unique downstream functions” [77]. In essence, this hypothesis parallels the Jacob-Monod logic of gene control [97].

    Leaving nuances aside, PTMs are installed on histone tails by a diverse set of enzymes known as “writers”, and they are removed by enzymes with opposite activities—“erasers” [98]. For example, histone acetyltransferases (HATs), which were among the first histone modifying enzymes to be discovered, add acetyl group to Lysine residues in histone tails, whereas histone deacetylases (HDACs) erase such acetyl marks [99,100,101,102,103]. Likewise, pairs of “writers” and “erasers” have been identified for many other PTMs: methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitination and so on [104]. Existence of “writers” and “erasers” pairs ensures PTMs dynamics in response to diverse cellular signals. PTMs are recognized and interpreted by yet another group of proteins, known as “readers” [26,105]. “Readers” may act as effectors by executing specific regulatory functions themselves, or as presenters by recruiting other effector proteins (activators or repressors) [98]. Thus, combined actions of “writers”, “readers” and “erasers” orchestrate gene switches on nucleosomes at selective genomic loci. Importantly, however, the pioneer transcription factors, which trigger cellular reprogramming Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc, induce marked changes in histone PTMs landscape [106]. This indicates that “histone code” acts downstream of the transcription factors to reinforce and maintain a gene switch. Of course the quest for mechanisms coupling a vast number of PTMs along with their combinations to gene regulation is far from being over, it is already clear that “histone code” hypothesis extents the Jacob-Monod model to chromatin (Figure 3).

    Figure 3. A “histone code” hypothesis extends the Jacob-Monod model to eukaryotic gene control on nucleosome arrays (compare with Figure 1A). Nucleosomes are shown as blue-red cylinders.

    5. Nucleosome Array—a Buffer for Eukaryotic Genome

    The Jacob-Monod model and “histone code” hypothesis are purely gene-centric. In other words, all sequences of regulatory events considered by these models unfold on a specific gene ignoring global parameters of DNA topology and nucleosome arrays configuration.

    Starting again from E. coli, it has to be noted that global DNA supercoiling plays an important role in regulation of transcription. Bacterial chromosome is circular and it is maintained in a negatively supercoiled state. The supercoiling is controlled by DNA gyrase, which generates negative supercoils, and topoisomerases I and IV, which relax negatively supercoiled DNA. DNA gyrase is sensitive to cellular energy charge expressed as [ATP/ADP] ratio coupling supercoiling to cell growth and metabolism [107,108,109,110,111]. In growing cells, a total DNA superhelicity (superhelical density) s is about −0.05; where s is the number of turns added (+) or removed (−) relative to the total number of turns in а relaxed DNA molecule. In stationary phase, however, the cellular energy charge is reduced and superhelicity is lowered (s ~ −0.03) [109,112]. Upon osmotic stress, the ratio of [ATP] to [ADP] is raised and the total superhelicity is increased (s ~ 40.09) [108,110]. Such changes are perceived by every gene and are expected to impact the functioning of all genes [107,113]. Interestingly, however, the transcriptional response to total superhelical density alterations turns to be specific [114,115,116], and there are several reasons for this. Firstly, initiation of transcription of many bacterial genes relies on sigma factor, which recognizes two consensus motifs located at ~ −35 bp and ~ −10 bp relative to the transcription start site (TSS). The ability of sigma factor to bind to DNA depends on spacing and rotational orientation between these two sites. Thus, depending on the initial promoter settings, the effect of superhelicity on transcription will vary. Secondly, G+C-rich sequences require more energy to melt due to higher duplex stability as compared to A+T-rich sequences. Negative supercoiling supplies the energy needed for opening of DNA duplex facilitating activation of G+C-rich genes. A+T-rich genes appear to be less sensitive to the changes in total superhelicity. There are, of course, some other factors to consider, but what is important here is that global modulation of DNA topology provides a pervasive mean of gene regulation in bacteria [for detailed reviews see [107], [113], [113]].

    In eukaryotes, topological domains are formed within DNA loops attached to nuclear matrix or other scaffolding proteins. Variations in superhelicity between these domains are correlated with gene activity, but precise relations between DNA topology and gene regulation remain poorly understood [118,119]. However, there is one other parameter to consider, which may have a similar role in eukaryotic gene control as total superhelicity in bacteria. This parameter is represented by configuration of nucleosome arrays with respect to spacing, positioning and turnover rates. Nucleosomes impose a significant barrier for general transcription factors, RNA polymerase and other proteins to access DNA. Thus, global modulation of nucleosome arrays configuration is expected to interfere with all aspects of eukaryotic genome functions.

    5.1. Determinants of nucleosome positioning

    Before entering into further discussion on the role of nucleosome arrays configuration in gene control, we, first, have to address the question of what determines nucleosome positioning in living cells. Nucleosome positions are commonly assessed by digestion of chromatin with Micrococcal Nuclease (MNase), which cuts linker DNA releasing mono-, di-, tri-, etc. nucleosomes [120]. Followed by high-throughput paired-end sequencing of mono-nucleosomal DNA fragments (MNase-seq), nucleosome positioning can be estimated (Figure 4). If, in a population of cells, nucleosomes were positioned in a random phase (from cell to cell), then the resulting MNase-seq profile would be uniform. However, all high-resolution nucleosome maps are distinctly waveform. This indicates that nucleosome arrays are assembled in phase and thus, there must be a mechanism controlling nucleosome positioning in vivo.

    Figure 4. Mapping of nucleosome positioning by MNase-seq. MNase cuts linker DNA releasing free nucleosomes from chromatin. Alignment of the centres of paired-end sequenced nucleosomal DNA fragments to a reference genome points to nucleosome positioning (red peaks).

    To understand the rules behind nucleosome positioning, it is important to note that within nucleosome core particle 147 bp DNA endures aggregate bend of ~ 600° [19]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that DNA sequences with higher propensity for anisotropic bending or increased flexibility will be favoured for nucleosome formation [121,122,123,124]. DNA flexibility is determined by a set of fundamental physical and chemical properties of dinucleotides, such as inter-base pairs translational (shift, slide, rise) and rotational (tilt, roll, twist) displacements. By large, energetics of these displacements is determined by base-stacking energy between adjacent base pairs [125]. On average, it is stronger for G:C containing dinucleotides, and weaker for A:T containing dinucleotides. Hence, no wonder that most of the correlations between DNA sequence and nucleosome placement emerging from genome-wide nucleosome mapping can be effectively described by relative enrichment of G:C and A:T dinucleotides. Well positioned nucleosomes tend to occupy DNA sequences enriched in G:C dinucleotides, while linker DNA and nucleosome depleted regions (NDRs) tend to locate within A:T rich sequences [126,127].

    In addition to this, sequences with helical periodicity (10-11 bp) in dinucleotides show increased propensity to circularize [123] making them susceptible for optimal wrapping around a histone core. Indeed, a number of observations indicate that efficient nucleosome formation sites are characterized by ~ 10-11 bp periodic distribution of WW (W: A or T) dinucleotides followed in ~ 5-6 bp by SS (S: G or C) dinucleotides [127,128,129,130,131]. WW dinucleotides are most flexible and are located at “pressure” points within nucleosomal DNA, where the double helix endures maximum distortions, with minor grove facing the histone octamer [132,133]. Short runs of G:C nucleotides tend to bend towards the major groove [134], and within nucleosomal DNA SS dinucleotides are located 5-6 bp away from WW dinucleotides, where the major groove is bent towards the histone octamer [132,133]. Thus, a combination of dinucleotide content and fundamental 10-11 bp periodicities define intrinsic sequence preferences for nucleosome formation [for an excellent review on nucleosome structure see [20]].

    These sequence rules, however, do not always apply. Several recent studies have indicated that so called NDRs, are, in fact, assembled into “labile” or “fragile” nucleosomes, which are sensitive to MNase digestion [135,136,137]. Comparingnucleosome maps generated by digestion of chromatin with varying concentrations of MNase revealed that “canonical” nucleosomes (resistant to MNase) are assembled on the sequences with relatively high G:C dinucleotides content. In contrast, “labile” nucleosomes (sensitive to MNase) occupy sequences with increased A:T content (unpublished results). These results argue that in vivo DNA sequence preferences for nucleosome formation might be significantly relaxed, in contrast to what was proposed earlier [128,129]. Substantiating this idea, it can be noted that affinity of the core histone octamer to DNA sequences depends in vitro on nucleosome assembly reaction conditions, such as temperature and histone to DNA ratio [138]. Thus, to what extent the underlying DNA sequence influences in living cells nucleosome array configuration remains to be an open issue.

    Besides DNA sequence, positioning of multiple nucleosomes along the DNA is dictated by steric exclusions. In other words, nucleosomes can not invade each others’ territories, which brings statistical nucleosome positioning in scope [139,140]. Statistical positioning causes nucleosomes to phase off the potential barriers represented by DNA bound protein complexes or off the wells formed by nucleosomes clamped to the precise position (Figure 5) [141,142,143]. Statistical nucleosome positioning immediately becomes evident from the comparison of nucleosome arrays in the vicinity to transcription start sites (TSS) of active and repressed genes. Nucleosome maps aligned to TSS show a clear phasing of nucleosomes up- and down-stream of TSS for actively transcribed genes, and the lack of so for repressed genes (Figure 5). Promoters of active genes recruit multiple regulatory proteins to DNA along with RNA polymerase, which might act as nucleosome organizing barriers or clamp the +1 nucleosome creating a potential well.

    Figure 5. Nucleosome arrays of silenced (repressed) genes are out of phase with respect to TSS (left), whereas nucleosome arrays of active genes are phased off the TSS (right).

    These are not the only barriers present in eukaryotic genomes. Nucleosome phasing is found in the vicinity to Ori Recognition Complex sites (ORC), CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) sites and so on [144,145,146,147]. The phasing of nucleosomes off the barriers can be effectively described by the methods borrowed from statistical physics. Interestingly, in such models nucleosome phasing at TSS of active genes can be well recapitulatedwithout any DNA sequence information [141,142]. Combined, these observations indicate that configuration of nucleosome arrays sums up from sequence-dependent and statistical positioning of nucleosomes.

    5.2. Configuration of nucleosome arrays by ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers

    The phasing of nucleosomes off the barriers or wells occurs in a short range as moving away from a barrier anchoring potential decays. However, under various physiological conditions (cell differentiation, aging, etc.) nucleosome arrays and chromatin fiber undergo through genome-scale rearrangements [148,149,150,151]. There are several means for modulation of entire nucleosome array configuration. Firstly, a trivial change in core histones concentration, such as that found in replicative aging of yeast, or in linker histone H1 concentration will alter nucleosome spacing across entire DNA thread [149,152]. Secondly, there is a potent machinery capable of global modulation of nucleosome positioning represented by a family of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling enzymes (remodelers). In most cases remodelers utilize the energy of ATP to translocate DNA along nucleosome. This leads to local DNA distortion and formation of DNA loops (bulges), which propagate around the surface of nucleosome exiting on the other side. As a result, nucleosome is repositioned or evicted by remodelers (Figure 6) [153,154,155,156,157,158,159].

    Figure 6. ucleosome sliding by SWI/SNF (top panel) and ISWI (bottom panel) remodelling ATPases (the model is adapted from [157,158]). Both ATPases (shown in red) bind nucleosomal DNA at location of two helical turns away from the dyad axis—superhelical location-2 (SHL2). ISWI also establishes contacts with extranucleosomal DNA making it sensitive to the length of linker DNA. Remodelers then translocate nucleosmal DNA creating DNA bulges on the surface of nucleosome. ISWI introduces small bulges of ~ 9-11 bp, while SWI/SNF can create larger loops of ~ 50 bp. These bulges propagate around the nucleosome upon remodeler release and exit on the other side. Nucleosome is viewed from the top and positions of DNA contacts with histone octamer are indicated in circles.

    There are several classes of remodelling ATPases, such as SWI/SNF, ISWI, MI2/CHD, INO80, etc., which are characterized by unique domain compositions. In addition to that, these ATPases are incorporated into large macromolecular assemblages, which define the exact remodelling reaction mechanism, kinetics and biological functions [153,154,155,156,160,161,162]. For example, ISWI ATPase incorporated into ACF (ATP-utilizing Chromatin assembly and remodelling Factor), CHRAC (CHRomatin Accessibility Complex), RSF (Remodelling and Spacing Factor) or ToRC (Toutatis-containing chromatin Remodelling Complex) complexes catalyzes the formation of regularly spaced nucleosome arrays [163,164,165,166,167,168]. In contrast, NURF (NUcleosome Remodelling Factor) complex powered by ISWI disrupts nucleosome periodicity [169,170]. Remodelers also show distinct selectivity to nucleosome substrates depending on the linker length and PTMs on histone tails. ISWI ATPase requires longer linkers and recognizes unmodified histone H4 tail to produce regularly spaced nucleosome arrays [157,171,172,173]. SWI/SNF ATPase activity does not depend on DNA linkers and it preferentially targets acetylated nucleosome arrays for remodelling [157,174]. The paper by Ralf Blossey in this issue of AIMS Biophysics [175] and other studies suggest that coupling of a recognition step to a kinetic step ensures high specificity of remodelling reactions, which overall can be described by a kinetic proofreading mechanism [176,177,178,179].

    Remodelers are ubiquitous in the nucleus and their concentration is estimated to be about one remodeler per every 10 nucleosomes [16,160,180]. Assuming nucleosome repeat length of ~200 bp, this indicates that there are ~ 3 × 106 remodelling ATPases per diploid human cell. This number is an order of magnitude larger than the number of RNA polymerase II molecules, which is estimated to be ~ 1 × 105 per cell [181,182]. The precise localization of remodelling ATPases in genome remains a debated issue [183], but just based on their estimated concentrations the remodelers impact on nucleosome positioning is expected to be large. Indeed, depletion of remodelling ATPases leads to global repositioning of nucleosomes in various species from yeast to mammals [126,160,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192]. Besides global reconfiguration of nucleosome arrays, loss of remodelers often results in the disruption of higher-order chromatin fiber organization. This is most evident from the analysis of Drosophila polytene chromosomes. Polytene chromosomes are formed in insects’ salivary glands due to the multiple rounds of endoreplication in the absence of newly-replicated DNA strands separation. Chromatin fibers in polytene chromosomes are folded into densely compacted units (bands) followed by decondensed units (interbands). Mutations in ISWI, MI2 and CHD1 ATPases result in global decondensation of polytene chromosomes suggesting a link between nucleosome positioning and higher-order chromatin structure [193,194,195]. Combined, from these observations it can be concluded that 1) ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers are capable of reconfiguring entire nucleosome array; and 2) nucleosome positioning may impact chromatin fiber folding and, thus, the density of DNA packaging.

    5.3. ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers in gene control

    Given these genome-wide effects of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers on nucleosome positioning and chromatin fiber formation, it becomes difficult to reconcile all aspects of their function in the frame of classical Jacob-Monod model. Similarly to superhelicity in bacterial chromosome, reconfiguration of nucleosome arrays is expected to interfere with the expression of every gene. Indeed, in yeast, loss of the RSC remodelling ATPase results in global repositioning of nucleosomes followed by a decline in expression of many genes [189,190]. Strikingly, however, depletion of ISWI and CHD remodelling ATPases has little effect on total gene expression despite having pronounced effects on nucleosome array. Instead, loss of these two remodelers leads to initiation of transcription from cryptic promoters located within coding regions of active genes [186,191]. The reason for such differences comes from the fact that nucleosome array has a number of degrees of freedom, in which it may be reconfigured. For example, RSC widens nucleosome-depleted regions at TSS by pushing nucleosomes away from it, thus facilitating the transcription initiation. In contrast, ISWI and CHD recognize nucleosomes in gene bodies, which are partially unwrapped by RNA polymerase, and they act in stabilizing of such nucleosome arrays. This, in turn, blocks recruitment of transcription factors to cryptic promoters and suppress the unwanted noise [186,189,190,191].

    In multicellular eukaryotes, the functions of remodelers turn to be more complex, because 1) each class of remodelling ATPase is commonly represented by several paralogs, which are included into distinct complexes, and 2) these complexes are developmentally regulated and express in tissue-specific manner [162,196,197,198]. In addition, increased genomic sizes and delegation of a bulk of gene control to distant regulatory elements add to the complexity [1]. Nonetheless, remodelers may drive entire nucleosome array out of equilibrium facilitating the gene switches by pioneer transcription factors. This can again be illustrated by cellular reprogramming induced by Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc transcription factors. Alone, these factors do suffice to trigger undifferentiation of fibroblasts, but the efficiency of such reprogramming is low [94,95,96]. Interestingly, it is increased significantly when ATP-dependent chromatin remodeler SWI/SNF is added to the system [199]. Likewise, SWI/SNF ATPase BRG1 extracted from amphibian eggs facilitates the nuclear reprogramming of human somatic cells [200]. Although the precise mechanism for SWI/SNF function in reprogramming is unclear, in principle it does not have to be specific. Global modulation of nucleosome arrays configuration and dynamics would already affect access of all transcription factors present to DNA, and once bound these factors “know” what to do next.

    6. Conclusions

    In conclusion, on the one hand, nucleosomes act as regulatory units transducing cellular signals to selective genes through “histone code”. On the other hand, nucleosome arrays act as a buffer system adjusting all eukaryotic genome functions. Nucleosome arrays are dynamically configured with respect to spacing, positioning and turnover rates by ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers. Although global changes in nucleosome arrays are perceived by every gene, the precise transcriptional output will depend on a new nucleosome array configuration and on a number of initial settings characteristic to a given gene in a given cell type, such as availability of appropriate transcription factors. Thus, the effects of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers on gene expression may appear as specific, even though the underlying mechanism is not. However, our quest for understanding of the principles of eukaryotic gene regulation by nucleosome positioning in combination with other epigenetic signals is far from being over and there is a growing need to bridge the gap between biology and biophysics of chromatin.

    Acknowledgments

    I would like to thank Olga Derkatch for help in preparation of this review, and Mikhail and Matvey Moshkin for comments and discussion. This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation [RNF 14-14-00934, RNF 141-14-0021] and Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TRR81.

    Conflict of Interest

    The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Kader MA, Lindberg S (2010) Cytosolic calcium and pH signaling in plants under salinity stress. Plant Signal Behav 5: 233–238. doi: 10.4161/psb.5.3.10740
    [2] Wang Y, Wu WH (2013) Potassium transport and signaling in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64: 451–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120153
    [3] Munns R, James RA, Läuchli A (2006) Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J Exp Bot 57: 1025–1043. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj100
    [4] Kader MA (2010) Cytosolic calcium and pH signaling in plants under salinity stress. Plant Signal Behav. 5: 233–238. doi: 10.4161/psb.5.3.10740
    [5] Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA, Zhu JK, et al. (2000). Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 51: 463–499. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.463
    [6] Tester M, Davenport R (2003) Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Ann Bot 91: 503–527. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcg058
    [7] Newell N (2013) Review: Effects of Soil Salinity on Plant Growth. Plant Physiol.
    [8] Shabala S, Pottosin II (2010) Potassium and potassium-permeable channels in plant salt tolerance. Signal Commun Plants 2010: 87–110.
    [9] Jiang C, Belfield EJ, Cao Y, et al. (2013) An Arabidopsis Soil-Salinity-Tolerance Mutation Confers Ethylene-Mediated Enhancement of Sodium/Potassium homeostasis. Plant Cell 25: 3535–3552. doi: 10.1105/tpc.113.115659
    [10] Zhu JK (2003) Regulation of ion homeostasis under salt stress. Curr Opin Plant Biol 6: 441–445. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(03)00085-2
    [11] Rubio F, Gassmann W, Schroeder JI (1995) Sodium-driven potassium uptake by the plant potassium transporter HKT1 and mutations conferring salt tolerance. Science 270: 1660–1663. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5242.1660
    [12] Uozumi N, Kim EJ, Rubio F, et al. (2000) The Arabidopsis HKT1 Gene Homolog Mediates Inward Na+ Currents in Xenopus laevis Oocytes and Na+ Uptake in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Plant Physiol 122: 1249–1259. doi: 10.1104/pp.122.4.1249
    [13] Venema K, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, et al. (2002) The Arabidopsis Na+/H+ exchanger AtNHX1 catalyzes low affinity Na+ and K+ transport in reconstituted liposomes. J Biol Chem 277: 2413–2418. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M105043200
    [14] Maathuis FJM (2009) Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12: 250–258. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.04.003
    [15] Santa-Maria GE, Rubio F, Dubcovsky J, et al. (1997) The HAK1 gene of barley is a member of a large gene family and encodes a high-affinity potassium transporter. The Plant Cell 9: 2281–2289. doi: 10.1105/tpc.9.12.2281
    [16] Fu HH, Luan S (1998) AtKuP1: a dual-affinity K+ transporter from Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10: 63–73.
    [17] Nieves-Cordones M, Aleman F, MartinezV, et al. (2010) The Arabidopsis thaliana HAK5 K+ transporter is required for plant growth and K+ acquisition from low K+ solutions under saline conditions. Mol Plant 3: 326–333. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp102
    [18] Rubio F, Santa-Maria GE, Rodríguez-Navarro A (2000) Cloning of Arabidopsis and barley cDNAs encoding HAK potassium transporters in root and shoot cells. Physiol Plant 109: 34–43. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2000.100106.x
    [19] Qi Z, Hampton CR, Shin R, et al. (2008) The high affinity K+ transporter AtHAK5 plays a physiological role in planta at very low K+ concentrations and provides a caesium uptake pathway in Arabidopsis. J Exp Bot 59: 595–607. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm330
    [20] Gorham J, Bridgers J. Dubcovsky J, et al. (1997) Genetic analysis and physiology of a trait for enhanced K+/Na+ discrimination in Wheat. New Phytol 137: 109–116. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00825.x
    [21] Horie T, Sugawara M, Okada T, et al. (2011) Rice sodium-insensitive potassium transporter, OsHAK5, confers increased salt tolerance in tobacco BY2 cells. J Biosci Bioeng 111: 346–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.10.014
    [22] Alemán F, Caballero F, Ródenas R et al. (2014) The F130S point mutation in the Arabidopsis high affinity K+ transporter AtHAK5 increases K+ over Na+ and Cs+ selectivity and confers Na+ and Cs+ tolerance to yeast under heterologous expression. Front Plant Sci 5: 430.
    [23] Shabala S, CuinTA (2008) Potassium transport and plant salt tolerance. Physiol Plant 133: 651–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.01008.x
    [24] Haro R, Bañuelos MA, Rodriguez‐Navarro A (2010) High‐affinity sodium uptake in land plants. Plant Cell Physiol 51: 68–79. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcp168
    [25] Kronzucker HJ, Britto DT (2011) Sodium transport in plants: A critical review. New Phytol 189: 54–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03540.x
    [26] Kronzucker HJ, Coskun D, Schulze LM et al. (2013) Sodium as nutrient and toxicant. Plant Soil 369: 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1801-2
    [27] Adams E, Shin R (2014) Transport, signaling, and homeostasis of potassium and sodium in plants. J Integr Plant Biol 56: 231–249. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12159
    [28] Demidchik V, Maathuis FJM (2007) Physiological roles of nonselective cation channels in plants: from salt stress to signalling and development. New Phytol 175: 387–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02128.x
    [29] Sun J, Dai S, Wang R, et al. (2009) Calcium mediates root K+/Na+ homeostasis in poplar species differing in salt tolerance. Tree Physiol 29: 1175–1186. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpp048
    [30] Gattward JN, Almeida AA, Souza JO, et al. (2012) Sodium‐potassium synergism in Theobroma cacao: Stimulation of photosynthesis, water‐use efficiency and mineral nutrition. Physiol Plant 146: 350–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01621.x
    [31] Schulze LM, Britto DT, Li M, et al. (2012) A pharmacological analysis of high-affinity sodium transport in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): a 24Na+/42K+ study. J Exp Bot 63: 2479–2489.
    [32] Zhu JK (2002) Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53: 247–273. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329
    [33] Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59: 651–681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
    [34] Jayakannan M, Bose J, Babourina O, et al. (2013) Salicylic acid improves salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis by restoring membrane potential and preventing salt-induced K+ loss via a GORK channel. J Exp Bot 64: 2255–2268.
    [35] Römheld V, Kirkby E (2010) Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil 335: 155–180. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1
    [36] Debez A, Ben Rejeb K, Ghars MA, et al. (2013) Ecophysiological and genomic analysis of salt tolerance of Cakile maritima. Environ Exp Bot 92: 64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.12.002
    [37] Zhu JK, Liu J, Xiong L (1998) Genetic analysis of salt tolerance in Arabidopsis: Evidence for a critical role to potassium nutrition. Plant Cell 10: 1181–1191. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.7.1181
    [38] Keutgen AJ, Pawelzik E (2008) Impacts of NaCl stress on plant growth and mineral nutrient assimilation in two cultivars of strawberry. Environ Exp Bot 65: 170–176.
    [39] Bassil E, Coku A, Blumwald E (2012) Cellular ion homeostasis: emerging roles of intracellular NHX Na+/H+ antiporters in plant growth and development. J Exp Bot 63: 5727–5740.
    [40] Maathuis FJM, Amtmann A (1999) K+ nutrition and Na+ toxicity: The basis of cellular K+/Na+ ratios. Ann Bot 84: 123–133. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1999.0912
    [41] Flowers TJ, Galal HK, Bromham L (2010) Evolution of halophytes: multiple origins of salt tolerance in land plants. Funct Plant Biol 37: 604–612. doi: 10.1071/FP09269
    [42] Ali Z, Park HC, Ali A, et al. (2012) TsHKT1;2, a HKT1 Homolog from the Extremophile Arabidopsis Relative Thellungiella salsuginea, Shows K+ Specificity in the Presence of NaCl. Plant Physiol 158: 1463–1474. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.193110
    [43] Wang M, Zheng Q, Shen Q, et al. (2013) The Critical Role of Potassium in Plant Stress Response. Int J Mol Sci14: 7370–7390.
    [44] Smith A, Jain A, Deal R, et al. (2010). Histone H2A.Z regulates the expression of several classes of phosphate starvation response genes, but not as a transcriptional activator. Plant Physiol 152: 217–225.
    [45] Ardie SW, Liu S, Takano T (2010) Expression of the AKT1-type K+ channel gene from Puccinellia tenuiflora, PutAKT1, enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep 29: 865–874. doi: 10.1007/s00299-010-0872-2
    [46] Coskun D, Britto DT, Li MY, et al. (2013) Capacity and plasticity of potassium channels and high-affinity transporters in roots of barley and Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 162: 496–511. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.215913
    [47] Sussman MR (1994) Molecular analysis of protein in the plant plasma membrane. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 45: 211–234. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.45.060194.001235
    [48] Blumwald E, Aharon GS, Apse MP (2000) Sodium transport in plant cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1465: 140–151.
    [49] Gaxiola RA, Rao R, Sherman A, et al. (1999) The Arabidopsis thaliana proton transporters AtNhx1 and Avp1 can function in cation detoxification in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1480–1485.
    [50] Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, et al. (2014). Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 19: 371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001
    [51] Tapken D, Hollmann M (2008) Arabidopsis thaliana glutamate receptor ion channel function demonstrated by ion pore transplantation. J Mol Biol 383: 36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.06.076
    [52] Shabala S, Wu H, Bose J (2015) Salt stress sensing and early signalling events in plant roots: Current knowledge and hypothesis. Plant Sci 241: 109–119.
    [53] Wegner, LH, De Boer AH (1997) Properties of two outward-rectifying channels in root xylem parenchyma cells suggest a role in K+ homeostasis and long-distance signaling. Plant Physiol 115: 1707–1719.
    [54] Gaymard F, Pilot G, Lacombe B, et al. (1998) Identification and disruption of a plant shaker-like outward channel involved in K+ release into the xylem sap. Cell 94: 647–655. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81606-2
    [55] Ren, Z.H, Gao JP, Li LG, et al. (2005) A rice quantitative trait locus for salt tolerance encodes a sodium transporter. Nat Genet 37: 1141–1146. doi: 10.1038/ng1643
    [56] Yang T, Zhang S, Hu Y, et al. (2014) The role of a potassium transporter OsHAK5 in potassium acquisition and transport from roots to shoots in rice at low potassium supply levels. Plant Physiol 166: 945–959. doi: 10.1104/pp.114.246520
    [57] Benito B, Garciadeblas B, Rodriguez-Navarro A (2012) HAK transporters from Physcomitrella patens and Yarrowia lipolytica mediate sodium uptake. Plant Cell Physiol 53: 1117–1123. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs056
    [58] WU SJ, Ding L, Zhu JK (1996) SOS1, a genetic locus essential for salt tolerance and potassium acquisition. Plant Cell 8: 617–627. doi: 10.1105/tpc.8.4.617
    [59] Oh DH, Gong QQ, Ulanov A, et al. (2007) Sodium stress in the halophyte Thellungiella halophila and transcriptional changes in a thsos1-RNA interference line. J Integr Plant Biol 49: 1484–1496. doi: 10.1111/j.1672-9072.2007.00548.x
    [60] Ahn SJ, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2004) Expression of KT/KUP genes in Arabidopsis and the role of root hairs in K+ Uptake. Plant Physiol 134: 1135–1145. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.034660
    [61] Berthomieu P, Conéjéro G, Nublat A, et al. (2003) Functional analysis of AtHKT1 in Arabidopsis shows that Na+ recirculation by the phloem is crucial for salt tolerance. EMBO J 22: 2004–2014. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg207
    [62] Ali A, Raddatz N, Aman R, et al. (2016) A Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Sodium Transporter HKT1 Associated with Plant Salt Tolerance. Plant Physiol. 171: 2112–2126.
    [63] Corratgé-Faillie C, Jabnoune M, Zimmermann S, et al. (2010) Potassium and sodium transport in non-animal cells: the Trk/Ktr/HKT transporter family. Cell Mol Life Sci 67: 2511–2532. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0317-7
    [64] Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, Martínez V, et al. (2011) Root K+ acquisition in plants: the Arabidopsis thaliana model. Plant Cell Physiol 52: 1603–1612. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcr096
    [65] Nieves-Cordones M, Alemán F, Martínez V, et al. (2014) K+ uptake in plant roots. the systems involved, their regulation and parallels in other organisms. J Plant Physiol 171: 688–695.
    [66] Rubio F, Nieves-Cordones M, Alemán F, et al. (2008) Relative contribution of AtHAK5 and AtAKT1 to K+ uptake in the high-affinity range of concentrations. Physiol Plant 134: 598–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01168.x
    [67] Rubio F, Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, et al. (2010) Studies on Arabidopsis athak5, atakt1 double mutants disclose the range of concentrations at which AtHAK5, AtAKT1 and unknown systems mediate K+ uptake. Physiol Plant 139: 220–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2010.01354.x
    [68] PyoYJ, Gierth M, Schroeder JI, et al. (2010) High-Affinity K+ transport in Arabidopsis: AtHAK5 and AKT1 are vital for seedling establishment and postgermination growth under low-potassium conditions. Plant Physiol 153: 863–875. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.154369
    [69] Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, Martínez V, et al. (2009). Differential regulation of the HAK5 genes encoding the high-affinity K+ transporters of Thellungiella halophila and Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Exp Bot 65: 263–269. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2008.09.011
    [70] Adams E, Abdollahi P, Shin R (2013) Cesium inhibits plant growth through Jasmonate signaling in Arabidopsis thaliana. Int J Mol Sci 14: 4545–4559. doi: 10.3390/ijms14034545
    [71] Sun Y, Kong X, Li C et al. (2015) Potassium retention under salt stress is associated with natural variation in salinity tolerance among Arabidopsis accessions. PLoS One 10: e0124032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124032
    [72] Rodríguez-Rosales MP, Jiang XJ, Gálvez FJ, et al. (2008) Overexpression of the tomato K+/H+ antiporter LeNHX2 confers salt tolerance by improving potassium compartmentalization. New Phytol 179: 366–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02461.x
    [73] Leidi EO, Barragán V, Rubio L, et al. (2010) The AtNHX1 exchanger mediates potassium compartmentation in vacuoles of transgenic tomato. Plant J 61: 495–506.
    [74] Ghars MA, Parre E, Debez A, et al. (2008) Comparative salt tolerance analysis between Arabidopsis thaliana and Thellungiella halophila, with special emphasis on K+/Na+ selectivity and proline accumulation. J Plant Physiol 165: 588–599. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.05.014
    [75] Bailey CD, Koch MA, Mayer M, et al. (2006) Toward a global phylogeny of the Brassicaceae. Mol Biol Evol 23: 2142–2160. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl087
    [76] Debez A, Ben HK, Grigno C, et al. (2004) Salinity effects on germination, growth, and seed production of the halophyte Cakile maritime. Plant Soil 262: 179–189. doi: 10.1023/B:PLSO.0000037034.47247.67
    [77] Houmani H, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, Palma JM, et al. (2016). Modulation of superoxide dismutase (SOD) isozymes by organ development and high long-term salinity in the halophyte Cakile maritima. Protoplasma 253: 885–894. doi: 10.1007/s00709-015-0850-1
    [78] Debez A, Koyro HW, Grignon C, et al. (2008) Relationship between the photosynthetic activity and the performance of Cakile maritima after long-term salt treatment. Physiol Plantarum 133: 373–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01086.x
    [79] Demidchik V, Tester M (2002) Sodium Fluxes through Nonselective Cation Channels in the Plasma Membrane of Protoplasts from Arabidopsis Roots. Plant Physiol 128: 379–387.
    [80] Yadav S, Irfan M, Ahmad A, et al. (2011) Causes of salinity and plant manifestations to salt stress: A review. J Environ Biol 32: 667–685.
    [81] Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Hernández I, et al. (2014) A comparative study of the early osmotic, ionic, redox and hormonal signaling response in leaves and roots of two halophytes and a glycophyte to salinity. Planta 240: 1299–1317. doi: 10.1007/s00425-014-2154-7
    [82] Fan W, Zhang Z, Zhang Y (2009) Cloning and molecular characterization of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase gene regulated by high-salinity and drought in Sesuvium portulacastrum. Plant Cell Rep 28: 975–984. doi: 10.1007/s00299-009-0702-6
    [83] Debez A, Saadaoui D, Ramani B, et al. (2006). Leaf H+-ATPase activity and photosynthetic capacity of Cakile maritima under increasing salinity. Environ Exp Bot 57: 285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.009
    [84] Volkov V, Wang B, Dominy PJ, et al. (2004) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, possesses effective mechanisms to discriminate between potassium and sodium. Plant Cell Environ 27: 1–14. doi: 10.1046/j.0016-8025.2003.01116.x
    [85] Wang B, Davenport RJ, Volkov V, et al. (2006) Low unidirectional sodium influx into root cells restricts net sodium accumulation in Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana. J Exp Bot 57: 1161–1170. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj116
    [86] Wong CE, Li Y, Whitty BR, et al. (2005) Expressed sequence tags from the Yukon ecotype of Thellungiella reveal that gene expression in response to cold, drought and salinity shows little overlap. Plant Mol Biol 58: 561–574. doi: 10.1007/s11103-005-6163-6
    [87] Cuin TA, Betts SA, Chalmandrier R, et al. (2008). A root’s ability to retain K+ correlates with salt tolerance in wheat. J Exp Bot 59: 2697–2706. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern128
    [88] Wang ZI, Li PH, Fredricksen M, et al. (2004) Expressed sequence tags from Thellungiella halophila, a new model to study plant salt-tolerance. Plant Sci 166: 609–616. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.10.030
    [89] Vera-Estrella R, Barkla BJ, Garcia-Ramirez L, et al. (2005) Salt stress in Thellungiella halophila activates Na+ transport mechanisms required for salinity tolerance. Plant Physiol 139: 1507–1517. doi: 10.1104/pp.105.067850
    [90] Volkov V, Amtmann A (2006) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, has specific root ion-channel features supporting K+ /Na+ homeostasis under salinity stress. Plant J 48: 342–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02876.x
    [91] Volkov V, Wang B, Dominy PJ, et al. (2003) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, possesses effective mechanisms to discriminate between potassium and sodium. Plant Cell Environ 27: 1–14.
    [92] Kosová K, Prášil TI, Vítámvás P (2013) Protein contribution to plant salinity response and tolerance acquisition. Int J Mol Sci< 14: 6757–6789.
    [93] Maathuis FJM (2014) Sodium in plants: perception, signaling, and regulation of sodium fluxes. J Exp Bot 65: 849–858. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert326
    [94] Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Cela J, et al. (2011) Early effects of salt stress on the physiological and oxidative status of Cakile maritima (halophyte) and Arabidopsis thaliana (glycophyte). Physiol Plant 142: 128–43.
    [95] Horie T, Hauser F, Schroeder JI (2009) HKT transporter-mediated salinity resistance mechanisms in Arabidopsis and monocot crop plants. Trends Plant Sci 14: 660–668. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.08.009
    [96] Rodríguez-Rosales MP, Gálvez FJ, Huertas R et al. (2009). Plant NHX cation/proton antiporters. Plant Signal Behav 4: 265–276. doi: 10.4161/psb.4.4.7919
    [97] Han M, Wu W, Wu WH, et al. (2016) Potassium Transporter KUP7 Is Involved in K(+) Acquisition and Translocation in Arabidopsis Root under K(+)-Limited Conditions. Mol Plant 9: 437–446. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2016.01.012
    [98] Trono D, Laus MN, Soccio M, et al. (2015) Modulation of potassium channel activity in the balance of ROS and ATP production by durum wheat mitochondria-an amazing defense tool against hyperosmotic stress. Front Plant Sci 6: 1072.
    [99] Sun J, Wang MJ, Ding MQ et al. (2010) H2O2 and cytosolic Ca2+ signals triggered by the PM H+-coupled transport system mediate K+/Na+ homeostasis in NaCl-stressed Populus euphratica cells. Plant Cell Environ 33: 943–958. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02118.x
    [100] Jung JY, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2009) Ethylene mediates response and tolerance to potassium deprivation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 21: 607–621. doi: 10.1105/tpc.108.063099
    [101] Shin R, Schachtman DP (2004) Hydrogen peroxide mediates plant root cell response to nutrient deprivation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 8827–8832. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401707101
    [102] Garcia-Mata C, Wang J ,Gajdanowicz P, et al. (2010) A Minimal Cysteine Motif Required to Activate the SKOR K Channel of Arabidopsis by the Reactive Oxygen Species H2O2. J Biol Chem 285: 29286–29294. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.141176
    [103] Ho CH, YF tsay (2010) Nitrate, ammonium, and potassium sensing and signaling. Curr Opin< Plant Biol 13: 604–610.
    [104] Kim MJ, Ciani S, Schachtman DP (2010) A peroxidase contributes to ROS production during Arabidopsis root response to potassium deficiency. Mol Plant 3: 420–427. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp121
    [105] Alscher RG, Erturk N, Heath LS (2002) Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants. J Exp Bot 53: 1331–1341. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/53.372.1331
    [106] Tsugane K, Kobayashi K, Niwa Y, et al. (1999) A recessive Arabidopsis mutant that grows photoautotrophically under salt stress shows enhanced active oxygen detoxification. Plant Cell 11: 1195–1206. doi: 10.1105/tpc.11.7.1195
    [107] M’rah S, Ouerghi Z, Berthomieu C, et al. (2006) Effects of NaCl on the growth, ion accumulation and photosynthetic parameters of Thellungiella halophila. J Plant Physiol 163: 1022–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2005.07.015
    [108] Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Asensi-Fabado MA, et al. (2013) Drought and cadmium may be as effective as salinity in conferring subsequent salt stress tolerance in Cakile maritima. Planta 237: 1311–1323. doi: 10.1007/s00425-013-1847-7
    [109] Ma L, Zhang H, Sun L, et al. (2012) NADPH oxidase AtrbohD and AtrbohF function in ROS-dependent regulation of Na+/K+homeostasis in Arabidopsis under salt stress. J Exp Bot 63: 305–317. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err280
    [110] Bose J, Rodrigomoreno A, Shabala S (2014) ROS homeostasis in halophytes in thecontext of salinity stress tolerance. J Exp Bot 65: 1241–1257. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert430
    [111] Corpas FJ, Barroso JB (2015) Nitric oxide from a "green" perspective. Nitric Oxide 45: 15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2015.01.007
    [112] Tanou G, Molassiotis A, Diamantidis G (2009) Hydrogen peroxide- and nitric oxide-induced systemic antioxidant prime-like activity under NaCl-stress and stress-free conditions in citrus plants. J Plant Physiol 166: 1904-1913. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.06.012
    [113] Manai J, Kalai T, Gouia H, et al. (2014) Exogenous nitric oxide (NO) ameliorates salinity-induced oxidative stress in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 14: 433–446.
    [114] Crawford NM (2006) Mechanisms for nitric oxide synthesis in plants. J Exp Bot 57: 471–478. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj050
    [115] Gupta B, Huang B (2014) Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Int J Genomics 2014: 727–740.
    [116] Xia J, Kong D, Xue S, et al. (2014) Nitric oxide negatively regulates AKT1-mediated potassium uptake through modulating vitamin B6 homeostasis in Arabidopsis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 16196–16201. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1417473111
    [117] Zhao MG, Tian QY, Zhang WH (2007) Nitric oxide synthase-dependent nitric oxide production is associated with salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol< 144: 206–217.
    [118] Chen J, Xiong DY, Wang WH, et al. (2013) Nitric oxide mediates root K+/Na+ balance in a mangrove plant, Kandelia obovata, by enhancing the expression of AKT1-type K+ channel and Na+/H+ antiporter under high salinity. PLoS One 8: 71543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071543
    [119] Kliebenstein DJ, Monde RA, Last RL (1998) Superoxide dismutase in Arabidopsis: an eclectic enzyme family with disparate regulation and protein localization. Plant Physiol. 118: 637–650. doi: 10.1104/pp.118.2.637
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Nicolle Louise Ferreira Barros, Deyvid Novaes Marques, Lorene Bianca Araújo Tadaiesky, Cláudia Regina Batista de Souza, Halophytes and other molecular strategies for the generation of salt-tolerant crops, 2021, 162, 09819428, 581, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.03.028
    2. Hayet Houmani, Marta Rodríguez-Ruiz, José M. Palma, Francisco J. Corpas, Mechanical wounding promotes local and long distance response in the halophyte Cakile maritima through the involvement of the ROS and RNS metabolism, 2018, 74, 10898603, 93, 10.1016/j.niox.2017.06.008
    3. Antonio Sánchez-McSweeney, Salvador González-Gordo, María Nieves Aranda-Sicilia, María Pilar Rodríguez-Rosales, Kees Venema, José M. Palma, Francisco J. Corpas, Loss of function of the chloroplast membrane K+/H+ antiporters AtKEA1 and AtKEA2 alters the ROS and NO metabolism but promotes drought stress resilience, 2021, 160, 09819428, 106, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.01.010
    4. Nazila Azhar, Nana Su, Lana Shabala, Sergey Shabala, Exogenously Applied 24-Epibrassinolide (EBL) Ameliorates Detrimental Effects of Salinity by Reducing K+ Efflux via Depolarization-Activated K+ Channels, 2017, 58, 0032-0781, 802, 10.1093/pcp/pcx026
    5. Somayeh Faghih, Abdolkarim Zarei, Cyrus Ghobadi, Positive effects of plant growth regulators on physiology responses of Fragaria × ananassa cv. ‘Camarosa’ under salt stress, 2019, 19, 1553-8362, 104, 10.1080/15538362.2018.1462291
    6. Silvia Del Vecchio, Marco Porceddu, Edy Fantinato, Alicia T. R. Acosta, Gabriella Buffa, Gianluigi Bacchetta, Germination responses of Mediterranean populations of Cakile maritima to light, salinity and temperature, 2018, 53, 1211-9520, 417, 10.1007/s12224-018-9332-5
    7. A. Raza, J. Tabassum, M. S. Mubarik, S. Anwar, N. Zahra, Y. Sharif, M. B. Hafeez, C. Zhang, F. J. Corpas, H. Chen, M.H. Siddiqui, Hydrogen sulfide: an emerging component against abiotic stress in plants, 2022, 24, 1435-8603, 540, 10.1111/plb.13368
    8. Ines Petrić, Dunja Šamec, Erna Karalija, Branka Salopek-Sondi, Beneficial Microbes and Molecules for Mitigation of Soil Salinity in Brassica Species: A Review, 2022, 6, 2571-8789, 18, 10.3390/soilsystems6010018
    9. Havza Imtiaz, Anayat Rasool Mir, Francisco J. Corpas, Shamsul Hayat, Impact of potassium starvation on the uptake, transportation, photosynthesis, and abiotic stress tolerance, 2023, 99, 0167-6903, 429, 10.1007/s10725-022-00925-7
    10. Barbara Hawrylak-Nowak, 2022, Chapter 6, 978-3-031-07062-4, 91, 10.1007/978-3-031-07063-1_6
    11. Ricardo Gil-Ortiz, Miguel Ángel Naranjo, Sergio Atares, Oscar Vicente, Antioxidant Responses of Water-Stressed Cherry Tomato Plants to Natural Biostimulants, 2023, 13, 2073-4395, 2314, 10.3390/agronomy13092314
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(8538) PDF downloads(1607) Cited by(11)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog