Regulation of photosynthetic electron flow on dark to light transition by Ferredoxin:NADP(H) Oxidoreductase interactions

  1. Manuela Kramer
  2. Melvin Rodriguez-Heredia
  3. Francesco Saccon
  4. Laura Mosebach
  5. Manuel Twachtmann
  6. Anja Krieger-Liszkay
  7. Chris Duffy
  8. Robert J Knell
  9. Giovanni Finazzi
  10. Guy Thomas Hanke  Is a corresponding author
  1. Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
  2. University of Münster, Germany
  3. University of Osnabrueck, Germany
  4. CNRS, France
  5. CEA-Grenoble, France

Abstract

During photosynthesis, electron transport is necessary for carbon assimilation and must be regulated to minimize free radical damage. There is a longstanding controversy over the role of a critical enzyme in this process (ferredoxin:NADP(H) oxidoreductase, or FNR), and in particular its location within chloroplasts. Here we use immunogold labelling to prove that FNR previously assigned as soluble is in fact membrane associated. We combined this technique with a genetic approach in the model plant Arabidopsis, to show that the distribution of this enzyme between different membrane regions depends on its interaction with specific tether proteins. We further demonstrate a correlation between the interaction of FNR with different proteins and the activity of alternative photosynthetic electron transport pathways. This supports a role for FNR location in regulating photosynthetic electron flow during the transition from dark to light.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files, except individual electron micrographs. Micrographs of chloroplasts that were analysed have been deposited at Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7d7wm37rs) for full transparency. These are marked, to indicate the areas of the chloroplast analysed.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Manuela Kramer

    Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Melvin Rodriguez-Heredia

    Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Francesco Saccon

    School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Laura Mosebach

    Institute of Plant Biology and Biotechnology,, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Manuel Twachtmann

    Plant Physiology, University of Osnabrueck, Osnabrueck, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anja Krieger-Liszkay

    4Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell (I2BC), CEA, CNRS, Saclay, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Chris Duffy

    Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Robert J Knell

    School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3446-8715
  9. Giovanni Finazzi

    CEA-Grenoble, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Guy Thomas Hanke

    Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    g.hanke@qmul.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6167-926X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB944 project 2)

  • Guy Thomas Hanke

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R004838/1)

  • Guy Thomas Hanke

University Grenoble Alpes graduate school (ANR-10-LABX-49-01)

  • Giovanni Finazzi

European Research Council (ERC Chloro-mito (833184)

  • Giovanni Finazzi

LabEx Saclay Plant Sciences-SPS (ANR-10-LABX-0040-SPS)

  • Anja Krieger-Liszkay

French Infrastructure for Integrated Structural Biology (ANR-10-INSB-05)

  • Anja Krieger-Liszkay

Bayer CropScience (F-2016-BS-0555)

  • Manuela Kramer

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. David M Kramer, Michigan State University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: February 25, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 9, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 22, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Kramer 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

  • 3,149
    views
  • 467
    downloads
  • 18
    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. Manuela Kramer
  2. Melvin Rodriguez-Heredia
  3. Francesco Saccon
  4. Laura Mosebach
  5. Manuel Twachtmann
  6. Anja Krieger-Liszkay
  7. Chris Duffy
  8. Robert J Knell
  9. Giovanni Finazzi
  10. Guy Thomas Hanke
(2021)
Regulation of photosynthetic electron flow on dark to light transition by Ferredoxin:NADP(H) Oxidoreductase interactions
eLife 10:e56088.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56088

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56088

Further reading

    1. Plant Biology
    Ivan Kulich, Julia Schmid ... Jiří Friml
    Research Article

    Root gravitropic bending represents a fundamental aspect of terrestrial plant physiology. Gravity is perceived by sedimentation of starch-rich plastids (statoliths) to the bottom of the central root cap cells. Following gravity perception, intercellular auxin transport is redirected downwards leading to an asymmetric auxin accumulation at the lower root side causing inhibition of cell expansion, ultimately resulting in downwards bending. How gravity-induced statoliths repositioning is translated into asymmetric auxin distribution remains unclear despite PIN auxin efflux carriers and the Negative Gravitropic Response of roots (NGR) proteins polarize along statolith sedimentation, thus providing a plausible mechanism for auxin flow redirection. In this study, using a functional NGR1-GFP construct, we visualized the NGR1 localization on the statolith surface and plasma membrane (PM) domains in close proximity to the statoliths, correlating with their movements. We determined that NGR1 binding to these PM domains is indispensable for NGR1 functionality and relies on cysteine acylation and adjacent polybasic regions as well as on lipid and sterol PM composition. Detailed timing of the early events following graviperception suggested that both NGR1 repolarization and initial auxin asymmetry precede the visible PIN3 polarization. This discrepancy motivated us to unveil a rapid, NGR-dependent translocation of PIN-activating AGCVIII kinase D6PK towards lower PMs of gravity-perceiving cells, thus providing an attractive model for rapid redirection of auxin fluxes following gravistimulation.

    1. Plant Biology
    Daniel S Yu, Megan A Outram ... Simon J Williams
    Research Article

    Plant pathogens secrete proteins, known as effectors, that function in the apoplast or inside plant cells to promote virulence. Effector recognition by cell-surface or cytosolic receptors results in the activation of defence pathways and plant immunity. Despite their importance, our general understanding of fungal effector function and recognition by immunity receptors remains poor. One complication often associated with effectors is their high sequence diversity and lack of identifiable sequence motifs precluding prediction of structure or function. In recent years, several studies have demonstrated that fungal effectors can be grouped into structural classes, despite significant sequence variation and existence across taxonomic groups. Using protein X-ray crystallography, we identify a new structural class of effectors hidden within the secreted in xylem (SIX) effectors from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol). The recognised effectors Avr1 (SIX4) and Avr3 (SIX1) represent the founding members of the Fol dual-domain (FOLD) effector class, with members containing two distinct domains. Using AlphaFold2, we predicted the full SIX effector repertoire of Fol and show that SIX6 and SIX13 are also FOLD effectors, which we validated experimentally for SIX6. Based on structural prediction and comparisons, we show that FOLD effectors are present within three divisions of fungi and are expanded in pathogens and symbionts. Further structural comparisons demonstrate that Fol secretes effectors that adopt a limited number of structural folds during infection of tomato. This analysis also revealed a structural relationship between transcriptionally co-regulated effector pairs. We make use of the Avr1 structure to understand its recognition by the I receptor, which leads to disease resistance in tomato. This study represents an important advance in our understanding of Fol-tomato, and by extension plant–fungal interactions, which will assist in the development of novel control and engineering strategies to combat plant pathogens.