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

  • 2,734
    views
  • 523
    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. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.