Effects of microcompartmentation on flux distribution and metabolic pools in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chloroplasts

  1. Anika Küken
  2. Frederik Sommer
  3. Liliya Yaneva-Roder
  4. Luke C M Mackinder
  5. Melanie Höhne
  6. Stefan Geimer
  7. Martin C Jonikas
  8. Michael Schroda
  9. Mark Stitt
  10. Zoran Nikoloski
  11. Tabea Mettler-Altmann  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany
  2. Carnegie Institution for Science, United States
  3. Universität Bayreuth, Germany

Abstract

Cells and organelles are not homogeneous but include microcompartments that alter the spatiotemporal characteristics of cellular processes. The effects of microcompartmentation on metabolic pathways are however difficult to study experimentally. The pyrenoid is a microcompartment that is essential for a carbon concentrating mechanism (CCM) that improves the photosynthetic performance of eukaryotic algae. Using Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, we obtained experimental data on photosynthesis, metabolites, and proteins in CCM-induced and CCM-suppressed cells. We then employed a computational strategy to estimate how fluxes through the Calvin-Benson cycle are compartmented between the pyrenoid and the stroma. Our model predicts that ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP), the substrate of Rubisco, and 3-phosphoglycerate (3PGA), its product, diffuse in and out of the pyrenoid, respectively, with higher fluxes in CCM-induced cells. It also indicates that there is no major diffusional barrier to metabolic flux between the pyrenoid and stroma. Our computational approach represents a stepping stone to understanding microcompartmentalized CCM in other organisms.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2, 5 and 6.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anika Küken

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1367-0719
  2. Frederik Sommer

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Liliya Yaneva-Roder

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Luke C M Mackinder

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1440-3233
  5. Melanie Höhne

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Stefan Geimer

    Institute of Cell Biology, Universität Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Martin C Jonikas

    Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michael Schroda

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mark Stitt

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zoran Nikoloski

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2671-6763
  11. Tabea Mettler-Altmann

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    For correspondence
    tabea.mettler@hhu.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9161-4889

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 1028)

  • Tabea Mettler-Altmann

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (FKZ0313924)

  • Frederik Sommer
  • Liliya Yaneva-Roder
  • Michael Schroda
  • Mark Stitt
  • Tabea Mettler-Altmann

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Open-access funding)

  • Anika Küken

National Science Foundation (EF-1105617)

  • Martin C Jonikas

National Institutes of Health (DP2-GM-119137)

  • Martin C Jonikas

Simons Foundation (55108535)

  • Martin C Jonikas

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

Copyright

© 2018, Küken 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

  • 2,706
    views
  • 519
    downloads
  • 37
    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. Anika Küken
  2. Frederik Sommer
  3. Liliya Yaneva-Roder
  4. Luke C M Mackinder
  5. Melanie Höhne
  6. Stefan Geimer
  7. Martin C Jonikas
  8. Michael Schroda
  9. Mark Stitt
  10. Zoran Nikoloski
  11. Tabea Mettler-Altmann
(2018)
Effects of microcompartmentation on flux distribution and metabolic pools in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chloroplasts
eLife 7:e37960.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37960

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37960

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Lina Antenucci, Salla Virtanen ... Perttu Permi
    Research Article

    Orchestrated action of peptidoglycan (PG) synthetases and hydrolases is vital for bacterial growth and viability. Although the function of several PG synthetases and hydrolases is well understood, the function, regulation, and mechanism of action of PG hydrolases characterised as lysostaphin-like endopeptidases have remained elusive. Many of these M23 family members can hydrolyse glycyl-glycine peptide bonds and show lytic activity against Staphylococcus aureus whose PG contains a pentaglycine bridge, but their exact substrate specificity and hydrolysed bonds are still vaguely determined. In this work, we have employed NMR spectroscopy to study both the substrate specificity and the bond cleavage of the bactericide lysostaphin and the S. aureus PG hydrolase LytM. Yet, we provide substrate-level evidence for the functional role of these enzymes. Indeed, our results show that the substrate specificities of these structurally highly homologous enzymes are similar, but unlike observed earlier both LytM and lysostaphin prefer the D-Ala-Gly cross-linked part of mature peptidoglycan. However, we show that while lysostaphin is genuinely a glycyl-glycine hydrolase, LytM can also act as a D-alanyl-glycine endopeptidase.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ting-Wen Chen, Hsiao-Wei Liao ... Chung-Te Chang
    Research Article

    The mRNA 5'-cap structure removal by the decapping enzyme DCP2 is a critical step in gene regulation. While DCP2 is the catalytic subunit in the decapping complex, its activity is strongly enhanced by multiple factors, particularly DCP1, which is the major activator in yeast. However, the precise role of DCP1 in metazoans has yet to be fully elucidated. Moreover, in humans, the specific biological functions of the two DCP1 paralogs, DCP1a and DCP1b, remain largely unknown. To investigate the role of human DCP1, we generated cell lines that were deficient in DCP1a, DCP1b, or both to evaluate the importance of DCP1 in the decapping machinery. Our results highlight the importance of human DCP1 in decapping process and show that the EVH1 domain of DCP1 enhances the mRNA-binding affinity of DCP2. Transcriptome and metabolome analyses outline the distinct functions of DCP1a and DCP1b in human cells, regulating specific endogenous mRNA targets and biological processes. Overall, our findings provide insights into the molecular mechanism of human DCP1 in mRNA decapping and shed light on the distinct functions of its paralogs.