Auxin efflux by PIN-FORMED proteins is activated by two different protein kinases, D6 PROTEIN KINASE and PINOID

  1. Melina Zourelidou
  2. Birgit Absmanner
  3. Benjamin Weller
  4. Inês CR Barbosa
  5. Björn C Willige
  6. Astrid Fastner
  7. Verena Streit
  8. Sarah A Port
  9. Jean Colcombet
  10. Sergio de la Fuente van Bentem
  11. Heribert Hirt
  12. Bernhard Kuster
  13. Waltraud X Schulze
  14. Ulrich Z Hammes
  15. Claus Schwechheimer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Technische Universität München, Germany
  2. Universität Regensburg, Germany
  3. Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States
  4. Göttingen University Medical Center, Germany
  5. Université Evry, France
  6. Syngenta Seeds B.V, Netherlands
  7. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia
  8. Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany

Abstract

The development and morphology of vascular plants is critically determined by synthesis and proper distribution of the phytohormone auxin. The directed cell-to-cell distribution of auxin is achieved through a system of auxin influx and efflux transporters. PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins are proposed auxin efflux transporters, and auxin fluxes can seemingly be predicted based on the - in many cells - asymmetric plasma membrane distribution of PINs. Here, we show in a heterologous Xenopus oocyte system as well as in Arabidopsis thaliana inflorescence stems that PIN-mediated auxin transport is directly activated by D6 PROTEIN KINASE (D6PK) and PINOID (PID)/WAG kinases of the Arabidopsis AGCVIII kinase family. At the same time, we reveal that D6PKs and PID have differential phosphosite preferences. Our study suggests that PIN activation by protein kinases is a crucial component of auxin transport control that must be taken into account to understand auxin distribution within the plant.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Melina Zourelidou

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Birgit Absmanner

    Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Benjamin Weller

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Inês CR Barbosa

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Björn C Willige

    Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Astrid Fastner

    Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Verena Streit

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sarah A Port

    Göttingen University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jean Colcombet

    Université Evry, Evry, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sergio de la Fuente van Bentem

    Syngenta Seeds B.V, Enkhuizen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Heribert Hirt

    King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Bernhard Kuster

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Waltraud X Schulze

    Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ulrich Z Hammes

    Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Claus Schwechheimer

    Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany
    For correspondence
    claus.schwechheimer@wzw.tum.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Christian S Hardtke, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations and guidelines based on the Tierschutzgesetz (TierSchG) of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Version history

  1. Received: March 23, 2014
  2. Accepted: June 17, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 19, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 15, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Zourelidou et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,048
    views
  • 817
    downloads
  • 196
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Melina Zourelidou
  2. Birgit Absmanner
  3. Benjamin Weller
  4. Inês CR Barbosa
  5. Björn C Willige
  6. Astrid Fastner
  7. Verena Streit
  8. Sarah A Port
  9. Jean Colcombet
  10. Sergio de la Fuente van Bentem
  11. Heribert Hirt
  12. Bernhard Kuster
  13. Waltraud X Schulze
  14. Ulrich Z Hammes
  15. Claus Schwechheimer
(2014)
Auxin efflux by PIN-FORMED proteins is activated by two different protein kinases, D6 PROTEIN KINASE and PINOID
eLife 3:e02860.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02860

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02860

Further reading

    1. Plant Biology
    Yuanyuan Bu, Xingye Dong ... Shenkui Liu
    Research Article

    Urea is intensively utilized as a nitrogen fertilizer in agriculture, originating either from root uptake or from catabolism of arginine by arginase. Despite its extensive use, the underlying physiological mechanisms of urea, particularly its adverse effects on seed germination and seedling growth under salt stress remains unclear. In this study, we demonstrate that salt stress induces excessive hydrolysis of arginine-derived urea, leading to an increase in cytoplasmic pH within seed radical cells, which, in turn, triggers salt-induced inhibition of seed germination (SISG) and hampers seedling growth. Our findings challenge the long-held belief that ammonium accumulation and toxicity are the primary causes of SISG, offering a novel perspective on the mechanism underlying these processes. This study provides significant insights into the physiological impact of urea hydrolysis under salt stress, contributing to a better understanding of SISG.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Henning Mühlenbeck, Yuko Tsutsui ... Cyril Zipfel
    Research Article

    Transmembrane signaling by plant receptor kinases (RKs) has long been thought to involve reciprocal trans-phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains. The fact that many of these are pseudokinase domains, however, suggests that additional mechanisms must govern RK signaling activation. Non-catalytic signaling mechanisms of protein kinase domains have been described in metazoans, but information is scarce for plants. Recently, a non-catalytic function was reported for the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RK subfamily XIIa member EFR (elongation factor Tu receptor) and phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes were proposed to regulate signaling of RKs with non-RD kinase domains. Here, using EFR as a model, we describe a non-catalytic activation mechanism for LRR-RKs with non-RD kinase domains. EFR is an active kinase, but a kinase-dead variant retains the ability to enhance catalytic activity of its co-receptor kinase BAK1/SERK3 (brassinosteroid insensitive 1-associated kinase 1/somatic embryogenesis receptor kinase 3). Applying hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis and designing homology-based intragenic suppressor mutations, we provide evidence that the EFR kinase domain must adopt its active conformation in order to activate BAK1 allosterically, likely by supporting αC-helix positioning in BAK1. Our results suggest a conformational toggle model for signaling, in which BAK1 first phosphorylates EFR in the activation loop to stabilize its active conformation, allowing EFR in turn to allosterically activate BAK1.