Abstract

Protein ubiquitination is a very diverse post-translational modification leading to protein degradation or delocalization, or altering protein activity. In Arabidopsis thaliana, two E3 ligases, BIG BROTHER (BB) and DA2, activate the latent peptidases DA1, DAR1 and DAR2 by mono-ubiquitination at multiple sites. Subsequently, these activated peptidases destabilize various positive regulators of growth. Here, we show that two ubiquitin-specific proteases, UBP12 and UBP13, deubiquitinate DA1, DAR1 and DAR2, hence reducing their peptidase activity. Overexpression of UBP12 or UBP13 strongly decreased leaf size and cell area, and resulted in lower ploidy levels. Mutants in which UBP12 and UBP13 were downregulated produced smaller leaves that contained fewer and smaller cells. Remarkably, neither UBP12 nor UBP13 were found to be cleavage substrates of the activated DA1. Our results therefore suggest that UBP12 and UBP13 work upstream of DA1, DAR1 and DAR2 to restrict their protease activity and hence fine-tune plant growth and development.

Data availability

All generated data is included in the data source files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hannes Vanhaeren

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    For correspondence
    hahae@psb.vib-ugent.be
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ying Chen

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mattias Vermeersch

    Department of Plant Systems Biology, VIB/UGent, Ghent, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Liesbeth De Milde

    Department of Plant Systems Biology, VIB/UGent, Ghent, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Valerie De Vleeschhauwer

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Annelore Natran

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Geert Persiau

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Dominique Eeckhout

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Geert De Jaeger

    Center for Plant Systems Biology, VIB/UGent, Ghent, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kris Gevaert

    VIB Center for Medical Biotechnology, Department of Biomolecular Medicine, VIB/UGent, Ghent, Belgium
    For correspondence
    kris.gevaert@vib-ugent.be
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Dirk Inzé

    VIB Center for Plant Systems Biology, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, VIB/UGent, Zwijnaarde, Belgium
    For correspondence
    dirk.inze@psb.vib-ugent.be
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3217-8407

Funding

Ghent University Bijzonder Onderzoeksfondsen (BOF08/01M00408)

  • Mattias Vermeersch

Ghent University Bijzonder Onderzoeksfondsen (01SC3117)

  • Ying Chen

Chinese Scholarship Council (201604910566)

  • Ying Chen

Research Foundation Flanders (12V0218N)

  • Hannes Vanhaeren

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

Version history

  1. Received: September 27, 2019
  2. Accepted: March 24, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 25, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 8, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Vanhaeren 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

  • 2,989
    views
  • 686
    downloads
  • 32
    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. Hannes Vanhaeren
  2. Ying Chen
  3. Mattias Vermeersch
  4. Liesbeth De Milde
  5. Valerie De Vleeschhauwer
  6. Annelore Natran
  7. Geert Persiau
  8. Dominique Eeckhout
  9. Geert De Jaeger
  10. Kris Gevaert
  11. Dirk Inzé
(2020)
UBP12 and UBP13 negatively regulate the activity of the ubiquitin-dependent peptidases DA1, DAR1 and DAR2
eLife 9:e52276.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52276

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52276

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Henning Mühlenbeck, Yuko Tsutsui ... Cyril Zipfel
    Research Article

    Transmembrane signaling by plant receptor kinases (RKs) has long been thought to involve reciprocal trans-phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains. The fact that many of these are pseudokinase domains, however, suggests that additional mechanisms must govern RK signaling activation. Non-catalytic signaling mechanisms of protein kinase domains have been described in metazoans, but information is scarce for plants. Recently, a non-catalytic function was reported for the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RK subfamily XIIa member EFR (elongation factor Tu receptor) and phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes were proposed to regulate signaling of RKs with non-RD kinase domains. Here, using EFR as a model, we describe a non-catalytic activation mechanism for LRR-RKs with non-RD kinase domains. EFR is an active kinase, but a kinase-dead variant retains the ability to enhance catalytic activity of its co-receptor kinase BAK1/SERK3 (brassinosteroid insensitive 1-associated kinase 1/somatic embryogenesis receptor kinase 3). Applying hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis and designing homology-based intragenic suppressor mutations, we provide evidence that the EFR kinase domain must adopt its active conformation in order to activate BAK1 allosterically, likely by supporting αC-helix positioning in BAK1. Our results suggest a conformational toggle model for signaling, in which BAK1 first phosphorylates EFR in the activation loop to stabilize its active conformation, allowing EFR in turn to allosterically activate BAK1.

    1. Plant Biology
    Stephen Gonzalez, Joseph Swift ... Joseph R Ecker
    Short Report

    Soil-free assays that induce water stress are routinely used to investigate drought responses in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Due to their ease of use, the research community often relies on polyethylene glycol (PEG), mannitol, and salt (NaCl) treatments to reduce the water potential of agar media, and thus induce drought conditions in the laboratory. However, while these types of stress can create phenotypes that resemble those of water deficit experienced by soil-grown plants, it remains unclear how these treatments compare at the transcriptional level. Here, we demonstrate that these different methods of lowering water potential elicit both shared and distinct transcriptional responses in Arabidopsis shoot and root tissue. When we compared these transcriptional responses to those found in Arabidopsis roots subject to vermiculite drying, we discovered many genes induced by vermiculite drying were repressed by low water potential treatments on agar plates (and vice versa). Additionally, we also tested another method for lowering water potential of agar media. By increasing the nutrient content and tensile strength of agar, we show the ‘hard agar’ (HA) treatment can be leveraged as a high-throughput assay to investigate natural variation in Arabidopsis growth responses to low water potential.