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

  • 6,023
    views
  • 1,859
    downloads
  • 190
    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
    2. Developmental Biology
    Sofía Suárez Freire, Sebastián Perez-Pandolfo ... Mariana Melani
    Research Article

    Eukaryotic cells depend on exocytosis to direct intracellularly synthesized material toward the extracellular space or the plasma membrane, so exocytosis constitutes a basic function for cellular homeostasis and communication between cells. The secretory pathway includes biogenesis of secretory granules (SGs), their maturation and fusion with the plasma membrane (exocytosis), resulting in release of SG content to the extracellular space. The larval salivary gland of Drosophila melanogaster is an excellent model for studying exocytosis. This gland synthesizes mucins that are packaged in SGs that sprout from the trans-Golgi network and then undergo a maturation process that involves homotypic fusion, condensation, and acidification. Finally, mature SGs are directed to the apical domain of the plasma membrane with which they fuse, releasing their content into the gland lumen. The exocyst is a hetero-octameric complex that participates in tethering of vesicles to the plasma membrane during constitutive exocytosis. By precise temperature-dependent gradual activation of the Gal4-UAS expression system, we have induced different levels of silencing of exocyst complex subunits, and identified three temporarily distinctive steps of the regulated exocytic pathway where the exocyst is critically required: SG biogenesis, SG maturation, and SG exocytosis. Our results shed light on previously unidentified functions of the exocyst along the exocytic pathway. We propose that the exocyst acts as a general tethering factor in various steps of this cellular process.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Heungjin Ryu, Kibum Nam ... Jung-Hoon Park
    Research Article

    In most murine species, spermatozoa exhibit a falciform apical hook at the head end. The function of the sperm hook is not yet clearly understood. In this study, we investigate the role of the sperm hook in the migration of spermatozoa through the female reproductive tract in Mus musculus (C57BL/6), using a deep tissue imaging custom-built two-photon microscope. Through live reproductive tract imaging, we found evidence indicating that the sperm hook aids in the attachment of spermatozoa to the epithelium and facilitates interactions between spermatozoa and the epithelium during migration in the uterus and oviduct. We also observed synchronized sperm beating, which resulted from the spontaneous unidirectional rearrangement of spermatozoa in the uterus. Based on live imaging of spermatozoa-epithelium interaction dynamics, we propose that the sperm hook plays a crucial role in successful migration through the female reproductive tract by providing anchor-like mechanical support and facilitating interactions between spermatozoa and the female reproductive tract in the house mouse.