mTORC1-Activated S6K1 Phosphorylates Rictor on Threonine 1135 and Regulates mTORC2 Signaling

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a conserved Ser/Thr kinase that forms two functionally distinct complexes important for nutrient and growth factor signaling. While mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) regulates mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, mTORC2 plays an important role in the phosphorylation and subsequent activation of Akt. Interestingly, mTORC1 negatively regulates Akt activation, but whether mTORC1 signaling directly targets mTORC2 remains unknown. Here we show that growth factors promote the phosphorylation of Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), an essential subunit of mTORC2. We found that Rictor phosphorylation requires mTORC1 activity and, more specifically, the p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1). We identified several phosphorylation sites in Rictor and found that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 in vitro and in vivo, in a rapamycin-sensitive manner. Phosphorylation of Rictor on Thr1135 did not affect mTORC2 assembly, kinase activity, or cellular localization. However, cells expressing a Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased mTORC2-dependent phosphorylation of Akt. In addition, phosphorylation of the Akt substrates FoxO1/3a and glycogen synthase kinase 3α/β (GSK3α/β) was found to be increased in these cells, indicating that S6K1-mediated phosphorylation of Rictor inhibits mTORC2 and Akt signaling. Together, our results uncover a new regulatory link between the two mTOR complexes, whereby Rictor integrates mTORC1-dependent signaling.The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an evolutionarily conserved phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-related Ser/Thr kinase that integrates signals from nutrients, energy sufficiency, and growth factors to regulate cell growth as well as organ and body size in a variety of organisms (reviewed in references 4, 38, 49, and 77). mTOR was discovered as the molecular target of rapamycin, an antifungal agent used clinically as an immunosuppressant and more recently as an anticancer drug (5, 20). Recent evidence indicates that deregulation of the mTOR pathway occurs in a majority of human cancers (12, 18, 25, 46), suggesting that rapamycin analogs may be potent antineoplastic therapeutic agents.mTOR forms two distinct multiprotein complexes, the rapamycin-sensitive and -insensitive mTOR complexes 1 and 2 (mTORC1 and mTORC2), respectively (6, 47). In cells, rapamycin interacts with FKBP12 and targets the FKBP12-rapamycin binding (FRB) domain of mTORC1, thereby inhibiting some of its function (13, 40, 66). mTORC1 is comprised of the mTOR catalytic subunit and four associated proteins, Raptor (regulatory associated protein of mTOR), mLST8 (mammalian lethal with sec13 protein 8), PRAS40 (proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa), and Deptor (28, 43, 44, 47, 59, 73, 74). The small GTPase Rheb (Ras homolog enriched in brain) is a key upstream activator of mTORC1 that is negatively regulated by the tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (TSC1)/TSC2 GTPase-activating protein complex (reviewed in reference 35). mTORC1 is activated by PI3K and Ras signaling through direct phosphorylation and inactivation of TSC2 by Akt, extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), and p90 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RSK) (11, 37, 48, 53, 63). mTORC1 activity is also regulated at the level of Raptor. Whereas low cellular energy levels negatively regulate mTORC1 activity through phosphorylation of Raptor by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (27), growth signaling pathways activating the Ras/ERK pathway positively regulate mTORC1 activity through direct phosphorylation of Raptor by RSK (10). More recent evidence has also shown that mTOR itself positively regulates mTORC1 activity by directly phosphorylating Raptor at proline-directed sites (20a, 75). Countertransport of amino acids (55) and amino acid signaling through the Rag GTPases were also shown to regulate mTORC1 activity (45, 65). When activated, mTORC1 phosphorylates two main regulators of mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, the AGC (protein kinase A, G, and C) family kinase p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), and thus stimulates protein synthesis and cellular growth (50, 60).The second mTOR complex, mTORC2, is comprised of mTOR, Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), mSin1 (mammalian stress-activated mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting protein 1), mLST8, PRR5 (proline-rich region 5), and Deptor (21, 39, 58, 59, 66, 76, 79). Rapamycin does not directly target and inhibit mTORC2, but long-term treatment with this drug was shown to correlate with mTORC2 disassembly and cytoplasmic accumulation of Rictor (21, 39, 62, 79). Whereas mTORC1 regulates hydrophobic motif phosphorylation of S6K1, mTORC2 has been shown to phosphorylate other members of the AGC family of kinases. Biochemical and genetic evidence has demonstrated that mTORC2 phosphorylates Akt at Ser473 (26, 39, 68, 70), thereby contributing to growth factor-mediated Akt activation (6, 7, 52). Deletion or knockdown of the mTORC2 components mTOR, Rictor, mSin1, and mLST8 has a dramatic effect on mTORC2 assembly and Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 (26, 39, 79). mTORC2 was also shown to regulate protein kinase Cα (PKCα) (26, 66) and, more recently, serum- and glucocorticoid-induced protein kinase 1 (SGK1) (4, 22). Recent evidence implicates mTORC2 in the regulation of Akt and PKCα phosphorylation at their turn motifs (19, 36), but whether mTOR directly phosphorylates these sites remains a subject of debate (4).Activation of mTORC1 has been shown to negatively regulate Akt phosphorylation in response to insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) (reviewed in references 30 and 51). This negative regulation is particularly evident in cell culture models with defects in the TSC1/TSC2 complex, where mTORC1 and S6K1 are constitutively activated. Phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) by mTORC1 (72) and its downstream target S6K1 has been shown to decrease its stability and lead to an inability of insulin or IGF1 to activate PI3K and Akt (29, 69). Although the mechanism is unknown, platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGF-Rβ) has been found to be downregulated in TSC1- and TSC2-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), contributing to a reduction of PI3K signaling (80). Interestingly, inhibition of Akt phosphorylation by mTORC1 has also been observed in the presence of growth factors other than IGF-1, insulin, or PDGF, suggesting that there are other mechanisms by which mTORC1 activation restricts Akt activity in cells (reviewed in references 6 and 31). Recent evidence demonstrates that rapamycin treatment causes a significant increase in Rictor electrophoretic mobility (2, 62), suggesting that phosphorylation of the mTORC2 subunit Rictor may be regulated by mTORC1 or downstream protein kinases.Herein, we demonstrate that Rictor is phosphorylated by S6K1 in response to mTORC1 activation. We demonstrate that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 and found that a Rictor mutant lacking this phosphorylation site increases Akt phosphorylation induced by growth factor stimulation. Cells expressing the Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased Akt signaling to its substrates compared to Rictor wild-type- and T1135D mutant-expressing cells. Together, our results suggest that Rictor integrates mTORC1 signaling via its phosphorylation by S6K1, resulting in the inhibition of mTORC2 and Akt signaling.     

Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 (mTORC1) Activity Is Associated with Phosphorylation of Raptor by mTOR

mTORC1 contains multiple proteins and plays a central role in cell growth and metabolism. Raptor (regulatory-associated protein of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)), a constitutively binding protein of mTORC1, is essential for mTORC1 activity and critical for the regulation of mTORC1 activity in response to insulin signaling and nutrient and energy sufficiency. Herein we demonstrate that mTOR phosphorylates raptor in vitro and in vivo. The phosphorylated residues were identified by using phosphopeptide mapping and mutagenesis. The phosphorylation of raptor is stimulated by insulin and inhibited by rapamycin. Importantly, the site-directed mutation of raptor at one phosphorylation site, Ser⁸⁶³, reduced mTORC1 activity both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, the Ser⁸⁶³ mutant prevented small GTP-binding protein Rheb from enhancing the phosphorylation of S6 kinase (S6K) in cells. Therefore, our findings indicate that mTOR-mediated raptor phosphorylation plays an important role on activation of mTORC1.Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)² has been shown to function as a critical controller in cellular growth, survival, metabolism, and development (1). mTOR, a highly conserved Ser-Thr phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related protein kinase, structurally forms two distinct complexes, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2), each of which catalyzes the phosphorylation of different substrates (1). The best characterized substrates for mTORC1 are eIF4E-binding protein (4E-BP, also known as PHAS) and p70 S6 kinase (S6K) (1), whereas mTORC2 phosphorylates the hydrophobic and turn motifs of protein kinase B (Akt/protein kinase B) (2) and protein kinase C (3, 4). mTORC1 constitutively consists of mTOR, raptor, and mLst8/GβL (1), whereas the proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa (PRAS40) is a regulatory component of mTORC1 that disassociates after growth factor stimulation (5, 6). Raptor is essential for mTORC1 activity by providing a substrate binding function (7) but also plays a regulatory role on mTORC1 with stimuli of growth factors and nutrients (8). In response to insulin, raptor binding to substrates is elevated through the release of the competitive inhibitor PRAS40 from mTORC1 (9, 10) because PRAS40 and the substrates of mTORC1 (4E-BP and S6K) appear to bind raptor through a consensus sequence, the TOR signaling (TOS) motif (10–14). In response to amino acid sufficiency, raptor directly interacts with a heterodimer of Rag GTPases and promotes mTORC1 localization to the Rheb-containing vesicular compartment (15).mTORC1 integrates signaling pathways from growth factors, nutrients, energy, and stress, all of which generally converge on the tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC1-TSC2) through the phosphorylation of TSC2 (1). Growth factors inhibit the GTPase-activating protein activity of TSC2 toward the small GTPase Rheb via the PI3K/Akt pathway (16, 17), whereas energy depletion activates TSC2 GTPase-activating protein activity by stimulating AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (18). Rheb binds directly to mTOR, albeit with very low affinity (19), and upon charging with GTP, Rheb functions as an mTORC1 activator (6). mTORC1 complexes isolated from growth factor-stimulated cells show increased kinase activity yet do not contain detectable levels of associated Rheb. Therefore, how Rheb-GTP binding to mTOR leads to an increase in mTORC1 activity toward substrates, and what the role of raptor is in this activation is currently unknown. More recently, the AMPK and p90 ribosomal S6 kinase (RSK) have been reported to directly phosphorylate raptor and regulate mTORC1 activity. The phosphorylation of raptor directly by AMPK reduced mTORC1 activity, suggesting an alternative regulation mechanism independent of TSC2 in response to energy supply (20). RSK-mediated raptor phosphorylation enhances mTORC1 activity and provides a mechanism whereby stress may activate mTORC1 independent of the PI3K/Akt pathway (21). Therefore, the phosphorylation status of raptor can be critical for the regulation of mTORC1 activity.In this study, we investigated phosphorylation sites in raptor catalyzed by mTOR. Using two-dimensional phosphopeptide mapping, we found that Ser⁸⁶³ and Ser⁸⁵⁹ in raptor were phosphorylated by mTOR both in vivo and in vitro. mTORC1 activity in vitro and in vivo is associated with the phosphorylation of Ser⁸⁶³ in raptor.     

Regulation of mTORC1 and mTORC2 Complex Assembly by Phosphatidic Acid: Competition with Rapamycin

mTOR, the mammalian target of rapamycin, is a critical node for control of cell growth and survival and has widely been implicated in cancer survival signals. mTOR exists in two complexes: mTORC1 and mTORC2. Phospholipase D (PLD) and its metabolite phosphatidic acid (PA) have been implicated in the regulation of mTOR; however, their role has been controversial. We report here that suppression of PLD prevents phosphorylation of the mTORC1 substrate S6 kinase (S6K) at Thr389 and the mTORC2 substrate Akt at Ser473. Suppression of PLD also blocked insulin-stimulated Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 and the mTORC2-dependent phosphorylation of PRAS40. Importantly, PA was required for the association of mTOR with Raptor to form mTORC1 and that of mTOR with Rictor to form mTORC2. The effect of PA was competitive with rapamycin—with much higher concentrations of rapamycin needed to compete with the PA-mTORC2 interaction than with PA-mTORC1. Suppressing PA production substantially increased the sensitivity of mTORC2 to rapamycin. Data provided here demonstrate a PA requirement for the stabilization of both mTORC1 and mTORC2 complexes and reveal a mechanism for the inhibitory effect of rapamycin on mTOR. This study also suggests that by suppressing PLD activity, mTORC2 could be targeted therapeutically with rapamycin.It has become apparent during the past decade that a critical aspect of tumor progression is the suppression of default apoptotic programs that constitute what is likely the most important protection against cancer. Cellular signals that suppress apoptosis have come to be known as “survival signals.” A common node for survival signals is mTOR, the mammalian target of rapamycin (5, 13, 14, 25). mTOR exists in two distinct complexes, mTORC1 and mTORC2 (21), that differ in their subunit composition and sensitivity to rapamycin. mTORC1 consists of a complex that includes mTOR and a protein known as Raptor (regulatory associated protein of mTOR), whereas mTORC2 consists of a complex that includes mTOR and a protein known as Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR) (13, 14). There are also mTORC2 complexes that can be distinguished by association with different isoforms of mSin1 (9). While much is known about the regulation of mTORC1 (21), very little is known about the regulation of mTORC2.mTORC1 is highly sensitive to rapamycin, whereas mTORC2 is relatively insensitive to rapamycin (21). However, it was recently reported that long-term exposure to rapamycin prevented the formation of mTORC2 complexes and blocked the phosphorylation of the mTORC2 substrate Akt at Ser473 (24, 38). Rapamycin, in association with FK506 binding protein 12 (FKBP12), has been reported to interact with mTOR in a manner that is competitive with phosphatidic acid (PA), the metabolic product of phospholipase D (PLD) (2, 4). PLD, like mTOR, has been implicated in survival signals in several human cancer cell lines (1, 10, 11, 27, 32, 39). Since rapamycin-FKBP12 competes with PA for binding to mTOR, the sensitivity of mTORC2 complex formation to rapamycin suggests that PA facilitates the assembly of mTORC2—and ultimately the activation of mTORC2. We report here that the assembly of both mTORC1 and mTORC2 complexes is dependent upon PLD and its metabolite PA. The study also provides mechanistic insight into how rapamycin impacts on mTOR-mediated signals and how PLD regulates mTOR by facilitating the formation of mTOR complexes.     

Site-Specific mTOR Phosphorylation Promotes mTORC1-Mediated Signaling and Cell Growth

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1) functions as a rapamycin-sensitive environmental sensor that promotes cellular biosynthetic processes in response to growth factors and nutrients. While diverse physiological stimuli modulate mTORC1 signaling, the direct biochemical mechanisms underlying mTORC1 regulation remain poorly defined. Indeed, while three mTOR phosphorylation sites have been reported, a functional role for site-specific mTOR phosphorylation has not been demonstrated. Here we identify a new site of mTOR phosphorylation (S1261) by tandem mass spectrometry and demonstrate that insulin-phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling promotes mTOR S1261 phosphorylation in both mTORC1 and mTORC2. Here we focus on mTORC1 and show that TSC/Rheb signaling promotes mTOR S1261 phosphorylation in an amino acid-dependent, rapamycin-insensitive, and autophosphorylation-independent manner. Our data reveal a functional role for mTOR S1261 phosphorylation in mTORC1 action, as S1261 phosphorylation promotes mTORC1-mediated substrate phosphorylation (e.g., p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase 1 [S6K1] and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E binding protein 1) and cell growth to increased cell size. Moreover, Rheb-driven mTOR S2481 autophosphorylation and S6K1 phosphorylation require S1261 phosphorylation. These data provide the first evidence that site-specific mTOR phosphorylation regulates mTORC1 function and suggest a model whereby insulin-stimulated mTOR S1261 phosphorylation promotes mTORC1 autokinase activity, substrate phosphorylation, and cell growth.The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), an evolutionarily conserved serine/threonine protein kinase, senses and integrates signals from diverse environmental cues (14, 31, 50, 74). mTOR associates with different partner proteins to form functionally distinct signaling complexes (4). The immunosuppressive drug rapamycin acutely inhibits signaling by mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) (22), which contains mTOR, mLST8/GβL, raptor, and PRAS40 (24, 33, 34, 54, 67). Rapamycin fails to acutely inhibit signaling by mTORC2, which contains mTOR, mLST8/GβL, rictor, mSin1, and PRR5/Protor (18, 32, 47, 55, 73, 76). mTORC1 promotes various biosynthetic processes, including protein synthesis, cell growth (an increase in cell mass and size), and cell proliferation (an increase in cell number) (14, 40, 74). During growth factor (e.g., insulin) and nutrient (e.g., amino acids and glucose) sufficiency, mTORC1 phosphorylates the translational regulators p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E binding protein 1 (4EBP1) to coordinately upregulate protein biosynthesis (40). Both S6K1 and 4EBP1 contain a TOR signaling motif, which mediates their interaction with raptor and thus facilitates their recruitment to the mTOR kinase (10, 44, 57, 58). In addition to regulating protein synthesis, mTORC1-mediated phosphorylation of S6K1 and 4EBP also promotes cell growth and cell cycle progression (15, 16). While more recently identified and thus less well characterized than mTORC1, mTORC2 mediates the phosphorylation of AGC kinase family members (e.g., Akt [also known as protein kinase B, PKB], PKCα, and SGK1) on their hydrophobic motifs and modulates the organization of the actin cytoskeleton (20, 26, 32, 55, 56).The insulin pathway represents the best-characterized activator of mTORC1 signaling to date, and thus many signaling intermediates that link insulin receptor activation to mTORC1 have been identified (12, 31). Complementary work using Drosophila melanogaster genetics and mammalian cell culture identified TSC1 (hamartin) and TSC2 (tuberin) as upstream negative regulators of mTORC1 (27). Inactivation of either the TSC1 or TSC2 genes, whose protein products heterodimerize to form a tumor suppressor complex, causes the development of benign tumors in diverse organs in both humans and rodents, a disease known as tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) (36). TSC2 contains a GTPase-activating protein domain that acts on Rheb, a Ras-like GTP binding protein that activates mTORC1 (27). Thus, in TSC-deficient cells, constitutive Rheb-GTP leads to chronically high mTORC1 signaling. While the mechanism by which Rheb-GTP activates mTORC1 remains incompletely understood, Rheb coimmunoprecipitates with mTOR and directly activates mTORC1 kinase activity in vivo and in vitro when GTP bound (2, 38, 54). Rheb has been reported to augment the activity of PLD1, an enzyme that catalyzes the production of the lipid second messenger phosphatidic acid, which contributes to the mitogenic activation of mTORC1 signaling (13, 62). Additionally, Rheb-GTP was reported to induce the dissociation of the endogenous mTOR inhibitor FKBP38 (3), although aspects of this model have been questioned (72). Insulin/phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling reduces the inhibitory effect of TSC on mTORC1 via Akt-mediated phosphorylation of TSC2 (29, 42, 64). Additionally, Ras-regulated signaling via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and RSK also inhibits TSC via PI3K/Akt-independent phosphorylation of TSC2 (39, 51, 63). In contrast, glucose deprivation enhances TSC''s inhibitory effect on mTORC1 signaling via AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)-mediated phosphorylation of TSC2 (on different sites) (30). Thus, TSC functions as a central nexus of diverse physiological signals to fine-tune mTORC1 signaling depending on environmental conditions (27). While the mechanism by which amino acids promote mTORC1 signaling has remained elusive, compelling new data reveal that the Rag GTPases link amino acid sensing to mTORC1 activation (35, 52, 53). During amino acid sufficiency, GTP-bound Rag heterodimers bind raptor and recruit mTORC1 to an endomembrane compartment that contains the mTORC1 activator Rheb; thus, amino acid sufficiency may function to prime mTORC1 for subsequent growth factor-mediated activation via a dynamic subcellular redistribution mechanism (52).Despite the well-characterized regulation of mTORC1 signaling by growth factors (e.g., insulin), nutrients (e.g., amino acids and glucose), and cellular stress (e.g., hypoxia) and the identification of numerous signaling mediators of these pathways, the direct molecular mechanisms by which cellular signals modulate mTORC1 action remain obscure (31). While three phosphorylation sites (P-sites) on mTOR have been reported to date (T2446, S2448, and S2481), no function has yet been ascribed to any site (7, 43, 49, 59). Here we identify S1261 as a novel mTOR phosphorylation site in vivo in cultured mammalian cells and provide the first evidence that site-specific mTOR phosphorylation regulates mTORC1 function. We show that insulin signals via the PI3K/TSC/Rheb pathway in an amino acid-dependent and rapamycin-insensitive manner to promote mTOR S1261 phosphorylation, which regulates mTORC1 autokinase activity, biochemical signaling to downstream substrates, and cell growth to increased cell size, a major cellular function of mTORC1. Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms underlying mTORC1 regulation will enable us to better understand how mTORC1 senses environmental stimuli to control cellular physiology. As aberrantly upregulated mTORC1 signaling likely contributes to cancer, insulin-resistant diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, understanding mTORC1 regulation may aid in the development of novel therapeutics for these prevalent human diseases (11, 21, 28).     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

Functional Proteomics Identifies Acinus L as a Direct Insulin- and Amino Acid-Dependent Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 (mTORC1) Substrate

The serine/threonine kinase mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) governs growth, metabolism, and aging in response to insulin and amino acids (aa), and is often activated in metabolic disorders and cancer. Much is known about the regulatory signaling network that encompasses mTOR, but surprisingly few direct mTOR substrates have been established to date. To tackle this gap in our knowledge, we took advantage of a combined quantitative phosphoproteomic and interactomic strategy. We analyzed the insulin- and aa-responsive phosphoproteome upon inhibition of the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) component raptor, and investigated in parallel the interactome of endogenous mTOR. By overlaying these two datasets, we identified acinus L as a potential novel mTORC1 target. We confirmed acinus L as a direct mTORC1 substrate by co-immunoprecipitation and MS-enhanced kinase assays. Our study delineates a triple proteomics strategy of combined phosphoproteomics, interactomics, and MS-enhanced kinase assays for the de novo-identification of mTOR network components, and provides a rich source of potential novel mTOR interactors and targets for future investigation.The serine/threonine kinase mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)¹ is conserved in all eukaryotes from yeast to mammals (1). mTOR is a central controller of cellular growth, whole body metabolism, and aging, and is frequently deregulated in metabolic diseases and cancer (2). Consequently, mTOR as well as its upstream and downstream cues are prime candidates for targeted drug development to alleviate the causes and symptoms of age-related diseases (3, 4). The identification of novel mTOR regulators and effectors thus remains a major goal in biomedical research. A vast body of literature describes a complex signaling network around mTOR. However, our current comparatively detailed knowledge of mTOR''s upstream cues contrasts with a rather limited set of known direct mTOR substrates.mTOR exists in two structurally and functionally distinct multiprotein complexes, termed mTORC1 and mTORC2. Both complexes contain mTOR kinase as well as the proteins mLST8 (mammalian lethal with SEC thirteen 8) (5–7), and deptor (DEP domain-containing mTOR-interacting protein) (8). mTORC1 contains the specific scaffold protein raptor (regulatory-associated protein of mTOR) (9, 10), whereas mTORC2 contains the specific binding partners rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR) (5–7), mSIN1 (TORC2 subunit MAPKAP1) (11–13), and PRR5/L (proline rich protein 5/-like) (14–16). The small macrolide rapamycin acutely inhibits mTORC1, but can also have long-term effects on mTORC2 (17, 18). More recently, ATP-analogs (19) that block both mTOR complexes, such as Torin 1 (20), have been developed. As rapamycin has already been available for several decades, our knowledge of signaling events associated with mTORC1 as well as its metabolic inputs and outputs is much broader as compared with mTORC2. mTORC1 responds to growth factors (insulin), nutrients (amino acids, aa) and energy (ATP). In response, mTORC1 activates anabolic processes (protein, lipid, nucleotide synthesis) and blocks catabolic processes (autophagy) to ultimately allow cellular growth (21). The insulin signal is transduced to mTORC1 via the insulin receptor (IR), and the insulin receptor substrate (IRS), which associates with class I phosphoinositide 3-kinases (PI3Ks). Subsequent phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5 trisphosphate (PIP3) binding leads to relocalization of the AGC kinases phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase 1 (PDK1) and Akt (also termed protein kinase B, PKB) to the plasma membrane, where PDK1 phosphorylates Akt at T308 (22, 23). In response, Akt phosphorylates and inhibits the heterocomplex formed by the tuberous sclerosis complex proteins 1 and 2 (TSC1-TSC2) (24, 25). TSC1-TSC2 is the inhibitory, GTPase-activating protein for the mTORC1-inducing GTPase Ras homolog enriched in brain (rheb) (26–30), which activates mTORC1 at the lysosome. mTORC1 localization depends on the presence of aa, which in a rag GTPase-dependent manner induce mTORC1 relocalization to lysosomes (31, 32). Low energy levels are sensed by the AMP-dependent kinase (AMPK), which in turn phosphorylates the TSC1-TSC2 complex (33) and raptor (34), thereby inhibiting mTORC1.mTORC1 phosphorylates its well-described downstream substrate S6-kinase (S6K) at T389, the proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa (PRAS40) at S183, and the translational repressor 4E-binding protein (4E-BP) at T37/46 (35–41). Unphosphorylated 4E-BP binds and inhibits the translation initiation factor 4G (eIF4G), which within the eIF4F complex mediates the scanning process of the ribosome to reach the start codon. Phosphorylation by mTORC1 inhibits 4E-BP''s interaction with eIF4E, thus allowing for assembly of eIF4F, and translation initiation (42, 43). More recently, also the IR-activating growth factor receptor-bound protein 10 (Grb10) (44, 45), the autophagy-initiating Unc-51-like kinase ULK1 (46), and the trifunctional enzymatic complex CAD composed of carbamoyl-phosphate synthetase 2, aspartate transcarbamoylase, and dihydroorotase (47, 48), which is required for nucleotide synthesis, have been described as direct mTORC1 substrates.mTORC2 activation is mostly described to be mediated by insulin, and this is mediated by a PI3K variant that is distinct from the PI3K upstream of mTORC1 (49, 50). Furthermore, mTORC2 responds to aa (5, 51). In response, mTORC2 phosphorylates the AGC kinases Akt at S473 (52–55), and serum and glucocorticoid kinase SGK (56) and protein kinase C alpha (PKCalpha) (7) within their hydrophobic motifs (57, 58), to control cellular motility (5–7), hepatic glycolysis, and lipogenesis (59). In addition, mTOR autophosphorylation at S2481 has been established as an mTORC2 readout in several cell lines including HeLa cells (49).Given the multiplicity of effects via which mTOR controls cellular and organismal growth and metabolism, it is surprising that only relatively few direct mTOR substrates have been established to date. Proteomic studies are widely used to identify novel interactors and substrates of protein kinases. Two studies have recently shed light on the interaction of rapamycin and ATP-analog mTOR inhibitors with TSC2 inhibition in mammalian cells (44, 45), and one study has analyzed the effects of raptor and rictor knockouts in non-stimulated cells (48).In this work, we report a functional proteomics approach to study mTORC1 substrates. We used an inducible raptor knockdown to inhibit mTORC1 in HeLa cells, and analyzed the effect in combination with insulin and aa induction by quantitative phosphoproteomics using stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) (60). In parallel, we purified endogenous mTOR complexes and studied the interactome of mTOR by SILAC-MS. Through comparative data evaluation, we identified acinus L as a potential novel aa/insulin-sensitive mTOR substrate. We further validated acinus L by co-immunoprecipitation and MS-enhanced kinase assays as a new direct mTORC1 substrate.     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Specific Activation of mTORC1 by Rheb G-protein in Vitro Involves Enhanced Recruitment of Its Substrate Protein

Rheb G-protein plays critical roles in the TSC/Rheb/mTOR signaling pathway by activating mTORC1. The activation of mTORC1 by Rheb can be faithfully reproduced in vitro by using mTORC1 immunoprecipitated by the use of anti-raptor antibody from mammalian cells starved for nutrients. The low in vitro kinase activity against 4E-BP1 of this mTORC1 preparation is dramatically increased by the addition of recombinant Rheb. On the other hand, the addition of Rheb does not activate mTORC2 immunoprecipitated from mammalian cells by the use of anti-rictor antibody. The activation of mTORC1 is specific to Rheb, because other G-proteins such as KRas, RalA/B, and Cdc42 did not activate mTORC1. Both Rheb1 and Rheb2 activate mTORC1. In addition, the activation is dependent on the presence of bound GTP. We also find that the effector domain of Rheb is required for the mTORC1 activation. FKBP38, a recently proposed mediator of Rheb action, appears not to be involved in the Rheb-dependent activation of mTORC1 in vitro, because the preparation of mTORC1 that is devoid of FKBP38 is still activated by Rheb. The addition of Rheb results in a significant increase of binding of the substrate protein 4E-BP1 to mTORC1. PRAS40, a TOR signaling (TOS) motif-containing protein that competes with the binding of 4EBP1 to mTORC1, inhibits Rheb-induced activation of mTORC1. A preparation of mTORC1 that is devoid of raptor is not activated by Rheb. Rheb does not induce autophosphorylation of mTOR. These results suggest that Rheb induces alteration in the binding of 4E-BP1 with mTORC1 to regulate mTORC1 activation.Rheb defines a unique member of the Ras superfamily G-proteins (1). We have shown that Rheb proteins are conserved and are found from yeast to human (2). Although yeast and fruit fly have one Rheb, mouse and human have two Rheb proteins termed Rheb1 (or simply Rheb) and Rheb2 (RhebL1) (2). Structurally, these proteins contain G1-G5 boxes, short stretches of amino acids that define the function of the Ras superfamily G-proteins including guanine nucleotide binding (1, 3, 4). Rheb proteins have a conserved arginine at residue 15 that corresponds to residue 12 of Ras (1). The effector domain required for the binding with downstream effectors encompasses the G2 box and its adjacent sequences (1, 5). Structural analysis by x-ray crystallography further shows that the effector domain is exposed to solvent, is located close to the phosphates of GTP especially at residues 35–38, and undergoes conformational change during GTP/GDP exchange (6). In addition, all Rheb proteins end with the CAAX (C is cysteine, A is an aliphatic amino acid, and X is the C-terminal amino acid) motif that signals farnesylation. In fact, we as well as others have shown that these proteins are farnesylated (7–9).Rheb plays critical roles in the TSC/Rheb/mTOR signaling, a signaling pathway that plays central roles in regulating protein synthesis and growth in response to nutrient, energy, and growth conditions (10–14). Rheb is down-regulated by a TSC1·TSC2 complex that acts as a GTPase-activating protein for Rheb (15–19). Recent studies established that the GAP domain of TSC2 defines the functional domain for the down-regulation of Rheb (20). Mutations in the Tsc1 or Tsc2 gene lead to tuberous sclerosis whose symptoms include the appearance of benign tumors called hamartomas at different parts of the body as well as neurological symptoms (21, 22). Overexpression of Rheb results in constitutive activation of mTOR even in the absence of nutrients (15, 16). Two mTOR complexes, mTORC1 and mTORC2, have been identified (23, 24). Whereas mTORC1 is involved in protein synthesis activation mediated by S6K and 4EBP1, mTORC2 is involved in the phosphorylation of Akt in response to insulin. It has been suggested that Rheb is involved in the activation of mTORC1 but not mTORC2 (25).Although Rheb is clearly involved in the activation of mTOR, the mechanism of activation has not been established. We as well as others have suggested a model that involves the interaction of Rheb with the TOR complex (26–28). Rheb activation of mTOR kinase activity using immunoprecipitated mTORC1 was reported (29). Rheb has been shown to interact with mTOR (27, 30), and this may involve direct interaction of Rheb with the kinase domain of mTOR (27). However, this Rheb/mTOR interaction is a weak interaction and is not dependent on the presence of GTP bound to Rheb (27, 28). Recently, a different model proposing that FKBP38 (FK506-binding protein 38) mediates the activation of mTORC1 by Rheb was proposed (31, 32). In this model, FKBP38 binds mTOR and negatively regulates mTOR activity, and this negative regulation is blocked by the binding of Rheb to FKBP38. However, recent reports dispute this idea (33).To further characterize Rheb activation of mTOR, we have utilized an in vitro system that reproduces activation of mTORC1 by the addition of recombinant Rheb. We used mTORC1 immunoprecipitated from nutrient-starved cells using anti-raptor antibody and have shown that its kinase activity against 4E-BP1 is dramatically increased by the addition of recombinant Rheb. Importantly, the activation of mTORC1 is specific to Rheb and is dependent on the presence of bound GTP as well as an intact effector domain. FKBP38 is not detected in our preparation and further investigation suggests that FKBP38 is not an essential component for the activation of mTORC1 by Rheb. Our study revealed that Rheb enhances the binding of a substrate 4E-BP1 with mTORC1 rather than increasing the kinase activity of mTOR.     

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.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

Protein interactors of acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP2 mediate cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis

In our recent paper in the Plant Journal, we reported that Arabidopsis thaliana lysophospholipase 2 (lysoPL2) binds acyl-CoA-binding protein 2 (ACBP2) to mediate cadmium [Cd(II)] tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. ACBP2 contains ankyrin repeats that have been previously shown to mediate protein-protein interactions with an ethylene-responsive element binding protein (AtEBP) and a farnesylated protein 6 (AtFP6). Transgenic Arabidopsis ACBP2-overexpressors, lysoPL2-overexpressors and AtFP6-overexpressors all display enhanced Cd(II) tolerance, in comparison to wild type, suggesting that ACBP2 and its protein partners work together to mediate Cd(II) tolerance. Given that recombinant ACBP2 and AtFP6 can independently bind Cd(II) in vitro, they may be able to participate in Cd(II) translocation. The binding of recombinant ACBP2 to [¹⁴C]linoleoyl-CoA and [¹⁴C]linolenoyl-CoA implies its role in phospholipid repair. In conclusion, ACBP2 can mediate tolerance to Cd(II)-induced oxidative stress by interacting with two protein partners, AtFP6 and lysoPL2. Observations that ACBP2 also binds lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) in vitro and that recombinant lysoPL2 degrades lysoPC, further confirm an interactive role for ACBP2 and lysoPL2 in overcoming Cd(II)-induced stress.Key words: acyl-CoA-binding protein, cadmium, hydrogen peroxide, lysophospholipase, oxidative stressAcyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBP1 to ACBP6) are encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ These ACBP proteins are well studied in Arabidopsis in comparison to other organisms,^1–4 and are located in various subcellular compartments.¹ Plasma membranelocalized ACBP1 and ACBP2 contain ankyrin repeats that have been shown to function in protein-protein interactions.^5,6 ACBP1 and ACBP2 which share 76.9% amino acid identity also confer tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis to lead [Pb(II)] and Cd(II), respectively.^1,5,7 Since recombinant ACBP1 and ACBP2 bind linolenoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro, they may possibly be involved in phospholipid repair in response to heavy metal stress at the plasma membrane.^5,7 In contrast, ACBP3 is an extracellularly-localized protein⁸ while ACBP4, ACBP5 and ACBP6 are localized to cytosol.^9,10 ACBP1 and ACBP6 have recently been shown to be involved in freezing stress.^9,11 ACBP4 and ACBP5 bind oleoyl-CoA ester and their mRNA expressions are lightregulated.^12,13 Besides acyl-CoA esters, some ACBPs also bind phospholipids.^9,11,13 To investigate the biological function of ACBP2, we have proceeded to establish its interactors at the ankyrin repeats, including AtFP6,⁵ AtEBP⁶ and now lysoPL2 in the Plant Journal paper. While the significance in the interaction of ACBP2 with AtEBP awaits further investigations, some parallels can be drawn between those of ACBP2 with AtFP6 and with lysoPL2.     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.     

A herpesvirus kinase that masquerades as Akt: You don't have to look like Akt,to act like it

The cellular protein synthesis machinery is tightly regulated and capable of rapid reaction to a variety of physiological inputs critical in stress-response, cell cycle control, cancer biology and virus infection. One important strategy for stimulating protein synthesis involves the ser/thr kinase Akt, which subsequently triggers inactivation of the cap-dependent translational repressor 4E-BP1 by an mTOR-containing protein complex (mTORC1). A recent paper demonstrated that herpes simplex virus utilizes a remarkable tactic to activate mTOR in infected cells. Instead of using the cellular Akt, the virus produces a ser/thr kinase called Us3 that doesn''t look like Akt, but masquerades as Akt. By making the Akt-like protein unrecognizable, this disguise allows it to bypass the strict limits normally imposed on the real cellular Akt. Importantly, preventing the virus Akt-imposter from triggering mTORC1 inhibited viral growth, suggesting a new way to block herpes simplex virus. This study also raises the possibility that other Akt-impersonators may lurk hidden in our own genomes, possibly contributing to diseases ranging from diabetes to cancer.Key words: Akt signaling, translational control, mTORC1 activation, virus replication, viral kinaseBy manipulating activity of the translation repressor 4E-BP1, Akt signaling through mTORC1 controls a critical step regulating the initiation of protein synthesis in eukaryotes.¹ 4E-BP1 represses translation by binding to the cellular cap-binding protein, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E), preventing its incorporation into the eIF4F multi-subunit complex required to initiate translation.² Hyperphosphorylation of 4E-BP1 by mTORC1 inactivates the repressor, allowing eIF4E to associate with the large molecular scaffold eIF4G and assemble eIF4F (Fig. 1).¹ Subsequently, hyperphosphorylated 4E-BP1 can be degraded by the proteasome.^3–5 Regulating assembly of eIF4F is a major point through which 40S ribosome subunits are recruited and loaded onto the mRNA 5′ end. Indeed, numerous biological regulatory processes where differential control of translation plays a fundamental role often involve 4E-BP1 hyperphosphorylation by mTORC1.⁶Open in a separate windowFigure 1Repression of eIF4F assembly and cap-dependent mRNA translation by 4E-BP1 phosphorylation. The cellular cap-binding protein (4E) is depicted bound to the translational repressor eIF4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1) and is unable to assemble into an eIF4F complex with the other translation initiation factors, eIF4G and eIF4A. Activation of the kinase mTOR in response to a variety of cues such as HSV-1 infection, growth factor signaling, alterations to the nutrient pool or changes in cellular energy reserves results in phosphorylation of the translational repressor protein 4E-BP1 and the release of eIF4E from 4E-BP1. Binding of eIF4E to eIF4G and eIF4A results in assembly of the multisubunit initiation factor eIF4F complex, which in turn recognizes the 7-methyl guanine cap (m⁷) at the mRNA 5′ end. The 40S ribosome is recruited through its association with eIF3.Diverse inputs including nutrient, energy and growth factor availability are integrated by the tuberous sclerosis heterodimer complex (TSC1/2), which controls mTORC1 activation.¹ TSC is a GTPase activating protein (GAP) for the small G-protein rheb (ras-homolog enriched in brain). Whereas rheb•GTP activates mTORC1, rheb•GDP cannot. Thus, TSC GAP activation results in rheb•GDP accumulation and inactive mTORC1, while TSC GAP inhibition results in rheb•GTP accumulation and stimulates mTORC1 (Fig. 2). TSC activity is controlled by phosphorylation of the TSC2 subunit by different cellular kinases. One of these is Akt. In response to PI3-kinase activation, recruitment of PDK1 and Akt to the plasma membrane results in Akt phosphorylation at T308. Fully active Akt results after a second mTOR-containing complex, mTORC2, phosphorylates S473. Phosphorylation of TSC2 by Akt on S939 and T1462 inhibits TSC Gap activity and thereby activates mTORC1. Although mTORC1 can be regulated by inputs from other signaling pathways including Erk/RSK, which also can phosphorylate TSC2 to inhibit its GAP function and Rag-GTPases, which are required for mTORC1 activation in response to amino acids, Akt signaling is required for growth factors and hormone-responsive mTORC1 activation and the resulting stimulation of protein synthesis.⁷ In addition to TSC2 phosphorylation, Akt can also phosphorylate and inactivate PRAS40, an mTORC1 inhibitory subunit.⁸ Phosphorylation of the mTORC1 substrates ATG1, ribosomal protein S6 kinase and 4E-BP1 regulate autophagy, cell size, cell proliferation and protein synthesis.^9,10 In addition, inhibition of mTORC1 with rapamycin decelerates cellular senescence.¹¹ These basic processes are important in a variety of pathophysiological settings, including response to stress, cell cycle control, age-related diseases, cancer biology and virus infection.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Phosphorylation of TSC2 by Akt or Us3 activates mTORC1. Growth factor-mediated activation of mTORC1 is illustrated. IRS1 is recruited to the cytoplasmic face of activated growth factor receptors and stimulates PI3-kinase signaling. PDK1 and Akt are both localized to the plasma membrane via a lipid-binding plekstrin homology domain. Upon activation by PI3-kinase, PDK1 phosphorylates Akt on T308, thereby contributing to Akt activation. Full Akt activation also requires S473 phosphorylation by mTORC2. Akt inhibits TSC rheb-GAP activity by phosphorylating TSC2 on T1462/S939, promoting rheb•GTP-mediated mTORC1 activation and subsequent 4E-BP1 hyperphosphorylation and activation of p70 S6K (S6K). Inactivation of the translational repressor 4E-BP1 promotes binding of eIF4E to eIF4G, stimulating cap-dependent translation. An intrinsic feedback control circuit whereby inactivation of IR S1 and mTORC2 by activated p70 S6K limits Akt activation. Even though it is unrelated to Akt at the primary sequence level, the HSV1 ser/thr kinase Us3 phosphorylates TSC2 on the same residues targeted by Akt (T1462, S939). By targeting TSC2, this strategy allows Us3 to bypass the intrinsic feedback controls designed to limit Akt activation, allowing HSV1 to constitutively inactivate 4E-BP1 and maintain high levels of viral mRNA translation in infected cells.Following lytic infection of a host cell or reactivation from latency, herpesviruses stimulate the cap-dependent translation machinery of their hosts by promoting eIF4F assembly.^3,12–15 This is often a critical step in the virus replication cycle, as viruses are completely dependent on the translation machinery resident in their cellular hosts to produce viral proteins required for their productive growth. Similar to uninfected cells, herpesvirus-induced eIF4F assembly was sensitive to recently-developed mTOR active site inhibitors and impaired by expression of a dominant 4E-BP1 repressor allele with T→A substitutions at the key T37 and T46 sites.^16–18 However, in a major departure from findings in uninfected cells, 4E-BP1 was constitutively hyperphosphorylated in HSV-1-infected cells in the presence of allosteric Akt inhibitors.¹⁷ Precisely how HSV-1 was able to stimulate mTORC1 in the absence of Akt signaling was not known.Recently, we established that the HSV-1 ser/thr kinase encoded by the Us3 gene is required to activate mTORC1, inactivate the 4E-BP1 translational repressor and stimulate eIF4F assembly. Surprisingly, Us3 displays no sequence homology with the cellular kinase Akt, yet directly phosphorylates tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (TSC2) on S939 and T1462, the same sites targeted by Akt to inhibit TSC activity and activate mTORC1 in uninfected cells.¹⁷ While it is not unusual for virus infection to stimulate Akt signaling, this typically involves PI3-kinase activation by a virus-encoded gene product, such as Influenza virus A NS1, HSV1 VP11/12, KSHV-encoded GPCR, HCMV IE1/2, EBV LMP2A and Adenovirus E4 orf1 or a less well-understood protein phosphatase 2A-dependent process involving HPV E7 or Adenovirus E4 orf4 that may prevent dephosphorylation of mTORC1 substrates.^19–22 Akt activated in this manner is potentially limited by intrinsic feedback circuitry built into this important pathway, prohibiting sustained Akt activation (Fig. 2).²³ Indeed, transient Akt activation early in the replication cycle is observed in primary human fibroblasts infected with wild-type HSV-1 or HCMV (C. McKinney, IM, in preparation).²⁴ Failure to continuously stimulate Akt could limit mTORC1 activation, imposing substantial constraints on viruses that require the host cap-dependent translation machinery and seek to inactivate the 4E-BP1 translational repressor. Some viruses encode multiple functions capable of activating Akt or downstream targets, further illustrating the importance of this task in the virus lifecycle.²² Significantly, TSC-inactivation by Us3 allows HSV1 to activate mTORC1 even when Akt activity is low or undetectable, as may be the case in non-proliferating cells. Furthermore, by acting at the level of TSC, mTORC1 activation by Us3 is not responsive to p70 S6K-mediated cellular feedback controls in place to limit both receptor-mediated activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTORC1 signaling axis and mTORC2-mediated Akt activation (Fig. 2).^23,25 Other viruses likewise activate mTORC1 via TSC, albeit via different mechanism, illustrating the potential advantages of targeting TSC2 to stimulate mTORC1 in infected cells. The related herpesvirus HCMV encodes a TSC2-binding protein (UL38) that inhibits TSC activity, while HPV E6 binds TSC2 and targets it for proteasome degradation.^26,27 None of these strategies, however, involve direct phosphorylation of TSC2 by viral enzymes.Disabling TSC allows viruses to overcome a natural antiviral checkpoint. Interestingly, Us3-deficient virus replication is impaired relative to wild-type in normal primary human fibroblasts and replication is significantly restored upon siRNA-mediated TSC2-depletion. WT virus replication, however, is not impacted by TSC2-depletion, consistent with the observation that TSC is already inactivated in cells infected with WT HSV-1.¹⁷ Thus, TSC comprises an antiviral checkpoint for viruses that require the host cap-dependent translation machinery to produce virus-encoded polypeptides. Replication of viruses that are not equipped to counteract TSC-mediated mTORC1 repression will be limited, unless they bypass this requirement by using an alternative, cap-independent mode of translation initiation that does not require eIF4E.Not only is TSC regulated by Akt, it is also a critical juncture integrating signaling inputs from other pathways. In contrast to Akt, differential TSC2 phosphorylation by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which is responsive to elevated AMP levels resulting from energy deprivation, stimulates TSC Rheb-GAP activity and prevents mTORC1 activation.²⁸ Induction of the p53-responsive sestrins 1 and 2 in response to genotoxic stress likewise activate AMPK and stimulate TSC Rheb-GAP.²⁹ TSC2 phosphorylation by glycogen synthase kinase 3 cooperates with AMPK-mediated phosphorylation to inhibit mTORC1, linking bioenergetic state with Wnt-signaling responsive GSK3.³⁰ Finally, hypoxia-induced REDD1 activates TSC by interfering with phosphorylation-dependent association of TSC with 14-3-3 proteins.³¹ Binding of phosphorylated TSC2 to 14-3-3 has been proposed to account for Akt-mediated inhibition of TSC. Thus, REDD1-mediated displacement of 14-3-3 from phospho-TSC2 prevents mTORC1 activation even though Akt is constitutively active. In HSV1 infected primary human fibroblasts, Erk activation, which can also phosphorylate TSC2 and inhibit TSC rheb-GAP, is suppressed, making it unlikely that Erk/Rsk signaling plays a role in mTORC1 activation.³ However, how other TSC regulators respond to HSV-1 infection and the potential for Us3 to repress TSC Rheb-GAP activity in response to different stress inputs remains largely unexplored.Given the lack of primary sequence homology between Akt and Us3, it is amazing that Us3 stimulates phosphorylation of Akt substrates other than TSC2 in an Akt-independent manner. Both FOXO1 and GSK3 were among the Akt substrates phosphorylated by Us3 on the same residues targeted by Akt.¹⁷ Thus, Us3 appears to be an Akt surrogate with overlapping substrate specificity that activates mTORC1, stimulating translation and virus replication. As a unique viral kinase unrelated to any single cellular kinase, Us3 is a potential drug development target. Small molecule Us3 inhibitors could prevent HSV1-induced mTORC1 activation and effectively suppress replication without the immune suppressive side-effects associated with targeting mTOR itself.³² The benefits of such a strategy may not be confined to HSV1, given the prevalence of different virus-encoded TSC-inhibitory functions all focused on activating mTORC1 in virus-infected cells.Viruses are masters at encoding multifunctional proteins like Us3, extracting maximum functionality from limited coding regions. Nevertheless, all known Us3 functions are impaired by mutations that eliminate its kinase activity. In addition to the cellular targets TSC2, GSK3 and FOXO1, Us3 has anti-apoptotic activity that likely involves phosphorylation of yet another Akt substrate BAD.^33,34 Us3 also phosphorylates viral proteins some of which stimulate nuclear lamina disassembly and egress of newly assembled progeny virions.^35,36 While not essential for replication, Us3-deficient viruses exhibit cell type-specific replication defects in culture and are severely impaired in mouse pathogenesis models.^37–39 A recently developed cultured rat neuron model of HSV latency/reactivation dependent upon PI-3K/Akt signaling provides an exciting opportunity to probe the role of Us3 in reactivation.⁴⁰ Indeed, by allowing Us3 access to a diverse palate of substrates, a multitude of host and virus-specific tasks can be subverted through the catalytic actions of a single virus enzyme. Given the sheer breadth of these diverse processes involving cellular and viral substrates, Us3 substrate specificity may not be restricted to those of a single cellular kinase like Akt. This raises some important questions regarding the limits of Us3 substrate targeting. For example, are all Akt substrates targeted by Us3, or are some Akt substrates effectively excluded, as their phosphorylation by Us3 may interfere somehow with viral replication? By mimicking Akt activity downstream of the cellular kinase, Us3 could effectively cherry pick which Akt substrates will be phosphorylated and which will be left untouched. Alternatively, the substrate specificity of Us3 could conceivably be so broad that some substrates make little or no detectable contribution to infected cell physiology, representing biological “noise” tolerated but neither advantageous nor detrimental to virus biology. Ultimately, understanding the role of each Us3 substrate in the virus lifecycle will require detailed genetic and biochemical analysis.How Us3 recognizes its full spectrum of substrates, including those that overlap with Akt, remains unknown. Since Us3 bears little resemblance to any specific Ser/Thr kinase, target site prediction is problematic.¹⁷ Studies with synthetic peptide substrates in vitro have not yielded clear-cut results. Although capable of phosphorylating PKA and PKC peptide substrates, Us3 appeared to have a distinct specificity.⁴¹ Sequence recognition motifs, however, are not likely to provide the required in vivo specificity, since (1) many kinases share in vitro recognition motifs (i.e., Arg residues N-terminal to phospho-acceptor site for p90 RSK, PKA and Akt), (2) recognition motifs may not be physiologically phosphorylated, (3) peptides may not mimic intact protein phosphorylation kinetics and (4) not all kinases have a clear consensus motif in peptide substrates.⁴² Instead, interactions beyond the active site that tether the kinase to physiological substrates are often responsible for biological specificity.^43,44 Despite the lack of significant primary sequence homology between Akt and Us3, their functional motifs governing substrate recognition may in fact be related structurally. Such structural similarity in the presence of only limited primary sequence homology has been observed previously among other proteins including globin, lysozyme and thioredoxin family members.^45–47 Finally, the existence of an Akt-like kinase such as Us3 that shares Akt substrates, but not primary sequence homology has potential consequences for the biology of its human host. Is encoding an Akt mimic unrelated at the primary sequence level confined to virus biology, defining an effective strategy to escape from normal constraints that limit Akt activation? Or are there other ways to make kinases with Akt-like substrate specificity lurking in our own genomes? Their unrelatedness at the primary sequence level would render them invisible to present day functional genomic-based identification methods other than pinning them as kinases. Should their identity ever be unmasked, they are likely to play important roles given the critical contributions of Akt signaling to human health and disease.     

Novel protein-protein interaction family proteins involved in chloroplast movement response

To optimize photosynthetic activity, chloroplasts change their intracellular location in response to ambient light conditions; chloroplasts move toward low intensity light to maximize light capture and away from high intensity light to avoid photodamage. Although several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement response, any physical interaction among them was not found so far. We recently found a physical interaction between two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, WEB1 (Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1) and PMI2 (Plastid Movement Impaired 2), that were indentified to regulate chloroplast movement velocity. Since the both coiled-coil regions of WEB1 and PMI2 were classified into an uncharacterized protein family having DUF827 (DUF: Domain of Unknown Function) domain, it was the first report that DUF827 proteins could mediate protein-protein interaction. In this mini-review article, we discuss regarding molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2, and also define a novel protein family composed of WEB1, PMI2 and WEB1/PMI2-like proteins for protein-protein interaction in land plants.Key words: Arabidopsis, blue light, chloroplast velocity, coiled-coil region, organelle movement, phototropin, protein-protein interactionIntracellular locations of chloroplasts change in response to different light conditions to capture sunlight efficiently for energy production through photosynthesis. Chloroplasts move toward weak light to maximize light capture (the accumulation response),^1,2 and away from strong light to reduce photodamage (the avoidance response).³ In higher plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, the responses are induced by blue light-dependent manner.^1,2 Recently, chloroplast actin (cp-actin) filaments were found to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement and positioning.^4,5 The cp-actin filaments are localized at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane to anchor the chloroplast to the plasma membrane, and are relocalized to the leading edge of chloroplasts before and during the movement.^4,5 The difference of cp-actin filament amounts between the front and the rear halves of chloroplasts determines the chloroplast movement velocity; as the difference increases, chloroplast velocity also increases.^4,5Several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast movement. The blue light receptors, phototropin 1 (phot1) and phot2, mediate the accumulation response,⁶ and phot2 solely mediates the avoidance response.^7,8 Chloroplast Unusual Positioning 1 (CHUP1), Kinesin-like Protein for Actin-Based Chloroplast Movement 1 (KAC1) and KAC2 are involved in the cp-actin filament formation.^4,9–11 Other proteins with unknown molecular function involved in the chloroplast movement responses have also been reported. They are J-domain Protein Required for Chloroplast Accumulation Response 1 (JAC1),^12,13 Plastid Movement Impaired 1 (PMI1),¹⁴ a long coiled-coil protein Plastid Movement Impaired 2 (PMI2), a PMI2-homologous protein PMI15,¹⁵ and THRUMIN1.¹⁶Recently, we characterized two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1 (WEB1) and PMI2, which regulate the velocity of chloroplast photorelocation movement.¹⁷ In this mini-review article, we discuss about molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2 in chloroplast photorelocation movement, and also define the WEB1/PMI2-related (WPR) protein family as a new protein family for protein-protein interaction.