SnRK1-triggered switch of bZIP63 dimerization mediates the low-energy response in plants

  1. Andrea Mair
  2. Lorenzo Pedrotti
  3. Bernhard Wurzinger
  4. Dorothea Anrather
  5. Andrea Simeunovic
  6. Christoph Weiste
  7. Concetta Valerio
  8. Katrin Dietrich
  9. Tobias Kirchler
  10. Thomas Nägele
  11. Jesús Vicente Carbajosa
  12. Johannes Hanson
  13. Elena Baena-González
  14. Christina Chaban
  15. Wolfram Weckwerth
  16. Wolfgang Dröge-Laser
  17. Markus Teige  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Vienna, Austria
  2. University of Würzburg, Germany
  3. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Portugal
  4. University of Tübingen, Germany
  5. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
  6. Utrecht University, Netherlands

Abstract

Metabolic adjustment to changing environmental conditions, particularly balancing of growth and defense responses, is crucial for all organisms to survive. The evolutionary conserved AMPK/Snf1/SnRK1 kinases are well-known metabolic master regulators in the low-energy response in animals, yeast and plants. They act at two different levels: by modulating the activity of key metabolic enzymes, and by massive transcriptional reprogramming. While the first part is well established, the latter function is only partially understood in animals and not at all in plants. Here we identified the Arabidopsis transcription factor bZIP63 as key regulator of the starvation response and direct target of the SnRK1 kinase. Phosphorylation of bZIP63 by SnRK1 changed its dimerization preference, thereby affecting target gene expression and ultimately primary metabolism. A bzip63 knock-out mutant exhibited starvation-related phenotypes, which could be functionally complemented by wild type bZIP63, but not by a version harboring point mutations in the identified SnRK1 target sites.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrea Mair

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lorenzo Pedrotti

    Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Bernhard Wurzinger

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dorothea Anrather

    University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Andrea Simeunovic

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Christoph Weiste

    Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Concetta Valerio

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Katrin Dietrich

    Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Tobias Kirchler

    Department of Plant Physiology, Center for Plant Molecular Biology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Thomas Nägele

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jesús Vicente Carbajosa

    Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Johannes Hanson

    Department of Molecular Plant Physiology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Elena Baena-González

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Christina Chaban

    Department of Plant Physiology, Center for Plant Molecular Biology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Wolfram Weckwerth

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Wolfgang Dröge-Laser

    Pharmaceutical Biology, Julius-von-Sachs-Institute, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Markus Teige

    Department of Ecogenomics and Systems Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    For correspondence
    markus.teige@univie.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Mair 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

  • 6,040
    views
  • 1,881
    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. Andrea Mair
  2. Lorenzo Pedrotti
  3. Bernhard Wurzinger
  4. Dorothea Anrather
  5. Andrea Simeunovic
  6. Christoph Weiste
  7. Concetta Valerio
  8. Katrin Dietrich
  9. Tobias Kirchler
  10. Thomas Nägele
  11. Jesús Vicente Carbajosa
  12. Johannes Hanson
  13. Elena Baena-González
  14. Christina Chaban
  15. Wolfram Weckwerth
  16. Wolfgang Dröge-Laser
  17. Markus Teige
(2015)
SnRK1-triggered switch of bZIP63 dimerization mediates the low-energy response in plants
eLife 4:e05828.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05828

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05828

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Roy Ng ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    The primary cilium is a microtubule-based organelle that cycles through assembly and disassembly. In many cell types, formation of the cilium is initiated by recruitment of ciliary vesicles to the distal appendage of the mother centriole. However, the distal appendage mechanism that directly captures ciliary vesicles is yet to be identified. In an accompanying paper, we show that the distal appendage protein, CEP89, is important for the ciliary vesicle recruitment, but not for other steps of cilium formation (Tomoharu Kanie, Love, Fisher, Gustavsson, & Jackson, 2023). The lack of a membrane binding motif in CEP89 suggests that it may indirectly recruit ciliary vesicles via another binding partner. Here, we identify Neuronal Calcium Sensor-1 (NCS1) as a stoichiometric interactor of CEP89. NCS1 localizes to the position between CEP89 and a ciliary vesicle marker, RAB34, at the distal appendage. This localization was completely abolished in CEP89 knockouts, suggesting that CEP89 recruits NCS1 to the distal appendage. Similarly to CEP89 knockouts, ciliary vesicle recruitment as well as subsequent cilium formation was perturbed in NCS1 knockout cells. The ability of NCS1 to recruit the ciliary vesicle is dependent on its myristoylation motif and NCS1 knockout cells expressing a myristoylation defective mutant failed to rescue the vesicle recruitment defect despite localizing properly to the centriole. In sum, our analysis reveals the first known mechanism for how the distal appendage recruits the ciliary vesicles.

    1. Cell Biology
    Ling Cheng, Ian Meliala ... Mikael Björklund
    Research Article

    Mitochondrial dysfunction is involved in numerous diseases and the aging process. The integrated stress response (ISR) serves as a critical adaptation mechanism to a variety of stresses, including those originating from mitochondria. By utilizing mass spectrometry-based cellular thermal shift assay (MS-CETSA), we uncovered that phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein 1 (PEBP1), also known as Raf kinase inhibitory protein (RKIP), is thermally stabilized by stresses which induce mitochondrial ISR. Depletion of PEBP1 impaired mitochondrial ISR activation by reducing eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) phosphorylation and subsequent ISR gene expression, which was independent of PEBP1’s role in inhibiting the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Consistently, overexpression of PEBP1 potentiated ISR activation by heme-regulated inhibitor (HRI) kinase, the principal eIF2α kinase in the mitochondrial ISR pathway. Real-time interaction analysis using luminescence complementation in live cells revealed an interaction between PEBP1 and eIF2α, which was disrupted by eIF2α S51 phosphorylation. These findings suggest a role for PEBP1 in amplifying mitochondrial stress signals, thereby facilitating an effective cellular response to mitochondrial dysfunction. Therefore, PEBP1 may be a potential therapeutic target for diseases associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.