Alternative conformations of a group 4 Late Embryogenesis Abundant protein associated to its in vitro protective activity.

Late Embryogenesis Abundant (LEA) proteins are a group of intrinsically disordered proteins implicated in plant responses to water deficit. In vitro studies revealed that LEA proteins protect reporter enzymes from inactivation during low water availability. Group 4 LEA proteins constitute a conserved protein family, displaying in vitro protective capabilities. Under water deficiency or macromolecular crowding, the N-terminal of these proteins adopts an alpha-helix conformation. This region has been identified as responsible for the protein in vitro protective activity. This study investigates whether the attainment of alpha-helix conformation and/or particular amino acid residues are required for the in vitro protective activity. The LEA4-5 protein from Arabidopsis thaliana was used to generate mutant proteins. The mutations altered conserved residues, deleted specific conserved regions, or introduced prolines to hinder alpha-helix formation. The results indicate that conserved residues are not essential for LEA4-5 protective function. Interestingly, the C-terminal region was found to contribute to this function. Moreover, alpha-helix conformation is necessary for the protective activity only when the C-terminal region is deleted. Overall, LEA4-5 shows the ability to adopt alternative functional conformations under the tested conditions. These findings shed light on the in vitro mechanisms by which LEA proteins protect against water deficit stress.

Determining the Protective Activity of IDPs Under Partial Dehydration and Freeze-Thaw Conditions.

Unlike for structured proteins, the study of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) requires selection of ad hoc assays and strategies to characterize their dynamic structure and function. Late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins are important plant IDPs closely related to water-deficit stress response. Diverse hypothetical functions have been proposed for LEA proteins, such as membrane stabilizers during cold stress, oxidative regulators acting as ion metal binding molecules, and protein protectants during dehydration and cold/freezing conditions. Here we present two detailed protocols to characterize IDPs with potential protein/enzyme protection activity under partial dehydration and freeze-thaw treatments.

The functional diversity of structural disorder in plant proteins.

Structural disorder in proteins is a widespread feature distributed in all domains of life, particularly abundant in eukaryotes, including plants. In these organisms, intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) perform a diversity of functions, participating as integrators of signaling networks, in transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation, in metabolic control, in stress responses and in the formation of biomolecular condensates by liquid-liquid phase separation. Their roles impact the perception, propagation and control of various developmental and environmental cues, as well as the plant defense against abiotic and biotic adverse conditions. In this review, we focus on primary processes to exhibit a broad perspective of the relevance of IDPs in plant cell functions. The information here might help to incorporate this knowledge into a more dynamic view of plant cells, as well as open more questions and promote new ideas for a better understanding of plant life.

Structural disorder in plant proteins: where plasticity meets sessility.

Plants are sessile organisms. This intriguing nature provokes the question of how they survive despite the continual perturbations caused by their constantly changing environment. The large amount of knowledge accumulated to date demonstrates the fascinating dynamic and plastic mechanisms, which underpin the diverse strategies selected in plants in response to the fluctuating environment. This phenotypic plasticity requires an efficient integration of external cues to their growth and developmental programs that can only be achieved through the dynamic and interactive coordination of various signaling networks. Given the versatility of intrinsic structural disorder within proteins, this feature appears as one of the leading characters of such complex functional circuits, critical for plant adaptation and survival in their wild habitats. In this review, we present information of those intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) from plants for which their high level of predicted structural disorder has been correlated with a particular function, or where there is experimental evidence linking this structural feature with its protein function. Using examples of plant IDPs involved in the control of cell cycle, metabolism, hormonal signaling and regulation of gene expression, development and responses to stress, we demonstrate the critical importance of IDPs throughout the life of the plant.

Dissecting the cryoprotection mechanisms for dehydrins.

One of the common responses of plants to water deficit is the accumulation of the so-called late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins. In vitro studies suggest that these proteins can protect other macromolecules and cellular structural components from the impairments caused by water limitation. Their binding to phospholipids, nucleic acids and/or to divalent cations has suggested multi-functionality. Genetic analyses indicate that these proteins are required for an optimal adjustment of plants to this insult. This diverse information has conducted to propose different models for LEA proteins action mechanisms. Many of these properties are shared by group 2 LEA proteins or dehydrins (DHNs), one of the LEA protein families for which large amount of data is available. This manuscript focuses on the different mechanisms proposed for this LEA protein group by analyzing published data derived from in vitro cryoprotection assays. We compared the molar ratio of protectant:enzyme needed to preserve 50% of the initial activity per enzyme monomer to assess different mechanisms of action. Our results add evidence for protein-protein interaction as a protection mechanism but also indicate that some DHNs might protect by different means. The strength and weakness of the proposed protection mechanisms are discussed.