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:

Phosphorylation of SWEET sucrose transporters regulates plant root:shoot ratio under drought

Nature Plants volume 8, pages 68–77 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The root:shoot ratio has long been known to be enhanced in plants under drought stress. Here we discovered that osmotic stress enhances long-distance sucrose transport to increase the root:shoot ratio in an abscisic-acid-dependent manner. The Arabidopsis sucrose transporters SWEET11 and 12, key players in phloem loading, are rapidly phosphorylated upon drought and abscisic acid treatments. The drought- and abscisic-acid-activated SnRK2 protein kinases phosphorylate the carboxy-terminal cytosolic regions of SWEET11 and 12. This phosphorylation enhances the oligomerization and sucrose transport activity of SWEETs, which results in elevated sucrose contents in roots and improved root growth under drought stress, leading to the enhanced root:shoot ratio of biomass and drought resistance. Notably, the expression of phospho-mimic SWEETs led to improved root growth even under non-stressed conditions. The phosphorylation of sucrose transporters provides an explanation for the long-standing observation that drought stress enhances the root:shoot ratio in plants and suggests a strategy for engineering drought-resistant crops.

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: ABA and sucrose transport regulate root growth under osmotic stress.
Fig. 2: SnRK2s interact with SWEET11 and SWEET12.
Fig. 3: SWEET11 and 12 are phosphorylated by SnRK2s under osmotic stress.
Fig. 4: Phosphorylation of SWEET11 and 12 enhances sucrose transport.
Fig. 5: Phosphorylation of SWEET11 and 12 controls root growth under osmotic stress.
Fig. 6: Schematic model for SnRK2- and SWEET-mediated root growth under drought stress.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All materials are available from the corresponding author upon request. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Gupta, A., Rico-Medina, A. & Cano-Delgado, A. I. The physiology of plant responses to drought. Science 368, 266–269 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oldroyd, G. E. D. & Leyser, O. A plant’s diet, surviving in a variable nutrient environment. Science 368, eaba0196 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ogura, T. et al. Root system depth in Arabidopsis is shaped by EXOCYST70A3 via the dynamic modulation of auxin transport. Cell 178, 400–412e16 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang, J. et al. Asymmetric distribution of cytokinins determines root hydrotropism in Arabidopsis thaliana. Cell Res. 29, 984–993 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Orosa-Puente, B. et al. Root branching toward water involves posttranslational modification of transcription factor ARF7. Science 362, 1407–1410 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Markhart, A. H. Comparative water relations of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus acutifolius Gray. Plant Physiol. 77, 113–117 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Li, Y. et al. Root growth adaptation is mediated by PYLs ABA receptor-PP2A protein phosphatase complex. Adv. Sci. (Weinh.) 7, 1901455 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao, Y. et al. The ABA receptor PYL8 promotes lateral root growth by enhancing MYB77-dependent transcription of auxin-responsive genes. Sci. Signal. 7, ra53 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietrich, D. et al. Root hydrotropism is controlled via a cortex-specific growth mechanism. Nat. Plants 3, 17057 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yu, S. M., Lo, S. F. & Ho, T. H. Source–sink communication: regulated by hormone, nutrient, and stress cross-signaling. Trends Plant Sci. 20, 844–857 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, L. Q. et al. Sucrose efflux mediated by SWEET proteins as a key step for phloem transport. Science 335, 207–211 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ayre, B. G. Membrane-transport systems for sucrose in relation to whole-plant carbon partitioning. Mol. Plant 4, 377–394 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, C. & Turgeon, R. Mechanisms of phloem loading. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 43, 71–75 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Durand, M. et al. Water deficit enhances C export to the roots in Arabidopsis thaliana plants with contribution of sucrose transporters in both shoot and roots. Plant Physiol. 170, 1460–1479 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lemoine, R. et al. Source-to-sink transport of sugar and regulation by environmental factors. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 272 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Thalmann, M. et al. Regulation of leaf starch degradation by abscisic acid is important for osmotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Cell 28, 1860–1878 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodrigues, J., Inze, D., Nelissen, H. & Saibo, N. J. M. Source–sink regulation in crops under water deficit. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 652–663 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu, J. K. Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 167, 313–324 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen, K. et al. Abscisic acid dynamics, signaling, and functions in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 62, 25–54 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park, S. Y. et al. Abscisic acid inhibits type 2C protein phosphatases via the PYR/PYL family of START proteins. Science 324, 1068–1071 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ma, Y. et al. Regulators of PP2C phosphatase activity function as abscisic acid sensors. Science 324, 1064–1068 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fujii, H. & Zhu, J. K. Arabidopsis mutant deficient in 3 abscisic acid-activated protein kinases reveals critical roles in growth, reproduction, and stress. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8380–8385 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen, L. Q., Cheung, L. S., Feng, L., Tanner, W. & Frommer, W. B. Transport of sugars. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 84, 865–894 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar, S., Lee, I. H. & Plamann, M. Cytoplasmic dynein ATPase activity is regulated by dynactin-dependent phosphorylation. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 31798–31804 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Xuan, Y. H. et al. Functional role of oligomerization for bacterial and plant SWEET sugar transporter family. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E3685–E3694 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Han, L. et al. Molecular mechanism of substrate recognition and transport by the AtSWEET13 sugar transporter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10089–10094 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tao, Y. et al. Structure of a eukaryotic SWEET transporter in a homotrimeric complex. Nature 527, 259–263 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hochholdinger, F. & Tuberosa, R. Genetic and genomic dissection of maize root development and architecture. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 12, 172–177 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Den Herder, G., Van Isterdael, G., Beeckman, T. & De Smet, I. The roots of a new green revolution. Trends Plant Sci. 15, 600–607 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bailey-Serres, J., Parker, J. E., Ainsworth, E. A., Oldroyd, G. E. D. & Schroeder, J. I. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 575, 109–118 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Uga, Y. et al. Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat. Genet. 45, 1097–1102 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore, B. et al. Role of the Arabidopsis glucose sensor HXK1 in nutrient, light, and hormonal signaling. Science 300, 332–336 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arai-Sanoh, Y. et al. Deep rooting conferred by DEEPER ROOTING 1 enhances rice yield in paddy fields. Sci. Rep. 4, 5563 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Blum, A. Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments (Springer-Verlag, 2011).

  35. Shen, B. R. et al. Engineering a new chloroplastic photorespiratory bypass to increase photosynthetic efficiency and productivity in rice. Mol. Plant 12, 199–214 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. South, P. F., Cavanagh, A. P., Liu, H. W. & Ort, D. R. Synthetic glycolate metabolism pathways stimulate crop growth and productivity in the field. Science 363, eaat9077 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu, Q. et al. Carbon export from leaves is controlled via ubiquitination and phosphorylation of sucrose transporter SUC2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 6223–6230 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, H. L., Lee, P. D., Chen, W. L., Huang, D. J. & Su, J. C. Osmotic stress-induced changes of sucrose metabolism in cultured sweet potato cells. J. Exp. Bot. 51, 1991–1999 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Xu, W. et al. Drought stress condition increases root to shoot ratio via alteration of carbohydrate partitioning and enzymatic activity in rice seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant. 37, 9 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen, X. et al. Protein kinases in plant responses to drought, salt, and cold stress. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 63, 53–78 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beuchat, G., Xue, X. & Chen, L.-Q. The next steps in crop improvement: adoption of emerging strategies to identify bottlenecks in sugar flux. Plant Sci. 301, 110675 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Khadilkar, A. S. et al. Constitutive and companion cell-specific overexpression of AVP1, encoding a proton-pumping pyrophosphatase, enhances biomass accumulation, phloem loading, and long-distance transport. Plant Physiol. 170, 401–414 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhao, Y. et al. Arabidopsis duodecuple mutant of PYL ABA receptors reveals PYL repression of ABA-independent SnRK2 activity. Cell Rep. 23, 3340–3351e5 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Lisec, J., Schauer, N., Kopka, J., Willmitzer, L. & Fernie, A. R. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry–based metabolite profiling in plants. Nat. Protoc. 1, 387–396 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tetyuk, O., Benning, U. F. & Hoffmann-Benning, S. Collection and analysis of Arabidopsis phloem exudates using the EDTA-facilitated method. J. Vis. Exp. 23, e51111 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yoo, S.-D., Cho, Y.-H. & Sheen, J. Arabidopsis mesophyll protoplasts: a versatile cell system for transient gene expression analysis. Nat. Protoc. 2, 1565–1572 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abelenda, J. A. et al. Source–sink regulation is mediated by interaction of an FT homolog with a SWEET protein in potato. Curr. Biol. 29, 1178–1186.e6 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDB27040107), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant no. 31970293) and the Shanghai Center for Plant Stress Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Center for Plant Stress Biology and CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Plant Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

    Qingchao Chen, Tao Hu, Xiaohua Li, Jian-Kang Zhu & Yang Zhao

  2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Qingchao Chen

  3. State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Adaptation and Improvement, School of Life Sciences, Henan University, Kaifeng, China

    Chun-Peng Song & Yang Zhao

  4. Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Liqing Chen

Authors
  1. Qingchao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaohua Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chun-Peng Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jian-Kang Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liqing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Z. conceived and designed the research. Q.C., T.H. and X.L. performed the experiments. Q.C., Y.Z., L.C., C.-P.S. and J.-K.Z. analysed the results. Y.Z., Q.C. and L.C. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yang Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Plants thanks Shuhua Yang 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 Reduced root growth and root sugar levels in ABA insensitive mutants and sweet11/12 mutant under osmotic stress.

a, Fresh weight of roots from Col-0 wild-type, pyl duodecuple (pyl), snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2) and sweet11/12 mutants, and SWEETpro::SWEET-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type SWEET11 or 12 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, without or with mannitol, PEG or ABA treatments. b, Sucrose contents in roots of Col-0 wild-type, pyl duodecuple (pyl), snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2) and sweet11/12 mutants, and SWEETpro::SWEET-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type SWEET11 or 12 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, without or with mannitol or ABA treatments. c-d, Root growth of Col-0 wild-type, snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2) and pyl duodecuple (pyl) mutants, grown on mannitol plates with (right panel) or without (left panel) exogenous sucrose. The primary root length was quantified (d). e-f, Glucose (e) and fructose (f) levels in roots of Col-0 wild-type, pyl duodecuple (pyl), snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2) and sweet11/12 mutants, without or with mannitol or ABA treatments. g-h, Root growth of Col-0 wild-type and sweet11/12 mutant grown on mannitol plates with (right panel) or without (left panel) exogenous sucrose. The primary root length was quantified (h). Error bars indicate SEM (n = 10 seedlings) in (a, d, h), SEM (n = 5 seedlings) in (b) and SEM (n = 3 seedlings) in (e, f). Student’s t-test (two-sided). ‘a,’ ‘b,’ and ‘c’, significance evaluated by post hoc Tukey test after one way ANOVA (p < 0.05). The experiments in (c and g) were repeated independently at least three times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 SnRK2s interact with and phosphorylate SWEET11 and 12.

a, SnRK2s are co-immunoprecipitated with SWEET12 in SWEET12pro::SWEET12-GFP transgenic plants. SWEET12 protein was immunoprecipitated using SWEET12pro::SWEET12-GFP transgenic plants treated without or with 100 μM ABA. b, Coimmunoprecipitation (coIP) assay in Arabidopsis protoplast. Total proteins were extracted from protoplasts co-transfected with HA-SnRK2.6 and FLAG-SWEET11, FLAG-SWEET12 or FLAG empty vector control, and immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG beads. Coimmunoprecipitated HA-SnRK2.6 was detected with anti-HA antibody. The experiments in (b) were repeated independently at least two times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 SnRK2s phosphorylate SWEET11 and 12.

a, Phosphopeptides containing Ser248 from the C-terminus of SWEET12 were detected in SWEET12pro::SWEET12-GFP transgenic plants following ABA treatment. ‘pep score’, peptide score, which determines the probability that the peptide fragments detected by the mass spectrum. b, Phosphorylation of Ser248 of SWEET11 and 12 in Col-0 wild-type and sweet11/12 mutant seedlings, with or without mannitol or ABA treatment. Anti-SWEET11P and anti-SWEET12P indicate anti-phospho-Ser248-SWEET11 and 12 antibodies, respectively. Anti-phospho-Ser248-SWEET11 and 12 antibodies were used to detect phosphorylation of SWEET11 and 12, respectively. Actin was used as a loading control. c,d, Protein abundance of HA-tagged SWEET11 and SWEET12 in SWEET11pro::SWEET11-HA (c) and SWEET12pro::SWEET12-HA (d) transgenic plants. Anti-HA antibody was used for western blot. Total proteins were detected by Ponceau S staining. e-f, Phosphorylation of SWEET11 and SWEET12 under mannitol or ABA treatment in SWEET11pro::SWEET11-HA (e) and SWEET12pro::SWEET12-HA (f) transgenic plants. Total proteins were separated in a Phos-tag gel, and HA-tagged SWEET were detected with anti-HA antibody. g, Phosphorylation of SWEET11 and SWEET12 under ABA treatment in protoplasts of Col-0 and snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2). Total proteins were separated in a Phos-tag gel, and FLAG-tagged SWEET were detected with an anti-FLAG antibody. Actin was used as a loading control. The experiments in (b-g) were repeated independently at least two times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Phosphorylation enhances oligomerization of SWEET11 and 12.

a, Prediction of cytosolic regions in SWEET11 and SWEET12 proteins using TMHMM Server v. 2.0. b-c, Result matrix of homo- and hetero-oligomerization between combinations of wild-type, phospho-mimic (S-to-D/E) or non-phosphorylatable (S-to-A) SWEET11 and 12 LUC-fusion proteins without (left half of box) or with (right half of box) ABA treatment in protoplasts of sweet11/12 (b) and snrk2.2/3/6 (snrk2) mutants (c). The strength of the interaction is categorized from light blue to dark red as indicated below or to the right of the matrix. We define the hetero-interaction strength of wild type SWEET11 and SWEET12 as n.s., and determines the interaction strength of other combinations according to the mathematical multiple relation with n.s.. No experiment was conducted with combinations depicted as an empty box. The right histogram in (b) shows the illustrative rough data. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 3 biologically independent samples). d-e, Interactions between C-terminal and internal cytosolic regions of SWEETs in the yeast two-hybrid assay. Interactions was determined by yeast growth in media lacking Leu, Trp and His (-L-W-H) with dilutions (10−1, 10−2, and 10−3) of saturated cultures.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Genotyping of SWEETpro::SWEETs-HA transgenic plants.

a, Schematic representation of the SWEET11 and 12 loci and the respective T-DNA insertion sites. Genomic DNA sequence (upper panel) and protein sequence (lower panel). b, Amplification of native SWEET11 and SWEET12 in SWEETpro:: SWEET-HA transgenic plants in sweet11/12 mutant background using primers that bind to the 3’UTR of SWEETs as reverse primers. Col-0 wild-type, and sweet11, sweet12 and sweet11/12 mutants were used as controls. c, Amplification of recombinant SWEET11 and SWEET12 in SWEETpro:: SWEET-HA transgenic plants in sweet11/12 mutant background using a primer binding to HA as reverse primer. d, Sanger sequencing chromatograms indicate mutations on SWEETs. The experiments in (b, c) were repeated independently at least two times with similar results.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Phosphorylation of SWEET11 and 12 Enhances Sucrose transport and accumulation in Roots.

a,b, Protein abundance of wild-type and mutated SWEET11 (a) and SWEET12 (b) in protoplasts without or with 5 μM ABA treatment overnight. Anti-FLAG antibody was used to detect SWEET11 and 12. Actin was used as a loading control. c-d, Protein abundance of SWEET11 and 12 in SWEETpro::SWEET-HA transgenic plants, without or with 20 μM ABA (c) or 200 mM mannitol (d) treatments for the indicated time points. Anti-HA antibody was used to detect SWEET11 and 12. Actin was used as a loading control. e, Sucrose levels in phloem exudates of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant, and SWEET12pro::SWEET12-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEET12 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, with or without ABA treatment. f, Sucrose levels in roots of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant and SWEETpro::SWEET-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEET11 and SWEET12 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, without or with mannitol or ABA treatments. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 3 biologically independent samples) in (e), and SEM (n = 5 seedlings) in (f). Student’s t-test (two-sided). The experiments in (a-d) were repeated independently at least two times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Phosphorylation of SWEET11 contributes to root growth under osmotic stress.

Root growth of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant and SWEETpro::SWEET-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEETs in the sweet11/12 mutant background, grown on mannitol plates with (right panel) or without (left panel) exogenous sucrose. The primary root length was quantified (b). Values are mean ± SEM (n = 15 seedlings). ‘a,’ ‘b,’ and ‘c’, significance evaluated by post hoc Tukey test after one way ANOVA (p < 0.05). The experiments in (a) were repeated independently at least three times with similar results.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Phosphorylation of SWEET11 contributes to root growth under drought stress.

a, Vertical sections of representative root systems of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant, and SWEET11pro::SWEET11-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEET11 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, grown in well-watered or arid soil for 30 days. Red lines: traced roots from the image; red bars, 5 cm. The experiments in (a) were repeated independently at least three times with similar results. b-e, Fresh and dry weight in roots (b,d) and shoots (c,e) of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant and SWEET11pro::SWEET11-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEET11 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, without or with mannitol, PEG or ABA treatments. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 10 seedlings). Student’s t-test (two-sided). f, Representative images of Col-0 wild-type, sweet11/12 mutant and SWEET11pro::SWEET11-HA transgenic plants expressing wild-type and mutated SWEET11 in the sweet11/12 mutant background, grown under drought stress in soil. Water was withheld from 10-day-old Arabidopsis plants for 21 d under short-day conditions. The experiments in (f) were repeated independently at least three times with similar results.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

IP-MS data for SWEET12.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Unprocessed western blots.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Unprocessed western blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Unprocessed western blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Unprocessed western blots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Q., Hu, T., Li, X. et al. Phosphorylation of SWEET sucrose transporters regulates plant root:shoot ratio under drought. Nat. Plants 8, 68–77 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01040-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01040-7

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