| Literature DB >> 31487879 |
Stanislas Helle1,2,3, Fabrice Bray1, Jean-Luc Putaux4, Jérémy Verbeke1, Stéphanie Flament1, Christian Rolando1, Christophe D'Hulst2, Nicolas Szydlowski5,6.
Abstract
Starch granule morphology is highly variable depending on the botanical origin. Moreover, all investigated plant species display intra-tissular variability of granule size. In potato tubers, the size distribution of starch granules follows a unimodal pattern with diameters ranging from 5 to 100 µm. Several evidences indicate that granule morphology in plants is related to the complex starch metabolic pathway. However, the intra-sample variability of starch-binding metabolic proteins remains unknown. Here, we report on the molecular characterization of size-fractionated potato starch granules with average diameters of 14.2 ± 3.7 µm, 24.5 ± 6.5 µm, 47.7 ± 12.8 µm, and 61.8 ± 17.4 µm. In addition to changes in the phosphate contents as well as small differences in the amylopectin structure, we found that the starch-binding protein stoichiometry varies significantly according to granule size. Label-free quantitative proteomics of each granule fraction revealed that individual proteins can be grouped according to four distinct abundance patterns. This study corroborates that the starch proteome may influence starch granule growth and architecture and opens up new perspectives in understanding the dynamics of starch biosynthesis.Entities:
Keywords: Solanum tuberosum; amylopectin; amylose; potato; proteomics; starch; starch granule
Year: 2019 PMID: 31487879 PMCID: PMC6784226 DOI: 10.3390/plants8090324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Size and shape analysis of unfractionated starch granules from potato cv. Monalisa. About 3000 starch granules were used for granulomorphometry. (a) Size distribution of potato starch. The number of analyzed granules was plotted versus their corresponding area diameter. (b) Shape distribution of Monalisa potato starch. Same as in (a) with the use of the ellipsoid roundness parameter. (c) Scatter plot of the ellipsoid roundness versus granule diameter.
Figure 2Morphology of size-fractionated starch granules. Scanning electron microscopy images of fractions A (a), B (b), C (c), and D (d). (e) Size distribution of each fraction. 3035 granules from fraction A, 3436 granules from fraction B, 1198 granules from fraction C, and 784 granules from fraction D were used for granulomorphometry.
Size, shape, protein and amylose contents and λ of the amylopectin-I2 complex. Statistics were performed by Student t-test compared to unfractionated starch (U.S.). * corresponds to P < 0.05 and ** to P < 0.001.
| Fraction | Average Diameter (µm) | Ellipsoid Roundness (%) | Protein Content (µg·mg−1) | Amylose Content (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 14.2 ± 3.7 ** | 85.9 ± 12.5 ** | 2.6 ± 0.2 * | 22.6 ± 5.1 | 548 ± 2 |
| B | 24.5 ± 6.5 ** | 82.5 ± 13.6 ** | 2.8 ± 0.1 ** | 20.7 ± 2.1 | 546 ± 4 |
| C | 47.7 ± 12.8 ** | 72.0 ± 14.8 ** | 2.1 ± 0.4 * | 20.8 ± 2.9 | 552 ± 2 |
| D | 61.8 ± 17.4 ** | 73.2 ± 15.0 ** | 2.4 ± 0.1 * | 20.6 ± 1.9 | 549 ± 2 |
| U.S. | 30.7 ± 15.9 | 79.9 ± 14.6 | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 21.5 ± 1.0 | 554 ± 4 |
Figure 3Phosphate contents. One milligram of starch from fractions A, B, C, and D and unfractionated starch (U.S.) was hydrolyzed prior to APTS-labelling and capillary electrophoresis analysis. (a) Total phosphate contents. (b) Glucose-3-P contents. (c) Glucose-6-P contents. (d) Proportion of glucose-3-P expressed in % of total phosphate. Error bars represent SDs calculated from three experimental replicates. The asterisks indicate significant differences according to one-way ANOVA with a P-value ≤ 0.01.
Figure 4Amylopectin chain length distribution. One milligram of starch from each fraction and unfractionated starch (U.S.) was derivatized with APTS after enzymatic digestion by pullulanase and isoamylase. Peaks corresponding to DP 4 to DP 100 were integrated and their relative proportion in % is displayed. (a) Chain length distribution in linear scale. (b) Chain length distribution in log10 scale. Glucan chain proportion was averaged from analyses of two independent fractionations.
Figure 5Label-free quantitative proteomics of each fraction. Proteins were isolated from 300 mg of starch. They were then digested into peptides and analyzed by MS/MS. Interrogation was realized with Maxquant and Perseus software. Protein concentration in nM was calculated with the Perseus algorithm using the iBAQ score from Maxquant. These concentrations were then expressed in fmol and normalized to starch quantity (mg) using the protein concentrations displayed in Table 1. Error bars represent SDs calculated from three experimental replicates, with three technical replicates for each. Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA using the LFQ scores from the Maxquant analysis (Supplementary File 3).
Figure 6Fold changes in protein concentrations according to average granule diameter. Fold changes were calculated by normalizing the protein content in fraction A to 1. Error bars represent standard errors (SEs) calculated from three experimental replicates, with three technical replicates for each.