The Association of the Arabidopsis Actin-Related Protein2/3 Complex with Cell Membranes Is Linked to Its Assembly Status But Not Its Activation

In growing plant cells, the combined activities of the cytoskeleton, endomembrane, and cell wall biosynthetic systems organize the cytoplasm and define the architecture and growth properties of the cell. These biosynthetic machineries efficiently synthesize, deliver, and recycle the raw materials that support cell expansion. The precise roles of the actin cytoskeleton in these processes are unclear. Certainly, bundles of actin filaments position organelles and are a substrate for long-distance intracellular transport, but the functional linkages between dynamic actin filament arrays and the cell growth machinery are poorly understood. The Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) “distorted group” mutants have defined protein complexes that appear to generate and convert small GTPase signals into an Actin-Related Protein2/3 (ARP2/3)-dependent actin filament nucleation response. However, direct biochemical knowledge about Arabidopsis ARP2/3 and its cellular distribution is lacking. In this paper, we provide biochemical evidence for a plant ARP2/3. The plant complex utilizes a conserved assembly mechanism. ARPC4 is the most critical core subunit that controls the assembly and steady-state levels of the complex. ARP2/3 in other systems is believed to be mostly a soluble complex that is locally recruited and activated. Unexpectedly, we find that Arabidopsis ARP2/3 interacts strongly with cell membranes. Membrane binding is linked to complex assembly status and not to the extent to which it is activated. Mutant analyses implicate ARP2 as an important subunit for membrane association.In plant cells, the actin cytoskeleton forms an intricate network of polymers that organizes the cytoplasm and defines the long-distance intracellular trafficking patterns of the cell. The actin network is critical not only for tip-growing cells (for review, see Cole and Fowler, 2006; Lovy-Wheeler et al., 2007) but also during the coordinated cell expansion that occurs in cells that utilize a diffuse growth mechanism (for review, see Wasteneys and Galway, 2003; Smith and Oppenheimer, 2005). For example, the polarized diffuse growth of leaf trichomes is highly sensitized to actin cytoskeleton disruption (Mathur et al., 1999; Szymanski et al., 1999), and a recent analysis of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) ACTIN mutants revealed widespread cell swelling and isotropic expansion in numerous cell types in the root and shoot (Kandasamy et al., 2009). The actin network is dynamic. The array reorganizes during cell morphogenesis (Braun et al., 1999; Szymanski et al., 1999) and in response to endogenous (Lemichez et al., 2001) and external (Hardham et al., 2007) cues. A major research goal is to better understand not only how plant cells convert G-actin subunits to particular actin filament arrays but also how the actin network interacts with the cellular growth machinery during cell expansion.This is a difficult problem to solve, because in expanding vacuolated cells the actin array adopts numerous configurations and consists of dense meshworks of cortical actin filaments and bundles (Baluska et al., 2000), thick actin bundles that penetrate the central vacuole (Higaki et al., 2006), and meshworks of filaments and bundles that surround the nucleus and chloroplasts (Kandasamy and Meagher, 1999; Collings et al., 2000). The spatial relationships between these actin networks and localized cell expansion are not obvious. Certainly, the plasma membrane-cell wall interface is a critical location for the regulated delivery and fusion of vesicles containing cell wall polysaccharides. Frequent reports of localized domains of enriched cortical actin signal at regions of presumed localized cell expansion have led to the widely held view that the cortical actin array creates local tracks for vesicle-mediated secretion (for review, see Smith and Oppenheimer, 2005; Hussey et al., 2006). In one study, the dynamics of actin filaments were analyzed in living hypocotyl epidermal cells that utilize a diffuse growth mechanism (Staiger et al., 2009). In this case, individual actin filaments are very unstable and randomly oriented; therefore, the precise relationships between cortical F-actin, vesicle delivery, and cell shape change remain obscure. The best known function for the actin cytoskeleton is that of a track for myosin-dependent vesicle and organelle trafficking (Shimmen, 2007). The actin bundle network mediates the transport of cargo between endomembrane compartments (Geldner et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2005) and the long-distance actomyosin transport of a variety of organelles, including the Golgi (Nebenfuhr et al., 1999; Peremyslov et al., 2008; Prokhnevsky et al., 2008). Generation of distributed (Gutierrez et al., 2009; Timmers et al., 2009) and localized (Wightman and Turner, 2008) actin bundle networks appears to define early steps in the trafficking of Golgi-localized cellulose synthase complexes to the sites of primary and secondary wall synthesis, respectively.Plant cells employ diverse collections of G-actin-binding proteins, actin filament nucleators, and actin-bundling and cross-linking proteins to generate and remodel the F-actin network (for review, see Staiger and Blanchoin, 2006). One actin filament nucleator, termed the Actin-Related Protein2/3 (ARP2/3) complex, controls numerous aspects of plant morphogenesis and development. The vertebrate complex consists of the actin-related proteins ARP2 and ARP3 and five other unrelated proteins termed ARPC1 to ARPC5, in order of decreasing mass. ARP2/3 in isolation is inactive, but in the presence of proteins termed nucleation-promoting factors such as WAVE/SCAR (for WASP family Verprolin homologous/Suppressor of cAMP Repressor), ARP2/3 is converted into an efficient actin filament-nucleating machine (for review, see Higgs and Pollard, 2001; Welch and Mullins, 2002). In mammalian cells, ARP2/3 activities are linked to membrane dynamics. Keratocytes that crawl persistently on a solid substrate appear to use ARP2/3-generated dendritic actin filament networks at the leading edge to either drive or consolidate plasma membrane protrusion (Pollard and Borisy, 2003; Ji et al., 2008). In many vertebrate cell types, ARP2/3 has a strong punctate intracellular localization (Welch et al., 1997; Strasser et al., 2004), which could reflect hypothesized activities at the Golgi (Stamnes, 2002) or late endosomal (Fucini et al., 2002; Holtta-Vuori et al., 2005) compartment.Genetic studies in plants reveal nonessential but widespread functions for ARP2/3. In the moss Physcomitrella patens, the ARPC4 and ARPC1 subunit genes are critical during tip growth of protonemal filaments (Harries et al., 2005; Perroud and Quatrano, 2006). In Arabidopsis, loss of either ARP2/3 subunit gene or mutations in WAVE complex genes that positively regulate ARP2/3 cause complicated syndromes, including the loss of polarized diffuse growth throughout the shoot epidermis, defective cell-cell adhesion, and decreased hypocotyl elongation (for review, see Szymanski, 2005). Altered responses to exogenous Suc (Li et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2008) and reduced root elongation (Dyachok et al., 2008) are also reported for wave and arp2/3 strains. In higher plants, the involvement of ARP2/3 in tip growth and root hair development is more subtle. In Lotus japonicus, mutation of NAP1 and PIR1, known positive regulators of ARP2/3 (Basu et al., 2004; Deeks et al., 2004; El-Assal et al., 2004a), causes incompletely penetrant root hair phenotypes, but in the presence of symbiotic bacteria, the mutants have defective infection threads and reduced root nodule formation. Arabidopsis arp2/3 mutants do not have obvious tip growth defects in pollen tubes or root hairs, but in the presence of GFP:TALIN (Mathur et al., 2003b) and in double mutant combinations with the actin-binding protein CAP1 (Deeks et al., 2007), the effects of ARP2/3 on root hair growth are unmasked.In Arabidopsis, the genetics of the positive regulation of ARP2/3 are well characterized and appear to occur solely through another heteromeric complex termed WAVE (Eden et al., 2002; for review, see Szymanski, 2005). The putative WAVE/SCAR complex contains five subunits, one of which is the ARP2/3 activator SCAR. Plant SCARs contain conserved N-terminal and C-terminal domains that mediate interactions with other WAVE complex proteins and ARP2/3 activation, respectively (Frank et al., 2004; Basu et al., 2005). In nonplant systems, the regulatory relationships between WAVE and ARP2/3 appear to vary between cell types and species (for review, see Bompard and Caron, 2004; Stradal and Scita, 2006). However, in Arabidopsis, double mutant analyses indicate that WAVE is the sole pathway for ARP2/3 activation and that all subunits positively regulate ARP2/3 (Deeks et al., 2004; Basu et al., 2005; Djakovic et al., 2006). SCAR quadruple mutants are indistinguishable from arp2/3 null plants (Zhang et al., 2008). In moss, BRICK1 and ARP2/3 mutants have similar phenotypes, suggesting conserved regulatory relationships between WAVE and ARP2/3 in the plant kingdom (Harries et al., 2005; Perroud and Quatrano, 2006, 2008).Despite extensive molecular genetic knowledge about the ARP2/3 pathway and the strong actin cytoskeleton and growth phenotypes of arp2/3 plants, there are few direct data on the existence of the plant complex and its cellular function. There are reports of ARP2/3 localization based on the behavior of individual subunits (Le et al., 2003). In some cases, the results are weakened by the unknown specificity of heterologous ARP2/3 antibodies (Van Gestel et al., 2003; Fiserova et al., 2006). A specific antibody was raised against Silvetia ARP2 (Hable and Kropf, 2005). In developing zygotes, rhizhoid emergence is an early and actin-dependent developmental event, and at this stage a broad subcortical cone of ARP2 signal extends from the nuclear envelope toward the rhizhoid apex (Hable and Kropf, 2005). Double labeling experiments detected considerable overlap between ARP2 and actin, but surprisingly, there was a broad cortical domain of putative organelle-associated distal ARP2 that did not overlap with actin. In tip-growing P. patens chloronema cells, ARPC4 also appears to be membrane associated and localizes to a broad subcortical apical zone (Perroud and Quatrano, 2006). For these localization and genetic studies that rely on individual ARP2/3 subunits, it is important to prove that a plant ARP2/3 complex exists to test for an association of the complex with endomembrane compartments.In this paper, we provide several lines of evidence for an evolutionarily conserved pathway for ARP2/3 complex assembly in plant cells. These studies are based in part on genetic and biochemical analyses of the putative ARP2/3 subunit gene ARPC4. We found that disruption of the ARPC4 gene caused catastrophic disassembly of the complex and an array of phenotypes that were indistinguishable from known arp2/3 mutants. Chromatography experiments clearly revealed that functional hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged ARPC4 and endogenous ARP3 subunits assemble fully into ARP2/3 complexes. Surprisingly, much of the cellular pool of the plant ARP2/3 complex is membrane associated. An analysis of an extensive collection of wave and arp2/3 mutants allowed us to conclude that the normal association with membranes depended on the presence of ARP2 and the assembly status of the complex but not on the existence of an active pool of ARP2/3 in the cell.     

Characterization of the Possible Roles for B Class MADS Box Genes in Regulation of Perianth Formation in Orchid

To investigate sepal/petal/lip formation in Oncidium Gower Ramsey, three paleoAPETALA3 genes, O. Gower Ramsey MADS box gene5 (OMADS5; clade 1), OMADS3 (clade 2), and OMADS9 (clade 3), and one PISTILLATA gene, OMADS8, were characterized. The OMADS8 and OMADS3 mRNAs were expressed in all four floral organs as well as in vegetative leaves. The OMADS9 mRNA was only strongly detected in petals and lips. The mRNA for OMADS5 was only strongly detected in sepals and petals and was significantly down-regulated in lip-like petals and lip-like sepals of peloric mutant flowers. This result revealed a possible negative role for OMADS5 in regulating lip formation. Yeast two-hybrid analysis indicated that OMADS5 formed homodimers and heterodimers with OMADS3 and OMADS9. OMADS8 only formed heterodimers with OMADS3, whereas OMADS3 and OMADS9 formed homodimers and heterodimers with each other. We proposed that sepal/petal/lip formation needs the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9. The determination of the final organ identity for the sepal/petal/lip likely depended on the presence or absence of OMADS5. The presence of OMADS5 caused short sepal/petal formation. When OMADS5 was absent, cells could proliferate, resulting in the possible formation of large lips and the conversion of the sepal/petal into lips in peloric mutants. Further analysis indicated that only ectopic expression of OMADS8 but not OMADS5/9 caused the conversion of the sepal into an expanded petal-like structure in transgenic Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) plants.The ABCDE model predicts the formation of any flower organ by the interaction of five classes of homeotic genes in plants (Yanofsky et al., 1990; Jack et al., 1992; Mandel et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Jofuku et al., 1994; Pelaz et al., 2000, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Pinyopich et al., 2003; Ditta et al., 2004; Jack, 2004). The A class genes control sepal formation. The A, B, and E class genes work together to regulate petal formation. The B, C, and E class genes control stamen formation. The C and E class genes work to regulate carpel formation, whereas the D class gene is involved in ovule development. MADS box genes seem to have a central role in flower development, because most ABCDE genes encode MADS box proteins (Coen and Meyerowitz, 1991; Weigel and Meyerowitz, 1994; Purugganan et al., 1995; Rounsley et al., 1995; Theißen and Saedler, 1995; Theißen et al., 2000; Theißen, 2001).The function of B group genes, such as APETALA3 (AP3) and PISTILLATA (PI), has been thought to have a major role in specifying petal and stamen development (Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Krizek and Meyerowitz, 1996; Kramer et al., 1998; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007; Kanno et al., 2007; Whipple et al., 2007; Irish, 2009). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), mutation in AP3 or PI caused identical phenotypes of second whorl petal conversion into a sepal structure and third flower whorl stamen into a carpel structure (Bowman et al., 1989; Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994). Similar homeotic conversions for petal and stamen were observed in the mutants of the AP3 and PI orthologs from a number of core eudicots such as Antirrhinum majus, Petunia hybrida, Gerbera hybrida, Solanum lycopersicum, and Nicotiana benthamiana (Sommer et al., 1990; Tröbner et al., 1992; Angenent et al., 1993; van der Krol et al., 1993; Yu et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2004; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; de Martino et al., 2006), from basal eudicot species such as Papaver somniferum and Aquilegia vulgaris (Drea et al., 2007; Kramer et al., 2007), as well as from monocot species such as Zea mays and Oryza sativa (Ambrose et al., 2000; Nagasawa et al., 2003; Prasad and Vijayraghavan, 2003; Yadav et al., 2007; Yao et al., 2008). This indicated that the function of the B class genes AP3 and PI is highly conserved during evolution.It has been thought that B group genes may have arisen from an ancestral gene through multiple gene duplication events (Doyle, 1994; Theißen et al., 1996, 2000; Purugganan, 1997; Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999; Lamb and Irish, 2003; Kim et al., 2004; Stellari et al., 2004; Zahn et al., 2005; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007). In the gymnosperms, there was a single putative B class lineage that duplicated to generate the paleoAP3 and PI lineages in angiosperms (Kramer et al., 1998; Theißen et al., 2000; Irish, 2009). The paleoAP3 lineage is composed of AP3 orthologs identified in lower eudicots, magnolid dicots, and monocots (Kramer et al., 1998). Genes in this lineage contain the conserved paleoAP3- and PI-derived motifs in the C-terminal end of the proteins, which have been thought to be characteristics of the B class ancestral gene (Kramer et al., 1998; Tzeng and Yang, 2001; Hsu and Yang, 2002). The PI lineage is composed of PI orthologs that contain a highly conserved PI motif identified in most plant species (Kramer et al., 1998). Subsequently, there was a second duplication at the base of the core eudicots that produced the euAP3 and TM6 lineages, which have been subject to substantial sequence changes in eudicots during evolution (Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999). The paleoAP3 motif in the C-terminal end of the proteins was retained in the TM6 lineage and replaced by a conserved euAP3 motif in the euAP3 lineage of most eudicot species (Kramer et al., 1998). In addition, many lineage-specific duplications for paleoAP3 lineage have occurred in plants such as orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009), Ranunculaceae, and Ranunculales (Kramer et al., 2003; Di Stilio et al., 2005; Shan et al., 2006; Kramer, 2009).Unlike the A or C class MADS box proteins, which form homodimers that regulate flower development, the ability of B class proteins to form homodimers has only been reported in gymnosperms and in the paleoAP3 and PI lineages of some monocots. For example, LMADS1 of the lily Lilium longiflorum (Tzeng and Yang, 2001), OMADS3 of the orchid Oncidium Gower Ramsey (Hsu and Yang, 2002), and PeMADS4 of the orchid Phalaenopsis equestris (Tsai et al., 2004) in the paleoAP3 lineage, LRGLOA and LRGLOB of the lily Lilium regale (Winter et al., 2002), TGGLO of the tulip Tulipa gesneriana (Kanno et al., 2003), and PeMADS6 of the orchid P. equestris (Tsai et al., 2005) in the PI lineage, and GGM2 of the gymnosperm Gnetum gnemon (Winter et al., 1999) were able to form homodimers that regulate flower development. Proteins in the euAP3 lineage and in most paleoAP3 lineages were not able to form homodimers and had to interact with PI to form heterodimers in order to regulate petal and stamen development in various plant species (Schwarz-Sommer et al., 1992; Tröbner et al., 1992; Riechmann et al., 1996; Moon et al., 1999; Winter et al., 2002; Kanno et al., 2003; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; Yao et al., 2008). In addition to forming dimers, AP3 and PI were able to interact with other MADS box proteins, such as SEPALLATA1 (SEP1), SEP2, and SEP3, to regulate petal and stamen development (Pelaz et al., 2000; Honma and Goto, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Castillejo et al., 2005).Orchids are among the most important plants in the flower market around the world, and research on MADS box genes has been reported for several species of orchids during the past few years (Lu et al., 1993, 2007; Yu and Goh, 2000; Hsu and Yang, 2002; Yu et al., 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2004, 2008; Xu et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2009). Unlike the flowers in eudicots, the nearly identical shape of the sepals and petals as well as the production of a unique lip in orchid flowers make them a very special plant species for the study of flower development. Four clades (1–4) of genes in the paleoAP3 lineage have been identified in several orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009). Several works have described the possible interactions among these four clades of paleoAP3 genes and one PI gene that are involved in regulating the differentiation and formation of the sepal/petal/lip of orchids (Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009). However, the exact mechanism that involves the orchid B class genes remains unclear and needs to be clarified by more experimental investigations.O. Gower Ramsey is a popular orchid with important economic value in cut flower markets. Only a few studies have been reported on the role of MADS box genes in regulating flower formation in this plant species (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). An AP3-like MADS gene that regulates both floral formation and initiation in transgenic Arabidopsis has been reported (Hsu and Yang, 2002). In addition, four AP1/AGAMOUS-LIKE9 (AGL9)-like MADS box genes have been characterized that show novel expression patterns and cause different effects on floral transition and formation in Arabidopsis (Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). Compared with other orchids, the production of a large and well-expanded lip and five small identical sepals/petals makes O. Gower Ramsey a special case for the study of the diverse functions of B class MADS box genes during evolution. Therefore, the isolation of more B class MADS box genes and further study of their roles in the regulation of perianth (sepal/petal/lip) formation during O. Gower Ramsey flower development are necessary. In addition to the clade 2 paleoAP3 gene OMADS3, which was previously characterized in our laboratory (Hsu and Yang, 2002), three more B class MADS box genes, OMADS5, OMADS8, and OMADS9, were characterized from O. Gower Ramsey in this study. Based on the different expression patterns and the protein interactions among these four orchid B class genes, we propose that the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9 is required for sepal/petal/lip formation. Further sepal and petal formation at least requires the additional presence of OMADS5, whereas large lip formation was seen when OMADS5 expression was absent. Our results provide a new finding and information pertaining to the roles for orchid B class MADS box genes in the regulation of sepal/petal/lip formation.     

Patterns of Metabolite Changes Identified from Large-Scale Gene Perturbations in Arabidopsis Using a Genome-Scale Metabolic Network

Metabolomics enables quantitative evaluation of metabolic changes caused by genetic or environmental perturbations. However, little is known about how perturbing a single gene changes the metabolic system as a whole and which network and functional properties are involved in this response. To answer this question, we investigated the metabolite profiles from 136 mutants with single gene perturbations of functionally diverse Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genes. Fewer than 10 metabolites were changed significantly relative to the wild type in most of the mutants, indicating that the metabolic network was robust to perturbations of single metabolic genes. These changed metabolites were closer to each other in a genome-scale metabolic network than expected by chance, supporting the notion that the genetic perturbations changed the network more locally than globally. Surprisingly, the changed metabolites were close to the perturbed reactions in only 30% of the mutants of the well-characterized genes. To determine the factors that contributed to the distance between the observed metabolic changes and the perturbation site in the network, we examined nine network and functional properties of the perturbed genes. Only the isozyme number affected the distance between the perturbed reactions and changed metabolites. This study revealed patterns of metabolic changes from large-scale gene perturbations and relationships between characteristics of the perturbed genes and metabolic changes.Rational and quantitative assessment of metabolic changes in response to genetic modification (GM) is an open question and in need of innovative solutions. Nontargeted metabolite profiling can detect thousands of compounds, but it is not easy to understand the significance of the changed metabolites in the biochemical and biological context of the organism. To better assess the changes in metabolites from nontargeted metabolomics studies, it is important to examine the changed metabolites in the context of the genome-scale metabolic network of the organism.Metabolomics is a technique that aims to quantify all the metabolites in a biological system (Nikolau and Wurtele, 2007; Nicholson and Lindon, 2008; Roessner and Bowne, 2009). It has been used widely in studies ranging from disease diagnosis (Holmes et al., 2008; DeBerardinis and Thompson, 2012) and drug discovery (Cascante et al., 2002; Kell, 2006) to metabolic reconstruction (Feist et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2012) and metabolic engineering (Keasling, 2010; Lee et al., 2011). Metabolomic studies have demonstrated the possibility of identifying gene functions from changes in the relative concentrations of metabolites (metabotypes or metabolic signatures; Ebbels et al., 2004) in various species including yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Raamsdonk et al., 2001; Allen et al., 2003), Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana; Brotman et al., 2011), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum; Schauer et al., 2006), and maize (Zea mays; Riedelsheimer et al., 2012). Metabolomics has also been used to better understand how plants interact with their environments (Field and Lake, 2011), including their responses to biotic and abiotic stresses (Dixon et al., 2006; Arbona et al., 2013), and to predict important agronomic traits (Riedelsheimer et al., 2012). Metabolite profiling has been performed on many plant species, including angiosperms such as Arabidopsis, poplar (Populus trichocarpa), and Catharanthus roseus (Sumner et al., 2003; Rischer et al., 2006), basal land plants such as Selaginella moellendorffii and Physcomitrella patens (Erxleben et al., 2012; Yobi et al., 2012), and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Fernie et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2013). With the availability of whole genome sequences of various species, metabolomics has the potential to become a useful tool for elucidating the functions of genes using large-scale systematic analyses (Fiehn et al., 2000; Saito and Matsuda, 2010; Hur et al., 2013).Although metabolomics data have the potential for identifying the roles of genes that are associated with metabolic phenotypes, the biochemical mechanisms that link functions of genes with metabolic phenotypes are still poorly characterized. For example, we do not yet know the principles behind how perturbing the expression of a single gene changes the metabolic system as a whole. Large-scale metabolomics data have provided useful resources for linking phenotypes to genotypes (Fiehn et al., 2000; Roessner et al., 2001; Tikunov et al., 2005; Schauer et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2011; Fukushima et al., 2014). For example, Lu et al. (2011) compared morphological and metabolic phenotypes from more than 5,000 Arabidopsis chloroplast mutants using gas chromatography (GC)- and liquid chromatography (LC)-mass spectrometry (MS). Fukushima et al. (2014) generated metabolite profiles from various characterized and uncharacterized mutant plants and clustered the mutants with similar metabolic phenotypes by conducting multidimensional scaling with quantified metabolic phenotypes. Nonetheless, representation and analysis of such a large amount of data remains a challenge for scientific discovery (Lu et al., 2011). In addition, these studies do not examine the topological and functional characteristics of metabolic changes in the context of a genome-scale metabolic network. To understand the relationship between genotype and metabolic phenotype, we need to investigate the metabolic changes caused by perturbing the expression of a gene in a genome-scale metabolic network perspective, because metabolic pathways are not independent biochemical factories but are components of a complex network (Berg et al., 2002; Merico et al., 2009).Much progress has been made in the last 2 decades to represent metabolism at a genome scale (Terzer et al., 2009). The advances in genome sequencing and emerging fields such as biocuration and bioinformatics enabled the representation of genome-scale metabolic network reconstructions for model organisms (Bassel et al., 2012). Genome-scale metabolic models have been built and applied broadly from microbes to plants. The first step toward modeling a genome-scale metabolism in a plant species started with developing a genome-scale metabolic pathway database for Arabidopsis (AraCyc; Mueller et al., 2003) from reference pathway databases (Kanehisa and Goto, 2000; Karp et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2010). Genome-scale metabolic pathway databases have been built for several plant species (Mueller et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2005, 2010; Urbanczyk-Wochniak and Sumner, 2007; May et al., 2009; Dharmawardhana et al., 2013; Monaco et al., 2013, 2014; Van Moerkercke et al., 2013; Chae et al., 2014; Jung et al., 2014). Efforts have been made to develop predictive genome-scale metabolic models using enzyme kinetics and stoichiometric flux-balance approaches (Sweetlove et al., 2008). de Oliveira Dal’Molin et al. (2010) developed a genome-scale metabolic model for Arabidopsis and successfully validated the model by predicting the classical photorespiratory cycle as well as known key differences between redox metabolism in photosynthetic and nonphotosynthetic plant cells. Other genome-scale models have been developed for Arabidopsis (Poolman et al., 2009; Radrich et al., 2010; Mintz-Oron et al., 2012), C. reinhardtii (Chang et al., 2011; Dal’Molin et al., 2011), maize (Dal’Molin et al., 2010; Saha et al., 2011), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor; Dal’Molin et al., 2010), and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum; Dal’Molin et al., 2010). These predictive models have the potential to be applied broadly in fields such as metabolic engineering, drug target discovery, identification of gene function, study of evolutionary processes, risk assessment of genetically modified crops, and interpretations of mutant phenotypes (Feist and Palsson, 2008; Ricroch et al., 2011).Here, we interrogate the metabotypes caused by 136 single gene perturbations of Arabidopsis by analyzing the relative concentration changes of 1,348 chemically identified metabolites using a reconstructed genome-scale metabolic network. We examine the characteristics of the changed metabolites (the metabolites whose relative concentrations were significantly different in mutants relative to the wild type) in the metabolic network to uncover biological and topological consequences of the perturbed genes.     

Calcineurin B-Like Protein-Interacting Protein Kinase CIPK21 Regulates Osmotic and Salt Stress Responses in Arabidopsis

The role of calcium-mediated signaling has been extensively studied in plant responses to abiotic stress signals. Calcineurin B-like proteins (CBLs) and CBL-interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) constitute a complex signaling network acting in diverse plant stress responses. Osmotic stress imposed by soil salinity and drought is a major abiotic stress that impedes plant growth and development and involves calcium-signaling processes. In this study, we report the functional analysis of CIPK21, an Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) CBL-interacting protein kinase, ubiquitously expressed in plant tissues and up-regulated under multiple abiotic stress conditions. The growth of a loss-of-function mutant of CIPK21, cipk21, was hypersensitive to high salt and osmotic stress conditions. The calcium sensors CBL2 and CBL3 were found to physically interact with CIPK21 and target this kinase to the tonoplast. Moreover, preferential localization of CIPK21 to the tonoplast was detected under salt stress condition when coexpressed with CBL2 or CBL3. These findings suggest that CIPK21 mediates responses to salt stress condition in Arabidopsis, at least in part, by regulating ion and water homeostasis across the vacuolar membranes.Drought and salinity cause osmotic stress in plants and severely affect crop productivity throughout the world. Plants respond to osmotic stress by changing a number of cellular processes (Xiong et al., 1999; Xiong and Zhu, 2002; Bartels and Sunkar, 2005; Boudsocq and Lauriére, 2005). Some of these changes include activation of stress-responsive genes, regulation of membrane transport at both plasma membrane (PM) and vacuolar membrane (tonoplast) to maintain water and ionic homeostasis, and metabolic changes to produce compatible osmolytes such as Pro (Stewart and Lee, 1974; Krasensky and Jonak, 2012). It has been well established that a specific calcium (Ca²⁺) signature is generated in response to a particular environmental stimulus (Trewavas and Malhó, 1998; Scrase-Field and Knight, 2003; Luan, 2009; Kudla et al., 2010). The Ca²⁺ changes are primarily perceived by several Ca²⁺ sensors such as calmodulin (Reddy, 2001; Luan et al., 2002), Ca²⁺-dependent protein kinases (Harper and Harmon, 2005), calcineurin B-like proteins (CBLs; Luan et al., 2002; Batistič and Kudla, 2004; Pandey, 2008; Luan, 2009; Sanyal et al., 2015), and other Ca²⁺-binding proteins (Reddy, 2001; Shao et al., 2008) to initiate various cellular responses.Plant CBL-type Ca²⁺ sensors interact with and activate CBL-interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) that phosphorylate downstream components to transduce Ca²⁺ signals (Liu et al., 2000; Luan et al., 2002; Batistič and Kudla, 2004; Luan, 2009). In several plant species, multiple members have been identified in the CBL and CIPK family (Luan et al., 2002; Kolukisaoglu et al., 2004; Pandey, 2008; Batistič and Kudla, 2009; Weinl and Kudla, 2009; Pandey et al., 2014). Involvement of specific CBL-CIPK pair to decode a particular type of signal entails the alternative and selective complex formation leading to stimulus-response coupling (D’Angelo et al., 2006; Batistič et al., 2010).Several CBL and CIPK family members have been implicated in plant responses to drought, salinity, and osmotic stress based on genetic analysis of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mutants (Zhu, 2002; Cheong et al., 2003, 2007; Kim et al., 2003; Pandey et al., 2004, 2008; D’Angelo et al., 2006; Qin et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2009; Held et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2012; Drerup et al., 2013; Eckert et al., 2014). A few CIPKs have also been functionally characterized by gain-of-function approach in crop plants such as rice (Oryza sativa), pea (Pisum sativum), and maize (Zea mays) and were found to be involved in osmotic stress responses (Mahajan et al., 2006; Xiang et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2008; Tripathi et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2009; Cuéllar et al., 2010).In this report, we examined the role of the Arabidopsis CIPK21 gene in osmotic stress response by reverse genetic analysis. The loss-of-function mutant plants became hypersensitive to salt and mannitol stress conditions, suggesting that CIPK21 is involved in the regulation of osmotic stress response in Arabidopsis. These findings are further supported by an enhanced tonoplast targeting of the cytoplasmic CIPK21 through interaction with the vacuolar Ca²⁺ sensors CBL2 and CBL3 under salt stress condition.     

New Evidence for Differential Roles of L10 Ribosomal Proteins from Arabidopsis

The RIBOSOMAL PROTEIN L10 (RPL10) is an integral component of the eukaryotic ribosome large subunit. Besides being a constituent of ribosomes and participating in protein translation, additional extraribosomal functions in the nucleus have been described for RPL10 in different organisms. Previously, we demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) RPL10 genes are involved in development and translation under ultraviolet B (UV-B) stress. In this work, transgenic plants expressing Pro_RPL10:β-glucuronidase fusions show that, while AtRPL10A and AtRPL10B are expressed both in the female and male reproductive organs, AtRPL10C expression is restricted to pollen grains. Moreover, the characterization of double rpl10 mutants indicates that the three AtRPL10s differentially contribute to the total RPL10 activity in the male gametophyte. All three AtRPL10 proteins mainly accumulate in the cytosol but also in the nucleus, suggesting extraribosomal functions. After UV-B treatment, only AtRPL10B localization increases in the nuclei. We also here demonstrate that the three AtRPL10 genes can complement a yeast RPL10 mutant. Finally, the involvement of RPL10B and RPL10C in UV-B responses was analyzed by two-dimensional gels followed by mass spectrometry. Overall, our data provide new evidence about the nonredundant roles of RPL10 proteins in Arabidopsis.In eukaryotes, the cytosolic ribosomes consist of large 60S and small 40S subunits. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), ribosomal protein genes exist as families composed of two to seven members that could be differentially incorporated into the cytosolic ribosome under specific situations (Schmid et al., 2005; Byrne, 2009). In this way, ribosomal heterogeneity would allow selective translation of specific mRNAs under particular cell conditions (Barakat et al., 2001; Szick-Miranda and Bailey-Serres, 2001; Giavalisco et al., 2005; Carroll et al., 2008; Carroll, 2013). Arabidopsis mutants in ribosomal proteins exhibit a large range of developmental phenotypes with extreme abnormalities, including embryonic lethality, suggesting that ribosomes also have specific functions regulating the expression of developmental genes (Van Lijsebettens et al., 1994; Degenhardt and Bonham-Smith, 2008; Byrne, 2009; Horiguchi et al., 2011, 2012; Szakonyi and Byrne, 2011). Furthermore, it has been recently demonstrated that ribosomal proteins control auxin-mediated developmental programs by translational regulation of auxin response factors (Rosado et al., 2012). In addition, the characterization of single, double, and, in certain cases, triple mutants as well as complementation by paralog genes have demonstrated full, partial, and no redundancy between members of ribosomal protein families (Briggs et al., 2006; Guo and Chen, 2008; Guo et al., 2011; Horiguchi et al., 2011; Stirnberg et al., 2012).RIBOSOMAL PROTEIN L10 (RPL10) was initially identified in humans as a putative suppressor of Wilms’ tumor (Dowdy et al., 1991). Since then, RPL10 has been studied in different organisms from archaea and bacteria to eukaryotes such as mammals, insects, yeast, and plants (Marty et al., 1993; Mills et al., 1999; Hwang et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Wen et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2009). A remarkable property of this protein is its high degree of amino acid conservation, suggesting fundamental and critical conserved functions of RPL10 in different organisms (Farmer et al., 1994; Eisinger et al., 1997; Hofer et al., 2007; Nishimura et al., 2008). Likewise, the crystallographic structural similarity observed among RPL10 orthologs in eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea (called L16) established the conservation of this universal ribosomal protein family and provided evidence of the inalterability of the ribosome during evolution (Spahn et al., 2001; Nishimura et al., 2008). Nevertheless, besides being a constituent of ribosomes and participating in protein translation, additional extraribosomal functions have been described for RPL10 (Mills et al., 1999; Hwang et al., 2000; Chávez-Rios et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2009). In yeast, RPL10 is essential for viability, organizes the union site of the aminoacyl-tRNA, and its incorporation into the 60S subunit is a prerequisite for subunit joining and the initiation of translation (West et al., 2005; Hofer et al., 2007). Extensive analysis of the in vivo assembly of ribosomes revealed that RPL10 is loaded to the ribosome in the cytosol with the assistance of its chaperone suppressor of QSR1 truncations (Hedges et al., 2005; West et al., 2005).Arabidopsis has three genes encoding RPL10 proteins, AtRPL10A, AtRPL10B, and, AtRPL10C. Recently, we demonstrated that Arabidopsis RPL10 genes are differentially regulated by UV-B radiation: RPL10B is down-regulated, RPL10C is up-regulated, while RPL10A is not UV-B regulated. Arabidopsis single mutants showed that RPL10 genes are not functionally equivalent. Heterozygous rpl10a mutant plants are translation deficient under UV-B conditions, knockout rpl10A mutants are not viable, and knockdown homozygous rpl10B mutants show abnormal growth. Conversely, knockout homozygous rpl10C mutants do not exhibit any visible phenotype. Overall, RPL10 genes are involved in development and translation under UV-B stress (Falcone Ferreyra et al., 2010b). Furthermore, coimmunoprecipitation studies showed an association of RPL10 with nuclear proteins, suggesting that at least one of the RPL10 isoforms could have an extraribosomal function in the nucleus (Falcone Ferreyra et al., 2010a).The aim of this work was to further investigate the contribution of each Arabidopsis RPL10 to plant development and UV-B responses. We examined the spatiotemporal expression of each AtRPL10 using transgenic plants expressing Pro_RPL10:GUS fusions. By AtRPL10-GFP fusions, we analyzed the subcellular localization of each RPL10, demonstrating that the three isoforms are mainly localized in the cytosol but also in the nucleus. In order to investigate the functional redundancy between AtRPL10 genes in more detail, we generated and characterized double rpl10 mutants. We also here demonstrate that the three AtRPL10 genes can complement a yeast RPL10 mutant. Finally, the involvement of RPL10B and RPL10C in UV-B responses was analyzed by two-dimensional (2D) gels followed by mass spectrometry. Overall, our data provide new insights into the role of each RPL10 in Arabidopsis.