Arabidopsis LON2 Is Necessary for Peroxisomal Function and Sustained Matrix Protein Import

Relatively little is known about the small subset of peroxisomal proteins with predicted protease activity. Here, we report that the peroxisomal LON2 (At5g47040) protease facilitates matrix protein import into Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) peroxisomes. We identified T-DNA insertion alleles disrupted in five of the nine confirmed or predicted peroxisomal proteases and found only two—lon2 and deg15, a mutant defective in the previously described PTS2-processing protease (DEG15/At1g28320)—with phenotypes suggestive of peroxisome metabolism defects. Both lon2 and deg15 mutants were mildly resistant to the inhibitory effects of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root elongation, but only lon2 mutants were resistant to the stimulatory effects of IBA on lateral root production or displayed Suc dependence during seedling growth. lon2 mutants displayed defects in removing the type 2 peroxisome targeting signal (PTS2) from peroxisomal malate dehydrogenase and reduced accumulation of 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase, another PTS2-containing protein; both defects were not apparent upon germination but appeared in 5- to 8-d-old seedlings. In lon2 cotyledon cells, matrix proteins were localized to peroxisomes in 4-d-old seedlings but mislocalized to the cytosol in 8-d-old seedlings. Moreover, a PTS2-GFP reporter sorted to peroxisomes in lon2 root tip cells but was largely cytosolic in more mature root cells. Our results indicate that LON2 is needed for sustained matrix protein import into peroxisomes. The delayed onset of matrix protein sorting defects may account for the relatively weak Suc dependence following germination, moderate IBA-resistant primary root elongation, and severe defects in IBA-induced lateral root formation observed in lon2 mutants.Peroxisomes are single-membrane-bound organelles found in most eukaryotes. Peroxin (PEX) proteins are necessary for various aspects of peroxisome biogenesis, including matrix protein import (for review, see Distel et al., 1996; Schrader and Fahimi, 2008). Most matrix proteins are imported into peroxisomes from the cytosol using one of two targeting signals, a C-terminal type 1 peroxisome-targeting signal (PTS1) or a cleavable N-terminal type 2 peroxisome-targeting signal (PTS2) (Reumann, 2004). PTS1- and PTS2-containing proteins are bound in the cytosol by soluble matrix protein receptors, escorted to the peroxisome membrane docking complex, and translocated into the peroxisome matrix (for review, see Platta and Erdmann, 2007). Once in the peroxisome, many matrix proteins participate in metabolic pathways, such as β-oxidation, hydrogen peroxide decomposition, and photorespiration (for review, see Gabaldon et al., 2006; Poirier et al., 2006).In addition to metabolic enzymes, several proteases are found in the peroxisome matrix. Only one protease, DEG15/Tysnd1, has a well-defined role in peroxisome biology. The rat Tysnd1 protease removes the targeting signal after PTS2-containing proteins enter the peroxisome and also processes certain PTS1-containing β-oxidation enzymes (Kurochkin et al., 2007). Similarly, the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) Tysnd1 homolog DEG15 (At1g28320) is a peroxisomal Ser protease that removes PTS2 targeting signals (Helm et al., 2007; Schuhmann et al., 2008).In contrast with DEG15, little is known about the other eight Arabidopsis proteins that are annotated as proteases in the AraPerox database of putative peroxisomal proteins (Reumann et al., 2004; Carter et al., 2004; Shimaoka et al., 2004), which, in combination with the minor PTS found in both of these predicted proteases (Reumann, 2004), suggests that these enzymes may not be peroxisomal. Along with DEG15, only two of the predicted peroxisomal proteases, an M16 metalloprotease (At2g41790), which we have named PXM16 for peroxisomal M16 protease, and a Lon-related protease (At5g47040/LON2; Ostersetzer et al., 2007), are found in the proteome of peroxisomes purified from Arabidopsis suspension cells (Eubel et al., 2008). DEG15 and LON2 also have been validated as peroxisomally targeted using GFP fusions (Ostersetzer et al., 2007; Schuhmann et al., 2008).

Table I.

Putative Arabidopsis proteases predicted or demonstrated to be peroxisomal

Efficient Transposition of Tol2 in the Mouse Germline

Insertional mutagenesis screens play an integral part in the annotating of functional data for all sequenced genes in the postgenomic era. Chemical mutagenesis screens are highly efficient but identifying the causative gene can be a laborious task. Other mutagenesis platforms, such as transposable elements, have been successfully applied for insertional mutagenesis screens in both the mouse and rat. However, relatively low transposition efficiency has hampered their use as a high-throughput forward genetic mutagenesis screen. Here we report the first evidence of germline activity in the mouse using a naturally active DNA transposon derived from the medaka fish called Tol2, as an alternative system for high-throughput forward genetic mutagenesis screening tool.THE Tol2 (transposable element of Oryzias latipes, number 2) element belongs to the hAT family (hobo of Drosophilia, Activator of maize and Tam3 of snapdragon) of transposons and was the first known autonomously active vertebrate type II transposable element (Koga et al. 1996; Kawakami et al. 1998). Unlike other DNA-type transposons like Sleeping Beauty (SB) (Ivics et al. 1997) or piggyBac (PB) (Fraser et al. 1996), Tol2 does not exhibit any known strong site specificity for integration nor does it exhibit any significant overexpression inhibition activity (Kawakami and Noda 2004; Balciunas et al. 2006) as seen in SB (Geurts et al. 2003). Recently, Tol2 was shown to effectively carry large DNA cargo of up to 10 kb in human and mouse cells without affecting its transposition efficiency (Balciunas et al. 2006). To date, Tol2 has also been demonstrated to transpose efficiently in zebrafish, frog, chicken, mouse cells, and human cells (Kawakami et al. 2000, 2004; Koga et al. 2003; Kawakami and Noda 2004; Balciunas et al. 2006; Hamlet et al. 2006; Sato et al. 2007).Germline mutagenesis using the SB transposon system has been demonstrated in both the mouse (Dupuy et al. 2001; Horie et al. 2001) and rat (Kitada et al. 2007; Lu et al. 2007). In addition, PB germline mutagenesis in mice has also been demonstrated (Ding et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2007). However, the relatively low germline transposition efficiency of both transposon systems reported so far has hampered their use in a high-throughput forward genetic mutagenesis screen (Keng et al. 2005; Kitada et al. 2007).

TABLE 1

Germline transposition frequency in various transposon systems

Retrograde Intraflagellar Transport Mutants Identify Complex A Proteins With Multiple Genetic Interactions in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

The intraflagellar transport machinery is required for the assembly of cilia. It has been investigated by biochemical, genetic, and computational methods that have identified at least 21 proteins that assemble into two subcomplexes. It has been hypothesized that complex A is required for retrograde transport. Temperature-sensitive mutations in FLA15 and FLA17 show defects in retrograde intraflagellar transport (IFT) in Chlamydomonas. We show that IFT144 and IFT139, two complex A proteins, are encoded by FLA15 and FLA17, respectively. The fla15 allele is a missense mutation in a conserved cysteine and the fla17 allele is an in-frame deletion of three exons. The flagellar assembly defect of each mutant is rescued by the respective transgenes. In fla15 and fla17 mutants, bulges form in the distal one-third of the flagella at the permissive temperature and this phenotype is also rescued by the transgenes. These bulges contain the complex B component IFT74/72, but not α-tubulin or p28, a component of an inner dynein arm, which suggests specificity with respect to the proteins that accumulate in these bulges. IFT144 and IFT139 are likely to interact with each other and other proteins on the basis of three distinct genetic tests: (1) Double mutants display synthetic flagellar assembly defects at the permissive temperature, (2) heterozygous diploid strains exhibit second-site noncomplemention, and (3) transgenes confer two-copy suppression. Since these tests show different levels of phenotypic sensitivity, we propose they illustrate different gradations of gene interaction between complex A proteins themselves and with a complex B protein (IFT172).CILIA and flagella are microtubule-based organelles that are found on most mammalian cells. They provide motility to cells and participate in many sensory processes. Defects in or loss of cilia/flagella cause a variety of human diseases that include polycystic kidney disease, retinal degeneration, infertility, obesity, respiratory defects, left–right axis determination, and polydactyly (Fliegauf et al. 2007). Mouse mutants demonstrate that cilia are essential for viability, neural tube closure, and bone development (Eggenschwiler and Anderson 2007; Fliegauf et al. 2007). Cilia and flagella are also present in protists, algae, moss, and some fungi.The assembly and maintenance of cilia and flagella require intraflagellar transport (IFT) (Kozminski et al. 1995). IFT involves the movement of 100- to 200-nm-long protein particles from the basal body located in the cell body to the tip of the flagella using the heterotrimeric kinesin-2 (anterograde movement) (Kozminski et al. 1995) and movement back to the cell body (retrograde movement) using the cytoplasmic dynein complex (Pazour et al. 1999; Porter et al. 1999). IFT particles change their direction of movement as well as their size, speed, and frequency at the ends of the flagella as they switch from anterograde to retrograde movement (Iomini et al. 2001). Biochemical isolation of IFT particles reveals that they are composed of at least 16 proteins and that these particles can be dissociated into two complexes in vitro by changing the salt concentration (Cole et al. 1998; Piperno et al. 1998). Recent genetic and bioinformatics analysis adds at least 7 more proteins to the IFT particle (Follit et al. 2009) (Eggenschwiler and Anderson 2007).

TABLE 1

Proteins and gene names for the intraflagellar transport particles in Chlamydomonas, C. elegans, and mouse

Complexation and Toxicity of Copper in Higher Plants. I. Characterization of Copper Accumulation,Speciation, and Toxicity in Crassula helmsii as a New Copper Accumulator

The amphibious water plant Crassula helmsii is an invasive copper (Cu)-tolerant neophyte in Europe. It now turned out to accumulate Cu up to more than 9,000 ppm in its shoots at 10 μm (=0.6 ppm) Cu²⁺ in the nutrient solution, indicating that it is a Cu hyperaccumulator. We investigated uptake, binding environment, and toxicity of Cu in this plant under emerged and submerged conditions. Extended x-ray absorption fine structure measurements on frozen-hydrated samples revealed that Cu was bound almost exclusively by oxygen ligands, likely organic acids, and not any sulfur ligands. Despite significant differences in photosynthesis biochemistry and biophysics between emerged and submerged plants, no differences in Cu ligands were found. While measurements of tissue pH confirmed the diurnal acid cycle typical for Crassulacean acid metabolism, Δ¹³C measurements showed values typical for regular C3 photosynthesis. Cu-induced inhibition of photosynthesis mainly affected the photosystem II (PSII) reaction center, but with some unusual features. Most obviously, the degree of light saturation of electron transport increased during Cu stress, while maximal dark-adapted PSII quantum yield did not change and light-adapted quantum yield of PSII photochemistry decreased particularly in the first 50 s after onset of actinic irradiance. This combination of changes, which were strongest in submerged cultures, shows a decreasing number of functional reaction centers relative to the antenna in a system with high antenna connectivity. Nonphotochemical quenching, in contrast, was modified by Cu mainly in emerged cultures. Pigment concentrations in stressed plants strongly decreased, but no changes in their ratios occurred, indicating that cells either survived intact or died and bleached quickly.Heavy metals such as cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), manganese, nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn) are well known to be essential microelements for the life of plants (for Cd, see Lane and Morel, 2000). On the other hand, elevated concentrations of these metals induce inhibition of various processes in plant metabolism (for review, see Prasad and Hagemeyer, 1999; Küpper and Kroneck, 2005). Cu can occur in very high concentrations that are detrimental or even lethal to most plants. It is widely used as a pesticide in agriculture, and field runoff may easily reach concentrations of several micromolar (Gallagher et al., 2001). Photosynthetic reactions, both photochemical and biochemical ones, belong to the most important sites of inhibition by many heavy metals and in particular Cu. In the thylakoids, PSII has frequently been identified to be the main target. The exact location of its damage, however, strongly depends on the irradiance conditions, as shown originally by Cedeno-Maldonado et al. (1972) and later by Küpper et al. (1996b, 1998, 2002). The latter authors found that in low irradiance including a dark phase, the inhibition of PSII is largely due to the impairment of the correct function of the light-harvesting antenna; this mechanism was termed “shade reaction.” It results from the substitution by heavy metals of the Mg²⁺ ion in the chlorophyll (Chl) molecules of the light-harvesting complex II. In high irradiance, direct damage to the PSII reaction center (RC) occurs instead, which most likely involves insertion of Cu²⁺ into the Pheo a of the PSII RC. This was named “sun reaction” (Küpper et al., 1996b, 1998, 2002). Also, oxidative stress has often been described as a result of Cu stress; recent data have shown that in photosynthetic organisms, it is mainly a consequence of an inhibition of the photosynthetic light reactions (Rocchetta and Küpper, 2009).Plants developed a number of strategies to resist the toxicity of heavy metals, as reviewed by Cobbett and Goldsbrough (2002) and Küpper and Kroneck (2005). Such strategies include efflux pumps, sequestration in cells and intracellular compartments where metals do least harm, and binding of heavy metals inside the cells by strong ligands like phytochelatins or free amino acids. A majority of the heavy metal-resistant plants, called “excluders,” prevent the accumulation of heavy metals inside their tissues (Baker, 1981). Other resistant plants actively take up heavy metals, translocate them into the shoot, and sequester them to certain parts of the plant, where they are stored in a harmless state. These plants, which accumulate up to several percent of heavy metals in the dry mass of their aboveground parts, are called “hyperaccumulators” (Brooks et al., 1977). In their natural habitats, metal-rich soils in many parts of the world, this type of heavy metal accumulation serves as a defense against pathogens and herbivores (Boyd and Martens, 1994; Martens and Boyd, 1994; Boyd et al., 2002; Hanson et al., 2003; Jhee et al., 2005). They can now be used for the decontamination (“phytoremediation”) of anthropogenically heavy metal-contaminated soils and in some cases also for the commercial extraction (“phytomining”) of high-value metals (mainly Ni) from metal-rich soils (Baker et al., 1994; McGrath and Zhao, 2003; Chaney et al., 2005).The mechanisms by which hyperaccumulator plants accumulate the enormous amounts of heavy metals in their shoots and prevent phytotoxicity of these metals have been the subject of many studies. Nevertheless, many of these mechanisms are still under debate (Pollard et al., 2002; Küpper and Kroneck, 2005), and a short overview is given in our companion article (Mijovilovich et al., 2009) on Cu in the Cd/Zn model hyperaccumulator plant Thlaspi caerulescens. Studies of arsenic, Cd, Ni, and Zn binding in hyperaccumulators (Krämer et al., 1996; Sagner et al., 1998; Salt et al., 1999, Wang et al., 2002; Küpper et al., 2004) indicated that in such plants most of the metals are coordinated by organic acids, which are commonly found in plant vacuoles. Nonaccumulator plants, in contrast, are well known to bind heavy metals by strong sulfur ligands such as phytochelatins (mainly for Cd) and metallothioneins (mainly for Cu), as reviewed by Cobbett and Goldsbrough (2002).While hundreds of species have been found to hyperaccumulate Ni and about two dozen to hyperaccumulate Zn, true Cu hyperaccumulation in the sense of reaching thousands of ppm in the shoot dry weight has rarely been confirmed. Most species reported to be Cu hyperaccumulators before were later found to be false positives due to Cu adsorption on the leaf surface, et cetera; actually, none of the species recently revisited had a bioaccumulation factor larger than 1, which is commonly regarded as a necessary prerequisite of true hyperaccumulation (Faucon et al., 2007). But it is important in terms of the general understanding of metal metabolism in plants to identify how plants can cope with Cu toxicity other than excluding it from their metabolism and how far the mechanisms of Cu detoxification and Cu stress differ in Cu-resistant and -accumulating plants from Cu excluders and Cu-sensitive plants. Such questions are important also for breeding better Cd/Zn hyperaccumulators, since such plants (e.g. T. caerulescens) turned out to be Cu sensitive, limiting their phytoremediation potential on soils with mixed contamination (Walker and Bernal, 2004). We now analyzed Cu accumulation and Cu stress in a so far not well-characterized species, the amphibious Crassula helmsii, an aggressively invasive plant in Europe (Küpper et al., 1996a). We chose this plant because in a previous study it had turned out to be much more Cu resistant than all other investigated species (Küpper et al., 1996b), but more in summer than in winter. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicated that under high temperatures and salinity, C. helmsii switches to circadian acid metabolism (CAM), which might cause its elevated Cu resistance in summer due to the enhanced availability of malate as a Cu ligand. CAM metabolism was first reported for C. helmsii by Newman and Raven (1995).In this study, we investigated physiological mechanisms of Cu-induced inhibition of photosynthesis, Crassulacean acid metabolism induction, and Cu accumulation and complexation in C. helmsii. The most important method for our investigations of Cu stress was the two-dimensional (imaging) and spectrally resolved microscopic in vivo measurement of the transients of Chl variable fluorescence in the fluorescence kinetic microscope (FKM; Küpper et al., 2000a, 2007a). Cu ligands were investigated via EXAFS (

Adaptive Divergence in Experimental Populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. IV. Genetic Constraints Guide Evolutionary Trajectories in a Parallel Adaptive Radiation

The capacity for phenotypic evolution is dependent upon complex webs of functional interactions that connect genotype and phenotype. Wrinkly spreader (WS) genotypes arise repeatedly during the course of a model Pseudomonas adaptive radiation. Previous work showed that the evolution of WS variation was explained in part by spontaneous mutations in wspF, a component of the Wsp-signaling module, but also drew attention to the existence of unknown mutational causes. Here, we identify two new mutational pathways (Aws and Mws) that allow realization of the WS phenotype: in common with the Wsp module these pathways contain a di-guanylate cyclase-encoding gene subject to negative regulation. Together, mutations in the Wsp, Aws, and Mws regulatory modules account for the spectrum of WS phenotype-generating mutations found among a collection of 26 spontaneously arising WS genotypes obtained from independent adaptive radiations. Despite a large number of potential mutational pathways, the repeated discovery of mutations in a small number of loci (parallel evolution) prompted the construction of an ancestral genotype devoid of known (Wsp, Aws, and Mws) regulatory modules to see whether the types derived from this genotype could converge upon the WS phenotype via a novel route. Such types—with equivalent fitness effects—did emerge, although they took significantly longer to do so. Together our data provide an explanation for why WS evolution follows a limited number of mutational pathways and show how genetic architecture can bias the molecular variation presented to selection.UNDERSTANDING—and importantly, predicting—phenotypic evolution requires knowledge of the factors that affect the translation of mutation into phenotypic variation—the raw material of adaptive evolution. While much is known about mutation rate (e.g., Drake et al. 1998; Hudson et al. 2002), knowledge of the processes affecting the translation of DNA sequence variation into phenotypic variation is minimal.Advances in knowledge on at least two fronts suggest that progress in understanding the rules governing the generation of phenotypic variation is possible (Stern and Orgogozo 2009). The first stems from increased awareness of the genetic architecture underlying specific adaptive phenotypes and recognition of the fact that the capacity for evolutionary change is likely to be constrained by this architecture (Schlichting and Murren 2004; Hansen 2006). The second is the growing number of reports of parallel evolution (e.g., Pigeon et al. 1997; ffrench-Constant et al. 1998; Allender et al. 2003; Colosimo et al. 2004; Zhong et al. 2004; Boughman et al. 2005; Shindo et al. 2005; Kronforst et al. 2006; Woods et al. 2006; Zhang 2006; Bantinaki et al. 2007; McGregor et al. 2007; Ostrowski et al. 2008)—that is, the independent evolution of similar or identical features in two or more lineages—which suggests the possibility that evolution may follow a limited number of pathways (Schluter 1996). Indeed, giving substance to this idea are studies that show that mutations underlying parallel phenotypic evolution are nonrandomly distributed and typically clustered in homologous genes (Stern and Orgogozo 2008).While the nonrandom distribution of mutations during parallel genetic evolution may reflect constraints due to genetic architecture, some have argued that the primary cause is strong selection (e.g., Wichman et al. 1999; Woods et al. 2006). A means of disentangling the roles of population processes (selection) from genetic architecture is necessary for progress (Maynard Smith et al. 1985; Brakefield 2006); also necessary is insight into precisely how genetic architecture might bias the production of mutations presented to selection.Despite their relative simplicity, microbial populations offer opportunities to advance knowledge. The wrinkly spreader (WS) morphotype is one of many different niche specialist genotypes that emerge when experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens are propagated in spatially structured microcosms (Rainey and Travisano 1998). Previous studies defined, via gene inactivation, the essential phenotypic and genetic traits that define a single WS genotype known as LSWS (Spiers et al. 2002, 2003) (Figure 1). LSWS differs from the ancestral SM genotype by a single nonsynonymous nucleotide change in wspF. Functionally (see Figure 2), WspF is a methyl esterase and negative regulator of the WspR di-guanylate cyclase (DGC) (Goymer et al. 2006) that is responsible for the biosynthesis of c-di-GMP (Malone et al. 2007), the allosteric activator of cellulose synthesis enzymes (Ross et al. 1987). The net effect of the wspF mutation is to promote physiological changes that lead to the formation of a microbial mat at the air–liquid interface of static broth microcosms (Rainey and Rainey 2003).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.—Outline of experimental strategy for elucidation of WS-generating mutations and their subsequent identity and distribution among a collection of independently evolved, spontaneously arising WS genotypes. The strategy involves, first, the genetic analysis of a specific WS genotype (e.g., LSWS) to identify the causal mutation, and second, a survey of DNA sequence variation at specific loci known to harbor causal mutations among a collection of spontaneously arising WS genotypes. For example, suppressor analysis of LSWS using a transposon to inactivate genes necessary for expression of the wrinkly morphology delivered a large number of candidate genes (top left) (Spiers et al. 2002). Genetic and functional analysis of these candidate genes (e.g., Goymer et al. 2006) led eventually to the identity of the spontaneous mutation (in wspF) responsible for the evolution of LSWS from the ancestral SM genotype (Bantinaki et al. 2007). Subsequent analysis of the wspF sequence among 26 independent WS genotypes (bottom) showed that 50% harbored spontaneous mutations (of different kinds; see Open in a separate windowFigure 2.—Network diagram of DGC-encoding pathways underpinning the evolution of the WS phenotype and their regulation. Overproduction of c-di-GMP results in overproduction of cellulose and other adhesive factors that determine the WS phenotype. The ancestral SBW25 genome contains 39 putative DGCs, each in principle capable of synthesizing the production of c-di-GMP, and yet WS genotypes arise most commonly as a consequence of mutations in just three DGC-containing pathways: Wsp, Aws, and Mws. In each instance, the causal mutations are most commonly in the negative regulatory component: wspF, awsX, and the phosphodiesterase domain of mwsR (see text).To determine whether spontaneous mutations in wspF are a common cause of the WS phenotype, the nucleotide sequence of this gene was obtained from a collection of 26 spontaneously arising WS genotypes (WS_A-Z) taken from 26 independent adaptive radiations, each founded by the same ancestral SM genotype (Figure 1): 13 contained mutations in wspF (Bantinaki et al. 2007). The existence of additional mutational pathways to WS provided the initial motivation for this study.

TABLE 1

Mutational causes of WS

Uniform nomenclature for the mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system

The mitochondrial inner membrane contains a large protein complex that functions in inner membrane organization and formation of membrane contact sites. The complex was variably named the mitochondrial contact site complex, mitochondrial inner membrane organizing system, mitochondrial organizing structure, or Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex. To facilitate future studies, we propose to unify the nomenclature and term the complex “mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system” and its subunits Mic10 to Mic60.Mitochondria possess two membranes of different architecture and function (Palade, 1952; Hackenbrock, 1968). Both membranes work together for essential shared functions, such as protein import (Schatz, 1996; Neupert and Herrmann, 2007; Chacinska et al., 2009). The outer membrane harbors machinery that controls the shape of the organelle and is crucial for the communication of mitochondria with the rest of the cell. The inner membrane harbors the complexes of the respiratory chain, the F₁F_o-ATP synthase, numerous metabolite carriers, and enzymes of mitochondrial metabolism. It consists of two domains: the inner boundary membrane, which is adjacent to the outer membrane, and invaginations of different shape, termed cristae (Werner and Neupert, 1972; Frey and Mannella, 2000; Hoppins et al., 2007; Pellegrini and Scorrano, 2007; Zick et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2011). Tubular openings, termed crista junctions (Perkins et al., 1997), connect inner boundary membrane and cristae membranes (Fig. 1, A and B). Respiratory chain complexes and the F₁F_o-ATP synthase are preferentially located in the cristae membranes, whereas preprotein translocases are enriched in the inner boundary membrane (Vogel et al., 2006; Wurm and Jakobs, 2006; Davies et al., 2011). Contact sites between outer membrane and inner boundary membrane promote import of preproteins, metabolite channeling, lipid transport, and membrane dynamics (Frey and Mannella, 2000; Sesaki and Jensen, 2004; Hoppins et al., 2007, 2011; Neupert and Herrmann, 2007; Chacinska et al., 2009; Connerth et al., 2012; van der Laan et al., 2012).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.MICOS complex. (A) The MICOS complex (hypothetical model), previously also termed MINOS, MitOS, or Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex, is required for maintenance of the characteristic architecture of the mitochondrial inner membrane (IM) and forms contact sites with the outer membrane (OM). In budding yeast, six subunits of MICOS have been identified. All subunits are exposed to the intermembrane space (IMS), five are integral inner membrane proteins (Mic10, Mic12, Mic26, Mic27, and Mic60), and one is a peripheral inner membrane protein (Mic19). Mic26 is related to Mic27; however, mic26Δ yeast cells show considerably less severe defects of mitochondrial inner membrane architecture than mic27Δ cells (Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011). The MICOS complex of metazoa additionally contains Mic25, which is related to Mic19, yet subunits corresponding to Mic12 and Mic26 have not been identified so far. MICOS subunits that have been conserved in most organisms analyzed are indicated by bold boundary lines. (B, top) Wild-type architecture of the mitochondrial inner membrane with crista junctions and cristae. (bottom) This architecture is considerably altered in micos mutant mitochondria: most cristae membranes are detached from the inner boundary membrane and form internal membrane stacks. In some micos mutants (deficiency of mammalian Mic19 or Mic25), a loss of cristae membranes was observed (Darshi et al., 2011; An et al., 2012). Figure by M. Bohnert (Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany).To understand the complex architecture of mitochondria, it will be crucial to identify the molecular machineries that control the interaction between mitochondrial outer and inner membranes and the characteristic organization of the inner membrane. A convergence of independent studies led to the identification of a large heterooligomeric protein complex of the mitochondrial inner membrane conserved from yeast to humans that plays crucial roles in the maintenance of crista junctions, inner membrane architecture, and formation of contact sites to the outer membrane (Fig. 1 A). Several names were used by different research groups to describe the complex, including mitochondrial contact site (MICOS) complex, mitochondrial inner membrane organizing system (MINOS), mitochondrial organizing structure (MitOS), Mitofilin complex, or Fcj1 (formation of crista junction protein 1) complex (Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012). Mitofilin, also termed Fcj1, was the first component identified (Icho et al., 1994; Odgren et al., 1996; Gieffers et al., 1997; John et al., 2005) and was observed enriched at crista junctions (Rabl et al., 2009). Mutants of Mitofilin/Fcj1 as well as of other MICOS/MINOS/MitOS subunits show a strikingly altered inner membrane architecture. They lose crista junctions and contain large internal membrane stacks, the respiratory activity is reduced, and mitochondrial DNA nucleoids are altered (Fig. 1 B; John et al., 2005; Hess et al., 2009; Rabl et al., 2009; Mun et al., 2010; Harner et al., 2011; Head et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; Itoh et al., 2013). It has been reported that the complex interacts with a variety of outer membrane proteins, such as channel proteins and components of the protein translocases and mitochondrial fusion machines, and defects impair the biogenesis of mitochondrial proteins (Xie et al., 2007; Darshi et al., 2011; Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; An et al., 2012; Bohnert et al., 2012; Körner et al., 2012; Ott et al., 2012; Zerbes et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2013). The MICOS/MINOS/MitOS/Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex thus plays crucial roles in mitochondrial architecture, dynamics, and biogenesis. However, communication of results in this rapidly developing field has been complicated by several different nomenclatures used for the complex as well as for its subunits (Standard nameFormer namesYeast ORFReferencesComplexMICOSMINOS, MitOS, MIB, Mitofilin complex, and Fcj1 complexXie et al., 2007; Rabl et al., 2009; Darshi et al., 2011; Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; An et al., 2012; Bohnert et al., 2012; Ott et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2013SubunitsMic10Mcs10, Mio10, Mos1, and MINOS1YCL057C-AHarner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; Itoh et al., 2013; Jans et al., 2013; Varabyova et al., 2013Mic12Aim5, Fmp51, and Mcs12YBR262CHess et al., 2009; Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Varabyova et al., 2013Mic19Aim13, Mcs19, CHCH-3, CHCHD3, and MINOS3YFR011CXie et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2009; Darshi et al., 2011; Head et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; Ott et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2013; Varabyova et al., 2013Mic25 (metazoan Mic19 homologue)CHCHD6 and CHCM1Xie et al., 2007; An et al., 2012Mic26Mcs29, Mio27, and Mos2YGR235CHarner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011Mic27Aim37, Mcs27, APOOL, and MOMA-1YNL100WHess et al., 2009; Harner et al., 2011; Head et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Weber et al., 2013Mic60Fcj1, Aim28, Fmp13, Mitofilin, HMP, IMMT, and MINOS2YKR016WIcho et al., 1994; Odgren et al., 1996; Gieffers et al., 1997; John et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2008; Rabl et al., 2009; Rossi et al., 2009; Mun et al., 2010; Park et al., 2010; Körner et al., 2012; Zerbes et al., 2012; Itoh et al., 2013; Varabyova et al., 2013Open in a separate windowAPOOL, apolipoprotein O–like; HMP, heart muscle protein; IMMT, inner mitochondrial membrane protein; MIB, mitochondrial intermembrane space bridging.To rectify this situation, all authors of this article have agreed on a new uniform nomenclature with the following guidelines. (a) The complex will be called “mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system” (MICOS). The protein subunits of MICOS are named Mic10 to Mic60 as listed in Gabriel et al., 2007; Vögtle et al., 2012) will be changed to Mix14, Mix17, and Mix23 (mitochondrial intermembrane space CX_nC motif proteins) in the Saccharomyces Genome Database, and the new nomenclature will be used for orthologues identified in other organisms.The MICOS complex is of central importance for the maintenance of mitochondrial inner membrane architecture and the formation of contact sites between outer and inner membranes and thus is involved in the regulation of mitochondrial dynamics, biogenesis, and inheritance. We expect that the uniform nomenclature will facilitate future studies on mitochondrial membrane architecture and dynamics.     

Natural Infection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in an Imported Pigtail Macaque (Macaca nemestrina) and Management of the Exposed Colony

Identification of the select agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in macaques imported into the United States is rare. A purpose-bred, 4.5-y-old pigtail macaque (Macaca nemestrina) imported from Southeast Asia was received from a commercial vendor at our facility in March 2012. After the initial acclimation period of 5 to 7 d, physical examination of the macaque revealed a subcutaneous abscess that surrounded the right stifle joint. The wound was treated and resolved over 3 mo. In August 2012, 2 mo after the stifle joint wound resolved, the macaque exhibited neurologic clinical signs. Postmortem microbiologic analysis revealed that the macaque was infected with B. pseudomallei. This case report describes the clinical evaluation of a B. pseudomallei-infected macaque, management and care of the potentially exposed colony of animals, and protocols established for the animal care staff that worked with the infected macaque and potentially exposed colony. This article also provides relevant information on addressing matters related to regulatory issues and risk management of potentially exposed animals and animal care staff.Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; IHA, indirect hemagglutination assay; PEP, postexposure prophylacticBurkholderia pseudomallei, formerly known as Pseudomonas pseudomallei, is a gram-negative, aerobic, bipolar, motile, rod-shaped bacterium. B. pseudomallei infections (melioidosis) can be severe and even fatal in both humans and animals. This environmental saprophyte is endemic to Southeast Asia and northern Australia, but it has also been found in other tropical and subtropical areas of the world.^7,22,32,42 The bacterium is usually found in soil and water in endemic areas and is transmitted to humans and animals primarily through percutaneous inoculation, ingestion, or inhalation of a contaminated source.^{8, 22,28,32,42} Human-to-human, animal-to-animal, and animal-to-human spread are rare.^8,32 In December 2012, the National Select Agent Registry designated B. pseudomallei as a Tier 1 overlap select agent.³⁹ Organisms classified as Tier 1 agents present the highest risk of deliberate misuse, with the most significant potential for mass casualties or devastating effects to the economy, critical infrastructure, or public confidence. Select agents with this status have the potential to pose a severe threat to human and animal health or safety or the ability to be used as a biologic weapon.³⁹Melioidosis in humans can be challenging to diagnose and treat because the organism can remain latent for years and is resistant to many antibiotics.^12,37,41 B. pseudomallei can survive in phagocytic cells, a phenomenon that may be associated with latent infections.^19,38 The incubation period in naturally infected animals ranges from 1 d to many years, but symptoms typically appear 2 to 4 wk after exposure.^13,17,35,38 Disease generally presents in 1 of 2 forms: localized infection or septicemia.²² Multiple methods are used to diagnose melioidosis, including immunofluorescence, serology, and PCR analysis, but isolation of the bacteria from blood, urine, sputum, throat swabs, abscesses, skin, or tissue lesions remains the ‘gold standard.’^9,22,40,42 The prognosis varies based on presentation, time to diagnosis, initiation of appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and underlying comorbidities.^7,28,42 Currently, there is no licensed vaccine to prevent melioidosis.There are several published reports of naturally occurring melioidosis in a variety of nonhuman primates (NHP; 2,10,13,17,25,30,31,35 The first reported case of melioidosis in monkeys was recorded in 1932, and the first published case in a macaque species was in 1966.³⁰ In the United States, there have only been 7 documented cases of NHP with B. pseudomallei infection.^2,13,17 All of these cases occurred prior to the classification of B. pseudomallei as a select agent. Clinical signs in NHP range from subclinical or subacute illness to acute septicemia, localized infection, and chronic infection. NHP with melioidosis can be asymptomatic or exhibit clinical signs such as anorexia, wasting, purulent drainage, subcutaneous abscesses, and other soft tissue lesions. Lymphadenitis, lameness, osteomyelitis, paralysis and other CNS signs have also been reported.^{2,7,10,22,28,32} In comparison, human''s clinical signs range from abscesses, skin ulceration, fever, headache, joint pain, and muscle tenderness to abdominal pain, anorexia, respiratory distress, seizures, and septicemia.^7,9,21,22

Table 1.

Summary of reported cases of naturally occurring Burkholderia pseudomalleiinfections in nonhuman primates

Evolution and Function of the Plant Cell Wall Synthesis-Related Glycosyltransferase Family 8

Carbohydrate-active enzyme glycosyltransferase family 8 (GT8) includes the plant galacturonosyltransferase1-related gene family of proven and putative α-galacturonosyltransferase (GAUT) and GAUT-like (GATL) genes. We computationally identified and investigated this family in 15 fully sequenced plant and green algal genomes and in the National Center for Biotechnology Information nonredundant protein database to determine the phylogenetic relatedness of the GAUTs and GATLs to other GT8 family members. The GT8 proteins fall into three well-delineated major classes. In addition to GAUTs and GATLs, known or predicted to be involved in plant cell wall biosynthesis, class I also includes a lower plant-specific GAUT and GATL-related (GATR) subfamily, two metazoan subfamilies, and proteins from other eukaryotes and cyanobacteria. Class II includes galactinol synthases and plant glycogenin-like starch initiation proteins that are not known to be directly involved in cell wall synthesis, as well as proteins from fungi, metazoans, viruses, and bacteria. Class III consists almost entirely of bacterial proteins that are lipooligo/polysaccharide α-galactosyltransferases and α-glucosyltransferases. Sequence motifs conserved across all GT8 subfamilies and those specific to plant cell wall-related GT8 subfamilies were identified and mapped onto a predicted GAUT1 protein structure. The tertiary structure prediction identified sequence motifs likely to represent key amino acids involved in catalysis, substrate binding, protein-protein interactions, and structural elements required for GAUT1 function. The results show that the GAUTs, GATLs, and GATRs have a different evolutionary origin than other plant GT8 genes, were likely acquired from an ancient cyanobacterium (Synechococcus) progenitor, and separate into unique subclades that may indicate functional specialization.Plant cell walls are composed of three principal types of polysaccharides: cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectin. Studying the biosynthesis and degradation of these biopolymers is important because cell walls have multiple roles in plants, including providing structural support to cells and defense against pathogens, serving as cell-specific developmental and differentiation markers, and mediating or facilitating cell-cell communication. In addition to their important roles within plants, cell walls also have many economic uses in human and animal nutrition and as sources of natural textile fibers, paper and wood products, and components of fine chemicals and medicinal products. The study of the biosynthesis and biodegradation of plant cell walls has become even more significant because cell walls are the major components of biomass (Mohnen et al., 2008), which is the most promising renewable source for the production of biofuels and biomaterials (Ragauskas et al., 2006; Pauly and Keegstra, 2008). Analyses of fully sequenced plant genomes have revealed that they encode hundreds or even thousands of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZy; Henrissat et al., 2001; Yokoyama and Nishitani, 2004; Geisler-Lee et al., 2006). Most of these CAZy enzymes (Cantarel et al., 2009) are glycosyltransferases (GTs) or glycoside hydrolases, which are key players in plant cell wall biosynthesis and modification (Cosgrove, 2005).The CAZy database is classified into 290 protein families (www.cazy.org; release of September 2008), of which 92 are GT families (Cantarel et al., 2009). A number of the GT families have been previously characterized to be involved in plant cell wall biosynthesis. For example, the GT2 family is known to include cellulose synthases and some hemicellulose backbone synthases (Lerouxel et al., 2006), such as mannan synthases (Dhugga et al., 2004; Liepman et al., 2005), putative xyloglucan synthases (Cocuron et al., 2007), and mixed linkage glucan synthases (Burton et al., 2006). With respect to the synthesis of xylan, a type of hemicellulose, four Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) proteins from the GT43 family, irregular xylem 9 (IRX9), IRX14, IRX9-L, and IRX14-L, and two proteins from the GT47 family, IRX10 and IRX10-L, are candidates (York and O''Neill, 2008) for glucuronoxylan backbone synthases (Brown et al., 2007, 2009; Lee et al., 2007a; Peña et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2009). In addition, three proteins have been implicated in the synthesis of an oligosaccharide thought to act either as a primer or terminator in xylan synthesis (Peña et al., 2007): two from the GT8 family (IRX8/GAUT12 [Persson et al., 2007] and PARVUS/GATL1 [Brown et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007b]) and one from the GT47 family (FRA8/IRX7 [Zhong et al., 2005]).The GT families involved in the biosynthesis of pectins have been relatively less studied until recently. In 2006, a gene in CAZy family GT8 was shown to encode a functional homogalacturonan α-galacturonosyltransferase, GAUT1 (Sterling et al., 2006). GAUT1 belongs to a 25-member gene family in Arabidopsis, the GAUT1-related gene family, that includes two distinct but closely related families, the galacturonosyltransferase (GAUT) genes and the galacturonosyltransferase-like (GATL) genes (Sterling et al., 2006). Another GAUT gene, GAUT8/QUA1, has been suggested to be involved in pectin and/or xylan synthesis, based on the phenotypes of plant lines carrying mutations in this gene (Bouton et al., 2002; Orfila et al., 2005). It has further been suggested that multiple members of the GT8 family are galacturonosyltransferases involved in pectin and/or xylan biosynthesis (Mohnen, 2008; Caffall and Mohnen, 2009; Caffall et al., 2009).Aside from the 25 GAUT and GATL genes, Arabidopsis has 16 other family GT8 genes, according to the CAZy database, which do not seem to have the conserved sequence motifs found in GAUTs and GATLs: HxxGxxKPW and GLG (Sterling et al., 2006). Eight of these 16 genes are annotated as galactinol synthase (GolS) by The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR; www.arabidopsis.org), and three of these AtGolS enzymes have been implicated in the synthesis of raffinose family oligosaccharides that are associated with stress tolerance (Taji et al., 2002). The other eight Arabidopsis GT8 genes are annotated as plant glycogenin-like starch initiation proteins (PGSIPs) in TAIR. PGSIPs have been proposed to be involved in the synthesis of primers necessary for starch biosynthesis (Chatterjee et al., 2005). Hence, the GT8 family is a protein family consisting of enzymes with very distinct proven and proposed functions. Indeed, a suggestion has been made to split the GT8 family into two groups (Sterling et al., 2006), namely, the cell wall biosynthesis-related genes (GAUTs and GATLs) and the non-cell wall synthesis-related genes (GolSs and PGSIPs).We are interested in further defining the functions of the GAUT and GATL proteins in plants, in particular their role(s) in plant cell wall synthesis. The apparent disparate functions of the GT8 family (i.e. the GAUTs and GATLs as proven and putative plant cell wall polysaccharide biosynthetic α-galacturonosyltransferases, the eukaryotic GolSs as α-galactosyltransferases that synthesize the first step in the synthesis of the oligosaccharides stachyose and raffinose, the putative PGSIPs, and the large bacterial GT8 family of diverse α-glucosyltransferases and α-galactosyltransferases involved in lipopolysaccharide and lipooligosaccharide synthesis) indicate that the GT8 family members are involved in several unique types of glycoconjugate and glycan biosynthetic processes (Yin et al., 2010). This observation led us to ask whether any of the GT8 family members are sufficiently closely related to GAUT and GATL genes to be informative regarding GAUT or GATL biosynthetic function(s) and/or mechanism(s).To investigate the relatedness of the members of the GT8 gene family, we carried out a detailed phylogenetic analysis of the entire GT8 family in 15 completely sequenced plant and green algal genomes (AbbreviationCladeSpeciesGenome PublishedDownloaded frommpcGreen algaeMicromonas pusilla CCMP1545Worden et al. (2009)JGI version 2.0mprGreen algaeMicromonas strain RCC299Worden et al. (2009)JGI version 2.0olGreen algaeOstreococcus lucimarinusPalenik et al. (2007)JGI version 1.0otGreen algaeOstreococcus tauriDerelle et al. (2006)JGI version 1.0crGreen algaeChlamydomonas reinhardtiiMerchant et al. (2007)JGI version 3.0vcGreen algaeVolvox carteri f. nagariensisNoJGI version 1.0ppMossPhyscomitrella patens ssp. patensRensing et al. (2008)JGI version 1.1smSpike mossSelaginella moellendorffiiNoJGI version 1.0ptDicotPopulus trichocarpaTuskan et al. (2006)JGI version 1.1atDicotArabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis Genome Initiative (2000)TAIR version 9.0vvDicotVitis viniferaJaillon et al. (2007)http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/gmDicotGlycine maxSchmutz et al. (2010)JGI version 1.0osMonocotOryza sativaGoff et al. (2002); Yu et al. (2002)TIGR version 6.1sbMonocotSorghum bicolorPaterson et al. (2009)JGI version 1.0bdMonocotBrachypodium distachyonVogel et al. (2010)JGI version 1.0Open in a separate window     

Immunomodulation by Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Veterinary Species

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are adult-derived multipotent stem cells that have been derived from almost every tissue. They are classically defined as spindle-shaped, plastic-adherent cells capable of adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic differentiation. This capacity for trilineage differentiation has been the foundation for research into the use of MSC to regenerate damaged tissues. Recent studies have shown that MSC interact with cells of the immune system and modulate their function. Although many of the details underlying the mechanisms by which MSC modulate the immune system have been defined for human and rodent (mouse and rat) MSC, much less is known about MSC from other veterinary species. This knowledge gap is particularly important because the clinical use of MSC in veterinary medicine is increasing and far exceeds the use of MSC in human medicine. It is crucial to determine how MSC modulate the immune system for each animal species as well as for MSC derived from any given tissue source. A comparative approach provides a unique translational opportunity to bring novel cell-based therapies to the veterinary market as well as enhance the utility of animal models for human disorders. The current review covers what is currently known about MSC and their immunomodulatory functions in veterinary species, excluding laboratory rodents.Abbreviations: AT, adipose tissue; BM, Bone marrow; CB, umbilical cord blood; CT, umbilical cord tissue; DC, dendritic cell; IDO, indoleamine 2;3-dioxygenase; MSC, mesenchymal stem cells; PGE₂, prostaglandin E2; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factorMesenchymal stem cells (MSC, alternatively known as mesenchymal stromal cells) were first reported in the literature in 1968.³⁹ MSC are thought to be of pericyte origin (cells that line the vasculature)^21,22 and typically are isolated from highly vascular tissues. In humans and mice, MSC have been isolated from fat, placental tissues (placenta, Wharton jelly, umbilical cord, umbilical cord blood), hair follicles, tendon, synovial membrane, periodontal ligament, and every major organ (brain, spleen, liver, kidney, lung, bone marrow, muscle, thymus, pancreas, skin).^23,121 For most current clinical applications, MSC are isolated from adipose tissue (AT), bone marrow (BM), umbilical cord blood (CB), and umbilical cord tissue (CT; 11,87,99 Clinical trials in human medicine focus on the use of MSC both for their antiinflammatory properties (graft-versus-host disease, irritable bowel syndrome) and their ability to aid in tissue and bone regeneration in combination with growth factors and bone scaffolds (clinicaltrials.gov).¹³¹ For tissue regeneration, the abilities of MSC to differentiate and to secrete mediators and interact with cells of the immune system likely contribute to tissue healing (Figure 1). The current review will not address the specific use of MSC for orthopedic applications and tissue regeneration, although the topic is covered widely in current literature for both human and veterinary medicine.^57,62,90

Table 1.

Tissues from which MSC have been isolated