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

  • 6,067
    views
  • 1,906
    downloads
  • 205
    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. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Xiangning Bu, Nathanael Ashby ... Inhee Chung
    Research Article

    Cell crowding is a common microenvironmental factor influencing various disease processes, but its role in promoting cell invasiveness remains unclear. This study investigates the biomechanical changes induced by cell crowding, focusing on pro-invasive cell volume reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Crowding specifically enhanced invasiveness in high-grade DCIS cells through significant volume reduction compared to hyperplasia-mimicking or normal cells. Mass spectrometry revealed that crowding selectively relocated ion channels, including TRPV4, to the plasma membrane in high-grade DCIS cells. TRPV4 inhibition triggered by crowding decreased intracellular calcium levels, reduced cell volume, and increased invasion and motility. During this process, TRPV4 membrane relocation primed the channel for later activation, compensating for calcium loss. Analyses of patient-derived breast cancer tissues confirmed that plasma membrane-associated TRPV4 is specific to high-grade DCIS and indicates the presence of a pro-invasive cell volume reduction mechanotransduction pathway. Hyperosmotic conditions and pharmacologic TRPV4 inhibition mimicked crowding-induced effects, while TRPV4 activation reversed them. Silencing TRPV4 diminished mechanotransduction in high-grade DCIS cells, reducing calcium depletion, volume reduction, and motility. This study uncovers a novel pro-invasive mechanotransduction pathway driven by cell crowding and identifies TRPV4 as a potential biomarker for predicting invasion risk in DCIS patients.

    1. Cell Biology
    Dan Wu, Venkateswararao Eeda ... Weidong Wang
    Research Article

    Overnutrition engenders the expansion of adipose tissue and the accumulation of immune cells, in particular, macrophages, in the adipose tissue, leading to chronic low-grade inflammation and insulin resistance. In obesity, several proinflammatory subpopulations of adipose tissue macrophages (ATMs) identified hitherto include the conventional ‘M1-like’ CD11C-expressing ATM and the newly discovered metabolically activated CD9-expressing ATM; however, the relationship among ATM subpopulations is unclear. The ER stress sensor inositol-requiring enzyme 1α (IRE1α) is activated in the adipocytes and immune cells under obesity. It is unknown whether targeting IRE1α is capable of reversing insulin resistance and obesity and modulating the metabolically activated ATMs. We report that pharmacological inhibition of IRE1α RNase significantly ameliorates insulin resistance and glucose intolerance in male mice with diet-induced obesity. IRE1α inhibition also increases thermogenesis and energy expenditure, and hence protects against high fat diet-induced obesity. Our study shows that the ‘M1-like’ CD11c+ ATMs are largely overlapping with but yet non-identical to CD9+ ATMs in obese white adipose tissue. Notably, IRE1α inhibition diminishes the accumulation of obesity-induced metabolically activated ATMs and ‘M1-like’ ATMs, resulting in the curtailment of adipose inflammation and ensuing reactivation of thermogenesis, without augmentation of the alternatively activated M2 macrophage population. Our findings suggest the potential of targeting IRE1α for the therapeutic treatment of insulin resistance and obesity.