The K-Segment of Maize DHN1 Mediates Binding to Anionic Phospholipid Vesicles and Concomitant Structural Changes

Dehydrins (DHNs; late embryogenesis abundant D11 family) are a family of intrinsically unstructured plant proteins that accumulate in the late stages of seed development and in vegetative tissues subjected to water deficit, salinity, low temperature, or abscisic acid treatment. We demonstrated previously that maize (Zea mays) DHNs bind preferentially to anionic phospholipid vesicles; this binding is accompanied by an increase in α-helicity of the protein, and adoption of α-helicity can be induced by sodium dodecyl sulfate. All DHNs contain at least one “K-segment,” a lysine-rich 15-amino acid consensus sequence. The K-segment is predicted to form a class A2 amphipathic α-helix, a structural element known to interact with membranes and proteins. Here, three K-segment deletion proteins of maize DHN1 were produced. Lipid vesicle-binding assays revealed that the K-segment is required for binding to anionic phospholipid vesicles, and adoption of α-helicity of the K-segment accounts for most of the conformational change of DHNs upon binding to anionic phospholipid vesicles or sodium dodecyl sulfate. The adoption of structure may help stabilize cellular components, including membranes, under stress conditions.When plants encounter environmental stresses such as drought or low temperature, various responses take place to adapt to these conditions. Typical responses include increased expression of chaperones, signal transduction pathway and late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, osmotic adjustment, and induction of degradation and repair systems (Ingram and Bartels, 1996).Dehydrins (DHNs; LEA D11 family) are a subfamily of group 2 LEA proteins that accumulate to high levels during late stages of seed development and in vegetative tissues subjected to water deficit, salinity, low temperature, or abscisic acid (ABA) treatment (Svensson et al., 2002). Some DHNs are expressed constitutively during normal growth (Nylander et al., 2001; Rorat et al., 2004, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2005). DHNs exist in a wide range of photosynthetic organisms, including angiosperms, gymnosperms, algae, and mosses (Svensson et al., 2002). DHNs are encoded by a dispersed multigene family and are differentially regulated, at least in higher plants. For example, 13 Dhn genes have been identified in barley (Hordeum vulgare), dispersed over seven genetic map locations (Choi et al., 1999; Svensson et al., 2002) and regulated variably by drought, low temperature, and embryo development (Tommasini et al., 2008). DHNs are localized in various subcellular compartments, including cytosol (Roberts et al., 1993), nucleus (Houde et al., 1995), chloroplast (Artus et al., 1996), vacuole (Heyen et al., 2002), and proximal to the plasma membrane and protein bodies (Asghar et al., 1994; Egerton-Warburton et al., 1997; Puhakainen et al., 2004). Elevated expression of Dhn genes generally has been correlated with the acquisition of tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought (Whitsitt et al., 1997), salt (Godoy et al., 1994; Jayaprakash et al., 1998), chilling (Ismail et al., 1999a), or freezing (Houde et al., 1995; Danyluk et al., 1998; Fowler et al., 2001). The differences in expression and tissue location suggest that individual members of the Dhn multigene family have somewhat distinct biological functions (Close, 1997; Zhu et al., 2000; Nylander et al., 2001). Many studies have observed a positive correlation between the accumulation of DHNs and tolerance to abiotic stresses (Svensson et al., 2002). However, overexpression of a single DHN protein has not, in general, been sufficient to confer stress tolerance (Puhakainen et al., 2004).DHNs are subclassified by sequence motifs referred to as the K-segment (Lys-rich consensus sequence), the Y-segment (N-terminal conserved sequence), the S-segment (a tract of Ser residues), and the φ-segment (Close, 1996). Because of high hydrophilicity, high content of Gly (>20%), and the lack of a defined three-dimensional structure in the pure form (Lisse et al., 1996), DHNs have been categorized as “intrinsically disordered/unstructured proteins” or “hydrophilins” (Wright and Dyson, 1999; Garay-Arroyo et al., 2000; Tompa, 2005; Kovacs et al., 2008). On the basis of compositional and biophysical properties and their link to abiotic stresses, several functions of DHNs have been proposed, including ion sequestration (Roberts et al., 1993), water retention (McCubbin et al., 1985), and stabilization of membranes or proteins (Close, 1996, 1997). Observations from in vitro experiments include DHN binding to lipid vesicles (Koag et al., 2003; Kovacs et al., 2008) or metals (Svensson et al., 2000; Heyen et al., 2002; Kruger et al., 2002; Alsheikh et al., 2003; Hara et al., 2005), protection of membrane lipid against peroxidation (Hara et al., 2003), retention of hydration or ion sequestration (Bokor et al., 2005; Tompa et al., 2006), and chaperone activity against the heat-induced inactivation and aggregation of various proteins (Kovacs et al., 2008).Intrinsically disordered/unstructured proteins that lack a well-defined three-dimensional structure have recently been recognized to be prevalent in prokaryotes and eukaryotes (Oldfield et al., 2005). They fulfill important functions in signal transduction, gene expression, and binding to targets such as protein, RNA, ions, and membranes (Wright and Dyson, 1999; Tompa, 2002; Dyson and Wright, 2005). The disorder confers structural flexibility and malleability to adapt to changes in the protein environment, including water potential, pH, ionic strength, and temperature, and to undergo structural transition when complexed with ligands such as other proteins, DNA, RNA, or membranes (Prestrelski et al., 1993; Uversky, 2002). Structural changes from disorder to ordered functional structure also can be induced by the folding of a partner protein (Wright and Dyson, 1999; Tompa, 2002; Mouillon et al., 2008).The idea that DHNs interact with membranes is consistent with many immunolocalization studies, which have shown that DHNs accumulate near the plasma membrane or membrane-rich areas surrounding lipid and protein bodies (Asghar et al., 1994; Egerton-Warburton et al., 1997; Danyluk et al., 1998; Puhakainen et al., 2004). The K-segment is predicted to form a class A2 amphipathic α-helix, in which hydrophilic and hydrophobic residues are arranged on opposite faces (Close, 1996). The amphipathic α-helix is a structural element known to interact with membranes and proteins (Epand et al., 1995). Also, in the presence of helical inducers such as SDS and trifluoroethanol (Dalal and Pio, 2006), DHNs take on α-helicity (Lisse et al., 1996; Ismail et al., 1999b). We previously examined the binding of DHN1 to liposomes and found that DHNs bind preferentially to anionic phospholipids and that this binding is accompanied by an increase in α-helicity of the protein (Koag et al., 2003). Similarly, a mitochondrial LEA protein, one of the group III LEA proteins, recently has been shown to interact with and protect membranes subjected to desiccation, coupled with the adoption of amphipathic α-helices (Tolleter et al., 2007).Here, we explore the basis of DHN-vesicle interaction using K-segment deletion proteins. This study reveals that the K-segment is necessary and sufficient for binding to anionic phospholipid vesicles and that the adoption of α-helicity of DHN proteins can be attributed mainly to the K-segment.     

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.     

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.     

ATG8ylation of proteins: A way to cope with cell stress?

The ATG8 family of proteins regulates autophagy in a variety of ways. Recently, ATG8s were demonstrated to conjugate directly to cellular proteins in a process termed “ATG8ylation,” which is amplified by mitochondrial damage and antagonized by ATG4 proteases. ATG8s may have an emerging role as small protein modifiers.

ATG8 proteins directly conjugate to cellular proteinsAutophagy describes the capture of intracellular material by autophagosomes and their delivery to lysosomes for destruction (Kaur and Debnath, 2015). This process homeostatically remodels the intracellular environment and is necessary for an organism to overcome starvation (Kaur and Debnath, 2015). The autophagy pathway is coordinated by autophagy-related (ATG) proteins that are controlled by diverse post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, and lipidation; Ichimura et al., 2000; McEwan and Dikic, 2011). Recently, a previously uncharacterized post-translational modification termed “ATG8ylation” was uncovered (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). ATG8ylation is the direct covalent attachment of the small ubiquitin-like family of ATG8 proteins to cellular proteins (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Until now, the only known instances of ATG8 conjugation to proteins were of a transient nature, as E1- and E2-like intermediates with ATG7 and ATG3, respectively, as a way of ligating ATG8 to the lipid phosphatidylethanolamine during autophagy (Ichimura et al., 2000). Therefore, ATG8ylation may represent an underappreciated regulatory mechanism for many cellular proteins that coordinate pathways such as mitophagy.ATG8s play many roles in the autophagy pathwayDuring canonical autophagy, the ATG8 family (comprising LC3A, -B, and -C and GABARAP, -L1, and -L2) undergoes molecular processing that concludes with their attachment to phosphatidylethanolamine, enabling proper construction of autophagosomes and subsequent autophagosome–lysosome fusion (Nguyen et al., 2016). The ATG4 family of cysteine proteases (ATG4A, -B, -C, and -D) cleaves ATG8 proteins immediately after a conserved glycine residue in their C terminus in a process dubbed “priming,” which leads to the formation of ATG8-I (Skytte Rasmussen et al., 2017; Tanida et al., 2004). ATG7 then attaches to the exposed glycine residue of ATG8-I via a thioester linkage to form an E1 ubiquitin-like complex that transfers ATG8-I to ATG3 in a similar way to generate an E2-like complex (Ichimura et al., 2000). The ATG5–ATG12–ATG16L1 complex then catalyzes the E3-like transfer of ATG8-I from ATG3 to phosphatidylethanolamine to form ATG8-II, which is the lipidated species that is incorporated into double membrane–bound compartments such as autophagosomes (Hanada et al., 2007). The lipidation of ATG8s and their recruitment to the phagophore are not essential for the formation of autophagosomes but are important for phagophore expansion, the selective capture of autophagic substrates, and autophagosome–lysosome fusion (Kirkin and Rogov, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2016). Intriguingly, ATG8 lipidation is multifaceted, as ATG8s can be alternatively lipidated with phosphatidylserine (instead of phosphatidylethanolamine) to enable their recruitment to single membrane–bound compartments during LC3-associated phagocytosis, influenza infection, and lysosomal dysfunction (Durgan et al., 2021).The discovery of ATG8ylationKey insights into ATG8ylation came from the observation that various ATG8s form high-molecular-weight species in cells following the expression of their primed forms that have their C-terminal glycine exposed (for example, LC3B-G), bypassing the need for cleavage by ATG4 (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Indeed, on an immunoblot, ATG8⁺ “smears” resemble that of ubiquitinated proteins (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Traditionally, in the autophagy field, ATG8⁺ smears were thought to arise from poor antibody specificity. However, in light of recent findings, this widely accepted interpretation has been challenged, given that ATG8⁺ smears are enriched following ATG8 overexpression and disappear in the absence of ATG8s (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Smearing has also been detected after immunoprecipitation of epitope-tagged ATG8s from cell extracts under denaturing conditions, ruling out noncovalent interactions accounting for this upshift (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Further, smearing is not abolished by deubiquitinase treatment, arguing strongly against ATG8 ubiquitination as the cause (Nguyen et al., 2021). Everything considered, the most plausible explanation is that ATG8 itself undergoes covalent linkage to cellular proteins, akin to ubiquitin and NEDD8 modifiers, which are structurally similar to ATG8s. Remarkably, the protease ATG4 antagonizes the ATG8ylation state of many proteins (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021).ATG4 displays isoform-specific proteolytic cleavage of ATG8ATG4 is required for the formation of autophagosomes, but its protease activity is not (Nguyen et al., 2021). The protease activity of ATG4 is, however, required for ATG8 processing, such as priming ahead of lipidation and de-lipidation, which removes excess ATG8 from autophagosomes and other membranes (Nguyen et al., 2021; Tanida et al., 2004; Fig. 1 A). Apart from these functions, ATG4 regulates the deubiquitinase-like removal of ATG8 from cellular proteins (de-ATG8ylation; Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021; Fig. 1 A). Consistent with this role, deletion of all four ATG4 isoforms (A, B, C, and D) increases the abundance of ATG8ylated proteins (Nguyen et al., 2021). In contrast, overexpression of ATG4B has the opposite effect, but only if its protease activity is intact (Agrotis et al., 2019). As such, ATG4 inhibits the ATG8ylation state of many proteins, which is likely to modulate their downstream functions.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The many roles of ATG4 in ATG8 processing. (A) Molecular processing of ATG8 proteins by ATG4 illustrating its roles in priming, de-lipidation, and de-ATG8ylation. The structure of LC3B (Protein Data Bank accession no. 1V49) was used to denote ATG8 (G, glycine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine). (B) Heatmap summarizing relationships between ATG4 isoforms and ATG8 family members. Data were summarized for qualitative interpretation (Agrotis et al., 2019; Li et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2021). Int., intermediate; N.d., not determined. (C) Graphical summary of questions moving forward with ATG8ylation (P, phosphorylation).ATG4 is an important “gatekeeper” for ATG8 conjugation events. ATG4 primes ATG8s to expose their C-terminal glycine, which is required for conjugation to proteins or lipids; however, ATG4 also catalyzes de-ATG8ylation and de-lipidation events, respectively (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021; Tanida et al., 2004). Because the C-terminal glycine of a single ATG8 is occupied when conjugated to a protein or lipid, it is unlikely that ATG8ylated proteins directly engage with phagophore membranes in the same way as ATG8-II. Indeed, protease protection assays with recombinant ATG4B reveal that de-ATG8ylation of cell lysates remains unchanged with or without organellar membrane disruption, suggesting that ATG8ylated proteins are largely cytoplasmic facing rather than intraluminal (Agrotis et al., 2019). Paradoxically, however, ATG8ylation is enhanced by lysosomal V-type ATPase inhibition, which blocks the degradation of lysosomal contents, indicating that ATG8ylated substrates may undergo lysosome-dependent turnover (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). One explanation for these differences may be that the process of ATG8ylation is itself sensitive to lysosomal dysfunction.Functional relationships between ATG4s and ATG8sIsoforms of ATG4 show clear preferences for proteolytically processing ATG8 subfamilies (i.e., LC3s and GABARAPs) for de-ATG8ylation and priming upstream of phosphatidylethanolamine ligation (Agrotis et al., 2019; Li et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2021; Fig. 1 B). ATG4A strongly reduces the abundance of proteins that have been ATG8ylated with the GABARAP family while promoting ligation of GABARAPs to phosphatidylethanolamine (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021; Fig. 1 B). In contrast, ATG4B strongly reduces the abundance of proteins that have been ATG8ylated with LC3 proteins while promoting ligation of LC3s to phosphatidylethanolamine (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021; Fig. 1 B). In comparison, ATG4C and -D lack obvious de-ATG8ylation activity, although the latter weakly promotes phosphatidylethanolamine ligation to GABARAPL1 only (Nguyen et al., 2021). These functional similarities between ATG4 isoforms are consistent with both their sequence and structural homology (i.e., ATG4A and -B are most similar; Maruyama and Noda, 2018; Satoo et al., 2009). Structurally, ATG4B adopts an auto-inhibited conformation with its regulatory loop and N-terminal tail blocking substrate entry to its proteolytic core (Maruyama and Noda, 2018). LC3B induces conformational rearrangements in ATG4B that involve displacement of its regulatory loop and its N-terminal tail, with the latter achieved by an interaction between the ATG8-interacting region in its N-terminal tail with a second copy of LC3B that functions allosterically (Maruyama and Noda, 2018; Satoo et al., 2009). These rearrangements permit entry of LC3B into the proteolytic core of ATG4B, where cleavage of LC3B following its C-terminal glycine occurs (Li et al., 2011; Maruyama and Noda, 2018). ATG4B^L232 is directly involved in LC3B binding and its selectivity for LC3s (Satoo et al., 2009). This residue corresponds to ATG4A^I233 and, when substituted for leucine, gives ATG4A^I233L the ability to efficiently process LC3 proteins, whereas without this mutation it preferentially processes GABARAPs (Satoo et al., 2009). Moreover, the ATG8–ATG4 interaction is necessary for the de-ATG8ylation of cellular proteins, as an LC3B-G^Q116P mutant that cannot bind to ATG4 leads to widespread ATG8ylation (Agrotis et al., 2019). Altogether, these observations hint toward a common mechanism of ATG8 cleavage that regulates priming, de-lipidation, and de-ATG8ylation.Mitochondrial damage promotes ATG8ylationATG8ylation of cellular proteins appears to be enhanced by mitochondrial depolarization and inhibition of the lysosomal V-type ATPase (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). This may be the consequence of acute ATG4A and -B inhibition, given that cells lacking all ATG4 isoforms display an increased abundance of ATG8ylated proteins and are insensitive to further increase by mitochondrial depolarization or lysosomal V-type ATPase inhibition (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). Indeed, mitochondrial depolarization leads to activation of ULK1, which phosphorylates ATG4B^S316 to inhibit its protease activity (Pengo et al., 2017). Similarly, mitochondrial depolarization stimulates TBK1 activation, which prevents de-lipidation of ATG8s by blocking the ATG8–ATG4 interaction through phosphorylation of LC3C^S93/S96 and GABARAP-L2^S87/S88 (Herhaus et al., 2020; Richter et al., 2016). As such, ATG8 phosphorylation may render ATG8ylated substrates more resistant to de-ATG8ylation by ATG4s. This may be analogous to how chains of phosphorylated ubiquitin^S65 are more resistant to hydrolysis by deubiquitinating enzymes than unphosphorylated ones (Wauer et al., 2015). Moreover, ATG8ylation is insensitive to nutrient deprivation and pharmacological inhibition of mTOR, which rules out a functional contribution of this process to starvation-induced autophagy (Agrotis et al., 2019). Therefore, ATG8ylation may be a unique aspect of mitophagy (and perhaps also other forms of selective autophagy) given that depolarization potently activates Parkin-dependent mitophagy (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021).Substrates of ATG8ylationBased on ATG8⁺ smearing, ATG4 regulates the de-ATG8ylation of numerous proteins (Agrotis et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). For the majority, their identity, induced structural and functional changes, and the cellular contexts during which these modifications occur await exploration. Considering that the ATG8 interactome is well characterized, it is likely that at least some ATG8ylated proteins have been mistaken for ATG8-binding partners (Behrends et al., 2010). Given their E2- and E3-like roles in ATG8 lipidation, it is remarkable that ATG3 and ATG16L1 are themselves modified by ATG8ylation (Agrotis et al., 2019; Hanada et al., 2007; Ichimura et al., 2000; Nguyen et al., 2021). Lysine mutagenesis indicates that ATG3^K243 is the “acceptor” site for ATG8ylation (Agrotis et al., 2019). ATG3^K243 is essential for its conjugation to either LC3B or ATG12 and is required for autophagosomes to form around damaged mitochondria (Agrotis et al., 2019; Radoshevich et al., 2010). This also raises the possibility that key functions originally attributed to ATG3–ATG12 conjugation may be, at least in part, due to ATG3–ATG8 conjugation. Because multiple high-molecular-weight species of ATG3 are enriched following immunoprecipitation of primed LC3B-G from cells lacking ATG4B, it is likely that ATG3 is either mono-ATG8ylated at several sites or poly-ATG8ylated (Agrotis et al., 2019). ATG8ylation of ATG3 may also reflect the stabilization of its E2-like intermediate (Ichimura et al., 2000). ATG8ylation of ATG16L1 may regulate whether canonical or noncanonical autophagy pathways are activated (Durgan et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021). In line with this possibility, the WD40 domain mutant of ATG16L1^K490A prevents lipidation of ATG8s with phosphatidylserine (i.e., during noncanonical autophagy pathways) but not phosphatidylethanolamine (i.e., during canonical autophagy; Durgan et al., 2021). Moreover, given that ATG8ylation of protein targets correlates with the activation of mitophagy, it is tempting to speculate that it may stimulate the E2-/E3-like activity of the ATG8 conjugation machinery to amplify mitochondrial capture and destruction.Concluding remarksThe finding that numerous cellular proteins are modified by ATG8ylation poses several questions about how signaling networks are coordinated during selective autophagy (i.e., mitophagy). Whether ATG8ylation is augmented by mitochondrial injury per se or is the consequence of mitophagy activation is yet to be determined, as is whether this phenomenon occurs during other types of selective autophagy (e.g., ER-phagy, ribophagy, and lysophagy; Kirkin and Rogov, 2019; Fig. 1 C). While the in vivo relevance of ATG8ylation is not yet understood, it is plausible that this process could be altered in diseases with defective mitophagy (e.g., Parkinson’s disease and atherosclerosis). Exploring the mechanistic aspects of ATG8ylation (e.g., ATG8 ligases and regulatory proteins, linkage types, acceptor sites, etc.) and de-ATG8ylation by ATG4 will improve our understanding about how this modifier alters the structure and biological function of cellular proteins (Fig. 1 C). By identifying ATG8ylated substrates, or the ATG8ylome, insights into whether ATG8ylation is a ubiquitous epiphenomenon or a post-translational modification that is selective to proteins of distinct biological function(s) will become clearer (Fig. 1 C). Considering the similarity of ATG8s with bona fide modifier proteins (e.g., ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like proteins) and the diversity of their substrates (e.g., lipid species and proteins), only now are we beginning to understand the functional complexities of the ATG8 protein family.     

Functional Analysis of the Group 4 Late Embryogenesis Abundant Proteins Reveals Their Relevance in the Adaptive Response during Water Deficit in Arabidopsis

Late-Embryogenesis Abundant (LEA) proteins accumulate to high levels during the last stages of seed development, when desiccation tolerance is acquired, and in vegetative and reproductive tissues under water deficit, leading to the hypothesis that these proteins play a role in the adaptation of plants to this stress condition. In this work, we obtained the accumulation patterns of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) group 4 LEA proteins during different developmental stages and plant organs in response to water deficit. We demonstrate that overexpression of a representative member of this group of proteins confers tolerance to severe drought in Arabidopsis plants. Moreover, we show that deficiency of LEA proteins in this group leads to susceptible phenotypes upon water limitation, during germination, or in mature plants after recovery from severe dehydration. Upon recovery from this stress condition, mutant plants showed a reduced number of floral and axillary buds when compared with wild-type plants. The lack of these proteins also correlates with a reduced seed production under optimal irrigation, supporting a role in fruit and/or seed development. A bioinformatic analysis of group 4 LEA proteins from many plant genera showed that there are two subgroups, originated through ancient gene duplication and a subsequent functional specialization. This study represents, to our knowledge, the first genetic evidence showing that one of the LEA protein groups is directly involved in the adaptive response of higher plants to water deficit, and it provides data indicating that the function of these proteins is not redundant to that of the other LEA proteins.Water deficit is a common environmental condition that leads to various responses that help in the adaptation or adjustment of an organism to this stress, considered one of the most important environmental stresses influencing plant productivity (Bray, 1997; Morison et al., 2008). The adverse effects of this environmental stress need to be counteracted, mainly because of the increasing soil desertification in cultivated and uncultivated regions. This fact demands that plants tolerate drying periods and elevated salt concentrations in the soil, which may be accompanied by extreme temperatures. Also, an interest in understanding the mechanisms by which plants sense and respond to these environmental cues accounts for the most important reasons to study in detail the responses that have been selected in plants to cope with water deficit.The acquisition of desiccation tolerance during late stages of seed development is correlated with the induction of a set of small, highly hydrophilic proteins called Late-Embryogenesis Abundant (LEA) proteins (Dure et al., 1989). These proteins are ubiquitous in plants, and although there are several classifications, we will follow that of Battaglia et al. (2008), where they are classified into seven groups on the basis of sequence similarity. Analysis of the protein sequences in these groups from different plant species defined distinctive motifs within groups (Dure, 1993; Battaglia et al., 2008). The number of members is different for each LEA protein group and varies according to the plant species. Most LEA proteins are hydrophilins, a set of proteins characterized by their biased amino acid composition, richness in Gly and other small and/or charged residues, and high hydrophilicity index (Garay-Arroyo et al., 2000). This amino acid composition promotes their flexible structure in solution, existing mainly as random coils, with the exception of the hydrophobic or atypical LEA proteins (Singh et al., 2005). Moreover, hydrophilic LEA proteins from groups 2, 3, and 4 show a prevalence of typical spectroscopic patterns of intrinsically unstructured proteins, with the occurrence of transitions from intrinsically unstructured proteins to ordered conformations in the presence of helix-promoting solvents or air drying (McCubbin et al., 1985; Russouw et al., 1995; Eom et al., 1996; Lisse et al., 1996; Ismail et al., 1999; Wolkers et al., 2001; Soulages et al., 2002, 2003; Goyal et al., 2003; Shih et al., 2004; Tolleter et al., 2007). Their high content of water-interacting residues facilitates the scavenging of water molecules, which is of special importance during developmental stages where a programmed desiccation of tissues takes place, as in the dry seed (Dure et al., 1989), or when cells experience changes in their water status (Colmenero-Flores et al., 1999). Remarkably, there is also an elevated induction in the expression of these proteins in vegetative tissues after exposure to water deficit in basically all plants that have been analyzed. In recent years, proteins with similar characteristics and expression patterns have also been detected to be induced in response to osmotic stress in bacteria and yeast (Stacy and Aalen, 1998; Garay-Arroyo et al., 2000), algae (Honjoh et al., 1995, 2000; Tanaka et al., 2004), nematodes (Solomon et al., 2000; Browne et al., 2004), rotifers (Tunnacliffe et al., 2005), and arthropods (Menze et al., 2009).One of the hypotheses regarding their function is that these proteins may act as protectors of macromolecules and/or some cellular structures during water deficit, by preferentially interacting with the available water molecules and providing a hydration shell to protect “target” integrity and function (Bray, 1997; Garay-Arroyo et al., 2000; Hoekstra et al., 2001). The use of an in vitro dehydration assay, in which the activity of malate dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase was measured in the presence or absence of a hydrophilic protein, showed that plant hydrophilins (LEA proteins from groups 2, 3, and 4) and hydrophilins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Escherichia coli were able to protect these enzymatic activities under low water availability conditions (Reyes et al., 2005). Similarly, in vitro assays using the same or other enzymes have been used to assess the protective capacities of LEA proteins under dehydration and cold (Honjoh et al., 2000; Hara et al., 2001; Bravo et al., 2003; Goyal et al., 2005; Grelet et al., 2005; Nakayama et al., 2007; Reyes et al., 2008). In some of these assays, the ratio of LEA protein to enzyme was 1:1, suggesting that the LEA protein protective activity is not only due to the formation of a preferential hydration shell but also to an additional effect probably related to a direct interaction with their targets (Reyes et al., 2005, 2008).There are many reports of LEA proteins expressed in transgenic plants under the control of regulated or constitutive promoters, showing tolerant phenotypes under drought, high salinity, or freezing stress (Xu et al., 1996; Sivamani et al., 2000; NDong et al., 2002; Chandra Babu et al., 2004; Puhakainen et al., 2004; Fu et al., 2007; Lal et al., 2007; Xiao et al., 2007; Dalal et al., 2009). Also, the heterologous expression in bacteria and yeast of some LEA proteins confers salt and freezing tolerance (Imai et al., 1996; Zhang et al., 2000; Liu and Zheng, 2005). However, this “gain-of-function” approach does not necessarily reflect their direct participation in the plant adjustment or adaptation to these stress conditions but rather their potential to confer tolerance when ectopically expressed. In contrast, the results of a “loss-of-function” approach will lead to a direct indication of the participation of a particular gene within this process. Even though there is a large extent of information regarding the different properties of LEA proteins, our knowledge concerning their role in plant adaptation to water-limiting conditions is insufficient.In this work, we focus on the study of the group 4 LEA proteins of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). With only three genes in the genome (AtLEA4-1, AtLEA4-2, and AtLEA4-5), the AtLEA4 group is one of the smallest groups in Arabidopsis (Battaglia et al., 2008; Hundertmark and Hincha, 2008), which makes it accessible for a loss-of-function analysis. The LEA4 proteins are characterized by a high content of A, T, and G amino acid residues, the latter highly represented in unstructured proteins. They have a conserved N-terminal domain of 70 to 80 residues, predicted to form amphipathic α-helices, and a less conserved C-terminal region with variable size and random coil structure (Dure, 1993). Like other LEA proteins, the LEA4 group is highly accumulated in all embryo tissues of dry seeds (Roberts et al., 1993). Recently, Wise (2002) performed a bioinformatics analysis and questioned the existence of a group 4 of LEA proteins as a distinct group of LEA proteins from group 3. The algorithm used the overrepresentation/underrepresentation of particular amino acids within small motifs in the protein, giving rise to a different classification for these proteins (Wise, 2003). In support of the original classification proposed by Dure et al. (1989) and because of the high sequence conservation within this group in plants, in this work, we present genetic and functional evidence that group 4 of LEA proteins is indeed a distinct group conserved in the plant kingdom. The results reported here show that overexpression of one of the AtLEA4 proteins in Arabidopsis leads to a tolerant phenotype compared with their wild-type counterparts in their capability to endure severe water deficit and that the reduction in the accumulation levels of these proteins leads to plants more sensitive to water-limiting conditions than their wild-type genotypes. Altogether, these data constitute, to our knowledge, the first direct evidence indicating that LEA4 proteins are involved in the adaptive response of vascular plants to withstand water deficit.     

Plants Actively Avoid State Transitions upon Changes in Light Intensity: Role of Light-Harvesting Complex II Protein Dephosphorylation in High Light

Photosystem II (PSII) core and light-harvesting complex II (LHCII) proteins in plant chloroplasts undergo reversible phosphorylation upon changes in light intensity (being under control of redox-regulated STN7 and STN8 kinases and TAP38/PPH1 and PSII core phosphatases). Shift of plants from growth light to high light results in an increase of PSII core phosphorylation, whereas LHCII phosphorylation concomitantly decreases. Exactly the opposite takes place when plants are shifted to lower light intensity. Despite distinct changes occurring in thylakoid protein phosphorylation upon light intensity changes, the excitation balance between PSII and photosystem I remains unchanged. This differs drastically from the canonical-state transition model induced by artificial states 1 and 2 lights that concomitantly either dephosphorylate or phosphorylate, respectively, both the PSII core and LHCII phosphoproteins. Analysis of the kinase and phosphatase mutants revealed that TAP38/PPH1 phosphatase is crucial in preventing state transition upon increase in light intensity. Indeed, tap38/pph1 mutant revealed strong concomitant phosphorylation of both the PSII core and LHCII proteins upon transfer to high light, thus resembling the wild type under state 2 light. Coordinated function of thylakoid protein kinases and phosphatases is shown to secure balanced excitation energy for both photosystems by preventing state transitions upon changes in light intensity. Moreover, PROTON GRADIENT REGULATION5 (PGR5) is required for proper regulation of thylakoid protein kinases and phosphatases, and the pgr5 mutant mimics phenotypes of tap38/pph1. This shows that there is a close cooperation between the redox- and proton gradient-dependent regulatory mechanisms for proper function of the photosynthetic machinery.Photosynthetic light reactions take place in the chloroplast thylakoid membrane. Primary energy conversion reactions are performed by synchronized function of the two light energy-driven enzymes PSII and PSI. PSII uses excitation energy to split water into electrons and protons. PSII feeds electrons to the intersystem electron transfer chain (ETC) consisting of plastoquinone, cytochrome b₆f, and plastocyanin. PSI oxidizes the ETC in a light-driven reduction of NADP to NADPH. Light energy is collected by the light-harvesting antenna systems in the thylakoid membrane composed of specific pigment-protein complexes (light-harvesting complex I [LHCI] and LHCII). The majority of the light-absorbing pigments are bound to LHCII trimers that can serve the light harvesting of both photosystems (Galka et al., 2012; Kouřil et al., 2013; Wientjes et al., 2013b). Energy distribution from LHCII is regulated by protein phosphorylation (Bennett, 1979; Bennett et al., 1980; Allen et al., 1981) under control of the STN7 and STN8 kinases (Depège et al., 2003; Bellafiore et al., 2005; Bonardi et al., 2005; Vainonen et al., 2005) and the TAP38/PPH1 and Photosystem II Core Phosphatase (PBCP) phosphatases (Pribil et al., 2010; Shapiguzov et al., 2010; Samol et al., 2012). LHCII trimers are composed of LHCB1, LHCB2, and LHCB3 proteins, and in addition to reversible phosphorylation of LHCB1 and LHCB2, the protein composition of the LHCII trimers also affects the energy distribution from the light-harvesting system to photosystems (Damkjaer et al., 2009; Pietrzykowska et al., 2014). Most of the LHCII trimers are located in the PSII-rich grana membranes and PSII- and PSI-rich grana margins of the thylakoid membrane, and only a minor fraction resides in PSI- and ATP synthase-rich stroma lamellae (Tikkanen et al., 2008b; Suorsa et al., 2014). Both photosystems bind a small amount of LHCII trimers in biochemically isolatable PSII-LHCII and PSI-LHCII complexes (Pesaresi et al., 2009; Järvi et al., 2011; Caffarri et al., 2014). The large portion of the LHCII, however, does not form isolatable complexes with PSII or PSI, and therefore, it separates as free LHCII trimers upon biochemical fractionation of the thylakoid membrane by Suc gradient centrifugation or in native gel analyses (Caffarri et al., 2009; Järvi et al., 2011), the amount being dependent on the thylakoid isolation method. Nonetheless, in vivo, this major LHCII antenna fraction serves the light-harvesting function. This is based on the fact that fluorescence from free LHCII, peaking at 680 nm in 77-K fluorescence emission spectra, can only be detected when the energy transfer properties of the thylakoid membrane are disturbed by detergents (Grieco et al., 2015).Regulation of excitation energy distribution from LHCII to PSII and PSI has, for decades, been linked to LHCII phosphorylation and state transitions (Bennett, 1979; Bennett et al., 1980; Allen et al., 1981). It has been explained that a fraction of LHCII gets phosphorylated and migrates from PSII to PSI, which can be evidenced as increase in PSI cross section and was assigned as transition to state 2 (for review, see Allen, 2003; Rochaix et al., 2012). The LHCII proteins are, however, phosphorylated all over the thylakoid membrane (i.e. in the PSII- and LHCII-rich grana core) in grana margins containing PSII, LHCII, and PSI as well as in PSI-rich stroma lamellae also harboring PSII-LHCII, LHCII, and PSI-LHCII complexes in minor amounts (Tikkanen et al., 2008b; Grieco et al., 2012; Leoni et al., 2013; Wientjes et al., 2013a)—making the canonical-state transition theory inadequate to explain the physiological role of reversible LHCII phosphorylation (Tikkanen and Aro, 2014). Moreover, the traditional-state transition model is based on lateral segregation of PSII-LHCII and PSI-LHCI to different thylakoid domains. It, however, seems likely that PSII and PSI are energetically connected through a shared light-harvesting system composed of LHCII trimers (Grieco et al., 2015), and there is efficient excitation energy transfer between the two photosystems (Yokono et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is clear that LHCII phosphorylation is a prerequisite to form an isolatable PSI-LHCII complex called the state transition complex (Pesaresi et al., 2009; Järvi et al., 2011). Existence of a minor state transition complex, however, does not explain why LHCII is phosphorylated all over the thylakoid membrane and how the energy transfer is regulated from the majority of LHCII antenna that is shared between PSII and PSI but does not form isolatable complexes with them (Grieco et al., 2015).Plants grown under any steady-state white light condition show the following characteristics of the thylakoid membrane: PSII core and LHCII phosphoproteins are moderately phosphorylated, phosphorylation takes place all over the thylakoid membrane, and the PSI-LHCII state transition complex is present (Järvi et al., 2011; Grieco et al., 2012; Wientjes et al., 2013b). Upon changes in the light intensity, the relative phosphorylation level between PSII core and LHCII phosphoproteins drastically changes (Rintamäki et al., 1997, 2000) in the timescale of 5 to 30 min. When light intensity increases, the PSII core protein phosphorylation increases, whereas the level of LHCII phosphorylation decreases. On the contrary, a decrease in light intensity decreases the phosphorylation level of PSII core proteins but strongly increases the phosphorylation of the LHCII proteins (Rintamäki et al., 1997, 2000). The presence and absence of the PSI-LHCII state transition complex correlate with LHCII phosphorylation (similar to the state transitions; Pesaresi et al., 2009; Wientjes et al., 2013b). Despite all of these changes in thylakoid protein phosphorylation, the relative excitation of PSII and PSI (i.e. the absorption cross section of PSII and PSI measured by 77-K fluorescence) remains nearly unchanged upon changes in white-light intensity (i.e. no state transitions can be observed despite massive differences in LHCII protein phosphorylation; Tikkanen et al., 2010).The existence of the opposing behaviors of PSII core and LHCII protein phosphorylation, as described above, has been known for more than 15 years (Rintamäki et al., 1997, 2000), but the physiological significance of this phenomenon has remained elusive. It is known that PSII core protein phosphorylation in high light (HL) facilitates the unpacking of PSII-LHCII complexes required for proper processing of the damaged PSII centers and thus, prevents oxidative damage of the photosynthetic machinery (Tikkanen et al., 2008a; Fristedt et al., 2009; Goral et al., 2010; Kirchhoff et al., 2011). It is also known that the damaged PSII core protein D1 needs to be dephosphorylated before its proteolytic degradation upon PSII turnover (Koivuniemi et al., 1995). There is, however, no coherent understanding available to explain why LHCII proteins are dephosphorylated upon exposure of plants to HL and PSII core proteins are dephosphorylated upon exposure to low light (LL).The above-described light quantity-dependent control of thylakoid protein phosphorylation drastically differs from the light quality-dependent protein phosphorylation (Tikkanen et al., 2010). State transitions are generally investigated by using different light qualities, preferentially exciting either PSI or PSII. State 1 light favors PSI excitation, leading to oxidation of the ETC and dephosphorylation of both the PSII core and LHCII proteins. State 2 light, in turn, preferentially excites PSII, leading to reduction of ETC and strong concomitant phosphorylation of both the PSII core and LHCII proteins (Haldrup et al., 2001). Shifts between states 1 and 2 lights induce state transitions, mechanisms that change the excitation between PSII and PSI (Murata and Sugahara, 1969; Murata, 2009). Similar to shifts between state lights, the shifts between LL and HL intensity also change the phosphorylation of the PSII core and LHCII proteins (Rintamäki et al., 1997, 2000). Importantly, the white-light intensity-induced changes in thylakoid protein phosphorylation do not change the excitation energy distribution between the two photosystems (Tikkanen et al., 2010). Despite this fundamental difference between the light quantity- and light quality-induced thylakoid protein phosphorylations, a common feature for both mechanisms is a strict requirement of LHCII phosphorylation for formation of the PSI-LHCII complex. However, it is worth noting that LHCII phosphorylation under state 2 light is not enough to induce the state 2 transition but that the P-LHCII docking proteins in the PSI complex are required (Lunde et al., 2000; Jensen et al., 2004; Zhang and Scheller, 2004; Leoni et al., 2013).Thylakoid protein phosphorylation is a dynamic redox-regulated process dependent on the interplay between two kinases (STN7 and STN8; Depège et al., 2003; Bellafiore et al., 2005; Bonardi et al., 2005; Vainonen et al., 2005) and two phosphatases (TAP38/PPH1 and PBCP; Pribil et al., 2010; Shapiguzov et al., 2010; Samol et al., 2012). Concerning the redox regulation mechanisms in vivo, only the LHCII kinase (STN7) has so far been thoroughly studied (Vener et al., 1997; Rintamäki et al., 2000; Lemeille et al., 2009). The STN7 kinase is considered as the LHCII kinase, and indeed, it phosphorylates the LHCB1 and LHCB2 proteins (Bellafiore et al., 2005; Bonardi et al., 2005; Tikkanen et al., 2006). In addition to this, STN7 takes part in the phosphorylation of PSII core proteins (Vainonen et al., 2005), especially in LL (Tikkanen et al., 2008b, 2010). The STN8 kinase is required for phosphorylation of PSII core proteins in HL but does not significantly participate in phosphorylation of LHCII (Bellafiore et al., 2005; Bonardi et al., 2005; Vainonen et al., 2005; Tikkanen et al., 2010). It has been shown that, in traditional state 1 condition, which oxidizes the ETC, the dephosphorylation of LHCII is dependent on TAP38/PPH1 phosphatase (Pribil et al., 2010; Shapiguzov et al., 2010), whereas the PSII core protein dephosphorylation is dependent on the PBCP phosphatase (Samol et al., 2012). However, it remains unresolved whether and how the TAP38/PPH1 and PBCP phosphatases are involved in the light intensity-dependent regulation of thylakoid protein phosphorylation typical for natural environments.Here, we have used the two kinase (stn7 and stn8) and the two phosphatase (tap38/pph1and pbcp) mutants of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) to elucidate the individual roles of these enzymes in reversible thylakoid protein phosphorylation and distribution of excitation energy between PSII and PSI upon changes in light intensity. It is shown that the TAP38/PPH1-dependent, redox-regulated LHCII dephosphorylation is the key component to maintain excitation balance between PSII and PSI upon increase in light intensity, which at the same time, induces strong phosphorylation of the PSII core proteins. Collectively, reversible but opposite phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of the PSII core and LHCII proteins upon increase or decrease in light intensity are shown to be crucial for maintenance of even distribution of excitation energy to both photosystems, thus preventing state transitions. Moreover, evidence is provided indicating that the pH gradient across the thylakoid membrane is yet another important component in regulation of the distribution of excitation energy to PSII and PSI, possibly by affecting the regulation of thylakoid kinases and phosphatases.