Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T11:51:55.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2022

Ivan Kashkan
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Hormonal Regulations in Plants, Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Functional Genomics and Proteomics of Plants, Central European Institute of Technology and National Centre for Biomolecular Research, Masaryk University, Brno 62500, Czech Republic
Ksenia Timofeyenko
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Hormonal Regulations in Plants, Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Functional Genomics and Proteomics of Plants, Central European Institute of Technology and National Centre for Biomolecular Research, Masaryk University, Brno 62500, Czech Republic
Kamil Růžička*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Hormonal Regulations in Plants, Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author for correspondence: K. Růžička, E-mail: kamil.ruzicka@ueb.cas.cz

Abstract

Most plant primary transcripts undergo alternative splicing (AS), and its impact on protein diversity is a subject of intensive investigation. Several studies have uncovered various mechanisms of how particular protein splice isoforms operate. However, the common principles behind the AS effects on protein function in plants have rarely been surveyed. Here, on the selected examples, we highlight diverse tissue expression patterns, subcellular localization, enzymatic activities, abilities to bind other molecules and other relevant features. We describe how the protein isoforms mutually interact to underline their intriguing roles in altering the functionality of protein complexes. Moreover, we also discuss the known cases when these interactions have been placed inside the autoregulatory loops. This review is particularly intended for plant cell and developmental biologists who would like to gain inspiration on how the splice variants encoded by their genes of interest may coordinately work.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Fig. 1. A summary of the prominent in-depth characterised AS events in plants. (a) A scheme of common AS types. (b) The list of selected in-depth characterised AS isoforms in plants. Prefixes prior to the protein symbols denote St, Solanum tuberosum, Cr, Catharanthus roseus, Sl, Solanum lycopersicum, no prefix indicates Arabidopsis thaliana. The AS diagrams show exons as boxes, introns as lines; coding sequences are coloured in blue, untranslated regions in grey, and coding regions with alternative reading frames as hatched. NLS, nuclear localization signal; TF, transcription factor. Abbreviations in the Evidence column designate the main experimental approaches supporting the existence of respective splice protein isoforms or proposed molecular models: WB, the native variants detected with western blot; Rep, AS reporter; PS, mRNA associates with polysomes; NX, phenotypes complemented by cDNA expressed under natural promoter; OX, phenotypes conferred by cDNA overexpression; sRi, transcript-specific RNAi; NA, biochemical or microscopic assays performed with cDNAs stably expressed in the native plant systems; HA, in vivo assays performed in heterologous systems, IV, in vitro assays (such as experiments with purified recombinant proteins).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Schematic outline of main functional changes of proteins caused by AS in plants. (a) Organ-specific occurrence and functionality of representative splice isoforms. Underlined gene symbols denote the known ability to complement diverse phenotypes. While BPEub, ZIFL1.1 and YUC4.1 generally show uniform expression across organs, the BPEp and YUC4.2 transcripts are enriched in flowers and ZIFL1.3 in leaves. In contrast to ARF8.1, ARF8.4 (presumably elevated in flowers) reverts only flower-specific defects of arf8 knockouts. MP rescues all mp loss-of-function phenotypes, while MP11ir complements only those related to ovule development. Both SR45 variants show practically overlapping expression, but SR45.1 reverts floral organ phenotypes, while SR45.2 rescues root elongation defects conferred by the sr45 loss-of-function mutation. (b) Effect of AS on the subcellular localization of splice isoforms: RAD52-1A (nucleus) and RAD52-1B (mitochondria), RAD52-2A (nucleoplasm and chloroplasts) and RAD52-2B (chloroplasts), TTL1− (peroxisomes) and TTL2− (cytosol), YUC4.1 (together with TAA in the cytosol) and YUC4.2 (together with TAR2 on the outer side of the endoplasmic reticulum), ZIFL1.1 (tonoplast) and ZIFL1.3 (plasma membrane). BES1-S is observed in the nucleus and cytoplasm, but the exclusively nuclearly localized BES1-L is able to displace BES1-S to the nucleus. On the contrary, BRC1aL is seen in the nucleus and BRC1aS in the cytoplasm, when BRC1aS directly prevents nuclear targeting of BRC1aL. PIN7a shows lower mobility within the plasma membrane (and presumably higher transporting capacity in planta) than PIN7b, however, both isoforms associate and can directly affect the mobility of the other protein. NLS, nuclear localization signal; MTS, mitochondrial targeting sequence; TM, transmembrane domain(s); PTS, peroxisomal targeting signal. (c) Examples of common effects of AS on protein function in plants. In case of negative interaction, alternative isoform competes with the canonical protein in the dimer and inhibits its binding to DNA (IDD14, CCA1, SGR5, CO, FLM) or abolishes the formation of the complex required for the catalytic conversion of the metabolite (SGD). Among documented positive interactions, the truncated alternative SR45a-1b isoform enhances the association of the canonical SR45a-1a variant with CBP20, a subunit of the mRNA cap-binding complex. In chloroplasts, the RCA variants coordinately function under different light conditions. (d) A scheme of the positive regulatory loop involving AS of HAB1 in ABA signalling, both positive and negative regulatory loops implicated in AS of JAZ10 in the jasmonate (JA) transduction cascade and the immune activation mediated by AS of CPK28. On the schemes on (b) to (d), the amino acid regions shared between both splice variants are coloured in orange and the regions modified by AS in yellow.

Author comment: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R0/PR1

Comments

Editor Prague, 4 November 2021

Quantitative Plant Biology

Dear Editor,

Following the invitation to the Quantitative Plant Biology communicated with Dr. Olivier Hamant, please find the submission of the review article manuscript entitled How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins.

The research on alternative splicing (AS) represents a dynamically expanding research field and the role of AS in plants has been repeatedly summarized from various points of view. Interestingly, none of the previous contributions attempted to conceptualize how plant AS isoforms mechanistically work, similar to the seminal review articles from the animal field,.

Respecting the uniqueness of model plant systems, we attempted to fill this gap. We gathered the prominent, well-characterized AS events that arose recently in the literature and assembled them in a similar manner as in the referred animal reviews. We thus believe that our study would serve as a comprehensive guide for any researcher interested in the general role of AS in plants.

Please see below the following experts suggested as potential referees. Though, we would be grateful for, if you do not send this manuscript to Gordon Simpson (University of Dundee, UK).

Dr. Maria Kalyna

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria

mariya.kalyna@boku.ac.at

Expertise: molecular mechanisms of alternative splicing, transcriptomics

Assoc. Prof. Misato Ohtani

University of Tokyo, Japan

misato@edu.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Expertise: RNA processing in plant development

Prof. John Brown

University of Dundee, UK

John.Brown@hutton.ac.uk

Expertise: alternative splicing in plants, transcriptomics

Dr. Paula Duque

University of Lisbon, Portugal

duquep@igc.gulbenkian.pt

Expertise: alternative splicing in plants

Prof. Artur Jarmolowski

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland

artjarmo@amu.edu.pl

Expertise: alternative splicing and RNA processing in plants

Dr. Craig Simpson

The James Hutton Institute, UK

craig.simpson@hutton.ac.uk

Expertise: mechanisms of alternative splicing in plants

Once more, we thank for the considering our contribution and the opportunity to publish in Quantitative Plant Biology.

We apologize for the delay with preparing the manuscript.

With very best wishes,

Kamil Ruzicka, Ivan Kashkan and Ksenia Timofeyenko

Institute of Experimental Botany

Czech Academy of Sciences

Rozvojová 263

165 02 Praha 6 - Lysolaje

Czechia

Review: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: This review attempts to give a comprehensive summary related to alternative splicing (AS) in plants. This is a timely and meaningful work which can be of interest to the readers of QPB. Overall the review is well written and the structure is clear. I have, however, few main comments aiming to make the review more accessible to a wide audience. A major missing part is some basic descriptions of AS in plants for non-initiated readers who lack knowledge about AS. While the author described a lot studies in details, most sections lack a clear summary and take home message. In the present form, this makes it difficult for readers to capture the key points of each section.

In the following, I provide several broad areas to improve this review article towards being more reader friendly.

1. The concept of alternative splicing

This review directly expounds the impact of AS on the transcriptome at the beginning. But it would be nice to provide an accurate definition of AS. Although biologists are generally familiar with alternative splicing, definitions and general mechanisms would still be necessary for the initial part of the review (even if citing authoritative reviews on AS as done in the introduction). Accurate descriptions can help beginners to understand alternative splicing very well.

2. Types (Modes) and mechanisms of alternative splicing

Following on the description of AS; it would be nice to see a description of the assembly mechanism of alternative splicing in the process of gene expression. The authors could first introduce the concept of AS, and then describe how alternative splicing is spliced. My suggestion is to describe the assembly process of AS according to the different assembly modes of AS (ie. exon skipping, mutually exclusive exons, alternative donor site, and so on), and draw a schematic diagram for each AS mode, which can help readers understand the process of AS more clearly.

3. The author's summary is missing in each section

To make the review go beyond the description of previous work on AS, it would be nice to have a summary of these studies combined with your own understanding as take home message. I absolutely believe that the authors have read a lot of articles to prepare this review. However, a summary of each section is lacking. This could be done also by including some future research prospects for each section.

4. Tissue-specific roles of splice isoforms

The section 2 (Diverse tissue-specific roles of splice isoforms) introduces the tissue specificity of splice isoforms. The author only describes the specificity of many splice isoforms in floral organs, I think that splice isoforms in other tissues or organs ( for example in root system(Li et al. 2016)) could also be introduced in this section.

5. Alternative splicing under stressful conditions

Adaptation of plant for stressful condition (ie. cold, drought and radiation) is one of the focal points (also include defense against biotic stress). There is big interest about roles of AS under different conditions for botanists/experimentalists. Some more general overview of research on this aspect (Li et al. 2013, Yang et al. 2014, Shang et al. 2017, Punzo et al. 2020) could be included to generalize the end of section 7. This section lists already some studies related to roles of AS under light and heat stimulation, but could include or generalize to other stresses.

6. I could suggest that the author integrate together the section 3 and section 4 (subcellular localization), as well as section 5 and section 6 (interaction between splice isoforms).

7. Overall the The conclusions are somehow redundant with each section and could be better and not refined and include a view of the current limitations in AS studies and and prospect for future research and future questions in the field.. A list of the 5 most outstanding questions in the field of plant AS could for example be included as outlook in the conclusion.

Review: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: Kashkan et al. reviewed the effects of alternative splicing (AS) on protein functionality, based on the experimental evidences. I of course agree with the importance of AS to regulate plant cell activity/function through changes in protein function/localization/activity, and this review article should be important to make the readers aware the diversified roles of AS-based protein regulation. However, unfortunately, the current version of manuscript is simply “a list of examples”. There is no clear and original perspective of advantages and/or physiological significance of AS-mediated regulation of protein functions in plants, I felt.

1. For making this review article more attractive for general readers, I suggest to reconstruct the examples of AS: in the current manuscript, the description was sometimes mixed and jumped, between molecular effects on proteins and physiological aspects, such as stress response (response to exogenous stimuli). It is so confusing; the cases shown in section 7 can be also mentioned in section 2-6, for example.

Could you re-organize the examples of AS genes/proteins perfectly based on the molecular effects? I think the best way is to follow your graphic abstract as the systematic grouping of cases for effects of AS on proteins. Or, more simply, you can insert a systematic (logical) view of molecular effect by AS (based on graphic abstract) as a summary, in the beginning of manuscript (just after Introduction). It helps the readers to understand your concept more clearly.

2. Please put the discussion on physiological significance of AS-mediated regulation of protein functions, before (or within) the section of Conclusion. No original perspective was given in your manuscript. In the discussion, you can also mention the hidden effects of AS for changing protein functionality, such as translational efficiency, mRNA stability, and mRNA localization, and which parts are possible “plant-specific aspects”.

3. In the abstract, you said “but the common underlying functional principles have surprisingly never been generalized.” What did you mean by “common underlying functional principles”? I think 1) the mode of action for AS is well studied, and its basis is widely common among eukaryotes (i.e. specific trans- and cis-factors can act as regulators), and 2) the resultant changes in protein structures/localization by AS are well summarized already; for example, the differential protein structure can change protein functionality apparently. The complicated circuits of AS regulation including splicing factors are also well known in the sex determination of insects. It should be better to make clear what is “the common underlying functional principles” in this review.

4. In Figure 1: the information in the “Mechanism” column was not well unified. For example, “tissue specificity” is not actually mechanism and not at the same level with “subcellular localization.” Rather, “tissue specificity” should be put in the same line with “temperature sensitive ” and “light intensity sensitive”, as their responsiveness. As well, you have to spell out NLS in the caption.

Recommendation: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R0/PR4

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Dr Růžička,

Many thanks for submitting to Quantitative Plant Biology.

Your review article addresses an important and interesting topic for readers of QPB, however the reviewers have concerns on the aims, structure and organization of this review article. I recommend therefore the submisison of new revised version.

After reading the review article myself I concur with the reviewers that the article at the moment reads somehow as a list of examples but clear links between them or clear take home messages are still lacking. The article could be improved by reshaping some sections and by making the structure clearer (see detailed comments by the reviewers), for example by having a first section on the bases and mechanisms of AS in plants. From there you could highlight what the main questions in the field currently are, this would yield your graphical abstract. I find that the graphical abstract is a good idea but it is not optimally used, while it could be nicely used to guide non-expert readers. This section would lay down a clear plan for the next sections. Each section would consist of several examples and a clear take home message.

I would suggest to add a “Contribution of AS to quantitative biology” section before the outlook/conclusion to show the relevance of AS links for quantitative plant biology (the aim of the journal). When reading the article I got curious about the role and importance of AS in linking genomics and phenotypes. For example what is the relevance of AS for quantitative traits (important for plant breeding), for QTL mapping/GWAs, and for allele specific expression (for important phenotypes such as abiotic stress tolerance, yield, heterosis effects). This section would allow to generalize why AS is important for crop breeding or plant evolution in general. At present most examples seem to stem from A. thaliana, but it is not always clearly stated. Maybe this section would highlight the relevance of AS in crops or in evolution of plant species in general.

The final conclusion/outlook section could highlight few major unanswered questions in the field that need to be addressed with the increasing number of large genomic, transcriptomic, metabolomic, proteomic and phenotypic data. This is one of the main aim of QPB and it would be great to get a sense of what the authors consider important for the future of big data analysis to tackle the relevance/importance/mechanisms of AS in plants.

Many thanks for submitting your work to QPB, and we look forward to receive a revised version of your article.

Sincerely,

Prof. Aurélien Tellier

Decision: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R1/PR6

Comments

11 March 2022

Dear Aurélien and Olivier,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript entitled How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins (QPB-21-0060).

We have discussed the points raised and revised our manuscript accordingly. We believe that the current form of the manuscript meets better the journal scope and appears to be more attractive for potential readers. The detailed response to the editor and referees’ comments is attached.

We greatly appreciate the interest of Quantitative Plant Biology in our work. We also thank the editorial team for the generousity in conceiving the revision of the manuscript and the kindly granted increase of the word limit.

With very best wishes,

Kamil Ruzicka, Ivan Kashkan and Ksenia Timofeyenko

Institute of Experimental Botany

Czech Academy of Sciences

Rozvojová 263

165 02 Praha 6 - Lysolaje

Czechia

Review: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R1/PR7

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors have addressed my comments, I thus recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for the publication after a few small changes.

Although the authors provide full names for some important AS isoforms or genes, there are still many genes that have only gene symbols, not full names. It would be easy to read and check if the authors provide a table including the full and abbreviated names of all AS isoforms mentioned in this manuscript.

It would be more precise for two points as follow:

Line 60. different change to differential

Line 383. tissue change to tissue-specific

Review: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R1/PR8

Comments

Comments to Author: The revised manuscript seemed to be improved, and now it better matches what QPB is looking for in a review article. Before acceptance, I would like to ask 2 minor points,

1. The authors are using “Arabidopsis” to refer to Arabidopsis thaliana. AS events can vary widely among plant species, so in my sense, the authors should clearly limit the specie to Arabidopsis thaliana. At least when it first appears, please write the species name as “Arabidopsis thaliana.”

2. Please mention about “exitron” in the introduction briefly; it is very important form of intron, and it has been shown that the high rate of exitron is a very unique feature of plants as you know. It unnatural that there is no mention of exitron when discussing AS in plants.

Recommendation: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R1/PR9

Comments

Comments to Author:

Dear authors,

I apologize for the time to get the reviews in this round. I concur with the reviewers that the paper has been greatly improved, and gained a lot in clarity. Both reviewers recommend publication pending some last minor changes.

Reviewer 1 suggests to make sure that full names of genes/isoforms are written somewhere (in text or table) and not only the gene symbols.

Reviewer 2 suggests to be precise when to use Arabidopsis or Arabidopsis thaliana, and to mention exitron briefly in the introduction.

Providing you address these minor changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

I look forward to receive your revised version soon.

Best regards,

Aurelien Tellier

Decision: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R2/PR11

Comments

Dear Aurélien and Olivier,

Please find enclosed our second revision of the manuscript How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins (QPB-21-0060). We have corrected the remaining minor points as requested.

We thank you for the opportunity to contribute to QPB and for the helpful editorial and reviewer comments. We hope our work will be of interest to many prospective readers!

With very best wishes,

Kamil Ruzicka, Ivan Kashkan and Ksenia Timofeyenko

Laboratory of Hormonal Regulations in Plants

Prague, 29 April 2022

Recommendation: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: How alternative splicing changes the properties of plant proteins — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.