Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Cooperation of Soybean PDI Family Members and ERO1 1
Reiko Urade, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-2
0011, Japan, +81 774 38 3760, [email protected] 3
4
Plant Physiology Preview. Published on December 8, 2015, as DOI:10.1104/pp.15.01781
Copyright 2015 by the American Society of Plant Biologists
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
2
Cooperative Protein Folding by Two Protein Thiol Disulfide Oxidoreductases and 5
ERO1 in Soybean 6
Motonori Matsusaki, Aya Okuda, Taro Masuda, Katsunori Koishihara, Ryuta Mita, 7
Kensuke Iwasaki, Kumiko Hara, Yurika Naruo, Akiho Hirose, Yuichiro Tsuchi, Reiko 8
Urade* 9
Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan 10
11
One sentence summary: Two soybean protein thiol disulfide oxidoreductases achieve 12
cooperatively and efficient oxidative protein folding by relaying an oxidizing equivalent 13
supplied from endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin-1a. 14
15
16
17
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
3
1 This work was supported by a Grant in Aid for Scientific Research (No. 18658055, No. 18
26660111) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, a grant from the Program 19
for Promotion of Basic Research Activities for Innovative Biosciences, and a grant from the 20
Takano Life Science Research Foundation. 21
* Address correspondence to [email protected]. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
4
Most proteins produced in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) of eukaryotic cells fold via 31
disulfide formation (oxidative folding). Oxidative folding is catalyzed by protein disulfide 32
isomerase (PDI) and PDI-related ER protein thiol disulfide oxidoreductases (ER 33
oxidoreductases). In yeast and mammals, ER oxidoreductin-1s (Ero1s) supply oxidation is 34
equivalent to the active centers of PDI. In this study, we expressed recombinant soybean 35
Ero1 (GmERO1a) and found that GmERO1a oxidized multiple soybean ER 36
oxidoreductases, in contrast to mammalian Ero1s having a high specificity for protein 37
disulfide isomerase. One of these ER oxidoreductases, GmPDIM, associated in vivo and in 38
vitro with GmPDIL-2, which was unable to be oxidized by GmERO1a. We therefore 39
pursued the possible cooperative oxidative folding by GmPDIM, GmERO-1a, and 40
GmPDIL-2 in vitro and found that GmPDIL-2 synergistically accelerated oxidative 41
refolding. In this process, GmERO1a preferentially oxidized the active center in the a’ 42
domain among the a, a' and b domain of GmPDIM. A disulfide bond introduced into the 43
active center of the a’ domain of GmPDIM was shown to be transferred to the active center 44
of the a domain of GmPDIM and the a domain of GmPDIM directly oxidized the active 45
centers of both the a or a’ domain of GmPDIL-2. Therefore, we propose that the relay of an 46
oxidizing equivalent from an ER oxidoreductase to another may play an essential role in 47
cooperative oxidative folding by multiple ER oxidoreductases in plants. 48
49
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
5
In eukaryotes, many secretory and membrane proteins fold via disulfide bond 50
formation in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Seed storage proteins of major crops, such as 51
wheat, corn, rice, and beans, that are important protein sources for humans and domestic 52
animals, are synthesized in the ER of the endosperm or cotyledon. A number of seed 53
storage proteins fold by the formation of intramolecular disulfide bonds (oxidative folding) 54
and are transported to and accumulate in protein bodies (Kermode and Bewley, 1999; 55
Jolliffe et al., 2005). In contrast to normally folded proteins, misfolded and unfolded 56
proteins are retained in the ER and degraded by an ER-associated degradation or vacuolar 57
system (Smith et al., 2011; Pu and Bassham, 2013). Therefore, quick and efficient oxidative 58
folding of nascent seed storage proteins is needed for their accumulation in protein bodies. 59
During this process, protein disulfide isomerase (PDI) (EC 5.3.4.1) and other ER 60
protein thiol disulfide oxidoreductases (ER oxidoreductases) are thought to catalyze the 61
formation and isomerization of disulfide bonds in nascent proteins (Hatahet and Ruddock, 62
2009; Feige and Hendershot, 2011; Lu and Holmgren, 2014). After phylogenetic analysis of 63
the Arabidopsis thaliana genome, 10 classes of ER oxidoreductases (classes I–X) were 64
identified (Houston et al., 2005). Among them, class I ER oxidoreductases, a plant PDI 65
ortholog, has been studied in a wide variety of plants. Class I ER oxidoreductases have two 66
catalytically active domains a and a’, containing active centers composed of Cys-Gly-His-67
Cys and two catalytically inactive domains b and b’. An Arabidopsis ortholog of class I ER 68
oxidoreductases is required for proper seed development and regulates the timing of 69
programmed cell death by chaperoning and inhibiting cysteine proteases (Andème 70
Ondzighi et al., 2008). OaPDI, a PDI from Oldenlandia affinis, a coffee family (Rubiaceae) 71
plant, is involved in the folding of knotted circular proteins (Gruber et al., 2007). The rice 72
ortholog (PDIL1-1) was suggested to be involved in the maturation of the major seed 73
storage protein glutelin (Takemoto et al., 2002). Furthermore, rice PDIL1-1 plays a role in 74
regulatory activities for various proteins that are essential for the synthesis of grain 75
components as determined by analysis of a T-DNA insertion mutant (Satoh-Cruz et al., 76
2010). 77
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
6
The oxidative refolding ability of class I ER oxidoreductases was confirmed in 78
recombinant soybean (GmPDIL-1) and wheat proteins produced by an E. coli expression 79
system established from cDNAs (Kamauchi et al., 2008; Kimura et al., 2015). Class II and 80
III ER oxidoreductases have an a–b–b’–a’ domain structure. Class II ER oxidoreductases 81
have an acidic amino acid-rich sequence in the N-terminal region ahead of the a domain. 82
Recombinant soybean (GmPDIL-2) and wheat class II ER oxidoreductases have oxidative 83
refolding activities similar to that of class I (Kamauchi et al., 2008; Kimura et al., 2015). 84
Class III ER oxidoreductases contain the nonclassical redox-center Cys-X-X-Ser/Cys 85
motifs, as opposed to the more traditional CGHC sequence, in the a and a’ domains. 86
Recombinant soybean (GmPDIL-3) and wheat proteins lack oxidative refolding activity in 87
vitro (Iwasaki et al., 2009; Kimura et al., 2015). Class IV ER oxidoreductases are unique to 88
plants and have an a–a’–ERp29 domain structure, which is homologous to the C-terminal 89
domain of mammalian ERp29 (Demmer et al., 1997). Recombinant soybean class IV ER 90
oxidoreductases (GmPDIS-1 and GmPDIS-2) and wheat class IV ER oxidoreductase 91
possess an oxidative refolding activity that is weaker than that of classes I and II 92
(Wadahama et al., 2007; Kimura et al., 2015). Class V ER oxidoreductases are plant 93
orthologs of mammalian P5 and have an a–a’–b domain structure. A rice class V ER 94
oxidoreductase, PDIL2;3, plays an important role in the accumulation of the seed storage 95
protein Cys-rich 10-kDa prolamin (crP10) (Onda et al., 2011). Recombinant soybean class 96
V ER oxidoreductase, GmPDIM and wheat class V ER oxidoreductase possess an oxidative 97
refolding activity similar to that of class IV (Wadahama et al., 2008; Kimura et al., 2015). 98
In the soybean, GmPDIL-1, GmPDIL-2, GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2 were 99
found to associate transiently with a seed storage precursor protein, proglycinin, in the ER 100
of the cotyledon by coimmunoprecipitation experiments, suggesting that multiple ER 101
oxidoreductases are involved in the folding of the nascent proglycinin. 102
The disulfide bond in the active center of ER oxidoreductases is reduced as a result of 103
catalyzing disulfide bond formation in an unfolded protein. The reduced active center of 104
PDI was discovered to be oxidized again by ER oxidoreductin-1 (Ero1p) in yeast (Frand 105
and Kaiser, 1998; Pollard et al., 1998). Ero1p orthologs are present universally in 106
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
7
eukaryotes. Yeast and flies have a single copy of the ERO1 gene, which is essential for 107
survival (Frand and Kaiser, 1998; Pollard et al., 1998; Tien et al., 2008). Mammals have 108
two genes encoding Ero1-α (Cabibbo et al., 2000) and Ero1-β (Pagani et al., 2000) that 109
function as major disulfide donors to nascent proteins in the ER, but are not critical for 110
survival (Zito et al., 2010). Domain a of yeast PDI is the most favored substrate of yeast 111
Ero1p (Vitu et al., 2010), whereas a’ of human PDI is specifically oxidized by human Ero1-112
α (Chambers et al., 2010) and Ero1-β (Wang et al., 2011). Electrons from cysteine residues 113
of the active centers of PDI are transferred to oxygen by Ero1 (Tu and Weissman, 2004; 114
Sevier and Kaiser, 2008). The reaction mechanisms of yeast Ero1p and human Ero1s have 115
been intensively investigated; their regulation by PDI has been extensively studied as well 116
(Tavender and Bulleid, 2010; Araki and Inaba, 2012; Benham et al., 2013; Ramming et al., 117
2015). Only rice Ero1 (OsERO1) has been identified as a plant ortholog of Ero1p (Onda et 118
al., 2009). OsERO1 is necessary for disulfide bond formation in rice endosperm. The 119
formation of native disulfide bonds in the major seed storage protein proglutelin was 120
demonstrated to depend upon OsERO1 by RNAi knockdown experiments. However, no 121
plant protein thiol disulfide oxidoreductases that are oxidized by a plant Ero1 ortholog have 122
been identified to date. 123
In this study, we show that multiple soybean ER oxidoreductases can be activated by a 124
soybean Ero1 ortholog (GmERO1a). In addition, we propose a synergistic mechanism by 125
which GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 cooperatively fold unfolded proteins using oxidizing 126
equivalents provided by GmERO1 in vitro. 127
. 128
129
RESULTS 130
131
Identification and Characterization of Soybean Ero1 132
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
8
The GmERO1a cDNA and GmERO1b cDNA encoding the soybean Ero1 orthologs 133
were cloned. GmERO1a and GmERO1b encoded proteins composed of 465 amino acids 134
containing 19 cysteine residues (Fig. 1A and Supplemental Fig. S1). GmERO1 proteins 135
were expressed as a single 53-kDa band in soybean root, stem, leaf, and cotyledon (Fig. 136
1B). The band shifted to 46-kDa under nonreducing SDS-PAGE, suggesting that GmERO1 137
proteins have intramolecular disulfide bonds. We confirmed that GmERO1 proteins, which 138
have a putative transmembrane region (Trp16 - Ser34) near the N-termini and two putative 139
N-glycosylated asparagine residues, are type I membrane-bound glycoproteins targeted to 140
the ER. When the extract from the cotyledon was treated with endoglycosidase H or F, the 141
size of GmERO1 proteins decreased from 53 kDa to 50 kDa (Fig. 1C), suggesting that one 142
or more high-mannose type N-glycan(s) were attached to GmERO1 proteins. GmERO1 143
proteins were recovered in the precipitate of the cell homogenate, but not the supernatant, 144
after ultra-centrifugation at 100,000 × g, and pretreatment with Triton X-100 caused 145
solubilization of GmERO1 proteins in the supernatant along with soybean calnexin (Fig, 146
1D). In confocal microscopic images, GmERO1 was observed upon immunostaining to 147
colocalize with GmPDIS-1, which is localized in the ER (Wadahama et al., 2007) (Fig. 1E). 148
The expression levels of GmERO1 proteins and their mRNAs were high when seed 149
storage proteins β-conglycinin and glycinin were synthesized (70–100 mg and 150–200 mg 150
cotyledon weight, respectively) (Fig. 1F and G). GmERO1a and GmERO1b mRNAs were 151
upregulated following ER stress induced by tunicamycin (Fig. 1H). The ER stress response 152
elements (Oh et al., 2003; Iwata and Koizumi, 2005; Iwata et al., 2008; Hayashi et al., 153
2013; Sun et al., 2013) were not found within the 2500-bp upstream and downstream 154
sequences of the transcriptional region of either GmERO1a or GmERO1b. 155
156
Recombinant GmERO1a Oxidizes Various ER Oxidoreductases 157
The soluble and folded 48-kDa recombinant GmERO1a, which is missing 60 N-158
terminal residues including the putative transmembrane region and the C-terminal 23 159
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
9
residues (Fig. 2A), was expressed in Escherichia coli. Its mobility as visualized by SDS-160
PAGE shifted to 38 kDa under nonreducing conditions, suggesting that the recombinant 161
protein has intramolecular disulfide bonds (Fig. 2B). The recombinant protein had circular 162
dichroism (CD) spectra typical of a well-folded protein (Fig 2C). The UV-visible 163
absorption spectrum of the recombinant GmERO1a showed a typical unresolved flavin 164
envelope with a maximum absorbance at 454 nm and a shoulder at 485 nm (Fig. 2D). The 165
spectrum, identical to that of authentic flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), was obtained 166
after denaturation with guanidine hydrochloride, indicating that FAD is noncovalently 167
bound to recombinant GmERO1a. The molar ratio of GmERO1a to bound FAD was 168
calculated to be 1:1 with a molecular extinction coefficient of 12.9 mM-1cm-1. The FAD 169
moiety bound to GmERO1a was reduced by DTT (Fig. 2E), suggesting that FAD bound to 170
GmERO1a acts as a cofactor to transfer electrons from a substrate. 171
We next determined the ability of recombinant GmERO1a to oxidize five soybean ER 172
oxidoreductases (Fig. 3A). Oxidation of ER oxidoreductases by GmERO1a was monitored 173
by oxygen consumption (Fig. 3B). The reaction was performed in the presence of GSH, as 174
a substrate for oxidation by ER oxidoreductases oxidized by GmERO1a. In contrast to 175
human Ero1α and Ero1β, which predominantly oxidize PDI, GmEro1a oxidized GmPDIL-1, 176
GmPDIS-1, GmPDIS-2, and GmPDIM to comparable levels (Fig. 3C and Supplemental 177
Fig. S2). GmPDIL-2 was negligibly oxidized by GmERO1a. 178
Oxidative refolding by these ER oxidoreductases was determined in the presence of 179
GmERO1a. ER oxidoreductases other than GmPDIL-2 were able to refold reduced and 180
denatured RNase A (Fig. 4A). Lag times prior to the initiation of refolding (Fig. 4B, white 181
bars) and refolding rates (black bars) differed between the ER oxidoreductases. The shortest 182
lag times and the highest refolding rates were observed in the presence of GmPDIL-1. The 183
rate of refolding by GmPDIL-1 increased with increasing concentrations of GmERO1a. 184
The lag time of refolding by GmPDIL-1 did not change at different concentrations of 185
GmERO1a. The rates of refolding by GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2 were slower 186
than that by GmPDIL-1, and underwent very little change at different concentrations of 187
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
10
GmERO1a. In contrast to the refolding rates, the lag times decreased with increasing 188
concentrations of GmERO1a. These results suggest that dithiol oxidation is rate limiting in 189
the reaction by GmPDIL-1, whereas disulfide isomerization was rate limiting in the 190
reactions by GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2. 191
This observation was confirmed by analysis of intermediates during refolding. RNase A 192
molecules during refolding were separated by nonreducing SDS-PAGE after modification 193
of the free thiol groups with 4-acetamido-4’-maleimidylstilbene-2,2’-disulfonic acid (AMS) 194
(Fig. 4C). GmPDIL-1 converted most of the reduced and denatured RNase A molecules 195
(Dred) into an intermediate with non-native disulfide bonds (Dox) within the first 5 min. 196
During the next 15 min, "Dox" was converted into a native form with four disulfide bonds 197
(N) (Fig. 4D, left). GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, or GmPDIS-2 converted most of the "Dred" into 198
"Dox" within the first 5 min, and conversion of "Dox" into "N" was slower than by 199
GmPDIL-1 (Fig. 4C and D, right). Neither "Dox" nor "N" was generated by GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 200
4C). 201
202
GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM Cooperatively Refold Denatured RNase A 203
It was previously found that GmPDIS-1, GmPDIM, GmPDIL-1, and GmPDIL-2 204
associate with nascent proglycinin in the ER, suggesting that these ER oxidoreductases 205
cooperatively fold glycinin in vivo (Wadahama et al., 2007; Kamauchi et al., 2008; 206
Wadahama et al., 2008). Associations between these ER oxidoreductases in the ER were 207
detected by coimmunoprecipitation. GmPDIM and GmPDIS-1, GmPDIM and GmPDIS-2, 208
GmPDIS-1 and GmPDIS-2, and GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 were coimmunoprecipitated 209
(Fig. 5A). Therefore, we examined the refolding of RNase A when these ER 210
oxidoreductases were present simultaneously. No combination of GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, 211
and GmPDIS-2 showed an additive effect on the refolding rate (Supplemental Fig. S3). In 212
contrast, the refolding rate of denatured RNase A when GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 were 213
present simultaneously was almost five times greater than that for GmPDIM alone, 214
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
11
although GmPDIL-2 alone had no refolding activity (Fig. 5B). The refolding rate 215
drastically increased until a 1:1 molar ratio of GmPDIL-2 to GmPDIM was obtained (Fig. 216
5C). The association of GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM was confirmed by far-western blot 217
analysis (Fig. 5D and E). 218
To identify the relevant domains for the binding of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2, various 219
domain fragments of GmPDIL-2 (Supplemental Fig. S4) and GmPDIM (Supplemental Fig. 220
S5) were subjected to far-western blot analysis. Only the b’–a’ fragment of GmPDIL-2 221
bound to GmPDIM with affinity comparable to full GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 5D). The a–a’ 222
fragment of GmPDIM bound with high affinity to GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 5E). Taken together, the 223
binding sites of GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM are composed of the b’ and a’ domains of 224
GmPDIL-2 and the a and a’ domains of GmPDIM. 225
226
The Active Centers of GmPDIL-2 are Important to their Cooperative Activity with 227
GmPDIM 228
The acceleration of oxidative refolding of RNase A by the cooperation of GmPDIL-2 229
and GmPDIM depends on the catalytic cysteine residues in the a and a’ domains of 230
GmPDIL-2. When four catalytic cysteine residues were replaced with alanine [GmPDIL-231
2(C101/104/440/443A)], the acceleration of oxidative refolding was eliminated (Fig. 6A 232
and B). Replacing two catalytic cysteine residues in either the a or a’ domain with alanine 233
[GmPDIL-2(C440/443A) or GmPDIL-2(C101/104A)] caused a decrease in oxidative 234
refolding activity to 55% or 69% of wild-type levels, respectively. In mutants in which the 235
C-terminal catalytic cysteine residue in the a’ and/or a domain was replaced by alanine 236
[GmPDIL-2(C104/443A), GmPDIL-2(C443A), and GmPDIL-2(C104A)], oxidative 237
refolding was slower than that of GmPDIL-2(C440/443A) or GmPDIL-2(C101/104A). The 238
effects of a, a’, a–b, a–b–b’, b–b’–a’, and b’–a’ fragments on the acceleration of oxidative 239
refolding were all very low (Fig. 6B). One reason for the small effects of the domain 240
fragments on the acceleration of oxidative refolding, other than the a–b–b’ fragment, may 241
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
12
be their low oxidative refolding activities and disulfide reductase activities seen in the 242
presence of glutathione redox buffer without GmERO1a (Supplemental Fig. S4E). 243
Oxidative refolding by ER oxidoreductases is achieved through the formation of non-244
native disulfide bonds in substrate proteins and their subsequent rearrangement to native 245
bonds as seen in Fig. 4C. Therefore, it was predicted that GmPDIL-2 would stimulate the 246
formation and/or rearrangement of substrate disulfide bonds. The addition of GmPDIL-2 to 247
GmPDIM induced more rapid conversion of "Dred" into "Dox" and "N" than did GmPDIM 248
alone (Fig. 6C). Mutations in the active centers of GmPDIL-2 caused retardation in the 249
conversion into both "Dox" and "N." The rate of disulfide bond formation during the first 10 250
min of the addition of GmPDIL-2 to GmPDIM was twice that of GmPDIM alone (Fig. 6D), 251
suggesting that GmPDIL-2 stimulates the oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1. Mutant 252
GmPDIL-2(C101/104/440/443A) was devoid of the acceleration effect on refolding. Since 253
GmPDIL-2(C440/443A) and GmPDIL-2(C101/104A) showed about half the acceleration 254
effect of the wild type, the active centers of the a and a’ domain appeared to act 255
independently. The amount of native disulfide bonds formed during the reaction were 256
calculated from the amount of refolded RNase A. The formation rate of native disulfide 257
bonds during the cooperation of GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM (Fig. 6D, red curve) was four-258
fold higher than GmPDIM alone (Fig. 6D, blue curve), suggesting that GmPDIL-2 259
accelerates both disulfide bond formation and the rearrangement accompanied with folding. 260
261
GmPDIL-2 Accelerates the Oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1a 262
From the results shown in Fig. 6, it was suggested that GmPDIL-2 accelerates the 263
oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1a. To confirm this possibility, oxidation of GmPDIM 264
by GmERO1a was measured in the presence of GmPDIL-2. In this experiment, GSH was 265
used as a substrate. Addition of GmPDIL-2 caused an increase in O2 consumption rate to 266
130% of that without GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 7A). The acceleration effect was lost upon mutation 267
of the active center of the a’; GmPDIL-2(C440/443A) and GmPDIL-268
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
13
2(C101/104/440/443A) showed no acceleration effects. The acceleration effect of 269
GmPDIL-2(C101/104A) was lower than that of wild type GmPDIL-2. Similar effects by 270
GmPDIL-2 and its active-center mutations were observed in experiments coupled with 271
glutathione disulfide reductase and NADPH (Fig. 7B–D). Fragments a and a’ showed an 272
acceleration effect of one-half that of the wild type. Fragment b–b’ showed no effect. The 273
attachment of the b, b’, or b–b’ domain to the a or a’ domain had no positive effect. 274
275
GmERO1a Preferentially Oxidizes the Active Center in the a’ Domain of GmPDIM; 276
GmPDIM Oxidizes Both Active Centers in GmPDIL-2 277
From the results shown in Fig. 7A–D, we envisioned a pathway by which GmPDIM, 278
oxidized by GmERO1, transfers disulfide bonds to the active centers of GmPDIL-2. To test 279
this hypothesis, we determined which active center of GmPDIM is oxidized by GmERO1a 280
using active-center mutants of GmPDIM (Fig. 7E and F, black bars). Both 281
GmPDIM(C192/195A) and GmPDIM(C195A) were negligibly oxidized by GmERO1a. 282
Therefore, no disulfide bond formation in reduced and denatured RNase A by 283
GmPDIM(C192/195A) and GmPDIL-2 was detected (Fig. 6C and D). In contrast to 284
GmPDIM(C192/195A) and GmPDIM(C195A), GmPDIM(C64/67A) and GmPDIM(C67A) 285
were oxidized by GmERO1a, although at a slower rate than wild-type GmPDIM. These 286
findings suggest that GmERO1a specifically oxidizes the active center in the a’ domain of 287
GmPDIM. This finding was corroborated by the fact that the a’ fragment, but not the a 288
fragment, was oxidized at 74% of the oxidation rate of wild-type GmPDIM by GmERO1a. 289
The oxidation rate of the a’–b fragment was slightly slower than that of the a’ fragment, 290
and the a–a’ fragment was oxidized at almost same rate as wild-type GmPDIM, suggesting 291
that the b domain does not contribute to oxidation by GmERO1a. Oxidation of every 292
GmPDIM mutant by GmERO1 was accelerated by GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 7F, white bar). 293
Association of GmPDIM and GmERO1a was detected by far-western blot analysis (Fig. 294
7G). The a, a’, or b fragment of GmPDIM hardly associated with GmERO1a. However, 295
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
14
either the a–a’ or a’–b fragment associated with GmERO1a at an affinity comparable to 296
wild-type GmPDIM. 297
To confirm that the disulfide bond in the active center of the a’ domain of GmPDIM 298
formed by GmERO1a is transferred to the active center of GmPDIL-2 via the active center 299
of the a domain of GmPDIM, we analyzed mixed disulfide complexes of the active-center 300
mutants of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. When GmPDIM(C67A) and GmERO1a were 301
incubated with GmPDIL-2(C104/443A), two types of mixed disulfide complexes (L2-M1 302
and L2-M2) of GmPDIM(C67A) and GmPDIL-2(C104/443A), and the GmPDIM(C67A) 303
dimer were detected (Fig. 8A). When GmPDIM(C67A) and GmERO1a were incubated 304
with GmPDIL-2(C104A) or GmPDIL-2(C443A), only one mixed disulfide complex, L2-305
M2 (Fig. 8B) or L2-M1, (Fig. 8C) was formed. Neither the mixed disulfide complex nor the 306
GmPDIM(C67A) dimer was generated in the absence of GmERO1a (Fig. 8D). When wild-307
type GmPDIM and GmERO1a were incubated with GmPDIL-2(C104/443A), only a few 308
mixed disulfide complexes were detected (Fig. 8E). In addition, no mixed disulfide 309
complexes were formed from GmPDIM(C195A) (Fig. 8F). From these results, L2-M1 and 310
L2-M2 were deduced to be mixed disulfide complexes, which were linked by disulfide 311
bonds between Cys67 of GmPDIM and either Cys443 or Cys104 of GmPDIL-2. 312
The results shown in Fig. 7F suggest that a disulfide bond introduced into the active 313
center of the a’ domain of GmPDIM is transferred to the active center of the a domain of 314
GmPDIM. Then the oxidized GmPDIM can oxidize the active center of either the a or a’ 315
domain of GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 8A-F). The direction of a redox reaction between functional 316
groups depends on their redox potentials, i. e., a functional group with higher redox 317
potential oxidizes a functional group with lower redox potential. To obtain the redox 318
potentials of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2, their redox equilibrium constants were determined. 319
Redox equilibrium constants of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 were 2.0 mM and 3.4 mM, 320
respectively (Fig. 8G and J). Since these are the mean values of two active sites, redox 321
equilibrium constants of the redox-inactive mutants of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 were 322
determined (Fig. 8H, I, K, and L). GmPDIM(C192/195A) showed the lowest redox 323
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
15
equilibrium constant (Keq = 0.7) among the mutant proteins. The reduction potential E0’ 324
values calculated from each redox equilibrium constant of GmPDIM(C192/195A), 325
GmPDIM(C64/67A), GmPDIL-2(C440/443A), and GmPDIL-2(C101/104A) were -147 mV, 326
-166 mV, -169 mV, and -163 mV, respectively. These values suggest that the a domain of 327
GmPDIM has a tendency to oxidize both the active centers of the a and a’ domains of 328
GmPDIL-2. 329
330
DISCUSSION 331
In this study, we found that the plant Ero1 ortholog has a broad substrate specificity. 332
GmERO1a oxidizes, not only the conserved typical ER oxidoreductase GmPDIL-1, but 333
also GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2. Human Ero1α and Ero1β preferentially 334
oxidize PDI. Therefore, another pathway that oxidizes other ER oxidoreductases likely 335
exists in human. Peroxiredoxin-4 primarily oxidizes two PDI family members, ERp46 and 336
P5, using H2O2 generated during the oxidation of PDI by human Ero1α (Sato et al., 2013). 337
Conversely, in the plant ER, a peroxiredoxin-4 ortholog has not been found. In rice, a lack 338
of OsEro1 causes the aggregation of glutelin because of deficient disulfide bond formation 339
(Onda et al., 2009), suggesting that disulfide bond formation depends on the Ero1 system 340
for protein folding in the plant ER. Therefore, plant Ero1 may induce efficient oxidative 341
folding in the ER by supplying disulfide bonds to multiple ER oxidoreductases. 342
Among the soybean ER oxidoreductases examined in this study, only GmPDIL-2 was 343
hardly oxidized by GmERO1a. The Keq values of the active centers in the a and a’ 344
domains of GmPDIL-2 were 4.33 and 2.66, respectively. Since these values are similar to 345
that of the a’ domain of GmPDIM (Keq = 3.53), which was preferentially oxidized by 346
GmERO1a, the lack of oxidation by GmERO1 is not due to the reduction potential of the 347
active centers of GmPDIL-2. One reason may be the low affinity between GmERO1a and 348
GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 3D). 349
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
16
We found GmPDIL-2 associate with GmPDIM in vivo. GmPDIL-2 can associate with 350
GmPDIM to cooperatively fold denatured RNase A in vitro. Oxidative folding proceeds via 351
two steps: (Step 1) introduction of transient, non-native disulfide bonds and (Step 2) their 352
isomerization into native disulfide bonds. The oxidative folding activity of GmPDIM was 353
lower than that of GmPDIL-2 in the presence of glutathione buffer without GmERO1a 354
(Supplemental Fig. S4E and Supplemental Fig. S5D). Therefore, there may be a pathway in 355
which GmPDIM forms non-native disulfide bonds in the substrate and then GmPDIL-2 356
folds and rearranges these disulfide bonds into native bonds (Fig. 9A). 357
In addition to synergistic effects on folding, the addition of GmPDIL-2 to GmPDIM 358
accelerated the formation of disulfide bonds in RNase A. GmPDIL-2 may increase the net 359
substrates for GmPDIM by reducing non-native disulfide bonds and stimulating folding. 360
However, even when GSH was used as a substrate, GmPDIL-2 increased the rate of 361
oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1, suggesting that increasing the rate of oxidation does 362
not depend on substrate folding only. We found that the active center of the a domain of 363
GmPDIM oxidized the active center of either the a or a’ domain of GmPDIL-2 (Fig. 8A–F). 364
The increase in the oxidation rate of GmPDIM by GmERO1a may be explained by the 365
transfer of disulfide bonds from GmPDIM to the associated GmPDIL-2, in addition to 366
substrate proteins. The absolute concentration of glutathione in the ER is unknown; 367
however, a consensus exists that the total glutathione concentration in the ER is around 9–368
10 mM and that the ratio of [GSH]2/[GSSG] in the ER is around 3:1 (Hatahet and Ruddock, 369
2009). From these values, the reduction potential for ER glutathione is estimated as -191 370
mV. Under these redox conditions in the ER, the active centers of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-371
2 would be largely reduced. This means that GmPDIM, once oxidized by GmERO1a, 372
would oxidize GmPDIL-2. 373
Using the active-center mutants, a model of the pathway of disulfide bond transfer from 374
GmPDIM to GmPDIL-2 can be constructed (Fig. 9B). First, GmERO1a entirely oxidizes 375
the a’ domain of GmPDIM (i). The preference of GmERO1a for the a’ domain of 376
GmPDIM is probably due to the reduction potential and the affinity between GmERO1a 377
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
17
and the a’ domain of GmPDIM. Since the reduction potential of the a’ domain was lower 378
than that of the a domain, the a’ domain will be more easily oxidized by GmERO1a. Then, 379
the oxidized GmPDIM transfers a disulfide bond to GSH or GmPDIL-2 mainly from the a 380
domain (ii), because the oxidation of GmPDIM(C64/67A) and GmPDIM(C67A)) was 381
significantly lower than that of wild-type GmPDIM (Fig. 7F). This finding suggests that the 382
disulfide bond transferred to the a’ domain of GmPDIM from GmERO1a is 383
intramolecularly transferred to the a domain. The oxidation of the a domain by the a’ 384
domain is thermodynamically contradictory, as the apparent redox equilibrium constant of 385
the a domain of GmPDIM(C192/195A) (0.73) was lower than that of the a’ domain of 386
GmPDIM(C64/67A) (3.53). If the a’ domain of GmPDIM is oxidized, the redox 387
equilibrium constant of the a and/or a’ domain may be altered by conformational changes 388
such that the a domain becomes susceptible to oxidation by the a’ domain. In human PDI, 389
the a’ domain was first oxidized by Ero1-α, which then oxidizes the a domain, and the 390
reduced a’ domain is oxidized by Ero1-α. During the sequential transfer of disulfide bonds, 391
PDI dynamically changes its structure from a closed form to an open form (Nakasako et al., 392
2010; Serve et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012). Subsequently, disulfide bonds are transferred 393
from the GmPDIM to either the a or a’ domain of GmPDIL-2 (iii) and from the oxidized 394
GmPDIL-2 to a protein substrate (iv). 395
Human PDI has been shown to oxidize other ER oxidoreductases, such as ERp47, 396
ERp57, and P5 (Araki et al., 2013, Oka et al., 2015). Therefore, Ero1-α and PDI are 397
thought to constitute a regulatory hub for the regulation of the redox states of ER 398
oxidoreductases. In contrast, multiple soybean ER oxidoreductases are able to be oxidized 399
by GmERO1a. Therefore, in plants, it is thought that Ero1 and ER oxidoreductases 400
constitute a robust network for disulfide bond transfer and the regulation of redox 401
homeostasis in the ER. The relay of oxidizing equivalents from an ER oxidoreductase to 402
another may play an essential role for cooperative oxidative folding by multiple ER 403
oxidoreductases. 404
405
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
18
MATERIALS AND METHODS 406
407
Plants 408
Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill cv. Jack) seeds were planted in 5-L pots and grown in a 409
controlled environmental chamber at 25°C under 16-h day/8-h night cycles. All samples taken were 410
immediately frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen until use. 411
412
cDNA Cloning of GmERO1a and GmERO1b 413
The cDNAs transcribed from GmERO1a and GmERO1b were amplified from total RNA 414
extracted from 100 mg immature soybean cotyledon by RT-PCR using forward primer 5’-415
CCTCAGTGTTCTTCAGCGATCTTCTTCTGGGTCTG-3’ and reverse primer 5’-416
CCAAACCACGACAGTGGTTTTCCTATGTCTAGTC-3’, and forward primer 5’-417
ATGGTGAAAGCGGAGATTGAGAAAAAGGGTTGCAGC-3’ and reverse primer 5’-418
CCACGACGGTGGTTTTCCTATGTCTAGTCTCTCTAG-3’, respectively. The amplified DNA 419
fragments were subcloned into the pUC19 vector. The inserts in the plasmid vectors were sequenced. 420
421
Preparation of Recombinant GmERO1a 422
An expression plasmid encoding GST-fused GmERO1a E70-G422 was constructed as follows. 423
The DNA fragment was amplified from GmERO1a cDNA by PCR using primers 5’-424
GCGATGGATCCTATGAAACTGTGGATCGTCTTAATG-3’ and 5’-425
GCGATGTCGACTATCCTCCTTCCATGATTCTTTCAGC-3’. The amplified DNA fragment was 426
subcloned into the pGEX6p-2 vector (GE Healthcare). The recombinant protein has glutathione-S-427
transferase (GST) linked to the amino terminus. Rosseta-gami cells (Takara Bio, Inc.) were 428
transformed with the GST-fusion vector described above. Expression of recombinant GST-429
GmERO1a was induced in LB containing 0.5 mM isopropyl thiogalactoside, 20 μM FAD, 100 430
μg/mL ampicillin, 15 μg/mL kanamycin, and 12.5 μg/mL tetracycline at 15°C for 120 h. The cells 431
were collected by centrifugation and disrupted by sonication in phosphate-buffered saline. 432
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
19
Recombinant GST-GmERO1a was adsorbed to a glutathione Sepharose 4B column and digested by 433
PreScission protease (GE Healthcare). The eluted recombinant GmERO1a was purified by gel 434
filtration chromatography on a TSK gel G3000SW column (Tosoh Co., Ltd.) equilibrated with 20 435
mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 150 mM NaCl and 10% glycerol as described previously 436
(Wadahama et al., 2007). The concentration of purified recombinant GmERO1a was determined by 437
amino acid analysis with norleucine as an internal standard. 438
439
Western Blot Analysis 440
Soybean (G. max L. Merrill. cv. Jack) seeds were planted in 5-L pots and grown in a controlled 441
environmental chamber at 25°C under 16-h day/8-h night cycles. Roots, leaves, and stems were 442
collected from 10-day-old seedlings. Seeds were collected from plants, and cotyledons were 443
isolated. Tissues were frozen in liquid nitrogen and then ground into a fine powder with a 444
micropestle SK-100 (Tokken, Inc.). Proteins were extracted by boiling for 5 min in SDS-PAGE 445
buffer (Laemmli, 1970) containing a 1% cocktail of protease inhibitors (Sigma-Aldrich, Inc.). To 446
cleave N-glycans, proteins were extracted from the cotyledons in 0.1% SDS/50 mM phosphate 447
buffer (pH 5.5). Protein concentration in the sample was measured with a RC DC protein assay kit 448
(Bio-Rad Laboratories). Proteins (0.4 mg) were treated with 10 mU endoglycosidase F or 449
endoglycosidase H (Sigma-Aldrich Inc.) at 37°C for 16 h. To separate the supernatant and 450
membrane fractions, the frozen cotyledons from three 100-mg seeds in liquid nitrogen were crushed 451
with a micropestle SK-100 and sonicated with a Sonifier II (Branson Ultrasonic Corporation) in 200 452
mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.8, five times for 30 sec on ice. The homogenate was placed into a cell strainer 453
(BD Biosciences) and centrifuged at 824 × g for 40 min at 4°C. The filtrated suspension was 454
divided two fractions, diluted with 200 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.8, with or without 1% Triton X-100, 455
and centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 1 h at 4°C. Proteins were subjected to SDS-PAGE (Laemmli, 456
1970) and blotted onto a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. Blots were immunostained first with 457
antiserum and then with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated IgG antiserum (Promega Corporation) 458
as the secondary antibody. Anti-GmERO1a serum and anti-GmCNX serum were prepared using 459
recombinant GmERO1a and recombinant C-terminal-truncated GmCNX (Supplemental Fig. S6), 460
respectively, by Operon Biotechnologies, K.K. Anti-GmPDIL-1 serum was prepared previously 461
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
20
(Kamauchi et al., 2008). Blots were developed with the Western Lightning Chemiluminescence 462
Reagent (Perkin Elmer Life Sciences). 463
464
Confocal Microscopy 465
Cotyledons from developing soybean seeds (195 mg) were cut into 3×3×1-mm cubes. The 466
pieces of tissue were fixed with 4% formaldehyde for 2 h at room temperature. The fixed cotyledon 467
pieces were dehydrated with a series of ethanol dilutions, embedded in Historesin (Leica 468
Microsystems), and sliced into sections. The sections were stained with anti-GmPDIS-1 rabbit 469
serum (Wadahama et al., 2007) and then biotin-anti-rabbit IgG goat serum (Cortex Biochem), 470
followed by incubation with Cy5-streptavidin (GE Healthcare). For detection of GmERO1, 471
specimens were stained with guinea pig antiserum against recombinant GmERO1a, followed by 472
staining with Cy3-conjugated anti-guinea pig IgG goat serum (Chemicon International). The 473
specimens were examined on a FV1000-D laser scanning confocal imaging system (Olympus). 474
475
Measurement of mRNA 476
Total RNA was isolated from young leaves treated with or without 5 μg/mL tunicamycin at 477
25°C for 5 h using an RNeasy Plant Mini kit (Qiagen Inc.). Quantification of mRNA was performed 478
by real-time PCR with a Thermal Cycler Dice™ Real Time System with SYBRⓇPremix Ex TaqTM 479
(TaKaRa Bio Inc.). Forward primers 5’- CATGCTCTCTTCTGAGTATTTGTCA-3’ and 5’-480
TCATCCAAGAAATGGGACCT-3’ and reverse primers 5’-481
CAGTGGTTTTGGTATGTCTAGTCTCTC-3’ and 5’-CGACGGTGGTTTTCCTATGT-3’ were 482
used for detection of GmERO1a mRNA and GmERO1b, respectively. 483
484
Far-UV CD Analysis 485
CD spectra of recombinant proteins in 20 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 150 mM 486
NaCl and 10% glycerol were obtained using a J-720 spectropolarimeter (JASCO Corp.) in a 1-mm 487
path-length cell with a scan speed of 20 nm/min at 14°C. 488
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
21
489
ER Oxidoreductase Oxidation Assays 490
Oxygen consumption was measured using a Clark-type oxygen electrode system 491
(OXYT-1) (Hansatech Instruments Ltd.). All experiments were performed at 25°C in 100 492
mM [4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazinyl]ethanesulfonic acid (HEPES) (pH 7.5), 2 mM CaCl2, 493
and 150 mM NaCl. Catalytic oxygen consumption was initiated by the addition of 494
GmERO1a in a reaction mixture containing recombinant ER oxidoreductases or its variants, 495
and 10 mM GSH. 496
The activity was measured using a coupled assay following the decrease in absorbance 497
at 340 nm due to the consumption of NADPH by glutathione reductase (Sigma-Aldrich, 498
Inc.) with the reaction being started by the addition of GmERO1a to initiate the reaction 499
(Nguyen et al., 2011; Sato et al., 2013). A molar extinction coefficient of 6200 M-1cm- 1 for 500
NADPH was used for calculations. All experiments were performed in 100 mM HEPES 501
(pH 7.5) containing 150 mM NaCl and 2 mM CaCl2. 502
503
RNase A Refolding Assays 504
Thiol oxidative refolding activity was assayed as previously described by measuring 505
RNase activity following regeneration of the active form of the enzyme from its reduced 506
and denatured form in the presence of the recombinant proteins (Creighton, 1977; Lyles and 507
Gilbert, 1991). Reduced and denatured RNase A was prepared as described previously. 508
Each reaction mixture contained 100 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM 509
CaCl2, 0.5 mM glutathione disulfide, 2 mM glutathione, reduced RNase A, and 510
recombinant oxidoreductases and their variants, and were incubated at 25°C. The formation 511
of active RNase A was measured spectrophotometrically by monitoring the hydrolysis of 512
the RNase A substrate cCMP at 284 nm. The isomerase activities of oxidoreductases were 513
calculated as described previously (Kulp et al., 2006). Briefly, isomerase activity was 514
determined from the linear increase in the amount of enzymatically active RNase A with 515
time after a lag. Oxidation of free thiol residues to disulfides on reduced RNase A were also 516
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
22
determined by measuring the amounts of free thiol groups in the reaction mixtures (Ellman, 517
1959). 518
519
Gel-based RNase A Refolding Experiments 520
RNase A oxidation analyses were performed by the addition of 1 μM GmERO1 in 100 521
mM HEPES buffer (pH7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM CaCl2, and 3 μM recombinant ER 522
oxidoreductases and their variants containing 8 μM denatured and reduced RNase A. At the 523
indicated time points, free thiols were blocked by the addition of Laemmli's 4×SDS-loading 524
buffer (Laemmli, 1970) containing 8 mM 4-acetamido-4-maleimidylstilbene-2,2 disulfonic 525
acid and separated on a 15% polyacrylamide gel by SDS-PAGE (Laemmli, 1970) without 526
reducing reagent. Proteins were detected by Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining after 527
electrophoresis. 528
529
Immunoprecipitation Experiments 530
Cotyledons (each 100 mg) were frozen under liquid nitrogen and homogenized with a 531
Dounce homogenizer at 4°C in 20 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.2) containing 150 mM NaCl, 532
1% digitonin, and 1% cocktail of protease inhibitors (Sigma-Aldrich). The homogenate was 533
placed on ice for 1 h and centrifuged for 30 min at 10,000 × g at 4°C. Immunoprecipitation 534
was performed at 4°C for 1 h with preimmune serum or anti-GmPDIL-1, anti-GmPDIL-2, 535
anti-GmPDIM, anti-GmPDIS-1, or anti-GmPDIS-2 serum. The immunoprecipitate was 536
collected with protein A-conjugated Sepharose beads (Sigma-Aldrich), washed with 20 mM 537
HEPES buffer (pH 7.2) containing 150 mM NaCl, and subjected to western blot analysis 538
using a specific antiserum against PDI family proteins as primary antibodies and 539
peroxidase-conjugated ImmunoPure Recombinant Protein A (Pierce Biotechnology). 540
541
Dot Far-western Blot Analysis 542
Purified recombinant ER oxidoreductases and their variants as prey proteins were 543
spotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane (GenScript) in a volume of 4 μL. The membrane 544
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
23
was dried, rinsed twice, and blocked with 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8) containing 150 mM 545
NaCl, 0.05% Tween 20, and 5% nonfat dry milk (blocking solution) at 4°C for 16 h. After 546
blocking, the membrane was incubated in 0.2 μM bait protein in blocking solution without 547
nonfat dry milk (TBST) for 3 h at 4°C. The membrane was incubated with anti-bait 548
antiserum and further with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated IgG antiserum (Promega 549
Corporation) as the secondary antibody diluted with blocking solution. Blots were washed 550
four times for 20 min with TBST and developed using the Western Lightning 551
Chemiluminescence Reagent (Perkin Elmer Life Sciences). 552
553
Assay of Mixed Disulfide Complexes 554
A 4-μL aliquot of purified GmPDIL-2 or GmPDIL-2 variants, and GmPDIM or 555
GmPDIM variants, were incubated at 25°C for 60 min and quenched with N-ethyl 556
maleimide. Proteins were subjected to 7.5% SDS-PAGE under nonreducing conditions. 557
Lanes cut from the first SDS-polyacrylamide gel were incubated in SDS-sample buffer with 558
5% 2-mercaptoethanol for 120 min at 37°C. The gel slices were then subjected to 12.5% 559
SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions. The separated proteins were stained with a silver 560
stain II kit (Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd.). 561
562
Measurement of Redox Equilibrium Constants of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 563
GmPDIM, GmPDIL-2, and their variants (1 μM) were incubated with 0.1 mM GSSG 564
and 0.015–28 mM GSH at 25°C for 1 h in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, 565
containing 1 mM EDTA and 150 mM NaCl. After incubation under N2 at 25°C for 1 h, 566
further thiol-disulfide exchange was prevented by the addition of 10% TCA. The 567
aggregated proteins were precipitated by centrifugation and washed with 100% acetone. 568
The protein pellet was solubilized and incubated in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, 569
containing 2% SDS and 3 mM methoxypolyethylene glycol-maleimide (mPEG5000-mal) 570
(Fluka Sigma-Aldrich) at 25°C for 30 min. Proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE and 571
stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue. Values for the reduced fraction, oxidized fraction, 572
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
24
and intermediate fraction (in the case of wild-type GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2, which have 573
two active sites) were quantified using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health). The 574
values for the completely oxidized or reduced states were regarded as 0 or 100, respectively, 575
and all intermediate states were recalibrated. In the case of wild-type GmPDIM and 576
GmPDIL-2, the intensity of the band in which one of the two active centers was oxidized 577
was calibrated as one-half of the reduced form. The sum of the completely reduced form 578
and one-half of the half-reduced form was plotted. The Keq was calculated by fitting the 579
recalibrated fraction of the apparent reduced form to the following equation: R = 580
([GSH]2/[GSSG])/{Keq + ([GSH]2/[GSSG])}, in which R is the relative ratio of the reduced 581
forms. The equilibrium redox potential of proteins was calculated using the Nernst equation 582
[E’0 = E’0(GSH/GSSG) – (RT/nF) * ln Keq] using the glutathione standard potential E’0(GSH/GSSG) 583
of -0.240 V at pH 7.0 and 25°C. 584
585
Statistical Analysis 586
All data are shown as the mean ± SEM from at least three replicates. Welch's t tests 587
(two tailed, unpaired) or Tukey-Kramer test were used for comparisons between more than 588
three experiments. 589
590
591
Sequence data from this article can be found in the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank databases under 592
accession numbers GmERO1a (AB622257), GmERO1b (AB622258) and GmCNX 593
(AB196933). 594
595
Supplemental Data 596
The following materials are available. 597
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
25
Supplemental Figure S1. Amino acid sequences of GmERO1a, GmERO1b, and HsEro1α. 598
Supplemental Figure S2. Oxidation of ER oxidoreductases by recombinant GmERO1. 599
Supplemental Figure S3. Refolding of RNase A by multiple soybean ER oxidoreductases. 600
Supplemental Figure S4. Expression, purification, and activity of wild-type GmPDIL-2 601
and its variants. 602
Supplemental Figure S5. Expression and purification of wild-type GmPDIM and its 603
variants. 604
Supplemental Figure S6. Expression and purification of recombinant C-terminal truncated 605
soybean calnexin. 606
607
Supplemental Table S1. List of primers and template plasmids for PCR of variant 608
preparation. 609
Supplemental Materials and Methods. 610
611
List of author contributions 612
R.U. and M.M. designed the study and wrote the paper. M.M. performed the majority of 613
experiments presented. K.K., K.H., T.M. and R.U. cloned GmERO1a cDNA, and 614
established the expression system of recombinant GmERO1a. R.M. helped prepare mutant 615
recombinant proteins. K.I. performed immunoprecipitation experiments. Y.N. performed 616
the confocal microscopy experiments and the N-glycosylation analysis. A.O., K.K., Y.T. 617
and A.H. performed assay of oxidation of oxidoreductases by GmERO1a. A.O. measured 618
equillibrium constants between oxidoreductases and glutathione. 619
620
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
26
Figure Legends 621
Figure 1. Identification of soybean Ero1. A, Schematic representation of Ero1 orthologs. 622
Numbered circles represent the positions of the cysteine residues. Lines indicate disulfide 623
bonds. B, GmERO1 is ubiquitously expressed in tissues. The proteins extracted from root 624
(4.5 µg protein) (lanes 1 and 5), stem (10 µg protein) (lanes 2 and 6), leaf (30 µg protein) 625
(lanes 3 and 7), and immature cotyledon (100 mg) (30 µg protein) (lanes 4 and 8) were 626
separated under reducing (lanes 1–4) and nonreducing SDS-PAGE (lanes 5–8) and 627
subjected to western blot analysis with an antiserum prepared against recombinant 628
GmERO1. C, GmERO1 is N-glycosylated. GmERO1 in the immature cotyledon (30 mg) 629
was detected by western blot analysis with the anti-GmERO1 serum after treatment with 630
(+) or without (-) endoglycosidase H (Endo H) or endoglycosidase F (Endo F). The 53-kDa 631
band of GmERO1 was shifted to 50 kD after Endo H treatment. D, GmERO1 is a 632
membrane-bound protein. An immature cotyledon (100 mg) was homogenized by 633
sonication. The homogenate was centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 2 h at 4°C in the absence (-) 634
(lanes 1 and 2) or presence (+) of 1% Triton X-100 (lanes 3 and 4). GmERO1 protein in the 635
supernatant (S) (lanes 1 and 3) and pellet (P) (lanes 2 and 4) was detected by western blot 636
analysis with anti-GmERO1 serum, anti-soybean calnexin (GmCNX) serum, or anti-637
GmPDIL-1 serum. E, GmERO1 localizes in the ER. The immature cotyledon (195 mg) was 638
fixed and embedded in resin. The sections were cut with a microtome and immunostained 639
with anti-GmERO1 guinea pig serum and anti-GmPDIS-1 rabbit serum, and observed 640
under a confocal microscope. Bars, 20 μm. F, Expression of GmERO1 in cotyledons during 641
development. The proteins extracted from cotyledons were analyzed by western blot with 642
anti-GmERO1 serum. G, Relative amounts of GmERO1a (black bars) and GmERO1b 643
(white bars) mRNA in cotyledons during development were quantified by real-time PCR. 644
Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. H, Expression levels of GmERO1a and 645
GmERO1b mRNA are upregulated under ER stress. Young soybean leaves were treated 646
with (+, black bars) or without (-, white bars) 5 μg/mL tunicamycin (TM) for 2 or 5 h. After 647
treatment, GmERO1a and GmERO1b mRNA were quantified by real-time PCR. Data are 648
represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. 649
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
27
Figure 2. Expression of recombinant GmERO1. A, Cleavage of recombinant glutathione-650
S-transferase (GST)-fused GmERO1 by PreScission protease. The gray box indicates GST, 651
and the solid black line denotes the PreScission cleavage sequence. The N-terminal 652
sequence GPLGS was cleaved from the fusion protein after protease treatment. B, 653
Expression and purification of recombinant GmERO1. Recombinant GST-fused GmERO1 654
expressed in E. coli (lane 1) was purified by a glutathione Sepharose 4B affinity column 655
chromatography. GmERO1 was cleaved by PreScission protease and eluted from the 656
column (lane 2), followed by gel filtration chromatography (lanes 3 and 4). Proteins in each 657
eluate were separated by reducing SDS-PAGE (lanes 1–3) and nonreducing SDS-PAGE 658
(lane 4), and stained with Coomassie Blue. C, Far-UV circular dichroism spectrum of 659
recombinant GmERO1 in 20 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 150 mM NaCl and 660
10% glycerol was obtained using a J-720 spectropolarimeter (JASCO Corp., Tokyo, Japan) 661
in a 1-mm path-length cell with a scan speed of 20 nm/min at 14°C. D, Absorbance 662
spectrum of recombinant GmERO1 was measured in the absence (solid line) or presence 663
(dotted line) of 6 M guanidine hydrochloride. Free FAD spectrum (dashed line) was also 664
measured. Black and white arrows show the maximum absorbance at 454 nm and the 665
shoulder at 485 nm of GmERO1, respectively. E, GmERO1-bound FAD is reduced by DTT. 666
Absorbance changes at 454 nm of 10 μM GmERO1 (circles) and 10 μM free FAD 667
(triangles) were monitored in the presence of 2 mM DTT. DTT was added at zero time. 668
GmERO1 in the absence of DTT was also measured (rectangles). 669
670
Figure 3. GmERO1a shows broad specificity for ER oxidoreductases. A, Schematic 671
representation of soybean ER oxidoreductases. Boxes represent domains. B, Schematic 672
representation of the continuous oxidation of PDI family members by Ero1 in the presence 673
of GSH and the reduction of O2. C, Oxygen consumption rate of GmERO1 (1μM) in the 674
presence of 3 μM each ER oxidoreductase and 10 mM GSH at 25°C. Data are represented 675
as mean ± SEM of n = 3. 676
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
28
Figure 4. Reconstitution of oxidative protein folding with ER oxidoreductases and 677
GmERO1a in vitro. A, GmERO1a (1μM) without (GmERO1a alone), or with 3 μM of each 678
ER oxidoreductase, was incubated with reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM), and the 679
recovered RNase A activity was assayed. 'None' shows refolding of RNase A alone. B, Lag 680
time (white bars) and maximum refolding rate (black bars) of reduced and denatured RNase 681
A (8 μM) by 3 μM each ER oxidoreductase in the presence of GmERO1a. Data are 682
represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. C, Refolding of reduced and denatured RNase A in 683
the absence (-) or presence (+) of GmERO1a and each ER oxidoreductase, quenched with 684
AMS, and was analyzed by nonreducing SDS-PAGE. Dred, reduced and denatured RNase 685
A; Dox, denatured RNase A with non-native disulfides; N, native RNase A. D, Model of 686
refolding of RNase A by ER oxidoreductases in the presence of GmERO1a. Left, GmPDIL-687
1 transfers non-native disulfide bonds to Dred. Dox is promptly folded into the native form 688
accompanied by the isomerization of disulfide bonds. Right, GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, or 689
GmPDIS-2 transfers non-native disulfide bonds to Dred. Dox accumulates due to rate-690
limiting isomerization activities of GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2. 691
692
Figure 5. GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM form a complex and synergistically refold RNase A 693
with using disulfide bonds produced by GmERO1a. A, Detection of ER oxidoreductase 694
complexes. Immunoprecipitation (IP) from the cotyledon extract was carried out with each 695
anti-ER oxidoreductase serum or preimmune serum (PI). Immunoprecipitates and the 696
cotyledon extract (lane 1) were analyzed by western blot with each anti-ER oxidoreductase 697
serum. B, Effects of the addition of GmPDIL-2 to GmPDIM on the refolding of RNase A. 698
Reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) was incubated with 3 μM ER oxidoreductases in 699
the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a. C, GmPDIL-2 concentration dependence of the refolding 700
activity in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a and 1 μM GmPDIM. Data are represented as 701
mean ± SEM of n = 3. D, Far-western blot analysis of the association of the GmPDIL-2 702
(WT) or GmPDIL-2 domain fragment with GmPDIM. Indicated amounts of GmPDIL-2, 703
each GmPDIL-2 domain fragment or bovine serum albumin (BSA) (prey) were dot-blotted 704
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
29
and incubated with GmPDIM. Bound GmPDIM was immunostained. E, GmPDIM (WT), 705
each GmPDIM domain fragment or BSA (prey) was dot-blotted and incubated with 706
GmPDIL-2. Bound GmPDIL-2 was immunostained. 707
708
Figure 6. . Active centers of GmPDIL-2 play vital roles in the acceleration of both 709
refolding and disulfide bond formation. A, Schematic representation of wild-type GmPDIL-710
2 (WT) and its mutants. “CGHC,” “AGHA,” and “CGHA” represent the amino acid 711
sequences of the active sites of the a and a’ domains. Numbers in the name of the mutants 712
represent cysteine residues mutated to alanine. B, Acceleration of refolding by GmPDIL-2 713
mutants and GmPDIL-2 domain fragments in the GmERO1a/GmPDIM system. Reduced 714
and denatured RNase A (8 μM) was incubated with 1 μM GmPDIM and 4 μM wild type 715
GmPDIL-2 (WT), its mutants or domain fragments in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a. 716
Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3–5. Bars with the same letters are not 717
significantly different at P < 0.05 by Tukey-Kramer test. C, Disulfide bond formation in 718
reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) during cooperative refolding by GmPDIM or 719
GmPDIM(C192/195A) (1 μM) and GmPDIL-2 or GmPDIL-2 mutants (3 μM) in the 720
presence of GmERO1a (1 μM) was analyzed by nonreducing SDS-PAGE. Dred, reduced 721
and denatured RNase A; Dox, denatured RNase A with non-native disulfides; N, native 722
RNase A. D, Disulfide bond formation in RNase A over time. Reduced and denatured 723
RNase A was incubated with indicated combinations of proteins as in C. The amounts of 724
free thiol groups in the reaction mixtures were measured and net disulfide bonds were 725
calculated by subtracting the free disulfide bonds from total cysteine residues. Red and blue 726
dotted lines show the amounts of native disulfide bonds formed in RNase A, which were 727
calculated from the amounts of refolded RNase A. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of 728
n = 3. 729
730
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
30
Figure 7. GmPDIL-2 accelerates the oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1a. A, Oxygen 731
consumption was monitored during incubation of 2 μM GmERO1a and 3 μM GmPDIM 732
without or with 3 μM GmPDIL-2 or its mutants in the presence of 10 mM GSH. Data are 733
represented as mean ± SEM of n = 6. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01 compared with the reaction 734
without GmPDIL-2 (Welch's t test). B, Schematic representation of the coupling reaction of 735
oxidation by ERO1 and the reduction of GSSG by glutathione-disulfide reductase (GR) in 736
the presence of GSH and NADPH. C, NADPH consumption over time in the presence of 1 737
μM GmERO1a and 3 μM GmPDIM, 3 μM GmPDIL-2, or 3 μM GmPDIM and 3 μM 738
GmPDIL-2 in the presence of 3 mM GSH, 120 μM NADPH, and 1 U/mL glutathione-739
disulfide reductase. D, Decrease in NADPH in the presence of indicated combinations of 740
proteins as in C. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 10 (without GmPDIL-2); n = 741
3–4 (with wild-type GmPDIL-2 and its mutants). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001 742
compared with the reaction without GmPDIL-2 (-) (Welch's t test). E, Schematic 743
representation of wild-type GmPDIM (WT) and its mutants. Numbers in the name of 744
mutants represent cysteine residues mutated to alanine. F, Oxidation of GmPDIM (WT), its 745
mutants, or its domain fragments by GmERO1a without or with GmPDIL-2 was measured 746
as in C. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3–6. **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001 747
(Weltch's t test). G, Far-western blot analysis of the association of GmPDIM or its domain 748
fragment with GmERO1a. Indicated amounts of GmPDIM (WT), each domain fragment or 749
bovine serum albumin (BSA) (prey) was dot-blotted and incubated with GmERO1a. Bound 750
GmERO1a was immunostained. 751
752
Figure 8. GmPDIM oxidizes the active centers of GmPDIL-2. A, The mixed disulfide of 753
the GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 mutants. GmPDIM(C67A) (6 μM), 3 μM GmPDIL-754
2(C104/443A) and 1μM GmERO1a were incubated at 25 °C for 60 min and separated by 755
two-dimensional electrophoresis. M1, GmPDIM monomer; L21 GmPDIL-2 monomer; M2, 756
GmPDIM dimer; L2M1 and L2M2, mixed disulfide complex of GmPDIL-2 mutants and 757
GmPDIM(C64A). B–F, Indicated combinations of proteins were incubated and analyzed as 758
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
31
described in A. G–L, Assay of redox equilibrium constants of GmPDIM, GmPDIL-2, and 759
their mutants. Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining of the SDS-polyacrylamide gels are shown 760
above the redox graphs. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n=3. 761
762
Figure 9. Models of cooperation of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. A, Role-sharing model of 763
GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. GmPDIM oxidized by GmERO1a introduces transient disulfide 764
bonds in an unfolded substrate protein (i). Transient disulfide bonds in the substrate protein 765
are reduced by the reduced form of GmPDIL-2 (ii). Reduced thiols are rearranged into 766
native disulfide bonds, mainly by GmPDIL-2 (iii), but partially by GmPDIM (iv). B, Model 767
of oxidative relays from GmERO1a to GmPDIM, GmPDIL-2, and substrate. GmERO1a 768
oxidizes the active center in the a’ domain of GmPDIM (i). The formed disulfide bond is 769
transferred sequentially from the a’ domain of GmPDIM to the a domain of GmPDIM (ii), 770
either the a or a’ domain of GmPDIL-2 (iii), and substrate (iv). Transferring of a disulfide 771
bond between the a and a’ domains of GmPDIL-2 is unclear. Both a and a’ domains of 772
GmPDIM and both b’ and a’ domains of GmPDIL-2 are essential for the association of 773
GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. 774
775
776
Literature Cited 777
Andème Ondzighi C, Christopher DA, Cho EJ, Chang S-C, Staehelin LA (2008) 778
Arabidopsis protein disulfide isomerase-5 inhibits cysteine proteases during trafficking to 779
vacuoles before programmed cell death of the endothelium in developing seeds. Plant Cell 780
20: 2205–2220 781
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
32
Araki K, Iemura SI, Kamiya Y, Ron D, Kato K, Natsume T, Nagata K (2013) Ero1-α and 782
pdis constitute a hierarchical electron transfer network of endoplasmic reticulum 783
oxidoreductases. J Cell Biol 202: 861–874 784
Araki K, Inaba K (2012) Structure, Mechanism, and Evolution of Ero1 Family Enzymes. 785
Antioxid Redox Signal 16: 790–799 786
Benham AM, van Lith M, Sitia R, Braakman I (2013) Ero1-PDI interactions, the response 787
to redox flux and the implications for disulfide bond formation in the mammalian 788
endoplasmic reticulum. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368: 20110403 789
Cabibbo A, Pagani M, Fabbri M, Rocchi M, Farmery MR, Bulleid NJ, Sitia R (2000) 790
ERO1-L, a human protein that favors disulfide bond formation in the endoplasmic 791
reticulum. J Biol Chem 275: 4827–4833 792
Chambers JE, Tavender TJ, Oka OB V, Warwood S, Knight D, Bulleid NJ (2010) The 793
reduction potential of the active site disulfides of human protein disulfide isomerase limits 794
oxidation of the enzyme by Ero1α. J Biol Chem 285: 29200–29207 795
Creighton TE (1977) Kinetics of refolding of reduced ribonuclease. J Mol Biol 113: 329–796
341 797
Demmer J, Zhou C, Hubbard MJ (1997) Molecular cloning of ERp29, a novel and widely 798
expressed resident of the endoplasmic reticulum. FEBS Lett 402: 145–150 799
Ellman GL (1959) Tissue sulfhydryl groups. Arch Biochem Biophys 82: 70–77 800
Feige MJ, Hendershot LM (2011) Disulfide bonds in ER protein folding and homeostasis. 801
Curr Opin Cell Biol 23: 167–175 802
Frand AR, Kaiser CA (1998) The ERO1 Gene of Yeast Is Required for Oxidation of 803
Protein Dithiols in the Endoplasmic Reticulum. Mol Cell 1: 161–170 804
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
33
Gruber CW, Čemažar M, Clark RJ, Horibe T, Renda RF, Anderson M a., Craik DJ (2007) 805
A novel plant protein-disulfide isomerase involved in the oxidative folding of cystine knot 806
defense proteins. J Biol Chem 282: 20435–20446 807
Hatahet F, Ruddock LW (2009) Protein disulfide isomerase: a critical evaluation of its 808
function in disulfide bond formation. Antioxid Redox Signal 11: 2807–2850 809
Hayashi S, Takahashi H, Wakasa Y, Kawakatsu T, Takaiwa F (2013) Identification of a 810
cis-element that mediates multiple pathways of the ER stress response in rice. Plant J 74: 811
248–257 812
Houston NL, Fan C, Xiang JQ, Schulze J, Jung R, Boston RS, Carolina N, H NCNL (2005) 813
Phylogenetic Analyses Identify 10 Classes of the Protein Disulfide Isomerase Family in 814
Plants , Including Single-Domain Protein Disulfide Isomerase-Related Proteins. Plant 815
Physiol 137: 762–778 816
Iwasaki K, Kamauchi S, Wadahama H, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2009) Molecular 817
cloning and characterization of soybean protein disulfide isomerase family proteins with 818
nonclassic active center motifs. FEBS J 276: 4130–4141 819
Iwata Y, Fedoroff N V, Koizumi N (2008) Arabidopsis bZIP60 is a proteolysis-activated 820
transcription factor involved in the endoplasmic reticulum stress response. Plant Cell 20: 821
3107–3121 822
Iwata Y, Koizumi N (2005) An Arabidopsis transcription factor, AtbZIP60, regulates the 823
endoplasmic reticulum stress response in a manner unique to plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U 824
S A 102: 5280–5285 825
Jolliffe NA, Craddock CP, Frigerio L (2005) Pathways for protein transport to seed storage 826
vacuoles. Biochem Soc Trans 33: 1016–1018 827
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
34
Kamauchi S, Wadahama H, Iwasaki K, Nakamoto Y, Nishizawa K, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, 828
Urade R (2008) Molecular cloning and characterization of two soybean protein disulfide 829
isomerases as molecular chaperones for seed storage proteins. FEBS J 275: 2644–2658 830
Kermode A, Bewley JD (1999) Synthesis, processing and deposition of seed proteins: The 831
pathway of protein synthesis and deposition in the cell. In P Shewry, R Casey, eds, Seed 832
Proteins. Springer Netherlands, pp 807–841 833
Kimura S, Higashino Y, Kitao Y, Masuda T, Urade R (2015) Expression and 834
characterization of protein disulfide isomerase family proteins in bread wheat. BMC Plant 835
Biol 15: 73 836
Kulp MS, Frickel E-M, Ellgaard L, Weissman JS (2006) Domain architecture of protein-837
disulfide isomerase facilitates its dual role as an oxidase and an isomerase in Ero1p-838
mediated disulfide formation. J Biol Chem 281: 876–884 839
Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of 840
bacteriophage T4. Nature 227: 680–685 841
Lu J, Holmgren A (2014) The Thioredoxin Superfamily in Oxidative Protein Folding. 842
Antioxid Redox Signal 21: 457–470 843
Lyles MM, Gilbert HF (1991) Catalysis of the oxidative folding of ribonuclease A by 844
protein disulfide isomerase: pre-steady-state kinetics and the utilization of the oxidizing 845
equivalents of the isomerase. Biochemistry 30: 619–625 846
Nakasako M, Maeno A, Kurimoto E, Harada T, Yamaguchi Y, Oka T, Takayama Y, Iwata 847
A, Kato K (2010) Redox-dependent domain rearrangement of protein disulfide isomerase 848
from a thermophilic fungus. Biochemistry 49: 6953–6962 849
Nguyen VD, Saaranen MJ, Karala AR, Lappi AK, Wang L, Raykhel IB, Alanen HI, Salo 850
KEH, Wang CC, Ruddock LW (2011) Two endoplasmic reticulum PDI peroxidases 851
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
35
increase the efficiency of the use of peroxide during disulfide bond formation. J Mol Biol 852
406: 503–515 853
Oh D-H, Kwon C-S, Sano H, Chung W-I, Koizumi N (2003) Conservation between 854
animals and plants of the cis-acting element involved in the unfolded protein response. 855
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 301: 225–230 856
Onda Y, Kumamaru T, Kawagoe Y (2009) ER membrane-localized oxidoreductase Ero1 is 857
required for disulfide bond formation in the rice endosperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 858
14156–14161 859
Onda Y, Nagamine A, Sakurai M, Kumamaru T, Ogawa M, Kawagoe Y (2011) Distinct 860
roles of protein disulfide isomerase and P5 sulfhydryl oxidoreductases in multiple pathways 861
for oxidation of structurally diverse storage proteins in rice. Plant Cell 23: 210–223 862
Oka OB, Yeoh HY, Bulleid NJ (2015) Thiol-disulfide exchange between the PDI family of 863
oxidoreductases negates the requirement for an oxidase or reductase for each enzyme. 864
Biochem J 469: 279–288 865
Pagani M, Fabbri M, Benedetti C, Fassio A, Pilati S, Bulleid NJ, Cabibbo A, Sitia R (2000) 866
Endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1-lbeta (ERO1-Lbeta), a human gene induced in the 867
course of the unfolded protein response. J Biol Chem 275: 23685–23692 868
Pollard MG, Travers KJ, Weissman JS (1998) Ero1p: a novel and ubiquitous protein with 869
an essential role in oxidative protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum. Mol Cell 1: 870
171–182 871
Pu Y, Bassham DC (2013) Links between ER stress and autophagy in plants. Plant Signal 872
Behav 8: e24297 873
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
36
Ramming T, Okumura M, Kanemura S, Baday S, Birk J, Moes S, Spiess M, Jenö P, 874
Bernèche S, Inaba K, et al (2015) A PDI-catalyzed thiol-disulfide switch regulates the 875
production of hydrogen peroxide by human Ero1. Free Radic Biol Med 83: 361–372 876
Sato Y, Kojima R, Okumura M, Hagiwara M, Masui S, Maegawa K, Saiki M, Horibe T, 877
Suzuki M, Inaba K (2013) Synergistic cooperation of PDI family members in 878
peroxiredoxin 4-driven oxidative protein folding. Sci Rep 3: 2456 879
Satoh-Cruz M, Crofts AJ, Takemoto-Kuno Y, Sugino A, Washida H, Crofts N, Okita TW, 880
Ogawa M, Satoh H, Kumamaru T (2010) Protein disulfide isomerase like 1-1 participates 881
in the maturation of proglutelin within the endoplasmic reticulum in rice endosperm. Plant 882
Cell Physiol 51: 1581–1593 883
Serve O, Kamiya Y, Maeno A, Nakano M, Murakami C, Sasakawa H, Yamaguchi Y, 884
Harada T, Kurimoto E, Yagi-Utsumi M, et al (2010) Redox-dependent domain 885
rearrangement of protein disulfide isomerase coupled with exposure of its substrate-binding 886
hydrophobic surface. J Mol Biol 396: 361–374 887
Sevier CS, Kaiser CA (2008) Ero1 and redox homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum. 888
Biochim Biophys Acta 1783: 549–556 889
Smith MH, Ploegh HL, Weissman JS (2011) Road to ruin: targeting proteins for 890
degradation in the endoplasmic reticulum. Science 334: 1086–1090 891
Sun L, Yang ZT, Song ZT, Wang MJ, Sun L, Lu SJ, Liu JX (2013) The plant-specific 892
transcription factor gene NAC103 is induced by bZIP60 through a new cis-regulatory 893
element to modulate the unfolded protein response in Arabidopsis. Plant J 76: 274–286 894
Takemoto Y, Coughlan SJ, Okita TW, Satoh H, Ogawa M, Kumamaru T (2002) The rice 895
mutant esp2 greatly accumulates the glutelin precursor and deletes the protein disulfide 896
isomerase. Plant Physiol 128: 1212–1222 897
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
37
Tavender TJ, Bulleid NJ (2010) Molecular mechanisms regulating oxidative activity of the 898
Ero1 family in the endoplasmic reticulum. Antioxid Redox Signal 13: 1177–1187 899
Tien AC, Rajan A, Schulze KL, Hyung DR, Acar M, Steller H, Bellen HJ (2008) Ero1L, a 900
thiol oxidase, is required for Notch signaling through cysteine bridge formation of the 901
Lin12-Notch repeats in Drosophila melanogaster. J Cell Biol 182: 1113–1125 902
Tu BP, Weissman JS (2004) Oxidative protein folding in eukaryotes: Mechanisms and 903
consequences. J Cell Biol 164: 341–346 904
Vitu E, Kim S, Sevier CS, Lutzky O, Heldman N, Bentzur M, Unger T, Yona M, Kaiser 905
CA, Fass D (2010) Oxidative activity of yeast Ero1p on protein disulfide isomerase and 906
related oxidoreductases of the endoplasmic reticulum. J Biol Chem 285: 18155–18165 907
Wadahama H, Kamauchi S, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2007) Protein disulfide 908
isomerase family proteins involved in soybean protein biogenesis. FEBS J 274: 687–703 909
Wadahama H, Kamauchi S, Nakamoto Y, Nishizawa K, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R 910
(2008) A novel plant protein disulfide isomerase family homologous to animal P5 - 911
Molecular cloning and characterization as a functional protein for folding of soybean seed-912
storage proteins. FEBS J 275: 399–410 913
Wang C, Li W, Ren J, Fang J, Ke H, Gong W, Feng W, Wang C (2012) Structural Insights 914
into the Redox-Regulated Dynamic Conformations of Human Protein Disulfide Isomerase. 915
Antioxid Redox Signal 19: 36–45 916
Wang L, Zhu L, Wang C (2011) The endoplasmic reticulum sulfhydryl oxidase Ero1β 917
drives efficient oxidative protein folding with loose regulation. Biochem J 434: 113–121 918
Zito E, Chin K-T, Blais J, Harding HP, Ron D (2010) ERO1-beta, a pancreas-specific 919
disulfide oxidase, promotes insulin biogenesis and glucose homeostasis. J Cell Biol 188: 920
821–832 921
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Weight of cotyledon (mg)
0
10
20
30
40 5020 90
120
110
140
160
180
200
220
27070
240
40
Rel
ativ
e am
ount
of
Gm
ER
O1
mR
NA H
―+ + + +0
40
80
120
160
200
2 h 5 h 2 h 5 hGmERO1a GmERO1b
Exp
ress
ion
fold
TM ― ― ―
EGmPDIS-1GmERO1 Marge
Weight of immature cotyledon (mg)
30 40 60 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310
F
GmERO1
B
25015010075
50
37
kD
reducing
root
stem
leaf
coty
ledo
n
1 2 3 4
nonreducing
53 kD46 kD
root
stem
leaf
coty
ledo
n
5 6 7 8
D
GmERO1
GmCNX
GmPDIL-1
Triton X-100
- +S P S P
1 2 3 4
C
5350
Endo H ― +kD
+
―
――Endo F
G
Figure 1. Identification of soybean Ero1. A, Schematic representation of Ero1 orthologs. Numbered circles represent the positions of the cysteine residues. Lines indicate disulfide bonds. B, GmERO1 is ubiquitously expressed in tissues. The proteins extracted from root (4.5 µg protein) (lanes 1 and 5), stem (10 µg protein) (lanes 2 and 6), leaf (30 µg protein) (lanes 3 and 7), and immature cotyledon (100 mg) (30 µg protein) (lanes 4 and 8) were separated under reducing (lanes 1–4) and nonreducing SDS-PAGE (lanes 5–8) and subjected to western blot analysis with an antiserum prepared against recombinant GmERO1. C, GmERO1 is N-glycosylated. GmERO1 in the immature cotyledon (30 mg) was detected by western blot analysis with the anti-GmERO1serum after treatment with (+) or without (-) endoglycosidase H (Endo H) or endoglycosidase F (Endo F). The 53-kDa band of GmERO1 was shifted to 50 kD after Endo H treatment. D, GmERO1is a membrane-bound protein. An immature cotyledon (100 mg) was homogenized by sonication. The homogenate was centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 2 h at 4°C in the absence (-) (lanes 1 and 2) or presence (+) of 1% Triton X-100 (lanes 3 and 4). GmERO1 protein in the supernatant (S) (lanes 1 and 3) and pellet (P) (lanes 2 and 4) was detected by western blot analysis with anti-GmERO1 serum, anti-soybean calnexin (GmCNX) serum, or anti-GmPDIL-1 serum. E, GmERO1 localizes in the ER. The immature cotyledon (195 mg) was fixed and embedded in resin. The sections were cut with a microtome and immunostained with anti-GmERO1 guinea pig serum and anti-GmPDIS-1 rabbit serum, and observed under a confocal microscope. Bars, 20 μm. F, Expression of GmERO1 in cotyledons during development. The proteins extracted from cotyledons were analyzed by western blot with anti-GmERO1 serum. G, Relative amounts of GmERO1a(black bars) and GmERO1b (white bars) mRNA in cotyledons during development were quantified by real-time PCR. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. H, Expression levels of GmERO1a and GmERO1b mRNA are upregulated under ER stress. Young soybean leaves were treated with (+, black bars) or without (-, white bars) 5 μg/mL tunicamycin (TM) for 2 or 5 h. After treatment, GmERO1a and GmERO1b mRNA were quantified by real-time PCR. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3.
Figure 1
shuttle cysteine pair
active cysteine pair
regulatory cysteine
transmembrane region
A
Soybean ERO1a
Yeast Ero1p 40 52 90100
105 143 150 166 349 355208 295
49 51 6566
10267
104
113
118
121 146 217 226 332 367370
373104 118 123
11
Human Ero1 35 37 46 48 8594
99 104 131 166 391
394
397208 241
Human Ero1 42 44 8190
95 100 130 165 390
393
396207 240 262
N-glycosylation consensus site
360 399
280 384
383140145122
13021 35 53 342 425458
468491
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
GST-GmERO1
B
250150100
50
37
25
kD
reducing nonreducing
48 kD
38 kD
1 2 3 4
A
GST GmERO1
cleavage by PreScission protease
GmERO1
E70 G442
E70 G442
GPLGS
190 210 250230Wavelength (nm)
[θ]
(x10
3de
g /
cm2
/ dm
ol) 10
-10
-20
0
C
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
350 380 410 440 470 500
Abs
orba
nce
Wavelemgth (nm)
E
GmERO1
FAD + DTT
GmERO1 + DTT
200 400 60000
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Abs
orba
nce
at 4
54 n
m
Time (sec)
Figure 2
D
Figure 2. Expression of recombinant GmERO1. A, Cleavage of recombinant glutathione-S-transferase (GST)-fused GmERO1 by PreScission protease. The gray box indicates GST, and the solid black line denotes the PreScission cleavage sequence. The N-terminal sequence GPLGS was cleaved from the fusion protein after protease treatment. B, Expression and purification of recombinant GmERO1. Recombinant GST-fused GmERO1 expressed in E. coli (lane 1) was purified by a glutathione Sepharose4B affinity column chromatography. GmERO1 was cleaved by PreScission protease and eluted from the column (lane 2), followed by gel filtration chromatography (lanes 3 and 4). Proteins in each eluate were separated by reducing SDS-PAGE (lanes 1–3) and nonreducing SDS-PAGE (lane 4), and stained with Coomassie Blue. C, Far-UV circular dichroism spectrum of recombinant GmERO1 in 20 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 150 mM NaCl and 10% glycerol was obtained using a J-720 spectropolarimeter (JASCO Corp., Tokyo, Japan) in a 1-mm path-length cell with a scan speed of 20 nm/min at 14°C. D, Absorbance spectrum of recombinant GmERO1 was measured in the absence (solid line) or presence (dotted line) of 6 M guanidine hydrochloride. Free FAD spectrum (dashed line) was also measured. Black and white arrows show the maximum absorbance at 454 nm and the shoulder at 485 nm of GmERO1, respectively. E, GmERO1-bound FAD is reduced by DTT. Absorbance changes at 454 nm of 10 μM GmERO1 (circles) and 10 μM free FAD (triangles) were monitored in the presence of 2 mM DTT. DTT was added at zero time. GmERO1 in the absence of DTT was also measured (rectangles).
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Figure 3
B O2
H2O2GSH
e- e-
ERO1PDI family
C
5
7
0
3
4
1
2
6
8
O2
cons
umpt
ion
rate
(μ
M /
min
)
GmPDIL-1 GmPDIL-2 GmPDIM GmPDIS-1 GmPDIS-2
GmPDIL-1
GmPDIL-2
GmPDIM
GmPDIS-1
GmPDIS-2
b’ba a’
b’ba a’
baaERp29caa
ERp29caa
A
Figure 3. GmERO1a shows broad specificity for ER oxidoreductases. A, Schematic representation of soybean ER oxidoreductases. Boxes represent domains. B, Schematic representation of the continuous oxidation of PDI family members by ERO1 in the presence of GSH and the reduction of O2. C, Oxygen consumption rate of GmERO1(1μM) in the presence of 3 μM each ER oxidoreductase and 10 mM GSH at 25°C. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3.
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
A B
DGmEro1a / GmPDIL-1
oxidation isomerizationfolding
Dred Dox N
GmEro1a / GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, GmPDIS-2
oxidation isomerizationfolding
Dred Dox N
CGmPDIM
50+ -
2010 4030 400 N
Dred
DoxN
GmPDIL-2
50+ -2010 4030 400 NTime (min)
GmEro1
GmPDIL-1
50+ -2010 4030 400 N
GmPDIS-1
50+ -
2010 4030 400Time (min)
GmEro1N
GmPDIS-2
50+ -2010 4030 400 N
-
+50 40
-
Dred
Dox
0 40
N
Dred
DoxN
Dred
DoxN
Dred
DoxN
Dred
DoxN
GmPDIS-2
GmPDIL-1
20
30
0
10
50
40
Time (min)
Ref
olde
d R
Nas
eA
(%
)
GmPDIL-2GmPDIM
GmPDIS-1
5 10 15 20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
5
GmPDIL-1
GmEro1 (μM)
10
0
200
0
100
300
Lag
time
(min
)
Maxim
um refolding rate
(mm
olRN
aseA
/ molP
DI/ m
in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
5
GmPDIM
GmEro1 (μM)
10
0
200
0
100
300
Lag
time
(min
)
Maxim
um refolding rate
(mm
olRN
aseA
/ molP
DI/ m
in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
GmPDIS-1
GmEro1 (μM)
10
0
5
200
0
100
300
Lag
time
(min
)
Maxim
um refolding rate
(mm
olRN
aseA
/ molP
DI/ m
in)
20010
0
5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
GmPDIS-2
GmEro1 (μM)
0
100
300
Lag
time
(min
)
Maxim
um refolding rate
(mm
olRN
aseA
/ molP
DI/ m
in)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Reconstitution of oxidative protein folding with ER oxidoreductases and GmEro1a in vitro. A, GmERO1a(1μM) without (GmERO1a alone), or with 3 μM of each ER oxidoreductase, was incubated with reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM), and the recovered RNase A activity was assayed. 'None' shows refolding of RNase A alone B, Lag time and maximum refolding rate of reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) by 3 μM each ER oxidoreductase in the presence of GmEro1a. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. C, Refolding of reduced and denatured RNase A in the absence (-) or presence (+) of GmEro1a and each ER oxidoreductase, quenched with AMS, and was analyzed by nonreducing SDS-PAGE. Dred, reduced and denatured RNase A; Dox, denatured RNase A with non-native disulfides; N, native RNase A. D, Model of refolding of RNase A by ER oxidoreductases in the presence of GmEro1a. Top, GmPDIL-1 transfers non-native disulfide bonds to Dred. Dox is promptly folded into the native form accompanied by the isomerization of disulfide bonds. Bottom, GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, or GmPDIS-2 transfers non-native disulfide bonds to Dred. Dox accumulates due to rate-limiting isomerization activities of GmPDIM, GmPDIS-1, and GmPDIS-2.
0
none
GmERO1a alone
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
A CB
Ref
olde
d R
Nas
eA
(%
) 50
30
20
10
0
40
60
0 155 10Time (min)
20
IP
PIInput
GmPDIS-1
GmPDIS-2
GmPDIL-1
GmPDIM
GmPDIL-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E
a’-b (A151-L438) CGHC
b (T270-L438)
a’ (A151-E269) CGHC
a (L29-K150) CGHC
a-a’ (L29-E269) CGHC CGHC
(pmol)80 40 520 10 2.5
WT (L29-L438)
a ba’
CGHC CGHC
prey
D (pmol)
80 40 520 10 2.5
b-b’ (I176-V412)
a’ (E392-L551) CGHC
b’-a’ (I300-L551) CGHC
a (D24-K175) CGHC
CGHCa-b-b’ (D24-V412)
WT (D24-L551)a b b’ a’
CGHC
a-b (D24-K301) CGHC
CGHC
prey
GmPDIM + GmPDIL-2
GmPDIL-2
GmPDIM
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Act
ivity
(m
mol
RN
aseA
/ m
olP
DIM
/ m
in)
Concentration of GmPDIL-2 (μM)
Figure 5
Figure 5. GmPDIL-2 and GmPDIM form a complex and synergistically refold RNase A with using disulfide bonds produced by GmERO1a. A, Detection of ER oxidoreductase complexes. Immunoprecipitation (IP) from the cotyledon extract was carried out with each anti-ER oxidoreductase serum or preimmune serum (PI). Immunoprecipitates and the cotyledon extract (lane 1) were analyzed by western blot with each anti-ER oxidoreductase serum. B, Effects of the addition of GmPDIL-2 to GmPDIM on the refolding of RNase A. Reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) was incubated with 3 μM ER oxidoreductases in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a. C, GmPDIL-2 concentration dependence of the refolding activity in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a and 1 μMGmPDIM. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3. D, Far-western blot analysis of the association of the GmPDIL-2 (WT) or GmPDIL-2 domain fragment with GmPDIM. Indicated amounts of GmPDIL-2, each GmPDIL-2 domain fragment or bovine serum albumin (BSA) (prey) were dot-blotted and incubated with GmPDIM. Bound GmPDIM was immunostained. E, GmPDIM (WT), each GmPDIM domain fragment or BSA (prey) was dot-blotted and incubated with GmPDIL-2. Bound GmPDIL-2 was immunostained.
BSA BSA
BSA
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
C101/104A AGHA CGHC
C101/104/440/443A AGHA AGHA
AWT
a b b’ a’CGHC CGHC
C440/443A CGHC AGHA
C443A CGHC CGHA
C104A CGHA CGHC
C104/443A CGHA CGHA
B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Act
ivity
(m
mol
RN
aseA
/ m
olP
DIM
/ m
in)
-
Figure 6
Figure 6. Active centers of GmPDIL-2 play vital roles in the acceleration of both refolding and disulfide bond formation. A, Schematic representation of wild-type GmPDIL-2 (WT) and its mutants. “CGHC,” “AGHA,” and “CGHA” represent the amino acid sequences of the active sites of the a and a’ domains. Numbers in the name of the mutants represent cysteine residues mutated to alanine. B, Acceleration of refolding by GmPDIL-2 mutants and GmPDIL-2 domain fragments in the GmERO1a/GmPDIM system. Reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) was incubated with 1 μM GmPDIM and 4 μM wild type GmPDIL-2 (WT), its mutants or domain fragments in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3–5. Bars with the same letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 by Tukey-Kramer test. C, Disulfide bond formation in reduced and denatured RNase A (8 μM) during cooperative refolding by GmPDIM or GmPDIM mutant (1 μM) and GmPDIL-2 or GmPDIL-2 mutants (3 μM) in the presence of GmERO1a (1 μM) was analyzed by nonreducing SDS-PAGE. Dred, reduced and denatured RNase A; Dox, denatured RNase A with non-native disulfides; N, native RNase A. D, Disulfide bond formation in RNase A over time. Reduced and denatured RNase A was incubated with indicated combinations of proteins as in C. The amounts of free thiol groups in the reaction mixtures were measured and net disulfide bonds were calculated by subtracting the free disulfide bonds from total cysteine residues. Red and blue dotted lines show the amounts of native disulfide bonds formed in RNase A, which were calculated from the amounts of refolded RNase A. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3.
D
g
a
efg
c
b
d
eefg efg efg efg
efgef
fg
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 400
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
Net
Dis
ulfid
e bo
nd (
µM
) WTGmPDIM
GmPDIM + C101/104A
GmPDIM + WT
GmPDIM + C101/104A/440/443A
GmPDIM + C440/443A
GmPDIM(C192/195A) + WT
C none
50+ -
2010 6040 600Time (min)GmERO1
N
Dred
DoxN
C101/104/440/443A
50+ -2010 6040 600 NTime (min)
GmERO1
Dred
DoxN
C101/104A
50+ -
2010 6040 600 N
Dred
Dox
Time (min)GmERO1
N
C440/443A
5+ -
2010 6040 600 N
DredDoxN
Time (min)GmERO1
WT
50+ -2010 6040 600 N
Dred
Dox
N
Time (min)GmERO1
WT
50+ -
2010 6040 600 N
Dred
Dox
Time (min)GmERO1
N
GmPDIM +
GmPDIM +
GmPDIM +
GmPDIM +
GmPDIM +
GmPDIM(C192/195A) +
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
A
G
a’-b (A151-L438)
b (T270-L438)
a’ (A151-E269)
a (L29-K150)
a-a’ (L29-E269)
WT (L29-L438)
prey(pmol)
80 40 520 10 2.5EWT (L29-L438)
a ba’
CGHC CGHC
C192/195A CGHC AGHA
C64/67A AGHA CGHC
C67A CGHA CGHC
CGHC CGHAC195A
GRNADPH GSSG
GSH
ERO1PDI family
NADP
B
F
GmPDIL-2
GmPDIM WT
- +
C192/195A
+-
C64/67A
+-+-
C195A
+-
C67A a’-b
+-
a-a’
+-
a’
+-
a
+-
Dec
reas
e of
NA
DP
H(μ
M/
min
)
6
0
4
5
2
3
1
+
-
C
80
40
20
Time (min)
NA
DP
H c
onsu
mpt
ion
(M
)
160 GmPDIL-2
GmPDIM + GmPDIL-2
GmPDIM
none
03020100
120
D
WT ’a-b-b’- ’b-b’-a’ ’b’-a’ ’a’a-ba ’b-b’
Dec
reas
e of
NA
DP
H(μ
M/
min
)
5
1
3
6
2
4
0
**
**
** ***
**
* * * *** * * ***
**
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
3
4
5
1
2
6
7
O2
cons
umpt
ion
rate
(μ
M /
min
)
*
**
** *
Figure 7
Figure 7. GmPDIL-2 accelerates the oxidation of GmPDIM by GmERO1a. A, Oxygen consumption was monitored during incubation of 2 μM GmERO1a and 3 μM GmPDIM without or with 3 μMGmPDIL-2 or its mutants in the presence of 10 mM GSH. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 6. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01 compared with the reaction without GmPDIL-2 (Welch's t test). B, Schematic representation of the coupling reaction of oxidation by ERO1 and the reduction of GSSG by glutathione-disulfide reductase (GR) in the presence of GSH and NADPH. C, NADPH consumption over time in the presence of 1 μM GmERO1a and 3 μM GmPDIM, 3 μM GmPDIL-2, or 3 μM GmPDIM and 3 μM GmPDIL-2 in the presence of 3 mM GSH, 120 μM NADPH, and 1 U/mL glutathione-disulfide reductase. D, Decrease in NADPH in the presence of indicated combinations of proteins as in C. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 10 (without GmPDIL-2); n = 3–4 (with wild-type GmPDIL-2 and its mutants). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001 compared with the reaction without GmPDIL-2 (-) (Welch's t test). E, Schematic representation of wild-type GmPDIM (WT) and its mutants. Numbers in the name of mutants represent cysteine residues mutated to alanine. F, Oxidation of GmPDIM (WT), its mutants, or its domain fragments by GmERO1a without or with GmPDIL-2 was measured as in C. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3–6. **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001 (Weltch's t test). G, Far-western blot analysis of the association of GmPDIM or its domain fragment with GmERO1a. Indicated amounts of GmPDIM (WT), each domain fragment or bovine serum albumin (BSA) (prey) was dot-blotted and incubated with GmERO1a. Bound GmERO1a was immunostained.
WT-
*
**
** **
**
**
***
***
***
BSA
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
GmPDIL-2
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
)
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
J
Keq = 3.38 ± 0.21
0.001 0.01 1 10 100 10000.1 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
R
Ox
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M2 M1
L21
ERO1L2-M2
L2-M1
AGmPDIM(C67A): GmPDIL2(C104/443A): GmERO1
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M1
L21
ERO1
GmPDIM (WT): GmPDIL2(C104/443A): GmERO1
E
GmPDIM(C64A): GmPDIL2(C443A): GmERO1
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M2M1
L21
ERO1L2-M1
CGmPDIM(C67A): GmPDIL2(C104A): GmERO1
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M2M1
L21
ERO1L2-M2
B
GmPDIM(C67A): GmPDIL2(C104/443A)
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M1
L21
DGmPDIM(C195A): GmPDIL2(C104/443A): GmERO1
71
45
32
kD136 95 71 45 32kD
M1
L21
ERO1
F
G
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
)
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
Keq = 2.02 ± 0.06
0.001 0.01 1 10 100 10000.1 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
R
Ox
GmPDIM
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
) Keq = 2.66 ± 0.38
L
0.001 0.01 1 10 100 10000.1 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
R
Ox
GmPDIL-2 (C101/104A)
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
)
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
Keq = 4.33 ± 0.81
K
0.001 0.01 1 10 100 10000.1 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
R
Ox
GmPDIL-2 (C440/443A)
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
)
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
I
0.001 0.01 1 10 100 10000.1 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Keq = 3.53 ± 0.99
R
Ox
GmPDIM (C64/67A)
Rat
io o
f re
duce
d pr
otei
n (%
)
[GSH]2/[GSSG] (mM)
Keq = 0.73 ± 0.17
H
0.0001 1 1000.01 10000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
R
Ox
GmPDIM (C192/195A)
Figure 8
Figure 8. GmPDIM oxidizes the active centers of GmPDIL-2. A, The mixed disulfide of the GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2 mutants. GmPDIM(C67A) (6 μM), 3 μM GmPDIL-2(C104/443A) and 1μM GmERO1a were incubated at 25 °C for 60 min and separated by two-dimensional electrophoresis. M1, GmPDIM monomer; L21 GmPDIL-2 monomer; M2, GmPDIM dimer; L2M1 and L2M2, mixed disulfide complex of GmPDIL-2 mutants and GmPDIM(C64A). B–F, Indicated combinations of proteins were incubated and analyzed as described in A. G–L, Assay of redoxequilibrium constants of GmPDIM, GmPDIL-2, and their mutants. Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining of the SDS-polyacrylamide gels are shown above the redox graphs. Data are represented as mean ± SEM of n = 3.
E0’ = -167 mV
E0’ = -160 mV
E0’ = -163 mVE0’ = -169 mV
E0’ = -166 mVE0’ = -147 mV
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
B
GmPDIL2
native form
reduced form
A
GmERO1
O2
H2O2
GmPDIM
oxidized intermediate form
i
ii
iiiiv
GmERO1
O2
H2O2
GmPDIL2GmPDIM native formunfolded protein
i iiiii
iv
iv
?
Figure 9
Figure 9. Models of cooperation of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. A, Role-sharing model of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2. GmPDIM oxidized by GmERO1a introduces transient disulfide bonds in an unfolded substrate protein (i). Transient disulfide bonds in the substrate protein are reduced by the reduced form of GmPDIL-2 (ii). Reduced thiols are rearranged into native disulfide bonds, mainly by GmPDIL-2 (iii), but partially by GmPDIM (iv). B, Model of oxidative relays from GmERO1a to GmPDIM, GmPDIL-2, and substrate. GmERO1a oxidizes the active center in the a’ domain of GmPDIM (i). The formed disulfide bond is transferred sequentially from the a’ domain of GmPDIMto the a domain of GmPDIM (ii), either the a or a’ domain of GmPDIL-2 (iii), and substrate (iv). Transferring of a disulfide bond between the a and a’ domains of GmPDIL-2 is unclear. Both a and a’ domains of GmPDIM and both b’ and a’ domains of GmPDIL-2 are essential for the association of GmPDIM and GmPDIL-2.
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Parsed CitationsAndème Ondzighi C, Christopher DA, Cho EJ, Chang S-C, Staehelin LA (2008) Arabidopsis protein disulfide isomerase-5 inhibitscysteine proteases during trafficking to vacuoles before programmed cell death of the endothelium in developing seeds. PlantCell 20: 2205-2220
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Araki K, Iemura SI, Kamiya Y, Ron D, Kato K, Natsume T, Nagata K (2013) Ero1-a and pdis constitute a hierarchical electron transfernetwork of endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductases. J Cell Biol 202: 861-874
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Araki K, Inaba K (2012) Structure, Mechanism, and Evolution of Ero1 Family Enzymes. Antioxid Redox Signal 16: 790-799Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Benham AM, van Lith M, Sitia R, Braakman I (2013) Ero1-PDI interactions, the response to redox flux and the implications fordisulfide bond formation in the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368: 20110403
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cabibbo A, Pagani M, Fabbri M, Rocchi M, Farmery MR, Bulleid NJ, Sitia R (2000) ERO1-L, a human protein that favors disulfidebond formation in the endoplasmic reticulum. J Biol Chem 275: 4827-4833
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chambers JE, Tavender TJ, Oka OB V, Warwood S, Knight D, Bulleid NJ (2010) The reduction potential of the active site disulfidesof human protein disulfide isomerase limits oxidation of the enzyme by Ero1a. J Biol Chem 285: 29200-29207
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Creighton TE (1977) Kinetics of refolding of reduced ribonuclease. J Mol Biol 113: 329-341Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Demmer J, Zhou C, Hubbard MJ (1997) Molecular cloning of ERp29, a novel and widely expressed resident of the endoplasmicreticulum. FEBS Lett 402: 145-150
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ellman GL (1959) Tissue sulfhydryl groups. Arch Biochem Biophys 82: 70-77Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Feige MJ, Hendershot LM (2011) Disulfide bonds in ER protein folding and homeostasis. Curr Opin Cell Biol 23: 167-175Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Frand AR, Kaiser CA (1998) The ERO1 Gene of Yeast Is Required for Oxidation of Protein Dithiols in the Endoplasmic Reticulum.Mol Cell 1: 161-170
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Gruber CW, Cemažar M, Clark RJ, Horibe T, Renda RF, Anderson M a., Craik DJ (2007) A novel plant protein-disulfide isomeraseinvolved in the oxidative folding of cystine knot defense proteins. J Biol Chem 282: 20435-20446
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hatahet F, Ruddock LW (2009) Protein disulfide isomerase: a critical evaluation of its function in disulfide bond formation. AntioxidRedox Signal 11: 2807-2850
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hayashi S, Takahashi H, Wakasa Y, Kawakatsu T, Takaiwa F (2013) Identification of a cis-element that mediates multiple pathwaysof the ER stress response in rice. Plant J 74: 248-257
Pubmed: Author and Title www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
CrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Houston NL, Fan C, Xiang JQ, Schulze J, Jung R, Boston RS, Carolina N, H NCNL (2005) Phylogenetic Analyses Identify 10 Classesof the Protein Disulfide Isomerase Family in Plants , Including Single-Domain Protein Disulfide Isomerase-Related Proteins. PlantPhysiol 137: 762-778
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Iwasaki K, Kamauchi S, Wadahama H, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2009) Molecular cloning and characterization of soybeanprotein disulfide isomerase family proteins with nonclassic active center motifs. FEBS J 276: 4130-4141
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Iwata Y, Fedoroff N V, Koizumi N (2008) Arabidopsis bZIP60 is a proteolysis-activated transcription factor involved in theendoplasmic reticulum stress response. Plant Cell 20: 3107-3121
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Iwata Y, Koizumi N (2005) An Arabidopsis transcription factor, AtbZIP60, regulates the endoplasmic reticulum stress response in amanner unique to plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 5280-5285
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Jolliffe NA, Craddock CP, Frigerio L (2005) Pathways for protein transport to seed storage vacuoles. Biochem Soc Trans 33: 1016-1018
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kamauchi S, Wadahama H, Iwasaki K, Nakamoto Y, Nishizawa K, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2008) Molecular cloning andcharacterization of two soybean protein disulfide isomerases as molecular chaperones for seed storage proteins. FEBS J 275:2644-2658
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kermode A, Bewley JD (1999) Synthesis, processing and deposition of seed proteins: The pathway of protein synthesis anddeposition in the cell. In P Shewry, R Casey, eds, Seed Proteins. Springer Netherlands, pp 807-841
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kimura S, Higashino Y, Kitao Y, Masuda T, Urade R (2015) Expression and characterization of protein disulfide isomerase familyproteins in bread wheat. BMC Plant Biol 15: 73
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kulp MS, Frickel E-M, Ellgaard L, Weissman JS (2006) Domain architecture of protein-disulfide isomerase facilitates its dual role asan oxidase and an isomerase in Ero1p-mediated disulfide formation. J Biol Chem 281: 876-884
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227: 680-685Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lu J, Holmgren A (2014) The Thioredoxin Superfamily in Oxidative Protein Folding. Antioxid Redox Signal 21: 457-470Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lyles MM, Gilbert HF (1991) Catalysis of the oxidative folding of ribonuclease A by protein disulfide isomerase: pre-steady-statekinetics and the utilization of the oxidizing equivalents of the isomerase. Biochemistry 30: 619-625
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Nakasako M, Maeno A, Kurimoto E, Harada T, Yamaguchi Y, Oka T, Takayama Y, Iwata A, Kato K (2010) Redox-dependent domainrearrangement of protein disulfide isomerase from a thermophilic fungus. Biochemistry 49: 6953-6962
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Nguyen VD, Saaranen MJ, Karala AR, Lappi AK, Wang L, Raykhel IB, Alanen HI, Salo KEH, Wang CC, Ruddock LW (2011) Twoendoplasmic reticulum PDI peroxidases increase the efficiency of the use of peroxide during disulfide bond formation. J Mol Biol406: 503-515
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Oh D-H, Kwon C-S, Sano H, Chung W-I, Koizumi N (2003) Conservation between animals and plants of the cis-acting elementinvolved in the unfolded protein response. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 301: 225-230
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Onda Y, Kumamaru T, Kawagoe Y (2009) ER membrane-localized oxidoreductase Ero1 is required for disulfide bond formation inthe rice endosperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 14156-14161
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Onda Y, Nagamine A, Sakurai M, Kumamaru T, Ogawa M, Kawagoe Y (2011) Distinct roles of protein disulfide isomerase and P5sulfhydryl oxidoreductases in multiple pathways for oxidation of structurally diverse storage proteins in rice. Plant Cell 23: 210-223
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Oka OB, Yeoh HY, Bulleid NJ (2015) Thiol-disulfide exchange between the PDI family of oxidoreductases negates the requirementfor an oxidase or reductase for each enzyme. Biochem J 469: 279-288
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Pagani M, Fabbri M, Benedetti C, Fassio A, Pilati S, Bulleid NJ, Cabibbo A, Sitia R (2000) Endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1-lbeta (ERO1-Lbeta), a human gene induced in the course of the unfolded protein response. J Biol Chem 275: 23685-23692
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Pollard MG, Travers KJ, Weissman JS (1998) Ero1p: a novel and ubiquitous protein with an essential role in oxidative proteinfolding in the endoplasmic reticulum. Mol Cell 1: 171-182
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Pu Y, Bassham DC (2013) Links between ER stress and autophagy in plants. Plant Signal Behav 8: e24297Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ramming T, Okumura M, Kanemura S, Baday S, Birk J, Moes S, Spiess M, Jenö P, Bernèche S, Inaba K, et al (2015) A PDI-catalyzedthiol-disulfide switch regulates the production of hydrogen peroxide by human Ero1. Free Radic Biol Med 83: 361-372
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Sato Y, Kojima R, Okumura M, Hagiwara M, Masui S, Maegawa K, Saiki M, Horibe T, Suzuki M, Inaba K (2013) Synergisticcooperation of PDI family members in peroxiredoxin 4-driven oxidative protein folding. Sci Rep 3: 2456
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Satoh-Cruz M, Crofts AJ, Takemoto-Kuno Y, Sugino A, Washida H, Crofts N, Okita TW, Ogawa M, Satoh H, Kumamaru T (2010)Protein disulfide isomerase like 1-1 participates in the maturation of proglutelin within the endoplasmic reticulum in riceendosperm. Plant Cell Physiol 51: 1581-1593
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Serve O, Kamiya Y, Maeno A, Nakano M, Murakami C, Sasakawa H, Yamaguchi Y, Harada T, Kurimoto E, Yagi-Utsumi M, et al (2010)Redox-dependent domain rearrangement of protein disulfide isomerase coupled with exposure of its substrate-bindinghydrophobic surface. J Mol Biol 396: 361-374
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Sevier CS, Kaiser CA (2008) Ero1 and redox homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum. Biochim Biophys Acta 1783: 549-556Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Smith MH, Ploegh HL, Weissman JS (2011) Road to ruin: targeting proteins for degradation in the endoplasmic reticulum. Science www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
334: 1086-1090Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Sun L, Yang ZT, Song ZT, Wang MJ, Sun L, Lu SJ, Liu JX (2013) The plant-specific transcription factor gene NAC103 is induced bybZIP60 through a new cis-regulatory element to modulate the unfolded protein response in Arabidopsis. Plant J 76: 274-286
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Takemoto Y, Coughlan SJ, Okita TW, Satoh H, Ogawa M, Kumamaru T (2002) The rice mutant esp2 greatly accumulates the glutelinprecursor and deletes the protein disulfide isomerase. Plant Physiol 128: 1212-1222
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Tavender TJ, Bulleid NJ (2010) Molecular mechanisms regulating oxidative activity of the Ero1 family in the endoplasmicreticulum. Antioxid Redox Signal 13: 1177-1187
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Tien AC, Rajan A, Schulze KL, Hyung DR, Acar M, Steller H, Bellen HJ (2008) Ero1L, a thiol oxidase, is required for Notch signalingthrough cysteine bridge formation of the Lin12-Notch repeats in Drosophila melanogaster. J Cell Biol 182: 1113-1125
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Tu BP, Weissman JS (2004) Oxidative protein folding in eukaryotes: Mechanisms and consequences. J Cell Biol 164: 341-346Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Vitu E, Kim S, Sevier CS, Lutzky O, Heldman N, Bentzur M, Unger T, Yona M, Kaiser CA, Fass D (2010) Oxidative activity of yeastEro1p on protein disulfide isomerase and related oxidoreductases of the endoplasmic reticulum. J Biol Chem 285: 18155-18165
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wadahama H, Kamauchi S, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2007) Protein disulfide isomerase family proteins involved in soybeanprotein biogenesis. FEBS J 274: 687-703
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wadahama H, Kamauchi S, Nakamoto Y, Nishizawa K, Ishimoto M, Kawada T, Urade R (2008) A novel plant protein disulfideisomerase family homologous to animal P5 - Molecular cloning and characterization as a functional protein for folding of soybeanseed-storage proteins. FEBS J 275: 399-410
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wang C, Li W, Ren J, Fang J, Ke H, Gong W, Feng W, Wang C (2012) Structural Insights into the Redox-Regulated DynamicConformations of Human Protein Disulfide Isomerase. Antioxid Redox Signal 19: 36-45
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Wang L, Zhu L, Wang C (2011) The endoplasmic reticulum sulfhydryl oxidase Ero1ß drives efficient oxidative protein folding withloose regulation. Biochem J 434: 113-121
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zito E, Chin K-T, Blais J, Harding HP, Ron D (2010) ERO1-beta, a pancreas-specific disulfide oxidase, promotes insulin biogenesisand glucose homeostasis. J Cell Biol 188: 821-832
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon February 16, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2015 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.