Protection by natural IgG: a sweet partnership with soluble lectins does the trick!

EMBO J 32: 2905–2919 10.1038/emboj.2013.199; published online September032013Some B cells of the adaptive immune system secrete polyreactive immunoglobulin G (IgG) in the absence of immunization or infection. Owing to its limited affinity and specificity, this natural IgG is thought to play a modest protective role. In this issue, a report reveals that natural IgG binds to microbes following their opsonization by ficolin and mannan-binding lectin (MBL), two carbohydrate receptors of the innate immune system. The interaction of natural IgG with ficolins and MBL protects against pathogenic bacteria via a complement-independent mechanism that involves IgG receptor FcγRI expressing macrophages. Thus, natural IgG enhances immunity by adopting a defensive strategy that crossovers the conventional boundaries between innate and adaptive microbial recognition systems.The adaptive immune system generates protective somatically recombined antibodies through a T cell-dependent (TD) pathway that involves follicular B cells. After recognizing antigen through the B-cell receptor (BCR), follicular B cells establish a cognate interaction with CD4⁺ T follicular helper (T_FH) cells and thereafter either rapidly differentiate into short-lived IgM-secreting plasmablasts or enter the germinal centre (GC) of lymphoid follicles to complete class switch recombination (CSR) and somatic hypermutation (SHM) (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012). CSR from IgM to IgG, IgA and IgE generates antibodies with novel effector functions, whereas SHM provides the structural correlate for the induction of affinity maturation (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012). Eventually, this canonical TD pathway generates long-lived bone marrow plasma cells and circulating memory B cells that produce protective class-switched antibodies capable to recognize specific antigens with high affinity (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012).In addition to post-immune monoreactive antibodies, B cells produce pre-immune polyreactive antibodies in the absence of conventional antigenic stimulation (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). These natural antibodies form a vast and stable repertoire that recognizes both non-protein and protein antigens with low affinity (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Natural antibodies usually emerge from a T cell-independent (TI) pathway that involves innate-like B-1 and marginal zone (MZ) B cells. These are extrafollicular B-cell subsets that rapidly differentiate into short-lived antibody-secreting plasmablasts after detecting highly conserved microbial and autologus antigens through polyreactive BCRs and nonspecific germline-encoded pattern recognition receptors (Pone et al, 2012; Cerutti et al, 2013).The most studied natural antibody is IgM, a pentameric complement-activating molecule with high avidity but low affinity for antigen (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). In addition to promoting the initial clearance of intruding microbes, natural IgM regulates tissue homeostasis, immunological tolerance and tumour surveillance (Ochsenbein et al, 1999; Zhou et al, 2007; Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Besides secreting IgM, B-1 and MZ B cells produce IgG and IgA after receiving CSR-inducing signals from dendritic cells (DCs), macrophages and neutrophils of the innate immune system (Cohen and Norins, 1966; Cerutti et al, 2013). In humans, certain natural IgG and IgA are moderately mutated and show some specificity, which may reflect the ability of human MZ B cells to undergo SHM (Cerutti et al, 2013). Yet, natural IgG and IgA are generally perceived as functionally quiescent.In this issue, Panda et al show that natural IgG bound to a broad spectrum of bacteria with high affinity by cooperating with ficolin and MBL (Panda et al, 2013), two ancestral soluble lectins of the innate immune system (Holmskov et al, 2003). This binding involved some degree of specificity, because it required the presence of ficolin or MBL on the microbial surface as well as lower pH and decreased calcium concentration in the extracellular environment as a result of infection or inflammation (see Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Ficolins and MBL are produced by hepatocytes and various cells of the innate immune system and opsonize bacteria after recognizing conserved carbohydrates. Low pH and calcium concentrations present under infection-inflammation conditions promote the interaction of ficolin or MBL with natural IgG on the surface of bacteria. The resulting immunocomplex is efficiently phagocytosed by macrophages through FcγR1 independently of the complement protein C3, leading to the clearance of bacteria.Ficolins and MBL are soluble pattern recognition receptors that opsonize microbes after binding to glycoconjugates through distinct carbohydrate recognition domain (CRD) structures (Holmskov et al, 2003). While ficolins use a fibrinogen domain, MBL and other members of the collectin family use a C-type lectin domain attached to a collagen-like region (Holmskov et al, 2003). Similar to pentraxins, ficolins and MBL are released by innate effector cells and hepatocytes, and thus may have served as ancestral antibody-like molecules prior to the inception of the adaptive immune system (Holmskov et al, 2003; Bottazzi et al, 2010). Of note, MBL and the MBL-like complement protein C1q are recruited by natural IgM to mediate complement-dependent clearance of autologous apoptotic cells and microbes (Holmskov et al, 2003; Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Panda et al found that a similar lectin-dependent co-optation strategy enhances the protective properties of natural IgG (Panda et al, 2013).By using bacteria and the bacterial glycan N-acetylglicosamine, Panda et al show that natural IgG isolated from human serum or T cell-deficient mice interacted with the fibrinogen domain of microbe-associated ficolins (Panda et al, 2013). The resulting immunocomplex was phagocytosed by macrophages via the IgG receptor FcγRI in a complement-independent manner (Panda et al, 2013). The additional involvement of MBL was demonstrated by experiments showing that natural IgG retained some bacteria-binding activity in the absence of ficolins (Panda et al, 2013).Surface plasmon resonance provided some clues regarding the molecular requirements of the ficolin–IgG interaction (Panda et al, 2013), but the conformational changes required by ficolin to interact with natural IgG remain to be addressed. In particular, it is unclear what segment of the effector Fc domain of natural IgG binds to ficolins and whether Fc-associated glycans are involved in this binding. Specific glycans have been recently shown to mitigate the inflammatory properties of IgG emerging from TI responses (Hess et al, 2013) and this process could implicate ficolins and MBL. Moreover, it would be important to elucidate whether and how the antigen-binding Fab portion of natural IgG regulates its interaction with ficolins and MBL.The in vivo protective role of natural IgG was elegantly demonstrated by showing that reconstitution of IgG-deficient mice lacking the CSR-enzyme activation-induced cytidine deaminase with natural IgG from T cell-insufficient animals enhanced resistance to pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Panda et al, 2013). This protective effect was associated with reduced production of proinflammatory cytokines, occurred independently of the complement protein C3 and was impaired by peptides capable to inhibit the binding of natural IgG to ficolin (Panda et al, 2013). Additional in vivo studies will be needed to determine whether natural IgG exerts protective activity in mice lacking ficolin, MBL or FcγRI, and to ascertain whether these molecules also enhance the protective properties of canonical or natural IgG and IgA released by bone marrow plasma cells and mucosal plasma cells, respectively.In conclusion, the findings by Panda et al show that natural IgG adopts ‘crossover'' defensive strategies that blur the conventional boundaries between the innate and adaptive immune systems. The sophisticated integration of somatically recombined and germline-encoded antigen recognition systems described in this new study shall stimulate immunologists to further explore the often underestimated protective virtues of our vast natural antibody repertoire. This effort may lead to the development of novel therapies against infections.     

Erythropoietin Receptor (EpoR) Agonism Is Used to Treat a Wide Range of Disease

The erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) was discovered and described in red blood cells (RBCs), stimulating its proliferation and survival. The target in humans for EpoR agonists drugs appears clear—to treat anemia. However, there is evidence of the pleitropic actions of erythropoietin (Epo). For that reason, rhEpo therapy was suggested as a reliable approach for treating a broad range of pathologies, including heart and cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders (Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease), spinal cord injury, stroke, diabetic retinopathy and rare diseases (Friedreich ataxia). Unfortunately, the side effects of rhEpo are also evident. A new generation of nonhematopoietic EpoR agonists drugs (asialoEpo, Cepo and ARA 290) have been investigated and further developed. These EpoR agonists, without the erythropoietic activity of Epo, while preserving its tissue-protective properties, will provide better outcomes in ongoing clinical trials. Nonhematopoietic EpoR agonists represent safer and more effective surrogates for the treatment of several diseases such as brain and peripheral nerve injury, diabetic complications, renal ischemia, rare diseases, myocardial infarction, chronic heart disease and others.In principle, the erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) was discovered and described in red blood cell (RBC) progenitors, stimulating its proliferation and survival. Erythropoietin (Epo) is mainly synthesized in fetal liver and adult kidneys (1–3). Therefore, it was hypothesized that Epo act exclusively on erythroid progenitor cells. Accordingly, the target in humans for EpoR agonists drugs (such as recombinant erythropoietin [rhEpo], in general, called erythropoiesis-simulating agents) appears clear (that is, to treat anemia). However, evidence of a kaleidoscope of pleitropic actions of Epo has been provided (4,5). The Epo/EpoR axis research involved an initial journey from laboratory basic research to clinical therapeutics. However, as a consequence of clinical observations, basic research on Epo/EpoR comes back to expand its clinical therapeutic applicability.Although kidney and liver have long been considered the major sources of synthesis, Epo mRNA expression has also been detected in the brain (neurons and glial cells), lung, heart, bone marrow, spleen, hair follicles, reproductive tract and osteoblasts (6–17). Accordingly, EpoR was detected in other cells, such as neurons, astrocytes, microglia, immune cells, cancer cell lines, endothelial cells, bone marrow stromal cells and cells of heart, reproductive system, gastrointestinal tract, kidney, pancreas and skeletal muscle (18–27). Conversely, Sinclair et al.(28) reported data questioning the presence or function of EpoR on nonhematopoietic cells (endothelial, neuronal and cardiac cells), suggesting that further studies are needed to confirm the diversity of EpoR. Elliott et al.(29) also showed that EpoR is virtually undetectable in human renal cells and other tissues with no detectable EpoR on cell surfaces. These results have raised doubts about the preclinical basis for studies exploring pleiotropic actions of rhEpo (30).For the above-mentioned data, a return to basic research studies has become necessary, and many studies in animal models have been initiated or have already been performed. The effect of rhEpo administration on angiogenesis, myogenesis, shift in muscle fiber types and oxidative enzyme activities in skeletal muscle (4,31), cardiac muscle mitochondrial biogenesis (32), cognitive effects (31), antiapoptotic and antiinflammatory actions (33–37) and plasma glucose concentrations (38) has been extensively studied. Neuro- and cardioprotection properties have been mainly described. Accordingly, rhEpo therapy was suggested as a reliable approach for treating a broad range of pathologies, including heart and cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders (Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease), spinal cord injury, stroke, diabetic retinopathy and rare diseases (Friedreich ataxia).Unfortunately, the side effects of rhEpo are also evident. Epo is involved in regulating tumor angiogenesis (39) and probably in the survival and growth of tumor cells (25,40,41). rhEpo administration also induces serious side effects such as hypertension, polycythemia, myocardial infarction, stroke and seizures, platelet activation and increased thromboembolic risk, and immunogenicity (42–46), with the most common being hypertension (47,48). A new generation of nonhematopoietic EpoR agonists drugs have hence been investigated and further developed in animals models. These compounds, namely asialoerythropoietin (asialoEpo) and carbamylated Epo (Cepo), were developed for preserving tissue-protective properties but reducing the erythropoietic activity of native Epo (49,50). These drugs will provide better outcome in ongoing clinical trials. The advantage of using nonhematopoietic Epo analogs is to avoid the stimulation of hematopoiesis and thereby the prevention of an increased hematocrit with a subsequent procoagulant status or increased blood pressure. In this regard, a new study by van Rijt et al. has shed new light on this topic (51). A new nonhematopoietic EpoR agonist analog named ARA 290 has been developed, promising cytoprotective capacities to prevent renal ischemia/reperfusion injury (51). ARA 290 is a short peptide that has shown no safety concerns in preclinical and human studies. In addition, ARA 290 has proven efficacious in cardiac disorders (52,53), neuropathic pain (54) and sarcoidosis-induced chronic neuropathic pain (55). Thus, ARA 290 is a novel nonhematopoietic EpoR agonist with promising therapeutic options in treating a wide range of pathologies and without increased risks of cardiovascular events.Overall, this new generation of EpoR agonists without the erythropoietic activity of Epo while preserving tissue-protective properties of Epo will provide better outcomes in ongoing clinical trials (49,50). Nonhematopoietic EpoR agonists represent safer and more effective surrogates for the treatment of several diseases, such as brain and peripheral nerve injury, diabetic complications, renal ischemia, rare diseases, myocardial infarction, chronic heart disease and others.     

Compact Parkin only: insights into the structure of an autoinhibited ubiquitin ligase

EMBO J 32 15, 2099–2112 doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.125; published online May312013Mutations in Parkin represent ∼50% of disease-causing defects in autosomal recessive-juvenile onset Parkinson''s disease (AR-JP). Recently, there have been four structural reports of autoinhibited forms of this RING-IBR-RING (RBR) ubiquitin ligase (E3) by the Gehring, Komander, Johnston and Shaw groups. The important advances from these studies set the stage for the next steps in understanding the molecular basis for Parkinson''s disease (PD).Regulated protein degradation requires that E3s and their access to substrates be exquisitely controlled. RBR family E3s provide striking examples of this regulation. The complex and compact structures of Parkin (Riley et al, 2013; Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013) as well as another RBR E3, human homologue of Ariadne (HHARI) (Duda et al, 2013), demonstrate extraordinarily intricate inter-domain arrangements. These autoinhibited structures ensure that their functions are restricted until activated.Until recently, RBR E3s were believed to be a subclass of RING E3s, which allosterically activate E2 conjugated with ubiquitin (E2∼Ub). However, Wenzel et al (2011) determined that they are actually hybrid E3s, containing an E2 binding site in RING1 and a catalytic cysteine residue in the domain designated as RING2. The catalytic cysteine is an acceptor for an ubiquitin from RING1-bound E2∼Ub forming an intermediate (E3∼Ub) that leads to substrate or autoubiquitination. In this way, RBRs resemble HECT E3s, which also form catalytic intermediates in ubiquitination. There are 13 human RBR family E3s. Besides Parkin, two notable RBRs are HOIL-1 and HOIP, which form part of a complex integral to NF-κB activation (Wenzel and Klevit, 2012).In addition to causal roles in AR-JP, single allele mutations of Parkin are found in some sporadic cases of PD (references in Wauer and Komander, 2013). Mutations in the Parkin-associated kinase PINK1, which is upstream of Parkin, also account for a significant number of AR-JP cases (Hardy et al, 2009; Narendra et al, 2012; Lazarou et al, 2013). A number of diverse Parkin substrates have been postulated to be associated with PD. There is substantial evidence that one role for Parkin is at mitochondria. Once activated and recruited to damaged/depolarized mitochondria by PINK1, it ubiquitinates exposed mitochondrial proteins leading to both proteasomal degradation and mitophagy (Narendra et al, 2012; Sarraf et al, 2013). Parkin has also been implicated in cell surface signalling and as a tumour suppressor (see references in Wauer and Komander, 2013).Parkin encodes five structured domains, beginning with an N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain (UbLD) and followed by four domains that each bind two zinc (Zn) atoms (Figure 1A). The most N-terminal of the Zn-binding domains is RING0. C-terminal to this is the RBR, consisting of RING1, the IBR and RING2. The crystal structures of inactive Parkin from Riley et al (2013), Trempe et al (2013) and Wauer and Komander (2013) show remarkable congruity. Spatially, the IBR is at the complete opposite end of the molecule from RING2, to which it is connected by a partially unstructured ∼37 residue linker. This linker includes a two-turn helix, referred to as the repressor element of Parkin (REP) or tether, which binds and occludes the E2 binding face of RING1. RING1 occupies the central position in these structures, and RING0 separates RING1 from RING2 (Figure 1B and C). The latter contains the residue identified by Wenzel et al (2011), and confirmed by all three groups, to be the catalytic cysteine, C431. A lower resolution structure also includes the UbLD and places this domain adjacent to RING1 (Trempe et al, 2013). A second unstructured linker connects the UbLD and RING0. UbLDs are involved in a number of protein–protein interactions and small angle X-ray scattering confirms that this domain is integral to the core structure of Parkin (Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013). Biophysical characterization of Parkin and HHARI suggests that each is a monomer in solution.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic and spatial representation of Parkin. (A) Primary structure and domain designations of Parkin, including the REP sequence within the otherwise unstructured IBR-RING2 linker. (B) Structural representation of full-length Parkin (PDB 4K95) highlighting the complex domain interactions in the three-dimensional structure, the catalytic C431 residue, and residue W403 within the REP, which plays a role in stabilizing the autoinhibited form of Parkin. (C) A model of Parkin with the E2 UbcH5B/Ube2D2 bound (devised using PDB 4K95 and PDB 4AP4 to mimic the position of an E2 bound to RING1) to illustrate the required displacement of UbLD and REP and the large distance between the E2∼Ub attachment site of the E2 and the catalytic active site of Parkin. Note that in this conformation the catalytic Cys within RING2 (C431) remains buried by RING0.RING1 is the only bona fide RING domain. All NMR and crystal structures of IBR domains from Parkin, HHARI and HOIP (PDB ID: 2CT7) are in good agreement. The Parkin and HHARI RING2s are structurally highly homologous and share a common Zn-coordinating arrangement with IBR domains. In contrast to the IBR and RING2, RING0 has a distinct arrangement of Zn-coordinating residues (Beasley et al, 2007; Duda et al, 2013; Riley et al, 2013; Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013) (see Figure 1F of Trempe et al (2013) for the various Zn coordination arrangements).All of the Parkin crystal structures represent inactive forms of the E3. This is imposed by the quaternary positioning of the domains, which precludes activity in multiple ways. RING0 plays two obvious roles to maintain Parkin in an inactive state. RING0 shares an interface with RING2 and buries C431, making it unavailable as an ubiquitin acceptor. Moreover, RING0 intervenes between RING1 and RING2, creating an insurmountable separation of >50 Å between the active site Cys of an E2 bound to RING1 and C431 (Figure 1B and C). Thus, RING0 must be displaced for ubiquitin transfer to occur. Accordingly, deletion of RING0 results in a marked increase in Parkin autoubiquitination and in C431 reactivity (Riley et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013). In HHARI, these two inhibitory functions are fulfilled by the C-terminal Ariadne domain, which similarly interposes between RING1 and RING2 (Duda et al, 2013).Additional inhibition is provided by the REP, which binds to RING1 at the canonical RING-E2 binding site and prevents E2 binding. This provides at least a partial explanation for the impaired ability of Parkin to bind E2 when compared to HHARI, which lacks this element (Duda et al, 2013). A disease-associated REP mutant (A398T) at the RING1 interface increases autoubiquitination (Wauer and Komander, 2013). The significance of inhibition by REP-RING1 binding was verified by mutating a critical RING1-interacting REP residue (W403A). This increased autoubiquitination and E2 binding (Trempe et al, 2013). Consistent with the requirement for charging C431 with ubiquitin in mitochondrial translocation (Lazarou et al, 2013), Parkin association with depolarized mitochondria is accelerated with this mutation (Trempe et al, 2013). Interestingly, W403 also interacts with the C-terminal Val of Parkin within RING2, and could therefore potentially further stabilize the autoinhibited form of the protein (Riley et al, 2013), consistent with previous observations (Henn et al, 2005).The quaternary structure of full-length Parkin also suggests that displacement of its N-terminal UbLD must occur for full activation (Trempe et al, 2013). The positioning of the UbLD adjacent to RING1 indicates that it would provide a steric impediment to E2∼Ub binding (Figure 1B and C). Additionally, displacement of the UbLD could be important to relieve interactions with the IBR-RING2 linker, which, as suggested in a previous study (Chaugule et al, 2011), might help to maintain Parkin in an inactive state. Finally, the crystal structure of the full-length Parkin indicates that the UbLD is not available for interactions with other proteins. This would limit Parkin''s range of intermolecular interactions.RBR E3s have at least two domains critical for sequential ubiquitin transfer and full activity, RING1 and RING2. The RING1 of Parkin, as well as all other RBR E3s, is notable in lacking the basic residue in the second Zn coordinating loop (or its equivalent in U-box proteins), which has recently been implicated in RING-mediated transfer of Ub from E2∼Ub (Metzger et al, 2013). This suggests that other factors play compensatory roles in positioning ubiquitin for transfer from E2∼Ub to C431. A non-mutually exclusive possibility is that the lack of this basic residue in RING1 limits unwanted attack on the E2∼Ub linkage, thereby minimizing the unregulated ubiquitination. Turning to RING2, the area surrounding the active site C431 of Parkin is notable in that it includes a sequence recognizable as a catalytic triad, similar to that in deubiquitinating enzymes. The Cys-His-Glu grouping, found in Parkin and other RBR E3s, contributes to in vitro activity (Riley et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013). Interestingly, however, the Glu was dispensable in a cellular assay (Riley et al, 2013). This triad is conserved in HHARI, where an Asn between the Cys and His residues (found in a number of RBRs but not conserved in Parkin), was found to be important for catalysis (Duda et al, 2013).The advances made in these studies impart significant information about an important and clinically relevant E3. However, Parkin, as well as HHARI, has been captured in their inactive, unmodified forms. One obvious question is how does Parkin transition between inactive and active states. PINK1 is implicated in phosphorylating Parkin on its UbLD and potentially other sites, with evidence that phosphorylation contributes to Parkin activation (Narendra et al, 2012). How phosphorylation could contribute to protein interactions that might facilitate Parkin activation, potentially including Parkin oligomerization (Lazarou et al, 2013), is unknown. Regardless, it is evident that considerable unwinding of its quaternary structure must take place.While there is much work ahead to understand these processes, one important interface that must be disrupted for activation is that between the REP and RING1. It is intriguing to consider that such interruption might be associated with other alterations in the IBR-RING2 linker, potentially facilitating the movement of the UbLD from RING1 and contributing to activation. Related to activation is the all-important question of how Parkin recognizes and targets specific substrates. While the UbLD represents a potential site of interaction, most purported substrates are not known to have UbLD-interaction domains. Although interactions involving the UbLD could occur indirectly, through bridging molecules, there is also evidence that other regions of Parkin, including the RBR region, might recognize substrates either directly or indirectly (Tsai et al, 2003) and that some substrates may be phosphorylated by PINK1 (Narendra et al, 2012). Conformational changes induced by substrate interactions, particularly in the IBR RING2 linker, could, as above, represent an important aspect of activation.There are over 75 missense mutations of Parkin associated with AR-JP, most of these inactivate the protein, but there are also some that are activating (Wauer and Komander, 2013). Activating mutations presumably result in pathology at least partially as a consequence of increased autoubiquitination and degradation (e.g., A398T). The current studies help to provide a classification of missense mutations into those that affect (i) folding or stability, (ii) catalytic mechanism, and (iii) interactions between domains. Interdomain mutations might inactivate or contribute to constitutive activation leading to autoubiquitination and degradation.Finally, we know little about how the autosomal recessive and the much more prevalent sporadic forms of PD overlap in their molecular pathology. However, mitochondrial dysfunction is increasingly a common theme. Thus, with the structure of the inactive protein in hand, there is hope that we can begin to consider ways in which domain interactions might be altered in a controlled manner to activate, but not hyperactivate, this critical E3 and lessen the progression of PD.     

Extra-Large G Proteins Expand the Repertoire of Subunits in Arabidopsis Heterotrimeric G Protein Signaling

Heterotrimeric G proteins, consisting of Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits, are a conserved signal transduction mechanism in eukaryotes. However, G protein subunit numbers in diploid plant genomes are greatly reduced as compared with animals and do not correlate with the diversity of functions and phenotypes in which heterotrimeric G proteins have been implicated. In addition to GPA1, the sole canonical Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) Gα subunit, Arabidopsis has three related proteins: the extra-large GTP-binding proteins XLG1, XLG2, and XLG3. We demonstrate that the XLGs can bind Gβγ dimers (AGB1 plus a Gγ subunit: AGG1, AGG2, or AGG3) with differing specificity in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) three-hybrid assays. Our in silico structural analysis shows that XLG3 aligns closely to the crystal structure of GPA1, and XLG3 also competes with GPA1 for Gβγ binding in yeast. We observed interaction of the XLGs with all three Gβγ dimers at the plasma membrane in planta by bimolecular fluorescence complementation. Bioinformatic and localization studies identified and confirmed nuclear localization signals in XLG2 and XLG3 and a nuclear export signal in XLG3, which may facilitate intracellular shuttling. We found that tunicamycin, salt, and glucose hypersensitivity and increased stomatal density are agb1-specific phenotypes that are not observed in gpa1 mutants but are recapitulated in xlg mutants. Thus, XLG-Gβγ heterotrimers provide additional signaling modalities for tuning plant G protein responses and increase the repertoire of G protein heterotrimer combinations from three to 12. The potential for signal partitioning and competition between the XLGs and GPA1 is a new paradigm for plant-specific cell signaling.The classical heterotrimeric G protein consists of a GDP/GTP-binding Gα subunit with GTPase activity bound to an obligate dimer formed by Gβ and Gγ subunits. In the signaling paradigm largely elucidated from mammalian systems, the plasma membrane-associated heterotrimer contains Gα in its GDP-bound form. Upon receiving a molecular signal, typically transduced by a transmembrane protein (e.g. a G protein-coupled receptor), Gα exchanges GDP for GTP and dissociates from the Gβγ dimer. Both Gα and Gβγ interact with intracellular effectors to initiate downstream signaling cascades. The intrinsic GTPase activity of Gα restores Gα to the GDP-bound form, which binds Gβγ, thereby reconstituting the heterotrimer (McCudden et al., 2005; Oldham and Hamm, 2008).Signal transduction through a heterotrimeric G protein complex is an evolutionarily conserved eukaryotic mechanism common to metazoa and plants, although there are distinct differences in the functional intricacies between the evolutionary branches (Jones et al., 2011a, 2011b; Bradford et al., 2013). The numbers of each subunit encoded within genomes, and therefore the potential for combinatorial complexity within the heterotrimer, is one of the most striking differences between plants and animals. For example, the human genome encodes 23 Gα (encoded by 16 genes), five Gβ, and 12 Gγ subunits (Hurowitz et al., 2000; McCudden et al., 2005; Birnbaumer, 2007). The Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genome, however, only encodes one canonical Gα (GPA1; Ma et al., 1990), one Gβ (AGB1; Weiss et al., 1994), and three Gγ (AGG1, AGG2, and AGG3) subunits (Mason and Botella, 2000, 2001; Chakravorty et al., 2011), while the rice (Oryza sativa) genome encodes one Gα (Ishikawa et al., 1995), one Gβ (Ishikawa et al., 1996), and either four or five Gγ subunits (Kato et al., 2004; Chakravorty et al., 2011; Botella, 2012). As expected, genomes of polyploid plants have more copies due to genome duplication, with the soybean (Glycine max) genome encoding four Gα, four Gβ (Bisht et al., 2011), and 10 Gγ subunits (Choudhury et al., 2011). However, Arabidopsis heterotrimeric G proteins have been implicated in a surprisingly large number of phenotypes, which is seemingly contradictory given the relative scarcity of subunits. Arabidopsis G proteins have been implicated in cell division (Ullah et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2006) and morphological development in various tissues, including hypocotyls (Ullah et al., 2001, 2003), roots (Ullah et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2006; Li et al., 2012), leaves (Lease et al., 2001; Ullah et al., 2001), inflorescences (Ullah et al., 2003), and flowers and siliques (Lease et al., 2001), as well as in pathogen responses (Llorente et al., 2005; Trusov et al., 2006; Cheng et al., 2015), regulation of stomatal movement (Wang et al., 2001; Coursol et al., 2003; Fan et al., 2008) and development (Zhang et al., 2008; Nilson and Assmann, 2010), cell wall composition (Delgado-Cerezo et al., 2012), responses to various light stimuli (Warpeha et al., 2007; Botto et al., 2009), responses to multiple abiotic stimuli (Huang et al., 2006; Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008; Colaneri et al., 2014), responses to various hormones during germination (Ullah et al., 2002), and postgermination development (Ullah et al., 2002; Pandey et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2007). Since the Gγ subunit appeared to be the only subunit that provides diversity in heterotrimer composition in Arabidopsis, it was proposed that all functional specificity in heterotrimeric G protein signaling was provided by the Gγ subunit (Trusov et al., 2007; Chakravorty et al., 2011; Thung et al., 2012, 2013). This allowed for only three heterotrimer combinations to account for the wide range of G protein-associated phenotypes.In addition to the above typical G protein subunits, the plant kingdom contains a conserved protein family of extra-large GTP-binding proteins (XLGs). XLGs differ from typical Gα subunits in that they possess a long N-terminal extension of unknown function, but they are similar in that they all have a typical C-terminal Gα-like region, with five semiconserved G-box (G1–G5) motifs. The XLGs also possess the two sequence features that differentiate heterotrimeric G protein Gα subunits from monomeric G proteins: a helical region between the G1 and G2 motifs and an Asp/Glu-rich loop between the G3 and G4 motifs (Lee and Assmann, 1999; Ding et al., 2008; Heo et al., 2012). The Arabidopsis XLG family comprises XLG1, XLG2, and XLG3, and all three have demonstrated GTP-binding and GTPase activities, although they differ from GPA1 in exhibiting a much slower rate of GTP hydrolysis, with a Ca²⁺ cofactor requirement instead of an Mg²⁺ requirement, as for canonical Gα proteins (Heo et al., 2012). All three Arabidopsis XLGs were observed to be nuclear localized (Ding et al., 2008). Although much less is known about XLGs than canonical Gα subunits, XLG2 positively regulates resistance to the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae and was immunoprecipitated with AGB1 from tissue infected with P. syringae (Zhu et al., 2009). xlg3 mutants, like agb1 mutants, are impaired in root-waving and root-skewing responses (Pandey et al., 2008). During the preparation of this report, Maruta et al. (2015) further investigated XLG2, particularly focusing on the link between XLG2 and Gβγ in pathogen responses. Based on symptom progression in xlg mutants, they found that XLG2 is a positive regulator of resistance to both bacterial and fungal pathogens, with a minor contribution from XLG3 in resistance to Fusarium oxysporum. XLG2 and XLG3 are also positive regulators of reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in response to pathogen-associated molecular pattern elicitors. The resistance and pathogen-associated molecular pattern-induced ROS phenotypes of the agg1 agg2 and xlg2 xlg3 double mutants were not additive in an agg1 agg2 xlg2 xlg3 quadruple mutant, indicating that these two XLGs and the two Gγ subunits function in the same, rather than parallel, pathways. Unfortunately, the close proximity of XLG2 and AGB1 on chromosome 4 precluded the generation of an agb1 xlg2 double mutant; therefore, direct genetic evidence of XLG2 and AGB1 interaction is still lacking, but physical interactions between XLG2 and the Gβγ dimers were shown by yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) three-hybrid and bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) assays (Maruta et al., 2015). Localization of all three XLGs was also reexamined, indicating that XLGs are capable of localizing to the plasma membrane in addition to the nucleus (Maruta et al., 2015).Interestingly, several other plant G protein-related phenotypes, in addition to pathogen resistance, have been observed only in Gβ and Gγ mutants, with opposite phenotypes observed in Gα (gpa1) mutants. Traditionally, the observation of opposite phenotypes in Gα versus Gβγ mutants in plants and other organisms has mechanistically been attributed to signaling mediated by free Gβγ, which increases in abundance in the absence of Gα. However, an intriguing alternative is that XLG proteins fulfill a Gα-like role in forming heterotrimeric complexes with Gβγ and function in non-GPA1-based G protein signaling processes. If XLGs function like Gα subunits, the corresponding increase in subunit diversity could potentially account for the diversity of G protein phenotypes. In light of this possibility, we assessed the heterotrimerization potential of all possible XLG and Gβγ dimer combinations, XLG localization and its regulation by Gβγ, and the effect of xlg mutation on selected known phenotypes associated with heterotrimeric G proteins. Our results provide compelling evidence for the formation of XLG-Gβγ heterotrimers and reveal that plant G protein signaling is substantially more complex than previously thought.     

Stimulating cROSstalk between commensal bacteria and intestinal stem cells

EMBO J (2013) 32 23, 3017–3028 10.1038/emboj.2013.224; published online October182013Commensal gut bacteria benefit their host in many ways, for instance by aiding digestion and producing vitamins. In a new study in The EMBO Journal, Jones et al (2013) report that commensal bacteria can also promote intestinal epithelial renewal in both flies and mice. Interestingly, among commensals this effect is most specific to Lactobacilli, the friendly bacteria we use to produce cheese and yogurt. Lactobacilli stimulate NADPH oxidase (dNox/Nox1)-dependent ROS production by intestinal enterocytes and thereby activate intestinal stem cells.The human gut contains huge numbers of bacteria (∼10¹⁴/person) that play beneficial roles for our health, including digestion, building our immune system and competing with harmful microbes (Sommer and Backhed, 2013). Both commensal and pathogenic bacteria can elicit antimicrobial responses in the intestinal epithelium and also stimulate epithelial turnover (Buchon et al, 2013; Sommer and Backhed, 2013). In contrast to gut pathogens, relatively little is known about how commensal bacteria influence intestinal turnover. In a simple yet elegant study reported recently in The EMBO Journal, Jones et al (2013) show that among several different commensal bacteria tested, only Lactobacilli promoted much intestinal stem cell (ISC) proliferation, and it did so by stimulating reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. Interestingly, the specific effect of Lactobacilli was similar in both Drosophila and mice. In addition to distinguishing functional differences between species of commensals, this work suggests how the ingestion of Lactobacillus-containing probiotic supplements or food (e.g., yogurt) might support epithelial turnover and health.In both mammals and insects, ISCs give rise to intestinal enterocytes, which not only absorb nutrients from the diet but must also interact with the gut microbiota (Jiang and Edgar, 2012). The metazoan intestinal epithelium has developed conserved responses to enteric bacteria, for instance the expression of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs; Gallo and Hooper, 2012; Buchon et al, 2013), presumably to kill harmful bacteria while allowing symbiotic commensals to flourish. In addition to AMPs, intestinal epithelial cells use NADPH family oxidases to generate ROS that are used as microbicides (Lambeth and Neish, 2013). High ROS levels during enteric infections likely act non-discriminately against both commensals and pathogens, but controlled, low-level ROS can act as signalling molecules that regulate various cellular processes including proliferation (Lambeth and Neish, 2013). In flies, exposure to pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria has been reported to result in ROS (H₂O₂) production by an enzyme called dual oxidase (Duox; Ha et al, 2005). Duox activity in the fly intestine (and likely also the mammalian one) has recently been discovered to be stimulated by uracil secretion by pathogenic bacteria (Lee et al, 2013). In the mammalian intestine another enzyme, NADPH oxidase (Nox), has also been shown to produce ROS in the form of superoxide (O₂⁻), in this case in response to formylated bacterial peptides (Lambeth and Neish, 2013). A conserved role for Nox in the Drosophila intestinal epithelium had not until now been explored.Jones et al (2013) checked seven different commensal bacterial to see which would stimulate ROS production by the fly''s intestinal epithelium, and found that only one species, a Gram-positive Lactobacillus, could stimulate significant production of ROS in intestinal enterocytes. Five bacterial species were checked in mice or cultured intestinal cells, and again it was a Lactobacillus that generated the strongest ROS response. Although not all of the most prevalent enteric bacteria were assayed, those others that were—such as E. coli—induced only mild, barely detectable levels of ROS in enterocytes. Surprisingly, although bacteria pathogenic to Drosophila, like Erwinia caratovora, were expected to stimulate ROS production via Duox, Jones et al (2013) did not observe this using the ROS detecting dye hydrocyanine-Cy3, or a ROS-sensitive transgene reporter, Glutatione S-transferase-GFP, in flies. Further, Jones et al (2013) found that genetically suppressing Nox in either Drosophila or mice decreased ROS production after Lactobacillus ingestion. Consistent with the important role of Nox, Duox appeared not to be required for ROS production after Lactobacillus ingestion. In addition, Jones et al (2013) found that Lactobacilli also promoted DNA replication—a metric of cell proliferation and epithelial renewal—in the fly''s intestine, and that this was also ROS- and Nox-dependent. Again, the same relationship was found in the mouse small intestine. Together, these results suggest a conserved mechanism by which Lactobacilli can stimulate Nox-dependent ROS production in intestinal enterocytes and thereby promote ISC proliferation and enhance gut epithelial renewal.In the fly midgut, uracil produced by pathogenic bacteria can stimulate Duox-dependent ROS production, which is thought to act as a microbicide (Lee et al, 2013), and can also promote ISC proliferation (Buchon et al, 2009). However, Duox-produced ROS may also damage the intestinal epithelium itself and thereby promote epithelial regeneration indirectly through stress responses. In this disease scenario, ROS appears to be sensed by the stress-activated Jun N-terminal Kinase (JNK; Figure 1A), which can induce pro-proliferative cytokines of the Leptin/IL-6 family (Unpaireds, Upd1–3) (Buchon et al, 2009; Jiang et al, 2009). These cytokines activate JAK/STAT signalling in the ISCs, promoting their growth and proliferation, and accelerating regenerative repair of the gut epithelium (Buchon et al, 2009; Jiang et al, 2009). It is also possible, however, that low-level ROS, or specific types of ROS (e.g., H₂O₂) might induce ISC proliferation directly by acting as a signal between enterocytes and ISCs. Since commensal Lactobacillus stimulates ROS production via Nox rather than Duox, this might be a case in which a non-damaging ROS signal promotes intestinal epithelial renewal without stress signalling or a microbicidal effect (Figure 1B). However, Jones et al (2013) stopped short of ruling out a role for oxidative damage, cell death or stress signalling in the intestinal epithelium following colonization by Lactobacilli, and so these parameters must be checked in future studies. Perhaps even the friendliest symbiotes cause a bit of ‘healthy'' damage to the gut lining, stimulating it to refresh and renew. Whether damage-dependent or not, the stimulation of Drosophila ISC proliferation by commensals and pathogens alike appears to involve the same cytokine (Upd3; Buchon et al, 2009), and so some of the differences between truly pathogenic and ‘friendly'' gut microbes might be ascribed more to matters of degree than qualitative distinctions. Future studies exploring exactly how different types of ROS signals stimulate JNK activity, gut cytokine expression and epithelial renewal should be able to sort this out, and perhaps help us learn how to better manage the ecosystems in our own bellies. From the lovely examples reported by Jones et al (2013), an experimental back-and-forth between the Drosophila and mouse intestine seems an informative way to go.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Metazoan intestinal epithelial responses to commensal and pathogenic bacteria. (A) High reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels generated by dual oxidase (Duox) in response to uracil secretion by pathogenic bacteria. (B) Low ROS levels generated by NADPH oxidase (Nox) in response to commensal bacteria. In addition to acting as a microbiocide, ROS in flies may stimulate JNK signaling and cytokine (Upd 1–3) expression in enterocytes, thereby stimulating ISC proliferation and epithelial turnover or regeneration. Whether this stimulation required damage to or loss of enterocytes has yet to be explored.     

Dynein at the nuclear envelope

Most cellular organelles are positioned through active transport by motor proteins. The authors discuss the evidence that dynein has important cell cycle-regulated functions in this context at the nuclear envelope.Most cellular organelles are positioned through active transport by motor proteins. This is especially important during cell division, a time when the organelles and genetic content need to be divided equally between the two daughter cells. Although individual proteins can attain their correct location by diffusion, larger structures are usually positioned through active transport by motor proteins. The main motor that transports cargoes to the minus ends of the microtubules is dynein. In nondividing cells, dynein probably transports or positions the nucleus inside the cells by binding to the nuclear envelope (NE; Burke & Roux, 2009). However, it appears that dynein also has important cell-cycle-regulated functions at the NE, as it is recruited to the NE every cell cycle just before cells enter mitosis (Salina et al, 2002; Splinter et al, 2010). Here, we discuss why dynein might be recruited to the NE for a brief period before mitosis.During late G2 or prophase the centrosomes separate to opposite sides of the nucleus, but remain closely associated with the NE during separation. This close association is probably mediated through NE-bound dynein, which ‘walks'' towards the minus ends of centrosomal microtubules, thereby pulling centrosomes towards the NE (Splinter et al, 2010; Gonczy et al, 1999; Robinson et al, 1999). We speculate that close association of centrosomes to the NE might have several functions. First, if centrosomes are not mechanically coupled to the NE, centrosome movement during separation will occur in random directions and chromosomes will not end up between the two separated centrosomes. In this scenario, individual kinetochores might attach more frequently to microtubules coming from both centrosomes (merotelic attachments), a defect that can result in aneuploidy, a characteristic of cancer. Second, centrosome-nuclear attachment also keeps centrosomes in close proximity to chromosomes, which might facilitate rapid capture of chromosomes by microtubules nucleated by the centrosomes after NE breakdown. This might not be absolutely essential, as chromosome alignment can occur in the absence of centrosomes. However, the spatial proximity of centrosomes and chromosomes at NE breakdown might improve the fidelity of kinetochore capture and chromosome alignment.In addition, dynein has also been suggested to promote centrosome separation in prophase in some systems (Gonczy et al, 1999; Robinson et al, 1999; Vaisberg et al, 1993), although not in others (Tanenbaum et al, 2008). Perhaps dynein, anchored at the NE just before mitosis, could exert force on microtubules emanating from both centrosomes, thereby pulling centrosomes apart. However, this force could also be produced by cortical dynein and specific inhibition of NE-associated or cortical dynein will be required to test which pool is responsible.Dynein has also been implicated in the process of NE breakdown itself, by promoting mechanical shearing of the NE. Two elegant studies showed that microtubules can tear the NE as cells enter mitosis (Salina et al, 2002; Beaudouin et al, 2002). One possibility is that microtubules growing into the NE mechanically disrupt it. Alternatively, NE-associated dynein might ‘walk'' along centrosomal microtubules and thereby pull on the NE, tearing it apart. However, testing the exact role of dynein in NE breakdown is complicated by the fact that centrosomes detach from the NE on inactivation of dynein and centrosomal microtubules stop growing efficiently into the NE. Thus, selective inhibition of dynein function will also be required to test this idea.Specific recruitment of dynein to the NE just before mitosis clearly suggests a role for dynein at the NE in preparing cells for mitosis. A major role of NE-associated dynein is to maintain close association of centrosomes with the NE during centrosome separation, which might be needed for efficient capture and alignment of chromosomes after NE breakdown, but additionally, NE-associated dynein could facilitate breakdown and contribute to centrosome separation in some systems.