The PRK/Rubisco shunt strongly influences Arabidopsis seed metabolism and oil accumulation, affecting more than carbon recycling

The carbon efficiency of storage lipid biosynthesis from imported sucrose in green Brassicaceae seeds is proposed to be enhanced by the PRK/Rubisco shunt, in which ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) acts outside the context of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle to recycle CO2 molecules released during fatty acid synthesis. This pathway utilizes metabolites generated by the nonoxidative steps of the pentose phosphate pathway. Photosynthesis provides energy for reactions such as the phosphorylation of ribulose 5-phosphate by phosphoribulokinase (PRK). Here, we show that loss of PRK in Arabidopsis thaliana (Arabidopsis) blocks photoautotrophic growth and is seedling-lethal. However, seeds containing prk embryos develop normally, allowing us to use genetics to assess the importance of the PRK/Rubisco shunt. Compared with nonmutant siblings, prk embryos produce one-third less lipids—a greater reduction than expected from simply blocking the proposed PRK/Rubisco shunt. However, developing prk seeds are also chlorotic and have elevated starch contents compared with their siblings, indicative of secondary effects. Overexpressing PRK did not increase embryo lipid content, but metabolite profiling suggested that Rubisco activity becomes limiting. Overall, our findings show that the PRK/Rubisco shunt is tightly integrated into the carbon metabolism of green Arabidopsis seeds, and that its manipulation affects seed glycolysis, starch metabolism, and photosynthesis.ISSN:1040-4651ISSN:1531-298XISSN:1532-298

Thermoperiodic growth control by gibberellin does not involve changes in photosynthetic or respiratory capacities in pea

Active gibberellin (GA1) is an important mediator of thermoperiodic growth in pea. Plants grown under lower day than night temperature (negative DIF) elongate less and have reduced levels of GA1 compared with plants grown at higher day than night temperature (positive DIF). By comparing the wild type (WT) and the elongated DELLA mutant la crys, this study has examined the effect of impaired GA signalling on thermoperiodic growth, photosynthesis, and respiration in pea. In the WT a negative DIF treatment reduced stem mass ratio and increased both root mass ratio and leaf mass ratio (dry weight of specific tissue related to total plant dry weight). Leaf, root and stem mass ratios of la crys were not affected by DIF. Under negative DIF, specific leaf area (projected leaf area per unit leaf dry mass), biomass, and chlorophyll content of WT and la crys plants were reduced. Young, expanding leaves of plants grown under negative DIF had reduced leaf area-based photosynthetic capacity. However, the highest photosynthetic electron transport rate was found in fully expanded leaves of WT plants grown under negative DIF. Negative DIF increased night respiration and was similar for both genotypes. It is concluded that GA signalling is not a major determinant of leaf area-based photosynthesis or respiration and that reduced dry weight of plants grown under negative DIF is caused by a GA-mediated reduction of photosynthetic stem and leaf tissue, reduced photosynthesis of young, expanding leaves, and reduced growth caused by low temperature in the photoperiod

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field