Ethylene-Stimulated Nutations Do Not Require ETR1 Receptor Histidine Kinase Activity

Ethylene influences the growth and development of plants through the action of receptors that have homology to bacterial two-component receptors. In bacteria these receptors function via autophosphorylation of a His residue in the kinase domain followed by phosphotransfer to a conserved Asp residue in a response regulator protein. In Arabidopsis, two of the five receptor isoforms are capable of His kinase activity. However, the role of His kinase activity and phosphotransfer is unclear in ethylene signaling. A previous study showed that ethylene stimulates nutations of the hypocotyl in etiolated Arabidopsis seedlings that are dependent on the ETR1 receptor isoform. The ETR1 receptor is the only isoform in Arabidopsis that contains both a functional His kinase domain and a receiver domain for phosphotransfer. Therefore, we examined the role that ETR1 His kinase activity and phosphotransfer plays in ethylene-stimulated nutations.Key Words: ethylene, nutations, signal transduction, receptors, histidine kinase, phosphotransfer, two component signallingThe gaseous plant hormone ethylene has a role in a variety of physiological events in higher plants such as seed germination, abscission, senescence, fruit ripening, and growth regulation.¹ In etiolated Arabidopsis seedlings, ethylene causes reduced growth of the hypocotyl and root, increased radial expansion of the hypocotyl, and increased tightening of the apical hook.^2,3Previous studies have identified components in the ethylene signaling pathway and led to an inverse-agonist model for signal transduction.^4,5 According to this model, responses to ethylene are mediated by a family of five receptors (ETR1, ERS1, ETR2, EIN4, ERS2) in Arabidopsis that have homology to bacterial two-component receptors.^6–9 In bacterial systems, two-component receptors transduce signal via the autophosphorylation of a His residue in the kinase domain, followed by the transfer of phosphate to a conserved Asp residue in the receiver domain of a response regulator protein.¹⁰ The ethylene receptors of plants can be divided into two subfamilies based on sequence homology in the ethylene-binding domains.¹¹ ETR1 and ERS1 belong to subfamily I, contain all amino acid residues needed for His kinase activity,^6,12 and show His kinase activity in vitro.^13,14 ETR2, EIN4, and ERS2 belong to subfamily II, contain degenerate His kinase domains^7,9 and have Ser/Thr kinase activity in vitro.¹⁴ ERS1 shows both His and Ser/Thr kinase activities in vitro depending on the assay conditions used.¹⁴ While the kinase domain of ETR1 appears to be required for signaling,¹⁵ kinase activity is not.^15–17 It is unclear whether or not histidine kinase activity is involved in ethylene signaling, although, this activity might be involved in growth recovery after ethylene removal.¹⁷Recently, high-resolution, time-lapse imaging revealed that prolonged treatment with ethylene stimulates nutational bending of etiolated Arabidopsis hypocotyls.¹⁸ Nutations are oscillatory bending movements caused by localized differential growth¹⁹ that were originally termed “circumnutations”.²⁰ Nutations have been posited to be important for seedlings to penetrate through the soil²⁰ and thus could be critical for seedling survival. In support of this hypothesis, nutations of rice roots have been reported to increase soil penetration.²¹Mutational analysis revealed that many of the known ethylene signaling components including CTR1, EIN2, EIN3 and EIL1 are involved in signaling leading to ethylene-stimulated nutations.¹⁸ Surprisingly, loss-of-function mutations in ETR1 eliminated ethylene-stimulated nutations while combinatorial loss-of-function mutations in the other four receptor isoforms led to constitutive nutations in air.¹⁸ These results support a model where all the receptors are involved in ethylene-stimulated nutations but the ETR1 receptor is required for and has a contrasting role from the other receptor isoforms in this nutation phenotype. Since the ETR1 receptor is the only receptor isoform that contains both a functional His-kinase domain and a receiver domain,^6,13,14 the roles of His kinase activity and phosphorelay in the nutation phenotype were examined in the current study.Previous work showed that the nutation phenotype in etr1-7 loss-of-function mutants could be rescued with a wild-type, genomic ETR1 transgene.¹⁸ Etr1-7 mutants transformed with a kinase-inactivated genomic ETR1 transgene (gETR1 (G₂)) where the two conserved glycines in the G₂ box of the histidine kinase domain (G545, G547) were changed to alanines were examined to determine if ETR1 His kinase activity is required for ethylene-stimulated nutations. This construct lacks histidine autophosphorylation in vitro.²² Figure 1 shows that ethylene stimulates nutations in etr1-7 gETR1(G₂) seedlings. The period of these nutations was 4.7 ± 1.5 h which is similar to values obtained previously for wild-type seedlings (4.7 ± 1h) and somewhat longer than etr1-7 seedlings transformed with wild-type, genomic ETR1 (3.2 ± 0.6 h). However, the amplitude of these nutations (3.7 ± 1.0°) was approximately half that of nutations previously observed in wild-type seedlings (9.1 ± 6.0°) as well as etr1-7 seedlings transformed with wild-type, genomic ETR1 (8.2 ± 3.6°). This suggests that ETR1 histidine kinase activity is not required for ethylene-stimulated nutations but might have a role in modulating nutation amplitudes.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Ethylene stimulates nutations of etr1-7 seedlings transformed with a kinase-inactivated ETR1 transgene. The hypocotyl angles for four etr1-7 mutants transformed with a kinase-inactivated genomic ETR1 transgene (gETR1(G₂)) are shown. Transformants were obtained from Eric Schaller and have been described previously.²² In this and the following figure, etiolated Arabidopsis seedlings were imaged from the side at 15 min intervals while growing along a vertically orientated agar plate and the hypocotyl angle measured as described previously.¹⁸ Black and gray lines are used to help distinguish the movements of individual seedlings. All seedlings were grown in the presence of 5 µM AVG to block biosynthesis of ethylene by the seedlings. Seedlings were grown in air for 2 h prior to treatment with 10 µL L⁻¹ ethylene (Open in a separate window).To determine whether phosphotransfer through the receiver domain of ETR1 is required for the nutation phenotype, seedlings deficient in ethylene receptor isoforms containing a receiver domain (ETR1, ETR2, EIN4) were transformed with a mutant ETR1 transgene lacking the conserved Asp₆₅₉ required for phosphotransfer (getr1-[D]). Previous work showed that etr1-6 etr2-3 ein4-4 triple loss-of-function mutant seedlings failed to nutate and this nutation phenotype could be rescued when these mutants were transformed with wild-type, genomic ETR1 transgene.¹⁸ Similarly, transformation of the etr1-6 etr2-3 ein4-4 triple mutants with getr1-[D] rescued the nutation phenotype in most seedlings observed (Fig. 2). However, some seedlings (four of the eleven observed) failed to nutate. The reason for this variable rescue is unclear but could reflect differences in expression levels of the mutant transgene in individual plants. Alternatively, this variable rescue could reflect functional differences between the mutant and wild-type transgene suggesting a modulating role for phosphotransfer through the receiver domain of ETR1. Two independent lines were observed with similar results. Of those that did nutate, the period of nutations was 5.0 ± 1.2 h and the amplitude 7.6 ± 3.8° which is similar to values obtained previously for wild-type plants as well as plants transformed with a wild-type, genomic ETR1 transgene.¹⁸Open in a separate windowFigure 2Ethylene stimulates nutations of etr1-6 etr2-3 ein4-4 seedlings transformed with an ETR1 transgene mutated at Asp₆₅₉. The hypocotyl angles from seven etr1-6 etr2-3 ein4-4 triple mutants transformed with an ETR1 transgene mutated at Asp₆₅₉ (getr1[D]) are shown in two panels. One seedling in (A) (black) had no measurable nutations while one in (B) (black) had very small nutations.Conclusions from this and the previous study are that the ETR1 receptor has a unique role in ethylene-stimulated nutations. However, this role does not require either histidine kinase activity or phosphotransfer through the receiver domain of ETR1.     

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.     

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     

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     

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     

The TRPA1 channel and oral hypoglycemic agents

Diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) results from the combination of insulin unresponsiveness in target tissues and the failure of pancreatic β cells to secrete enough insulin.¹ It is a highly prevalent chronic disease that is aggravated with time, leading to major complications, such as cardiovascular disease and peripheral and ocular neuropathies.² Interestingly, therapies to improve glucose homeostasis in diabetic patients usually involve the use of glibenclamide, an oral hypoglycemic drug that blocks ATP-sensitive K⁺ channels (K_ATP),^3,4 forcing β cells to release more insulin to overcome peripheral insulin resistance. However, sulfonylureas are ineffective for long-term treatments and ultimately result in the administration of insulin to control glucose levels.⁵ The mechanisms underlying β-cell failure to respond effectively with glibenclamide after long-term treatments still needs clarification. A recent study demonstrating that this drug activates TRPA1,⁶ a member of the Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) family of ion channels and a functional protein in insulin secreting cells,^7,8 has highlighted a possible role for TRPA1 as a potential mediator of sulfonylurea-induced toxicity.     

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