The Pentatricopeptide Repeat Protein MEF100 Is Required for the Editing of Four Mitochondrial Editing Sites in Arabidopsis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
cells Article The Pentatricopeptide Repeat Protein MEF100 Is Required for the Editing of Four Mitochondrial Editing Sites in Arabidopsis Bernard Gutmann †, Michael Millman †, Lilian Vincis Pereira Sanglard , Ian Small and Catherine Colas des Francs-Small * Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; [email protected] (B.G.); [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (L.V.P.S.); [email protected] (I.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-864884409 † Contributed equally. Abstract: In Arabidopsis thaliana there are more than 600 C-to-U RNA editing events in the mitochon- dria and at least 44 in the chloroplasts. Pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins provide the specificity for these reactions. They recognize RNA sequences in a partially predictable fashion via key amino acids at the fifth and last position in each PPR motif that bind to individual ribonucleotides. A combined approach of RNA-Seq, mutant complementation, electrophoresis of mitochondrial protein complexes and Western blotting allowed us to show that MEF100, a PPR protein identified in a genetic screen for mutants resistant to an inhibitor of γ -glutamylcysteine synthetase, is required for the editing of nad1-493, nad4-403, nad7-698 and ccmFN2-356 sites in Arabidopsis mitochondria. The absence of editing in mef100 leads to a decrease in mitochondrial Complex I activity, which probably Citation: Gutmann, B.; Millman, M.; Vincis Pereira Sanglard, L.; Small, I.; explains the physiological phenotype. Some plants have lost the requirement for MEF100 at one Colas des Francs-Small, C. The or more of these sites through mutations in the mitochondrial genome. We show that loss of the Pentatricopeptide Repeat Protein requirement for MEF100 editing leads to divergence in the MEF100 binding site. MEF100 Is Required for the Editing of Four Mitochondrial Editing Sites in Keywords: plant mitochondria; editing; pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins Arabidopsis. Cells 2021, 10, 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020468 Academic Editors: Alexander 1. Introduction E. Kalyuzhny and Inhwan Hwang RNA editing is a post-transcriptional process that alters the nucleotide sequences of RNA molecules such that the information contained in the mature RNA differs from that Received: 31 December 2020 defined in the genome [1]. In the mitochondria and chloroplasts of angiosperms, RNA Accepted: 17 February 2021 editing occurs as singular cytidine (C) to uridine (U) changes by deamination [2]. Editing is Published: 22 February 2021 catalysed by editosomes, multifactor protein-RNA complexes in which RNA recognition is mediated by pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins [3]. The majority of the PPR proteins Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in involved in editing belong to the PLS subfamily whose PPR array is composed of three published maps and institutional affil- variants of PPR motifs named P, L and S [4]. The PLS proteins usually carry additional PPR- iations. like motifs (E1 and E2) and a cytidine-deaminase-like domain (the DYW domain) at their C-terminus. The zinc-binding DYW domain is required for catalysis of the deamination reaction [5–9]. A PPR-RNA code was developed to describe the observed correlations between amino acids at two key positions of known editing factors and their aligned nucleotides on the transcripts to which they bind [1,10,11]. Subsequently, the amino acids Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. at these positions were shown to bind to the aligned nucleotide via hydrogen bonds [12]. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Although this code can be used to predict the targets of some PPR proteins [7,11,13–16], This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and most PPR proteins required for the editing of mitochondrial sites in Arabidopsis have not conditions of the Creative Commons been identified. The characterisation of new editing factors remains an important step in Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// understanding how PPR proteins recognise their targets and the role of RNA editing in creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ organelle gene expression. 4.0/). Cells 2021, 10, 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020468 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cells Cells 2021, 10, 468 2 of 13 In wild-type plants, exposure to buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) inhibits the activity of γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase, severely reducing the plant’s ability to produce the tripeptide glutathione (γ-L-glutamyl-L-cysteinylglycine, GSH) [17]. GSH is involved in multiple biochemical processes, including the detoxification of reactive oxygen species [18] and an inability to produce it results in a specific loss of root meristem activity, stopping root growth [19]. In a screen of Col-0 ecotype plants treated with ethane methyl sulfonate (EMS), 10 bir mutants (for BSO-insensitive roots), including two PPR mutants had almost normal root growth in the presence of BSO [20]. This BSO-insensitive-root phenotype observed in the bir6 mutant [20] was also shared by the Arabidopsis Complex I mutants css1 [21] and otp439 [20,22], suggesting that the phenotype is related to the reduced activity of mitochondrial Complex I. In this paper, we show that the mutant named here as mef100 (for mitochondrial editing factor 100) is unable to effectively edit four mitochondrial sites and has moderately reduced levels of assembled Complex I. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Plant Growth and Selection Arabidopsis seeds were surface sterilized in a solution containing 70% (v/v) ethanol and 0.05% Triton X-100 for 5 min, washed in 100% ethanol and then dried in sterile conditions. The seeds were plated (0.5× MS medium), vernalized at 4 ◦C in the dark for at least 24 h and then grown under a long-day photoperiod (16 h light, 100 µmol photons m−2 s−1). Three weeks after plating, they were transferred to the soil. The mef100 mutant plants were obtained from Stanislav Kopriva’s lab at the Depart- ment of Metabolic Biology at the John Innes Centre (United Kingdom). Plants were con- firmed for homozygosity for the point mutation in the coding sequence of the AT3G61170 gene by Sanger sequencing of the PCR product obtained using the primer pair Mef100_859F and Mef100_2211R (Table S1). The mef100 mutants were complemented (see Section 2.2) by floral dip [23] and their seeds were screened for successful transformation on 0.5× MS media containing 25 µg/µL hygromycin. Complementation was confirmed by PCR using primer pair mef100_1865F and pGWB1_C-terminal_R-1 (Table S1). 2.2. Plant Complementation The region of genomic DNA corresponding to the full mef100 gene and 522 nt up- stream of the mef100 start codon was amplified by PCR from Col-0 genomic DNA using mef100_ups_attB_F and mef100-stop_attBR (Table S1), which was cloned into the Gateway donor vector pDONR207 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the recommended protocol and used to transform DH5α. The fragment verified by Sanger sequencing was cloned into the pGWB1 binary vector and transferred into plants via Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation [23]. 2.3. RNA Editing Analyses RNA from young leaves of mef100, Columbia-0 and three complemented mef100 lines was extracted and DNase treated as previously described [24]. Reverse transcription using random primers and SuperScript III (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was done according to their recommended protocol. PCR of the cDNA of mef100, Columbia- 0 and complemented lines was done using Taq polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to their recommended protocol using primers specific to each of the four editing sites. PCR of the nad1-493 site was done using the primer pair nad1-224-F and nad1-861-RV1; nad4-403 using nad4-176-F and nad4-830-RV1; nad7-698 using nad7-382-F and nad7-1004-RV1; ccmFN2-356 using ccmFN2-88-F and ccmFN2-500-RV1 (Table S1). 2.4. Analysis of RNA Editing in RNA-seq Data Crude mitochondrial pellets were isolated from 8-week-old leaves of mef100 and Col-0 as previously described [25]. Mitochondrial RNA was extracted from these crude Cells 2021, 10, 468 3 of 13 mitochondrial fractions using TRIzol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Two µg of RNA were treated with TURBO DNase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 1 h at 37 ◦C and tested for DNA contamination as previously described [26]. Three hundred µg of mitochondrial RNA were used for cDNA library preparation using the TruSeq Stranded mRNA Library Prep kit with RIBO zero (Illumina, San Diego, Cal- ifornia). The sequencing run (50 nt, single read) was performed on an Illumina Hi-Seq 2500 platform. RNA editing analyses were carried out as described in [27]. Reads were analysed with the BBMap package (sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap/). Clumpify was used to remove optical duplicates (with parameters dedupe optical dist = 40), BBDuk was used to remove adapters (with parameters ktrim = r k = 23 mink = 11 hdist = 1 tpe tbo ftm = 5) and BBMap was used to map trimmed reads to the organelle genomes (with parameters ambiguous = random). Nucleotide counting to identify the extent of editing was carried out with Pyrimid (https://github.com/ian-small/pyrimid, accessed on 21 January 2021). Nucleotide count data was analysed statistically with a Fisher exact test as implemented in the Python scipy.stats package and the p-values were corrected for multiple testing using statsmodels.stats.multitest.multipletests with the Simes-Hochberg procedure. Odds ratios were calculated after adding a pseudocount of 0.5 to all observations to avoid division by zero. 2.5. Analysis of Complex I and Complex III Crude membrane pellets were prepared from Arabidopsis leaves as previously de- scribed [25] and the complexes separated by BN-PAGE using precast NativePAGETM mini-gels (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).