Background: When conducting plant research, the measurement of photosynthetic pigments can provide basic information on the physiological status of a plant. High-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) is becoming widely used for this purpose because it provides an accurate determination of a variety of photosynthetic pigments simultaneously. This technique has a drawback compared with conventional spectroscopic techniques, however, in that it is more prone to structural modification of pigments during extraction, thus potentially generating erroneous results. During pigment extraction procedures with acetone or alcohol, the phytol side chain of chlorophyll is sometimes removed, forming chlorophyllide, which affects chlorophyll measurement using HPLC. Results: We evaluated the artifactual chlorophyllide production during chlorophyll extraction by comparing different extraction methods with wild-type and mutant Arabidopsis leaves that lack the major isoform of chlorophyllase. Several extraction methods were compared to provide alternatives to researchers who utilize HPLC for the analysis of chlorophyll levels. As a result, the following three methods are recommended. In the first method, leaves are briefly boiled prior to extraction. In the second method, grinding and homogenization of leaves are performed at sub-zero temperatures. In the third method, N, N’-dimethylformamide (DMF) is used for the extraction of pigments. When compared, the first two methods eliminated almost all chlorophyllide-forming activity in Arabidopsis thaliana, Glebionis coronaria, Pisum sativum L. and Prunus sargentii Rehd. However, DMF effectively suppressed the activity of chlorophyllase only in Arabidopsis leaves. Conclusion: Chlorophyllide production in leaf extracts is predominantly an artifact. All three methods evaluated in this study reduce the artifactual production of chlorophyllide and are thus suitable for pigment extraction for HPLC analysis. The boiling method would be a practical choice when leaves are not too thick. However, it may convert a small fraction of chlorophyll a into pheophytin a. Although extraction at sub-zero temperatures is suitable for all plant species examined in this study, this method might be complicated for a large number of samples and it requires liquid nitrogen and equipment for leaf grinding. Using DMF as an extractant is simple and suitable with Arabidopsis samples. However, this solvent cannot completely block the formation of chlorophyllide in thicker leaves.

Chlorophylls (Chls, Chl a and Chl b) are tetrapyrrole molecules essential for photosynthetic light harvesting and energy transduction in plants. Once formed, Chls are noncovalently bound to photosynthetic proteins on the thylakoid membrane. In contrast, they are dismantled from photosystems in response to environmental changes or developmental processes; thus, they undergo interconversion, turnover, and degradation. In the last twenty years, fruitful research progress has been achieved on these Chl metabolic processes. The discovery of new metabolic pathways has been accompanied by the identification of enzymes associated with biochemical steps. This article reviews recent progress in the analysis of the Chl cycle, turnover and degradation pathways and the involved enzymes. In addition, open questions regarding these pathways that require further investigation are also suggested.

Chlorophyllase (CLH) is a common plant enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of chlorophyll to form chlorophyllide, a more hydrophilic derivative. For more than a century, the biological role of CLH has been controversial, although this enzyme has been often considered to catalyze chlorophyll catabolism during stress-induced chlorophyll breakdown. In this study, we found that the absence of CLH does not affect chlorophyll breakdown in intact leaf tissue in the absence or the presence of methyl-jasmonate, which is known to enhance stress-induced chlorophyll breakdown. Fractionation of cellular membranes shows that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) CLH is located in the endoplasmic reticulum and the tonoplast of intact plant cells. These results indicate that CLH is not involved in endogenous chlorophyll catabolism. Instead, we found that CLH promotes chlorophyllide formation upon disruption of leaf cells, or when it is artificially mistargeted to the chloroplast. These results indicate that CLH is responsible for chlorophyllide formation after the collapse of cells, which led us to hypothesize that chlorophyllide formation might be a process of defense against chewing herbivores. We found that Arabidopsis leaves with genetically enhanced CLH activity exhibit toxicity when fed to Spodoptera litura larvae, an insect herbivore. In addition, purified chlorophyllide partially suppresses the growth of the larvae. Taken together, these results support the presence of a unique binary defense system against insect herbivores involving chlorophyll and CLH. Potential mechanisms of chlorophyllide action for defense are discussed.

Summary: Proteins that contain iron–sulfur (Fe–S) clusters play pivotal roles in various metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and redox metabolism. Among the proteins involved in the biosynthesis of Fe–S clusters in plants, the SUFB subunit of the SUFBCD complex appears to be unique because SUFB has been reported to be involved in chlorophyll metabolism and phytochrome‐mediated signaling. To gain insights into the function of the SUFB protein, we analyzed the phenotypes of two SUFB mutants, laf6 and hmc1, and RNA interference (RNAi) lines with reduced SUFB expression. When grown in the light, the laf6 and hmc1 mutants and the SUFB RNAi lines accumulated higher levels of the chlorophyll biosynthesis intermediate Mg‐protoporphyrin IX monomethylester (Mg‐proto MME), consistent with the impairment of Mg‐proto MME cyclase activity. Both SUFC‐ and SUFD‐deficient RNAi lines accumulated the same intermediate, suggesting that inhibition of Fe‐S cluster synthesis is the primary cause of this impairment. Dark‐grown laf6 seedlings also showed an increase in protoporphyrin IX (Proto IX), Mg‐proto, Mg‐proto MME and 3,8‐divinyl protochlorophyllide a (DV‐Pchlide) levels, but this was not observed in hmc1 or the SUFB RNAi lines, nor was it complemented by SUFB overexpression. In addition, the long hypocotyl in far‐red light phenotype of the laf6 mutant could not be rescued by SUFB overexpression and segregated from the pale‐green SUFB‐deficient phenotype, indicating it is not caused by mutation at the SUFB locus. These results demonstrate that biosynthesis of Fe–S clusters is important for chlorophyll biosynthesis, but that the laf6 phenotype is not due to a SUFB mutation.