Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Degradation of SERRATE via ubiquitin-independent 20S proteasome to survey RNA metabolism

Nature Plants volume 6, pages 970–982 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

SERRATE (SE) is a key factor in RNA metabolism. Here, we report that SE binds 20S core proteasome α subunit G1 (PAG1) among other components and is accumulated in their mutants. Purified PAG1-containing 20S proteasome degrades recombinant SE via an ATP- and ubiquitin-independent manner in vitro. Nevertheless, PAG1 is a positive regulator for SE in vivo, as pag1 shows comparable molecular and/or developmental defects relative to se. Furthermore, SE is poorly assembled into macromolecular complexes, exemplified by the microprocessor in pag1 compared with Col-0. SE overexpression triggered the destruction of both transgenic and endogenous protein, leading to similar phenotypes of se and SE overexpression lines. We therefore propose that PAG1 degrades the intrinsically disordered portion of SE to secure the functionality of folded SE that is assembled and protected in macromolecular complexes. This study provides insight into how the 20S proteasome regulates RNA metabolism through controlling its key factor in eukaryotes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Knockdown mutants of PAG1, a partner of SE, cause developmental defects in Arabidopsis.
Fig. 2: PAG1 impacts SE-mediated RNA metabolism.
Fig. 3: SE is degraded via PAG1-containing 20S proteasome, but not through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway.
Fig. 4: In vitro degradation of SE by purified Arabidopsis 20S proteasome.
Fig. 5: Overaccumulation of disordered SE protein interferes with its normal function.
Fig. 6: Proposed model for the degradation of SE protein by PAG1.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The RNA-seq and sRNA-seq data were deposited in the NCBI BioProject database with accession code PRJNA613247. All other data supporting the findings of the study are present in the main text and/or the Supplementary Information. Additional data related to this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Collins, G. A. & Goldberg, A. L. The logic of the 26S proteasome. Cell 169, 792–806 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vierstra, R. D. The ubiquitin–26S proteasome system at the nexus of plant biology. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 385–397 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Groll, M. et al. Structure of 20S proteasome from yeast at 2.4 Å resolution. Nature 386, 463–471 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bard, J. A. M. et al. Structure and function of the 26S proteasome. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 87, 697–724 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dong, Y. et al. Cryo-EM structures and dynamics of substrate-engaged human 26S proteasome. Nature 565, 49–55 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Book, A. J. et al. Affinity purification of the Arabidopsis 26 S proteasome reveals a diverse array of plant proteolytic complexes. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 25554–25569 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Deshmukh, F. K., Yaffe, D., Olshina, M. A., Ben-Nissan, G. & Sharon, M. The contribution of the 20S proteasome to proteostasis. Biomolecules 9, E190 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Asher, G., Reuven, N. & Shaul, Y. 20S proteasomes and protein degradation “by default”. Bioessays 28, 844–849 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Erales, J. & Coffino, P. Ubiquitin-independent proteasomal degradation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1843, 216–221 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grigg, S., Canales, C., Hay, A. & Tsiantis, M. SERRATE coordinates shoot meristem function and leaf axial patterning in Arabidopsis. Nature 437, 1022–1026 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang, S. S. et al. Accumulation of genome-specific transcripts, transcription factors and phytohormonal regulators during early stages of fiber cell development in allotetraploid cotton. Plant J. 47, 761–775 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dong, Z., Han, M. & Fedoroff, N. The RNA-binding proteins HYL1 and SE promote accurate in vitro processing of pri-miRNA by DCL1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9970–9975 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iwata, Y., Takahashi, M., Fedoroff, N. V. & Hamdan, S. M. Dissecting the interactions of SERRATE with RNA and DICER-LIKE 1 in Arabidopsis microRNA precursor processing. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 9129–9140 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Machida, S., Chen, H. & Yuan, A. Molecular insights into miRNA processing by Arabidopsis thaliana SERRATE. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 7828–7836 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang, S. W. et al. Structure of Arabidopsis HYPONASTIC LEAVES1 and its molecular implications for miRNA processing. Structure 18, 594–605 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu, H. L. et al. Bidirectional processing of pri-miRNAs with branched terminal loops by Arabidopsis Dicer-like 1. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1106–1115 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, Z. et al. SWI2/SNF2 ATPase CHR2 remodels pri-miRNAs via SE to impede miRNA production. Nature 557, 516–521 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gruber, J. J. et al. Ars2 links the nuclear cap-binding complex to RNA interference and cell proliferation. Cell 138, 328–339 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sabin, L. R. et al. Ars2 regulates both miRNA- and siRNA-dependent silencing and suppresses RNA virus infection in Drosophila. Cell 138, 340–351 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Laubinger, S. et al. Dual roles of the nuclear cap-binding complex and SERRATE in pre mRNA splicing and microRNA processing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8795–8800 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Laubinger, S. et al. Global effects of the small RNA biogenesis machinery on the Arabidopsis thaliana transcriptome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17466–17473 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gruber, J. J. et al. Ars2 promotes proper replication-dependent histone mRNA 3′ end formation. Mol. Cell 45, 87–98 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hallais, M. et al. CBC–ARS2 stimulates 3′-end maturation of multiple RNA families and favors cap-proximal processing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 1358–1366 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Raczynska, K. D. et al. The SERRATE protein is involved in alternative splicing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 1224–1244 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ma, Z. et al. Arabidopsis Serrate coordinates histone methyltransferases ATXR5/6 and RNA processing factor RDR6 to regulate transposon expression. Dev. Cell 45, 769–784 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Speth, C. et al. Arabidopsis RNA processing factor SERRATE regulates the transcription of intronless genes. eLife 7, e37078 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Andreu-Agullo, C., Maurin, T., Thompson, C. B. & Lai, E. C. Ars2 maintains neural stem-cell identity through direct transcriptional activation of Sox2. Nature 481, 195–198 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schulze, W. M., Stein, F., Rettel, M., Nanao, M. & Cusack, S. Structural analysis of human ARS2 as a platform for co-transcriptional RNA sorting. Nat. Commun. 9, 1701 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, X. R. et al. Cucumber mosaic virus-encoded 2b suppressor inhibits Arabidopsis Argonaute1 cleavage activity to counter plant defense. Genes Dev. 20, 3255–3268 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhong, S. X. et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome regulates RdDM activity by degrading DMS3 in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 3899–3908 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang, Z. H. et al. KETCH1 imports HYL1 to nucleus for miRNA biogenesis in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4011–4016 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao, Q. et al. A plant‐specific in vitro ubiquitination analysis system. Plant J. 74, 524–533 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Han, J. J. et al. The β5 subunit is essential for intact 26S proteasome assembly to specifically promote plant autotrophic growth under salt stress. New Phytol. 221, 1359–1368 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prilusky, J. et al. FoldIndex: a simple tool to predict whether a given protein sequence is intrinsically unfolded. Bioinformatics 21, 3435–3438 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hsieh, L. S., Su, W. M., Han, G. S. & Carman, G. M. Phosphorylation regulates the ubiquitin-independent degradation of yeast Pah1 phosphatidate phosphatase by the 20S proteasome. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 11467–11478 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Fang, Y. & Spector, D. L. Identification of nuclear dicing bodies containing proteins for microRNA biogenesis in living Arabidopsis plants. Curr. Biol. 17, 818–823 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Fedorova, O. A. et al. Proteomic analysis of the 20S proteasome (PSMA3)-interacting proteins reveals a functional link between the proteasome and mRNA metabolism. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 416, 258–265 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ju, D. & Xie, Y. Proteasomal degradation of RPN4 via two distinct mechanisms, ubiquitin-dependent and -independent. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 23851–23854 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tofaris, G. K., Layfield, R. & Spillantini, M. G. α-Synuclein metabolism and aggregation is linked to ubiquitin-independent degradation by the proteasome. FEBS Lett. 509, 22–26 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Li, X. et al. Ubiquitin-and ATP-independent proteolytic turnover of p21 by the REGγ-proteasome pathway. Mol. Cell 26, 831–842 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsvetkov, P., Reuven, N. & Shaul, Y. Ubiquitin-independent p53 proteasomal degradation. Cell Death Differ. 17, 103–108 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hwang, S. G. et al. Regulation of beta-catenin signaling and maintenance of chondrocyte differentiation by ubiquitin-independent proteasomal degradation of alpha-catenin. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 12758–12765 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang, X. R., Henriques, R., Lin, S. S., Niu, Q. W. & Chua, N. H. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana using the floral dip method. Nat. Protoc. 1, 641–646 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu, H. L. et al. Arabidopsis Argonaute10 specifically sequesters miR166/165 to regulate shoot apical meristem development. Cell 145, 242–256 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang, Z. H. et al. RISC-interacting clearing 3′-5′ exoribonucleases (RICEs) degrade uridylated cleavage fragments to maintain functional RISC in Arabidopsis thaliana. eLife 6, e24466 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. He, P., S, L. B. & Sheen, J. The use of protoplasts to study innate immune responses. Methods Mol. Biol. 354, 1–9 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Banerjee, S., Garcia, L. R. & Versaw, W. K. Quantitative imaging of FRET-based biosensors for cell- and organelle-specific analyses in plants. Microsc. Microanal. 22, 300–310 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cho, S. K., Chaabane, S. B., Shah, P., Poulsen, C. P. & Yang, S. W. COP1 E3 ligase protects HYL1 to retain microRNA biogenesis. Nat. Commun. 5, 5867 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bradford, M. M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72, 248–254 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang, W. et al. An importin beta protein negatively regulates microRNA activity in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 23, 3565–3576 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Zhang lab members for careful proofreading of this manuscript. The work was supported by grants from the NIH (grant nos. GM132401 and GM127742), NSF (grant no. MCB-1716243) and Welch Foundation (grant no. A-1973-20180324) to X.Z. Y.L., D.S., L.W. and X.Y. were supported by China Scholar Council fellowships.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Yanjun Li, Di Sun.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Yanjun Li, Di Sun, Zeyang Ma, Karissa Yamaguchi, Lin Wang, Songxiao Zhong, Xingxing Yan, Baoshuan Shang, Zhiye Wang & Xiuren Zhang

  2. Institute for Plant Genomics and Biotechnology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Yanjun Li, Di Sun, Zeyang Ma, Lin Wang, Songxiao Zhong, Xingxing Yan, Baoshuan Shang, Zhiye Wang & Xiuren Zhang

  3. College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China

    Yanjun Li, Lin Wang & Mingguo Zhou

  4. Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Yukihiro Nagashima & Hisashi Koiwa

  5. State Key Laboratory of Plant Genomics, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, The Innovative Academy of Seed Design, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Jiajia Han & Qi Xie

  6. Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaption and Evolutionary Ecology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China

    Jiajia Han

  7. State Key Laboratory of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, College of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Zhiye Wang

Authors
  1. Yanjun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Di Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zeyang Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karissa Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Songxiao Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xingxing Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Baoshuan Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yukihiro Nagashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hisashi Koiwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jiajia Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Qi Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Mingguo Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Zhiye Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Xiuren Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X.Z. conceived the project. Z.W. and X.Z. designed the study. Y.L. and D.S. performed the experiments. Z.M. conducted the bioinformatics analysis. B.S., Y.N. and H.K. helped with the confocal experiments. K.Y., L.W., M.Z., S.Z., X.Y., J.H. and Q.X. provided the experimental materials and intellectual input. Y.L., D.S. and Z.W. analysed the data. Y.L. and X.Z. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhiye Wang or Xiuren Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Plants thanks Yijun Qi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Experimental validation of the SE-PAG1 interaction.

a, peptides of PAG1 recovered from MS analysis of SE immunoprecipitates. b, c, the specific SE-PAG1 interaction was confirmed in N. benthamiana by luciferase complementation (LCI) (b) and FRET (c). In (b), the infiltration scheme of leaves shows different combinations of constructs fused to either N-terminal (nLUC) or C-terminal (cLUC) regions of luciferase. LUC, bright field, and merged photograph (Merge) are shown. The red arrows and color bar indicate the infiltration positions and the signal intensity, respectively. A combination of CHR2 and SE17 serves as a positive control. In (c), CFP, SE-CFP as a donor fluorescence; YFP, PAG1-YFP as an acceptor fluorescence; nFRET, the FRET fluorescence. The color bars indicate the scale of the signal strength. (Scale bars, 10 μm). The last image was analyzed by imageJ to show the FRET signal intensity after background calibration. d, Co-IP assays to detect the SE-PAG1 interaction in Arabidopsis. In (b, c, d), the experiments were independently repeated three times with similar results. e, Y2H assays between PAG1 and truncated variants of SE, HYL1 and DCL1. (f) confocal imaging shows that PAG1 is distributed in nucleus and cytoplasm in root tip and elongated root of PPAG1-gPAG1-eYFP transgenic plants (Scale bars, 100 μm). At least 10 independent colonies for each interaction (e) and 16 independent transgenic plants (f) were examined and showed similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Genotypes and phenotypes of pag1-2 mutants.

a, three artificial miRNAs (pag1-2-a, -b, and -c) specifically target PAG1. The sequence alignment of the artificial miRNAs (red) and their complementary sequences (blue). b, pag1-2-a and pag1-2-b lines have the same phenotype as pag1-2-c, which refers to pag1-2 thereafter (Scale bars, 0.5 cm); c, sRNA blot analysis of artificial miRNA accumulation in pag1-2 transgenic lines (top). U6 is a loading control and qRT-PCR analysis of PAG1 transcript in pag1-2 relative to Col-0 (bottom). Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3 biologically independent replicates. The asterisk (*) indicates the significance between mutants and Col-0 control (*P < 0.05; unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t-test). d, the knockdown lines overexpressing artificial miRNA targeting PAG1 showed normal flowering time. The experiment was independently repeated at least three times with similar results. e, severely retarded root growth of pag1-2. Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 16 biologically independent samples. The asterisk (*) indicates the significance between mutants and Col-0 control (***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t-test).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 RNA-seq analysis of se-2, pag1-2 and apc8-1.

a, numbers of differentially expressed genes in pag1-2 and se-2 mutants compared to Col-0. Also see in Supplementary Table 2 and 3. b, c, the number of reads (RNA-seq reads per million) of PAG1 (b) and SE (c) recovered from RNA-seq analysis of Col-0 and indicated mutants from three biological replicates. The asterisk (*) indicates the significance between mutants and Col-0 control (**P = 0.00304; unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t-test). d, overlapping of upregulated and downregulated genes between apc8-1 and se-2 mutants. e, comparative analysis shows significant overlapping between SE binding loci and PAG1-regulated genes. The data were derived from three biological replicates.

Extended Data Fig. 4 In vitro cell-free and in vivo SE-decay assays.

a, western blot analysis of SE protein in three-week-old pag1-2 mutants with different severities using an anti-SE antibody. Actin serves as a loading control. b–d, additional repeats for in vitro cell-free (b, c) and in vivo (d) SE-decay assays. Western blot analysis of SE protein was conducted with an anti-SE antibody. Actin is a loading control. In (d), the numbers below the gels indicated the relative mean signals of SE protein in different time points that were sequentially normalized to that of SE and actin at time 0 where the value was arbitrarily assigned a value of 1. The experiments were independently repeated twice (d) or three times (a, b and c) with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 DMS3 serves as a positive control for 26S proteasome degradation compared to SE in parallel experiments.

a, in vivo DMS3-decay assay. DMS3-YFP transgenic seedlings were treated with CHX (0.5 mM) with or without 50 μM PYR-41 for indicated time. YFP levels were determined with an anti-YFP antibody. Actin is a loading control. The numbers below the gels indicated the relative mean signals of SE protein in different time points that were sequentially normalized to that of YFP and actin at time 0 where the value was arbitrarily assigned a value of 1. b, detection of ubiquitin conjugated to DMS3, a positive control, in vivo. DMS3-YFP was IP-ed with an anti-YFP antibody. Western blot analysis of ubiquitin was conducted with an anti-ubiquitin antibody (Agrisera, AS08307). Actin is a loading control for input. The experiment was independently repeated twice (a) or three times (b) with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Y2H assays between SE and additional 20S proteasome subunits and the 19S regulatory subunit RPN1a.

The interactions between SE and RPN1a, PAC1, PAF1 and PBD1 were detected by Y2H. At least 10 independent colonies for each interaction were tested and showed similar results.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Foldindex analysis of SE and in vitro SE- and HYL1-decay assays via purified 20S proteasome.

a, predicted disordered segment via Foldindex analysis. Amino acid residues with green or red colors indicate the predicted ordered and disordered segment, respectively. b, the activity of the isolated 26S and 20S proteasomes and control IPs. Data are presented as means ± SD, n = 3 biologically independent replicates. RFU, relative fluorescence units. Note: two control IPs had no activity but only one control IP is shown here. c, 6xHis-SUMO-SE was purified by gel filtration. SEC analysis was performed in a HiLoad 16/600 Superdex 200 column (GE Healthcare) based on the manufacture’s specification. The molecular weight of the SE protein in peak 2 is calculated as 189.3 kDa. The asterisk (*) indicates the nonspecific bands. d, SDS-PAGE of purified recombinant proteins HYL1. The experimental conditions for purifying SE (c) and HYL1 (d) were optimized for at least 10 times and the proteins were later purified and obtained for multiple times under the best optimized conditions; and the results were always consistent. e, an additional repeat for in vitro SE-decay assay. f, an additional repeat for in vitro HYL1-decay assay. g, an additional repeat for 20S proteasome degradation of 6xHis-SUMO-SE proteins in vitro. The arrows indicate truncated SE. The experiments were independently repeated three times (e, f and g) with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 The interaction between SE and DCL1 is compromised in pag1-2.

Additional figures for BiFC assays showed the different interactions pattern between SE and DCL1 in Col-0 and pag1-2 protoplasts. Scale bars, 10 μm. At least 14 independent protoplasts for each interaction were tested and showed similar results.

Extended Data Fig. 9 SE transcript but not PAG1 was significantly accumulated in SE overexpressed transgenic lines.

a, b, qRT-PCR analysis of SE (a) and PAG1 (b) transcripts in Col-0; 35S-FM-SE transgenic plants relative to Col-0. Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3 biologically independent replicates. The asterisk (*) indicates the significance between mutants and Col-0 control (**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t-test).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 10 PAG1 mutation causes mis-location of SE between nucleus and cytoplasm.

An additional repeat for cell-fractionation analysis showed that the presence of SE protein in cytoplasm in addition to nucleus in the pag1-2 mutant, but not in Col-0 plants. The experiment was independently repeated three times with similar results.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary results and discussion.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–4.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 4

Unprocessed blots and gels.

Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 5

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Unprocessed blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Unprocessed blots and gels.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 9

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 10

Unprocessed blots.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Sun, D., Ma, Z. et al. Degradation of SERRATE via ubiquitin-independent 20S proteasome to survey RNA metabolism. Nat. Plants 6, 970–982 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0721-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0721-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing