|
|
||||||||
|
Plant Physiol, December 2000, Vol. 124, pp. 1548-1557
UPDATE ON PHOTOMORPHOGENESIS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Plants as sessile organisms have evolved a great deal of developmental plasticity to optimally respond to their immediate environment. Because light is one of the most important cues for plant growth, mechanisms to respond to light conditions are highly elaborated. In particular, the transition from dark-grown (skotomorphogenic) to light-grown (photomorphogenic) development (Fig. 1) in Arabidopsis is steered by a complex molecular network. This network senses the intensity and quality of light and transduces the light signal to downstream effectors that govern the physiological changes that will eventually result in photomorphogenesis.
|
Numerous loci involved in this process have been identified over the
last several years by genetic screens (Fig.
2). They include upstream signaling
components, like the photoreceptors (for review, see Batschauer, 1998
),
and intermediate factors transducing the signal to downstream
regulators such as EID1, FHY1, FHY3, FIN2, SPA1, FAR1, PAT1,
FIN219, RSF1, or HFR1 (Whitelam et
al., 1993
; Soh et al., 1998
; Hoecker et al., 1999
; Hudson et al.,
1999
; Bolle et al., 2000
; Büche et al., 2000
; Fairchild et al.,
2000
; Fankhauser and Chory, 2000
; Hsieh et al., 2000
). The downstream components integrate the light signals from the various photoreceptors and bring about the changes in metabolism and gene expression that
eventually lead to photomorphogenesis. More downstream effectors that
directly interact with photoreceptors have recently been identified by
protein-to-protein interaction approaches (Ni et al., 1998
; Choi et
al., 1999
; Fankhauser et al., 1999
). Also, several downstream
components identified by their mutant phenotype are negative regulators
of photomorphogenesis. They constitute a genetic bottleneck that
represses the onset of photomorphogenesis in darkness. Excellent
reviews on the signal transduction from photoreceptors to downstream
regulators have been published recently (Deng and Quail, 1999
; Casal,
2000
; Nagy and Schäfer, 2000
; Neff et al., 2000
). In this update
we will thus focus on current progress in the dissection of the
molecular function of negative regulators of photomorphogenesis, in
particular those of the pleiotropic constitutive photomorphogenic
class.
|
| |
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE COP/DET/FUS LOCI |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Several loci acting as negative regulators of photomorphogenesis
have been isolated from genetic screens that sought to identify mutants
that display characteristics of light-grown seedlings in complete
darkness. They were named constitutive photomorphogenic (COP; Deng et al., 1991
) or de-etiolated (DET;
Chory et al., 1989
). A number of these loci turned out to be identical
to previously isolated fusca (FUS) mutants
(Misera et al., 1994
), which were named after their purple seed color
resulting from anthocyanin accumulation. Thus this group of genes is
collectively referred to as the pleiotropic COP/DET/FUS loci
of Arabidopsis (Wei and Deng, 1999
).
Mutants in the 11 pleiotropic COP/DET/FUS loci display
a photomorphogenic phenotype in complete darkness (Fig. 1). This
phenotype is not only characterized by morphological changes such as
open, expanded cotyledons, suppression of hypocotyl growth, and
anthocyanin accumulation, but also corresponding changes in subcellular
features such as chloroplast differentiation and de-repressed
expression of normally light-induced genes. The mutants in all 11 COP/DET/FUS loci are recessive and can be generally grouped
into two classes: mutations in eight loci, which lack the COP9
signalosome (Chamovitz et al., 1996
; Karniol et al., 1999
; Serino et
al., 1999
; Deng et al., 2000
) and mutations in three loci that do not
(Fig. 2). It is interesting that all cop/det/fus mutants
lacking the signalosome are lethal at the seedling stage. Although this
is also true for severe alleles of the non-signalosome mutants
cop1, cop10, and det1, their weak
alleles are viable (Chory et al., 1989
; Kwok et al., 1996
; Vogel et
al., 1998
). Thus the COP9 signalosome seems to have a more general role
in Arabidopsis development. This update will focus on the most recent
advances, whereas earlier progress can be found in several previous
reviews (Wei and Deng, 1996
, 1999
; Osterlund et al., 1999
;
Schwechheimer and Deng, 2000
).
| |
COP1-HY5 INTERACTION SUGGESTS A CONCEPTUAL ROLE OF COP1 IN PROTEIN DEGRADATION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Recent progress in understanding the molecular basis of
COP/DET/FUS gene action has come from a better understanding
of the nature of the interaction between the COP1 and HY5 (long
hypocotyl 5) (Koornneef et al., 1980
) proteins. So far,
HY5 is the only genetically characterized positive regulator
of photomorphogenesis that acts downstream of the bottleneck comprised
by the COP/DET/FUS loci. HY5 encodes a bZIP
transcription factor that binds to the G-box in the promoters of
light-inducible genes such as RBCS1A or CHS1, and
thereby plays a vital role in their activation during seedling
morphogenesis (Oyama et al., 1997
; Ang et al., 1998
; Chattopadhyay et
al., 1998
).
The hy5 mutant has been re-isolated as an extragenic
suppressor of cop1, and molecular analysis has confirmed
that both gene products also interact physically (Ang and Deng, 1994
;
Ang et al., 1998
). HY5 is a constitutively nuclear localized protein, whereas COP1 is excluded from the nucleus in the light, but nuclear localized in darkness (von Arnim and Deng, 1994
). Thus an early working
hypothesis suggested that the physical interaction between COP1 and HY5
could only take place in darkness and should negatively regulate HY5
activity (Ang et al., 1998
). The molecular basis for the negative
regulation remained elusive, however, and had to await a more detailed
characterization of the HY5 protein.
Analysis of HY5 in Arabidopsis seedling development indicated
highly elevated HY5 protein levels in light-grown seedlings as opposed
to dark-grown seedlings (Osterlund et al., 2000a
, 2000b
). HY5
accumulates to about 20-fold within 15 h after shifting seedlings from darkness into light, and this accumulation is reversible by the
opposite light shift. This finding did not correspond, however, to HY5
mRNA levels, which show only a 2- to 3-fold difference between dark and
light. In transgenic lines ectopically overexpressing HY5, HY5 protein
levels are independent from endogenous HY5 mRNA levels. It
is striking that the same light-dark dependence of HY5 abundance was
observed again. By uncoupling any effects on mRNA translation from
protein stability by the application of a protein synthesis inhibitor,
enhanced degradation of HY5 in darkness could be established as the
primary determinant for HY5 abundance.
Analysis of HY5 levels in cop1 mutant backgrounds showed that HY5 abundance in dark-grown cop1 mutant seedlings is similar to the levels in light-grown seedlings. This finding by itself could be considered a consequence of the light-grown morphology of cop1 mutants in the dark rather than one of its causes. However, the accumulation dynamics of HY5 argues against the former. A steep rise in HY5 abundance upon illumination of skotomorphogenic seedlings precedes any striking changes in seedling morphology other than apical hook opening. This suggests that photomorphogenesis is at least in part promoted by elevated HY5 activity, in line with the hy5 mutant phenotype. Thus cop1 mutants seem to be unable to degrade HY5 in the dark. Moreover, a truncated HY5 transgene that lacks the COP1 interaction domain is not subject to differential degradation in the dark any more. Since this observation coincides with the nuclear localization of COP1 only in the dark, the results suggest that interaction between COP1 and HY5 results in targeted degradation of the HY5 protein.
| |
HY5 ACTIVITY IS ALSO REGULATED BY PHOSPHORYLATION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Recent results indicate that regulation of HY5 activity involves a
multitude of events. Not only does COP1 control HY5 abundance by
targeted degradation in the dark, but this interaction is also modulated by phosphorylation of HY5 (Hardtke et al., 2000
; Fig. 3). A phosphorylation site for a casein
kinase II (CKII) activity is present within the COP1 interaction domain
of HY5 and very likely a target for this type of kinase. The kinase
activity is itself subject to light regulation, since dark-grown
seedlings contain elevated kinase activity toward HY5 as compared with
light-grown seedlings. It is interesting that CKII has been implicated
in regulating a number of other transcription factors involved in light-regulated gene expression (Klimczak et al., 1992
, 1995
; Sugano et
al., 1998
). Thus CKII regulation seems to be a recurring theme in the
modulation of light-regulated, as well as circadian, gene expression
(Ciceri et al., 1997
; Lee et al., 1999
; Sugano et al., 1999
).
|
In the case of HY5, phosphorylation of the COP1-binding domain on the
one hand seems to influence HY5 stability, since unphosphorylated HY5
interacts better with COP1 and is a preferred substrate for degradation. On the other hand, unphosphorylated HY5 is also
physiologically more active. This is evidenced by transgenic rescue of
a hy5 null mutant with a transgene whose gene product cannot
be phosphorylated in the COP1 interaction domain. In these transgenic
lines a slightly hyperphotomorphogenic phenotype, as well as a delay in
lateral root outgrowth, is observed, which is essentially an
overcompensation of hy5 mutant traits. The overcompensated
root phenotype by a HY5, which is a better substrate for COP1-mediated
degradation represents a paradox, since COP1 is constitutively nuclear
localized in root cells even in the light (von Arnim and Deng, 1994
).
However, it must be considered that the hyperphotomorphogenic phenotype might result in an altered carbon-to-nitrogen ratio due to elevated photosynthesis and thus a reduction in lateral root growth as a
secondary effect. In any case, in the context of photomorphogenesis the
physiologically more active unphosphorylated HY5 seems to be the
prime target for COP1. Thus in darkness unphosphorylated HY5 gets
degraded, whereas elevated CKII activity ensures the maintenance of a
small pool of less active phosphorylated HY5, which can be rapidly
activated upon illumination. The combination of regulated HY5 abundance
and HY5 phosphorylation thus further extends the HY5 activity
differential between dark- and light-grown seedlings.
| |
COP1 TARGETS HY5 FOR DEGRADATION VIA THE 26S PROTEASOME |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A hint toward the specific role of COP1 in its interaction
with HY5 comes from the finding that HY5 degradation can be blocked by
proteasome inhibitors in vitro (Osterlund et al., 2000a
). Thus the
proteasome pathway seems likely to be responsible for HY5 degradation.
Proteins targeted for degradation by the proteasome pathway are in
general marked by the covalent attachment of ubiquitin. Ubiquitin
is a highly conserved 8-kD protein found in all eukaryotes examined to
date and gets attached to a Lys in target proteins via its C terminus.
Additional ubiquitin molecules are subsequently linked to an internal
Lys in the ubiquitin itself, eventually generating a chain of
interconnected ubiquitin molecules on one or more lysines in the target
protein. A protein marked this way is recognized as a substrate by the
26S proteasome, a multiprotein complex that eventually chops the target
protein into small peptides.
Attachment of ubiquitin moieties to target proteins is mediated by a system of three enzymes (Fig. 3). In a first step, so-called E1 enzymes activate ubiquitin molecules, which then are transferred to E2 ubiquitin conjugating enzymes. The ubiquitin is eventually transferred from the E2 enzyme to the target protein and to achieve this, the E2 enzyme in numerous cases teams up with a so-called E3 ubiquitin ligase. Most E3 ubiquitin ligases are multisubunit protein complexes and critical for the ubiquitin tagging of substrates since they provide substrate specificity to the reaction by selecting the appropriate target proteins in vivo. Within this scenario COP1 would occupy a place as an integral part of an E3 ligase and mediate interaction between the ubiquitin ligase machinery and specific target proteins. The presence of a RING-finger domain in its N terminus and a number of WD40 repeats in its C terminus is consistent with such a role. Although the N terminus might be required for assembly into the E3 complex, the WD40 repeat domain could serve as an interaction surface for target proteins (see below).
| |
FITTING IN COP1 INTERACTING PROTEINS (CIP) |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Apart from HY5, a number of proteins interacting with COP1 have been isolated by the application of two-hybrid interaction screening and far-western analysis. These proteins can generally be classified according to where the interaction with COP1 takes place. Although some proteins seem to interact with domains (RING-finger or coiled coil) in the N terminus of COP1, others seem to interact with the WD40 repeat domain of COP1 (Fig. 3).
A protein interacting with the coiled coil domain in the N
terminus of COP1 is the CIP1 (Matsui et al., 1995
). CIP1 does not have
primary sequence features pointing out any functionally defined domains; however, it seems to have the capacity to form a coiled coil
structure itself. More revealing, CIP1 seems to be a cytosolic protein
associated with the cytoskeleton and thus might be involved in
light-induced nuclear depletion of COP1 by anchoring it in the cytoplasm.
Another protein interacting with the coiled coil domain of COP1 is CIP7
(Yamamoto et al., 1998
). Unlike CIP1, CIP7 is a nuclear protein and
contains coiled coil domains that mediate interaction with COP1.
Although CIP7 possesses some transcription activation potential, it is
not clear whether CIP7 indeed functions as a transcriptional regulator.
CIP7 mRNA is hardly detected in the dark, but highly induced
by light. Since the kinetics of COP1 nuclear exclusion upon exposure to
light are clearly lagging behind the corresponding
photomorphogenic changes in the seedling, an early inactivation
mechanism for COP1 distinct from nuclear exclusion has been suggested
(von Arnim et al., 1997
). It is interesting that proper function of
COP1 requires its homodimerization, which is also a prerequisite for
COP1-HY5 interaction (Torii et al., 1998
). Further, COP1
homodimerization is mediated through its coiled coil domain. Thus
disruption of COP1 dimerization through occupation of this domain by
CIP7 could be a means of rapid COP1 inactivation in response to a
light stimulus (Fig. 3). A similar role could be envisioned for the
CIP4 protein, which also interacts with the coiled coil domain in COP1
(Yamamoto et al., 2000
) and could mediate distinct signaling inputs not
covered by CIP7. However, the transactivation potential of CIP4 is much
higher than that of CIP7, and an alternative or additional function of
CIP4 in transcription control should not be ruled out.
An additional N-terminal interactor of COP1 is CIP8, a
RING-finger protein that specifically interacts with the RING finger of
COP1 (Torii et al., 1999
). Clues as to the function of this interaction
are provided by recent findings on the role of RING-finger proteins in
the ubiquitination machinery. The RING-finger protein Rbx1 has recently
been established as a component of the prototypic SCF E3
ubiquitin ligase complex (Kamura et al., 1999
; Seol et al., 1999
;
Skowyra et al., 1999
). Moreover, several RING-finger proteins have been
implicated in aiding E2 conjugating enzyme dependent ubiquitination
(Lorick et al., 1999
). This might also be the case for CIP8 (C.S.
Hardtke, H. Okamoto, and X.W. Deng, unpublished data). Thus CIP8 might
possibly function as part of an E3 ubiquitin ligase complex that
includes COP1 (Fig. 3).
The C-terminal interacting proteins contact COP1 via its WD40
repeat domain. Apart from HY5, a number of other factors that specifically interact with the WD40 repeat domain of COP1 have been
identified in yeast two-hybrid screens (Holm and Deng, 1999
; M. Holm
and X.W. Deng, unpublished data). These possibly represent additional
targets for COP1. Thus the WD40 repeat domain could serve as an
interaction surface for various substrates specifically selected by
COP1 for proteasome-mediated degradation. WD40 repeat domain components
are likely responsible for substrate selection in a number of
prototypical E3 ubiquitin ligases such as the SCF or APC
complexes (Deshaies, 1999
).
| |
POSSIBLE ROLES OF THE COP9 SIGNALOSOME IN PHOTOMORPHOGENESIS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
How does the COP9 signalosome fit into this scheme? In non-plant
eukaryotes from Schizosaccharomyces pombe to humans, the COP9 signalosome has been implicated in a number of cellular processes. Individual subunits are, for example, involved in the progression of
the cell cycle (Mundt et al., 1999
; Tomoda et al., 1999
), AP-1 transcription (Claret et al., 1996
), and thyroid hormone reception (Lee
et al., 1995
). It is interesting that no mutants for signalosome subunits have been found in vertebrates to date and the only mutant in
invertebrates is a late larval stage lethal in Drosophila
(Freilich et al., 1999
). Thus the COP9 signalosome might not only be
essential for the post-juvenile development of Arabidopsis, but also of other multicellular organisms. Given the multitude of responses the
signalosome influences in animal systems, it seems likely that it also
takes part in numerous regulatory events in Arabidopsis. In particular,
the signalosome subunits AJH1 and AJH2 of Arabidopsis (Kwok et
al., 1998
), which are homologs of the mammalian transcriptional co-activator Jab1, and FUS5 (Karniol et al., 1999
) are also present as
monomers in vivo, unlike other signalosome subunits. These monomers
might, for instance, be involved in processes other than photomorphogenesis. However, in the absence of viable mutants these
speculations are hard to verify. It is obvious that
dominant-negative transgenic interference with the COP9 signalosome by
ectopic overexpression of one of its subunits could evoke a
photomorphogenic response by default, as observed for AJH1/2 (Kwok et
al., 1998
). The reason might be that a constitutive photomorphogenic
phenotype is the earliest manifestation of a lack of signalosome
activity. Thus the construction of genetic mosaics or interference with
signalosome activity by the application of inducible transgenes will be
necessary to decipher the function of the signalosome at post-seedling
stages of Arabidopsis development.
Just like cop1, all other pleiotropic
cop/det/fus mutants are unable to degrade HY5 in darkness
(Osterlund et al., 2000a
). This result might reflect an indirect
consequence of the absence of COP1 from the nucleus since COP1 is
localized in the cytosol in all the COP9 signalosome mutants even in
the dark. It has been suggested that the signalosome could be involved
directly or indirectly in the regulation of the nuclear import/export
machinery responsible for light-dependent shuttling of COP1 (Chamovitz
et al., 1996
). On the other hand, cytosolic COP1 in the dark could also
be considered a consequence of the photomorphogenic development in
these mutants, originally triggered by an inability to degrade positive
regulators of photomorphogenesis such as HY5. However, until an
experimental system to manipulate nucleocytoplasmic COP1 shuttling is
available, neither hypothesis can be tested experimentally for the time being.
| |
THE COP9 SIGNALOSOME IS STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR TO THE LID SUBCOMPLEX OF THE 19S REGULATORY PARTICLE OF THE 26S PROTEASOME |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A different line of reasoning implicating the COP9 signalosome in
regulated protein degradation comes from studies in other eukaryotic
species. The mammalian signalosome was initially purified biochemically
from pig spleen (Wei and Deng, 1998
). At the same time the complex was
also encountered during an attempt to characterize novel components of
the 26S proteasome isolated from human blood cells (Seeger et
al., 1998
). Homologs of the COP9 signalosome have been found in all
multicellular organisms examined so far, and additionally in fission
yeast, but not in budding yeast. Nevertheless, although
Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not possess a COP9
signalosome, an important clue toward its function is based on the
structure of the S. cerevisiae 26S proteasome. The 26S
proteasome consists of a 20S catalytic core complex and a 19S
regulatory complex (Fig. 4). The
regulatory particle seems to be involved in substrate recognition,
selecting the proteins to be eventually taken up into the catalytic
core for degradation. In S. cerevisiae the regulatory
complex can be divided further into a base subcomplex and a lid
subcomplex (Glickman et al., 1998
). Given the evolutionary conservation
of the 26S proteasome, this structure seems likely to be true for other
eukaryotes as well. It is striking that the lid subcomplex of the
regulatory particle shows significant sequence and structural
similarity to the COP9 signalosome (Fig. 4A). Both complexes are
composed of eight subunits and the subunits show homology to each other
in a one-on-one fashion (Wei et al., 1998
; Wei and Deng, 1999
).
|
These data suggest the attractive working hypothesis that the COP9 signalosome is involved in degradation of a selected set of substrate proteins, possibly by functioning as an alternative lid subcomplex of the 19S regulatory particle (Fig. 4B). If this were indeed the case one could expect that it might process a specific subset of proteasome substrates delivered by a number of distinct E3 ligase complexes. An E3 ligase complex involving COP1 could be one of them, and it might be an essential E3 ligase in early Arabidopsis development. This would again explain the constitutive photomorphogenic phenotype of the signalosome mutants as the earliest manifestation of a lack of signalosome activity. In these cop/det/fus mutants, at the same or later stages in development, inputs from more E3 ligase systems would not be executed, and the combination of these defects could result in the disruption of essential cellular processes. This could explain why so far only lethal alleles of signalosome mutants have been found in Arabidopsis.
The above outlined interpretation would suggest that the substrates
directly interact with the COP9 signalosome. No interactions between
HY5 and the signalosome have been identified to date; however, this
might be due to technical limitations. For instance, yeast two-hybrid
assays might not reveal these interactions since the integral structure
of the signalosome could be required rather than an individual subunit.
Moreover, association in vivo could be hard to detect due to the likely
transient nature of the interaction. Nevertheless, direct contact
between E3 ligase complexes and the 19S regulatory particle of the
proteasome have been found in vivo in S. cerevisiae (Xie and
Varshavsky, 2000
) and it will be interesting to determine if similar
interactions can be established for the COP9 signalosome.
| |
THE ROLE OF COP10 AND DET1 IN THE COP1-MEDIATED DEGRADATION OF HY5 |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Just as in cop1 and the COP9 signalosome mutants, COP1
is also localized in the cytosol in the dark in cop10 or
det1 seedlings. Thus both of these loci could also be
involved in the nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of COP1, although DET1 or
COP10 are not components of the COP9 signalosome (Chamovitz et al.,
1996
). Nevertheless, other scenarios can be envisioned. hy5
has also been isolated as an extragenic suppressor of det1
(Pepper and Chory, 1997
). Similar to the interaction of hy5
and cop1, this genetic interaction seems to be
allele-specific. However, whereas the hy5 mutation has no significant influence on the de-repressed gene expression in a cop1 background, at least CHS transcription is
reduced to wild-type levels in a hy5/det1 double mutant.
DET1 encodes a nuclear protein of unknown biochemical function to date
(Pepper et al., 1994
), but it is conceivable that it might be a
critical component involved in light-induced gene expression, possibly
acting on genes simultaneously under control of HY5. It is clear that a
more detailed analysis of the mechanistic nature of the interaction
between DET1 and HY5 is needed to address this issue. Also, the role of
COP10 within the context of HY5 degradation remains
enigmatic. Although the cop10 mutant behaves like any other
pleiotropic cop/det/fus mutant with respect to HY5
accumulation, for cop10, just like for det1, it
is not clear whether it is primarily involved in HY5 degradation. Cloning of the COP10 gene will hopefully solve this question.
It is interesting that the HP2 locus of tomato has been
shown to encode a DET1 homolog (Mustilli et al., 1999
).
Although the hp2 mutants are hypersensitive to light, they
display hardly any morphological phenotype in darkness as compared with
Arabidopsis det1. Since there seems to be only one
DET1 gene in tomato, redundancy has been ruled out as a
possible explanation for this difference. Rather, it has been suggested
that DET1 and HP2 act as amplifiers of
phytochrome signaling, whose quantitative contribution might be
different in the two species. However, it is also possible that the
available hp2 mutants are simply weak mutations.
| |
NEW QUESTIONS AND OUTLOOK |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although a clearer idea about the molecular basis of the function
of the COP/DET/FUS genes is emerging from recent progress, a
number of questions arise from the current data. For instance, the role
of DET1 in the above outlined scheme remains obscure. Also, some
earlier observations remain to be integrated into the larger picture.
For example, why is a cop1 mutant allele that still
expresses an N-terminal fragment, but lacks all of the WD40 repeat
domain less severe and viable, whereas a point mutation in the WD40
repeat domain can result in lethality (McNellis et al., 1996
;
Stoop-Myer et al., 1999
)? A better understanding of the structural
biology of COP1 within an E3 ligase context might resolve this issue.
Concerning the signalosome, caution must be observed. Although there is
a structural similarity to the proteasome lid based on subunit number
and primary sequence, recent results indicate that the
three-dimensional structure of the signalosome complex seems to be
rather distinct from the proteasome lid (Kapelari et al., 2000
). Thus
whereas a function for the signalosome as an alternative proteasome lid
is a tempting working hypothesis, alternative functions should still be considered.
More clues toward a better comprehension of the topic might be expected from the cloning of the remaining pleiotropic COP/DET/FUS genes. However, beyond those loci one might ask whether additional genes involved in the system mutate to a different phenotype, for instance due to embryonic lethality, or have not been found yet for other reasons, like genetic redundancy.
The nature of the biochemistry of all hypothesized activities for the
pleiotropic COP/DET/FUS proteins is far from clear. In particular, the
requirements for the reconstitution of their biochemical activities in
vitro might not reflect their more complex mode of action in vivo. For
instance, recent reports on E3 ligase function indicate that the
RING-finger protein component of the multisubunit APC E3 ligase
complex is sufficient to mediate E2-dependent ubiquitination in vitro
(Gmachl et al., 2000
). Thus CIP8 or even the RING finger in COP1 would
already satisfy these requirements.
It is clear that more cell biological and biochemical data are needed to advance our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the photomorphogenic switch. Nevertheless, the recent progress in understanding the COP1-HY5 interaction can be seen as a conceptual breakthrough. Using the COP1-HY5 showcase as a tool and building on the combined results from analyses of the COP9 signalosome will hopefully facilitate future experimental design and lead into further insights.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank H. Okamoto and G. Serino for comments on the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Received September 15, 2000; accepted September 19, 2000.
1 The work in our laboratory is supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant no. GM47850), the National Science Foundation, and the Human Frontier Science Program (grant no. RG0043/97 to X.W.D.). C.S.H. is a Human Frontier Science Program Organization postdoctoral fellow and X.W.D. is a National Science Foundation Presidential Faculty Fellow.
* Corresponding author; e-mail xingwang.deng{at}yale.edu; fax 203-432-3854.
| |
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. Philippar, T. Geis, I. Ilkavets, U. Oster, S. Schwenkert, J. Meurer, and J. Soll Chloroplast biogenesis: The use of mutants to study the etioplast-chloroplast transition PNAS, January 9, 2007; 104(2): 678 - 683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. L. Molas, J. Z. Kiss, and M. J. Correll Gene profiling of the red light signalling pathways in roots J. Exp. Bot., September 1, 2006; 57(12): 3217 - 3229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Roig-Villanova, J. Bou, C. Sorin, P. F. Devlin, and J. F. Martinez-Garcia Identification of Primary Target Genes of Phytochrome Signaling. Early Transcriptional Control during Shade Avoidance Responses in Arabidopsis Plant Physiology, May 1, 2006; 141(1): 85 - 96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Viczian, S. Kircher, E. Fejes, A. J. Millar, E. Schafer, L. Kozma-Bognar, and F. Nagy Functional Characterization of Phytochrome Interacting Factor 3 for the Arabidopsis thaliana Circadian Clockwork Plant Cell Physiol., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 1591 - 1602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Usami, N. Mochizuki, M. Kondo, M. Nishimura, and A. Nagatani Cryptochromes and Phytochromes Synergistically Regulate Arabidopsis Root Greening under Blue Light Plant Cell Physiol., December 15, 2004; 45(12): 1798 - 1808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Park, J. Kim, Y. Lee, J. Shin, E. Oh, W.-I. Chung, J. R. Liu, and G. Choi Degradation of Phytochrome Interacting Factor 3 in Phytochrome-Mediated Light Signaling Plant Cell Physiol., August 15, 2004; 45(8): 968 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. B. Maxwell, C. R. Andersson, D. S. Poole, S. A. Kay, and J. Chory HY5, Circadian Clock-Associated 1, and a cis-Element, DET1 Dark Response Element, Mediate DET1 Regulation of Chlorophyll a/b-Binding Protein 2 Expression Plant Physiology, December 1, 2003; 133(4): 1565 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
M. Dieterle, C. Buche, E. Schafer, and T. Kretsch Characterization of a Novel Non-Constitutive Photomorphogenic cop1 Allele Plant Physiology, December 1, 2003; 133(4): 1557 - 1564. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
G. Serino, H. Su, Z. Peng, T. Tsuge, N. Wei, H. Gu, and X. W. Deng Characterization of the Last Subunit of the Arabidopsis COP9 Signalosome: Implications for the Overall Structure and Origin of the Complex PLANT CELL, March 1, 2003; 15(3): 719 - 731. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Lopez-Molina, S. Mongrand, N. Kinoshita, and N.-H. Chua AFP is a novel negative regulator of ABA signaling that promotes ABI5 protein degradation Genes & Dev., February 1, 2003; 17(3): 410 - 418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Micol and S. Hake The Development of Plant Leaves Plant Physiology, February 1, 2003; 131(2): 389 - 394. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. K. Wade, A. K. Sohal, and G. I. Jenkins Arabidopsis ICX1 Is a Negative Regulator of Several Pathways Regulating Flavonoid Biosynthesis Genes Plant Physiology, February 1, 2003; 131(2): 707 - 715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Zeidler, C. Bolle, and N.-H. Chua The Phytochrome A Specific Signaling Component PAT3 is a Positive Regulator of Arabidopsis Photomorphogenesis Plant Cell Physiol., November 1, 2001; 42(11): 1193 - 1200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. L. Ballesteros, C. Bolle, L. M. Lois, J. M. Moore, J.-P. Vielle-Calzada, U. Grossniklaus, and N.-H. Chua LAF1, a MYB transcription activator for phytochrome A signaling Genes & Dev., October 1, 2001; 15(19): 2613 - 2625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Gil, E. Dewey, J. Friml, Y. Zhao, K. C. Snowden, J. Putterill, K. Palme, M. Estelle, and J. Chory BIG: a calossin-like protein required for polar auxin transport in Arabidopsis Genes & Dev., August 1, 2001; 15(15): 1985 - 1997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Dieterle, Y.-C. Zhou, E. Schäfer, M. Funk, and T. Kretsch EID1, an F-box protein involved in phytochrome A-specific light signaling Genes & Dev., April 15, 2001; 15(8): 939 - 944. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
N. A. Eckardt From Darkness into Light: Factors Controlling Photomorphogenesis PLANT CELL, February 1, 2001; 13(2): 219 - 221. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
N Matsuda, T Suzuki, K Tanaka, and A Nakano Rma1, a novel type of RING finger protein conserved from Arabidopsis to human, is a membrane-bound ubiquitin ligase J. Cell Sci., January 5, 2001; 114(10): 1949 - 1957. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Martinez-Hernandez, L. Lopez-Ochoa, G. Arguello-Astorga, and L. Herrera-Estrella Functional Properties and Regulatory Complexity of a Minimal RBCS Light-Responsive Unit Activated by Phytochrome, Cryptochrome, and Plastid Signals Plant Physiology, April 1, 2002; 128(4): 1223 - 1233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y.-C. Zhou, M. Dieterle, C. Buche, and T. Kretsch The Negatively Acting Factors EID1 and SPA1 Have Distinct Functions in Phytochrome A-Specific Light Signaling Plant Physiology, March 1, 2002; 128(3): 1098 - 1108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® | THE PLANT CELL | |
|---|---|---|---|