Tracking transcription factor mobility and interaction in Arabidopsis roots with fluorescence correlation spectroscopy

  1. Natalie M Clark
  2. Elizabeth Hinde
  3. Cara M Winter
  4. Adam P Fisher
  5. Giuseppe Crosti
  6. Ikram Blilou
  7. Enrico Gratton
  8. Philip N Benfey  Is a corresponding author
  9. Rosangela Sozzani
  1. North Carolina State University, United States
  2. University of California, Irvine, United States
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Duke University, United States
  4. Wageningen University, Netherlands

Abstract

To understand complex regulatory processes in multicellular organisms, it is critical to be able to quantitatively analyze protein movement and protein-protein interactions in time and space. During Arabidopsis development, the intercellular movement of SHORTROOT (SHR) and subsequent interaction with its downstream target SCARECROW (SCR) control root patterning and cell fate specification. However, quantitative information about the spatio-temporal dynamics of SHR movement and SHR-SCR interaction is currently unavailable. Here, we quantify parameters including SHR mobility, oligomeric state, and association with SCR using a combination of Fluorescent Correlation Spectroscopy (FCS) techniques. We then incorporate these parameters into a mathematical model of SHR and SCR, which shows that SHR reaches a steady state in minutes, while SCR and the SHR-SCR complex reach a steady-state between 18 and 24 hours. Our model reveals the timing of SHR and SCR dynamics and allows us to understand how protein movement and protein-protein stoichiometry contribute to development.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Natalie M Clark

    Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Elizabeth Hinde

    Laboratory for Fluorescence Dynamics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Cara M Winter

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Adam P Fisher

    Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Giuseppe Crosti

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ikram Blilou

    Plant Developmental Biology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Enrico Gratton

    Laboratory for Fluorescence Dynamics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Philip N Benfey

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States
    For correspondence
    philip.benfey@duke.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Rosangela Sozzani

    Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Clark 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

  • 4,124
    views
  • 1,129
    downloads
  • 75
    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. Natalie M Clark
  2. Elizabeth Hinde
  3. Cara M Winter
  4. Adam P Fisher
  5. Giuseppe Crosti
  6. Ikram Blilou
  7. Enrico Gratton
  8. Philip N Benfey
  9. Rosangela Sozzani
(2016)
Tracking transcription factor mobility and interaction in Arabidopsis roots with fluorescence correlation spectroscopy
eLife 5:e14770.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14770

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14770

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Thomas A Bos, Elizaveta Polyakova ... Monique RM Jongbloed
    Research Article

    Human autonomic neuronal cell models are emerging as tools for modelling diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias. In this systematic review, we compared thirty-three articles applying fourteen different protocols to generate sympathetic neurons and three different procedures to produce parasympathetic neurons. All methods involved the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, and none employed permanent or reversible cell immortalization. Almost all protocols were reproduced in multiple pluripotent stem cell lines, and over half show evidence of neural firing capacity. Common limitations in the field are a lack of three-dimensional models and models including multiple cell types. Sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols largely mirrored embryonic development, with the notable absence of migration, axon extension, and target-specificity cues. Parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocols may be improved by including several embryonic cues promoting cell survival, cell maturation, or ion channel expression. Moreover, additional markers to define parasympathetic neurons in vitro may support the validity of these protocols. Nonetheless, four sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols and one parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocol reported more than two thirds of cells expressing autonomic neuron markers. Altogether, these protocols promise to open new research avenues of human autonomic neuron development and disease modelling.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Svanhild Nornes, Susann Bruche ... Sarah De Val
    Research Article Updated

    The establishment and growth of the arterial endothelium require the coordinated expression of numerous genes. However, regulation of this process is not yet fully understood. Here, we combined in silico analysis with transgenic mice and zebrafish models to characterize arterial-specific enhancers associated with eight key arterial identity genes (Acvrl1/Alk1, Cxcr4, Cxcl12, Efnb2, Gja4/Cx37, Gja5/Cx40, Nrp1, and Unc5b). Next, to elucidate the regulatory pathways upstream of arterial gene transcription, we investigated the transcription factors binding each arterial enhancer compared to a similar assessment of non-arterial endothelial enhancers. These results found that binding of SOXF and ETS factors was a common occurrence at both arterial and pan-endothelial enhancers, suggesting neither are sufficient to direct arterial specificity. Conversely, FOX motifs independent of ETS motifs were over-represented at arterial enhancers. Further, MEF2 and RBPJ binding was enriched but not ubiquitous at arterial enhancers, potentially linked to specific patterns of behaviour within the arterial endothelium. Lastly, there was no shared or arterial-specific signature for WNT-associated TCF/LEF, TGFβ/BMP-associated SMAD1/5 and SMAD2/3, shear stress-associated KLF4, or venous-enriched NR2F2. This cohort of well-characterized and in vivo-verified enhancers can now provide a platform for future studies into the interaction of different transcriptional and signaling pathways with arterial gene expression.