Activation of violaxanthin cycle in darkness is a common response to different abiotic stresses : a case study in Pelvetia canaliculata

Background: In the violaxanthin (V) cycle, V is de-epoxidized to zeaxanthin (Z) when strong light or light combined with other stressors lead to an overexcitation of photosystems. However, plants can also suffer stress in darkness and recent reports have shown that dehydration triggers V-de-epoxidation in the absence of light. In this study, we used the highly stress-tolerant brown alga Pelvetia canaliculata as a model organism, due to its lack of lutein and its non-photochemical quenching independent of the transthylakoidal-ΔpH, to study the triggering of the V-cycle in darkness induced by abiotic stressors. Results: We have shown that besides desiccation, other factors such as immersion, anoxia and high temperature also induced V-de-epoxidation in darkness. This process was reversible once the treatments had ceased (with the exception of heat, which caused lethal damage). Irrespective of the stressor applied, the resulting de-epoxidised xanthophylls correlated with a decrease in Fv/Fm, suggesting a common function in the down-regulation of photosynthetical efficiency. The implication of the redox-state of the plastoquinone-pool and of the differential activity of V-cycle enzymes on V-de-epoxidation in darkness was also examined. Current results suggest that both violaxanthin de-epoxidase (VDE) and zeaxanthin-epoxidase (ZE) have a basal constitutive activity even in darkness, being ZE inhibited under stress. This inhibition leads to Z accumulation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that V-cycle activity is triggered by several abiotic stressors even when they occur in an absolute absence of light, leading to a decrease in Fv/Fm. This finding provides new insights into an understanding of the regulation mechanism of the V-cycle and of its ecophysiological roles.

Current Approaches for Predicting a Lack of Response to Anti-EGFR Therapy in KRAS Wild-Type Patients

Targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been one of the most effective colorectal cancer strategies. Anti-EGFR antibodies function by binding to the extracellular domain of EGFR, preventing its activation, and ultimately providing clinical benefit. KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13 are recognized prognostic and predictive biomarkers that should be analyzed at the clinic prior to the administration of anti-EGFR therapy. However, still an important fraction of KRAS wild-type patients do not respond to the treatment. The identification of additional genetic determinants of primary or secondary resistance to EGFR targeted therapy for further improving the selection of patients is urgent. Herein, we review the latest published literature highlighting the most important genes that may predict resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in colorectal cancer patients. According to the available findings, the evaluation of BRAF, NRAS, PIK3CA, and PTEN status could be the right strategy to select patients who are likely to respond to anti-EGFR therapies. In the future, the combination of those biomarkers will help establish consensus that can be introduced into clinical practice.

Early response to nanoparticles in the Arabidopsis transcriptome compromises plant defence and root-hair development through salicylic acid signalling

Background: The impact of nano-scaled materials on photosynthetic organisms needs to be evaluated. Plants represent the largest interface between the environment and biosphere, so understanding how nanoparticles affect them is especially relevant for environmental assessments. Nanotoxicology studies in plants allude to quantum size effects and other properties specific of the nano-stage to explain increased toxicity respect to bulk compounds. However, gene expression profiles after exposure to nanoparticles and other sources of environmental stress have not been compared and the impact on plant defence has not been analysed. Results: Arabidopsis plants were exposed to TiO2-nanoparticles, Ag-nanoparticles, and multi-walled carbon nanotubes as well as different sources of biotic (microbial pathogens) or abiotic (saline, drought, or wounding) stresses. Changes in gene expression profiles and plant phenotypic responses were evaluated. Transcriptome analysis shows similarity of expression patterns for all plants exposed to nanoparticles and a low impact on gene expression compared to other stress inducers. Nanoparticle exposure repressed transcriptional responses to microbial pathogens, resulting in increased bacterial colonization during an experimental infection. Inhibition of root hair development and transcriptional patterns characteristic of phosphate starvation response were also observed. The exogenous addition of salicylic acid prevented some nano-specific transcriptional and phenotypic effects, including the reduction in root hair formation and the colonization of distal leaves by bacteria. Conclusions: This study integrates the effect of nanoparticles on gene expression with plant responses to major sources of environmental stress and paves the way to remediate the impact of these potentially damaging compounds through hormonal priming.