Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

ARF-GTPase as a Molecular Switch for Polar Auxin Transport Mediated by Vesicle Trafficking in Root Development

Polar auxin transport (PAT), which is controlled precisely by both auxin efflux and influx facilitators and mediated by the cell trafficking system, modulates organogenesis, development and root gravitropism. ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF)-GTPase protein is catalyzed to switch to the GTP-bound type by a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) and promoted for hybridization to the GDP-bound type by a GTPase-activating protein (GAP). Previous studies showed that auxin efflux facilitators such as PIN1 are regulated by GNOM, an ARF-GEF, in Arabidopsis. In the November issue of The Plant Journal, we reported that the auxin influx facilitator AUX1 was regulated by ARF-GAP via the vesicle trafficking system.¹ In this addendum, we report that overexpression of OsAGAP leads to enhanced root gravitropism and propose a new model of PAT regulation: a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by vesicle trafficking to regulate PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, thus controlling root development in plants.Key Words: ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF), ARF-GAP, ARF-GEF, auxin, GNOM, polar transport of auxinPolar auxin transport (PAT) is a unique process in plants. It results in alteration of auxin level, which controls organogenesis and development and a series of physiological processes, such as vascular differentiation, apical dominance, and tropic growth.² Genetic and physiological studies identified that PAT depends on efflux facilitators such as PIN family proteins and influx facilitators such as AUX1 in Arabidopsis.Eight PIN family proteins, AtPIN1 to AtPIN8, exist in Arabidopsis. AtPIN1 is located at the basal side of the plasma membrane in vascular tissues but is weak in cortical tissues, which supports the hypothesis of chemical pervasion.³ AtPIN2 is localized at the apical side of epidermal cells and basally in cortical cells.^1,4 GNOM, an ARF GEF, modulates the localization of PIN1 and vesicle trafficking and affects root development.^5,6 The PIN auxin-efflux facilitator network controls root growth and patterning in Arabidopsis.⁴ As well, asymmetric localization of AUX1 occurs in the root cells of Arabidopsis plants,⁷ and overexpression of OsAGAP interferes with localization of AUX1.¹ Our data support that ARF-GAP mediates auxin influx and auxin-dependent root growth and patterning, which involves vesicle trafficking.¹ Here we show that OsAGAP overexpression leads to enhanced gravitropic response in transgenic rice plants. We propose a model whereby ARF GTPase is a molecular switch to control PAT and root growth and development.Overexpression of OsAGAP led to reduced growth in primary or adventitious roots of rice as compared with wild-type rice.¹ Gravitropism assay revealed transgenic rice overxpressing OsAGAP with a faster response to gravity than the wild type during 24-h treatment. However, 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA) treatment promoted the gravitropic response of the wild type, with no difference in response between the OsAGAP transgenic plants and the wild type plants (Fig. 1). The phenotype of enhanced gravitropic response in the transgenic plants was similar to that in the mutants atmdr1-100 and atmdr1-100/atpgp1-100 related to Arabidopsis ABC (ATP-binding cassette) transporter and defective in PAT.⁸ The physiological data, as well as data on localization of auxin transport facilitators, support ARF-GAP modulating PAT via regulating the location of the auxin influx facilitator AUX1.¹ So the alteration in gravitropic response in the OsAGAP transgenic plants was explained by a defect in PAT.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Gravitropism of OsAGAP overexpressing transgenic rice roots and response to 1-naphthyl acetic acid (NAA). (A) Gravitropism phenotype of wild type (WT) and OsAGAP overexpressing roots at 6 hr gravi-stimulation (top panel) and 0 hr as a treatment control (bottom panel). (B) Time course of gravitropic response in transgenic roots. (C and D) results correspond to those in (A and B), except for treatment with NAA (5 × 10⁻⁷ M).The polarity of auxin transport is controlled by the asymmetric distribution of auxin transport proteins, efflux facilitators and influx carriers. ARF GTPase is a key member in vesicle trafficking system and modulates cell polarity and PAT in plants. Thus, ARF-GDP or GTP bound with GEF or GAP determines the ARF function on auxin efflux facilitators (such as PIN1) or influx ones (such as AUX1).ARF1, targeting ROP2 and PIN2, affects epidermal cell polarity.⁹ GNOM is involved in the regulation of PIN1 asymmetric localization in cells and its related function in organogenesis and development.⁶ Although VAN3, an ARF-GAP in Arabidopsis, is located in a subpopulation of the trans-Golgi transport network (TGN), which is involved in leaf vascular network formation, it does not affect PAT.¹⁰ OsAGAP possesses an ARF GTPase-activating function in rice.¹¹ Specifically, our evidence supports that ARF-GAP bound with ARF-GTP modulates PAT and gravitropism via AUX1, mediated by vesicle trafficking, including the Golgi stack.¹Therefore, we propose a loop mechanism between ARF-GAP and GEF mediated by the vascular trafficking system in regulating PAT at influx and efflux facilitators, which controls root development and gravitropism in plants (Fig. 2). Here we emphasize that ARF-GEF catalyzes a conversion of ARF-bound GDP to GTP, which is necessary for the efficient delivery of the vesicle to the target membrane.¹² An opposite process of ARF-bound GDP to GTP is promoted by ARF-GTPase-activating protein via binding. A loop status of ARF-GTP and ARF-GDP bound with their appurtenances controls different auxin facilitators and regulates root development and gravitropism.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model for ARF GTPase as a molecular switch for the polar auxin transport mediated by the vesicle traffic system.     

Flowering time regulation by the SUMO E3 ligase SIZ1

Flowering is a developmental process, which is influenced by chemical and environmental stimuli. Recently, our research established that the Arabidopsis SUMO E3 ligase, AtSIZ1, is a negative regulator of transition to flowering through mechanisms that reduce salicylic acid (SA) accumulation and involve SUMO modification of FLOWERING LOCUS D (FLD). FLD is an autonomous pathway determinant that represses the expression of FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC), a floral repressor. This addendum postulates mechanisms by which SIZ1-mediated SUMO conjugation regulates SA accumulation and FLD activity.Key words: SIZ1, SA, flowering, SUMO, FLD, FLCSUMO conjugation and deconjugation are post-translational processes implicated in plant defense against pathogens, abscisic acid (ABA) and phosphate (Pi) starvation signaling, development, and drought and temperature stress tolerance, albeit only a few of the modified proteins have been identified.^1–8 The Arabidopsis AtSIZ1 locus encodes a SUMO E3 ligase that regulates floral transition and leaf development.^8,9 siz1 plants accumulate substantial levels of SA, which is the primary cause for dwarfism and early short-day flowering exhibited by these plants.^1,9 How SA promotes transition to flowering is not yet known but apparently, it is through a mechanism that is independent of the known floral signaling pathways.^9,10 Exogenous SA reduces expression of AGAMOUS-like 15 (AGL15), a floral repressor that functions redundantly with AGL18.^11,12 A possible mechanism by which SA promotes transition to flowering may be by repressing expression of AGL15 and AGL18 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model of how SUMO conjugation and deconjugation regulate plant development in Arabidopsis. SIZ1 and Avr proteins regulate biosynthesis and accumulation of SA, a plant stress hormone that is involved in plant innate immunity, leaf development and regulation of flowering time. SA promotes transition to flowering may through AGL15/AGL18 dependent and independent pathways. FLC expression is activated by FRIGIDA but repressed by the autonomous pathway gene FLD, and SIZ1-mediated sumoylation of FLD represses its activity. Lines with arrows indicate upregulation (activation), and those with bars identify downregulation (repression).siz1 mutations also cause constitutive induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes leading to enhanced resistance against biotrophic pathogens.¹ Several bacterial type III effector proteins, such as YopJ, XopD and AvrXv4, have SUMO isopeptidase activity.^13–15 PopP2, a member of YopJ/AvrRxv bacterial type III effector protein family, physically interacts with the TIR-NBS-LRR type R protein RRS1, and possibly stabilizes the RRS1 protein.¹⁶ Phytopathogen effector and plant R protein interactions lead to increased SA biosynthesis and accumulation, which in turn activates expression of pathogenesis-related proteins that facilitate plant defense.¹⁷ SIZ1 may participate in SUMO conjugation of plant R proteins to regulate Avr and R protein interactions leading to SA accumulation, which, in turn, affects phenotypes such as diseases resistance, dwarfism and flowering time (Fig. 1).Our recent work revealed also that AtSIZ1 facilitates FLC expression, negatively regulating flowering.⁹ AtSIZ1 promotes FLC expression by repressing FLD activity.⁹ Site-specific mutations that prevent SUMO1/2 conjugation to FLD result in enhanced activity of the protein to represses FLC expression, which is associated with reduced acetylation of histone 4 (H4) in FLC chromatin.⁹ FLD, an Arabidopsis ortholog of Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 (LSD1), is a floral activator that downregulates methylation of H3K4 in FLC chromatin and represses FLC expression.^18,19 Interestingly, bacteria expressing recombinant FLD protein did not demethylate H3K4me2, inferring that the demethylase activity requires additional co-factors as are necessary for LSD1.^18,20 Together, these results suggest that SIZ1-mediated SUMO modification of FLD may affect interactions between FLD and co-factors, which is necessary for FLC chromatin modification.Despite our results that implicate SA in flowering time control, how SIZ1 regulates SA accumulation and the identity of the effectors involved remain to be discovered. In addition, it remains to be determined if SIZ1 is involved in other mechanisms that modulate FLD activity and FLC expression, or the function of other autonomous pathway determinants.     

The galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG) contributes to photosynthesis-related processes in Arabidopsis thaliana

Processes putatively dependent on the galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG) were recently studied using the knockdown monogalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (mgd1-1) mutant (∼40% reduction in MGDG). Surprisingly, targeting of chloroplast proteins was not affected in mgd1-1 mutants, suggesting they retain sufficient MGDG to maintain efficient targeting. However, in dark-grown mgd1-1 plants the photoactive to photoinactive protochlorophyllide (Pchlide) ratio was increased, suggesting that photoprotective responses are induced in them. Nevertheless, mgd1-1 could not withstand high light intensities, apparently due to impairment of another photoprotective mechanism, the xanthophyll cycle (and hence thermal dissipation). This was mediated by increased conductivity of the thylakoid membrane leading to a higher pH in the thylakoid interior, which impaired the pH-dependent activation of violaxanthin de-epoxidase (VDE) and PsbS. These findings suggest that MGDG contribute directly to the regulation of photosynthesis-related processes.Key words: conductivity, galactolipid, light stress, photosynthesis, plastid, xanthophyllThe galactolipid monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG), the major lipid in plastids,¹ is mainly synthesised in inner plastid envelopes,² where monogalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (MGD1) catalyses the last step of its production.³ Two MGDG-deficient mutants are known: the knockdown mgd1-1 mutant, which accumulates ∼40% less MGDG than wild type,⁴ and the null mutant mgd1-2, which displays extremely severe defects in chloroplast and plant development.⁵ Thus, the mgd1-1 mutant is more suitable for assessing putative roles of MGDG in processes such as protein targeting and photoprotection.There are conflicting indications regarding the involvement of galactolipids in chloroplast protein targeting: some suggest they play an important role,^6–10 but not all.^11,12 The data recently collected for mgd1-1 do not support MGDG''s involvement in protein targeting, since (inter alia) the level of MGDG in mgd1-1 mutants is clearly sufficient for efficient targeting.¹³ Further, the galactolipid associated with the TOC complex¹² is digalactosyldiacylglycerol (DGDG) and the digalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase 1 (dgd1) mutant,¹⁴ which has ∼10% of wild-type levels of DGDG, has impaired import efficiency.^15,16 Hence, this may indicate that DGDG is relatively more important for chloroplast import than MGDG.The prolamellar bodies (PLBs) of etioplasts have high lipid-to-protein ratios compared to thylakoids. Their major lipid and protein are MGDG and NADPH:Pchlide oxidoreductase (POR), respectively,¹⁷ and MGDG putatively plays an important role, interactively with POR, in the formation of PLBs.^18–20 The transformation of PLBs into thylakoids involves phototransformation of photoactive Pchlide (F656), a precursor of chlorophyll. Non-photoactive Pchlide (F631) is susceptible to photooxidative damage, but POR is believed to suppress this.^21,22 After excitation at 440 nm, mgd1-1 mutants display distinctly higher fluorescence emission peaks corresponding to photoactive Pchlide than wild type counterparts and (hence) higher photoactive:non-photoactive Pchlide ratios.¹³ These changes may be photoprotective responses that favour formation of photoactive Pchlide and optimize the plants'' opportunities to use light for chlorophyll production, enabling the transformation of etioplasts into chloroplasts.Interestingly,the xanthophyll cycle, another photoprotective mechanism, is impaired in mgd1-1.¹³ Normally, the xanthophyll cycle pigment violaxanthin is de-epoxidized into antheraxanthin, and then into zeaxanthin, by the enzyme VDE (Fig. 1), which is dependent on MGDG.²³ MGDG is also an integral component of photosynthetic complexes.^24–26 Thus, since mgd1-1 mutants have reduced total amounts of xanthophyll and chlorophyll pigments, but increased chlorophyll a/b ratios, their photosynthesis capacity is unsurprisingly reduced, even though the organization of their electron transport chains is not strongly affected by the MGDG deficiency.¹³Open in a separate windowFigure 1Reactions of the xanthophyll cycle (adapted from ref. ²⁹). VDE, violaxanthin de-epoxidase; ZE, zeaxanthin epoxidase.During short-term high light stress, antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin are thought to facilitate dissipation of excess light energy in the PSII antenna bed by non-photochemical quenching.^27,28 Upon high light stress the pH decreases, triggering photoprotective mechanisms via changes in the PSII antenna system. The PsbS protein, which is involved in thermal dissipation, is protonated and initiates a conformational change in the PSII antenna bed. This change is further stabilized by the de-epoxidation of violaxanthin to zeaxanthin by the luminal VDE.²⁸ However, the thermal dissipation is impaired in mgd1-1 mutants at high light intensities (>1000 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) making them more susceptible to light stress. Surprisingly, this is not mediated by direct effects on VDE and PsbS activities, but by changes in the proton conductivity of the thylakoid membrane.¹³The steady-state capacity of the xanthophyll cycle is reduced in mgd1-1 mutants, due to a ∼40% reduction in the proton motive force (pmf) across their thylakoid membranes, indicating that they have impaired capacities to energize these membranes. Nevertheless, the pmf is more or less equal to wild type under light-limited conditions (200 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹ light); it is only the increase in pmf in high light intensities that is impaired in the mutants.¹³ This leads to the thylakoid lumen being less acidic in mgd1-1 than in wild type, hampering full activation of VDE and PsbS. Thus, the thylakoid lumen pH is above the threshold level required for full activation of PsbS and VDE under steady-state conditions and so de-epoxidation rates are retarded and the equilibrium between zeaxanthin and violaxanthin starts to shift slightly towards violaxanthin (Fig. 2).¹³ Thus, increased conductivity of the thylakoid membranes is probably responsible for the diminished non-photochemical quenching in mgd1-1, and the findings strongly indicate that MGDG is required for efficient photosynthesis and photoprotection, in addition to being a physical membrane constituent.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic diagram illustrating the normal mode of action of the xanthophyll cycle. In standard light conditions, V is bound to the photosynthetic complexes and harvests light. In strong light, V is released from the complexes and converted to Z by VDE, which is unable to access V when it is associated with the photosynthetic complexes. The newly formed Z then binds to the photosynthetic complexes (at the PsbS protein), where it dissipates excess energy through NPQ. V, violaxanthin; A, antheraxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin; VDE, violaxanthin de-epoxidase; ZE, zeaxanthin epoxidase. Arrows indicate the directions of reactions.     

Leaf carbohydrate metabolism during defense: Intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes do not compensate repression of cell wall invertase

The significance of cell wall invertase (cwINV) for plant defense was investigated by comparing wild type (wt) tobacco Nicotiana tabacum L. Samsun NN (SNN) with plants with RNA interference-mediated repression of cwINV (SNN::cwINV) during the interaction with the oomycetic phytopathogen Phytophthora nicotianae. We have previously shown that the transgenic plants developed normally under standard growth conditions, but exhibited weaker defense reactions in infected source leaves and were less tolerant to the pathogen. Here, we show that repression of cwINV was not accompanied by any compensatory activities of intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes such as vacuolar and alkaline/neutral invertases or sucrose synthase (SUSY), neither in uninfected controls nor during infection. In wt source leaves vacuolar invertase did not respond to infection, and the activity of alkaline/neutral invertases increased only slightly. SUSY however, was distinctly stimulated, in parallel to enhanced cwINV. In SNN::cwINV SUSY-activation was largely repressed upon infection. SUSY may serve to allocate sucrose into callose deposition and other carbohydrate-consuming defense reactions. Its activity, however, seems to be directly affected by cwINV and the related reflux of carbohydrates from the apoplast into the mesophyll cells.Key words: cell wall invertase, apoplastic invertase, alkaline invertase, neutral invertase, sucrose synthase, plant defense, Nicotiana tabacum, Phytophthora nicotianaePlant defense against pathogens is costly in terms of energy and carbohydrates.^1,2 Sucrose (Suc) and its cleavage products glucose and fructose are central molecules for metabolism and sensing in higher plants (reviewed in refs. ³ and ⁴). Rapid mobilization of these carbohydrates seems to be an important factor determining the outcome of plant-pathogen interactions. In particular in source cells reprogramming of the carbon flow from Suc to hexoses may be a crucial process during defense.^1,2There are two alternative routes of sucrolytic carbohydrate mobilization. One route is reversible and involves an uridine 5′-diphosphate (UDP)-dependent cleavage catalyzed by sucrose synthase (SUSY). Its activity is limited by the concentrations of Suc and UDP in the cytosol, as the affinity of the enzyme to its substrate is relatively low (K_m for Suc 40–200 mM). The other route is the irreversible, hydrolytic cleavage by invertases (INVs), which exhibit high affinity to Suc (K_m 7–15 mM).⁵Plants possess three different types of INV isoenzymes, which can be distinguished by their solubility, subcellular localization, pH-optima and isoelectric point. Usually, they are subdivided into cell wall (cwINV), vacuolar (vacINV), and alkaline/neutral (a/nINVs) INVs.cwINV, also referred to as extracellular or apoplastic INV, is characterized by a low pH-optimum (pH 3.5–5.0) and usually ionically bound to the cell wall. It is the key enzyme of the apoplastic phloem unloading pathway and plays a crucial role in the regulation of source/sink relations (reviewed in refs. ^{3, 6–8}). A specific role during plant defense has been suggested, based on observations that cwINV is often induced during various plant-pathogen interactions, and the finding that overexpression of a yeast INV in the apoplast increases plant resistance.^6,8–10 It was shown, that a rapid induction of cwINV is, indeed, one of the early defense-related reactions in resistant tobacco source leaves after infection with Phytophthora nicotianae (P. nicotianae).¹¹ Finally, the whole infection area in wt leaves was covered with hypersensitive lesions, indicating that all cells had undergone hypersensitive cell death (Fig. 1A).^1,11 When the activity of cwINV was repressed by an RNAi construct, defense-related processes were impaired, and the infection site exhibited only small spots of hypersensitive lesions. Finally, the pathogen was able to sporulate, indicating a reduced resistance of these transgenic plants (Fig. 1A).¹Open in a separate windowFigure 1Defense-induced changes in the activity of intracellular sucrose-cleaving enzymes and their contribution to defense. (A) The repression of cwINV in source leaves of tobacco leads to impaired pathogen resistance and can not be compensated by other sucrose-cleaving enzymes. The intensity of defense reactions is amongst others indicated by the extent of hypersensitive lesions. (B and C) Absolute activity of vacuolar (B) and alkaline/neutral (C) INVs at the infection site (white symbols, control; black symbols, infection site). (D) Increase in SUSY activity at the infection site. All data points taken from noninfected control parts of the plants in each individual experiment and each point along the time scale of an experiment are set as 0%. At least three independent infections are averaged and their means are presented as percentage changes ± SE (circles, SNN; triangles, SNN::cwINV). Insets show the means of the absolute amount of activities (white symbols, control; black symbols, infection site). Material and methods according to Essmann, et al.¹vacINV, also labeled as soluble acidic INV, is characterized by a pH optimum between pH 5.0–5.5. Among others it determines the level of Suc stored in the vacuole and generates hexose-based sugar signals (reviewed in refs. ³ and ¹²). Yet, no specific role of vacINV during pathogen response has been reported. Although vacINV and cwINV are glycoproteins with similar enzymatic and biochemical properties and share a high degree of overall sequence homology and two conserved amino acid motifs,⁴ the activity of vacINV in tobacco source leaves was not changed due to the repression of the cwINV (Fig. 1B).¹ After infection with P. nicotianae the activity of vacINV in wt SNN did not respond under conditions where cwINV was stimulated.¹ There was also no significant change in the transgenic SNN::cwINV (Fig. 1B). This suggests that during biotic stress, there is no crosstalk between the regulation of cwINV and vacINV.a/nINVs exhibit activity maxima between pH 6.5 and 8.0, are not glycosylated and thought to be exclusively localized in the cytosol. But recent reports also point to a subcellular location in mitochondria and chloroplasts.^13,14 Only a few a/nINVs have been cloned and characterized, and not much is known about their physiological functions (reviewed in refs. ^{4, 14} and ¹⁵). Among other things they seem to be involved in osmotic or low-temperature stress response.^14,15 During the interaction between tobacco and P. nicotianae the activity of a/nINVs rose on average 17% in the resistant wt SNN between 1 to 9 hours post infection (Fig. 1C). By contrast, in SNN::cwINV the a/nINVs activities remained unchanged in control leaves and even after infection (Fig. 1C). This suggests that the defense related stimulation in a/nINVs activities is rather a secondary phenomenon, possibly in response to the enhanced cwINV activity and the related carbohydrate availability in the cytosol.SUSY can be found as a soluble enzyme in the cytosol, bound to the inner side of the plasma membrane or the outer membrane of mitochondria, depending on the phosphorylation status. It channels hexoses into polysaccharide biosynthesis (i.e., starch, cellulose and callose) and respiration.^12,16 There is also evidence that SUSY improves the metabolic performance at low internal oxygen levels¹⁷ but little is known about its role during plant defense. Callose formation is presumably one of the strongest sink reactions in plant cells.^1,18 Defense-related SUSY activity may serve to allocate Suc into callose deposition and other carbohydrate-consuming defense reactions. In fact, in the resistant wt the activity of SUSY increased upon interaction with P. nicotianae in a biphasic manner (Fig. 1D). The time course is comparable to that of cwINV activity and correlates with callose deposition and enhanced respiration.^1,11 However, repression of cwINV leads in general to a reduction of SUSY activity in source leaves of tobacco.¹ After infection the activation of SUSY was also significantly impaired (Fig. 1D). At the same time, the early defense-related callose deposition in infected mesophyll cells of SNN::cwINV plants is substantially delayed.¹ It is known that expression of SUSY isoforms is differentially controlled by sugars,¹² and there is evidence that hexoses generated by the defense-induced cwINV activity deliver sugar signals to the infected cells.¹ In this sense, the reduction of defense-related, cwINV-generated sugar signals could be responsible for the repression of SUSY activity in SNN::cwINV plants after infection with P. nicotianae.Only limited hexoses or hexose-based sugar signals could be generated by cytoplasmic Suc cleavage.¹² The reduction of soluble carbohydrates for sugar signaling and also as fuel for metabolic pathways that support defense reactions could be responsible for the impaired resistance in SNN::cwINV plants (Fig. 1A).Obviously, neither intracellular INV isoforms, nor SUSY can compensate for the reduced carbohydrate availability due to cwINV repression during plant defense. The data also suggest that the activity of SUSY is affected by cwINV and related reflux of carbohydrates. It is known that SUSY activity can be controlled, e.g., by sugar-mediated phosphorylation¹² and one may speculate that posttranslational modulation of the protein is affected by the defense-related carbohydrate status of the cell.     

Traffic jams in fish bones: ER-to-Golgi protein transport during zebrafish development

Extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, cell adhesion molecules, cytokines, morphogens and membrane receptors are synthesized in the ER and transported through the Golgi complex to the cell surface and the extracellular space. The first leg in this journey from the ER to Golgi is facilitated by the coat protein II (COPII) vesicular carriers. Genetic defects in genes encoding various COPII components cause a broad spectrum of human diseases, from anemia to skeletal deformities. Here, we summarize our findings in zebrafish and discuss how mutations in COPII elements may cause specific cellular and developmental defects.Key words: Sec24D, Sec23A, ECM, COPII, craniofacial morphogenesisCOPII vesicle formation is initiated when the small, cytoplasmic GTPase Sar1 undergoes a conformational change upon GTP binding, exposing an amphipathic α-helix that allows Sar1 to associate with the ER membrane.^1–3 Sar1 then recruits the Sec23/Sec24 heterodimer to the ER surface, forming a “pre-budding complex.” Sec23 acts as a GTPase-activating protein for Sar1, whereas Sec24 plays a role in protein cargo selection.^4,5 These three proteins form the inner coat and are thought to impose the initial ER membrane deformation. Next, the COPII outer coat complex assembles by Sec13 and Sec31 heterotetramers, which form a cage that encompasses the pre-budding vesicle (Fig. 1A).^6,7Open in a separate windowFigure 1bulldog and crusher encode mutations in the COPII complex. (A) Graphic depicting the COPII inner coat bound to the ER membrane and a complete COPII vesicle. (B) Structure of human SEC24D and SEC23A and the truncation caused by bulldog and crusher mutations in zebrafish proteins as projected on human proteins. (C) Overlay of the structure of human SEC23A and SEC23B. Structures are based on known crystal structures by Mancias et al.⁵ with SEC23B (light blue) and unresolved loops modeled using Modeller.²⁷ Binding interfaces to other proteins are indicated by purple lines.COPII components are highly conserved throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. The yeast S. cerevisiae has one Sec23 gene and three Sec24 paralogs (Sec24, Lst1 and Iss), while vertebra genomes contain four Sec24 (A–D) and two Sec23 paralogs (A and B).^8,9 Although the yeast Sec23 and Sec24 are essential for survival, private variants in genes of COPII components in humans cause a broad spectrum of diseases with clinical manifestations as diverse as skeletal defects,¹⁰ anemia,¹¹ or lipid malabsorption.¹² The precise molecular and cellular mechanisms that lead to such outcomes are poorly understood, underscoring the importance of animal models to study these organ- and tissue-specific deficits.^11,13     

Nitric oxide functions in both methyl jasmonate signaling and abscisic acid signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells

Intracellular components in methyl jasmonate (MeJA) signaling remain largely unknown, to compare those in well-understood abscisic acid (ABA) signaling. We have reported that nitric oxide (NO) is a signaling component in MeJA-induced stomatal closure, as well as ABA-induced stomatal closure in the previous study. To gain further information about the role of NO in the guard cell signaling, NO production was examined in an ABA- and MeJA-insensitive Arabidopsis mutant, rcn1. Neither MeJA nor ABA induced NO production in rcn1 guard cells. Our data suggest that NO functions downstream of the branch point of MeJA and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.Key words: abscisic acid, Arabidopsis thaliana, guard cells, methyl jasmonate, nitric oxideStomatal pores that are formed by pairs of guard cells respond to various environmental stimuli including plant hormones. Some signal components commonly function in MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closing signals,¹ such as cytosolic alkalization, ROS generation and cytosolic free calcium ion elevation. Recently, we demonstrated that NO functions in MeJA signaling, as well as ABA signaling in guard cells.²NO production by nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and nitrate reductase (NR) plays important roles in physiological processes in plants.^3,4 It has been shown that NO functions downstream of ROS production in ABA signaling in guard cells.⁵ NO mediates elevation of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt), inactivation of inward-rectifying K⁺ channels and activation of S-type anion channels,⁶ which are known to be key factors in MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closure.^2,7–9It has been reported that ROS was not induced by MeJA and ABA in the MeJA- and ABA-insensitive mutant, rcn1 in which the regulatory subunit A of protein phosphatase 2A, RCN1, is impaired.^7,10 We examined NO production induced by MeJA and ABA in rcn1 guard cells (Fig. 1). NO production by MeJA and ABA was impaired in rcn1 mutant (p = 0.87 and 0.25 for MeJA and ABA, respectively) in contrast to wild type. On the other hand, the NO donor, SNP induced stomatal closure both in wild type and rcn1 mutant (data not shown). These results are consistent with our previous results, i.e., NO is involved in both MeJA- and ABA-induced stomatal closure and functions downstream of the branching point of MeJA and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.⁷ Our finding implies that protein phosphatase 2A might positively regulate NO levels in guard cells (Fig. 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Impairment of MeJA- and ABA-induced NO production in rcn1 guard cells. (A) Effects of MeJA (n = 10) and ABA (n = 9) on NO production in wild-type guard cells. (B) Effects of MeJA (n = 7) and ABA (n = 7) on NO production in rcn1 guard cells. The vertical scale represents the percentage of diaminofluorescein-2 diacetate (DAF-2 DA) fluorescent levels when fluorescent intensities of MeJA- or ABA-treated cells are normalized to control value taken as 100% for each experiment. Each datum was obtained from at least 30 guard cells. Error bars represent standard errors. Significance of differences between data sets was assessed by Student''s t-test analysis in this paper. We regarded differences at the level of p < 0.05 as significant.Open in a separate windowFigure 2A model of signal interaction in MeJA-induced and ABA-induced stomatal closure. Neither MeJA nor ABA induces ROS production, NO production, I_Kin and stomatal closure in rcn1 mutant. These results suggest that NO functions downstream of the branch point of MeJA signaling and ABA signaling in Arabidopsis guard cells.     

The Twisted Dwarf's ABC: How Immunophilins Regulate Auxin Transport

There is increasing evidence that immunophilins function as key regulators of plant development. One of the best investigated members, the multi-domain FKBP TWISTED DWARF1 (TWD1)/FKBP42, has been shown to reside on both the vacuolar and plasma membranes where it interacts in mirror image with two pairs of ABC transporters, MRP1/ MRP2 and PGP1/PGP19(MDR1), respectively. Twisted dwarf1 and pgp1/pgp19 mutants display strongly overlapping phenotypes, including reduction and disorientation of growth, suggesting functional interaction.In a recent work using plant and heterologous expression systems, TWD1 has been demonstrated to modulate PGP-mediated export of the plant hormone auxin, which controls virtually all plant developmental processes. Here we summarize recent molecular models on TWD1 function in plant development and PGP-mediated auxin tranport and discuss open questions.Key Words: Twisted Dwarf1, plant development, auxin, immunophilin, P-glycoprotein, ABC transporterFK506-binding Proteins (FKBPs), together with unrelated cyclophilins, belong to the immunophilins, an ancient and ubiquitous protein family.^1,4,5 They were first described as receptors for immunosuppressive drugs in animal and human cells, FK506 and cyclosporin A, respectively.¹ All FKBP-type immunophilins share a characteristic peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase domain (PPIase domain or FKBD, Fig. 2A) making protein folding a key feature among immunophilins.² The best investigated example, the human cytosolic single-domain FKBP12, modulates Ca²⁺ release channels^6,7 and associates with the cell cycle regulator TGF-β.⁸ Furthermore, the human FKBP12/FK506 complex is known to bind and inhibit calcineurin activity,⁹ leading to immune response inhibition. However, not all single- and multiple-domain FKBPs own folding activity and, interestingly, many form distinct protein complexes with diverse functions.^3–5Open in a separate windowFigure 2Model of TWISTED DWARF 1 interacting proteins. (A) Domain structure of TWD1 and putative interacting proteins. FKBD, FK506-binding domain: TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CaM(-BD, calmodulin-binding domain; MA, membrane anchor. For details, see text. (B) Functional TWD1-ABC transporter complexes on both the vacuolar and plasma membrane. While for TWD1/PGP pairs, the positive regulatory role on auxin transport was demonstrated,¹⁸ the modulation of MRP-mediated vacuolar import of glutathion conjugates (GS-X) was established using mammalian test substrates¹⁷ because the in vivo substrates are unknown. Note that C-terminal nucleotide binding folds of MRP- and PGP-like ABC transporters interact with distinct functional domains of TWD1, the TPR and FKBD, respectively. The native auxin, IAAH, gets trapped by deprotonization upon uptake into the cell. Export is catalyzed by secondary active export via PIN-like efflux carriers¹⁵ and/or by primary active, ATP-driven P-glycoproteins (PGPs, right panel); loss-of TWD1 function abolishes PGP-mediated auxin export (left panel).