ARF-GTPase as a Molecular Switch for Polar Auxin Transport Mediated by Vesicle Trafficking in Root Development

Polar auxin transport (PAT), which is controlled precisely by both auxin efflux and influx facilitators and mediated by the cell trafficking system, modulates organogenesis, development and root gravitropism. ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF)-GTPase protein is catalyzed to switch to the GTP-bound type by a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) and promoted for hybridization to the GDP-bound type by a GTPase-activating protein (GAP). Previous studies showed that auxin efflux facilitators such as PIN1 are regulated by GNOM, an ARF-GEF, in Arabidopsis. In the November issue of The Plant Journal, we reported that the auxin influx facilitator AUX1 was regulated by ARF-GAP via the vesicle trafficking system.¹ In this addendum, we report that overexpression of OsAGAP leads to enhanced root gravitropism and propose a new model of PAT regulation: a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by vesicle trafficking to regulate PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, thus controlling root development in plants.Key Words: ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF), ARF-GAP, ARF-GEF, auxin, GNOM, polar transport of auxinPolar auxin transport (PAT) is a unique process in plants. It results in alteration of auxin level, which controls organogenesis and development and a series of physiological processes, such as vascular differentiation, apical dominance, and tropic growth.² Genetic and physiological studies identified that PAT depends on efflux facilitators such as PIN family proteins and influx facilitators such as AUX1 in Arabidopsis.Eight PIN family proteins, AtPIN1 to AtPIN8, exist in Arabidopsis. AtPIN1 is located at the basal side of the plasma membrane in vascular tissues but is weak in cortical tissues, which supports the hypothesis of chemical pervasion.³ AtPIN2 is localized at the apical side of epidermal cells and basally in cortical cells.^1,4 GNOM, an ARF GEF, modulates the localization of PIN1 and vesicle trafficking and affects root development.^5,6 The PIN auxin-efflux facilitator network controls root growth and patterning in Arabidopsis.⁴ As well, asymmetric localization of AUX1 occurs in the root cells of Arabidopsis plants,⁷ and overexpression of OsAGAP interferes with localization of AUX1.¹ Our data support that ARF-GAP mediates auxin influx and auxin-dependent root growth and patterning, which involves vesicle trafficking.¹ Here we show that OsAGAP overexpression leads to enhanced gravitropic response in transgenic rice plants. We propose a model whereby ARF GTPase is a molecular switch to control PAT and root growth and development.Overexpression of OsAGAP led to reduced growth in primary or adventitious roots of rice as compared with wild-type rice.¹ Gravitropism assay revealed transgenic rice overxpressing OsAGAP with a faster response to gravity than the wild type during 24-h treatment. However, 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA) treatment promoted the gravitropic response of the wild type, with no difference in response between the OsAGAP transgenic plants and the wild type plants (Fig. 1). The phenotype of enhanced gravitropic response in the transgenic plants was similar to that in the mutants atmdr1-100 and atmdr1-100/atpgp1-100 related to Arabidopsis ABC (ATP-binding cassette) transporter and defective in PAT.⁸ The physiological data, as well as data on localization of auxin transport facilitators, support ARF-GAP modulating PAT via regulating the location of the auxin influx facilitator AUX1.¹ So the alteration in gravitropic response in the OsAGAP transgenic plants was explained by a defect in PAT.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Gravitropism of OsAGAP overexpressing transgenic rice roots and response to 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA). (A) Gravitropism phenotype of wild type (WT) and OsAGAP overexpressing roots at 6 hr gravi-stimulation (top panel) and 0 hr as a treatment control (bottom panel). (B) Time course of gravitropic response in transgenic roots. (C and D) results correspond to those in (A and B), except for treatment with NAA (5 × 10⁻⁷ M).The polarity of auxin transport is controlled by the asymmetric distribution of auxin transport proteins, efflux facilitators and influx carriers. ARF GTPase is a key member in vesicle trafficking system and modulates cell polarity and PAT in plants. Thus, ARF-GDP or GTP bound with GEF or GAP determines the ARF function on auxin efflux facilitators (such as PIN1) or influx ones (such as AUX1).ARF1, targeting ROP2 and PIN2, affects epidermal cell polarity.⁹ GNOM is involved in the regulation of PIN1 asymmetric localization in cells and its related function in organogenesis and development.⁶ Although VAN3, an ARF-GAP in Arabidopsis, is located in a subpopulation of the trans-Golgi transport network (TGN), which is involved in leaf vascular network formation, it does not affect PAT.¹⁰ OsAGAP possesses an ARF GTPase-activating function in rice.¹¹ Specifically, our evidence supports that ARF-GAP bound with ARF-GTP modulates PAT and gravitropism via AUX1, mediated by vesicle trafficking, including the Golgi stack.¹Therefore, we propose a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by the vascular trafficking system in regulating PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, which controls root development and gravitropism in plants (Fig. 2). Here we emphasize that ARF-GEF catalyzes a conversion of ARF-bound GDP to GTP, which is necessary for the efficient delivery of the vesicle to the target membrane.¹² An opposite process of ARF-bound GDP to GTP is promoted by ARF-GTPase-activating protein via binding. A loop status of ARF-GTP and ARF-GDP bound with their appurtenances controls different auxin facilitators and regulates root development and gravitropism.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model for ARF GTPase as a molecular switch for the polar auxin transport mediated by the vesicle traffic system.     

Is cell polarity under mechanical control in plants?

Plant cells experience a tremendous amount of mechanical stress caused by turgor pressure. Because cells are glued to their neighbors by the middle lamella, supracellular patterns of physical forces are emerging during growth, usually leading to tension in the epidermis. Cortical microtubules have been shown to reorient in response to these mechanical stresses, and to resist them, indirectly via their impact on the anisotropic structure of the cell wall. In a recent study, we show that the polar localization of the auxin efflux carrier PIN1 can also be under the control of physical forces, thus linking cell growth rate and anisotropy by a common mechanical signal. Because of the known impact of auxin on the stiffness of the cell wall, this suggests that the mechanical properties of the extracellular matrix play a crucial signaling role in morphogenesis, notably controlling the polarity of the cell, as observed in animal systems.Key words: development, growth, auxin, microtubule, PIN1, stiffness, cell wall, biophysics, meristemThe current development of high throughput analyses of gene regulatory networks is feeding a very complex view of growth control and shape changes. To go beyond the accumulation of data, the identification of universal and parsimonious mechanisms explaining the robustness of morphogenesis becomes a central issue in today''s developmental biology.^1–3 Among them, the coupling between molecular and mechanical signals has the strong advantage of providing a simple way to coordinate cell behavior synchronously and over long distances. The role of such signals has been investigated in different systems and the contribution of mechanical forces to animal development is now widely accepted, as the expression of key genes (e.g., TWIST⁴) and key cellular events (e.g., mitotic spindle orientation⁵) have been shown to depend on the mechanical environment of the tissue. Several mechanosensors have also been identified.⁶In an earlier study, we showed that the orientation of the cortical microtubular cytoskeleton in plant shoot meristems depends on the principal direction of mechanical stress. Cortical microtubules are known to guide the deposition of the cellulose microfibrils in the cell wall and thus to control the main direction of growth, and consequently, shape. Evidence indicates that the epidermis is under tension, and therefore the shape of the tissue can influence the pattern of mechanical stress. In this framework, multicellular shape is transposed into a map of stress directions in the epidermis that can act as a supracellular instructional signal. By applying mechanical constraints on a meristem with GFP-marked microtubules, we were able to close the feedback loop: microtubule orientation became parallel to the externally applied stress, supporting a view in which mechanical stress controls cell behavior.⁷In a more recent study we showed that in addition to the cortical microtubules, the polar localization of the auxin efflux carrier PIN1 can also be controlled by its mechanical environment. In particular, we observed that, when viewed from the top, PIN1 is usually concentrated on the membrane that is parallel to the microtubule orientation. Furthermore, a single cell ablation, which induces both a circumferential pattern of stress around the wound and a circumferential orientation of microtubules, also induced a relocalization of PIN1 away from the wound on the circumferential membrane, consistent with the hypothesis that PIN1 would be preferentially recruited on the membrane undergoing the most tensile stress.⁸ Mechanistically, it is unclear how this could be achieved, but the PIN1 vesicle recycling machinery is likely to play a major role, since it is now well established that membrane tension inhibits endocytosis and favors exocytosis.⁹ In such a scenario, PIN1 would be trapped in a membrane as long as the tension of the membrane is higher than that of its neighbours.To further test the response of PIN1 to mechanical forces, we used a pharmacological approach. Figure 1 highlights the correlation between the predicted opposable impacts of isoxaben and oryzalin on stress and the response of PIN1. In the presence of isoxaben, a well known inhibitor of cellulose synthesis, the thickness of the cell wall is supposed to decrease. Knowing that mechanical stress is here defined as a force divided by the area of a section of the wall, stress is expected to increase after isoxaben treatment. When we treated PIN1-GFP meristems with isoxaben, we observed a “hyper” localization of PIN1, with in most cases a preferential localization of PIN1 along the supracellular stress patterns, and within the cell, a concentration of the signal at cell corners, predicted sites of stress maxima. In contrast, in the presence of oryzalin, which by depolymerising the microtubules leads to isotropic growth and thus isotropic stresses, PIN1 localization became more homogeneous.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Impact of isoxaben and oryzalin on the localization of PIN1 in meristematic cells. The PIN1-GFP signal (in black) is very heterogenous in the control meristematic cells, consistent with the preferential localization of PIN1 to one side of the cells. Sometimes the signal is even restricted to one cell corner. After microtubule depolymerization with oryzalin, cell growth becomes more isotropic, and while PIN1 localization remains heterogenous, the signal becomes more widespread on each plasma membranes and thus tends to homogeneity. In contrast, after isoxaben treatment (which inhibits cellulose synthesis and thus is predicted to increase stress levels), the PIN1-GFP protein concentrates at the corners of the cells.⁸It seems therefore plausible that mechanical stress acts as a common instructional signal for both microtubule-dependent cell anisotropy and PIN1/auxin-dependent growth rate. Mathematical modeling further supported this proposal. Several successful models for the generation of organ patterns in the meristem assume an ability of individual cells to sense auxin concentration in their neighbours.^10–16 However to date no mechanism had been proposed to explain how one cell could measure the concentration of auxin in its vicinity. One of the main implications of our study is that, if PIN1 can respond to the mechanical status of the wall, then it also integrates auxin concentration of the neighboring cells, indirectly, as auxin loosens the cell wall, allowing cell expansion. Using such a hypothesis, computer simulations were able to reproduce the stereotyped pattern of organogenesis in the shoot further confirming the plausibility of the model.It must be noted however that our work does not exclude other hypotheses. In particular, it has recently been proposed that the ROP2 and ROP6 proteins, well known effectors of cell polarity, could respond differently to ABP1-dependent auxin signaling, thus providing a model in which cell-cell communication via ROP could “measure” local differences in auxin between neighbors.¹⁷ These different scenarios could actually be reconciled some day, especially knowing that Rho proteins in animals have been involved in the responses to mechanical forces.¹⁸ Last, the control of PIN1 polar localization by its mechanical environment could actually reveal a more universal response of cells to the stiffness and tension of the extracellular matrix. Similarly, animal motile (and polar) cells can sense the rigidity of their substrate^19–21 and respond by reinforcing the cytoskeleton at the cell cortex.^22–25     

Strigolactones' ability to regulate root development may be executed by induction of the ethylene pathway

The newly defined phytohormones strigolactones (SLs) were recently shown to act as regulators of root development. Their positive effect on root-hair (RH) elongation enabled examination of their cross talk with auxin and ethylene. Analysis of wild-type plants and hormone-signaling mutants combined with hormonal treatments suggested that SLs and ethylene regulate RH elongation via a common regulatory pathway, in which ethylene is epistatic to SLs. The SL and auxin hormonal pathways were suggested to converge for regulation of RH elongation; this convergence was suggested to be mediated via the ethylene pathway, and to include regulation of auxin transport.Key words: strigolactone, auxin, ethylene, root, root hair, lateral rootStrigolactones (SLs) are newly identified phytohormones that act as long-distance shoot-branching inhibitors (reviewed in ref. ¹). In Arabidopsis, SLs have been shown to be regulators of root development and architecture, by modulating primary root elongation and lateral root formation.^2,3 In addition, they were shown to have a positive effect on root-hair (RH) elongation.² All of these effects are mediated via the MAX2 F-box.^2,3In addition to SLs, two other plant hormones, auxin and ethylene, have been shown to affect root development, including lateral root formation and RH elongation.^4–6 Since all three phytohormones (SLs, auxin and ethylene) were shown to have a positive effect on RH elongation, we examined the epistatic relations between them by examining RH length.⁷ Our results led to the conclusion that SLs and ethylene are in the same pathway regulating RH elongation, where ethylene may be epistatic to SLs.⁷ Moreover, auxin signaling was shown to be needed to some extent for the RH response to SLs: the auxin-insensitive mutant tir1-1,⁸ was less sensitive to SLs than the wild type under low SL concentrations.⁷On the one hand, ethylene has been shown to induce the auxin response,^9–12 auxin synthesis in the root apex,^11,12 and acropetal and basipetal auxin transport in the root.^4,13 On the other, ethylene has been shown to be epistatic to SLs in the SL-induced RH-elongation response.⁷ Therefore, it might be that at least for RH elongation, SLs are in direct cross talk with ethylene, whereas the cross talk between SL and auxin pathways may converge through that of ethylene.⁷ The reduced response to SLs in tir1-1 may be derived from its reduced ethylene sensitivity;^7,14 this is in line with the notion of the ethylene pathway being a mediator in the cross talk between the SL and auxin pathways.The suggested ethylene-mediated convergence of auxin and SLs may be extended also to lateral root formation, and may involve regulation of auxin transport. In the root, SLs have been suggested to affect auxin efflux,^3,15 whereas ethylene has been shown to have a positive effect on auxin transport.^4,13 Hence, it might be that in the root, the SLs'' effect on auxin flux is mediated, at least in part, via the ethylene pathway. Ethylene''s ability to increase auxin transport in roots was associated with its negative effect on lateral root formation: ethylene was suggested to enhance polar IAA transport, leading to alterations in the quantity of auxin that unloads into the tissues to drive lateral root formation.⁴ Under conditions of sufficient phosphate, SL''s effect was similar to that of ethylene: SLs reduced the appearance of lateral roots; this was explained by their ability to change auxin flux.³ Taken together, one possibility is that the SLs'' ability to affect auxin flux and thereby lateral root formation in the roots is mediated by induction of ethylene synthesis.To conclude, root development may be regulated by a network of auxin, SL and ethylene cross talk.⁷ The possibility that similar networks exist elsewhere in the SLs'' regulation of plant development, including shoot architecture, cannot be excluded.     

Where and how does phototropin transduce light signals in the cell?

Light plays pivotal roles as an important environmental signal in plant growth and development. In Arabidopsis, phototropin 1 (phot1) and 2 (phot2) are the photoreceptors that mediate phototropism, chloroplast relocation, stomatal opening and leaf flattening, in response to blue light. However, little is known about how phototropins transduce the signals after the light is perceived. Changes induced by blue light in terms of intracellular localization patterns of phot2 in Arabidopsis were examined. Phot2 distributed uniformly in the plasma membrane under dark conditions. Upon irradiation with blue light, some of the phot2 associated with the Golgi apparatus. It was also shown that the kinase domain, but not the photosensory domain, is required for a plasma membrane and Golgi localization. Furthermore a kinase fragment, lacking the photosensory domain, constitutively triggered physiological responses in planta. Thus, the plasma membrane and the Golgi apparatus appear to be the most likely sites for the initial step of phot2 signal transduction. The Golgi apparatus facilitates vesicle trafficking and delivery of membrane proteins to the required locations in the cell. Therefore, this study implicates the regulation of vesicle trafficking by the Golgi apparatus as a mechanism by which phot2 elicits its cellular responses.Key words: Golgi apparatus, kinase, light signal transduction, photoreceptor, phototropin, vesicle traffickingA range of physiological responses in plants is brought about by blue (390–500 nm) and ultraviolet-A (320–390 nm) light. Phototropin, one of major classes of blue light photoreceptors in plants, mediates responses such as phototropism, chloroplast relocation, light-induced stomatal opening and leaf flattening.^1–6 The dicotyledon Arabidopsis, possesses two phototropins, termed phot1 and phot2, which have both overlapping and distinct functions.^5,7 Phototropins consist of two functional domains, a N-terminal photosensory domain, containing two LOV (Light, Oxygen, Voltage) domains (LOV1 and LOV2) and a flavin-mononucleotide (FMN) chromophore and a regulatory serine/threonine kinase domain at the C-terminus.⁸To understand the mechanism of phototropin signal transduction, we expressed phot2 derivatives with translationally-fused green fluorescent protein (GFP) in a phot1phot2 double mutant in a wild type background in Arabidopsis.^9,10 Phototropin is a membrane- associated protein lacking a membrane spanning domain.⁸ Phot1 fused to GFP (P1G) is mainly localized to the plasma membrane, regardless of the light conditions.⁶ This property was retained when phot2 was fused to GFP (P2G).⁹ A part of P2G associates with punctate structures in the cytoplasm in response to blue light. The punctate P2G colocalized with KAM1ΔC:mRFP, a Golgi marker, we therefore conclude that phot2 associated with the Golgi apparatus in a blue light-dependent manner.⁹ This association was observed even in the presence of brefeldin A (BFA), an inhibitor of the vesicle trafficking.⁹To determine which domain of phot2 is responsible for the Golgi association, fragments of phot2 were fused to GFP and expressed in protoplasts.⁹ The N-terminal fragment fused to GFP (P2NG) was distributed uniformly in the cytoplasm. By contrast, the C-terminal fragment fused to GFP (P2CG) localized to both plasma membrane and punctate structures. The latter was shown to be the Golgi apparatus with the aid of the Golgi marker, KAM1ΔC:mRFP.⁹ These observations were corroborated from data using transgenic plants.¹⁰ Hence the C-terminal kinase domain, but not the N-terminal photo-sensory domain, is essential for the association of phot2 with the plasma membrane and the Golgi apparatus.The Golgi network is a key player in vesicle trafficking, to and from ER, vacuoles, trans-Golgi network, endosome and the plasma membrane.¹¹ Membrane spanning proteins are delivered and recycled through the Golgi apparatus. Among the membrane spanning proteins that are especially interesting, with respect to phototropin function, are auxin carriers such as PIN proteins. Phototropic curvature, which is under the control of phototropin, is believed to be caused by an uneven distribution of auxin.¹² The intracellular distribution of PIN proteins is maintained and regulated by vesicle trafficking.¹³ Indeed, factors such as ADP-ribosylation factor1 (ARF1) and guanine-nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), which are involved in vesicle trafficking, are indispensable for the proper distribution of PIN proteins.^14–17 It is intriguing that a light stimulus alters the distribution pattern of PIN proteins.¹⁸ Hence, a fascinating possibility arises that phot2 alters the intracellular distribution of PIN proteins by regulating vesicle trafficking at the level of the Golgi apparatus.Phototropins are members of the subfamily VIII of AGC kinases.¹⁹ Interestingly, PINOID, another member of the subfamily, is localized at the cell periphery and regulates the apical-basal polar distribution of PIN proteins.^20–22 Accordingly, overexpression of PINOID disturbs the auxin distribution in transgenic plants.^23,24 The kinase fragment of phototropin exhibits constitutive kinase activity in vitro.²⁵ Interestingly, the auxin distribution is disturbed in plants expressing P2CG, as is the case with PINOID.¹⁰ Hence, both PINOID and phot2 might alter the PIN protein distribution in the cell through a common mechanism, in response to distinct stimuli.To date, no authentic substrate has been described for any of the AGC VIII kinases.¹⁹ Considering the localization pattern of phototropins, the substrates are most likely to reside in the plasma membrane and/or the Golgi apparatus. NPH3, RPT2 and PKS1 are downstream factors for phototropic responses,^26–28 all associating with the plasma membrane. Although they interact preferentially with the N-terminal rather than the C-terminal domain of phot1,^26,29 it is also possible that the C-terminal kinase domain interacts transiently with these factors leading to their phosphorylation. However, at present the molecular functions of NPH3, RPT2 and PKS1 remain unclear and await future investigation.Although both phot1 and phot2 are localized to the plasma membrane, punctate structures are yet to be described for P1G. Instead, a part of phot1-GFP is released from the plasma membrane to the cytosol in response to a light stimulus.⁶ We recently reexamined the intracellular localization of P1G. A specific network-like structure in the cytoplasm in addition to intense plasma membrane staining was observed (Fig. 1). A similar pattern was observed for P2G although it is less clear.⁹ Hence, both phot1 and phot2 might be associating with a structure in the cytoplasm that has yet to be described, and which might be another site of phototropin signaling in the cell.Open in a separate windowFigure 1A light-induced network-like distribution pattern of P1G in the cytoplasm. The P1G seedlings grown under dark conditions⁶ were incubated in MS solution (diluted 50%) without (upper panels) or with (lower panels) 100 µM BFA. The cells were inspected with a confocal laser scanning microscope. Images taken before (left) or after (right) blue light illumination at 48 µmol m⁻² sec⁻¹ are shown. Bar = 10 µm.P2CG elicits some phototropin responses without a light stimulus.¹⁰ That is, chloroplasts were in the avoidance position and stomata opened without a blue light stimulus in the P2CG overexpressing plants. It is a fascinating possibility that phototropin elicits those responses through the regulation of vesicle trafficking, although other possibilities exist. Stomata open as the result of phosphorylation of the plasma membrane H⁺-ATPase³⁰ and it is unlikely that the vesicle trafficking is directly involved in this regulatory process. It is possible to conjecture that vesicle trafficking affects chloroplast positioning but how this would work remains to be determined. Overall how a single photoreceptor such as phototoropin might regulate diverse physiological responses awaits future study.     

The Twisted Dwarf's ABC: How Immunophilins Regulate Auxin Transport

There is increasing evidence that immunophilins function as key regulators of plant development. One of the best investigated members, the multi-domain FKBP TWISTED DWARF1 (TWD1)/FKBP42, has been shown to reside on both the vacuolar and plasma membranes where it interacts in mirror image with two pairs of ABC transporters, MRP1/ MRP2 and PGP1/PGP19(MDR1), respectively. Twisted dwarf1 and pgp1/pgp19 mutants display strongly overlapping phenotypes, including reduction and disorientation of growth, suggesting functional interaction.In a recent work using plant and heterologous expression systems, TWD1 has been demonstrated to modulate PGP-mediated export of the plant hormone auxin, which controls virtually all plant developmental processes. Here we summarize recent molecular models on TWD1 function in plant development and PGP-mediated auxin tranport and discuss open questions.Key Words: Twisted Dwarf1, plant development, auxin, immunophilin, P-glycoprotein, ABC transporterFK506-binding Proteins (FKBPs), together with unrelated cyclophilins, belong to the immunophilins, an ancient and ubiquitous protein family.^1,4,5 They were first described as receptors for immunosuppressive drugs in animal and human cells, FK506 and cyclosporin A, respectively.¹ All FKBP-type immunophilins share a characteristic peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase domain (PPIase domain or FKBD, Fig. 2A) making protein folding a key feature among immunophilins.² The best investigated example, the human cytosolic single-domain FKBP12, modulates Ca²⁺ release channels^6,7 and associates with the cell cycle regulator TGF-β.⁸ Furthermore, the human FKBP12/FK506 complex is known to bind and inhibit calcineurin activity,⁹ leading to immune response inhibition. However, not all single- and multiple-domain FKBPs own folding activity and, interestingly, many form distinct protein complexes with diverse functions.^3–5Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model of TWISTED DWARF 1 interacting proteins. (A) Domain structure of TWD1 and putative interacting proteins. FKBD, FK506-binding domain: TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CaM(-BD, calmodulin-binding domain; MA, membrane anchor. For details, see text. (B) Functional TWD1-ABC transporter complexes on both the vacuolar and plasma membrane. While for TWD1/PGP pairs, the positive regulatory role on auxin transport was demonstrated,¹⁸ the modulation of MRP-mediated vacuolar import of glutathion conjugates (GS-X) was established using mammalian test substrates¹⁷ because the in vivo substrates are unknown. Note that C-terminal nucleotide binding folds of MRP- and PGP-like ABC transporters interact with distinct functional domains of TWD1, the TPR and FKBD, respectively. The native auxin, IAAH, gets trapped by deprotonization upon uptake into the cell. Export is catalyzed by secondary active export via PIN-like efflux carriers¹⁵ and/or by primary active, ATP-driven P-glycoproteins (PGPs, right panel); loss-of TWD1 function abolishes PGP-mediated auxin export (left panel).     

NO VEIN facilitates auxin-mediated development in Arabidopsis

Local, efflux-dependent auxin gradients and maxima mediate organ and tissue development in plants. The auxin-efflux pattern is regulated by dynamic expression and asymmetric subcellular localization of PIN auxin-efflux proteins during plant organogenesis. Thus, the question of how the expression and subcellular localization of PIN proteins are controlled goes to the heart of plant development. It has been shown that PIN expression and polarity are established not only through a self-organizing auxin-mediated polarization mechanism, but also through other means such as cell-fate determination. We found that the Arabidopsis NO VEIN (NOV) gene, encoding a novel, plant-specific nuclear factor, is required for leaf vascular development, cellular patterning and stem-cell maintenance in the root meristem and cotyledon outgrowth and separation. NOV function underlies cell-fate decisions associated with auxin gradients and maxima, thereby establishing cell type-specific PIN expression and polarity. We propose that NOV mediates cell acquisition of the competence to undergo auxin-dependent coordinated cell specification and patterning, thereby educing context-dependent auxin-mediated developmental responses.Key words: Arabidopsis, auxin, PIN, organ development, vascular development, stem-cell maintenance, NO VEINIn plants, local auxin gradients associated with auxin maxima mediate coordinated cell specification and patterning in the root,^1–3 lateral organ,^4–6 embryo^7–9 and vascular tissue.^10–13 A central factor in the formation of auxin concentration gradients and maxima is polar auxin transport, which is defined by cell type-specific expression and asymmetric subcellular localization of the PIN family of auxin-efflux proteins.^14,15 Reciprocally, auxin can induce changes in PIN localization^16,17 and expression^18,19 under the influence of cell fate. Therefore, PIN expression and polarity are established not only through the self-organizing auxin-mediated feedback mechanism, but also through cell-fate determination. However, the molecular mechanism regulating PIN expression and polarity remains largely unknown.As a model system to study auxin-mediated polarized development, we have genetically analyzed vascular development in Arabidopsis. The no vein-1 (nov-1) mutant was identified among Arabidopsis mutants defective in leaf vascular development. We found that the Arabidopsis NOV gene is required for leaf vascular development, cellular patterning and stem-cell maintenance in the root meristem and cotyledon outgrowth and separation.²⁰ nov mutations affect many aspects of auxin-dependent development without directly affecting auxin perception. NOV encodes a novel, plant-specific nuclear factor expressed in developing embryos, leaf primordia, lateral-root primordia and the meristematic regions of shoots and roots.²⁰ Here we present additional data on cell specification defects in nov-1 roots, further supporting that NOV function underlies cell-fate decisions associated with auxin gradients and maxima, thus establishing cell-type-specific PIN expression and polarity.In wild type, PIN3, PIN4 and PIN7 proteins exhibit differential expression patterns in the columella root-cap cells. The first tier of columella cells (columella stem cells) express PIN4, the second tier of columella cells expresses PIN3, PIN4 and PIN7 and the third tier expresses PIN3 and PIN7.^2,3,20,21 In nov-1 columella cells, while expression of PIN3 and PIN7 was decreased or almost absent, PIN4 expression was expanded to the third tier of columella cells,²⁰ suggesting that the differential expression of the PIN proteins is disrupted in nov-1. Cell specification defects are also seen in columella cells of nov mutants. In nov-1 and nov-3, the first tier columella stem cells contain starch granules, which in wild type are usually absent, suggesting that fate of the first tier columella stem cells is not maintained in nov-1 and nov-3.²⁰ On the other hand, the columella stem-cell marker J2341 is ectopically expressed in the second and third tiers of nov-1 columella cells (cf. Fig. 1F with A), suggesting that these cells adopt at least some traits of first tier columella cells. Loss of PIN3 and PIN7 expression in the second and third tiers of columella cells and expansion of PIN4 expression to the third tier in nov-1 fit well with the idea that the second and third tiers of columella cells adopt the first tier traits in nov-1. These data suggest that the first to third tiers of nov-1 columella cells adopt mixed cell fates and that NOV is required for establishing both cell fate and PIN expression pattern in columella root cap cells.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Cell-marker expression in wild-type and nov-1 root tips. (A and F) Expression of the columella initials marker J2341. In wild-type roots (A), J2341 is expressed strongly in the first tier of columella cells and very weakly in the quiescent center and other initials. In nov-1 roots (F), J2341 expression encompasses the first to third tiers of columella cells, the quiescent center and cortex/endodermis initial cells. (B, C, G and H) Expression of the ground-tissue marker J0571. In wild-type roots (B and C), J0571 is expressed in the cortex and endodermis and weakly in the quiescent center and cortex/endodermis initials. In nov-1 roots (G and H), J0571 expression is disrupted in the cortex and occasionally perturbed in the endodermis. (D, E, I and J) Expression of Q2500. In wild-type roots (D and E), Q2500 is expressed mainly in the endodermis, weakly in the pericycle and in the epidermis and cortex closer to the root stem-cell niche. In nov-1 roots (I and J), Q2500 expression is also disrupted in the epidermis and cortex. Seedlings used were vertically grown on the surface of 1.5% agar plates for 5 (B, C, G and H) and 7 (A, D–F, I and J) days. The reporter GFP expression (green) is shown with (magenta; A, B, D, F, G and I) and without (C, E, H and J) propidium iodide staining for cell boundary. Arrows in (A) and (F) indicate positions of the first tiers of columella cells. Asterisks in (B–E) and (G–J) mark positions of the cortex cell files. Scale bars = 20 µm [equal scale in (A and B) and in (B–E and G–J), respectively].In wild-type root tips, PIN2 is polarized apically in the epidermis and basally in the cortex.²² In nov-1, PIN2 polarity in the cortex was not basal, but either apical or non-polar.²⁰ In nov mutants, root cortex cells also have cell specification defects. In seedlings of nov-1 and embryos of nov-2, -3, -4 and -5, cortex/endodermis stem cells often undergo premature periclinal division without prior anticlinal division and are thus not maintained as stem cells.²⁰ In nov-1 roots, expression of the ground-tissue marker J0571 is disrupted in the cortex and occasionally perturbed in the endodermis (cf. Fig. 1G and H with ​1B1B and C) and Q2500 expression is also disrupted in the cortex (cf. Fig. 1I and J with ​1D1D and E), suggesting that nov-1 root cortex cells lose some traits of the cortex. These indicate that NOV is required for establishing both cell fate and PIN2 polarity in root cortex cells.Collectively, our data suggest that the NOV indirectly regulates expression and polarity of PIN proteins through mechanisms that include the determination and/or stabilization of cell fate in the root meristem.²⁰ We have also shown that NOV is required for provascular PIN1 expression and region-specific expression of PIN7 in leaf primordia, that NOV helps cells to acquire and maintain their ability to differentiate into vascular cells in response to auxin, that NOV is required for normal cellular organization and stem-cell maintenance in the root stem-cell niche, that NOV has an important role in auxin-mediated embryonic development, and that NOV encodes a previously undescribed plant-specific nuclear factor specifically expressed in developing organs and tissues.²⁰ Together with the data presented in this report, we suggest that NOV function underlies cell-fate decisions associated with auxin gradients and maxima, thus establishing PIN expression and polarity and auxin-mediated development. We propose that NOV is a novel competence factor mediating cell acquisition of competence to undergo auxin-dependent coordinated cell specification and patterning, thereby educing context-dependent developmental responses. Future studies on NOV may shed new light on the fundamental mechanisms by which auxin regulates the formation of plant organs and tissues, regardless of their fate and origin.     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29