Stromule extension along microtubules coordinated with actin-mediated anchoring guides perinuclear chloroplast movement during innate immunity

Abstract

Dynamic tubular extensions from chloroplasts called stromules have recently been shown to connect with nuclei and function during innate immunity. We demonstrate that stromules extend along microtubules (MTs) and MT organization directly affects stromule dynamics since stabilization of MTs chemically or genetically increases stromule numbers and length. Although actin filaments (AFs) are not required for stromule extension, they provide anchor points for stromules. Interestingly, there is a strong correlation between the direction of stromules from chloroplasts and the direction of chloroplast movement. Stromule-directed chloroplast movement was observed in steady-state conditions without immune induction, suggesting it is a general function of stromules in epidermal cells. Our results show that MTs and AFs may facilitate perinuclear clustering of chloroplasts during an innate immune response. We propose a model in which stromules extend along MTs and connect to AF anchor points surrounding nuclei, facilitating stromule-directed movement of chloroplasts to nuclei during innate immunity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amutha Sampath Kumar

    Delaware Biotechnology Insititute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Eunsook Park

    Department of Plant and The Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2984-3039
  3. Alexander Nedo

    Delaware Biotechnology Insititute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ali Alqarni

    Delaware Biotechnology Insititute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Li Ren

    Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kyle Hoban

    Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Shannon Modla

    Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. John H McDonald

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chandra Kambhamettu

    Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Savithramma P Dinesh-Kumar

    Department of Plant and The Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    spdineshkumar@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jeffrey Lewis Caplan

    Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    For correspondence
    jcaplan@udel.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3991-0912

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM097587)

  • Savithramma P Dinesh-Kumar
  • Jeffrey Lewis Caplan

National Institutes of Health (P20 GM103446)

  • Jeffrey Lewis Caplan

National Institutes of Health (S10 OD016361)

  • Jeffrey Lewis Caplan

National Institutes of Health (S10 RR027273)

  • Jeffrey Lewis Caplan

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

Copyright

© 2018, Kumar 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

  • 6,517
    views
  • 960
    downloads
  • 73
    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. Amutha Sampath Kumar
  2. Eunsook Park
  3. Alexander Nedo
  4. Ali Alqarni
  5. Li Ren
  6. Kyle Hoban
  7. Shannon Modla
  8. John H McDonald
  9. Chandra Kambhamettu
  10. Savithramma P Dinesh-Kumar
  11. Jeffrey Lewis Caplan
(2018)
Stromule extension along microtubules coordinated with actin-mediated anchoring guides perinuclear chloroplast movement during innate immunity
eLife 7:e23625.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23625

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23625

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Mitsuhiro Abe, Masataka Yanagawa ... Yasushi Sako
    Research Article

    Anionic lipid molecules, including phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P2), are implicated in the regulation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the role of the spatiotemporal dynamics of PI(4,5)P2 in the regulation of EGFR activity in living cells is not fully understood, as it is difficult to visualize the local lipid domains around EGFR. Here, we visualized both EGFR and PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains in the plasma membrane of HeLa cells using super-resolution single-molecule microscopy. The EGFR and PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains aggregated before stimulation with epidermal growth factor (EGF) through transient visits of EGFR to the PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains. The degree of coaggregation decreased after EGF stimulation and depended on phospholipase Cγ, the EGFR effector hydrolyzing PI(4,5)P2. Artificial reduction in the PI(4,5)P2 content of the plasma membrane reduced both the dimerization and autophosphorylation of EGFR after stimulation with EGF. Inhibition of PI(4,5)P2 hydrolysis after EGF stimulation decreased phosphorylation of EGFR-Thr654. Thus, EGFR kinase activity and the density of PI(4,5)P2 around EGFR molecules were found to be mutually regulated.

    1. Cell Biology
    Wonjo Jang, Kanishka Senarath ... Nevin A Lambert
    Tools and Resources

    Classical G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling takes place in response to extracellular stimuli and involves receptors and heterotrimeric G proteins located at the plasma membrane. It has recently been established that GPCR signaling can also take place from intracellular membrane compartments, including endosomes that contain internalized receptors and ligands. While the mechanisms of GPCR endocytosis are well understood, it is not clear how well internalized receptors are supplied with G proteins. To address this gap, we use gene editing, confocal microscopy, and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer to study the distribution and trafficking of endogenous G proteins. We show here that constitutive endocytosis is sufficient to supply newly internalized endocytic vesicles with 20–30% of the G protein density found at the plasma membrane. We find that G proteins are present on early, late, and recycling endosomes, are abundant on lysosomes, but are virtually undetectable on the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, and the medial-trans Golgi apparatus. Receptor activation does not change heterotrimer abundance on endosomes. Our findings provide a subcellular map of endogenous G protein distribution, suggest that G proteins may be partially excluded from nascent endocytic vesicles, and are likely to have implications for GPCR signaling from endosomes and other intracellular compartments.