Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

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

A Label-free Quantitative Proteomics Strategy to Identify E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Substrates Targeted to Proteasome Degradation

The ubiquitin-proteasome system is a central mechanism for controlled proteolysis that regulates numerous cellular processes in eukaryotes. As such, defects in this system can contribute to disease pathogenesis. In this pathway, E3 ubiquitin ligases provide platforms for binding specific substrates, thereby coordinating their ubiquitylation and subsequent degradation by the proteasome. Despite the identification of many E3 ubiquitin ligases, the identities of their specific substrates are still largely unresolved. The ankyrin repeat-containing protein with a suppressor of cytokine signaling box 2 (ASB2) gene that we initially identified as a retinoic acid-response gene in acute promyelocytic leukemia cells encodes the specificity subunit of an E3 ubiquitin ligase complex that is involved in hematopoietic cell differentiation. We have recently identified filamin A and filamin B as the first ASB2 targets and shown that ASB2 triggers ubiquitylation and proteasome-mediated degradation of these proteins. Here a global quantitative proteomics strategy is provided to identify substrates of E3 ubiquitin ligases targeted to proteasomal degradation. Indeed we used label-free methods for quantifying proteins identified by shotgun proteomics in extracts of cells expressing wild-type ASB2 or an E3 ubiquitin ligase-defective mutant of ASB2 under the control of an inducible promoter. Measurements of spectral count and mass spectrometric signal intensity demonstrated a drastic decrease of filamin A and filamin B in myeloid leukemia cells expressing wild-type ASB2 compared with cells expressing an E3 ubiquitin ligase-defective mutant of ASB2. Altogether we provide an original strategy that enables identification of E3 ubiquitin ligase substrates that have to be degraded.The ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS)¹ plays an essential role in the regulation of protein stability in eukaryotic cells. Degradation of a protein by the UPS entails two successive steps: the covalent attachment of multiple ubiquitin molecules to the protein substrate and its degradation by the 26 S proteasome (1, 2). Ubiquitylation of protein substrates occurs through the sequential action of distinct enzymes: a ubiquitin-activating enzyme, E1; a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, E2; and a ubiquitin ligase, E3, responsible for the specific recognition of substrates. Increasing attention has been recently given to the UPS leading to the identification of hundreds of E3 ubiquitin ligases (E3s). Two major classes of E3s have been described: (i) E3s of the HECT (homologous to the E6-associated protein carboxyl terminus) domain family that function as ubiquitin carriers (3, 4) and (ii) E3s of the RING (really interesting new gene) or of the U box families that have no inherent catalytic activity but recruit an E2 enzyme toward substrates (5–7).Classical approaches to identify substrates of E3s are based on the identification of interacting proteins. Although these have successfully led to the identification of a number of substrates of monomeric E3s, identification of substrates of multimeric E3s is very challenging because of the weak affinity of substrates for their requisite specificity subunit and because of the labile nature of the substrate complexed with the specificity subunit (8).Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is associated with six reciprocal translocations always involving the retinoic acid receptor α (RARα) gene (9–11). The RARα protein is a member of the nuclear receptor superfamily that stimulates myeloid differentiation in the presence of its ligand, all-trans-retinoic acid (RA). In more than 95% of APL, the t(15;17) translocation between the promyelocytic leukemia (PML) gene on chromosome 15 and the RARα gene on chromosome 17 produces the PML-RARα fusion protein (12). The PML-RARα protein enhances the repression of RARα target genes by increasing associations with corepressors (13–15) and by recruiting DNA methyltransferases (16). These complexes dissociate from the PML-RARα fusion protein in the presence of pharmacological concentrations of RA perhaps explaining why APL cells are sensitive to RA treatment. Indeed at pharmacological concentrations, RA induces complete remission in a high percentage of APL patients (17–19). By studying RA-induced differentiation of APL cells we have attempted to identify some of the genes that may be up-regulated during this process to further understand the control of growth and differentiation in leukemia (20). One gene identified in this manner, ASB2 (ankyrin repeat-containing protein with a suppressor of cytokine signaling box 2) is an RA-response gene involved in induced differentiation of myeloid leukemia cells (21–23).The ASB2 protein is a subunit of a multimeric E3 ubiquitin ligase of the cullin-RING ligase family (24, 25). The ASB2 suppressor of cytokine signaling box can be divided into a BC box that defines a binding site for the Elongin BC complex and a Cul5 box that determines the binding specificity for Cullin5 (24, 26). Indeed the ASB2 protein, by interacting with the Elongin BC complex, can assemble with a Cullin5/Rbx1 or -2 module to reconstitute an active E3 ubiquitin ligase complex (23–25). Within this complex, the ASB2 protein is the specificity subunit involved in the recruitment of specific substrate(s). Furthermore endogenous ASB2 protein was copurified with ubiquitin ligase activity in RA-treated APL cells suggesting that, during induced differentiation of leukemia cells, the ASB2 protein may target proteins involved in blocking differentiation to destruction by the proteasome machinery (24). We recently identified actin-binding proteins filamin A (FLNa) and filamin B (FLNb) as ASB2 targets and showed that ASB2 triggers ubiquitylation and drives proteasome-mediated degradation of these proteins during RA-induced differentiation of myeloid leukemia cells (23).With the aim to develop a strategy to identify E3 substrates that are degraded by the proteasome, we used an MS approach to identify ASB2 substrates in physiologically relevant settings. Indeed we used label-free quantitative proteomics to identify proteins that are absent or less abundant in cells that express wild-type ASB2 but that accumulate in cells expressing an ASB2 E3 ligase-defective mutant. Application of label-free MS methods that have the advantage to be simple, fast, and cheap enabled the identification of FLNa and FLNb as ASB2 substrates. This study provides a new strategy for the identification of E3 substrates that have to be degraded.     

Silicon efflux transporters isolated from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake

The accumulation of silicon (Si) differs greatly with plant species and cultivars due to different ability of the roots to take up Si. In Si accumulating plants such as rice, barley and maize, Si uptake is mediated by the influx (Lsi1) and efflux (Lsi2) transporters. Here we report isolation and functional analysis of two Si efflux transporters (CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2) from two pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars contrasting in Si uptake. These cultivars are used for rootstocks of bloom and bloomless cucumber, respectively. Different from mutations in the Si influx transporter CmLsi1, there was no difference in the sequence of either CmLsi2 between two cultivars. Both CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 showed an efflux transport activity for Si and they were expressed in both the roots and shoots. These results confirm our previous finding that mutation in CmLsi1, but not in CmLsi2-1 and CmLsi2-2 are responsible for bloomless phenotype resulting from low Si uptake.Key words: silicon, efflux transporter, pumpkin, cucumber, bloomSilicon (Si) is the second most abundant elements in earth''s crust.¹ Therefore, all plants rooting in soils contain Si in their tissues. However Si accumulation in the shoot differs greatly among plant species, ranging for 0.1 to 10% of dry weight.^1–3 In higher plants, only Poaceae, Equisetaceae and Cyperaceae show a high Si accumulation.^2,3 Si accumulation also differs with cultivars within a species.^4,5 These differences in Si accumulation have been attributed to the ability of the roots to take up Si.^6,7Genotypic difference in Si accumulation has been used to produce bloomless cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.).⁸ Bloom (white and fine powders) on the surface of cucumber fruits is primarily composed of silica (SiO₂).⁹ However, nowadays, cucumber without bloom (bloomless cucumber) is more popular in Japan due to its more attractive and distinctly shiny appearance. Bloomless cucumber is produced by grafting cucumber on some specific pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) cultivars. These pumpkin cultivars used for bloomless cucumber rootstocks have lower silicon accumulation compared with the rootstocks used for producing bloom cucumber.⁹Our study showed that the difference in Si accumulation between bloom and bloomless root stocks of pumpkin cultivars results from different Si uptake by the roots.¹⁰ Si uptake has been demonstrated to be mediated by two different types of transporters (Lsi1 and Lsi2) in rice, barley and maize.^11–15 Lsi1 is an influx transporter of Si, belonging to a NIP subfamily of aquaporin family.^10,11,13,14 This transporter is responsible for transport of Si from external solution to the root cells.¹¹ On the other hand, Lsi2 is an efflux transporter of Si, belonging to putative anion transporter.¹² Lsi2 releases Si from the root cells towards the xylem. Both Lsi1 and Lsi2 are required for Si uptake by the roots.^11,12 To understand the mechanism underlying genotypic difference in Si uptake, we have isolated and functionally characterized an influx Si transporter CmLsi1 from two pumpkin cultivars used for rootstocks of bloomless and bloom cucumber.¹⁰ Sequence analysis showed only two amino acids difference of CmLsi1 between two pumpkin cultivars. However, CmLsi1 from bloom rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁺)] showed transport activity for Si, whereas that from bloomless rootstock [CmLsi1(B⁻)] did not.¹⁰ Furthermore, we found that loss of Si transport activity was caused by one amino acid mutation at the position of 242 (from proline to leucine).¹⁰ This mutation resulted in failure to be localized at the plasma membrane, which is necessary for functioning as an influx transporter. The mutated protein was localized at the ER.¹⁰ Here, we report isolation and expression analysis of Si efflux transporters from two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in Si uptake and accumulation to examine whether Si efflux transporter is also involved in the bloom and bloomless phenotypes.     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

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

Regulation of neuronal survival and morphology by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF157

Neuronal health is essential for the long-term integrity of the brain. In this study, we characterized the novel E3 ubiquitin ligase ring finger protein 157 (RNF157), which displays a brain-dominant expression in mouse. RNF157 is a homolog of the E3 ligase mahogunin ring finger-1, which has been previously implicated in spongiform neurodegeneration. We identified RNF157 as a regulator of survival in cultured neurons and established that the ligase activity of RNF157 is crucial for this process. We also uncovered that independently of its ligase activity, RNF157 regulates dendrite growth and maintenance. We further identified the adaptor protein APBB1 (amyloid beta precursor protein-binding, family B, member 1 or Fe65) as an interactor and proteolytic substrate of RNF157 in the control of neuronal survival. Here, the nuclear localization of Fe65 together with its interaction partner RNA-binding protein SART3 (squamous cell carcinoma antigen recognized by T cells 3 or Tip110) is crucial to trigger apoptosis. In summary, we described that the E3 ligase RNF157 regulates important aspects of neuronal development.Neurodegeneration leads to loss of neurons and thus to severe and irreparable damage of the brain. A common histopathological feature in postmortem brains of patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson''s or Alzheimer''s disease is the presence of ubiquitin-laden protein deposits.^{1, 2, 3} These deposits implicate the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) in neurodegeneration. In addition to histopathological clues, genetic evidence demonstrates that erroneous UPS components have detrimental effects on the developing and adult brain resulting in neurodegenerative disorders.^4,5The UPS is responsible for the posttranslational modification of proteins by ubiquitin, which requires an enzymatic cascade.⁶ The E3 ubiquitin ligases specifically recognize the substrate proteins and mediate their ubiquitination, which can result in their degradation that ensures the homeostasis in cells or in non-proteolytic signaling events.^7,8 The largest group of E3 ligases constitutes the RING (really interesting new gene) ligases, which serve as scaffold proteins to recruit both the substrate and the E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme that binds to the RING domain,⁹ facilitating the transfer of ubiquitin from the E2 to the substrate.Although there are several hundred E3 ligases,¹⁰ only a few have been studied so far in the context of neuronal survival or neurodegeneration.^{11, 12, 13, 14, 15} Among those, mahogunin ring finger-1 (MGRN1) has been implicated in an age-dependent spongiform encephalopathy characterized in a mouse model.¹⁵In this study, we characterized the novel E3 ubiquitin ligase ring finger protein 157 (RNF157), the homolog of MGRN1. We described that RNF157, which is predominantly expressed in the brain, regulates neuronal survival and morphology in cultured neurons. We further identified the adaptor protein APBB1 (amyloid beta precursor protein-binding, family B, member 1 or Fe65) as a substrate and a downstream component in RNF157-regulated neuronal survival. Also, we demonstrated that nuclear Fe65 together with the RNA-binding protein SART3 (squamous cell carcinoma antigen recognized by T cells 3 or Tip110) triggers apoptosis. Taken together, we described that the E3 ligase RNF157 acts in different aspects of neuronal development.     

Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and TGFβ1-stimulated cell migration in skin and cornea wound healing

Cell migration during wound healing is a complex process that involves the expression of a number of growth factors and cytokines. One of these factors, transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) controls many aspects of normal and pathological cell behavior. It induces migration of keratinocytes in wounded skin and of epithelial cells in damaged cornea. Furthermore, this TGFβ-induced cell migration is correlated with the production of components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and expression of integrins and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). MMP digests ECMs and integrins during cell migration, but the mechanisms regulating their expression and the consequences of their induction remain unclear. It has been suggested that MMP-14 activates cellular signaling processes involved in the expression of MMPs and other molecules associated with cell migration. Because of the manifold effects of MMP-14, it is important to understand the roles of MMP-14 not only the cleavage of ECM but also in the activation of signaling pathways.Key words: wound healing, migration, matrix metalloproteinase, transforming growth factor, skin, corneaWound healing is a well-ordered but complex process involving many cellular activities including inflammation, growth factor or cytokine secretion, cell migration and proliferation. Migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells requires the coordinated expression of various growth factors such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), transforming growth factor (TGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), small GTPases, and macrophage stimulating protein (reviewed in refs. ¹ and ²). The epithelial cells in turn regulate the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and integrins during cell migration.^1,3,4 TGF-β is a well-known cytokine involved in processes such as cell growth inhibition, embryogenesis, morphogenesis, tumorigenesis, differentiation, wound healing, senescence and apoptosis (reviewed in refs. ⁵ and ⁶). It is also one of the most important cytokines responsible for promoting the migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells.^3,6,7TGFβ has two quite different effects on skin keratinocytes: it suppresses their multiplication and promotes their migration. The TGFβ-induced cell growth inhibition is usually mediated by Smad signaling, which upregulates expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p21^WAF1/Cip1 or p12^CDK2-AP1 in HaCaT skin keratinocyte cells and human primary foreskin keratinocytes.^8,9 Keratinocyte migration in wounded skin is associated with strong expression of TGFβ and MMPs,¹ and TGFβ stimulates the migration of manually scratched wounded HaCaT cells.¹⁰ TGFβ also induces cell migration and inhibits proliferation of injured corneal epithelial cells, whereas it stimulates proliferation of normal corneal epithelial cells via effects on the MAPK family and Smad signaling.^2,7 Indeed, skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells display the same two physiological responses to TGFβ during wound healing; cell migration and growth inhibition. However as mentioned above, TGFβ has a different effect on normal cells. For example, it induces the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) of normal mammary cells and lens epithelial cells.^11,12 It also promotes the differentiation of corneal epithelial cells, and induces the fibrosis of various tissues.^2,6The MMPs are a family of structurally related zinc-dependent endopeptidases that are secreted into the extracellular environment.¹³ Members of the MMP family have been classified into gelatinases, stromelysins, collagenases and membrane type-MMPs (MT-MMPs) depending on their substrate specificity and structural properties. Like TGFβ, MMPs influence normal physiological processes including wound healing, tissue remodeling, angiogenesis and embryonic development, as well as pathological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis and tumor invasion.^13,14The expression patterns of MMPs during skin and cornea wound healing are well studied. In rats, MMP-2, -3, -9, -11, -13 and -14 are expressed,¹⁵ and in mice, MMP-1, -2, -3, -9, -10 and -14 are expressed during skin wound healing.¹ MMP-1, -3, -7 and -12 are increased in corneal epithelial cells during Wnt 7a-induced rat cornea wound healing.¹⁶ Wound repair after excimer laser keratectomy is characterized by increased expression of MMP-1, -2, -3 and -9 in the rabbit cornea, and MMP-2, -9 in the rat cornea.^17,18 The expression of MMP-2 and -9 during skin keratinocyte and corneal epithelial cell migration has been the most thoroughly investigated, and it has been shown that their expression generally depends on the activity of MMP-14. MMP-14 (MT1-MMP) is constitutively anchored to the cell membrane; it activates other MMPs such as MMP-2, and also cleaves various types of ECM molecules including collagens, laminins, fibronectin as well as its ligands, the integrins.¹³ The latent forms of some cytokines are also cleaved and activated by MMP-14.¹⁹ Overexpression of MMP-14 protein was found to stimulate HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cell migration.²⁰ In contrast, the attenuation of MMP-14 expression using siRNA method decreased fibroblast invasiveness,²¹ angiogenesis of human microvascular endothelial cells,²² and human skin keratinocyte migration.¹⁰ The latter effect was shown to result from lowering MMP-9 expression. Other studies have shown that EGF has a critical role in MMP-9 expression during keratinocyte tumorigenesis and migration.^23,24 On the other hand, TGFβ modulates MMP-9 production through the Ras/MAPK pathway in transformed mouse keratinocytes and NFκB induces cell migration by binding to the MMP-9 promoter in human skin primary cultures.^25,26 Enhanced levels of pro-MMP-9 and active MMP-9 have also been noted in scratched corneal epithelia of diabetic rats.²⁷There is evidence that MMP-14 activates a number of intracellular signaling pathways including the MAPK family pathway, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family, Rac and CD44, during cell migration and tumor invasion.^19,20,28 In COS-7 cells, ERK activation is stimulated by overexpression of MMP-14 and is essential for cell migration.²⁹ These observations all indicate that MMP-14 plays an important role in cell migration, not only by regulating the activity or expression of downstream MMPs but also by processing and activating migration-associated molecules such as integrins, ECMs and a variety of intracellular signaling pathays.³⁰Cell migration during wound healing is a remarkably complex phenomenon. TGFβ is just one small component of the overall process of wound healing and yet it triggers a multitude of reactions needed for cell migration. It is important to know what kinds of molecules are expressed when cell migration is initiated, but it is equally important to investigate the roles of these molecules and how their expression is regulated. Despite the availability of some information about how MMPs and signaling molecules can influence each other, much remains to be discovered in this area. It will be especially important to clarify how MMP-14 influences other signaling pathways since its role in cell migration is not restricted to digesting ECM molecules but also includes direct or indirect activation of cellular signaling pathways.     

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

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

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

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

Strigolactones: Internal and external signals in plant symbioses?

As the newest plant hormone, strigolactone research is undergoing an exciting expansion. In less than five years, roles for strigolactones have been defined in shoot branching, secondary growth, root growth and nodulation, to add to the growing understanding of their role in arbuscular mycorrhizae and parasitic weed interactions.¹ Strigolactones are particularly fascinating as signaling molecules as they can act both inside the plant as an endogenous hormone and in the soil as a rhizosphere signal.^2-4 Our recent research has highlighted such a dual role for strigolactones, potentially acting as both an endogenous and exogenous signal for arbuscular mycorrhizal development.⁵ There is also significant interest in examining strigolactones as putative regulators of responses to environmental stimuli, especially the response to nutrient availability, given the strong regulation of strigolactone production by nitrate and phosphate observed in many species.^5,6 In particular, the potential for strigolactones to mediate the ecologically important response of mycorrhizal colonization to phosphate has been widely discussed. However, using a mutant approach we found that strigolactones are not essential for phosphate regulation of mycorrhizal colonization or nodulation.⁵ This is consistent with the relatively mild impairment of phosphate control of seedling root growth observed in Arabidopsis strigolactone mutants.⁷ This contrasts with the major role for strigolactones in phosphate control of shoot branching of rice and Arabidopsis^8,9 and indicates that the integration of strigolactones into our understanding of nutrient response will be complex. New data presented here, along with the recent discovery of phosphate specific CLE peptides,¹⁰ indicates a potential role for PsNARK, a component of the autoregulation of nodulation pathway, in phosphate control of nodulation.