Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 391–403, 2013 doi:10.1093/jxb/ers355 Advance Access publication 18 November, 2012 Darwin Review The evolution, function, structure, and expression of the plant sHSPs Elizabeth R. Waters* Department of Biology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] Received 13 March 2012; Revised 19 November 2012; Accepted 20 November 2012 Abstract Small heat shock proteins are a diverse, ancient, and important family of proteins. All organisms possess small heat shock proteins (sHSPs), indicating that these proteins evolved very early in the history of life prior to the divergence of the three domains of life (Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya). Comparing the structures of sHSPs from diverse organisms across these three domains reveals that despite considerable amino acid divergence, many structural features are conserved. Comparisons of the sHSPs from diverse organisms reveal conserved structural features including an oligomeric form with a β-sandwich that forms a hollow ball. This conservation occurs despite significant divergence in primary sequences. It is well established that sHSPs are molecular chaperones that prevent misfolding and irreversible aggregation of their client proteins. Most notably, the sHSPs are extremely diverse and variable in plants. Some plants have >30 individual sHSPs. Land plants, unlike other groups, possess distinct sHSP subfamilies. Most are highly up-regulated in response to heat and other stressors. Others are selectively expressed in seeds and pollen, and a few are constitutively expressed. As a family, sHSPs have a clear role in thermotolerance, but attributing specific effects to individual proteins has proved challenging. Considerable progress has been made during the last 15 years in understanding the sHSPs. However, answers to many important questions remain elusive, suggesting that the next 15 years will be at least equally rewarding. Key words: Abiotic stress, chaperones, evolution, gene families, heat shock proteins, molecular evolution. Introduction All organisms respond to high temperatures or heat stress by altering their gene expression patterns and turning on the heat shock genes. These events are referred to as the heat shock response (Linquist and Craig, 1988; Nover, 1991; Vierling, 1991; Kotak et al., 2007a; Richter et al., 2010). Heat stress activates the heat shock transcription factors (HSFs) which then bind to heat shock elements or promoters. In this way the HSFs turn on or greatly up-regulate the heat shock genes (Schoffl et al., 1998; von Koskull-Döring et al., 2007; Scharf et al., 2012). The products of the heat shock genes are the heat shock proteins or HSPs. The HSPs include a number of conserved protein families: the HSP100s, HSP90s, HSP70s, HSP60s, and the HSP20s or the small HSPs. Each of these families is found across a wide diversity of organisms. The HSPs are chaperones, and as such they assist in protein folding and prevent irreversible protein aggregation (Becker and Craig, 1994; Hartl, 1996; Liberek et al., 2008; Tyedmers et al., 2010). Despite their close working relationship in the cell, the individual HSP families are evolutionarily unrelated to each other. The HSPs were first identified based on their up-regulation during heat shock, but we now know that many of the HSPs are also found in unstressed cells. Therefore, these proteins are both a necessary component Abbreviations: ACD, α-crystallin domain; C, cytoplasmic/nuclear; CP, chloroplast; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; HSP, heat shock protein; MT, mitochondria; PX, peroxisome; sHSP: small heat shock protein © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] 392 | Small heat shock evolution of unstressed cells and a crucial part of the cell’s response to stress. During stress, the presence of HSPs within the cell prevents cell death, and this then confers organismal tolerance to high temperatures. The plant small heat shock proteins (sHSPs) are particularly diverse and are a crucial component of the plant heat shock response. In recent years, considerable progress has been made in elucidating the structure, function, and evolution of the sHSPs. This review brings together the most recent findings in the study of these important and diverse proteins. Structure and function of sHSPs The small heat shock proteins defined The sHSPs are a large and ancient family of proteins. They have been found in all domains of life, Achaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria (Plesofsky-Vig et al., 1992; Waters and Vierling, 1999a; Kappe et al., 2002; Franck et al., 2004; Fu et al., 2006; Kim et al., 1998; Aevermann and Waters, 2007; Waters and Rioflorido, 2007; Kriehuber et al., 2010; Poulain et al., 2010). These ubiquitous proteins are required for life and are found in even the smallest genomes (Waters et al., 2003). As the name suggests, the monomers of these proteins are small and range in size from 12 kDa to 42 kDa. Most sHSPs are in the range of 15–22 kDa; thus, these proteins are also sometimes referred to as the HSP20 family. The primary sHSP amino acid sequence includes a variable N-terminal region, a more conserved C-terminal region, and a C-terminal extension (Fig. 1). The highly conserved C-terminal region is often referred to as the α-crystallin domain, or the HSP20 domain. The sHSPs that function in specific cellular organelles or compartments have N-terminal transit, leader, or signal sequences needed to get the sHSP to the proper cellular compartment. The C-terminal extension can be quite variable in both length and sequence, and may also contain organellespecific retention amino acid motifs. As more complete genomes have become available and are analysed, it has become clear that the C-terminal region or HSP20 region has become incorporated into a large number of other proteins. Some authors have used the term ACD for these α-crystallin domain-containing proteins (Scharf et al., 2001; Bondino et al., 2012). However, in some cases, the ACDs may be multidomain proteins with other unrelated conserved domains present (Scharf et al., 2001). At this time, very little is known of the structure, function, or evolutionary history of the ACD proteins, and for this reason they are excluded from this review. Future work on these proteins should shed light on their evolutionary relationships to the sHSPs and will determine if they share any structural or functional features with the sHSPs. Small heat shock proteins form large oligomers The first two high-resolution crystal structures determined for sHSPs were Hsp16.5 from an archaea, Methanocaldococcus (Methanococcus) jannaschii (Kim et al., 1998), and Hsp16.9 from wheat (Triticum aestivum) (van Montfort et al., 2002). These two structures from very distantly related species share a large number of similarities (van Montfort et al., 2001, 2002). Both are composed of a β-sandwich of two antiparallel sheets and form a hollow ball. The building blocks of both oligomers are dimers. However, the oligomers are of different sizes: the plant Hsp16.9 forms a dodecamer, and the oligomer of Hsp16.5 has 24 subunits. Hsp16.9 the dodecamer has three tetramers that form two six-membered rings (hexameric double disks) (Fig. 2) (van Montfort et al., 2001). A model for the structure of Hsp21 from Arabidopsis indicates that this plant sHSP is also a dodecamer with two hexameric disks (Lambert et al., 2011). Recently it has become clear that the sHSPs are polydisperse, meaning that more than one oligomeric state is found (Baldwin, 2011). Stengel et al. (2010) showed that the dodecamer form of Hsp18.1CI from Pisum sativum is in equilibrium with Hsp18.1 dimers, monomer, and higher order oligomers. This information increases our understanding of how sHSPs act in vivo. It also raises both our understanding of the complexity of the sHSPs and our appreciation of how difficult it is to study the structure of sHSPs. There are now 10 published high-resolution sHSP crystal structures (see review by Basha et al., 2012). However, none of these is from plants, and a clear need for more structural data for the diverse plant sHPSs exists. It is very interesting that there is lack of high-resolution structural information for the N-terminal region of the sHSPs. This may be due to dynamic changes or a lack of stability of the N-terminal regions (Basha et al., 2012; McDonald et al., 2012). It has been suggested that the N-terminal region is important in substrate binding (Giese et al., 2005; Basha et al., 2006; Jaya et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2012). Mature Protein sHSP N-terminal Transit/Target/Signal HSP20 C-Terminal Extension Fig. 1. Small heat shock protein domains. The sHSP monomer contains a variable N-terminal domain (light blue), the conserved HSP20 or α-crystallin domain (red), and a variable C-terminal extension (grey). The sHSPs that localize to the organelles, chloroplast, mitochondrion, endoplasmic reticulum, and peroxisome, have the necessary transit, targeting, or signal sequences (dark blue) needed for successful entry into those individual organelles. These sequences are not part of the mature sHSP. The C-terminal extension is variable in length and contains the endoplasmic reticulum (KDEL) or peroxisome (SKL) retention signals in those sHSPs that function in those cellular compartments. Waters | 393 Fig. 2. Crystal structure of Hsp16.9 from Triticum aestivum. (A) The structure of Hsp16.9 from the T. aestivum monomer. The strands are in yellow and the helices are in red. The loops are grey. (B) The oligomeric structure of Hsp16.9. The colour scheme is the same as for the monomer. Hsp16.9 is a dodecamer that forms a β-sandwich. The sHSPs prevent irreversible protein aggregation The HSPs are known to be molecular chaperones. Specifically, they prevent irreversible protein aggregation (Lee et al., 1995; Boston et al., 1996; Buchner, 1996; Hartl, 1996; Dobson, 2003; Basha et al., 2004; Liberek et al., 2008; Saibil, 2008; McHoaurab et al., 2009; Tyedmers et al., 2010; Hilario et al., 2011; Hilton et al., 2012). It has been noted that the sHSPs are often the first line of defence in the cell when proteins begin to misfold and as such have been referred to as ‘paramedics of the cell’ (Hilton et al., 2012). Much still needs to be learned about the details of the specific interactions between the HSPs and their protein substrates, but in recent years a much more detailed and nuanced model has developed showing how the HSPs work both individually and together (Dobson, 2003; Liberek et al., 2008; Saibil, 2008; Eyles and Gierasch, 2010; Tyedmers et al., 2010). The current models (Fig. 3) of HSP chaperone function in the cell suggest that the sHSPs work with other chaperones Fig. 3. Model of the role of sHSPs in the chaperone network. The sHSPs are an important part of the chaperone network. The sHSPs bind denaturing proteins, protecting them from irreversible aggregation. The substrate proteins can then be refolded by other parts of the chaperone network. 394 | Small heat shock evolution to prevent irreversible aggregation and to re-solubilize proteins that have already aggregated. Two functional features of the sHSPs stand out among other HSP chaperones: first, they do not require ATP to bind substrate proteins, and, secondly, they have a very high capacity for binding denatured substrates (Haslbeck et al., 2005; Nakamoto and Vigh, 2007; McHaourab et al., 2009; Eyles and Gierasch, 2010; Tyedmers et al., 2010). It is notable that small HSPs can bind an almost equal weight of substrate protein. It is thought that they do this by exposing hydrophobic surfaces (Nakamoto and Vigh, 2007). The plant sHSPs: a diverse and complex family of proteins We know that plant sHSPs are a part of the larger sHSP family present in all organisms, and as such they share many aspects of the conserved sHSP structure and function described above. However, plants have many more sHSPs than do other eukaryotes, including algae (Waters and Rioflorido, 2007). The number of sHSPs varies across individual plant species: Arabidopsis has 19 sHSPs (Scharf et al., 2001), rice (Oryza sativa) has 23, and poplar (Populus trichocarpa) has 36 (Waters et al., 2008a). In addition to being numerous, sHSPs are also very diverse both in sequence and in where they function in the cell. One of the biggest differences between the plant sHSPs and sHSPs in other organisms is the presence of distinct subfamilies of plant sHSPs. Only in plants are there evolutionarily related sHSP subfamilies that cross multiple species boundaries. Some of these subfamilies are >400 million years old (Waters and Vierling, 1999a, b) and others have evolved more recently (Waters et al., 2008a). Angiosperms have 11 diverse sHSP subfamilies Using analysis of the available angiosperm complete genome sequences, researchers have identified 11 sHSP subfamilies, as shown in Table 1 (Scharf et al., 2001; Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a; Sarkar et al., 2009; Bondino et al., 2012). These include six subfamilies that are cytoplasmic/nuclear localized (CI–CVI) and five sHSP subfamilies that localize to organelles. The organelle subfamilies include one subfamily that localizes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), another that localizes to the peroxisome (PX), one subfamily that localizes to the chloroplast (CP), and two subfamilies that localize to the mitochondria (MTI and MTII). Ten of these subfamilies are present in both monocots and eudicots (CP, MTI, MTII, ER, PX, CI, CII, CIII, CIV, and CV), and one is found only in eudicots (CVI). It is important to note that not all sHSPs belong to these 11 conserved subfamilies (Siddique et al., Waters et al., 2008a; Sarkar 2009; Bondino et al., 2012). These unique sHSPs may represent newer gene duplications and could represent incipient subfamilies. The extent of functional variation among the plant sHSP subfamilies is not yet known. However, there is evidence that the plant sHSPs are in fact quite functionally diverse. A multiple alignment of representatives of each of the 11 plant sHSPs subfamilies found in Arabidopsis thaliana (Fig. 4) demonstrates that the plant sHSP subfamilies share with all sHSPs the conserved C-terminal or HSP20 region and a more variable N-terminal region. While there are a few amino acids conserved across all the sHSPs, what is most important is the conserved structural features in the C-terminal domain. The HSP20 region of the A. thaliana sHSP subfamilies contains the nine highly conserved β-sheets (Fig. 4) found in all sHSPs. This region is present in sHSPs across all domains of life, and has been suggested to be important for oligomerization (Basha et al., 2012). Despite the considerable conservation across the plant sHSPs in the HSP20 region, some interesting differences exist in this region among plant sHSP subfamilies. Two plant subfamilies (CIV and CVI) lack the crucial β6 sheet. This is notable because it has been shown that the β6 sheet is important Table 1. Expression patterns and cellular locations of the Arabidopsis thaliana sHSP members of the angiosperm sHSP subfamilies Information presented is based on published data (Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a). Subfamily Abbreviation A. thaliana sHSP Stress-induced expression Developmental expression 1 Cytoplasmic/nuclear I CI Cytoplasmic/nuclear II CII 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cytoplasmic/nuclear III Cytoplasmic/nuclear IV Cytoplasmic/nuclear V Cytoplasmic/nuclear VI Chloroplast Mitochondrial I CIII CIV CV CVI CP MTI 9 10 11 Mitochondrial II Endoplasmic reticulum Peroxisome MTII ER PX H, Os, S, D, Ox, UV-B, W H, Os, S, D, Ox, UV-B, W H, Os, S, D, Ox, UV-B, W H, Os, S, D, Ox, UV-B, W H, Os, S, Ox, UV-B, W H, Ox, S, D, Ox, UV-B Constitutive, H Constitutive, H, W Constitutive Constitutive, H H, Os, S H, Ox, UV-B H, Ox, UV-B H, Os, S H, Os H, Os, S, Ox, B Pollen, seeds Pollen, seeds Pollen, seeds Pollen, seeds 2 Hsp17.4CI Hsp17.6ACI Hsp17.6BCI Hsp17.6CI Hsp17.6CII Hsp17.7CII Hsp17.4CIII Hsp15.4CIV Hsp21.7CV Hsp18.5CVI Hsp21CP Hsp23.5MTI Hsp23.6MTI Hsp23.5MTII Hsp22ER Hsp15.7PX None Apex, flowers, pollen, siliques, seeds Apex, flowers, siliques Flowers, pollen, siliques, seeds None Seeds Seeds Waters | 395 Fig. 4. Alignment of the sHSPs of Arabidopsis thaliana. One representative from each of the 11 sHSP subfamilies from A. thaliana were aligned using the Promals3D structural alignment program. Each predicted α-helix is in red and β-pleated sheets are in blue. The conserved β-pleated sheets found in the HSP20 domain are numbered according to Triticum aestivum Hsp16.9 (Van Montfort et al., 2001b). There are no conserved amino acids or motifs in the N-terminal region (residues 1–140). for dimer formation and for oligomerization (von Montfort et al., 2001a, b). Despite the lack of the β6 sheet, it has been demonstrated that AtHsp18.5 CVI can form dimers (Siddique et al., 2008). In addition, these authors (Siddique et al., 2008) have also demonstrated that AHsp18.5 (CVI) can function as a chaperone. These findings are interesting because some animal sHSPs also lack the β6 sheet. In the case of the human proteins, the β7 sheet plays a crucial role in dimer formation (Bagneris et al., 2009). The loss of the β6 sheet in some plant sHSPs and in some animals is a convergent event, and further comparative studies of the structure and function of the plant CIV and CVI sHSPs and the animal sHSPs should prove informative. In contrast to the conservation seen within the HSP20 C-terminal region, the N-terminal region of the plant sHSP subfamilies is highly diverse across subfamilies, and no conserved motifs or structural regions across all sHSPs are found (Fig. 4). Outside of the targeting, signal, or leader sequences needed for localization of the organelle-targeted sHSPs (CP, MTI, MTII, ER, and PX) into the proper cellular compartments, the most notable feature in the N-terminal domain is the complete lack of sequence conservation across the plant sHSP subfamilies. Despite the lack of conservation in the N-terminal region across sHSP subfamilies the keys to understanding functional divergence among the different plant sHSP subfamilies may be found in this region. This is due to the considerable conservation in the N-terminal region that is seen within plant subfamilies (Waters, 1995; Waters and Vierling, 396 | Small heat shock evolution 1999a, b; Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a; Bondino et al., 2012). The presence of subfamily-specific N-terminal motifs is intriguing in light of recent studies indicating that the N-terminal region is functionally important and is crucial for substrate binding (Giese et al., 2005; Basha et al., 2006; Jaya et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2012). The CP sHSPs have a methionine-rich amphipathic α-helix that is highly conserved across angiosperms (Chen and Vierling, 1991; Waters, 1995; Waters and Vierling, 1999b). This methionine-rich region has been demonstrated to be important in substrate binding (Harndahl et al., 2001) and is sensitive to the chloroplast redox state (Gustavsson et al., 2001; Sundby et al., 2005). The CII subfamily also has a conserved N-terminal amino acid motif (Waters et al., 1995; Waters and Vierling, 1999a) (DA-AMAATP) that is not found in the other cytoplasmic/nuclear sHSPs. The role of this particular motif in CII structure and function is not yet known. However, it is unlikely that natural selection would maintain these subfamily-specific motifs in the absence of functional importance. In a very interesting study, Basha et al. (2010) examined the structural and functional differences between the CI and CII subfamilies. These researchers reported that both the CI and CII subfamilies form dodecamers and both have chaperone activity. However, the CII proteins are more efficient than the CI proteins at preventing irreversible aggregation. The same authors reported that the CII sHSPs maintain their dodecmeric structure at higher temperatures than do the CI proteins. Finally, it is interesting that while the CI and CII proteins are both found in the cytosol, they do not form hetero-oligomers (Basha et al., 2010). However, when studies of other species are examined, the role of the CII proteins in the protection of proteins becomes less clear. In a study of tomato protoplasts, Tripp et al. (2009) generated knockdowns of the CI and CII genes and demonstrated that the CI sHSPs have a clear thermoprotective role but that the CII sHSPs do not. Further evidence that the CII sHSPs may have non-thermoprotective roles in the cell comes from a report that the tomato sHSP Hsp17.5CII is important in regulating the activity of HsfA2C (Port et al., 2004). In summary, the patterns of N-terminal sequence conservation within but not across subfamilies are consistent with the evidence from select sHSPs that biochemical and biological differences exist between the subfamilies. Continued studies of the N-terminal region and how sequence differences here reflect functional changes will be crucial to understanding the relationship between sequence and function in the sHSPs. Complex expression patterns of plant sHSPs As their name implies, almost all the plant sHSPs are heat induced. However, the sHSP gene expression data reported in the literature indicate that there is no single pattern of gene expression for all the plant sHSP genes. In fact it is now clear that not even all the members of the same sHSP subfamily have the same expression patterns. In addition to being heat induced, many, but not all, sHSPs are expressed at specific developmental stages. Small HSPs are expressed during embryogenesis and seed maturation (Almoguera and Jordano, 1992; DeRocher and Vierling, 1994; Gifford and Taleisnik, 1994; Wehmeyer et al., 1996; Wehmeyer and Vierling, 2000; Lubaretz and Zur Nieden, 2002; Kotak et al., 2007b). They are also expressed during pollen development and fruit maturation (Zarsky et al., 1995; Carranco et al., 1997; Neta-Sharir et al., 2005; Volkov et al., 2005; Mu et al., 2011). Recently, our understanding of sHSP gene expression has expanded greatly due to the availability of genome-wide studies of a large number of conditions in all plant tissues. (Swindell, 2006; Qin et al., 2008; Swindell, et al., 2007; Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a; Sarkar et al., 2009; Weston et al., 2011). These studies have confirmed previous work and have greatly expanded the conditions that are known to induce sHSP expression. To better understand the complexity of the expression patterns among the many different sHSPs, it is useful to summarize what we know from the best-studied ‘model’ plant species, A. thaliana. Exploring the A. thaliana expression pattern in depth not only gives us a detailed view of sHSP expression, it also provides a framework with which to examine the differences in sHSP expression in other species. The most common expression pattern seen among the A. thaliana sHSP genes is no expression in unstressed shoot tissues and high levels of gene expression during heat stress (Table 1). For example, the gene for Hsp18.1CI, a member of the A. thaliana CI subfamily, is highly expressed under heat shock and has either no expression or a much lower level of expression in response to other stressors. In addition, this gene is not developmentally expressed (Table 1). This pattern of high heat shock expression with no constitutive or developmental expression is shared with the CP and ER subfamilies (Table 1). Notably, this pattern of gene expression is not shared with the other cytoplasmic/nuclear-localized subfamilies, or, most importantly, not even with other members of the CI subfamily. The other A. thaliana CI sHSPs (Hsp17.4CI, Hsp17.6ACI, Hsp17.6BCI, and Hsp17.6CCI) are also highly expressed during heat stress, but they are also expressed in response to a wide range of other stressors including osmotic stress, oxidative stress, and UV-B exposure (Table 1). These findings, that the CI sHSPs are expressed during a range of stress responses, are similar to what has been found in wholegenome studies that seek to understand the overlap of gene expression patterns between heat shock and other abiotic stressors (Swindell et al., 2007; Hu et al., 2009). In addition to being stress induced, all four of these A. thaliana CI sHSPs (Hsp17.4CI, Hsp17.6ACI, Hsp17.6BCI, and Hsp17.6CI) are also expressed in pollen and seeds (Table 1). The gene for Hsp17.8CI is the only A. thaliana sHSP gene not on the Affymetrix Genechip, and thus the same level of comparative data is not available for this gene. However, it has been reported that Hsp17.8I is heat induced (Kant et al., 2008). Interestingly there are data that show that in non-stressed cells Hsp17.8I acts as an ankyrin repeat protein 2A (AKR2A) cofactor and is thus important in the targeting of proteins to the chloroplast (Kim et al., 2011). These authors also Waters | 397 suggest that other A. thaliana CI sHSPs play a role in chloroplast protein targeting. Despite the functional differences reviewed above, the CI and CII subfamilies have very similar expression patterns. The two members of the A. thaliana CII subfamily are induced by the same stressors as is the CI subfamily. However, Hsp17.6CII is expressed only in pollen, and Hsp17.7CII is expressed in both seeds and pollen (Table 1). It is interesting to note here that the genes Hsp17.6CII and Hsp17.7CII are in a tandem duplication. They are the only sHSPs to be tandemly duplicated, and all other A. thaliana sHSPs are dispersed throughout the genome (Waters et al., 2008a). The CP and ER expression pattern (shared with Hsp18.1CI) is not shared with the other organelle-localized subfamilies (Table 1). Both of the A. thaliana MI sHSPs (Hsp23.5MI and Hsp23.6MI) are highly expressed during heat shock and are absent from pollen and seeds, but, unlike the CP and ER sHSPs, these sHSP genes are also expressed in response to oxidative stress and exposure to UV-B light. There is a second mitochondrial-localized subfamily (MTII), and Hsp26.5MTII is highly expressed during heat shock and is expressed during osmotic and salt stress (Table 1). In addition, Hsp26.5MII is expressed in seeds. Hsp15.7PX, the A. thaliana sHSP found in the peroxisome, is expressed during HS, osmotic, salt, and oxidative stress, as well as in seeds (Table 1). The diversity of sHSP expression patterns is even greater when all the cytoplasmic/nuclear subfamilies are examined. While it is clear that there is no single expression pattern for the CI and CII subfamilies, both of these sHSP subfamilies are stress induced and are not expressed in unstressed shoot tissue. In contrast the CIII–CVI subfamilies are constitutively expressed in shoot tissue (Table 1). It is interesting that the CIII, CIV, and CV subfamilies are also heat regulated and have higher expression levels in response to heat shock and a number of other stresses (Table 1). Another difference between these subfamilies and the CI and CII subfamilies is that the CIII, CIV, and CVI subfamilies are developmentally expressed in the shoot apex, flowers, and siliques (Table 1). However, like the CI subfamily, the CIII and CIV subfamilies are also found in pollen and seeds. The CV subfamily has the most distinctive expression pattern. It is constitutively expressed in shoots but it is not up-regulated by heat or any other stress. It is also notable that Hsp21.7CV is absent from pollen and seeds. Examinations of sHSP expression patterns in other species are largely congruent with the patterns seen in A. thaliana. A pattern clearly shared across many species is the diversity of expression patterns among the CI sHSPs. For example, in a study of two tandemly duplicated CI sHSP genes, Rampino et al. (2010) report that these two closely related and highly similar genes are both expressed during heat shock but do not share similar responses to other abiotic stressors. However, some expression patterns do differ across species. In a study of the rice sHSPs, Sarkar et al. (2009) reported similar but not always identical patterns of gene expression for the O. sativa homologues of the A. thaliana sHSPs. In contrast to what is known for A. thaliana, these authors reported that members of the rice CP and ER subfamily are expressed in seeds (Sarkar et al., 2009). Species-level differences in gene expression were also reported by Weston et al. (2011) in their examination of the HSP20 gene network during heat shock in three different species (A. thaliana, P. trichocharpa, and Glycine max). While it has been known for some time that sHSPs are important in the plant cell response to abiotic stress, it has also been reported that biotic stress can induce the gene expression of some but not all sHSPs (Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a; Sarkar et al., 2009). It is also important to note here that two recent studies of rice and A. thaliana report that sHSPs have distinct patterns of gene expression in the shoots and roots (Siddique et al., 2008; Sarkar et al., 2009). Most other studies on sHSP function and expression have been conducted with only shoot tissues, and further studies to determine specific root function should prove informative. Studies with a range of different species have indicated that sHSPs are associated with thermotolerance (Knight and Ackerly, 2001; Stout and Al-Niemi, 2002; Knight and Ackerly, 2003; Wang and Luthe, 2003; Amano et al., 2012). An interesting recent study indicated that leaf cooling in agave (Lujan et al., 2009) is also associated with sHSP expression. It is clear from these studies that sHSPs have very important roles in organismal thermotolerance and plant adaptation to the environment (Sorensen et al., 2003). It is therefore not surprising that researchers target the manipulation of the sHSPs in studies that seek to generate plants with increased thermotolerance. However, the relationship between the expression of any one sHSP and organismal thermotolerance is still unclear because modification of sHSP expression only sometimes impacts thermotolerance (Sun and MacRae, 2005). The large number of sHSPs present in plants and the likely overlap or redundancy of function of individual sHSPs may explain the lack of a phenotype of single gene knockouts reported in the literature (Sun and MacRae, 2005). Dafyny-Yellin et al. (2008) created multiple gene knockouts in Arabidopsis to examine the functional specialization of the CI sHSPs. They reported that the three sHSPs they examined (Hsp17.4CI, Hsp17.6ACI, and Hsp18.1CI) have non-redundant functions in acquired thermotolerance, but that in early embryogenesis the three CI proteins are redundant. This study indicates both the rewards and challenges of performing multiple gene knockout studies. It is likely that complex knockout studies are needed in order to gain a detailed understanding of the roles of individual sHSP proteins and subfamilies. However, with some plant species possessing ≥30 sHSPs, other methods to determine sHSP in vivo function will be needed. Hilton et al. (2012) have called the sHSPs the ‘paramedics’ of the cell. As a group it is clear that at least one sHSP is expressed in response to most stresses, but not all sHSPs respond to all cellular emergencies. Most sHSPs have their highest expression levels during heat stress and some (e.g. AtHSP18.1CI) are only expressed during heat stress. It is important to mention again that A. thaliana Hsp21.7CV, the sHSP with the most distinctive gene expression pattern (constitutive expression, not induced by heat stress or any other 398 | Small heat shock evolution stress, and absent from pollen and seeds), is to date the only sHSP that has been demonstrated to lack chaperone activity (Siddique et al., 2008). This suggests that the chaperone function of the sHSPs is linked to their stress and developmental expression. Evolution of sHSPs The evolutionary processes that generate complex gene families include gene duplication, recombination (including gene conversion), and gene loss. These processes are reviewed in detail elsewhere (Nei and Rooney, 2005; Flagel and Wendel, 2009). Gene duplication in plants can occur via single-gene duplication events and whole-genome duplication events. Once genes duplicate they can have a number of fates, loss being the most likely. The less frequent but more significant possibility is that genes can evolve a new function, a process driven by natural selection and termed neofunctionalization. Neofunctionalization and a related process called subfunctionalization are the processes that have generated the diverse plant sHSP subfamilies. However, not all gene duplicates undergo neofunctionalization, and gene duplicates can also be maintained in the genome and retain the original function. This process generates new members of individual subfamilies. For gene duplicates that have been maintained, gene conversion plays an important role in maintaining sequence similarity and thus function within gene families. It is clear that all these evolutionary forces, gene duplication, gene conversion, neofunctionalization, and genome duplication, have played a role in the evolution of the sHSPs. The evolutionary histories of individual sHSP subfamilies are quite diverse; some subfamilies are >400 million years old, while others evolved much more recently (Fig. 5). None of the subfamilies is found in algae, and three subfamilies, CI, CII, and CP, are present in mosses (Waters and Vierling, 1999a, b) and in Selaginella moellendorffii (E.R. Waters and B. Bharjawadji, unpublished data) (Fig. 5). The sHSPs appear to have undergone one burst of duplications early in land plant history and then a later one after the divergence of Selaginella, a lycophyte. This pattern is somewhat different from what has been reported for Hsp70 and other stress-related genes that diversified early in land plant evolution (Rensing et al., 2008). As stated earlier, the CI and CII sHSPs are developmentally regulated in seeds and in pollen in Origin of flowers Origin of seeds Origin of land plants angiosperms. Because there is no information on the expression patterns for sHSPs in P. patens or S. moellendorffii, we do not now know if these genes are developmentally regulated in these species that lack both pollen and seeds but do have gametogenesis and embryogenesis. The CI and CII sHSPs are not the only cytosolically localized sHSPs in these species. Both P. patens, which has 29 sHSPs, and S. moellendorffii, which has 16, have sHSPs that are not members of any of the angiosperm sHSP subfamilies. Some of these ‘unique’ sHSPs may represent ancestral genes that gave rise to the angiosperm sHSP subfamilies. Some sHSPs angiosperm sHSPs also do not belong to one of the 11 subfamilies (Siddique et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2008a; Sarkar et al., 2009; Bondino et al., 2012). It is possible that these genes are recent duplicates that will eventually be lost, but they may also represent new sHSPs subfamilies in the very early stages of evolution. There is evidence that there are additional grass sHSP subfamilies (Sarkar et al., 2009; Bondino et al., 2012). Analysis of additional monocot genomes when they become available will determine if these subfamilies are present in non-grass species. At this time, we can conclude that while at least some plant subfamilies evolved very early in the land plant lineage, the processes that generated these gene families are continuing to act to generate new plant subfamilies. The timing of origin of the sHSP subfamilies (CIII–CVI, ER, MI, MII, and PX) found only in angiosperms is still unclear, and additional genomes of members of key lineages, especially gymnosperms, will be needed to determine the timing of their origin. It is interesting that the CP and MT sHSPs in angiosperms are closely related to each other (Waters et al., 2008a) and are not related to the bacterial endosymbionts that gave rise to the chloroplast and mitochondrion (Waters and Vierling, 1999b). Taken together, this indicates that the CP sHSP subfamily evolved first early in land plant evolution and that the MT sHSPs evolved later from the CP sHSPs. This raises the possibility that the CP sHSPs may be dual-targeted in mosses and/or S. moellendorffii. It has been reported that dual targeting of proteins to both the CP and MT is not rare in plants (Berglund et al., 2009; Carrie et al., 2009). If this evolutionary scenario is correct, then this would represent subfunctionalization. In subfunctionalization, the ancestral protein is found in more than once place or has more than one function following gene duplication; each duplicate is freed to specialize in this case in either the CP or the MT. Monocots 10 sHSP subfamilies: CP, MT, MTII, ER, PX, C1-CV Eudicots 11 sHSP subfamilies: CP, MT, MTII, ER, PX, C1-CVI Gymnosperms Seedless Vascular Plants Selaginella moellendorffii,a lycophyte: CP, CI,CII Non-vascular Plants Phycomitrella patens, a byryophyte: CP, CI,CII Green Algae Cytosolic sHSPs present but no sHSP subfamilies Fig. 5. Presence of sHSP subfamilies among the major groups of green plants. Information on the presence of sHSP subfamilies is based on analysis of complete genomes of algae and land plants (Waters and Rioflorido, 2007; Waters et al., 2008a; Bondino et al., 2012). Waters | 399 This hypothesis could be tested by examining the targeting of the CP sHSPs in P. patens and in S. moellendorffii. Once established, most sHSPs subfamilies have a very stable evolutionary history. That is, they usually have one (or sometimes two) copy per genome, and the evolutionary relationships among the members of the subfamily represent organismal relationships (i.e. they are orthologues). This pattern is seen in the CIII, CIV, CV, PX, MI, MII, and CP subfamilies (Waters et al., 2008a; Bondino et al., 2012). It is interesting that most subfamilies have only one copy per genome when it is well known that plant genomes have undergone numerous polyploidy events. This suggests that the extra copies of these subfamilies are always lost after whole-genome duplication. In a landmark study, Blanc and Wolfe (2004) showed that plant genes are retained after whole-genome duplication in a non-random manner, and that genes for organelle-localized proteins were preferentially lost while cytosolic ones were retained. Blanc and Wolfe (2004) also examined the retention and loss of functional categories of proteins and found clear differences in the retention and loss of genes based on function. They noted that genes involved in protein modification and apoptosis were usually retained after whole-genome duplication but that those involved in defence were lost. These authors did not specifically examine chaperones. However, the fact that most cytosolic sHSP subfamilies have just one or at most two copies per genome suggests that natural selection has acted to remove gene duplicates in these subfamilies based on their function in the cell. In short, the evolutionary patterns for most of the sHSP subfamilies reflect selection to maintain consistent function across species and indicate that there are clear constraints on the number of sHSPs needed or allowed within each genome. The plant sHSP CI subfamily, however, has a very distinct and complex evolutionary history. In all the genomes examined, the CI subfamily is always the largest and most diverse. In A. thaliana there are six CIs; O. sativa has nine; P. trichocarpa has 18; and G. max has 19 (Waters et al., 2008a; Bondino et al., 2012). Phylogenetic analysis of the CI subfamily indicates a complex pattern of orthologous (due to speciation) and paralogous (due to gene duplication) relationships even within this subfamily (Waters et al., 2008a; Bondino et al., 2012). The fact that the phylogenetic relationships within the CI sHSP subfamily do not strictly reflect orthology (organismal relationships) suggests that gene duplication and loss processes are occurring independently across plant genomes. Analysis of the evolutionary dynamics of the CI subfamily in the A. thaliana, P. trichocarpa, and O. sativa genome found evidence of recent gene duplication and gene conversion in some species (O. sativa) but not in others (A. thaliana and P. trichocarpa) (Waters et al., 2008a). This indicates that within the CI subfamily evolutionary forces shaping this subfamily are not consistent across species. The very clear differences in the evolutionary patterns among the plant sHSP subfamilies suggest as yet undiscovered functional differences among subfamilies. In a very interesting paper on P450s in vertebrates, Thomas (2007) suggests that genes that are phylogeneticaly stable have conserved core functions while genes that display a much more varied or unstable phylogeny are much more varied in function or possibly in substrate specificity. If this is also true of the sHSPs, then we would expect much more diversity in substrate binding and other functional attributes within the CI sHSPs than within the other sHSP subfamilies that demonstrate more stable evolutionary histories. Recent studies suggest that the analysis of gene sequences within species can also elucidate important evolutionary patterns among the sHSPs. Studies of diversity of the CP sHSPs in the genus Rhododendron found evidence of positive selection to alter amino acids in the HSP20 domain (Wu et al., 2007). In a study of selection acting on a CI sHSP gene in the same genus (Rhododendron), Liao et al. (2010) reported evidence of purifying selection but also reported the presence of a seven amino acid insertion in the N-terminal region. As expected, strong purifying selection was also found acting on the CP sHSP and on one of the mitochondrial sHSPs (Hsp23.6MI) in A. thaliana (Waters et al., 2008b). In contrast, this same study found that the gene coding for Hsp23.5MI had become a pseudogene in some ecotypes of A. thaliana due to a deletion event that disrupted the amino acid sequence (Waters et al., 2008b). Taken together, these studies indicate that further studies of sHSP sequence diversity within and between closely related species will provide important insights into sHSP evolution. Conclusions and future directions The sHSPs are a fascinating group of proteins. They are ancient and ubiquitous, yet highly variable. In addition, as chaperones, they have a crucial and fundamental role in plant cell biology. Studies of the sHSPs have a broader importance because they connect cellular function to organismal-level traits such as tolerance to heat stress. In addition, studies of sHSPs further our understanding of fundamental processes of evolution such as gene duplication. Studies of sHSPs have clearly made great strides in recent years, but many important questions can still be addressed. First, while we have a general understanding of the function and structure of the sHSPs, we do not yet know how the diversity in primary sequence reflects differences in structure or function both within the plant subfamilies and between subfamilies. The patterns of sequence diversity among the sHSPs strongly suggest that some aspects, possibly substrate specificity, are quite variable among the sHSPs. In addition, little is known about higher level structural variation among plant sHSPs. Additional high-resolution structures of plant sHSPs will provide crucial information and will elucidate the differences in structure and function between and within the diverse plant subfamilies. In addition, analysis of whole-genome data for plants outside the angiosperm lineage will provide a better understanding of the evolutionary history of the sHSPs in the embryophyte lineage. These types of data would allow us to determine the time or origin of the diverse sHSP subfamilies, and this in turn would provide insight into the selective pressures that gave rise to the individual subfamilies. 400 | Small heat shock evolution Acknowledgements I thank Dr Elizabeth Vierling for introducing me to the heat shock proteins and for many hours of interesting discussions on all aspects of the small heat shock proteins. Bharath Bharadwaj assisted with the P. patens and S. moellendorffii sequence analysis. I thank the current and past members of my lab for joining me in studying the small heat shock proteins. I also thank anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments that greatly improved this manuscript. The preparation of this manuscript was partially supported by NSF award IOS-0920611. References Blanc G, Wolfe KH. 2004. Functional divergence of duplicated genes formed by polyploidy during Arabidopsis evolution. The Plant Cell 16, 1679–1691. Bondino HG, Valle EM, Ten Have A. 2012. Evolution and functional diversification of the small heat shock protein/alpha-crystallin family in higher plants. Planta 235, 1299–1313. Boston RS, Viitanen PV, Vierling E. 1996. Molecular chaperones and protein folding in plants. Plant Molecular Biology 32, 191–222. Buchner J. 1996. Supervising the fold: functional principles of molecular chaperones. FASEB Journal 10, 10–19. Carrie C, Giraud E, Whelan, J. 2009. Protein transport in organelles: dual targeting of proteins to mitochondria and chloroplasts. FEBS Journal 276, 1187–1195. Aevermann BD, Waters ER. 2007. A comparative genomic analysis of the small heat shock proteins in Caenorhabditis elegans and briggsae. Genetica 133, 307–319. Carranco R, Almoguera C, Jordano J. 1997. A plant small heat shock protein gene expressed during zygotic embryogenesis but noninducible by heat stress. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272, 27470–27475. Almoguera C, Jordano J. 1992. Developmental and environmental concurrent expression of sunflower dry-seed-stored low-molecularweight heat-shock protein and Lea mRNAs. Plant Molecular Biology 19, 781–792. Chen Q, Vierling E. 1991. Analysis of conserved domains identifies a unique structural feature of a chloroplast heat shock protein. Molecular and General Genetics 226, 425–431. Amano M, Iida S, Kosuge K. 2012. Comparative studies of thermotolerance: different modes of heat acclimation between tolerant and intolerant aquatic plants of the genus Potamogeton. Annals of Botany 109, 443–452. Bagneris C, Bateman OA, Naylor CE, Cronin N, Boelens WC, Keep NH, Slingsby C. 2009. Crystal structures of alpha-crystallin domain dimers of alphaB-crystallin and Hsp20. Journal of Molecular Biology 392, 1242–1252. Baldwin AJ, Lioe H, Robinson CV, Kay LE, Benesch JL. 2011. αB-crystallin polydispersity is a consequence of unbiased quaternary dynamics. Journal of Molecular Biology 413, 297–309. Basha E, Friedrich KL, Vierling E. 2006. The N-terminal arm of small heat shock proteins is important for both chaperone activity and substrate specificity. Journal of Biological Chemistry 281, 39943–39952. Basha E, Jones C, Wysocki V, Vierling E. 2010. Mechanistic differences between two conserved classes of small heat shock proteins found in the plant cytosol. Journal of Biological Chemistry 285, 11489–11497. Basha E, Lee GJ, Breci LA, Hausrath AC, Buan NR, Giese KC, Vierling E. 2004. The identity of proteins associated with a small heat shock protein during heat stress in vivo indicates that these chaperones protect a wide range of cellular functions. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279, 7566–7575. Basha E, O’Neill H, Vierling E. 2012. Small heat shock proteins and alpha-crystallins: dynamic proteins with flexible functions. Trends in Biochemical Science 37, 106–117. Becker J, Craig EA. 1994. Heat-shock proteins as molecular chaperones. European Journal of Biochemistry 219, 11–23. Berglund AK, Spanning E, Biverstahl H, Maddalo G, TellgrenRoth C, Maler L, Glaser E. 2009. Dual targeting to mitochondria and chloroplasts: characterization of Thr-tRNA synthetase targeting peptide. Molecular Plant 2, 1298–1309. Dafny-Yelin M, Tzfira T, Vainstein A, Adam Z. 2008. Nonredundant functions of sHSP-CIs in acquired thermotolerance and their role in early seed development in Arabidopsis. Plant Molecular Biology 67, 363–373. DeRocher AE, Vierling E. 1994. Developmental control of small heat shock protein expression during pea seed maturation. The Plant Journal 5, 93–102. Dobson CM. 2003. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature 426, 884–890. Eyles SJ, Gierasch LM. 2010. Nature’s molecular sponges: small heat shock proteins grow into their chaperone roles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107, 2727–2728. Flagel LE, Wendel JF. 2009. Gene duplication and evolutionary novelty in plants. New Phytologist 183, 557–564. Franck E, Madsen O, van Rheede T, Ricard G, Huynen MA, de Jong WW. 2004. Evolutionary diversity of vertebrate small heat shock proteins. Journal of Molecular Evolution 59, 792–805. Fu X, Jiao W, Chang Z. 2006. Phylogenetic and biochemical studies reveal a potential evolutionary origin of small heat shock proteins of animals from bacterial class A. Journal of Molecular Evolution 62, 257–266. Giese KC, Basha E, Catague BY, Vierling E. 2005. Evidence for an essential function of the N terminus of a small heat shock protein in vivo, independent of in vitro chaperone activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102, 18896–18901. Gifford DJ, Taleisnik E. 1994. Heat-shock response of Pinus and Picea seedlings. Tree Physiology 14, 103–110. Gustavsson N, Kokke BPA, Anzeilius B, Boelens WC, Sundby C. 2001. Substitution of conserved methionines by leucines in chloroplast small heat shock protein results in loss of redox-response but retained chaperone-like activity. Protein Science 10, 1785–1793. Harndahl U, Kokke BP, Gustavsson N, Linse S, Berggren K, Tjerneld F, Boelens WC, Sundby C. 2001. The chaperone-like Waters | 401 activity of a small heat shock protein is lost after sulfoxidation of conserved methionines in a surface-exposed amphipathic alpha-helix. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1545, 227–237. Hartl FU. 1996. Molecular chaperones in cellular protein folding. Nature 381, 571–580. Haslbeck M, Franzmann T, Weinfurtner D, Buchner J. 2005. Some like it hot: the structure and function of small heat-shock proteins. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 12, 842–846. Hilario E, Martin FJ, Bertolini MC, Fan L. 2011. Crystal structures of Xanthomonas small heat shock protein provide a structural basis for an active molecular chaperone oligomer. Journal of Molecular Biology 408, 74–86. Hilton GR, Lioe H, Stengel F, Baldwin AJ, Benesch JLP. 2012. Small heat-shock proteins: paramedics of the cell. Topics in Current Chemistry (in press). Hu W, Hu G, Han B. 2009. Genome-wide survey and expression profiling of heat shock proteins and heatshock factors revealed overlapped and stress specific response under abiotic stresses in rice. Plant Science 176, 583–590. Jaya N, Garcia V, Vierling E. 2009. Substrate binding site flexibility of the small heat shock protein molecular chaperones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106, 15604–15609. Kant P, Gordon M, Kant S, Zolla G, Davydov O, Heimer YM, Chalifa-Caspi V, Shaked R, Barak S. 2008. Functional-genomicsbased identification of genes that regulate Arabidopsis responses to multiple abiotic stresses. Plant, Cell and Environment 31, 697–714. Kappe G, Leunissen JA, de Jong WW. 2002. Evolution and diversity of prokaryotic small heat shock proteins. Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology 28, 1–17. Kim KK, Kim R, Kim S-H. 1998. Crystal structure of a small heatshock protein. Nature 394, 595–599. Kim DH, Xu ZY, Na YJ, Yoo YJ, Lee J, Sohn EJ, Hwang I. 2011. Small heat shock protein Hsp17.8 functions as an AKR2A cofactor in the targeting of chloroplast outer membrane proteins in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 157, 132–146. Knight CD, Ackerly DD. 2001. Correlated evolution of chloroplast heat shock protein expression in closely related plant species. American Journal of Botany 88, 411–418. Knight CD, Ackerly DD. 2003. Small heat shock protein responses of a closely related pair of desert and coastal Encelia. International Journal of Plant Science 164, 53–60. Kotak S, Larkindale J, Lee U, von Koskull-Doring P, Vierling E, Scharf KD. 2007a. Complexity of the heat stress response in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 10, 310–316. Kotak S, Vierling E, Baumlein H, von Koskull-Doring P. 2007b. A novel transcriptional cascade regulating expression of heat stress proteins during seed development of Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 19, 182–195. Lambert W, Koeck PJ, Ahrman E, Purhonen P, Cheng K, Elmlund D, Hebert H, Emanuelsson C. 2011. Subunit arrangement in the dodecameric chloroplast small heat shock protein Hsp21. Protein Science 20, 291–301. Lee GJ, Pokala N, Vierling E. 1995. Structure and in vitro molecular chaperone activity of cytosolic small heat shock proteins from pea. Journal of Biological Chemistry 270, 10432–10438. Liao PC, Lin TP, Lan WC, Chung JD, Hwang SY. 2010. Duplication of the class I cytosolic small heat shock protein gene and potential functional divergence revealed by sequence variations flanking the alpha-crystallin domain in the genus Rhododendron Ericaceae. Annals of Botany 105, 57–69. Liberek K, Lewandowska A, Zietkiewicz S. 2008. Chaperones in control of protein disaggregation. EMBO Journal 27, 328–335. Lindquist S, Craig EA. 1988. The heat-shock proteins. Annual Review of Genetics 22, 631–677. Lubaretz O, Zur Nieden U. 2002. Accumulation of plant small heatstress proteins in storage organs. Planta 215, 220–228. Lujan R, Lledias F, Martinez LM, Barreto R, Cassab GI, NietoSotelo J. 2009. Small heat-shock proteins and leaf cooling capacity account for the unusual heat tolerance of the central spike leaves in Agave tequilana var. Weber. Plant, Cell and Environment 32, 1791–1803. McDonald E T, Bortolu, M, Koteiche HA, McHaourab HS. 2012. Sequence, structure, and dynamic determinants of Hsp27 (HspB1) equilibrium dissociation are encoded by the N-terminal domain. Biochemistry 51, 1257–1268. McHaourab HS, Godar JA, Stewart PL. 2009. Structure and mechanism of protein stability sensors: chaperone activity of small heat shock proteins. Biochemistry 48, 3828–3837. Mu C, Wang S, Zhang S, Pan J, Chen N, Li X, Wang Z, Liu H. 2011. Small heat shock protein LimHSP16.45 protects pollen mother cells and tapetal cells against extreme temperatures during late zygotene to pachytene stages of meiotic prophase I in David Lily. Plant Cell Reports 30, 1981–1989. Nakamoto H, Vigh L. 2007. The small heat shock proteins and their clients. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 64, 294–306. Nei M, Rooney AP. 2005. Concerted and birth-and-death evolution of multigene families. Annual Review of Genetics 39, 121–152. Neta-Sharir I, Isaacson T, Lurie S, Weiss D. 2005. Dual role for tomato heat shock protein 21: protecting photosystem II from oxidative stress and promoting color changes during fruit maturation. The Plant Cell 17, 1829–1838. Nover L. 1991. Heat shock response. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Plesofsky-Vig N, Vig J, Brambl R. 1992. Phylogeny of the alphacrystallin-related heat shock proteins. Journal of Molecular Evolution 35, 537–545. Port M, Tripp J, Zielinski D, Weber C, Heerklotz D, Winkelhaus S, Bublak D, Scharf KD. 2004 Role of Hsp17.4-CII as coregulator and cytoplasmic retention factor of tomato heat stress transcription factor HsfA2. Plant Physiology 135, 1457– 1470. Poulain P, Gelly JC, Flatters D. 2010. Detection and architecture of small heat shock protein monomers. PLoS One 5, e9990. Qin D, Wu H, Peng H, Yao Y, Ni Z, Li Z, Zhou C, Sun Q. 2008. Heat stress-responsive transcriptome analysis in heat susceptible and tolerant wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by using Wheat Genome Array. BMC Genomics 9, 432. Rampino P, Mita G, Assab E, De Pascli M, Giangrade E, Treglia AS, Perrotta C. 2010. Two sunflower 17.6HSP genes, arranged in tandem and highly homologous, are induced differently by various elicitors. Plant Biology 12, 12–22. 402 | Small heat shock evolution Rensing SA, Lang D, Zimmer AD, et al. 2008 The Physcomitrella genome reveals evolutionary insights into the conquest of land by plants Science 319, 64–69. Tyedmers J, Mogk A, Bukau B. 2010. Cellular strategies for controlling protein aggregation. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 11, 777–788. Richter K, Haslbeck M, Buchner J. 2010. The heat shock response: life on the verge of death. Molecular Cell 40, 253–266. van Montfort RL, Basha E, Friedrich KL, Slingsby C, Vierling E. 2001. Crystal structure and assembly of a eukaryotic small heat shock protein. Nature Structural Biology 8, 1025–1030. Saibil HR. 2008. Chaperone machines in action. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 18, 35–42. Sarkar NK, Kim YK, Grover A. 2009. Rice sHsp genes: genomic organization and expression profiling under stress and development. BMC Genomics 10, 393. Scharf KD, Siddique M, Vierling E. 2001. The expanding family of Arabidopsis thaliana small heat stress proteins and a new family of proteins containing alpha-crystallin domains Acd proteins. Cell Stress & Chaperones 6, 225–237. Scharf KD, Berberich T, Ebersberger I, Nover L. 2012. The plant heat stress transcription factor (Hsf) family: structure, function and evolution. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1819, 104–119. Schoffl F, Prandl R, Reindl A. 1998. Regulation of the heat-shock response. Plant Physiology 117, 1135–1141. Siddique M, Gernhard S, von Koskull-Doring P, Vierling E, Scharf KD. 2008. The plant sHSP superfamily: five new members in Arabidopsis thaliana with unexpected properties. Cell Stress & Chaperones 13, 183–197. Sorensen JG, Kristensen TN, Loeschcke V. 2003. The evolutionary and ecological role of heat shock proteins. Ecology Letters 6, 1025–1037. Stengel F, Baldwin AJ, Painter AJ, Jaya N, Basha E, Kay LE, Vierling E, Robinson CV, Benesch JLP. 2010 Quaternary dynamics and plasticity underlie small heat shock protein chaperone function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107, 2007–2012. Stout R, Al-Niemi T. 2002. Heat-tolerant flowering plants of active geothermal areas in Yellowstone National Park. Annals of Botany 90, 259–267. Sun Y, MacRae TH. 2005. Small heat shock proteins: molecular structure and chaperone function. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62, 2460–2476. Sundby C, Harndahl U, Gustavsson N, Ahrman E, Murphy DJ. 2005. Conserved methionines in chloroplasts. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1703, 191–202. Swindell WR. 2006. The association among gene expression responses to nine abiotic stress treatments in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 174, 1811–1824. Swindell WR, Huebner M, Weber AP. 2007. Transcriptional profiling of Arabidopsis heat shock proteins and transcription factors reveals extensive overlap between heat and non-heat stress response pathways. BMC Genomics 8, 125. Thomas JH. 2007. Rapid birth–death evolution specific to xenobiotic cytochrome P450 genes in vertebrates. PLoS Genetics 3, e67. Tripp J, Mishra SK, Scharf KD. 2009. Functional dissection of the cytosolic chaperone network in tomato mesophyll protoplasts. Plant, Cell and Environment 32, 123–133. van Montfort R, Slingsby C, Vierling E. 2002 Structure and function of the small heat shock protein/alpha-crystallin family of molecular chaperones. Advances in Protein Chemistry 59, 105–156. von Koskull-Doring P, Scharf KD. Nover L. 2007. The diversity of plant heat stress transcription factors. Trends in Plant Science 12, 452–457. Vierling E. 1991. The heat shock response in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 42, 579–620. Volkov RA, Panchuk II, Schoffl F. 2005. Small heat shock proteins are differentially regulated during pollen development and following heat stress in tobacco. Plant Molecular Biology 57, 487–502. Wang D, Luthe DS. 2003. Heat sensitivity in a bentgrass variant. Failure to accumulate a chloroplast heat shock protein isoform implicated in heat tolerance. Plant Physiology 133, 319–327. Waters ER. 1995. The molecular evolution of the small heat shock proteins in plants. Genetics 141, 785–795. Waters ER, Aevermann BD, Sanders-Reed Z. 2008a. Comparative analysis of the small heat shock proteins in three angiosperm genomes identifies new subfamilies and reveals diverse evolutionary patterns. Cell Stress & Chaperones 13, 127–142. Waters ER, Ahel MD, Adams M, et al. 2003. The genome of Nanoarchaeum equitans: insights into early archaeal evolution, parasitism and the minimal genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100, 12984–12988. Waters ER, Nguyen SL, Eskandar R, Behan J, Sanders-Reed Z. 2008b. The recent evolution of a pseudogene: diversity and divergence of a mitochondria-localized small heat shock protein in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome 51, 177–186. Waters ER, Rioflorido I. 2007. Evolutionary analysis of the small heat shock proteins in five complete algal genomes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 65, 162–174. Waters ER, Vierling E. 1999a. The diversification of plant cytosolic small heat shock proteins preceded the divergence of mosses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16, 127–139. Waters ER, Vierling E. 1999b. Chloroplast small heat shock proteins: evidence for atypical evolution of an organelle-localized protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96, 14394–14399. Wehmeyer N, Hernandez LD, Finkelstein RR, Vierling E. 1996. Synthesis of small heat-shock proteins is part of the developmental program of late seed maturation. Plant Physiology 112, 747–757. Wehmeyer N, Vierling E. 2000.The expression of small heat shock proteins in seeds responds to discrete developmental signals and suggests a general protective role in desiccation tolerance. Plant Physiology 122, 1099–1108. Waters | 403 Weston DJ, Karve AA, Gunter LE, Jawdy SA, Yang X, Allen SM, Wullschleger SD. 2011. Comparative physiology and transcriptional networks underlying the heat shock response in Populus trichocarpa, Arabidopsis thaliana and Glycine max. Plant, Cell and Environment 34, 1488–1506. Wu M, Lin T, Lin M, Chen Y, Hwang S. 2007. Divergent evolution of the chloroplast small heat shock protein gene in the genera Rhododendron (Ericaceae) and Machilus (Lauraceae). Annals of Botany 99, 461–475. Zarsky V, Garrido D, Eller N, Tupy J, Vicente O, Schoffl F, Heberle-Bors E. 1995. The expression of a small heat shock gene is activated during induction of tobacco pollen embryogenesis by starvation. Plant, Cell and Environment 18, 139–147.