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.     

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.     

STATE TRANSITION7-Dependent Phosphorylation Is Modulated by Changing Environmental Conditions,and Its Absence Triggers Remodeling of Photosynthetic Protein Complexes

In plants and algae, the serine/threonine kinase STN7/STT7, orthologous protein kinases in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), respectively, is an important regulator in acclimation to changing light environments. In this work, we assessed STT7-dependent protein phosphorylation under high light in C. reinhardtii, known to fully induce the expression of LIGHT-HARVESTING COMPLEX STRESS-RELATED PROTEIN3 (LHCSR3) and a nonphotochemical quenching mechanism, in relationship to anoxia where the activity of cyclic electron flow is stimulated. Our quantitative proteomics data revealed numerous unique STT7 protein substrates and STT7-dependent protein phosphorylation variations that were reliant on the environmental condition. These results indicate that STT7-dependent phosphorylation is modulated by the environment and point to an intricate chloroplast phosphorylation network responding in a highly sensitive and dynamic manner to environmental cues and alterations in kinase function. Functionally, the absence of the STT7 kinase triggered changes in protein expression and photoinhibition of photosystem I (PSI) and resulted in the remodeling of photosynthetic complexes. This remodeling initiated a pronounced association of LHCSR3 with PSI-LIGHT HARVESTING COMPLEX I (LHCI)-ferredoxin-NADPH oxidoreductase supercomplexes. Lack of STT7 kinase strongly diminished PSII-LHCII supercomplexes, while PSII core complex phosphorylation and accumulation were significantly enhanced. In conclusion, our study provides strong evidence that the regulation of protein phosphorylation is critical for driving successful acclimation to high light and anoxic growth environments and gives new insights into acclimation strategies to these environmental conditions.Oxygenic photosynthesis converts solar energy into chemical energy. This energy is utilized for carbon dioxide assimilation, allowing the formation of complex organic material. Plant photosynthesis is performed by a series of reactions in and at the thylakoid membrane, resulting in light-dependent water oxidation, NADP reduction, and ATP formation (Whatley et al., 1963). These light reactions are catalyzed by two photosystems (PSI and PSII). A third multiprotein complex, also embedded in the thylakoid membrane, is the cytochrome b₆f (cyt b₆f) complex that links photosynthetic electron transfer processes between the two photosystems and functions in proton translocation. The ATP synthase takes advantage of the proton-motive force that is generated by the light reactions (Mitchell, 1961) to produce ATP. ATP and NADPH, generated through linear electron flow from PSII to PSI, drive the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle (Bassham et al., 1950) to fix CO₂. Alternatively, cyclic electron flow (CEF) between PSI and the cyt b₆f complex solely produces ATP (Arnon, 1959).Under normal growth conditions, CEF provides additionally required ATP for CO₂ fixation (Lucker and Kramer, 2013), counteracts overreduction of the PSI acceptor side under stressful environmental cues, and readjusts the ATP poise, leading to increased lumen acidification important for photoprotection (Alric, 2010; Peltier et al., 2010; Leister and Shikanai, 2013; Shikanai, 2014). In microalgae and vascular plants, CEF relies on the NAD(P)H dehydrogenase-dependent and/or PROTON GRADIENT REGULATION5 (PGR5)-related pathways (Munekage et al., 2002, 2004; Petroutsos et al., 2009; Tolleter et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2014). For both pathways, supercomplexes consisting of PSI-LIGHT HARVESTING COMPLEX I (LHCI) and components of the respective electron transfer routes have been identified. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), a unique NAD(P)H dehydrogenase-PSI supercomplex with a molecular mass of more than 1,000 kD was discovered (Peng et al., 2008). From Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Iwai et al. (2010) isolated a protein supercomplex composed of PSI-LHCI, LHCII, the cyt b₆/f complex, ferredoxin-NADPH oxidoreductase (FNR), and PROTON GRADIENT REGULATION-LIKE1 (PGRL1).PGRL1 and PGR5 interact physically in Arabidopsis and associate with PSI to allow the operation of CEF (DalCorso et al., 2008). Functional data suggest that PGRL1 might operate as a ferredoxin-plastoquinone reductase (Hertle et al., 2013). The PGRL1-containing CEF supercomplex isolated from C. reinhardtii is capable of CEF under in vitro conditions in the presence of exogenously added soluble plastocyanin and ferredoxin (Iwai et al., 2010). Terashima et al. (2012) isolated a CEF supercomplex of similar composition from anaerobic growth conditions that was active in vitro and contained proteins such as the chloroplast-localized Ca²⁺ sensor CAS and ANAEROBIC RESPONSE1 (ANR1), which were also shown to be functionally important for efficient CEF in the alga. Notably, it was suggested that the onset of CEF in C. reinhardtii is redox controlled (Takahashi et al., 2013).It has been demonstrated that efficient CEF is crucial for successful acclimation to excess light (Munekage et al., 2004; Dang et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2014; Kukuczka et al., 2014). The most rapid response to excess light, however, relies on a mechanism called nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ). The fastest constituent of NPQ is energy-dependent (qE) quenching, which operates at a time scale of seconds to minutes and regulates the thermal dissipation of excess absorbed light energy, thereby providing effective photoprotection. In vascular plants, the PSII protein PSII SUBUNIT S is essential for qE (Li et al., 2000), whereas qE induction in the green alga C. reinhardtii is mediated by LIGHT-HARVESTING COMPLEX STRESS-RELATED PROTEIN3 (LHCSR3), an ancient light-harvesting protein that is missing in vascular plants (Peers et al., 2009). CEF and qE are complementary for acclimation to excess light, as double mutants deficient in both mechanisms possess additive phenotypes and are highly sensitive to light (Kukuczka et al., 2014). Another constituent of NPQ is the quenching by state transitions. State transitions are important to balance the excitation energy between PSI and PSII (Bonaventura and Myers, 1969; Murata, 1969). Under light conditions where PSII is preferentially excited, both PSII core and LHCII proteins become phosphorylated (Lemeille and Rochaix, 2010). As a consequence, phosphorylated LHCII proteins detach from PSII and partly connect to PSI (state 2). Under conditions where PSI excitation is predominant, this process is reversed. LHCII proteins are dephosphorylated and associate with PSII (state 1). The extent of state transition between vascular plants such as Arabidopsis and C. reinhardtii differs significantly. The proportion of mobile LHCII antenna is about 80% in the alga, whereas in Arabidopsis, only 15% to 20% of LHCII is transferred to PSI under state 2 conditions (Lemeille and Rochaix, 2010). However, the large increase in PSI antenna size in C. reinhardtii has recently been challenged (Nagy et al., 2014; Ünlü et al., 2014): while 70% to 80% of mobile LHCII detached from PSII in response to transition to state 2 conditions, only a fraction of about 20% functionally attached to PSI.Phosphorylation of LHC proteins requires the function of the STT7 kinase or its ortholog STN7 in C. reinhardtii or Arabidopsis, respectively. In the absence of the STT7/STN7 kinase, the initiation of state transitions is blocked (Depège et al., 2003; Bellafiore et al., 2005). The mobile LHCII fraction of C. reinhardtii includes the two monomeric minor LHCII antenna proteins, CP26 and CP29 (encoded by lhcb5 and lhcb4 genes), and the major chlorophyll a/b binding protein of LHCII, LHCBM5 (Takahashi et al., 2006), but also the LHCSR3 protein was suggested to migrate during state transitions (Allorent et al., 2013). Takahashi et al. (2014) suggested that only CP29 and LHCBM5 directly associate with PSI to form the PSI-LHCI-LHCII supercomplex, while the binding of CP26 could occur indirectly or via the other two proteins. However, it is not yet known whether STT7 directly phosphorylates the LHCII proteins or if this takes place as part of a kinase cascade (Rochaix, 2007). Nevertheless, the direct interaction between STT7 and the LHCII proteins is quite likely, since none of the other chloroplast kinases was found to be specifically required for LHCII phosphorylation (Rochaix, 2014). The activity of the STT7 kinase is mainly determined by the redox status of the plastoquinone pool (Vener et al., 1997; Zito et al., 1999). The identification of a PROTEIN PHOSPHATASE 2C (PP2C)-type phosphatase responsible for the dephosphorylation of the LHCII proteins in Arabidopsis has been described by two studies in parallel pointing to the fact that this enzyme, called PROTEIN PHOSPHATASE1/THYLAKOID-ASSOCIATED PHOSPHATASE38, acts directly on phosphorylated LHCII proteins, in particular when they are associated with the PSI-LHCI supercomplex (Pribil et al., 2010; Shapiguzov et al., 2010). Moreover, it is not known whether these phosphatases are constitutively active or if they are regulated by other means, for example through the redox state of the plastoquinone pool. Nonetheless, both enzymes are conserved in land plants and exhibit orthologous proteins in C. reinhardtii (Rochaix et al., 2012).Another kinase related to STN7/STT7 is encoded in the Arabidopsis and C. reinhardtii genomes and named STN8 and STATE TRANSITION-LIKE1 (STL1), respectively. STN8 is involved in PSII core subunit phosphorylation and influences the repair of PSII after photodamage (Bonardi et al., 2005; Vainonen et al., 2005). Remarkably, the disassembly of the PSII holocomplex is inhibited in STN7/STN8 double mutants (Tikkanen et al., 2008; Fristedt et al., 2009; Dietzel et al., 2011; Nath et al., 2013), suggesting that the phosphorylation of core subunits is required for PSII disassembly. It was further suggested that STN8 controls the transition between linear electron flow and CEF by the phosphorylation of PGRL1 in Arabidopsis (Reiland et al., 2011). As described for STN7, the activity of STN8 is probably regulated via the redox state of the plastoquinone pool (Bennett, 1991; Fristedt et al., 2009). Notably, the action of STN8 is counteracted by a chloroplast PP2C phosphatase (Samol et al., 2012), allowing for the fast reversibility of STN8-mediated acclimation responses. Thus, it appears that an intricate regulatory network of chloroplast protein kinases and phosphatases evolved in vascular plants and algae that drives the acclimation response to various environmental cues, including excess and changing light settings (Rochaix et al., 2012). As STN7/STT7 and STN8/STL1 kinase activities appear to be controlled by the redox poise of the plastoquinone pool, the plastoquinone pool would be a central player in these acclimation responses. On the other hand, the kinases themselves are subjected to phosphorylation (Reiland et al., 2009, 2011; Lemeille et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013). However, the functional consequences of this phosphorylation are unknown.Recent comparative analyses revealed the presence of at least 15 distinct chloroplast protein kinases, suggesting an intricate kinase phosphorylation network in the chloroplast (Bayer et al., 2012). Generally, the phosphorylation of proteins is one of the most abundant posttranslational modifications. In complex eukaryotic systems, protein phosphorylation occurs most frequently on Ser followed by Thr residues, whereas protein phosphorylation of Tyr residues (1,800:200:1) is comparatively rare (Hunter, 1998; Mann et al., 2002). Protein phosphorylation is a general phenomenon in vivo; it is assumed that about one-third of all proteins are phosphorylated at a given time (Cohen, 2000; Ahn and Resing, 2001; Venter et al., 2001; Manning et al., 2002; Knight et al., 2003). A recent large-scale quantitative evaluation of human proteomic data strengthened the importance of protein phosphorylation for cellular function and human biology (Wilhelm et al., 2014). The C. reinhardtii and Arabidopsis genomes encode large kinase families (Arabidopsis Genome Initiative, 2000; Kerk et al., 2002; Merchant et al., 2007), supporting the view that protein phosphorylation also plays an important role in a plant’s life cycle. It is thus evident that the understanding of protein phosphorylation, including the specificity of residues phosphorylated or dephosphorylated in response to cellular as well as environmental factors, is one key to understanding the complex functional biological networks at the whole-system level. Likewise, it is crucial to design experimental setups allowing the linkage between phosphorylation events and particular physiological consequences to be elucidated.In this regard, we designed experiments to investigate STT7 kinase-dependent phosphorylation dynamics in C. reinhardtii in response to high light and anoxia, employing quantitative proteomics in conjunction with in-depth physiological characterization. These conditions are particularly interesting, as high light conditions are known to fully induce LHCSR3 protein expression and qE, while anoxia promotes CEF activity. Recently, it was demonstrated that qE and CEF are complementary and crucial in acclimation to these environmental cues (Kukuczka et al., 2014). Notably, LHCSR3 phosphorylation was suggested to depend on STT7 function (Bonente et al., 2011), while CEF supercomplex formation was found to be independent of STT7 kinase function (Takahashi et al., 2013), indicating that STT7 function might impact the acclimation to high light and anoxia in different ways. However, our quantitative proteomics and physiological data reveal that STT7-dependent variations in protein phosphorylation profiles have similar dramatic phenotypic consequences in both conditions, strongly suggesting that the regulation of protein phosphorylation is critical for driving successful acclimation to high light and anoxic growth environments.     

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

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

Nontransgenic Genome Modification in Plant Cells

Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) are a powerful tool for genome editing in eukaryotic cells. ZFNs have been used for targeted mutagenesis in model and crop species. In animal and human cells, transient ZFN expression is often achieved by direct gene transfer into the target cells. Stable transformation, however, is the preferred method for gene expression in plant species, and ZFN-expressing transgenic plants have been used for recovery of mutants that are likely to be classified as transgenic due to the use of direct gene-transfer methods into the target cells. Here we present an alternative, nontransgenic approach for ZFN delivery and production of mutant plants using a novel Tobacco rattle virus (TRV)-based expression system for indirect transient delivery of ZFNs into a variety of tissues and cells of intact plants. TRV systemically infected its hosts and virus ZFN-mediated targeted mutagenesis could be clearly observed in newly developed infected tissues as measured by activation of a mutated reporter transgene in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and petunia (Petunia hybrida) plants. The ability of TRV to move to developing buds and regenerating tissues enabled recovery of mutated tobacco and petunia plants. Sequence analysis and transmission of the mutations to the next generation confirmed the stability of the ZFN-induced genetic changes. Because TRV is an RNA virus that can infect a wide range of plant species, it provides a viable alternative to the production of ZFN-mediated mutants while avoiding the use of direct plant-transformation methods.Methods for genome editing in plant cells have fallen behind the remarkable progress made in whole-genome sequencing projects. The availability of reliable and efficient methods for genome editing would foster gene discovery and functional gene analyses in model plants and the introduction of novel traits in agriculturally important species (Puchta, 2002; Hanin and Paszkowski, 2003; Reiss, 2003; Porteus, 2009). Genome editing in various species is typically achieved by integrating foreign DNA molecules into the target genome by homologous recombination (HR). Genome editing by HR is routine in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) cells (Scherer and Davis, 1979) and has been adapted for other species, including Drosophila, human cell lines, various fungal species, and mouse embryonic stem cells (Baribault and Kemler, 1989; Venken and Bellen, 2005; Porteus, 2007; Hall et al., 2009; Laible and Alonso-González, 2009; Tenzen et al., 2009). In plants, however, foreign DNA molecules, which are typically delivered by direct gene-transfer methods (e.g. Agrobacterium and microbombardment of plasmid DNA), often integrate into the target cell genome via nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and not HR (Ray and Langer, 2002; Britt and May, 2003).Various methods have been developed to indentify and select for rare site-specific foreign DNA integration events or to enhance the rate of HR-mediated DNA integration in plant cells. Novel T-DNA molecules designed to support strong positive- and negative-selection schemes (e.g. Thykjaer et al., 1997; Terada et al., 2002), altering the plant DNA-repair machinery by expressing yeast chromatin remodeling protein (Shaked et al., 2005), and PCR screening of large numbers of transgenic plants (Kempin et al., 1997; Hanin et al., 2001) are just a few of the experimental approaches used to achieve HR-mediated gene targeting in plant species. While successful, these approaches, and others, have resulted in only a limited number of reports describing the successful implementation of HR-mediated gene targeting of native and transgenic sequences in plant cells (for review, see Puchta, 2002; Hanin and Paszkowski, 2003; Reiss, 2003; Porteus, 2009; Weinthal et al., 2010).HR-mediated gene targeting can potentially be enhanced by the induction of genomic double-strand breaks (DSBs). In their pioneering studies, Puchta et al. (1993, 1996) showed that DSB induction by the naturally occurring rare-cutting restriction enzyme I-SceI leads to enhanced HR-mediated DNA repair in plants. Expression of I-SceI and another rare-cutting restriction enzyme (I-CeuI) also led to efficient NHEJ-mediated site-specific mutagenesis and integration of foreign DNA molecules in plants (Salomon and Puchta, 1998; Chilton and Que, 2003; Tzfira et al., 2003). Naturally occurring rare-cutting restriction enzymes thus hold great promise as a tool for genome editing in plant cells (Carroll, 2004; Pâques and Duchateau, 2007). However, their wide application is hindered by the tedious and next to impossible reengineering of such enzymes for novel DNA-target specificities (Pâques and Duchateau, 2007).A viable alternative to the use of rare-cutting restriction enzymes is the zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), which have been used for genome editing in a wide range of eukaryotic species, including plants (e.g. Bibikova et al., 2001; Porteus and Baltimore, 2003; Lloyd et al., 2005; Urnov et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2005; Beumer et al., 2006; Moehle et al., 2007; Santiago et al., 2008; Shukla et al., 2009; Tovkach et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009; Osakabe et al., 2010; Petolino et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). Here too, ZFNs have been used to enhance DNA integration via HR (e.g. Shukla et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009) and as an efficient tool for the induction of site-specific mutagenesis (e.g. Lloyd et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2010) in plant species. The latter is more efficient and simpler to implement in plants as it does not require codelivery of both ZFN-expressing and donor DNA molecules and it relies on NHEJ—the dominant DNA-repair machinery in most plant species (Ray and Langer, 2002; Britt and May, 2003).ZFNs are artificial restriction enzymes composed of a fusion between an artificial Cys₂His₂ zinc-finger protein DNA-binding domain and the cleavage domain of the FokI endonuclease. The DNA-binding domain of ZFNs can be engineered to recognize a variety of DNA sequences (for review, see Durai et al., 2005; Porteus and Carroll, 2005; Carroll et al., 2006). The FokI endonuclease domain functions as a dimer, and digestion of the target DNA requires proper alignment of two ZFN monomers at the target site (Durai et al., 2005; Porteus and Carroll, 2005; Carroll et al., 2006). Efficient and coordinated expression of both monomers is thus required for the production of DSBs in living cells. Transient ZFN expression, by direct gene delivery, is the method of choice for targeted mutagenesis in human and animal cells (e.g. Urnov et al., 2005; Beumer et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2008). Among the different methods used for high and efficient transient ZFN delivery in animal and human cell lines are plasmid injection (Morton et al., 2006; Foley et al., 2009), direct plasmid transfer (Urnov et al., 2005), the use of integrase-defective lentiviral vectors (Lombardo et al., 2007), and mRNA injection (Takasu et al., 2010).In plant species, however, efficient and strong gene expression is often achieved by stable gene transformation. Both transient and stable ZFN expression have been used in gene-targeting experiments in plants (Lloyd et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2005; Maeder et al., 2008; Cai et al., 2009; de Pater et al., 2009; Shukla et al., 2009; Tovkach et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2009; Osakabe et al., 2010; Petolino et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). In all cases, direct gene-transformation methods, using polyethylene glycol, silicon carbide whiskers, or Agrobacterium, were deployed. Thus, while mutant plants and tissues could be recovered, potentially without any detectable traces of foreign DNA, such plants were generated using a transgenic approach and are therefore still likely to be classified as transgenic. Furthermore, the recovery of mutants in many cases is also dependent on the ability to regenerate plants from protoplasts, a procedure that has only been successfully applied in a limited number of plant species. Therefore, while ZFN technology is a powerful tool for site-specific mutagenesis, its wider implementation for plant improvement may be somewhat limited, both by its restriction to certain plant species and by legislative restrictions imposed on transgenic plants.Here we describe an alternative to direct gene transfer for ZFN delivery and for the production of mutated plants. Our approach is based on the use of a novel Tobacco rattle virus (TRV)-based expression system, which is capable of systemically infecting its host and spreading into a variety of tissues and cells of intact plants, including developing buds and regenerating tissues. We traced the indirect ZFN delivery in infected plants by activation of a mutated reporter gene and we demonstrate that this approach can be used to recover mutated plants.     

PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED1 and PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED1-RELATED1 Mediate Photorelocation Movements of Both Chloroplasts and Nuclei

Organelle movement and positioning play important roles in fundamental cellular activities and adaptive responses to environmental stress in plants. To optimize photosynthetic light utilization, chloroplasts move toward weak blue light (the accumulation response) and escape from strong blue light (the avoidance response). Nuclei also move in response to strong blue light by utilizing the light-induced movement of attached plastids in leaf cells. Blue light receptor phototropins and several factors for chloroplast photorelocation movement have been identified through molecular genetic analysis of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED1 (PMI1) is a plant-specific C2-domain protein that is required for efficient chloroplast photorelocation movement. There are two PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED1-RELATED (PMIR) genes, PMIR1 and PMIR2, in the Arabidopsis genome. However, the mechanism in which PMI1 regulates chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements and the involvement of PMIR1 and PMIR2 in these organelle movements remained unknown. Here, we analyzed chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements in mutant lines of PMI1, PMIR1, and PMIR2. In mesophyll cells, the pmi1 single mutant showed severe defects in both chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements resulting from the impaired regulation of chloroplast-actin filaments. In pavement cells, pmi1 mutant plants were partially defective in both plastid and nuclear photorelocation movements, but pmi1pmir1 and pmi1pmir1pmir2 mutant lines lacked the blue light-induced movement responses of plastids and nuclei completely. These results indicated that PMI1 is essential for chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements in mesophyll cells and that both PMI1 and PMIR1 are indispensable for photorelocation movements of plastids and thus, nuclei in pavement cells.In plants, organelles move within the cell and become appropriately positioned to accomplish their functions and adapt to the environment (for review, see Wada and Suetsugu, 2004). Light-induced chloroplast movement (chloroplast photorelocation movement) is one of the best characterized organelle movements in plants (Suetsugu and Wada, 2012). Under weak light conditions, chloroplasts move toward light to capture light efficiently (the accumulation response; Zurzycki, 1955). Under strong light conditions, chloroplasts escape from light to avoid photodamage (the avoidance response; Kasahara et al., 2002; Sztatelman et al., 2010; Davis and Hangarter, 2012; Cazzaniga et al., 2013). In most green plant species, these responses are induced primarily by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot) in response to a range of wavelengths from UVA to blue light (approximately 320–500 nm; for review, see Suetsugu and Wada, 2012; Wada and Suetsugu, 2013; Kong and Wada, 2014). Phot-mediated chloroplast movement has been shown in land plants, such as Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana; Jarillo et al., 2001; Kagawa et al., 2001; Sakai et al., 2001), the fern Adiantum capillus-veneris (Kagawa et al., 2004), the moss Physcomitrella patens (Kasahara et al., 2004), and the liverwort Marchantia polymorpha (Komatsu et al., 2014). Two phots in Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2, redundantly mediate the accumulation response (Sakai et al., 2001), whereas phot2 primarily regulates the avoidance response (Jarillo et al., 2001; Kagawa et al., 2001; Luesse et al., 2010). M. polymorpha has only one phot that mediates both the accumulation and avoidance responses (Komatsu et al., 2014), although two or more phots mediate chloroplast photorelocation movement in A. capillus-veneris (Kagawa et al., 2004) and P. patens (Kasahara et al., 2004). Thus, duplication and functional diversification of PHOT genes have occurred during land plant evolution, and plants have gained a sophisticated light sensing system for chloroplast photorelocation movement.In general, movements of plant organelles, including chloroplasts, are dependent on actin filaments (for review, see Wada and Suetsugu, 2004). Most organelles common in eukaryotes, such as mitochondria, peroxisomes, and Golgi bodies, use the myosin motor for their movements, but there is no clear evidence that chloroplast movement is myosin dependent (for review, see Suetsugu et al., 2010a). Land plants have innovated a novel actin-based motility system that is specialized for chloroplast movement as well as a photoreceptor system (for review, see Suetsugu et al., 2010a; Wada and Suetsugu, 2013; Kong and Wada, 2014). Chloroplast-actin (cp-actin) filaments, which were first found in Arabidopsis, are short actin filaments specifically localized around the chloroplast periphery at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane (Kadota et al., 2009). Strong blue light induces the rapid disappearance of cp-actin filaments and then, their subsequent reappearance preferentially at the front region of the moving chloroplasts. This asymmetric distribution of cp-actin filaments is essential for directional chloroplast movement (Kadota et al., 2009; Kong et al., 2013a). The greater the difference in the amount of cp-actin filaments between the front and rear regions of chloroplasts becomes, the faster the chloroplasts move, in which the magnitude of the difference is determined by fluence rate (Kagawa and Wada, 2004; Kadota et al., 2009; Kong et al., 2013a). Strong blue light-induced disappearance of cp-actin filaments is regulated in a phot2-dependent manner before the intensive polymerization of cp-actin filaments at the front region occurs (Kadota et al., 2009; Ichikawa et al., 2011; Kong et al., 2013a). This phot2-dependent response contributes to the greater difference in the amount of cp-actin filaments between the front and rear regions of chloroplasts. Similar behavior of cp-actin filaments has also been observed in A. capillus-veneris (Tsuboi and Wada, 2012) and P. patens (Yamashita et al., 2011).Like chloroplasts, nuclei also show light-mediated movement and positioning (nuclear photorelocation movement) in land plants (for review, see Higa et al., 2014b). In gametophytic cells of A. capillus-veneris, weak light induced the accumulation responses of both chloroplasts and nuclei, whereas strong light induced avoidance responses (Kagawa and Wada, 1993, 1995; Tsuboi et al., 2007). However, in mesophyll cells of Arabidopsis, strong blue light induced both chloroplast and nuclear avoidance responses, but weak blue light induced only the chloroplast accumulation response (Iwabuchi et al., 2007, 2010; Higa et al., 2014a). In Arabidopsis pavement cells, small numbers of tiny plastids were found and showed autofluorescence under the confocal laser-scanning microscopy (Iwabuchi et al., 2010; Higa et al., 2014a). Hereafter, the plastid in the pavement cells is called the pavement cell plastid. Strong blue light-induced avoidance responses of pavement cell plastids and nuclei were induced in a phot2-dependent manner, but the accumulation response was not detected for either organelle (Iwabuchi et al., 2007, 2010; Higa et al., 2014a). In both Arabidopsis and A. capillus-veneris, phots mediate nuclear photorelocation movement, and phot2 mediates the nuclear avoidance response (Iwabuchi et al., 2007, 2010; Tsuboi et al., 2007). The nuclear avoidance response is dependent on actin filaments in both mesophyll and pavement cells of Arabidopsis (Iwabuchi et al., 2010). Recently, it was shown that the nuclear avoidance response relies on cp-actin-dependent movement of pavement cell plastids, where nuclei are associated with pavement cell plastids of Arabidopsis (Higa et al., 2014a). In mesophyll cells, nuclear avoidance response is likely dependent on cp-actin filament-mediated chloroplast movement, because the mutants deficient in chloroplast movement were also defective in nuclear avoidance response (Higa et al., 2014a). Thus, phots mediate both chloroplast (and pavement cell plastid) and nuclear photorelocation movement by regulating cp-actin filaments.Molecular genetic analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation movement have identified many molecular factors involved in signal transduction and/or motility systems as well as those involved in the photoreceptor system for chloroplast photorelocation movement (and thus, nuclear photorelocation movement; for review, see Suetsugu and Wada, 2012; Wada and Suetsugu, 2013; Kong and Wada, 2014). CHLOROPLAST UNUSUAL POSITIONING1 (CHUP1; Oikawa et al., 2003) and KINESIN-LIKE PROTEIN FOR ACTIN-BASED CHLOROPLAST MOVEMENT (KAC; Suetsugu et al., 2010b) are key factors for generating and/or maintaining cp-actin filaments. Both proteins are highly conserved in land plants and essential for the movement and attachment of chloroplasts to the plasma membrane in Arabidopsis (Oikawa et al., 2003, 2008; Suetsugu et al., 2010b), A. capillus-veneris (Suetsugu et al., 2012), and P. patens (Suetsugu et al., 2012; Usami et al., 2012). CHUP1 is localized on the chloroplast outer membrane and binds to globular and filamentous actins and profilin in vitro (Oikawa et al., 2003, 2008; Schmidt von Braun and Schleiff, 2008). Although KAC is a kinesin-like protein, it lacks microtubule-dependent motor activity but has filamentous actin binding activity (Suetsugu et al., 2010b). An actin-bundling protein THRUMIN1 (THRUM1) is required for efficient chloroplast photorelocation movement (Whippo et al., 2011) and interacts with cp-actin filaments (Kong et al., 2013a). chup1 and kac mutant plants were shown to lack detectable cp-actin filaments (Kadota et al., 2009; Suetsugu et al., 2010b; Ichikawa et al., 2011; Kong et al., 2013a). Similarly, cp-actin filaments were rarely detected in thrum1 mutant plants (Kong et al., 2013a), indicating that THRUM1 also plays an important role in maintaining cp-actin filaments.Other proteins J-DOMAIN PROTEIN REQUIRED FOR CHLOROPLAST ACCUMULATION RESPONSE1 (JAC1; Suetsugu et al., 2005), WEAK CHLOROPLAST MOVEMENT UNDER BLUE LIGHT1 (WEB1; Kodama et al., 2010), and PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED2 (PMI2; Luesse et al., 2006; Kodama et al., 2010) are involved in the light regulation of cp-actin filaments and chloroplast photorelocation movement. JAC1 is an auxilin-like J-domain protein that mediates the chloroplast accumulation response through its J-domain function (Suetsugu et al., 2005; Takano et al., 2010). WEB1 and PMI2 are coiled-coil proteins that interact with each other (Kodama et al., 2010). Although web1 and pmi2 were partially defective in the avoidance response, the jac1 mutation completely suppressed the phenotype of web1 and pmi2, suggesting that the WEB1/PMI2 complex suppresses JAC1 function (i.e. the accumulation response) under strong light conditions (Kodama et al., 2010). Both web1 and pmi2 showed impaired disappearance of cp-actin filaments in response to strong blue light (Kodama et al., 2010). However, the exact molecular functions of these proteins are unknown.In this study, we characterized mutant plants deficient in the PMI1 gene and two homologous genes PLASTID MOVEMENT IMPAIRED1-RELATED1 (PMIR1) and PMIR2. PMI1 was identified through molecular genetic analyses of pmi1 mutants that showed severe defects in chloroplast accumulation and avoidance responses (DeBlasio et al., 2005). PMI1 is a plant-specific C2-domain protein (DeBlasio et al., 2005; Zhang and Aravind, 2010), but its roles and those of PMIRs in cp-actin-mediated chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements remained unclear. Thus, we analyzed chloroplast and nuclear photorelocation movements in the single, double, and triple mutants of pmi1, pmir1, and pmir2.     

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.