Regulation of stomatal opening by the guard cell expansin AtEXPA1

Stomatal movement is strictly regulated by various intracellular and extracellular factors in response environmental signals. In our recent study, we found that an Arabidopsis guard cell expressed expansin, AtEXPA1, regulates stomatal opening by altering the structure of the guard cell wall. This addendum proposes a mechanism by which guard cell expansins regulate stomatal movement.Key words: expansin, stomatal movement, AtEXPA1, guard cell, wall looseningStomatal movement is the most popular model system for cellular signaling transduction research. A complicated complex containing many proteins has been proposed to control stomatal responses to outside stimuli. The known regulation factors are primarily located in the nucleus, cytoplasm, plasma membrane and other intracellular organelles.^1,2 Although the cell wall structure of the stomata is different from that of other cells,^3,4 the presence of stomatal movement regulation factors in the cell wall has seldom been reported in reference ⁵. In our previous work, we found that extracellular calmodulin stimulates a cascade of intracellular signaling events to regulate stomatal movement.⁶ The involvement of this signaling pathway is the first evidence that cell wall proteins play an important role in regulation of stomatal opening. Cell wall-modifying factors constitute a major portion of cell wall proteins. However, the role of these factors in the regulation of stomatal movement is not yet known.Expansins are nonenzymatic proteins that participate in cell wall loosening.^7–9 Expansins were first identified as “acid-growth” factors because they have much higher activities at acidic pHs.^10,11 It has been reported that expansins play important roles in plant cell growth, fruit softening, root hair emergence and other developmental processes in which cell wall loosening is involved.^7–9,12,13 Wall loosening is an essential step in guard cell swelling and the role of stomatal expansins was investigated. AtEXPA1 is an Arabidopsis guard-cell-specific expansin.^13,14 Over-expressing AtEXPA1 increases the rate of light-induced stomatal opening,^14,15 while a potential inhibitor of expansin activity, AtEXPA1 antibody, reduces the sensitivity of stomata to stimuli.¹⁴ We showed that the transpiration rate and the photosynthesis rate in plant lines overexpressing AtEXPA1 were nearly two times the rates for wild-type plants (Fig. 1). These in plant data revealed that expansins accelerated stomatal opening under normal physiological conditions. In addition, the increases in the transpiration and photosynthesis rates strongly suggested the possibility of exploiting expansin-regulated stomatal sensitivity to modify plant drought tolerance. Compared with the effect of hydrolytic cell wall enzymes, the destruction of cell wall structures induced by expansins is minimal. In addition, it is very difficult to directly observe the changes in the guard cell wall structure caused by expansins during stomatal movement. Our recent work showed that, in AtEXPA1-overexpressing plants, the volumetric elastic modulus is lower than in wild-type plants,¹⁴ which indicates the wall structure was loosened and that the cell wall was easier to extend. Taken together, our data suggest that expansins participate in the regulation of stomatal movement by modifying the cell walls of guard cells.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Effects of AtEXPA1 overexpression on transpiration rates and photosynthesis rates. The transpiration rate (left) and photosynthesis rate (right) of wild-type and transgenic AtEXPA1 lines were measured at 10:00 AM in the greenhouse after being watered overnight. The illumination intensity was 180 µmol/m²·s. Bars represent the standard error of the mean of at least five plants per line.It is well known that the activation of proton-pumping ATPase (H⁺-ATPase) in the plasma membrane is an early and essential step in stomatal opening.¹⁶ The action of the pump results in an accumulation of H⁺ outside of the cell, increases the inside-negative electrical potential across the plasma membrane and drives potassium uptake through the voltage-gated, inward-rectifying K⁺ channels.^17–19 The main function of the H⁺ pump is well accepted to create an electrochemical gradient across the plasma membrane; however, the other result is the acidification of the guard cell wall, which may also contribute to stomatal opening. A possible mechanism responsible for this effect is as follows. Expansins are in an inactive state when the stomata are in the resting state. Stomatal opening signals induce wall acidification and activate expansins. Then, the expansins move along with cellulose microfibrils and transiently break down hydrogen bonding between hemicellulose and the surface of cellulose microfibrils,^20,21 facilitating the slippage of cell wall polymers under increasing guard cell turgor pressure. The guard cell then swells and the stomata open (Fig. 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model of how guard cell wall expansins regulate stomatal opening. Environmental stimuli, e.g., light, activate guard cell plasma membrane H⁺-ATPases to pump H⁺ into the extracellular wall space. The accumulation H⁺ acidifies the cell wall and induces the activation of expansin. The active expansin disrupts non-covalent bonding between cellulose microfibrils and matrix glucans to enable the slippage of the cell wall. The wall is loosened coincident with guard cell swelling and without substantial breakdown of the structure.Although our results indicate that AtEXPA1 regulates stomatal movement, the biochemical and structural mechanism by which AtEXPA1 loosens the cell wall remains to be discovered. It remains to figure out the existing of other expansins or coordinators involving in this process. In addition, determining the roles of expansins and the guard cell wall in stomatal closing is another main goal of future research.     

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?     

Structural basis of transmembrane domain interactions in integrin signaling

Cell surface receptors of the integrin family are pivotal to cell adhesion and migration. The activation state of heterodimeric αβ integrins is correlated to the association state of the single-pass α and β transmembrane domains. The association of integrin αIIbβ3 transmembrane domains, resulting in an inactive receptor, is characterized by the asymmetric arrangement of a straight (αIIb) and tilted (β3) helix relative to the membrane in congruence to the dissociated structures. This allows for a continuous association interface centered on helix-helix glycine-packing and an unusual αIIb(GFF) structural motif that packs the conserved Phe-Phe residues against the β3 transmembrane helix, enabling αIIb(D723)β3(R995) electrostatic interactions. The transmembrane complex is further stabilized by the inactive ectodomain, thereby coupling its association state to the ectodomain conformation. In combination with recently determined structures of an inactive integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β complex that overlap with the αβ transmembrane complex, a comprehensive picture of integrin bi-directional transmembrane signaling has emerged.Key words: cell adhesion, membrane protein, integrin, platelet, transmembrane complex, transmembrane signalingThe communication of biological signals across the plasma membrane is fundamental to cellular function. The ubiquitous family of integrin adhesion receptors exhibits the unusual ability to convey signals bi-directionally (outside-in and inside-out signaling), thereby controlling cell adhesion, migration and differentiation.^1–5 Integrins are Type I heterodimeric receptors that consist of large extracellular domains (>700 residues), single-pass transmembrane (TM) domains, and mostly short cytosolic tails (<70 residues). The activation state of heterodimeric integrins is correlated to the association state of the TM domains of their α and β subunits.^6–10 TM dissociation initiated from the outside results in the transmittal of a signal into the cell, whereas dissociation originating on the inside results in activation of the integrin to bind ligands such as extracellular matrix proteins. The elucidation of the role of the TM domains in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling has been the subject of extensive research efforts, perhaps commencing with the demonstration that the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of α subunits (Fig. 1), which closely follows the first charged residue on the intracellular face, αIIb(K989), constrains the receptor to a default low affinity state.¹¹ Despite these efforts, an understanding of this sequence motif had not been reached until such time as the structure of the αIIb TM segment was determined.¹² In combination with the structure of the β3 TM segment¹³ and available mutagenesis data,^6,9,10,14,15 this has allowed the first correct prediction of the overall association of an integrin αβ TM complex.¹² The predicted association was subsequently confirmed by the αIIbβ3 complex structure determined in phospholipid bicelles,¹⁶ as well as by the report of a similar structure based on molecular modeling using disulfide-based structural constraints.¹⁷ In addition to the structures of the dissociated and associated αβ TM domains, their membrane embedding was defined^{12,13,16,18,19} and it was experimentally recognized that, in the context of the native receptor, the TM complex is stabilized by the inactive, resting ectodomain.¹⁶ These advances in integrin membrane structural biology are complemented by the recent structures of a resting integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β cytosolic tail complex that overlap with the αβ TM complex,^20,21 allowing detailed insight into integrin bi-directional TM signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Amino acid sequence of integrin αIIb and β3 transmembrane segments and flanking regions. Membrane-embedded residues^{12,13,16,18,19} are enclosed by a gray box. Residues 991–995 constitute the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of integrin α subunits.     

Mannan synthase activity in the CSLD family

Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL) proteins are a group of plant glycosyltransferases that are predicted to synthesize β-1,4-linked polysaccharide backbones. CSLC, CSLF and CSLH families have been confirmed to synthesize xyloglucan and mixed linkage β-glucan, while CSLA family proteins have been shown to synthesize mannans. The polysaccharide products of the five remaining CSL families have not been determined. Five CSLD genes have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana and a role in cell wall biosynthesis has been demonstrated by reverse genetics. We have extended past research by producing a series of double and triple Arabidopsis mutants and gathered evidence that CSLD2, CSLD3 and CSLD5 are involved in mannan synthesis and that their products are necessary for the transition between early developmental stages in Arabidopsis. Moreover, our data revealed a complex interaction between the three glycosyltransferases and brought new evidence regarding the formation of non-cellulosic polysaccharides through multimeric complexes.Key words: mannan, mannose, plant cell wall, glycosyltransferase, cellulose synthase like, CSL, biosynthesis, hemicelluloseThe plant cell wall is mainly composed of polysaccharides, which are often grouped into cellulose, hemicelluloses and pectin. Since the discovery of the first cellulose synthase (CESA) genes in cotton fibers,¹ the synthesis of cellulose has been extensively studied.² In contrast, the glycosyltransferases responsible for synthesizing hemicelluloses and pectin are still largely unidentified.^3,4,5 The CESA genes are members of a superfamily that includes genes with a high sequence similarity with CESA genes and are named Cellulose Synthase Like (CSL).⁶ The CSL genes have themselves been grouped into nine families designated CSLA, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, -H and -J (Figure 1A).^5,6 Mannan and glucomannan synthase activity has been demonstrated in the CSLA family,^7,8,9 while members of the CSLC family have been implicated in synthesis of the xyloglucan backbone.¹⁰ CSLF and CSLH, which are found only in grasses, are involved in synthesis of mixed linkage glucan.^11,12 The function of the remaining CSL families has not been determined. We have reported our research on the CSLD family in a recent publication.¹³ Of all the CSL families, CSLD possesses the most ancient intron/exon structure and is the most similar to the CESA family.⁶ CSLD genes are found in all sequenced genomes of terrestrial plants including Physcomitrella and Selaginella suggesting a highly conserved function throughout the plant kingdom (Figure 1A). Five genes (CSLD1 to CSLD5) and one apparent pseudogene (CSLD6) have been identified in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹⁴ Bernal et al.^14,15 studied knock-out mutants of the individual genes and presented evidence for a role in cell wall biosynthesis for each Arabidopsis CSLD. To elucidate the activity of the CSLD proteins and obtain further understanding of their biological role, we generated double mutants csld2/csld3, csld2/csld5, csld3/csld5 and the triple mutant csld2/csld3/csld5. Immunochemical, biochemical and complementation assays brought evidence that CSLD5 or CSLD2 in concomitance with CSLD3 act as mannan synthases.Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Schematic representation of the CESA superfamily phylogeny. The inset on the right is a detailed phylogenetic tree of CSLDs from Selaginella moellendorffii, Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa. The figure is modified from Ulvskov and Scheller.⁵ (B) Comparison of csld2, csld3, csld5 with Col-0 20 days after germination. The inflorescences of csld2 and csld3 were similar to Col-0 whereas csld5 had a delayed growth. Scale bar: 1 cm. (C) Col-0 and csld2/csld3/csld5 (triple mutant, TM) 40 days after germination. After 40 days, the triple mutant was barely developed and, as shown in the magnified inset, displayed purple coloration indicating accumulation of anthocyanins, a typical stress response. Scale bar: 2 mm.     

A new callose function: Involvement in differentiation and function of fern stomatal complexes

Callose in polypodiaceous ferns performs multiple roles during stomatal development and function. This highly dynamic (1→3)-β-D-glucan, in cooperation with the cytoskeleton, is involved in: (a) stomatal pore formation, (b) deposition of local GC wall thickenings and (c) the mechanism of stomatal pore opening and closure. This behavior of callose, among others, probably relies on the particular mechanical properties as well as on the ability to form and degrade rapidly, to create a scaffold or to serve as a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials and to produce fibrillar deposits in the periclinal GC walls, radially arranged around the stomatal pore. The local callose deposition in closing stomata is an immediate response of the external periclinal GC walls experiencing strong mechanical forces induced by the neighboring cells. The radial callose fibrils transiently co-exist with radial cellulose microfibrils and, like the latter, seem to be oriented via cortical MTs.Key words: callose, cytoskeleton, fern stomata, guard cell wall thickening, stomatal function, stomatal pore formationCallose represents a hemicellulosic matrix cell wall component, usually of temporal appearance, which is synthesized by callose synthases, enzymes localized in the plasmalemma and degraded by (1→3)-β-glucanases.^1–4 It consists of triple helices of a linear homopolymer of (1→3)-β-glucose residues.^5–7 The plant cell is able to form and degrade callose in a short time. On the surface of the plasmolyzed protoplast a thin callose surface film may arise within seconds.⁸ Callose is the only cell wall component that is implicated in a great variety of developmental plant processes, like cell plate formation,^9–11 microspore development,^12–14 trafficking through plasmodesmata,^15,16 formation and closure of sieve pores,¹⁶ response of the plant cells to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses,^4,5 establishment of distinct “cell cortex domains”,¹⁷ etc.Despite the widespread occurrence of callose, its general function(s) is (are) not well understood (reviewed in refs. ⁴ and ⁵). It may serve as: a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials, as in developing cell plates;⁹ a cell wall-strengthening material, as in cotton seed hairs and growing pollen tubes;¹⁸ a sealing or plugging material at the plasma membrane of pit fields, plasmodesmata and sieve plate pores;¹⁶ a mechanical obstruction to growth of fungal hyphae or a special permeability barrier, as in pollen mother cell walls and muskmelon endosperm envelopes.^4,19,20 The degree of polymerization, age and thickness of callose deposits may cause variation in its physical properties.⁵Evidence accumulated so far showed that a significant number of ferns belonging to Polypodiales and some other fern classes forms intense callose deposits in the developing GC wall thickenings.^21–28 This phenomenon has not been observed in angiosperm stomata, although callose is deposited along the whole surface of the young VW and in the VW ends of differentiating and mature stomata (our unpublished data; reviewed in refs ²⁹ and ³⁰).Stomata are specialized epidermal bicellular structures (Fig. 1A) regulating gas exchange between the aerial plant organs and the external environment. Their appearance in the first land plants was crucial for their adaptation and survival in the terrestrial environment. The constituent GCs have the ability to undergo reversible changes in shape, leading to opening and closure of the stomatal pore (stomatal movement). The mechanism by which GCs change shape is based on: (a) the particular mechanical properties of GC walls owed to their particular shape, thickening, fine structure and chemical composition and (b) the reversible changes in vacuole volume, in response to environmental factors, through fairly complicated biochemical pathways.^30–33Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Diagrammatic representation of an elliptical stoma. (B–E) Diagram to show the process of stomatal pore formation in angiosperms (B and C) and Polypodiales ferns (D and E). The arrows in (B) indicate the forming stomatal pore. DW, dorsal wall; EPW, external periclinal wall; GC, guard cell; IPW, internal periclinal wall; ISP, internal stomatal pore; PE polar ventral wall end; VW, ventral wall.The present review is focused on the multiple-role of callose in differentiating and functioning fern stomata, as they are substantiated by the available information, including some unpublished data, and in particular in: stomatal pore formation, deposition of GC wall thickenings and opening and closure of the stomatal pore. The mode of deposition of fibrillar callose deposits in GC walls and the mechanism of their alignment are also considered.     

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     

Myosin light chain kinases: Division of work in cell migration

Cell motility is a highly coordinated multistep process. Uncovering the mechanism of myosin II (MYO2) activation responsible for the contractility underlying cell protrusion and retraction provides clues on how these complementary activities are coordinated. Several protein kinases have been shown to activate MYO2 by phosphorylating the associated myosin light chain (MLC). Recent work suggests that these MLC kinases are strategically localized to various cellular regions during cell migration in a polarized manner. This localization of the kinases together with their specificity in MLC phosphorylation, their distinct enzymatic properties and the distribution of the myosin isoforms generate the specific contractile activities that separately promote the cell protrusion or retraction essential for cell motility.Key words: myosin, MLCK, ROK, MRCK, phosphorylation, cell migrationCell movement is a fundamental activity underlying many important biological events ranging from embryological development to immunological responses in the adult. A typical cell movement cycle entails polarization, membrane protrusion, formation of new adhesions, cell body translocation and finally rear retraction.¹ A precise temporal and spatial coordination of these separate steps that take place in different parts of the cell is important for rapid and efficient movement.²One major event during eukaryotic cell migration is the myosin II (MYO2)-mediated contraction that underlies cell protrusion, traction and retraction.^1,3 An emerging theme from collective findings is that there are distinct myosin contractile modules responsible for the different functions which are separately regulated by local myosin regulatory light chain (MLC) kinases. These kinases contribute to contractile forces that connect adhesion, protrusion and actin organization.² Unraveling the regulation of these contractile modules is therefore pivotal to a better understanding of the coordination mechanism.At the lamellipodium, the conventional calcium/calmodulin-dependent myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) has been shown to play an essential role in a Rac-dependent lamellipodial extension.⁴ Inhibition of calmodulin or MLCK activity by specific photoactivatable peptides in motile eosinophils effectively blocks lamellipodia extension and net movement.⁵ Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between activated MLCK and phosphorylated MLC within the lamellipodia of Ptk-2 cells as revealed by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) analysis.⁶ More recent studies showed MLCK to regulate the formation of focal complexes during lamellipodia extension.^7,8 Functionally, MLCK is thought to play a critical role in the environment-sensing mechanism that serves to guide membrane protrusion. It mediates contraction that exerts tension on integrin-extracellular matrix (ECM) interaction, which, depending on the rigidity of the substratum, will lead to either stabilization of adhesion resulting in protrusion or destabilization of attachment seen as membrane ruffling on non-permissive surfaces.^8,9As a Rho effector, Rho-associated kinase (ROK/ROCK/Rho-kinase) has been shown to regulate stress fibers and focal adhesion formation by activating myosin, an effect that can be blocked by the specific ROK inhibitor Y-27632.^10,11 Myosin activation by ROK is the effect of two phosphorylation events: the direct phosphorylation on MLC and the inhibition of myosin phosphatase through phosphorylation of its associated myosin-binding subunit (MBS).¹¹ Consistent with this notion of a localization-function relationship, ROK and MBS, which can interact simultaneously with activated RhoA,¹¹ have been shown to colocalize on stress fibers.^12,13 In migrating cells, Rho and ROK activities have been mostly associated with the regulation of tail retraction, as inhibition of their activities often results in trailing tails due to the loss of contractility specifically confined to the cell rear.^14,15 Tail retraction requires high contractile forces to overcome the strong integrin-mediated adhesion established at the rear end, an event which coincides with the strategic accumulation of highly stable and contractile stress fibers that assemble at the posterior region of migrating cells.MRCK was previously shown to phosphorylate MLC and promote Cdc42-mediated cell protrusion.¹⁶ More recently, it was found to colocalize extensively with and regulate the dynamics of a specific actomyosin network located in the lamella and cell center, in a Cdc42-dependent manner but independent of MLCK and ROK.¹⁷ The lamellar actomyosin network physically overlaps with, but is biochemically distinct from the lamellipodial actin meshwork.^9,18 The former network consists of an array of filaments assembled in an arrangement parallel to the leading edge, undergoing continuous retrograde flow across the lamella, with their disassembly occurring at the border of the cell body zone sitting in a deeper region.^17–19 Retrograde flow of the lamellar network plays a significant role in cell migration as it is responsible for generating contractile forces that support sustained membrane protrusion and cell body advancement.^17–19It is therefore conceivable that these three known MLC kinases are regulated by different signaling mechanisms at different locations and on different actomyosin contractile modules. The coordination of the various modules will ensure persistent directional migration (Figure 1). Phosphorylation of MLC by PAK and ZIP kinase has also been reported, but their exact roles in this event have yet to be determined.^20,21 It is also noteworthy that individual kinases can work independently of each other, as amply shown by evidence from inhibitor treatments. This is particularly true for MRCK in the lamella, whose activity on lamellar actomyosin flow is not affected by ML7 and Y-27632, the inhibitors of MLCK and ROK respectively.¹⁷ These findings further indicate that although both ROK and MRCK have been shown to upregulate phosphorylated MLC levels by inhibiting the myosins phosphatases,^11,22 they are likely to act as genuine MLC kinases themselves, without the need of MLCK as previously suggested.¹¹Open in a separate windowFigure 1Upper panel depicts a model for the specific activation of the different MLC kinases at various locations in the cell. In response to upstream signals, MLC kinases MLCK, MRCK and ROK are activated and localized to different regions. In the case of MRCK and ROK, the interaction of the GTP-bound Rho GTPase binding domain will determine the specific action of the downstream kinase, resulting in actomyosin contractility at different locations. The coordination of these signalling events is crucial for directional cell migration. Lower panel shows a typical front-rear location for Myosin 2A and 2B in a migrating U2OS cell.In conjunction with their differences in localization, the three MLC kinases show apparent individual preferences and specificity towards the MYO2 isoforms that they associate with. The two major MYO2 isoforms MYO2A and 2B are known to have distinct intracellular distributions that are linked to their individual functions (Figure 1).^23,24 In motile cells, MYO2A localization that is skewed towards the protruding cell front is consistent with it being the major myosin 2 component of the lamellar filaments regulated by MRCK as well as its regulation by MLCK in lamellipodial contraction.^8,17,19 In contrast, the enrichment of MYO2B at retracting cell rear conforms well with the requirement of thick and stable stress fibers capable of causing tail contraction and prevention of protrusion under the control of Rho/ROK signaling.^23,25 The selection for MYO2B filaments in the cell rear stems from their more contractile and stable nature compared with MYO2A, a consequence of their higher time-averaged association with actin.^26,27 Conversely, the lower tension property of MYO2A filaments suggests that they are more dynamic in nature,^26,27 a characteristic which fits well with the dynamic actomyosin activities at the leading edge and lamella that regulate protrusion.It deserves special mention that the three MLC kinases display subtle differences in their specificity towards MLC. While MLCK and MRCK phosphorylate only a single Ser19 site (monophosphorylation),^18,28 ROK is able to act on both Thr18 and Ser19 residues causing diphosphorylation of MLC,²⁹ MLCK only causes diphosphorylation when present at higher concentrations.³⁰ By further increasing its actin-activated ATPase activity, diphosphorylation of MLC has been shown to induce a higher myosin activation and filament stability.^30–32 The use of specific antibodies that can differentiate between the two populations of phosphorylated MLC has been instrumental in revealing their localization and correlation with the activity of the MLC kinases. The emerging picture from these experiments is that mono and diphosphorylated MLC exhibit distinct distributions in migrating cells, with the monophosphorylated MLC localized more towards the protrusive region, while the diphosphorylated form is more enriched at the posterior end.^21,33 Taking into account their biochemical properties, the polarized distributions of these differentially phosphorylated MLC coincide functionally with the segregation of the MYO2 isoforms and their corresponding regulators. These findings provide further support for the existence of segregated contractile modules in migrating cell and their distinctive regulation.The mechanisms that determine the specific segregation of the contractile modules and their regulation are unclear. However, some clues have emerged from recent studies. It has been shown that the C-terminal coiled-coil region of MYO2B is important for determining its localization in cell rear²⁵ and which requires Rho/ROK activity as their inhibition resulted in the loss of this specific localization.²³ Correspondingly, the inhibition of MRCK activity resulted in the loss of lamella-localized MYO2A.¹⁷ These findings suggest that activation of MYO2 filaments by their upstream regulators is important for their functional segregation and maintenance. It is noteworthy that both ROK and MRCK have distinct regulatory domains including the pleckstrin homology domains which have been shown to be essential for their localization, a process which may involve myosin interaction and lipid-dependent targeting as has been respectively shown for ROK and MRCK.^11,13,16 Further, the specificity of MRCK for lamellar actomyosin is believed to be largely determined by the two proteins it forms a complex with: the adaptor LRAP35a, and the MYO2-related MYO18A. Activation of MYO18A by MRCK, a process bridged by LRAP35a, is a crucial step which facilitates MRCK regulation on lamellar MYO2A.¹⁷The mechanisms responsible for segregating the contractile modules and their regulators may also comprise a pathway that parallels the microtubule-modulatory Par6/aPKC/GSK3β signalling pathway which regulates cellular polarization. This notion is supported by both Cdc42 and Rho being common upstream regulators of these two pathways.³⁴ GTPase activation may determine the localized activities of the separate contractile modules and create an actomyosin-based asymmetry across the cell body, which together with the microtubule-based activities, result in the formation of a front-back axis important for directional movement. The involvement of MRCK in MTOC reorientation and nuclear translocation events,³⁵ and our unpublished observation that LRAP35a has a GSK3β-dependent microtubule stabilizing function are supportive of a possible cross-talk between these two pathways.In conclusion, the complex regulation of contractility in cell migration emphasizes the importance of the localization, specificity and enzymatic properties of the different MLC kinases and myosin isoforms involved. The initial excitement and confusion caused by the emergence of the different MLC kinases are fading, being now overtaken by the curiosity about how they cooperate and are coordinated while promoting cell motility.     

Dynamic protein trafficking to the cell wall

Recently we have studied the secretion pattern of a pectin methylesterase inhibitor protein (PMEI1) and a polygalacturonase inhibitor protein (PGIP2) in tobacco protoplast using the protein fusions, secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP. Both chimeras reach the cell wall by passing through the endomembrane system but using distinct mechanisms and through a pathway distinguishable from the default sorting of a secreted GFP. After reaching the apoplast, sec-GFP-PMEI1 is stably accumulated in the cell wall, while PGIP2-GFP undergoes endocytic trafficking. Here we describe the final localization of PGIP2-GFP in the vacuole, evidenced by co-localization with the marker Aleu-RFP, and show a graphic elaboration of its sorting pattern. A working model taking into consideration the presence of a regulated apoplast-targeted secretion pathway is proposed.Key words: cell wall trafficking, endocytosis, GPI-anchor, PGIP2, PMEI1, secretion pathway, vacuole fluorescent markerCell wall biogenesis, growth, differentiation and remodeling, as well as wall-related signaling and defense responses depend on the functionality of the secretory pathway. Matrix polysaccharides, synthesized in the Golgi stacks, and cell wall proteins, synthesized in the ER, are packaged into secretory vesicles that fuse with the plasma membrane (PM) releasing their cargo into the cell wall. Also the synthesis and deposition of cellulose itself are driven by the endomembrane system which controls the assembly, within the Golgi, and the export to the plasma membrane of rosette complexes of cellulose synthase.¹ Secretion to the cell wall has always been considered a default pathway² but recent studies have evidenced a complex regulation of wall component trafficking that does not seem to follow the default secretion model. Recent evidence that several cell wall proteins are retained in the Golgi stacks until specific signals at the N-terminal domain are proteolitically removed is a case in point.^3–5 Moreover, it has previously been reported that secretion of exogenous marker proteins (secGFP and secRGUS) and cell wall polysaccharides reach the PM through different pathways.⁶ More recently, we have reported that cell wall protein trafficking also occurs through mechanisms distinguishable from that of a secreted GFP suggesting that more complex events than the mechanisms of bulk flow control cell wall growth and differentiation.⁷ To follow cell wall protein trafficking we used a Phaseolus vulgaris polygalacturonase inhibitor protein (PGIP2) and an Arabidopsis pectin methylesterase inhibitor protein (PMEI1) fused to GFP (PGIP2-GFP and secGFP-PMEI1). Both apoplastic proteins are involved in the remodeling of pectin network with different mechanisms. PGIP2 specifically inhibits exogenous fungal polygalacturonases (PGs) and is involved in the plant defense mechanisms against pathogenic fungi.^8,9 PMEI1 counteracts endogenous PME and takes part in the physiological synthesis and remodeling of the cell wall during growth and differentiation.^10,11 The specific functions of the two apoplastic proteins seem to be strictly related to the distinct mechanisms that control their secretion and stability in the cell wall. In fact, while secGFP-PMEI1 moves through ER and Golgi stacks linked to a glycosyl phosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchor, PGIP2-GFP moves as a cargo soluble protein. Furthermore, secGFP-PMEI1 is stably accumulated in the cell wall, while PGIP2-GFP, over the time, is internalized into endosomes and targeted to vacuole, likely for degradation. After reaching the cell wall, the different fate of the two proteins seems to be strictly related to the presence/absence of their physiological counteractors. PMEI regulates the demethylesterification of homogalacturonan by inhibiting pectin methyl esterase (PME) activity through the formation of a reversible 1:1 complex which is stable in the acidic cell wall environment.¹² Stable wall localization of PMEI1 is likely related to its interaction with endogenous PME, always present in the wall. Unlike PMEs, fungal polygalacturonases (PGs), the physiological interactors of PGIP2, are present in the cell wall only during a pathogen attack. The absence of PGs may determine PGIP2 internalization. Internalization events have been already reported for PM proteins,^13–16 while cell wall protein internalization is surely a less well-known event. To date, only internalization of an Arabidopsis pollen-specific PME^4,5,17 and PGIP2 ⁷ has been reported.To further confirm the internalization of PGIP2-GFP and its final localization into the vacuole, we constructed a red fluorescent variant (RFP) of the green fluorescent marker protein that accumulates in lytic or acidic vacuole because of the barley aleurain sorting determinants (Aleu-RFP).¹⁸ The localization of PGIP2-GFP was compared to that of Aleu-RFP by confocal microscopy in tobacco protoplasts transiently expressing both fusions. Sixty hours after transformation, PGIP2-GFP labeled the central vacuole as indicated by complete co-localization with the vacuolar marker (Fig. 1A–D). Instead, at the same time point, secGFP-PMEI1 still labeled the cell wall (Fig. 1E–H) and never reached the vacuolar compartment. To summarize PGIP2-GFP secretion pattern, a graphic elaboration of confocal images is reported describing the sorting of PGIP2GFP in tobacco protoplast (Fig. 1I). The protein transits through the endomembrane system (green) and reaches the cell wall which is rapidly regenerating as evidenced by immunostaining with the red monoclonal antibody JIM7 that binds to methylesterified pectins.¹⁹ PGIP2-GFP is then internalized in endosomes, labeled in yellow because of the co-localization with the styryl dye FM4-64, a red marker of the endocytic pathway.Open in a separate windowFigure 1PGIP2-GFP, but not secGFP-PMEI1, is internalized and reaches the vacuole in tobacco leaf protoplasts. (A) Approximately 60 h after transformation, PGIP2-GFP labeled the central vacuole as indicated by co-localization with the vacuole marker Aleu-RFP (B). (C) Merged image of (A and B). (D) Differential interference contrast (DIC) image of (A–C). On the contrary, secGFP-PMEI1 still labeled cell wall (E). (F) No co-localization is present in the vacuole labeled by Aleu-RFP. (G) Merged image of (E and F). (H) DIC image of (E–G). (I) Graphic elaboration of confocal images describing the sorting of PGIP2. The protein is sorted by the endomembrane system (green) to the cell wall (red) that is regenerated by the protoplast. Lacking the specific ligand, it is then internalized in endosome (yellow). Details are reported in the text.In Figure 2 we propose a model of the mechanism of secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP secretion derived from the different lines of evidence previously reported in reference ⁷. SecGFPPMEI1 (Fig. 2-1), but not PGIP2-GFP (Fig. 2-2), carries a GPI-anchor, required for its secretion to the cell wall. When the anchorage of GPI is inhibited by mannosamine (Fig. 2-a) or by the fusion of GFP to the C-terminus of PMEI1 (Fig. 2-b), the two non-anchored proteins accumulate in the Golgi stacks. Evidence of retention in Golgi stacks has already been reported for other two cell wall proteins.^3–5 Unlike secGFP-PMEI1, PGIP2-GFP is not stably accumulated in the cell wall and undergoes endocytic trafficking (Fig. 2-3). PGIP2-GFP internalization, likely due to the absence of PGs, might also be related with its ability to interact with homogalacturonan and oligogalacturonides,²⁰ which have been reported to internalize^21,22 (Fig. 2-4). Since SYP 121, a Qa-SNARE, is involved in the default secretion of secGFP,²³ but not in secretion of PGIP2-GFP and secGFP-PMEI1, trafficking mechanisms underlying secretion into the apoplast are likely different from those underlying the default route (Figs. 2-5). Taken as a whole, evidence suggests the existence of currently undefined signals that control apoplast-targeted secretion.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic illustration for secGFP-PMEI1 and PGIP2-GFP trafficking. See text for details.