The motors of protein import into chloroplasts

Chloroplast function is largely dependent on its resident proteins, most of which are encoded by the nuclear genome and are synthesized in cytosol. Almost all of these are imported through the translocons located in the outer and inner chloroplast envelope membranes. The motor protein that provides the driving force for protein import has been proposed to be Hsp93, a member of the Hsp100 family of chaperones residing in the stroma. Combining in vivo and in vitro approaches, recent publications have provided multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that a stromal Hsp70 system is also involved in protein import into this organelle. Thus it appears that protein import into chloroplasts is driven by two motor proteins, Hsp93 and Hsp70. A perspective on collaboration between these two chaperones is discussed.Key words: stromal Hsp70, chloroplast protein import, stromal motor complex, ATPase, Physcomitrella patens, Hsp93, Toc, Tic, transit peptide, translocationChloroplasts are plant and algal specific organelles where photosynthesis and many other cellular processes take place. Chloroplasts contain ∼3,000 proteins,^1,2 with about 100 encoded by the chloroplast genome. In other words, more than 90% of chloroplast proteins are encoded by nuclear genes, synthesized in the cytosol and post-translationally imported into plastids. Most imported proteins are synthesized as precursors with a cleavable N-terminal signal, called a transit peptide. Such precursors are recognized by receptors in the outer envelope membrane, translocated through translocons in the outer and inner envelope membranes of chloroplasts (Toc and Tic), and processed to either their mature- or intermediate-sized forms in the chloroplast stroma.^3–8 Thylakoid proteins are further transported to their final destinations via one of four pathways, the cpSec, cpSRP, cpTAT and spontaneous pathways.^9–11 It is believed that the precursors are translocated across the envelope membranes in at least partially unfolded conformations and that the import machinery possesses some degree of unfolding activity.¹²Three proteins make up the core Toc complex, Toc159, Toc34 and Toc75. The Toc159 and Toc34 proteins are receptors possessing GTPase activities and recognizing transit peptides. Toc75 is a ß-barrel protein that forms the protein-translocating channel across the outer envelope membrane.¹³ The Tic complex is also formed from multiple subunits. Tic110, Tic21 and Tic20 have each been suggested to function as the channel of the Tic complex.^14–16 A ternary complex containing the stroma-facing domain of Tic110, Tic40 and a stromal factor, Hsp93 (a member of the Hsp100 family, possessing two ATPase domains), interacts with incoming precursor proteins.^17–26 Hsp93 has been proposed to serve as the import motor.²⁷ Other Tic components include regulatory subunits Tic62, Tic55 and Tic32 that are purported to facilitate redox- and calcium/calmodulin-dependent precursor translocation across the inner envelope membrane (reviewed in ref. ³). Tic22 is a peripheral membrane protein associated with the inner envelope and exposed to the intermembrane space.²⁸ It is suggested that Tic22 connects the Toc and Tic translocons during protein import.     

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

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

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

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

Antagonistic roles of the N-terminal domain of prion protein to doppel

Prion protein (PrP)-like molecule, doppel (Dpl), is neurotoxic in mice, causing Purkinje cell degeneration. In contrast, PrP antagonizes Dpl in trans, rescuing mice from Purkinje cell death. We have previously shown that PrP with deletion of the N-terminal residues 23–88 failed to neutralize Dpl in mice, indicating that the N-terminal region, particularly that including residues 23–88, may have trans-protective activity against Dpl. Interestingly, PrP with deletion elongated to residues 121 or 134 in the N-terminal region was shown to be similarly neurotoxic to Dpl, indicating that the PrP C-terminal region may have toxicity which is normally prevented by the N-terminal domain in cis. We recently investigated further roles for the N-terminal region of PrP in antagonistic interactions with Dpl by producing three different types of transgenic mice. These mice expressed PrP with deletion of residues 25–50 or 51–90, or a fusion protein of the N-terminal region of PrP with Dpl. Here, we discuss a possible model for the antagonistic interaction between PrP and Dpl.Key words: prion protein, doppel, neurotoxic signal, neurodegeneration, neuroprotection, prion diseaseThe normal prion protein, termed PrP^C, is a membrane glycoprotein tethered to the outer cell surface via a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor moiety.^1,2 It is ubiquitously expressed in neuronal and non-neuronal tissues, with highest expression in the central nervous system, particularly in neurons.³ The physiological function of PrP^C remains elusive. We and others have shown that PrP^C functionally antagonizes doppel (Dpl), a PrP-like GPI-anchored protein with ∼23% identity in amino acid composition to PrP, protecting Dpl-induced neurotoxicity in mice.^4–7 Dpl is encoded on Prnd located downstream of the PrP gene (Prnp) and expressed in the testis, heart, kidney and spleen of wild-type mice but not in the brain where PrP^C is actively expressed.^4,5,8 However, when ectopically expressed in brains, particularly in cerebellar Purkinje cells, Dpl exerts a neurotoxic activity, causing ataxia and Purkinje cell degeneration in Ngsk, Rcm0 and Zrch II lines of mice devoid of PrP^C (Prnp^0/0).^4,9,10 In these mice, Dpl was abnormally controlled by the upstream Prnp promoter.^4,5 This is due to targeted deletion of part of Prnp including a splicing acceptor of exon 3.¹¹ Pre-mRNA starting from the residual exon1/2 of Prnp was abnormally elongated until the end of Prnd and then intergenically spliced between the residual Prnp exons 1/2 and the Prnd coding exons.^4,5 As a result, Dpl was ectopically expressed under the control of the Prnp promoter in the brain, particularly in neurons including Purkinje cells.^4,5 In contrast, in other Prnp^0/0 lines, such as Zrch I and Npu, the splicing acceptor was intact, resulting in normal Purkinje cells without ectopic expression of Dpl in the brain.⁴The molecular mechanism of the antagonistic interaction between PrP^C and Dpl remains unknown. We recently showed that the N-terminal half of PrP^C includes elements that might mediate cis or trans protection against Dpl in mice, ameliorating Purkinje cell degeneration.¹² We also showed that the octapeptide repeat (OR) region in the N-terminal domain is dispensable for PrP^C to neutralize Dpl neurotoxicity in mice.¹² Here, possible molecular mechanisms for the antagonism between PrP^C and Dpl will be discussed.     

Roles of calcineurin B-like protein-interacting protein kinases in innate immunity in rice

Cytosolic free Ca²⁺ mobilization induced by microbe/pathogen-asssociated molecular patterns (MAMPs/PAMPs) plays key roles in plant innate immunity. However, components involved in Ca²⁺ signaling pathways still remain to be identified and possible involvement of the CBL (calcineurin B-like proteins)-CIPK (CBL-interacting protein kinases) system in biotic defense signaling have yet to be clarified. Recently we identified two CIPKs, OsCIPK14 and OsCIPK15, which are rapidly induced by MAMPs, involved in various MAMP-induced immune responses including defense-related gene expression, phytoalexin biosynthesis and hypersensitive cell death. MAMP-induced production of reactive oxygen species as well as cell browning were also suppressed in OsCIPK14/15-RNAi transgenic cell lines. Possible molecular mechanisms and physiological functions of the CIPKs in plant innate immunity are discussed.Key words: PAMPs/MAMPs, calcium signaling, CBL-CIPK, hypersensitive cell death, reactive oxygen speciesCa²⁺ plays an essential role as an intracellular second messenger in plants as well as in animals. Several families of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins have been identified in higher plants, which decode spatiotemporal patterns of intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration.^1,2 Calcineurin B-Like Proteins (CBLs) comprise a family of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins similar to both the regulatory β-subunit of calcineurin and neuronal Ca²⁺ sensors of animals.^3,4 Unlike calcineurin B that regulates protein phosphatases, CBLs specifically target a family of protein kinases referred to as CIPKs (CBL-Interacting Protein Kinases).⁵ The CBL-CIPK system has been shown to be involved in a wide range of signaling pathways, including abiotic stress responses such as drought and salt, plant hormone responses and K+ channel regulation.^6,7Following the recognition of pathogenic signals, plant cells initiate the activation of a widespread signal transduction network that trigger inducible defense responses, including the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), biosynthesis of phytoalexins, expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and reorganization of cytoskeletons and the vacuole,⁸ followed by a form of programmed cell death known as hypersensitive response (HR).^9,10 Because complexed spatiotemporal patterns of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) have been suggested to play pivotal roles in defense signaling,^1,9 multiple Ca²⁺ sensor proteins and their effectors should function in defense signaling pathways. Although possible involvement of some calmodulin isoforms^11–13 and the calmodulin-domain/calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs)^14–19 has been suggested, other Ca²⁺-regulated signaling components still remain to be identified. No CBLs or CIPKs had so far been implicated as signaling components in innate immunity.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

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

Timing the switch to phototrophic growth: A possible role of GUN1

In young Arabidopsis seedlings, retrograde signaling from plastids regulates the expression of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes in response to the developmental and functional state of the chloroplasts. The chloroplast-located PPR protein GUN1 is required for signalling following disruption of plastid protein synthesis early in seedling development before full photosynthetic competence has been achieved. Recently we showed that sucrose repression and the correct temporal expression of LHCB1, encoding a light-harvesting chlorophyll protein associated with photosystem II, are perturbed in gun1 mutant seedlings.¹ Additionally, we demonstrated that in gun1 seedlings anthocyanin accumulation and the expression of the “early” anthocyanin-biosynthesis genes is perturbed. Early seedling development, predominantly at the stage of hypocotyl elongation and cotyledon expansion, is also affected in gun1 seedlings in response to sucrose, ABA and disruption of plastid protein synthesis by lincomycin. These findings indicate a central role for GUN1 in plastid, sucrose and ABA signalling in early seedling development.Key words: ABA, ABI4, anthocyanin, chloroplast, GUN1, retrograde signalling, sucroseArabidopsis seedlings develop in response to light and other environmental cues. In young seedlings, development is fuelled by mobilization of lipid reserves until chloroplast biogenesis is complete and the seedlings can make the transition to phototrophic growth. The majority of proteins with functions related to photosynthesis are encoded by the nuclear genome, and their expression is coordinated with the expression of genes in the chloroplast genome. In developing seedlings, retrograde signaling from chloroplasts to the nucleus regulates the expression of these nuclear genes and is dependent on the developmental and functional status of the chloroplast. Two classes of gun (genomes uncoupled) mutants defective in retrograde signalling have been identified in Arabidopsis: the first, which comprises gun2–gun5, involves mutations in genes encoding components of tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.^2,3 The other comprises gun1, which has mutations in a nuclear gene encoding a plastid-located pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein with an SMR (small MutS-related) domain near the C-terminus.^4,5 PPR proteins are known to have roles in RNA processing⁶ and the SMR domain of GUN1 has been shown to bind DNA,⁴ but the specific functions of these domains in GUN1 are not yet established. However, GUN1 has been shown to be involved in plastid gene expression-dependent,⁷ redox,⁴ ABA1,⁴ and sucrose signaling,^1,4,8 as well as light quality and intensity sensing pathways.^9–11 In addition, GUN1 has been shown to influence anthocyanin biosynthesis, hypocotyl extension and cotyledon expansion.^1,11     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

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

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

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

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

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

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴