Search for: All records

Abstract Recent technical and theoretical advances have generated an explosion in the identification of specialized metabolite pathways. In comparison, our understanding of how these pathways are regulated is relatively lagging. This and the relatively young age of specialized metabolite pathways has partly contributed to a default and common paradigm whereby specialized metabolite regulation is theorized as relatively simple with a few key transcription factors and the compounds are non-regulatory end-products. In contrast, studies into model specialized metabolites, such as glucosinolates, are beginning to identify a new understanding whereby specialized metabolites are highly integrated into the plants’ core metabolic, physiological, and developmental pathways. This model includes a greatly extended compendium of transcription factors controlling the pathway, key transcription factors that co-evolve with the pathway and simultaneously control core metabolic and developmental components, and finally the compounds themselves evolve regulatory connections to integrate into the plants signaling machinery. In this review, these concepts are illustrated using studies in the glucosinolate pathway within the Brassicales. This suggests that the broader community needs to reconsider how they do or do not integrate specialized metabolism into the regulatory network of their study species. 

This article is a Commentary onYounkinet al. (2024),242: 2719–2733. 

SUMMARY Eudicot plant species have leaves with two surfaces: the lower abaxial and the upper adaxial surface. Each surface varies in a diversity of components and molecular signals, resulting in potentially different degrees of resistance to pathogens. We tested howBotrytis cinerea, a necrotroph fungal pathogen, interacts with the two different leaf surfaces across 16 crop species and 20 Arabidopsis genotypes. This showed that the abaxial surface is generally more susceptible to the pathogen than the adaxial surface. In Arabidopsis, the differential lesion area between leaf surfaces was associated with jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) signaling and differential induction of defense chemistry across the two surfaces. When infecting the adaxial surface, leaves mounted stronger defenses by producing more glucosinolates and camalexin defense compounds, partially explaining the differential susceptibility across surfaces. Testing a collection of 96B. cinereastrains showed the genetic heterogeneity of growth patterns, with a few strains preferring the adaxial surface while most are more virulent on the abaxial surface. Overall, we show that leaf–Botrytis interactions are complex with host‐specific, surface‐specific, and strain‐specific patterns.