1. Plant Biology

An increase of NPY1 expression leads to inhibitory phosphorylation of PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins and suppression of pinoid (pid) null mutants

  1. Michael Mudgett
  2. Zhouxin Shen
  3. Ruofan Kang
  4. Xinhua Dai
  5. Steven P Briggs  Is a corresponding author
  6. Yunde Zhao  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207.2
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Michael Mudgett
  2. Zhouxin Shen
  3. Ruofan Kang
  4. Xinhua Dai
  5. Steven P Briggs
  6. Yunde Zhao
(2025)
An increase of NPY1 expression leads to inhibitory phosphorylation of PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins and suppression of pinoid (pid) null mutants
eLife 14:RP108207.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207.2
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

eLife Assessment

This valuable study concerns a highly interesting and biologically relevant topic, the regulation of the PIN auxin transporter, which is of broad interest to the plant biology community. The authors propose NPY1 to act downstream of PID in auxin-mediated development by modulating PIN phosphorylation, which, if experimentally solidified, would expand our understanding of PIN regulation. While the genetic evidence is solid, the mechanistic role of NPY1 and the functional relevance of phosphorylated PIN residues are still uncertain. There are also concerns regarding experimental rigor and methodological transparency.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207.2.sa0

Abstract

The PINOID (PID) protein kinase is required for flower initiation in Arabidopsis. The pid mutants fail to initiate flowers on inflorescences, a phenotype that is mimicked by disrupting either the NAKED PINS IN YUC MUTANTS (NPY) gene family or PIN FORMED 1 (PIN1). Both PID and NPY1 have been reported to positively modulate PIN-mediated polar auxin transport. Here, we show that overexpression of NPY1 (NPY1 OE) completely suppressed pid null mutants, demonstrating that NPY1 functions downstream of PID. NPY1 OE triggered phosphorylation of PIN proteins at multiple sites that are mostly different from the previously characterized phosphorylation sites regardless of the presence of PID. Phosphorylation of the newly identified PIN sites in NPY1 OE plants likely leads to the inhibition of PIN functions, as we previously showed that pid is suppressed by decreasing PIN1 gene dosage or decreasing PIN1 activity. Furthermore, we show that the Ser/Thr-rich C-terminal motif in NPY1 is phosphorylated and is required for pid suppression by NPY1 OE. Overexpression of NPY1 that lacked the C-terminal motif (NPY1∆C) failed to rescue pid, but overexpression of NPY1∆C was still able to trigger phosphorylation of PIN proteins, including PIN2, which is known to cause agravitropic roots when mutated. NPY1∆C overexpression plants displayed a complete loss of root gravitropic response, likely caused by PIN2 phosphorylation. Our results suggest a pathway for auxin-mediated flower initiation, in which PID regulates NPY1 accumulation and/or activity, and subsequently, NPY1 triggers phosphorylation of PIN proteins and inhibition of PIN functions.

Introduction

Auxin is required for flower initiation in Arabidopsis and other plants (Cheng and Zhao, 2007c; Yamaguchi et al., 2013). Several Arabidopsis mutants and mutant combinations fail to initiate flowers on inflorescences, despite the fact that they can undergo the normal transition from vegetative growth to reproductive growth, resulting in the formation of pin-like inflorescences (Bennett et al., 1995; Przemeck et al., 1996; Gälweiler et al., 1998; Cheng et al., 2007a). All of the known pin-like Arabidopsis mutants are caused by defects in some aspects of auxin biology. PIN-FORMED 1 (PIN1) was the first characterized gene that causes the formation of pin-like inflorescences when compromised (Gälweiler et al., 1998). PIN1 is an auxin efflux carrier that transports auxin from the cytosol into the extracellular space (Yang et al., 2022). Plants grown on media containing the polar auxin transport inhibitor N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) phenocopy pin1 mutants (Okada et al., 1991). It has been shown that NPA can directly bind to PIN1 to inhibit auxin transport (Yang et al., 2022). Disruption of PINOID (PID), which encodes a Ser/Thr protein kinase, also leads to the formation of pin-like inflorescences (Bennett et al., 1995; Christensen et al., 2000). Overexpression of PID leads to phenotypes similar to the well-characterized auxin-resistant mutants, linking PID functions to auxin (Christensen et al., 2000). NAKED PINS IN YUC MUTANTS 1(NPY1) (Cheng et al., 2007b), which is also called ENHANCER OF PINOID (ENP) (Treml et al., 2005) and MACCHI-BOU 4 (MAB4) (Furutani et al., 2007), was isolated from genetic screens for pid enhancers and for enhancers of yuc1 yuc4 double mutants (Cheng et al., 2006), which are defective in auxin biosynthesis (Cheng et al., 2007a). The yuc1 yuc4 npy1 triple mutants produce pin-like inflorescences similar to those in pin1 and pid (Cheng et al., 2007b). Inactivation of NPY1 and its close homologs NPY3 and NPY5 also causes the failure of floral initiation from inflorescences (Cheng et al., 2008). The yuc1 yuc2 yuc4 yuc6 quadruple mutants also develop small pin-like structures (Cheng et al., 2006).

Although the aforementioned genes are known to participate in auxin-mediated flower development, the mechanisms by which the genes regulate floral development and the relationships between them are not fully understood. The predominant model regarding the relationship among PIN1, PID, and NPY genes is centered on regulating PIN polarity, localization, and activity by PID and NPY proteins. It was reported that PID directly phosphorylates the hydrophilic loop of PIN proteins, resulting in changes in PIN polarity and activation of PIN-mediated auxin export (Friml et al., 2004; Michniewicz et al., 2007). NPYs were suggested to regulate PIN internalization through the endocytosis pathway (Furutani et al., 2011). Recently, it was reported that NPY1, PID, and PIN1 form a protein complex at the plasma membrane and that the recruitment of NPYs to the plasma membrane by PIN limits the lateral diffusion of PINs, thus maintaining PIN polarity (Glanc et al., 2021). Phosphorylation of PIN by PID enhances the recruitment of NPY to plasma membrane, which then promotes PIN phosphorylation by recruiting or interacting with AGC kinases, thus forming a self-reinforcing loop to maintain PIN polarity (Glanc et al., 2021). Other protein kinases, including D6 PROTEIN KINASE, are also involved in phosphorylating PIN proteins and activating PIN-mediated auxin transport (Willige et al., 2013; Barbosa et al., 2014).

Recently, we discovered that pid null mutant phenotypes were suppressed when one copy of the PIN1 gene is inactivated (heterozygous pin1 mutants) (Mudgett et al., 2023). The pid null mutants were also suppressed by the PIN1-GFPHDR fusion in which GFP was precisely inserted into the PIN1 gene via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination (Mudgett et al., 2023). PIN1-GFPHDR is less active than wild-type (WT) PIN1, indicating that pid is suppressed by lowering either PIN1 activity or PIN1 gene dosage. This new type of genetic interaction between pid and pin1, called haplocomplementation, renders PID unnecessary for flower development when expressing only 50% of PIN1, whereas the presence of 0% or 100% PIN1 makes PID essential. The observed genetic interaction between pid and pin1 suggests a much more complex relationship between the two genes than the current model of PIN1 phosphorylation by PID directly (Mudgett et al., 2023). Moreover, it was known that pid mutants produce more cotyledons and true leaves than WT plants, whereas pin1 mutants make fewer cotyledons and fewer true leaves compared to WT plants (Bennett et al., 1995). The opposite cotyledon/true leaf phenotypes of pid and pin1 cannot be accounted for by PID-mediated direct phosphorylation/activation of PIN1.

In this study, we analyzed the dosage effects of NPY1 on pid phenotypes. We show that overexpression of NPY1 (NPY1 OE) completely suppressed pid null mutants, demonstrating that NPY1 and PIN1 have opposite dosage effects on pid mutants. Furthermore, we find that NPY1 OE led to an increase in PIN phosphorylation, suggesting that NPY1 OE-triggered PIN phosphorylation actually inhibits PIN functions. Moreover, we discovered that the C-terminal motif of NPY1, which contains 30 amino acid residues with 50% Ser/Thr, is required for suppression of pid by NPY1 OE. Overexpression of NPY1 that lacked the C-terminal motif (NPY1∆C) did not suppress pid, but caused auxin resistance and a complete loss of gravitropism. Overexpression of NPY1∆C also increased phosphorylation of PIN proteins, including PIN2, which causes agravitropic roots when mutated, further suggesting that phosphorylation of certain residues/regions of PIN proteins inhibits PIN functions. Our results demonstrated that NPY1 functions downstream of PID during flower development. In addition, our results indicate that NPY1 affects PIN phosphorylation, which inhibits PIN function and which may account for the suppression of pid by NPY1 OE.

Results

Protein null pin1 mutants further confirm haplocomplementation of pid mutants by pin1

We previously showed that pid null mutants were rescued by either PIN1-GFPHDR fusion or the presence of only one copy of functional PIN1 gene, suggesting that a reduction in PIN1 activity or PIN1 gene dosage is sufficient to restore the fertility of pid (Mudgett et al., 2023). Because the pin1 mutants in our previous study had the potential to produce truncated PIN1 proteins, we could not completely rule out the possibility that the predicted truncated PIN1 proteins might have played a role in rescuing pid (Mudgett et al., 2023). To further clarify the mechanisms of rescuing pid by heterozygous pin1 mutants, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to delete the coding region of PIN1 so that no truncated PIN1 proteins would be produced (Figure 1A). We obtained two pin1 mutants, which lacked almost the entire coding region of PIN1 and which were unlikely to produce any truncated PIN1 proteins (Figure 1A). The two pin1 mutants displayed strong pin-like phenotypes (Figure 1B and C). In the heterozygous pin1 mutant backgrounds, the pid null mutants no longer produced pin-like inflorescences and were able to set seeds (Figure 1B and C). Rescuing pid by heterozygous pin1 mutants was not specific to a particular pid allele. Both T-DNA insertion (Figure 1B) and CRISPR deletion pid mutants (Figure 1C), which were previously described as pid null mutants (Mudgett et al., 2023), were rescued by the heterozygous pin1 full deletion mutants (Figure 1), demonstrating that pid mutants were rescued by a reduction of PIN1 gene dosage, and that suppression of pid mutant phenotypes by heterozygous pin1 mutants in our previous study was not caused by the predicted truncated PIN1 proteins.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all
Download asset Open asset
A complete deletion of one copy of the PIN1 gene rescues pid null mutants.

(A) PIN1 gene is deleted using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. The two guide RNA target sites are shown with PAM underlined and in bold. The PIN1 start codon ATG is highlighted in yellow. The sequences flanking the deletions are shown. The two mutants have less than 18 bp of PIN1 coding sequence and are unlikely to produce any PIN1 proteins. (B) Heterozygous pin1 full #70, which had a deletion of 3078 bp of the PIN1 gene, restored the fertility of pid-TD1, a T-DNA insertion mutant that is completely sterile in wild-type (WT) PIN1 background. (C) pin1 full #32, when heterozygous, rescued pid-c1, a null pid allele.

NPY1 and PIN1 have different effects on pid mutants – a reduction in NPY1 gene dosage cannot rescue pid

Inactivation of NPY1 and its close homologs NPY3 and NPY5 leads to the development of pin-like inflorescences (Cheng et al., 2008). Moreover, npy1 pid double mutants fail to develop any cotyledons, a phenotype that was also observed in pin1 pid double mutants (Furutani et al., 2004; Treml et al., 2005; Furutani et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2008). Therefore, we hypothesized that a reduction in NPY1 gene dosage might also be able to rescue pid mutants. We genotyped F2 plants from a cross of pid-TD1 and npy1-2 to identify plants with either npy1-2 pid-TD1+/- or npy1-2+/- pid-TD1 genotype to investigate the effects of gene dosage on genetic interactions between the two mutants. It was very clear that heterozygous npy1-2 did not rescue pid-TD1 (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Interestingly, heterozygous pid-TD1 further enhanced npy1-2, which is fertile and which does not produce pin-like structures (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Plants with the npy1-2 pid-TD1+/- genotype were essentially sterile and produced pin-like structures (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Our results suggest that gene dosage effects of NPY1 and PIN1 on pid are different.

Dosage effects of NPY1 and PIN1 on pid are opposite – increased NPY1 gene expression is sufficient to suppress pid null mutants

We placed NPY1 gene under the control of the UBIQUITIN 10 promoter to strongly express NPY1 (named as NPY1 OE). We directly transformed the construct into a pid-c1 segregation population through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Among the 84 T1 plants we genotyped, we obtained 15 homozygous pid-c1 mutants. Interestingly, none of the pid-c1 plants produced any pin-like inflorescences, and all were fully fertile, demonstrating that increases in NPY1 gene expression were sufficient for the suppression of pid-c1. We genotyped T2 progenies from two pid-c1 heterozygous T1 plants (#68 and #83) for the presence of pid-c1 and for pid-c1 zygosity. We used the mCherry signal, which was included in the NPY1 OE construct, as a proxy to determine the presence and absence of the NPY1 transgene. For each line, we identified T2 plants without the NPY1 transgene and without the pid-c1 mutation (called WT-68 and WT-83, respectively). We also isolated T2 plants that contained the NPY1 overexpression construct but did not have the pid-c1 mutation (called NPY1 OE #68 in WT and NPY1 OE #83 in WT). Finally, we identified T2 plants that were pid-c1 homozygous and that had the NPY1 transgene (called NPY1 OE #68 in pid-c1 and NPY1 OE #83 in pid-c1). These genetic materials enabled us to compare the same NPY1 OE transgenic event in different genetic backgrounds.

As shown in Figure 2A, Figure 2—figure supplement 1, both NPY1 OE #68 and #83 lines rescued pid-c1, which lacks almost the entire PID coding region and which is completely sterile under our laboratory conditions (Mudgett et al., 2023). Overexpression of NPY1 in pid-c1 completely eliminated the development of pin-like inflorescences and led to the production of plenty of fertile siliques (Figure 2A, Figure 2—figure supplement 1). NPY1 OE lines had notable developmental phenotypes: NPY1 OE plants had reduced petiole length and had shorter stature compared to WT plants (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). At the young adult stage, NPY1 OE in WT and in pid-c1 appeared very similar, suggesting that overexpression of NPY1 made PID unnecessary for plant development (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). NPY1 OE lines, regardless of the presence or absence of the pid-c1 mutation, developed plenty of flowers with normal appearance (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Most flowers from NPY1 OE in pid-c1 plants were normal, but occasionally, some flowers had minor defects such as missing a stamen or developing fused petals with a stamen-like structure (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). In comparison to the suppression of pid null mutants by PIN1-GFPHDR or heterozygous pin1, suppression of pid-c1 by NPY1 OE appeared to be more complete (Mudgett et al., 2023).

Figure 2 with 4 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
Overexpression of NPY1 rescues pid null mutants and triggers phosphorylation of PIN proteins.

(A) The NPY1 overexpression (OE) line #68 rescues the pid-c1, a null allele. Note that pid-c1 makes pin-like inflorescences and is completely sterile. pid-c1 no longer makes pin-like structures and is completely fertile when NPY1 protein levels are increased. A second NPY1 overexpression line (#83) also restored the fertility of pid-c1 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). (B) NPY1 protein levels in the NPY1 OE lines in wild-type (WT) background and in pid mutants. In line #68, NPY1 protein level is 8.0-fold higher than WT, while line #83 has 9.7-fold higher NPY1 protein level than WT. In the absence of PID, overexpression of NPY1 leads to slightly lower NPY1 protein levels than the same transgenic event in WT background. (C) Overexpression of NPY1 leads to an increase in phospho-peptides. The volcano plot shows the fold changes (Log2 scale) of phospho-peptide levels in NPY1 OE lines over WT. Data above the horizontal dotted line are statistically significant. The vertical dotted line marks 2-fold change. (D) Overexpression of NPY1 leads to phosphorylation of PIN proteins. Among the phospho-peptides that displayed the most differences between NPY1 OE lines and WT are peptides from NPY1 and PIN proteins. In fact, in the upper-right quadrant in C, the only peptides were from NPY1 and PIN proteins.

We also transformed the NPY1 OE construct into pid-TD1 and pid-TD2, which are T-DNA insertional null alleles (Mudgett et al., 2023). Both pid T-DNA mutants were rescued by overexpression of NPY1, demonstrating that NPY1 OE could rescue different types of pid mutants (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Some of the siliques in the rescued pid-TD plants had only one valve, a phenotype that was likely caused by a partial suppression of pid-TD (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Our results demonstrated that overexpression of NPY1 rescued pid mutants, and the suppression of pid by NPY1 OE was not caused by any background mutations, a particular T-DNA insertion site, or dependence on special pid mutations. Our results clearly showed that NPY1 and PIN1 had opposite dosage effects on pid mutants.

NPY1 protein accumulates less in the absence of PID

We conducted proteomic analysis to determine the expression levels of NPY1 in the transgenic lines (Figure 2B). In NPY1 OE line #68 in WT, NPY1 protein level increased 8.0-fold compared to non-transgenic WT-68 (Figure 2B). The NPY1 protein level was slightly higher in line #83 than in line #68 (9.7-fold vs 8.0-fold) (Figure 2B). The same NPY1 transgenic events also led to elevated NPY1 protein levels in pid-c1 compared to non-transgenic WT (Figure 2B). Interestingly, NPY1 protein levels in the NPY1 OE in pid-c1 plants were significantly lower than NPY1 OE in WT. For line #68, NPY1 level was 23% lower in pid-c1 than in NPY1 OE in WT. In line #83, NPY1 protein level was 18.5% lower in pid-c1 than in WT. Our results suggest that PID likely plays a role in regulating NPY1 protein accumulation.

NPY1 is phosphorylated, and the phosphorylation of NPY1 does not require PID

We identified 15 phospho-peptides of NPY1 (Supplementary file 1). Among the phosphorylation sites identified, most of them were located in the peptide ANHSPVASVAASSHSPVEK, which has five serine residues and which is located immediately downstream of the conserved NPH3 domain (Figure 2—figure supplement 3). Previous studies have identified two phosphorylation sites in NPY1: S514 and S553 (Matthes et al., 2024). We also detected that S553 was phosphorylated (Supplementary file 1 and Figure 2—figure supplement 3). Moreover, we identified a couple of phospho-serine residues outside of the C-terminal domain (Figure 2—figure supplement 3). Interestingly, S181 is located in a highly conserved WSYT motif and is located in the region between the BTB domain and the NPH3 domain (Figure 2—figure supplement 3). The S181 residue is conserved among all NPY proteins, but in NPH3, the serine residue is replaced with an alanine (Figure 2—figure supplement 3).

In the absence of PID, all of the 15 phospho-peptides of NPY1 were still phosphorylated (Supplementary file 1). Quantitatively, all of the peptides except LHEASVK had lower phosphorylation levels in NPY1 OE in pid plants than in NPY1 OE in WT plants. But given that in pid, NPY1 protein concentrations were about 20% lower than in WT (Figure 2B), the observed differences in phosphorylation levels could be caused by a decrease in NPY1 protein concentration in pid.

Overexpression of NPY1 leads to increases in phosphorylation of PIN proteins

 Overexpression of NPY1 caused significant changes in the phospho-proteome (Figure 2C). Among the phospho-peptides that were highly enriched in NPY1 OE lines compared to WT, the majority of them were NPY1 peptides (Figure 2D). Interestingly, the next highly enriched peptides in NPY1 OE lines were from PIN proteins (Figure 2D).

The phospho-peptides AGLQVDNGANEQVGKsDQGGAK from PIN7 and AGLNVFGGAPDNDQGGRsDQGAK from PIN3 were about 6-fold higher in NPY1 OE lines than in WT (Table 1). The two peptides mapped to the same region of the two PIN proteins (Figure 2—figure supplement 4). Phospho-peptides in PIN1 and PIN4 were also upregulated in NPY1 OE lines compared to WT (Table 1). We did not detect phospho-peptides from PIN2, probably because PIN2 is not expressed in flowers. The two phosphorylated sites in PIN1 (S271 and S282) are conserved within the PIN family and have been previously identified and characterized (Figure 2—figure supplement 4). Two of the PIN7 phosphorylation sites were highly conserved, while the majority of the phosphorylation sites in PIN3, PIN4, and PIN7 were located in the less conserved regions of their respective hydrophilic loops (Figure 2—figure supplement 4).

Table 1
Overexpression of NPY1 leads to increases in phosphorylation of PIN proteins.

NPY1 in wild-type (WT) 68 refers to NPY1 overexpression (OE) line #68 in WT background, while WT68 refers to plants without the NPY1 OE construct segregated from the NPY1 OE line #68. NPY1 in pid68 refers to the NPY1 OE line #68 in the pid-c1 homozygous background. The comparisons were made on the basis of the same transgenic event of integrating the NPY1 OE construct into the Arabidopsis genome. Similar nomenclature is used for line #83. Fold change over 1.5 is highlighted in orange, and p-value less than 0.05 is highlighted in green.

PeptidePINsNPY1 in WT68/WT68NPY1 in WT83/WT83AverageNPY1 in WT/WT p-valueNPY1 in pid68/NPY1 in WT 68NPY1 in pid83/NPY1 in WT 83AverageNPY1 in pid/NPY1 in WT p-value
PSNLTGAEIYsLNTTPRPIN70.91076720.85477370.882770440.0127662281.1125988831.1587281141.13566350.033037985
EAIEtGETVPVKPIN70.9271035510.85357340.890338470.0704713921.0552466661.0469532541.051099960.080702772
PSNLTGAEIYSLNTtPRPIN70.9517868780.89909260.925439720.4062379631.124964211.0039099071.064437060.294078921
EAIEtGEtVPVKPIN70.9754107340.92603540.950723050.639055581.1383874430.9792263991.058806920.712820505
AGLQVDNGANEQVGKsDQGGAKPIN75.5154101816.65168186.083545980.0043124161.3101192960.8643925451.087255920.720644418
ELHMFVWGsNGSPVSDRPIN70.9182185620.93852980.928374160.0304461590.9595547491.0492225681.004388660.929513229
DVNTNQQtTLPTGGKPIN31.4287452781.27135321.350049220.0116133070.8856712610.948390790.917031030.044539619
MLVPDQsHNGETKPIN31.7580018581.83873221.798367020.0014221190.872162770.9272668360.89971480.067653426
ELHMFVWsSNGSPVSDRPIN30.9563593021.09925761.027808470.6267869461.0750311961.0605109281.067771060.077051066
AVAHPASGDFGGEQQFsFAGKPIN31.6645952681.54283971.60371750.0030531260.9168184660.9318864190.924352440.079198469
DVNTNQQTTLPTGGKsNSHDAKPIN31.2060784141.21450151.210289970.0059499120.8294046031.0014750740.915439840.237603568
LAPNSTAALQsKPIN31.6150521471.29569241.45537230.0142694560.8886159311.0220367060.955326320.340591893
AVAHPAsGDFGGEQQFsFAGKPIN32.0282149141.83763561.932925240.0028159521.0035133830.8669371610.935225270.4099271
AVAHPAsGDFGGEQQFSFAGKPIN33.2520978844.73179623.991947030.0009379541.0927151510.8647140550.97871460.776844974
AGLNVFGGAPDNDQGGRsDQGAKPIN35.6722905096.32100415.996647290.0044969141.2176372280.7770710550.997354140.92826952
DVNTNQQTTLPTGGKSNsHDAKPIN31.3053825551.10612011.205751320.1712068980.8671461241.1858916991.026518910.965006443
KsGGDDIGGLDSGEGERPIN41.0426705341.40206811.22236930.128290561.0428405960.9744660761.008653340.853312205
GGGDDIGGLDsGEGERPIN43.7101143145.01680014.363457210.0021960751.0736966020.9073412080.99051890.886638269
NSNFGPGEAVFGsKPIN11.5209736671.29378621.407379930.007490930.9641698890.9634730820.963821490.041626442
NsNFGPGEAVFGSKPIN11.1546377941.20176411.178200940.0050359370.9594480570.8901380140.924793040.079103255

The absence of PID hardly affected PIN phosphorylation triggered by NPY1 OE (Table 1), which was consistent with our previous analysis that phosphorylation levels of PIN proteins in pid PIN1-GFPHDR plants were not affected compared to WT plants (Mudgett et al., 2023). We noticed that previous studies uncovered four highly conserved phosphorylation sites in PIN proteins, which are named as S1, S2, S3, and S4 sites and which correspond to S231, S252, S290, and S271 in PIN1, respectively (Barbosa et al., 2018; Figure 2—figure supplement 4). Phosphorylation of S1, S2, S3, or S4 leads to activation of PIN auxin transport and changes in PIN polarity (Lanassa Bassukas et al., 2022). Given that NPY1 OE suppressed pid mutants and that decreases in PIN1 gene dosage and PIN1-GFPHDR suppressed pid, we concluded that phosphorylation at the newly identified sites in PIN proteins leads to the inhibition of PIN activities.

The NPY1 C-terminal domain is required for the suppression of pid mutants

The NPY1 C-terminal domain is Ser/Thr rich (Figure 3—figure supplement 1), suggesting that the region might be important for regulating NPY1 activity and/or interactions between NPY1 and its partners. The NPY1 phospho-peptides we have identified were largely concentrated in this domain (Figure 2—figure supplement 4). We overexpressed a truncated NPY1 that lacked the 30 C-terminal amino acid residues (called NPY1∆C), of which 50% are Ser/Thr (Figure 3—figure supplement 1) to determine whether the C-terminal tail of NPY1 was important for NPY1 functions and whether overexpression of NPY1∆C was sufficient for suppression of pid mutants. We transformed the NPY1∆C construct into a pid-TD1 segregating population. Among the T1 plants that were identified to be pid-TD1 homozygous, none were suppressed by overexpression of NPY1∆C. We observed that overexpression of NPY1∆C actually enhanced the pid-TD1 phenotypes (Figure 3—figure supplement 2).

Overexpression of NPY1∆C disrupts normal responses to auxin and gravity

 Overexpression of NPY1∆C caused obvious developmental phenotypes (Figure 3). The NPY1∆C OE plants were smaller with epinastic and darker leaves compared to WT plants (Figure 3A). Overexpression of NPY1∆C led to smaller plant stature and slower development, but NPY1∆C OE plants were eventually able to set seeds (Figure 3B). We noticed that NPY1∆C OE plants often developed small pin-like structures (Figure 3C and D). At the seedling stage, NPY1∆C overexpression roots were completely agravitropic (Figure 3E). Moreover, we observed that NPY1∆C OE plants were resistant to auxin (Figure 3F). In media containing 100 nM 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), roots of WT plants stopped growing while roots of NPY1∆C OE plants were able to elongate (Figure 3F). Interestingly, the elongated roots of the NPY1∆C OE plants were still agravitropic (Figure 3F).

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
Overexpression of the truncated NPY1 lacking the C-terminal 30 amino acid residues (NPY1∆C) leads to smaller plants, agravitropic roots, and auxin resistance.

(A) Overexpression of NPY1∆C leads to small plant stature. The NPY1∆C plants (two independent lines, #35 and #4) have short petiole and epinastic leaves. (B) NPY1∆C plants have smaller flowers and are slower in developing siliques. (C) NPY1∆C #35 is much shorter than wild type (WT). NPY1∆C plants often have small pin-like structures (arrow). (D) A pin-like structure (arrow) of NPY1∆C #35 plants. (E) NPY1∆C plants have lost normal gravitropic responses. (F) NPY1∆C plants are auxin-resistant. Top panel: 5-day-old seedlings were transferred to MS media containing 100 nM 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and the root tips were marked. Bottom panel: The same plants from the top panel have grown for 3 more days. Note that roots of WT plants stopped growing, while roots of NPY1∆C plants continued to grow. 2,4-D did not rescue the defects of gravitropic responses. Plants from left to right: two NPY1∆C #4, two WT, two WT, two NPY1∆C #35.

Overexpression of NPY1∆C is sufficient to trigger phosphorylation of PIN proteins

NPY1∆C protein levels were increased in the analyzed NPY1∆C overexpression lines (#4 and #35) (Figure 4A). The phenotypes of NPY1∆C OE lines appeared to be correlated with the expression levels of NPY1∆C protein. Line #35 accumulated more NPY1∆C proteins than line #4 (Figure 4A). Line #35 had stronger phenotypes than line #4 (Figure 3A and B). Overexpression of NPY1∆C had a profound impact on the phospho-proteome (Figure 4B). In the NPY1∆C OE lines, we detected 18 NPY1 phospho-peptides (Supplementary file 2, Figure 4C), and the majority of the sites were located in the ANHSPVASVAASSHSPVEK peptide, which was also the main phospho-peptide in the NPY1 OE lines (Figure 2—figure supplement 3, Supplementary file 1).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all
Download asset Open asset
Overexpression of the truncated NPY1 lacking the C-terminal 30 amino acid residues (NPY1∆C) increases phosphorylation of PIN2 and other PINs.

(A) NPY1∆C levels are up several folds in two independent NPY1∆C overexpression lines (line #4 and line #35). (B) Overexpression of NPY1∆C led to increases in phosphorylation of many proteins. The phospho-peptides that were at least 2-fold enriched in NPY1∆C OE lines compared to wild type (WT) and that are statistically significant are shown in the upper-right quadrant. (C) Among the top 50 enriched phospho-peptides in NPY1 ∆C OE lines compared to WT, many are from NPY1 (blue dots) and PIN proteins. (D) PIN2 phosphorylation increased by at least 2-fold in both line #4 and line #35 for the three detected PIN2 peptides. Peptide I is SESGGGGsGGGVGVGGQNK, peptide II refers to KGsDVEDGGPGPR, and peptide III is HGYTNsYGGAGAGPGGDVYSLQSSK.

 Overexpression of NPY1∆C also led to an increase in PIN protein phosphorylation (Figure 4C, Supplementary file 2). We detected phospho-peptides from all of the long PINs (PIN1, PIN2, PIN3, PIN4, and PIN7) (Supplementary file 2). We also detected a phospho-peptide from PIN6, which has a shorter hydrophilic loop than the long PINs (Supplementary file 2).

Many of the identified phosphorylation sites of PIN proteins in the NPY1∆C OE lines were also detected in the NPY1 OE lines (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). However, NPY1∆C lines and NPY1 OE lines also had their unique phosphorylation sites (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). A caveat of this comparison is that the phospho-proteomic data were generated using different tissues. We used flowers and inflorescence heads from NPY1 OE lines and whole seedlings of NPY1∆C OE lines for the analysis. Overall, most of the phosphorylation sites were clustered to regions close to transmembrane domain 6 (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). Another noticeable feature is that some of the phosphorylated residues were not highly conserved among the PIN proteins (Figure 4—figure supplement 1).

NPY1 ∆C-mediated phosphorylation of PINs correlates with phenotypes similar to those of loss-of-function pin2 mutants

Very intriguingly, we detected three PIN2 phospho-peptides, which were at least 2-fold more abundant in the NPY1 ∆C lines than in WT (Figure 4D, Supplementary file 2). The level of two of the PIN2 phospho-peptides was higher in the stronger line #35 than in line #4 (Figure 4D). PIN2 is known to play a critical role in gravitropism, and pin2 mutants have agravitropic roots (Chen et al., 1998; Shin et al., 2005). The NPY1∆C OE lines displayed complete agravitropic roots (Figure 3E) and developed small pin inflorescences (Figure 3F), suggesting that NPY1 ∆C-mediated phosphorylation of PINs led to their inactivation.

Discussion

In this paper, we demonstrate that PID becomes dispensable for flower initiation when NPY1 is overexpressed. We further show that overexpression of NPY1 increases phosphorylation of PIN proteins at sites mostly different from the previously characterized PIN phosphorylation sites. Phosphorylation of PIN proteins at the identified sites described here leads to the inhibition of PIN functions, rather than activation of PINs by phosphorylation at the previously identified sites (Lanassa Bassukas et al., 2022). Moreover, we show that the suppression of pid phenotypes by overexpressing NPY1 requires the C-terminal motif of NPY1. Overexpression of NPY1∆C causes a loss of gravitropism, auxin resistance in roots, and phosphorylation of PIN proteins. Our results demonstrate that the main function of PID is not to directly phosphorylate PIN proteins and that PID affects the accumulation of NPY1 proteins.

Our findings that overexpression of NPY1 completely suppressed pid mutants demonstrate that NPY1 functions downstream of PID in regulating flower initiation in Arabidopsis (Figure 2). Our data presented in this study are consistent with our previous hypothesis that PID/NPY1-mediated flower initiation uses a mechanism that is analogous to that of phototropism (Figure 5; Cheng et al., 2007a; Cheng et al., 2008). The hypothesis was based on the observation that three signaling components in phototropism have their homologous counterparts in the flower initiation pathway (Figure 5). In phototropism, blue light is perceived by phototropins (PHOT1 and PHOT2), which have two LOV domains in the N-terminal part and a kinase domain in the C-terminal part (Huala et al., 1997; Christie et al., 1998; Harper et al., 2003). LOV domains function as photo-receptors that regulate the kinase activities of PHOT1 and PHOT2. The kinase domain of phototropins is highly homologous to PID (Cheng et al., 2007b). Downstream of the phototropins is NPH3, which is homologous to NPY1 (Motchoulski and Liscum, 1999; Cheng et al., 2007a). Phototropins are the starting point of phototropic signal transduction and are undoubtedly upstream of NPH3. Our genetic results unambiguously demonstrated that NPY1 functions downstream of PID (Figure 2), further strengthening the hypothesis that phototropism and PID/NPY1 use analogous mechanisms (Figure 5). In the dark, NPH3 is phosphorylated and forms a complex with PHOT1 (Pedmale and Liscum, 2007). Upon receiving light, NPH3 is dephosphorylated and transiently dissociated from PHOT1 (Christie et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 2021; Haga and Sakai, 2023). Continuous light exposure leads to reconstituting the PHOT1-NPH3 complex and phosphorylation of NPH3 by PHOT1, suggesting that NPH3 phosphorylation by PHOT1 is rather complicated. We found that NPY1 is phosphorylated regardless of the presence of PID (Figure 2 and Supplementary file 1). Moreover, we identified a predominant NPY1 phospho-peptide, which is located right after the NPH3 domain (Supplementary file 1 and Figure 2—figure supplement 3). It will be interesting to determine the biological consequences of the phosphorylation sites in NPY1 through mutagenesis. At present, we do not have evidence that PID uses NPY1 as a substrate. However, it is clear that PID has an impact on NPY1 accumulation (Figure 2). Without PID, NPY1 accumulates significantly less (Figure 2).

Figure 5
Download asset Open asset
The flower initiation pathway and phototropic pathway use analogous signaling mechanisms.

(A) Plasma-membrane-localized phototropins perceive blue light, causing changes in phosphorylation status of NPH3 and NPH3-PHOT association. In the nucleus, transcription factor ARF7/NPH4 also plays a role. (B) Pathway for auxin-mediated flower initiation. Three genes (PID, NPY, and MP) are homologous to their counterparts in phototropism (color-coded). The dotted arrows indicate that there are gaps in our understanding of the step. PHOT: PHOTOTROPIN; NPH3: NON-PHOTOTROPICAL HYPOCOTYL 3; ARF7: AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 7; MP: MONOPTEROS.

 Unexpectedly, overexpression of NPY1 leads to phosphorylation of PIN proteins and likely inhibition of PIN functions. The most abundant phospho-peptides in NPY1 OE lines are from either NPY1 or PIN proteins (Figure 2). The increased NPY1 protein levels in the NPY1 OE lines can partially account for the observed enrichment of phospho-peptides of NPY1 in the overexpression lines. In contrast, overall PIN protein levels were not changed in NPY1 OE lines compared to WT, indicating that NPY1 OE triggered phosphorylation of PIN proteins. Most of the phosphorylation sites in PIN proteins are not the same as those previously characterized (Lanassa Bassukas et al., 2022). We hypothesize that NPY1-triggered phosphorylation of PINs actually inhibits PIN1 functions, because NPY1 OE suppressed pid (Figure 2) and because pid is suppressed by decreasing PIN1 activity or PIN1 gene dosage (Mudgett et al., 2023). Our hypothesis is further supported by our results from overexpression of NPY1∆C, which resulted in PIN2 phosphorylation (Figure 4) and agravitropic roots (Figure 3), a phenotype that was observed in pin2 null mutants (Chen et al., 1998). It is not clear whether NPY1 OE-triggered phosphorylation of PINs inhibits auxin transport activity per se or disrupts protein-protein interactions between PINs and their partners or both.

 Both NPY1 OE and NPY1∆C caused great changes in PIN phosphorylation, and the phosphorylation led to inhibition of PIN functions (Figures 2 and 4). However, NPY1 OE suppressed pid mutants, whereas NPY1∆C could not suppress pid (Figures 2 and 3), suggesting that inhibition of PIN functions per se is not sufficient for suppression of pid. It is known that PIN and NPY proteins physically interact to form protein complexes (Glanc et al., 2021; Matthes et al., 2024). Our results suggest that the C-terminal domain of NPY1 likely interacts with an unknown protein, which is required for normal PID and PIN functions and which needs to be recruited to the NPY-PIN complexes.

 In previous models regarding the mechanisms of PID, PIN1, and NPY1, the first step is direct phosphorylation of PINs by PID (Friml et al., 2004; Michniewicz et al., 2007). Phosphorylated PINs recruit NPY1 to the plasma membrane to maintain PIN polarity by limiting lateral diffusion of the PIN complex (Glanc et al., 2021). However, that overexpression of NPY1 eliminates the need for PID in flower initiation and that overexpression of NPY1 leads to phosphorylation of PIN proteins in the absence of PID are not consistent with the model that PIN1 needs to be directly phosphorylated by PID to be activated. The fact that pin1 and pid displayed opposite cotyledon/leaf phenotypes (Bennett et al., 1995) and that pid is suppressed by heterozygous pin1 mutants (Figure 1) and PIN1-GFPHDR (Mudgett et al., 2023) demonstrated that PID and PIN1 function in opposite directions. Our results firmly established the relative positions of PID and NPY1 in the pathway responsible for flower initiation in Arabidopsis (Figure 5). Moreover, we show that PIN1 functions downstream of NPY1, which recruits unknown kinase(s) to phosphorylate PIN1 and to inhibit PIN1 (Figure 5). It will be interesting to test whether candidate protein kinases such as D6PK (Willige et al., 2013) are recruited by NPY1 to phosphorylate PIN proteins.

Materials and methods

Key resources table
Reagent type (species) or resourceDesignationSource or referenceIdentifiersAdditional information
Gene (Arabidopsis)NPY1NCBIGene ID: 829311Also called ENP
Gene (Arabidopsis)PIDNCBIGene ID: 818030
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)NPY1 overexpression line 68 in wild-type ArabidopsisThis paperNPY1 OE in WT 68Available from this group upon request
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)Wild-type Arabidopsis line segregated out from NPY1 overexpression line 68This paperWT 68Available from this group upon request
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)NPY1 overexpression line 68 in pid ArabidopsisThis paperNPY1 OE in pid 68Available from this group upon request
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)NPY1 overexpression line 83 in wild-type ArabidopsisThis paperNPY1 OE in WT 83Available from this group upon request
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)Wild-type Arabidopsis line segregated out from NPY1 overexpression line 83This paperWT 83Available from this group upon request
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis)NPY1 overexpression line 83 in pid ArabidopsisThis paperNPY1 OE in pid 83Available from this group upon request
Genetic reagent (Arabidopsis)pid knockout generated by CRISPRPMCID: PMC10691239pid-c1Available from this group upon request
Genetic reagent (Arabidopsis)pid-TD1 mutant (Arabidopsis)PMCID: PMC10691239pid-TD1Available from this group upon request
Genetic reagent (Arabidopsis)pid-TD2 mutant (Arabidopsis)PMCID: PMC10691239pid-TD2Available from this group upon request
Transfected construct (Arabidopsis)plasmidThis paperUBQ-NPY1Available from this group upon request

Plant growth

Request a detailed protocol

Plants used in this study were the Arabidopsis thaliana Columbia-0 ecotype. Sterilized seeds were sown on a 0.7% agar-agar medium containing Murashige and Skoog basal salts at ½ concentration. Sown seeds were subjected to a 2-day dark stratification period at 4°C and then moved to a growth chamber with a 16 hr day/8 hr night cycle. After 1 week, seedlings were transferred to soil and maintained under the same light conditions.

Arabidopsis mutant lines

Request a detailed protocol

The pin1 mutant lines were generated by CRISPR/Cas9 using methods described previously (Gao et al., 2016). The lines used in this study are T2 or later generations, and they were Cas9-free. All pid mutant lines were described previously (Mudgett et al., 2024).

Plant transformation

Request a detailed protocol

Transgenic plants were created by performing the floral dipping procedure on adult plants with unopened flowers using published protocols (Clough and Bent, 1998). The Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101 was used to perform all transformations in this study. Seeds were harvested from transformed plants, and transformants were selected via the expression of the mCherry fluorescent marker present on the transformed vectors (Gao et al., 2016).

Plasmid construction

Request a detailed protocol

Vectors for gene knockouts were created by cloning two guide RNAs into the pHEE401E backbone as described in Mudgett et al., 2024. Overexpression vectors were assembled via Gibson Assembly in the pHDE backbone (Gao et al., 2016). Primers used in this study are listed in Supplementary file 3.

Proteomics method

Request a detailed protocol

The following tissues were collected and were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen for proteomic analysis. Inflorescence heads, which include flower buds and meristems from WT (Columbia background)-68, NPY1 OE in WT-68, NPY1 OE in pid-c1-68, WT-83, NPY1 OE in WT-83, NPY1 OE in pid-c1-83 were collected. Whole seedlings of 7-day-old Col-WT and NPY1∆C #35 and #4 were used in this study.

About 0.5 g of frozen tissue was ground in liquid nitrogen by a mortar/pestle for 15 min to fine powders, and then transferred to a 50 mL conical tube. Proteins were precipitated and washed by 50 mL –20°C acetone three times, then by 50 mL –20°C methanol three times. Samples were centrifuged at 4000 × g, 4°C for 10 min. Supernatant was removed and discarded.

Protein pellets were suspended in extraction buffer (8 M urea/100 mM Tris/5 mM TCEP/phosphatase inhibitors, pH 7). Proteins were first digested with Lys-C (Wako Chemicals, 125-05061) at 37°C for 15 min. Protein solution was diluted eight times to 1 M urea with 100 mM Tris and digested with trypsin (Roche, 03708969001) for 12 hr. Cysteines were alkylated by adding 10 mM iodoacetamide and incubating at 37°C for 30 min in the dark.

Digested peptides were purified on a Waters Sep-Pak C18 cartridges, eluted with 60% acetonitrile. TMT labeling (Supplementary file 4) was performed in 60% acetonitrile/100 mM HEPES, pH 7. TMT labeling efficiency was checked by LC-MS/MS to be greater than 99%. Labeled peptides from different samples were pooled together. 150 µg of pooled peptides were analyzed by 2D-nano-LC-MS/MS for total proteome profiling, and 1 mg of total peptides was used for phosphopeptide enrichment.

Phosphopeptide enrichment was performed using CeO2 affinity capture. 20% colloidal CeO2 (Sigma, 289744) was added to the acidified peptide solution (2% TFA/2M lactic acid/60% acetonitrile). After brief vortexing, CeO2 with captured phosphopeptides was spun down at 5000×g for 1 min. Supernatant was then removed and the CeO2 pellet was washed with 1 mL of 2% TFA/2 M lactic acid/50% acetonitrile. Phosphopeptides were eluted by adding 200 µL eluting buffer (50 mM (NH4)2HPO4, 2 M NH3·H2O, 10 mM EDTA, pH 9.5) and vortexed briefly. CeO2 was precipitated by adding 200 µL acetonitrile. Samples were centrifuged at 16,100×g for 1 min. Supernatant containing phosphopeptides was removed and dried in a SpeedVac. Phosphopeptides were resuspended in 100 mM citric acid and ready for mass spectrometry analysis.

A Thermo Scientific Vanquish Neo UHPLC system (Buffer A: Water with 0.1% formic acid; Buffer B: 80% acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid) was used to deliver a flow rate of 500 nL/min to a self-packed three-phase capillary (360 µm OD/200 µm ID) chromatography column. Column phases were a 10-cm-long reverse phase (RP1, 5 μm Zorbax SB-C18, Agilent), 6-cm-long strong cation exchange (SCX, 3 μm PolySulfoethyl, PolyLC), and 20-cm-long reverse phase 2 (RP2, ReproSil-Pur 120 C18-AQ, 1.9 µm), with the electrospray tip of the fused silica tubing pulled to a sharp tip.

Peptide mixtures were loaded onto RP1 using an off-line pressure chamber, and the three sections were joined for online 2D LC separation. Peptides were eluted from the RP1 section to the SCX section using a 0–80% acetonitrile gradient for 60 min and then were fractionated by the SCX column section by injecting a series of ammonium acetate solutions (5 µL of 10 mM, 20 mM, 30 mM, 40 mM, 50 mM, 60 mM, 70 mM, 80 mM, 90 mM, 100 mM, and 1 M), followed by high-resolution reverse-phase separation on the RP2 section of the column using an acetonitrile gradient (0–0.1 min 1% B to 5% B, 0.1–110.1 min 5% B to 35% B, 110.1–120.1 min 35% B to 60% B, 120.1–120.3 min 60% B to 95% B, 120.3–126 min 95% B).

Mass spectra were acquired on a Thermo Exploris 480 mass spectrometer operated in positive ion mode with a source temperature of 300°C and spray voltage of 2.1 kV. Automated data-dependent acquisition was employed for the top 20 ions, with an isolation window of 0.7 Da and collision energy of 35. Precursor Fit was set to 70% of fit threshold and 0.7 Da fit window. The mass resolution is set at 100,000 for MS and 30,000 for MS/MS scans, respectively. TurboTMT was enabled. Dynamic exclusion of 30 s was used to improve the duty cycle.

The raw data was extracted and searched using Spectrum Mill vBI.07 (Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard). MS/MS spectra with a sequence tag length of 1 or less were considered to be poor spectra and were discarded. The remaining high-quality MS/MS spectra were searched against Arabidopsis TAIR11 protein database. A 1:1 concatenated forward-reverse database was constructed to calculate the false discovery rate (FDR). Common contaminants such as trypsin and keratin were included in the protein database. There were 96,562 protein sequences in the final protein database. Search parameters were set to Spectrum Mill’s default settings with the enzyme parameter limited to full tryptic peptides with a maximum mis-cleavage of 1. Cutoff scores were dynamically assigned to each dataset to obtain the FDRs of 0.1% for peptides and 1% for proteins. Phosphorylation sites were localized to a particular amino acid within a peptide using the variable modification localization score in Spectrum Mill software. Proteins that share common peptides were grouped using principles of parsimony to address protein database redundancy. Total TMT reporter intensities were used for relative protein quantitation. Peptides shared among different protein groups were removed before TMT quantitation. Isotope impurities of TMT reagents were corrected using correction factors provided by the manufacturer (Thermo). Median normalization was performed to normalize the protein TMT reporter intensities in which the log ratios between different TMT tags were adjusted globally such that the median log ratio was zero.

Proteomics data deposition

Request a detailed protocol

The raw spectra for the proteome data have been deposited in the Mass Spectrometry Interactive Virtual Environment (MassIVE) repository (massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp, accession ID MSV000098241). FTP download link before publication: ftp://MSV000098241@massive-ftp.ucsd.edu; FTP download link after publication: Principal component a ftp://massive-ftp.ucsd.edu/v10/MSV000098241/.

Data availability

The raw spectra for the proteome data have been deposited in the Mass Spectrometry Interactive Virtual Environment (MassIVE) repository (massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp, accession ID MSV000098241). FTP download link: ftp://massive-ftp.ucsd.edu/v10/MSV000098241/.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Mudgett M
    2. Shen Z
    3. Kang R
    4. Dai X
    5. Briggs S
    6. Zhao Y
    (2025) MassIVE
    ID MSV000098241. An increase of NPY1 expression leads to inhibitory phosphorylation of PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins and suppression of pinoid (pid) null mutants.
    https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/dataset.jsp?accession=MSV000098241

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Michael Mudgett

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  2. Zhouxin Shen

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  3. Ruofan Kang

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  4. Xinhua Dai

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  5. Steven P Briggs

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    sbriggs@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7226-8618

  6. Yunde Zhao

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    yundezhao@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7224-8449

Funding

National Science Foundation (1546899)

  • Steven P Briggs

Tata Endowed professorship

  • Yunde Zhao

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

We thank the UCSD Goeddel Family Technology Sandbox for providing the Thermo Scientific Vanquish Neo UHPLC system and Exploris 480 mass spectrometer used in this research to generate the proteomics and phospho-proteomics data. This work was partially supported by the NIH Cell and Molecular Genetics Training Program (5T32GM007240-43) to MM, NSF Grant 1546899 to SPB, and Tata Chancellor’s Endowed Professorship to YZ.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted:
  2. Sent for peer review:
  3. Reviewed Preprint version 1:
  4. Version of Record published:

Cite all versions

You can cite all versions using the DOI https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207. This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one.

Copyright

© 2025, Mudgett et al.

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

Metrics

  • 532
    views
  • 36
    downloads
  • 0
    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. Michael Mudgett
  2. Zhouxin Shen
  3. Ruofan Kang
  4. Xinhua Dai
  5. Steven P Briggs
  6. Yunde Zhao
(2025)
An increase of NPY1 expression leads to inhibitory phosphorylation of PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins and suppression of pinoid (pid) null mutants
eLife 14:RP108207.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207.2

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108207

Categories and tags

Research organism