The updated model of ET signaling in higher plants, based mainly on genetic analysis of
A. thaliana is reflected in . Though knowledge of the perception of ET in dicots advanced considerably in the first six years of the present millennium (reviews in refs.
5, 7, 13, 14, 28, 29, 70, 81 and
82), the signaling pathway downstream EtR is still far from being completely elucidated. Recently, in mono-cots such as rice, five genomic sequences have been isolated from several other putative EtRs (OS-ERS1, OS-RS2, OS-ETR2, OS-ETR3 and OS-ETR4), the autophosphorylated His residue being absent in both OS-ETR2 and OS-ETR3.
83,84 Likewise, ETR1 homologues have also been isolated from plants other than
Arabidopsis and tomato: carnation,
85 geranium,
86 peach,
87 tobacco,
88,89 pear
90 and damson-plum.
91 It has been confirmed in tomato that, although all the EtRs isolated may be bonded to ET in vitro, some of the them do not have HK activity.
26 The epistatic analysis and LOF continues to be one of the most widely used tools in trying to complete the ET signaling framework.
23 Cancel and Larsen (2002)
92 showed that
etr1 LOF had increased sensitivity to ET and that a greater ET response results not only in increased sensitivity but also in exaggerated response. Moreover, Wang et al. (2003)
93 demonstrated that the
etr1/ers1 double mutant was the only LOF that reduces levels of the Subfamily I receptors, exhibiting constitutive ET hypersensitivity; these results suggest that both subfamilies I and II may not have entirely redundant functions in vivo. Although
etr1 LOF display a severe ET phenotype, these mutants remain ET responsive,
94 suggesting that an alternative mechanism bypassing CTR1 in ET signaling may exist in
Arabidopsis.
92 Null mutants of each EtR gene are phenotypically wild-type, with the exception of
etr1-7, which displays increased sensitivity to ET.
92 Many of the genetic data compiled to date lead to the conclusion that the responses to ET in higher plants could be modulated by an alteration in the expression of the EtRs. However, a model in which clustered EtRs act cooperatively was proposed for
Arabidopsis.
95 By contrast, analysis of the expression patterns of the different EtRs genes in tomato suggests that different tissues contain different pools of receptor proteins.
96 When this revision was being made, a previously undescribed gene (
RTE1; Reversion-To-Ethylene-Sensitivity) that regulates ET responses in
Arabidopsis was identified.
97 RTE1 is a regulator of ETR1 function and negative regulator of ET signaling. ET treatment induces
RTE1 expression, and overexpression confers reduced ET sensitivity that partially depends on ETR1. In parallel to
RTE1, its homologue in tomato, the
Gr/Nr-2 (GR) locus, was identified by means positional cloning.
98 Gr/Nr-2 encodes an evolutionarily conserved protein of unknown function and that the authors associate with ET signaling. It is possible that GR may function to disrupt ET signaling from specific receptors and modulate ET responses in a tissue-specific manner. It is noteworthy that LOF of an
Arabidopsis GR homologue,
RTE1/At2626070, suppresses ETR1-2-mediated ET insensitivity.
97The subcellular location of EtRs is still subject to debate. Recently, it was demonstrated that At-ETR1 is located predominantly in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane (), these data supporting a central role of this cellular compartment in hormonal perception and signaling.
99 However, NT-HK1 and OS-ER1, OS-ERS2 and OS-ETR2 receptors of tobacco and rice, respectively, were localized mainly in the plasma membrane in a transient system.
83,89 On the other hand, an indirect phosphotransfer from ETR1 to CTR1 was suggested,
100 and weak associations between CTR1 and some EtRs have also been recognized.
92 Regarding the EtR location, it was noted that CTR1 can also be found in the ER membrane due to its interaction with ETR1.
101 Thus, it has been demonstrated that the HK and the receiver domain of ETR1 can interact with the Raf-like kinase CTR1.
101,102 The NH
2-terminal of CRT1 has been shown to interact in vivo directly with the ETR1, via a putative CTR1-specific protein-protein interaction domain called the CN box and this possible association is required to turn off the ET-signaling path-way.
102 Moreover, Huang's work demonstrated that CTR1 have intrinsic Ser/thr protein kinase activity.
102More data on HK activity of EtRs and the formation of the EtR-CRT1 complex were reported by Mason and Schaller (2005).
103 In the year 2004, it was observed that the kinase domain of the EtR of the subfamily II of
Arabidopsis had Ser/thr protein kinase activity,
104,105 and that the His autokinase activity of ETR1 demonstrated in vitro is not required for ET signaling in vivo.
93,104,105 Notably, evidence was found for Ser/thre and HK activities in NTHK2 of
N. tabacum, another EtR gene. The NTHK2 heterologous expression in yeast demonstrated that the Ser/thre and HK activities were found in presence of Mn
+2 and Ca
+2, respectively.
105 Even though HK activity of ETR1 has been demonstrated,
65 the role of HK activity in ET signal transduction is still not clear.
93,106 A mutation that eliminates HK activity did not affect the ability of
etr1 to confer ET insensitivity. A truncated version of
etr1 that lacks the HK domain also conferred ET insensitivity.
107 In relation to the possible need for ETR1 to have kinase activity for the CTR1-binding, the heterologous expression of
ETR1 demonstrated that this enzymatic activity was not necessary.
101 However, recent studies appear to point to their essentiality for signal output, this enzymatic activity together with receiver domains playing a role in modulating the repression of ET signal.
105 In addition, because CTR1 can be isolated from the ETR1-CTR1 complex and that ETR1 and CTR1 appear to be related to the ER membrane,
99,101 the CTR1-ER bond possibly occurs in the ER. For the formation of this complex, the presence of EtRs is necessary, as the mutation in EtRs induces the appearance de CTR1 in the cytosol.
101 In tomato, there are at least four genes encoding proteins with homology to
At-CTR1 and all of these have been shown to functionally complement the
A. thaliana etr1 mutation.
5,108MAPKs are involved in regulating plant growth and development. However, the underlying mechanisms are unknown because of the lack of information about their substrates. Recently, Ouaked et al. (2003)
109 suggested that CTR1 (MAPKKK) acts in the “MAPK module” and show a very direct association of this module with ET signaling. They propose that in absence of ET, CTR1 is activated, negatively regulating SIMKK (a MAPKK from
Medicago sativa). When CTR1 is inactivated by ET, SIMKK becomes activated and in turn activates two
M. sativa MAPKs (SIMK and MMK3) or the presumed
Arabidopsis orthologues of SIMK (MPK6 and MPK13, respectively) (). However, it remains unclear how the MAPKs activate ET targets genes through
EIN2 and
EIN3. EIN2 is unable to complement metal-uptake-deficient yeast strains, as shown by authentic
Arabidopsis Nramps genes.
110 The
ein2 mutants have been found (), into others processes, in screens for defects in ABA hypersensitivity.
111,112 It bears noting that the activation of SIPK, a tobacco MAPK, induces ET biosynthesis, whereas MPK6 (orthologue of SIPK in
A. thaliana) is required for ET induction in
Arabidopsis. In this induction, phosphorylation of ACS2 and ACS6 by MAPK are involved ().
113 These investigations have demonstrated that the primary role of the MPK6 is the regulation of ET biosynthesis, not signaling.
113,114In
Arabidopsis, the EIN3 family is composed by five members
115 and the increased expression of EIN3/EIL (EIL is an
EIN3-like) is sufficient to induce an ET response,
116 the transcription of
EIN3/EIL having an essential role.
115,117,118 The remaining members of EIN3 family participate in certain developmental phases.
117,118 On the other hand, in tomato fruits, all members of the
LeEIL gene family are functionally redundant and regulate the ET responses throughout plant development.
117 In
Arabidopsis and tomato, that transcription is not regulated by ET, whereas the protein EIN3/EIL is.
119,120 It is striking that the increased EIN3 protein levels were correlated with decreased glucose sensitivity.
121 In the absence of ET, EIN3 undergoes continuous degradation.
119–124 The signaling mechanisms through which ET acts to stabilize the EIN3 protein is unknown. The EIN3 binding factor (EBF) 1 and 2 (two F-box proteins) control the EIN3 levels. Both EBF factors form part of the E3 complex in which EIN3 is confined, poly-ubiquitinated, and degraded by proteasome (). That is, EIN3 is regulated post-translationally by a proteasome-mediated protein-degradation pathway.
119,120,122 ETO1 is a component of the E3 complex,
35 and ET stimulates la expression de
EBF2.
115,122 In tomato, the family
EIN3 is represented by three members (e.g.,
LeEIL1–3).
117 The tobacco
EIN3-like gene,
TEIL, has been cloned and its overexpression induced constitutive triple-response phenotypes.
123 The expression of EBF genes confers a constitutive ET response in
ein3 backgrounds.
47 Thus, EIN2 and EIN3 or EIN5 may act through EBF1 to regulate ET-dependent processes.
23,119 However, EIN3 also interacts with specific F-boxes, which function to suppress ET action and promote plant growth.
120,122 How the downstream divergences in the ET pathway occur and subsequently lead to the diverse plant phenotypes is unclear.