Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Structural basis of transmembrane domain interactions in integrin signaling

Cell surface receptors of the integrin family are pivotal to cell adhesion and migration. The activation state of heterodimeric αβ integrins is correlated to the association state of the single-pass α and β transmembrane domains. The association of integrin αIIbβ3 transmembrane domains, resulting in an inactive receptor, is characterized by the asymmetric arrangement of a straight (αIIb) and tilted (β3) helix relative to the membrane in congruence to the dissociated structures. This allows for a continuous association interface centered on helix-helix glycine-packing and an unusual αIIb(GFF) structural motif that packs the conserved Phe-Phe residues against the β3 transmembrane helix, enabling αIIb(D723)β3(R995) electrostatic interactions. The transmembrane complex is further stabilized by the inactive ectodomain, thereby coupling its association state to the ectodomain conformation. In combination with recently determined structures of an inactive integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β complex that overlap with the αβ transmembrane complex, a comprehensive picture of integrin bi-directional transmembrane signaling has emerged.Key words: cell adhesion, membrane protein, integrin, platelet, transmembrane complex, transmembrane signalingThe communication of biological signals across the plasma membrane is fundamental to cellular function. The ubiquitous family of integrin adhesion receptors exhibits the unusual ability to convey signals bi-directionally (outside-in and inside-out signaling), thereby controlling cell adhesion, migration and differentiation.^1–5 Integrins are Type I heterodimeric receptors that consist of large extracellular domains (>700 residues), single-pass transmembrane (TM) domains, and mostly short cytosolic tails (<70 residues). The activation state of heterodimeric integrins is correlated to the association state of the TM domains of their α and β subunits.^6–10 TM dissociation initiated from the outside results in the transmittal of a signal into the cell, whereas dissociation originating on the inside results in activation of the integrin to bind ligands such as extracellular matrix proteins. The elucidation of the role of the TM domains in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling has been the subject of extensive research efforts, perhaps commencing with the demonstration that the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of α subunits (Fig. 1), which closely follows the first charged residue on the intracellular face, αIIb(K989), constrains the receptor to a default low affinity state.¹¹ Despite these efforts, an understanding of this sequence motif had not been reached until such time as the structure of the αIIb TM segment was determined.¹² In combination with the structure of the β3 TM segment¹³ and available mutagenesis data,^6,9,10,14,15 this has allowed the first correct prediction of the overall association of an integrin αβ TM complex.¹² The predicted association was subsequently confirmed by the αIIbβ3 complex structure determined in phospholipid bicelles,¹⁶ as well as by the report of a similar structure based on molecular modeling using disulfide-based structural constraints.¹⁷ In addition to the structures of the dissociated and associated αβ TM domains, their membrane embedding was defined^{12,13,16,18,19} and it was experimentally recognized that, in the context of the native receptor, the TM complex is stabilized by the inactive, resting ectodomain.¹⁶ These advances in integrin membrane structural biology are complemented by the recent structures of a resting integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β cytosolic tail complex that overlap with the αβ TM complex,^20,21 allowing detailed insight into integrin bi-directional TM signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Amino acid sequence of integrin αIIb and β3 transmembrane segments and flanking regions. Membrane-embedded residues^{12,13,16,18,19} are enclosed by a gray box. Residues 991–995 constitute the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of integrin α subunits.     

Is chloroplast import of photosynthesis proteins facilitated by an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex?

Actin filaments are major components of the cytoskeleton that interact with chloroplast envelope membranes to allow chloroplast positioning and movement, stromule mobility and gravitropism perception. We recently reported that Toc159, a component of the TOC complex of the chloroplast protein import apparatus, interacts directly with actin. The interaction of Toc159 and actin was identified by co-immunoprecipitation and co-sedimentation experiments with detergent-solubilised pea chloroplast envelope membranes. In addition, many of the components of the TOC-TIC protein import apparatus and VIPP1 (vesicle-inducing protein in plastids 1) were identified by mass spectroscopy in the material co-immunoprecipitated with antibodies to actin. Toc159 is the receptor for the import of photosynthesis proteins and VIPP1 is involved in thylakoid membrane formation by inducing vesicle formation from the chloroplast inner envelope membrane, suggesting we may have identified an actin-TOCTIC-VIPP1 complex that may provide a means of channeling cytosolic preproteins to the thylakoid membrane. The interaction of Toc159 with actin may facilitate exchange between the putative soluble and membrane forms of Toc159 and promote the interaction of cytosolic preproteins with the TOC complex.Key words: actin, chloroplast, protein import, TOC complex, TIC complex, VIPP1Actin is a ubiquitous protein of eukaryotic cells and a major component of the cytoskeleton as microfilaments. In plant cells, plastids are closely associated with actin microfilaments.^1,2 A direct interaction of plastids with the actin cytoskeleton has been postulated to anchor chloroplasts at appropriate intracellular positions,³ to support chloroplast light-intensitydependent movement,⁴ to facilitate plastid stromule (stroma-filled tubule) mobility^5,6 and to participate in gravity perception.⁷ The known proteins implicated in plastid-actin interaction are CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1), a protein exclusively targeted to the chloroplast outer envelope membrane that is essential for chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,⁸ and myosin XI proteins that play a role in stromule movement9 and in gravitropism.^10,11 Recently, we found that Toc159 also interacts with actin.¹²Toc159 is a component of the TOC complex, which is part of the chloroplast protein translocation apparatus. This apparatus consists of two membrane protein complexes that associate to allow translocation of nucleus-encoded proteins from the cytoplasm to the interior stromal compartment (reviewed in ref. ¹³). The translocon at the outer envelope membrane of chloroplasts (TOC complex) mediates the initial recognition of preproteins and their translocation across the outer membrane.¹⁴ The translocon at the inner envelope membrane of chloroplasts (TIC complex) physically associates with the TOC complex and provides the membrane translocation channel for the inner membrane. In addition, the TOC and TIC complexes interact with a set of molecular chaperones (ClpC and Hsp70), which assist the transfer of imported proteins^15–17 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic diagram of Toc159-actin interactions and the import of photosynthesis proteins. Toc159, linked to actin by its A-domain, recruits a newly synthesized photosynthesis preprotein by its G-domain. Actin filaments facilitate Toc159 movement to the chloroplast outer envelope membrane for integration into the TOC complex. The core TOC complex is formed by Toc159, Toc34 and Toc75. Tic22 acts to facilitate the passage of preproteins across the intermembrane space and interacts with the TIC complex. The core TIC complex is composed of Tic110, Tic20 and/or Tic21, and Tic40. The Tic110 protein recruits stromal molecular chaperone ClpC. On arrival in the stroma, the transit peptide is cleaved by SPP, and other chaperones (Hsp90 or Hsp70) may assist in the folding. VIPP1 interacts with the chaperones and polymerises, inducing chloroplast inner envelope membrane budding, leading to thylakoid formation.The interaction between actin and Toc159 was identified by co-immunoprecipitation and co-sedimentation experiments with detergent-solubilised pea chloroplast envelope membranes, and confirmed with Toc159 expressed in Escherichia coli. In addition, many other components of the TOC-TIC protein import apparatus were co-immunoprecipitated by antibodies to actin and co-sedimented with added F-actin filaments.¹² Using mass spectrometry, we identified the principal components of the TOC complex (Toc159, Toc75 and Toc34) and three accepted components of the TIC core complex (Tic110, Tic40 and ClpC). The presence of Tic20/21 and Tic22 could not be examined because they migrate in the same position on SDS-PAGE as the light chains of antibody molecules but, since they are involved in linking the TOC and TIC complexes,⁶ they may also be part of the complex with actin.The identification of the region of Toc159 that interacts with actin is an important feature to help establish whether any of the other Toc159 isoforms (such as Toc132 and Toc120) are likely to interact with actin. Toc159 family proteins are composed of three different domains: the A (acidic) domain, the G (GTPase) domain and the M (membrane) domain.¹⁸ The interaction of Toc159 with actin appears most likely to be through the A-domain; the G-domain did not co-sediment with actin filaments¹² and the M-domain is embedded in the chloroplast envelope outer membrane and therefore is unlikely to be accessible to actin. Toc132 and Toc120 have shorter A-domains than Toc159 and this may affect their ability to bind actin. Although all the Toc159 isoforms are implicated in chloroplast protein import, Toc132 and Toc120 are involved in the import of chloroplast housekeeping proteins and Toc159 is specialized for the import of photosynthesis proteins.¹⁸ For import of photosynthesis proteins, two models have been proposed for preprotein recognition by the TOC complex: the ‘targeting model’ where the newly synthesized preprotein is first bound by a free cytosolic form of Toc159, and the ‘motor model’ where the transit peptide is first phosphorylated and then bound to Toc34 associated with the other TOC subunits in the outer envelope membrane.¹³ In support of the first model, Toc159 has been reported to exist in both cytosolic and membrane-bound forms^19,20 and the soluble form of Toc159 is able to bind preproteins.^20,21 Toc159 is proposed to be the major point of contact for preproteins during the early stages of protein import through its A-domain.²² The interaction of Toc159 with actin might provide a means to favor exchange between the putative soluble and membrane forms of Toc159 and potentially facilitate chloroplast photosynthesis protein import (Fig. 1).Several features of this model require additional experimental evidence. The involvement of a soluble form of Toc159 is highly controversial,¹³ and evidence for a physiological role in vivo is required. Experimental evidence for a facilitating role of the actin cytoskeleton in chloroplast protein import is also required. Does the presence of a basket of actin filaments surrounding the chloroplasts² provide a means of concentrating cytosolic Toc159 in the vicinity of the chloroplasts? Or do actin filaments provide a trackway for movement of Toc159 to or from chloroplasts? Myosin, the motor protein for movement along actin filaments, was not detected in the co-immunoprecipitated complex, but this does not necessarily rule out its involvement.VIPP1 was also identified in the complex with actin. VIPP1 is involved in thylakoid membrane formation by vesicle formation from the chloroplast inner envelope membrane²³ and the quantity of thylakoid membrane proteins is closely correlated to the amount of VIPP1 in chloroplasts.²⁴ VIPP1 is also known to interact with Hsp70 and Hsp90 chaperones^25–27 and these chaperones may associate with the stromal face of the TIC complex to support protein folding.¹⁵ This raises the possibility that an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex may facilitate thylakoid formation by channeling the import of thylakoid-located photosynthesis proteins through the chloroplast envelope membrane into vesicles directed to the thylakoid membrane (Fig. 1).Our study of actin-binding proteins in the chloroplast envelope membrane may have provided an initial glimpse at previously unrecognized mechanisms facilitating the import of photosynthesis proteins by chloroplasts. The formation of an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex may provide a means of channeling cytosolic preproteins to the thylakoid membrane.     

Reactive oxygen species as transducers of sphinganine-mediated cell death pathway

Long chain bases or sphingoid bases are building blocks of complex sphingolipids that display a signaling role in programmed cell death in plants. So far, the type of programmed cell death in which these signaling lipids have been demonstrated to participate is the cell death that occurs in plant immunity, known as the hypersensitive response. The few links that have been described in this pathway are: MPK6 activation, increased calcium concentrations and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The latter constitute one of the more elusive loops because of the chemical nature of ROS, the multiple possible cell sites where they can be formed and the ways in which they influence cell structure and function.Key words: hydrogen peroxide, long chain bases, programmed cell death, reactive oxygen species, sphinganine, sphingoid bases, superoxideA new transduction pathway that leads to programmed cell death (PCD) in plants has started to be unveiled.^1,2 Sphingoid bases or long chain bases (LCBs) are the distinctive elements in this PCD route that naturally operates in the entrance site of a pathogen as a way to contend its spread in the plant tissues.^2,3 This defense strategy has been known as the hypersensitive response (HR).^4,5As a lately discovered PCD signaling circuit, three connected transducers have been clearly identified in Arabidopsis: the LCB sphinganine (also named dihydrosphingosine or d18:0); MPK6, a mitogen activated kinase and superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as reactive oxygen species (ROS).^1,2 In addition, calcium transients have been recently allocated downstream of exogenously added sphinganine in tobacco cells.⁶Contrary to the signaling lipids derived from complex glycerolipid degradation, sphinganine, a metabolic precursor of complex sphingolipids, is raised by de novo synthesis in the endoplasmic reticulum to mediate PCD.^1,2 Our recent work demonstrated that only MPK6 and not MPK3 (commonly functionally redundant kinases) acts in this pathway and is positioned downstream of sphinganine elevation.² Although ROS have been identified downstream of LCBs in the route towards PCD,¹ the molecular system responsible for this ROS generation, their cellular site of formation and their precise role in the pathway have not been unequivocally identified. ROS are produced in practically all cell compartments as a result of energy transfer reactions, leaks from the electron transport chains, and oxidase and peroxidase catalysis.⁷Similar to what is observed in pathogen defense,³ increases in endogenous LCBs may be elicited by addition of fumonisin B1 (FB1) as well; FB1 is a mycotoxin that inhibits ceramide synthase. This inhibition results in an accumulation of its substrate, sphinganine and its modified forms, leading to the activation of PCD.^1,2,8 The application of FB1 is a commonly used approach for the study of PCD elicitation in Arabidopsis.^1,2,9–11An early production of ROS has been linked to an increase of LCBs. For example, an H₂O₂ burst is found in tobacco cells after 2–20 min of sphinganine supplementation,¹² and superoxide radical augmented in the medium 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine addition to Arabidopsis protoplasts (Fig. 1A). In consonance with this timing, both superoxide and H₂O₂ were detected in Arabidopsis leaves after 3–6 h exposure to FB1 or LCBs.¹ However, the source of ROS generation associated with sphinganine elevation seems to not be the same in both species: in tobacco cells, ROS formation is apparently dependent on a NADPH oxidase activity, a ROS source consistently implicated in the HR,^13,14 while in Arabidopsis, superoxide formation was unaffected by diphenyliodonium (DPI), a NADPH oxidase inhibitor (Fig. 1A). It is possible that the latter oxidative burst is due to an apoplastic peroxidase,¹⁵ or to intracellular ROS that diffuse outwards.^16,17 These results also suggest that both tobacco and Arabidopsis cells could produce ROS from different sources.Open in a separate windowFigure 1ROS are produced at early and long times in the FB1-induced PCD in Arabidopsis thaliana (Col-0). (A) Superoxide formation by Arabidopsis protoplasts is NADPH oxidase-independent and occurs 60 min after FB1 or sphinganine (d18:0) exposure. Protoplasts were obtained from a cell culture treated with cell wall lytic enzymes. Protoplasts were incubated with 10 µM FB1 or 10 µM sphinganine for 1 h. Then, cells were vacuum-filtered and the filtrate was used to determine XTT [2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide, disodium salt] reduction as described in references ²⁸ and ²⁹. DPI was used at 50 µM. (B) H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis wt and lcb2a-1 mutant in the presence and absence of FB1. Arabidopsis seedlings were exposed to 10 µM FB1 and after 48 h seedlings were treated with DA B (3,3-diaminobencidine) to detect H₂O₂ according to Thordal-Christensen et al.³⁰It has been suggested that the H₂O₂ burst associated with the sphinganine signaling pathway leads to the expression of defense-related genes but not to the PCD itself in tobacco cells.¹² It is possible that ROS are involved in the same way in Arabidopsis, since defense gene expression is also induced by FB1 in Arabidopsis.⁹ In this case, it will be important to define how the early ROS that are DPI-insensitive could contribute to the PCD manifestation mediated by sphinganine.The generation of ROS (4–60 min) found in Arabidopsis was associated to three conditions: the addition of sphinganine (Fig. 1A), FB1 (Fig. 1A) or pathogen elicitors.¹⁵ This is consistent with the MPK6 activation time, which is downstream of sphinganine elevation and occurs as early as 15 min of FB1 or sphinganine exposure.² All of them are events that appear as initial steps in the relay pathway that produces PCD.In order to explore a possible participation of ROS at more advanced times of PCD progression, we detected in situ H₂O₂ formation in Arabidopsis seedlings previously exposed to FB1 for 48 h. As shown in Figure 1B, formation of the brown-reddish precipitate corresponding to the reaction of H₂O₂ with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) was only visible in the FB1-exposed wild type plants, as compared to the non-treated plants. However, when lcb2a-1 mutant seedlings were used, FB1 exposure had a subtle effect in ROS formation. This mutant has a T-DNA insertion in the gene encoding subunit LCB2a from serine palmitoyltransferase (SPT), which catalyzes the first step in sphingolipid synthesis¹⁸ and the mutant has a FB1-resistant phenotype.² These results indicate that mutations in the LCB1¹ and LCB2a² genes (coding for the subunits of the heterodimeric SPT) that lead to a non-PCD phenotype upon the FB1 treatment, are unable to produce H₂O₂. In addition, they suggest that high levels of hydrogen peroxide are produced at advanced times in the PCD mediated by LCBs in Arabidopsis.Exposure of Arabidopsis to an avirulent strain of Pseudomonas syringae produces an endogenous elevation of LCBs as a way to implement defense responses that include HR-PCD.³ In this condition, we clearly detected H₂O₂ formation inside chloroplasts (Fig. 2A). When ultrastructure of the seedlings tissues exposed to FB1 for 72 h was analyzed, integrity of the chloroplast membrane system was severely affected in Arabidopsis wild-type seedlings exposed to FB1.² Therefore, we suggest that ROS generation-LCB induced in the chloroplast could be responsible of the observed membrane alteration, as noted by Liu et al. who found impairment in chloroplast function as a result of H₂O₂ formation in this organelle from tobacco plants. Interestingly, these plants overexpressed a MAP kinase kinase that activated the kinase SIPK, which is the ortholog of the MPK6 from Arabidopsis, a transducer in the PCD instrumented by LCBs.²Open in a separate windowFigure 2Conditions of LCBs elevation produce H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast and perturbation in the membrane morphology of mitochondria. (A) Exposure of Arabidopsis leaves to the avirulent strain Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (avrRPM1) (or Pst avrRPM1) induces H₂O₂ formation in the chloroplast. Arabidopsis leaves were infiltrated with 1 × 10⁸ UFC/ml Pst avrRPM1 and after 18 h, samples were treated to visualize H₂O₂ formation with the DAB reaction. Controls were infiltrated with 10 mM MgCl₂ and then processed for DAB staining. Then, samples were analyzed in an optical photomicroscope Olympus Provis Model AX70. (B) Effect of FB1 on mitochondria ultrastructure. Wild type Arabidopsis seedlings were treated with FB1 for 72 h and tissues were processed and analyzed according to Saucedo et al.² Ch, chloroplast; M, mitochondria; PM, plasma membrane. Arrows show mitochondrial cisternae. Bars show the correspondent magnification.In addition, we have detected alterations in mitochondria ultrastructure as a result of 72 h of FB1 exposure (Fig. 2B). These alterations mainly consist in the reduced number of cristae, the membrane site of residence of the electron transport complexes. In this sense, it has been shown that factors that induce PCD such as the victorin toxin, methyl jasmonate and H₂O₂ produce alterations in mitochondrial morphology.^20–22 In fact, some of these studies propose that ROS are formed in the mitochondria and then diffuse to the chloroplasts.^22–24It is reasonable to envisage that damage of the membrane integrity of these two organelles reflects the effects of vast amounts of ROS produced by the electron transport chains.^25,26 Recent evidence supports the destruction of the photosynthetic apparatus associated to the generation of ROS in the HR.²⁶ At this time of PCD progression, ROS could be contributing to shut down the energy machinery in the cell, which ultimately would become the point of no-return of PCD²⁷ as part of the execution program of the cell death mediated by LCBs.In conclusion, we propose that ROS can display two different functional roles in the PCD process driven by LCBs. These roles depend on the time of ROS expression, the cellular site where they are generated, the enzymes that produce them, and the magnitude in which they are formed.     

A new callose function: Involvement in differentiation and function of fern stomatal complexes

Callose in polypodiaceous ferns performs multiple roles during stomatal development and function. This highly dynamic (1→3)-β-D-glucan, in cooperation with the cytoskeleton, is involved in: (a) stomatal pore formation, (b) deposition of local GC wall thickenings and (c) the mechanism of stomatal pore opening and closure. This behavior of callose, among others, probably relies on the particular mechanical properties as well as on the ability to form and degrade rapidly, to create a scaffold or to serve as a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials and to produce fibrillar deposits in the periclinal GC walls, radially arranged around the stomatal pore. The local callose deposition in closing stomata is an immediate response of the external periclinal GC walls experiencing strong mechanical forces induced by the neighboring cells. The radial callose fibrils transiently co-exist with radial cellulose microfibrils and, like the latter, seem to be oriented via cortical MTs.Key words: callose, cytoskeleton, fern stomata, guard cell wall thickening, stomatal function, stomatal pore formationCallose represents a hemicellulosic matrix cell wall component, usually of temporal appearance, which is synthesized by callose synthases, enzymes localized in the plasmalemma and degraded by (1→3)-β-glucanases.^1–4 It consists of triple helices of a linear homopolymer of (1→3)-β-glucose residues.^5–7 The plant cell is able to form and degrade callose in a short time. On the surface of the plasmolyzed protoplast a thin callose surface film may arise within seconds.⁸ Callose is the only cell wall component that is implicated in a great variety of developmental plant processes, like cell plate formation,^9–11 microspore development,^12–14 trafficking through plasmodesmata,^15,16 formation and closure of sieve pores,¹⁶ response of the plant cells to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses,^4,5 establishment of distinct “cell cortex domains”,¹⁷ etc.Despite the widespread occurrence of callose, its general function(s) is (are) not well understood (reviewed in refs. ⁴ and ⁵). It may serve as: a matrix for deposition of other cell wall materials, as in developing cell plates;⁹ a cell wall-strengthening material, as in cotton seed hairs and growing pollen tubes;¹⁸ a sealing or plugging material at the plasma membrane of pit fields, plasmodesmata and sieve plate pores;¹⁶ a mechanical obstruction to growth of fungal hyphae or a special permeability barrier, as in pollen mother cell walls and muskmelon endosperm envelopes.^4,19,20 The degree of polymerization, age and thickness of callose deposits may cause variation in its physical properties.⁵Evidence accumulated so far showed that a significant number of ferns belonging to Polypodiales and some other fern classes forms intense callose deposits in the developing GC wall thickenings.^21–28 This phenomenon has not been observed in angiosperm stomata, although callose is deposited along the whole surface of the young VW and in the VW ends of differentiating and mature stomata (our unpublished data; reviewed in refs ²⁹ and ³⁰).Stomata are specialized epidermal bicellular structures (Fig. 1A) regulating gas exchange between the aerial plant organs and the external environment. Their appearance in the first land plants was crucial for their adaptation and survival in the terrestrial environment. The constituent GCs have the ability to undergo reversible changes in shape, leading to opening and closure of the stomatal pore (stomatal movement). The mechanism by which GCs change shape is based on: (a) the particular mechanical properties of GC walls owed to their particular shape, thickening, fine structure and chemical composition and (b) the reversible changes in vacuole volume, in response to environmental factors, through fairly complicated biochemical pathways.^30–33Open in a separate windowFigure 1(A) Diagrammatic representation of an elliptical stoma. (B–E) Diagram to show the process of stomatal pore formation in angiosperms (B and C) and Polypodiales ferns (D and E). The arrows in (B) indicate the forming stomatal pore. DW, dorsal wall; EPW, external periclinal wall; GC, guard cell; IPW, internal periclinal wall; ISP, internal stomatal pore; PE polar ventral wall end; VW, ventral wall.The present review is focused on the multiple-role of callose in differentiating and functioning fern stomata, as they are substantiated by the available information, including some unpublished data, and in particular in: stomatal pore formation, deposition of GC wall thickenings and opening and closure of the stomatal pore. The mode of deposition of fibrillar callose deposits in GC walls and the mechanism of their alignment are also considered.     

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     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

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

Protein Misfolding and the Serpinopathies

The serpins are the largest superfamily of protease inhibitors. They are found in almost all branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. They inhibit their target protease by a unique mechanism that involves a large conformational transition and the translocation of the enzyme from the upper to the lower pole of the protein. This complex mechanism, and the involvement of serpins in important biological regulatory processes, makes them prone to mutation-related diseases. For example the polymerization of mutant α₁-antitrypsin leads to the accumulation of ordered polymers within the endoplasmic reticulum of hepatocytes in association with cirrhosis. An identical process in the neuron specific serpin, neuroserpin, results in the accumulation of polymers in neurons and the dementia FENIB. In both cases there is a clear correlation between the molecular instability, the rate of polymer formation and the severity of disease. A similar process underlies the hepatic retention and plasma deficiency of antithrombin, C1 inhibitor, α₁-antichymotrypsin and heparin co-factor II. The common mechanism of polymerization has allowed us to group these conditions together as a novel class of disease, the serpinopathies.Key Words: serpins, α1-antitrypsin, neuroserpin, polymerization, dementia, conformational disease, serpinopathiesSerpins (or serine protease inhibitors) are the largest family of protease inhibitors. They have been found in all major branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes.^1–3 Despite their name there is increasing evidence that serpins can also inhibit other classes of proteases as demonstrated by the viral serpin CrmA and recently by a plant serpin, serpin1.^4,5 They can even play a non-inhibitory role in events as diverse as blood pressure regulation (angiotensinogen), chromatin condensation (MENT), tumor progression (maspin), protein folding (hsp47) and hormone transport (cortisol and thyroxine binding globulin).⁶One of the most important roles of serpins is the regulation of enzymes involved in proteolytic cascades. Among these serpins are α₁-antitrypsin, α₁-antichymotrypsin, C1 inhibitor, antithrombin and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, which play an important role in the control of proteases involved in the inflammatory, complement, coagulation and fibrinolytic pathways, respectively.^1,3 The serpin superfamily is characterised by more than 30% homology with the archetypal serpin α₁-antitrypsin and conservation of tertiary structure.^7,8 Serpins adopt a metastable conformation composed in most cases of 9 α-helices, three β-sheet (A to C) and an exposed mobile reactive centre loop (RCL). This flexible RCL typically contains 20 residues that act as a pseudo substrate for the target protease (Fig. 1A).^9–15 After formation of a Michaelis complex^16,17 the enzyme cleaves the P1-P1′ bond of the serpin, releasing the P1'' residue and forming an ester bond between the protease and the serpin.^18,19 This is then followed by a dramatic conformational transition from a stressed to relaxed conformation with the enzyme being pulled from the upper to the lower pole of the serpin and the insertion of the reactive loop as an extra strand in β-sheet A.^20–25 As a consequence of this conformational change the thermal stability of the serpin is greatly enhanced. Whereas a typical serpin in its native state exhibits a midpoint of thermal denaturation of around 50–60°C, a cleaved serpin with its RCL fully incorporated into β-sheet A denatures at temperatures >120°C.^9,26,27 Another consequence is the inactivation of the enzyme, stabilised at the acyl-intermediate and unable to proceed further to deacylation of the complex.^24,28 This serpin-protease complex then binds to members of the lipoprotein receptor family and is cleared from the circulation.^29–31Open in a separate windowFigure 1Inhibition of neutrophil elastase by α₁-antitrypsin and the structural basis of polymerization. (A) After docking (left) the neutrophil elastase (grey) is inactivated by movement from the upper to the lower pole of the protein (right). This is associated with the insertion of the RCL (red) as an extra strand into β-sheet A (green). (B) The structure of α₁-antitrypsin is centred on β-sheet A (green) and the mobile reactive centre loop (red). Polymer formation results from the Z variant of α₁-antitrypsin (Glu342Lys at P17; indicated by arrow) or mutations in the shutter domain (blue circle) that open β-sheet A to favour partial loop insertion and the formation of an unstable intermediate (M*). The patent β-sheet A then accepts the loop of another molecule to form a dimer (D), which then extends into polymers (P). The individual molecules of α₁-antitrypsin within the polymer, although identical, are coloured red, yellow and blue for clarity. Figure reproduced with permission from Lomas et al.⁹⁷Despite the evolutionary advantage conferred upon serpins by the remarkable mobility of the native state, their complexity is also their weak point.^19,32 Mutations affecting the serpins can lead to a variety of diseases, resulting from either a gain or loss of function.^6,19 For example mutations can cause aberrant conformational transitions that result in the retention of the serpin within the cell of synthesis. This will lead to either protein overload and death of the cell in which the serpin is synthesised, or disease as a consequence of the resulting plasma deficiency. Such a mechanism underlies diseases as diverse as cirrhosis, thrombosis, angio-oedema, emphysema and dementia. We review here the common mechanism underlying these diseases that we have grouped together as the serpinopathies.^33–35 The aggregation and accumulation of conformationally destabilized proteins is an important feature of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer''s and Parkinson''s disease and the spongiform encephalopathies. Indeed we have used the serpinopathies as a paradigm for these other ‘conformational diseases’.³⁶     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

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