1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Plant Biology
Download icon

Two bifunctional inositol pyrophosphate kinases/phosphatases control plant phosphate homeostasis

  1. Jinsheng Zhu
  2. Kelvin Lau
  3. Robert Puschmann
  4. Robert K Harmel
  5. Youjun Zhang
  6. Verena Pries
  7. Philipp Gaugler
  8. Larissa Broger
  9. Amit K Dutta
  10. Henning J Jessen
  11. Gabriel Schaaf
  12. Alisdair R Fernie
  13. Ludwig A Hothorn
  14. Dorothea Fiedler
  15. Michael Hothorn  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Geneva, Switzerland
  2. Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Germany
  3. Max-Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany
  4. University of Bonn, Germany
  5. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  6. Max-Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany
  7. Leibniz University, Germany
Research Article
  • Cited 44
  • Views 3,798
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e43582 doi: 10.7554/eLife.43582

Abstract

Many eukaryotic proteins regulating phosphate (Pi) homeostasis contain SPX domains that are receptors for inositol pyrophosphates (PP-InsP), suggesting that PP-InsPs may regulate Pi homeostasis. Here we report that deletion of two diphosphoinositol pentakisphosphate kinases VIH1/2 impairs plant growth and leads to constitutive Pi starvation responses. Deletion of phosphate starvation response transcription factors partially rescues vih1 vih2 mutant phenotypes, placing diphosphoinositol pentakisphosphate kinases in plant Pi signal transduction cascades. VIH1/2 are bifunctional enzymes able to generate and break-down PP-InsPs. Mutations in the kinase active site lead to increased Pi levels and constitutive Pi starvation responses. ATP levels change significantly in different Pi growth conditions. ATP-Mg2+ concentrations shift the relative kinase and phosphatase activities of diphosphoinositol pentakisphosphate kinases in vitro. Pi inhibits the phosphatase activity of the enzyme. Thus, VIH1 and VIH2 relay changes in cellular ATP and Pi concentrations to changes in PP-InsP levels, allowing plants to maintain sufficient Pi levels.

Data availability

Pi measurements: raw data included in actual figurePhenotypes: representative lines shown in main figures, at least three independent lines shown in figure supplementsWestern blots: full western blots shown in figure supplementsProtein gels: Full gels shown in figure 5 supplement 1 and figure 6 supplement 1DNA sequences of the truncated VIH2 transcript is in figure 2 supplement 1NMR data: full 1D and 2D spectra shown in figure 5 and figure 5 supplement 2, figure 6 supplement 2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jinsheng Zhu

    Structural Plant Biology Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biology, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8131-1876

  2. Kelvin Lau

    Structural Plant Biology Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biology, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Robert Puschmann

    Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6443-2326

  4. Robert K Harmel

    Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Youjun Zhang

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

  6. Verena Pries

    Department of Plant Nutrition, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Philipp Gaugler

    Department of Plant Nutrition, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Larissa Broger

    Structural Plant Biology Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biology, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Amit K Dutta

    Institute of Organic Chemistry, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Henning J Jessen

    Institute of Organic Chemistry, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  11. Gabriel Schaaf

    Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Department of Plant Nutrition, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  12. Alisdair R Fernie

    Max-Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam-Golm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  13. Ludwig A Hothorn

    Institute of Biostatistics, Leibniz University, Hannover, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  14. Dorothea Fiedler

    Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  15. Michael Hothorn

    Structural Plant Biology Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biology, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    michael.hothorn@unige.ch
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3597-5698

Funding

H2020 European Research Council (310856)

  • Michael Hothorn

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (CRSII5_170925)

  • Dorothea Fiedler
  • Michael Hothorn

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (55008733)

  • Michael Hothorn

European Molecular Biology Organization (ALTF 493-2015)

  • Kelvin Lau

Leibniz-Gemeinschaft (SAW-2017-FMP-1)

  • Dorothea Fiedler

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHA 1274/4-1)

  • Gabriel Schaaf

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

  • Youjun Zhang
  • Alisdair R Fernie

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (PlantaSYST)

  • Youjun Zhang
  • Alisdair R Fernie

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jürgen Kleine-Vehn, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

Publication history

  1. Received: November 12, 2018
  2. Accepted: August 21, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 22, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 6, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Zhu 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

  • 3,798
    Page views
  • 654
    Downloads
  • 44
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organisms

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology

    MCPH1 inhibits condensin II during interphase by regulating its SMC2-kleisin interface

    Martin Houlard et al.
    Research Article

    The dramatic change in morphology of chromosomal DNAs between interphase and mitosis is one of the defining features of the eukaryotic cell cycle. Two types of enzymes, namely cohesin and condensin confer the topology of chromosomal DNA by extruding DNA loops. While condensin normally configures chromosomes exclusively during mitosis, cohesin does so during interphase. The processivity of cohesin’s loop extrusion during interphase is limited by a regulatory factor called WAPL, which induces cohesin to dissociate from chromosomes via a mechanism that requires dissociation of its kleisin from the neck of SMC3. We show here that a related mechanism may be responsible for blocking condensin II from acting during interphase. Cells derived from patients affected by microcephaly caused by mutations in the MCPH1 gene undergo premature chromosome condensation but it has never been established for certain whether MCPH1 regulates condensin II directly. We show that deletion of Mcph1 in mouse embryonic stem cells unleashes an activity of condensin II that triggers formation of compact chromosomes in G1 and G2 phases, which is accompanied by enhanced mixing of A and B chromatin compartments, and that this occurs even in the absence of CDK1 activity. Crucially, inhibition of condensin II by MCPH1 depends on the binding of a short linear motif within MCPH1 to condensin II's NCAPG2 subunit. We show that the activities of both Cohesin and Condensin II may be restricted during interphase by similar types of mechanisms as MCPH1's ability to block condensin II's association with chromatin is abrogated by the fusion of SMC2 with NCAPH2. Remarkably, in the absence of both WAPL and MCPH1, cohesin and condensin II transform chromosomal DNAs of G2 cells into chromosomes with a solenoidal axis showing that both cohesin and condensin must be tightly regulated to adjust the structure of chromatids for their successful segregation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology

    Molecular features underlying differential SHP1/SHP2 binding of immune checkpoint receptors

    Xiaozheng Xu et al.
    Research Article Updated

    A large number of inhibitory receptors recruit SHP1 and/or SHP2, tandem-SH2-containing phosphatases through phosphotyrosine-based motifs immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based switch motif (ITSM). Despite the similarity, these receptors exhibit differential effector binding specificities, as exemplified by the immune checkpoint receptors PD-1 and BTLA, which preferentially recruit SHP2 and SHP1, respectively. The molecular basis by which structurally similar receptors discriminate SHP1 and SHP2 is unclear. Here, we provide evidence that human PD-1 and BTLA optimally bind to SHP1 and SHP2 via a bivalent, parallel mode that involves both SH2 domains of SHP1 or SHP2. PD-1 mainly uses its ITSM to prefer SHP2 over SHP1 via their C-terminal SH2 domains (cSH2): swapping SHP1-cSH2 with SHP2-cSH2 enabled PD-1:SHP1 association in T cells. In contrast, BTLA primarily utilizes its ITIM to prefer SHP1 over SHP2 via their N-terminal SH2 domains (nSH2). The ITIM of PD-1, however, appeared to be de-emphasized due to a glycine at pY+1 position. Substitution of this glycine with alanine, a residue conserved in BTLA and several SHP1-recruiting receptors, was sufficient to induce PD-1:SHP1 interaction in T cells. Finally, structural simulation and mutagenesis screening showed that SHP1 recruitment activity exhibits a bell-shaped dependence on the molecular volume of the pY+1 residue of ITIM. Collectively, we provide a molecular interpretation of the SHP1/SHP2-binding specificities of PD-1 and BTLA, with implications for the mechanisms of a large family of therapeutically relevant receptors.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    A molecular mechanism for the generation of ligand-dependent differential outputs by the epidermal growth factor receptor

    Yongjian Huang et al.
    Research Article

    The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a receptor tyrosine kinase that couples the binding of extracellular ligands, such as EGF and transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), to the initiation of intracellular signaling pathways. EGFR binds to EGF and TGF-α with similar affinity, but generates different signals from these ligands. To address the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon, we have carried out cryo-EM analyses of human EGFR bound to EGF and TGF-α. We show that the extracellular module adopts an ensemble of dimeric conformations when bound to either EGF or TGF-α. The two extreme states of this ensemble represent distinct ligand-bound quaternary structures in which the membrane-proximal tips of the extracellular module are either juxtaposed or separated. EGF and TGF-α differ in their ability to maintain the conformation with the membrane-proximal tips of the extracellular module separated, and this conformation is stabilized preferentially by an oncogenic EGFR mutation. Close proximity of the transmembrane helices at the junction with the extracellular module has been associated previously with increased EGFR activity. Our results show how EGFR can couple the binding of different ligands to differential modulation of this proximity, thereby suggesting a molecular mechanism for the generation of ligand-sensitive differential outputs in this receptor family.