| Literature DB >> 22200665 |
Axel Tiessen1, Annika Nerlich, Benjamin Faix, Christine Hümmer, Simon Fox, Kay Trafford, Hans Weber, Winfriede Weschke, Peter Geigenberger.
Abstract
Compartmentation of metabolism in developing seeds is poorly understood due to the lack of data on metabolite distributions at the subcellular level. In this report, a non-aqueous fractionation method is described that allows subcellular concentrations of metabolites in developing barley endosperm to be calculated. (i) Analysis of subcellular volumes in developing endosperm using micrographs shows that plastids and cytosol occupy 50.5% and 49.9% of the total cell volume, respectively, while vacuoles and mitochondria can be neglected. (ii) By using non-aqueous fractionation, subcellular distribution between the cytosol and plastid of the levels of metabolites involved inEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22200665 PMCID: PMC3295393 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err408
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Outline of the biochemical pathways of starch synthesis in heterotrophic tissues: (A) growing potato tubers and (B) developing cereal endosperm. The reactions are catalysed by the following enzymes: 1, sucrose synthase; 2, UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase; 3, phosphoglucomutase (cytosol); 4, hexokinase; 5, phosphoglucoisomerase; 6, glucose-6-phosphate/Pi translocator; 7, ATP–ADP translocator; 8, phosphoglucomutase (plastid); 9, ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (plastid); 10, inorganic pyrophosphatase; 11, starch synthase; 12, starch branching enzyme; 13, starch debranching enzyme; 14, ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (cytosol); and 15, ADP-glucose/ADP translocator. Steps 14 and 15 are specific for cereal endosperm, providing an additional route of carbon entry into the amyloplast. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Fig. 4.Distribution of various subcellular compartments in different fractions of a non-aqueous gradient from potato tuber (A) or developing barley endosperm (B). The plastid is enriched in fraction 2 of the potato gradient, or in fraction 0 of the barley gradient. Whereas in potato it was possible to obtain different ratios of vacuolar to cytosolic particles in all fractions, in the barley gradient the distribution of vacuolar particles was not significantly different from that of the cytosolic particles. Bars represent means ±SE of the selected set of markers (n=3–4) for potato or barley.
Fig. 2.Volume distribution of the plastidial compartment in developing barley endosperm. Ninety different cellular sections of developing barley endosperm (14 DAF) were visualized by microscopy. From these micrographs the relative plastidial volumes as a percentage of the total cell volume were calculated according to the principle of Delesse (1847). A total of 335 cells were analysed. The histogram of relative volume distribution shows the range of volumes obtained for the plastidial compartment. The mean value ±SE is 50.5±0.5 for the plastidial and 49.5±0.5 for the extraplastidial compartment, respectively (n=335). The extraplastidial compartment consists mainly of cytosol.
Fig. 3.Distribution of starch, enzymes, and proteins in a representative non-aqueous gradient prepared from developing barley seeds. The components that were used as markers for the plastidial compartment were starch, soluble starch synthase, and inorganic pyrophosphatase, while UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, sucrose synthase, and alcohol dehydrogenase were chosen as cytosolic markers, and mannosidase was used as a vacuolar marker. ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase was also measured but not used as a marker. The bars give average values as a percentage of that total found in the gradient (sum of all fractions).
Subcellular distribution of metabolite levels in developing barley endosperm tissue at 14 DAF
| Metabolite | Tissue content (nmol g FW−1) | Subcellular distribution (%) | Subcellular levels (nmol g FW−1) | Subcellular concentrations (mM) | ||||
| Cytosol | Plastid | Cytosol | Plastid | Cytosol | Plastid | |||
| Sucrose | 75 000.0 | 91.2±2.9 | 8.8±2.9 | 68 432.9±2209.4 | 6603.2±2209.4 | 138.248±5.860 | 13.076±4.505 | |
| Fructose | 2500.0 | 82.2±2.7 | 17.8±2.7 | 2024.5±65.4 | 438.4±65.4 | 4.090±0.173 | 0.868±0.138 | |
| Gluc-1-P | 42.2 | 85.2±5.4 | 14.8±5.4 | 36.0±2.3 | 6.3±2.3 | 0.073±0.005 | 0.012±0.005 | |
| Gluc-6-P | 686.6 | 87.5±4.2 | 12.5±4.2 | 600.7±28.5 | 85.8±28.5 | 1.214±0.070 | 0.170±0.058 | |
| Fruc-6-P | 152.1 | 75.5±5.0 | 24.5±5.0 | 114.8±7.6 | 37.3±7.6 | 0.232±0.018 | 0.074±0.016 | |
| Fruc-1,6-bisP | 23.5 | 91.5±2.3 | 8.5±2.3 | 21.5±0.5 | 2.0±0.5 | 0.044±0.002 | 0.004±0.001 | |
| DHAP | 31.7 | 95.5±0.0 | 4.5±0.0 | 30.3±0.0 | 1.4±0.0 | 0.061±0.001 | 0.003±0.000 | |
| GAP | 12.8 | 98.0±0.0 | 2.0±0.0 | 12.5±0.0 | 0.3±0.0 | 0.025±0.000 | 0.001±0.000 | |
| 3-PGA | 277.5 | 85.8±5.3 | 14.2±5.3 | 238.1±14.6 | 39.4±14.6 | 0.481±0.034 | 0.078±0.030 | |
| PEP | 43.7 | 87.8±0.9 | 12.2±0.9 | 38.4±0.4 | 5.3±0.4 | 0.078±0.002 | 0.011±0.001 | |
| Pyruvate | 61.9 | 78.8±5.2 | 21.2±5.2 | 48.8±3.2 | 13.1±3.2 | 0.099±0.007 | 0.026±0.007 | |
| Citrate | 1805.2 | 91.2±4.3 | 8.8±4.3 | 1646.3±78.2 | 158.9±78.2 | 3.326±0.192 | 0.315±0.158 | |
| Isocitrate | 260.0 | 91.8±3.7 | 8.2±3.7 | 238.7±9.6 | 21.3±9.6 | 0.482±0.024 | 0.042±0.019 | |
| Oxoglutarate | 148.0 | 93.8±1.7 | 6.2±1.7 | 138.8±2.5 | 9.2±2.5 | 0.280±0.008 | 0.018±0.005 | |
| Malate | 406.3 | 91.2±2.6 | 8.8±2.6 | 370.5±10.6 | 35.8±10.6 | 0.749±0.029 | 0.071±0.022 | |
| ADPG | 146.0 | 91.0±2.7 | 9.0±2.7 | 132.9±3.9 | 13.1±3.9 | 0.268±0.011 | 0.026±0.008 | |
| ATP | 258.9 | 87.2±3.5 | 12.8±3.5 | 225.8±9.1 | 33.1±9.1 | 0.456±0.023 | 0.066±0.019 | |
| ADP | 139.2 | 33.0±2.9 | 67.0±2.9 | 45.9±4.0 | 93.3±4.0 | 0.093±0.009 | 0.185±0.010 | |
| AMP | 103.4 | 46.7±5.0 | 53.3±5.0 | 48.3±5.1 | 55.1±5.1 | 0.098±0.011 | 0.109±0.011 | |
| UDPG | 190.9 | 86.5±2.7 | 13.5±2.7 | 165.1±5.1 | 25.8±5.1 | 0.334±0.014 | 0.051±0.011 | |
| UTP | 120.3 | 94.2±1.3 | 5.8±1.3 | 113.3±1.6 | 7.0±1.6 | 0.229±0.006 | 0.014±0.003 | |
| UDP | 52.8 | 83.3±2.7 | 16.7±2.7 | 44.0±1.4 | 8.8±1.4 | 0.089±0.004 | 0.017±0.003 | |
| UMP | 59.6 | 85.2±2.3 | 14.8±2.3 | 50.8±1.4 | 8.8±1.4 | 0.103±0.004 | 0.017±0.003 | |
| GTP | 91.3 | 92.8±2.7 | 7.2±2.7 | 84.8±2.4 | 6.6±2.4 | 0.171±0.007 | 0.013±0.005 | |
| GDP | 42.8 | 93.2±2.3 | 6.8±2.3 | 39.9±1.0 | 2.9±1.0 | 0.081±0.003 | 0.006±0.002 | |
| GMP | 27.9 | 70.2±4.9 | 29.8±4.9 | 19.6±1.4 | 8.3±1.4 | 0.040±0.003 | 0.016±0.003 | |
| PPi | 70.7 | 86.8±4.7 | 13.2±4.7 | 61.4±3.3 | 9.3±3.3 | 0.124±0.008 | 0.018±0.007 | |
| Pi | 16 600.0 | 80.2±4.4 | 19.8±4.4 | 13 337.1±729.7 | 3292.7±729.7 | 26.944±1.746 | 6.520±1.509 | |
For three separate gradients deriving from the same pool of tissue, the percentage subcellular distribution of the respective metabolite was calculated. The data shown are the mean ±SE (n=3 different gradients). The levels of the respective metabolite (nmol g FW−1) in cytosol and plastid were calculated by multiplying the tissue content by the percentage subcellular distribution of the respective metabolite for each gradient separately. The obtained values for cytosolic and plastidial metabolite levels from the different gradients were then used to calculate the mean ±SE (n=3 different gradients).
To calculate the subcellular concentration (in μM), the mean subcellular metabolite level was divided by the mean value of the percentage distribution of the respective subcellular volume (see Fig. 2). In this case, both the relative error of the respective metabolite level and that of the subcellular volume distribution were added to show the limits of variation. Cytosol also includes minor contributions of mitochondria and vacuoles that could not be further separated. Data are the mean ±SE (n=3 different experiments).
Subcellular distribution of ADPGlc in the developing endosperm of barley mutants Riso16 and Riso13, compared with barley wild type (Bomi) and growing potato tubers The Riso13 mutant is defective in the brittle1 gene, coding for the ADPGlc transporter, while the Riso16 mutant is defective in cytosolic AGPase. In barley, the ADPGlc levels (nmol g DW−1) in the cytosol and plastid were calculated by multiplying the total tissue content by the percentage subcellular distribution of the respective metabolite for each gradient separately. The obtained values for cytosolic and plastidial ADPGlc levels from three different gradients were then used to calculate the mean ±SE and to perform statistics using the t-test.
| Genotype | ADPGlc (nmol g DW−1) | ADPGlc (% of total) | ADPGlc (μM) | |||
| Cytosol | Plastid | Cytosol | Plastid | Cytosol | Plastid | |
| Bomi wild type | 234±17 | 73±17 | 76 | 24 | 236 | 72 |
| Barley | 59±9* | 11±9* | 84 | 16 | 60 | 11 |
| Barley | 4747±891* | 1±10* | 100 | 0 | 4795 | 1 |
| Potato tubers | 0.35±0.30* | 16.1±1.4* | 2.1 | 97.9 | 0.4 | 21.6 |
To calculate the concentration (in μM), the mean ADPGlc level on a FW basis was divided by the mean value of the percentage distribution of the respective subcellular volume (see Fig. 2). Subcellular levels of ADPGlc in growing potato tubers were also analysed and are shown for comparison. The subcellular concentrations for growing potato tubers were calculated as in Tiessen . The cytosol also includes minor contributions of mitochondria (potato tubers) or mitochondria plus vacuoles (barley endosperm) that could not be further separated. Values that are significantly different from Bomi wild type are indicated with asterisks (P < 0.05 using Student’s t-test)
Fig. 5.Comparison of the thermodynamic structure of the pathway of sucrose to starch in growing potato tubers (A) and developing barley endosperm (B). For each step in the pathway, thermodynamic properties are indicated using a false-colour code. False-colour symbols represent the ratio T/Keq showing how far each reaction is displaced from equilibrium, with T being the ratio between the in vivo subcellular concentrations of the products and the substrates of each reaction. Data are taken from Table 3 (see also Geigenberger for potato tubers). For designation of the different steps, see Fig. 1. In general, a reaction is regarded as irreversible when the mass–action ratio is displaced from its Keq by a factor >10.
Estimation of in vivo molar mass–action ratios for different metabolic reactions in cytosol and plastids of barley endosperm (14 DAF) The values of the molar mass–action ratios were calculated using the mean metabolite concentrations from Table 1 and the equations given in the present table. The respective values determined in growing potato tubers, as well as the theoretical Keq for each reaction step is shown for comparison (see Tiessen ).
Values that are displaced >10-fold form their respective Keq pinpoint irreversible reactions and are indicated in bold. pl, plastid.