Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0237405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237405

Introduction of a leaky stop codon as molecular tool in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Oliver D Caspari 1,*
Editor: Andrew Webber2
PMCID: PMC7440625  PMID: 32817702

Abstract

Expression of proteins in the chloroplast or mitochondria of the model green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can be achieved by directly inserting transgenes into organellar genomes, or through nuclear expression and post-translational import. A number of tools have been developed in the literature for achieving high expression levels from the nuclear genome despite messy genomic integration and widespread silencing of transgenes. Here, recent advances in the field are combined and two systems of bicistronic expression, based on ribosome reinitiation or ribosomal skip induced by a viral 2A sequence, are compared side-by-side. Further, the small subunit of Rubisco (RBCS) was developed as a functional nuclear reporter for successful chloroplast import and restoration of photosynthesis: To be able to combine RBCS with a Venus fluorescent reporter without compromising photosynthetic activity, a leaky stop codon is introduced as a novel molecular tool that allows the simultaneous expression of functional and fluorescently tagged versions of the protein from a single construct.

Introduction

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is currently the only organism known to science where transgenes can be expressed from all three eukaryotic genomes, located in nucleus, mitochondria and the chloroplast [13]. This genetic control forms part of a suite of molecular tools that have made the green alga an attractive model organism for research and increasingly also for biotechnology [24]. For research on organelles in particular, Chlamydomonas is well suited: unlike higher plant systems, Chlamydomonas can be grown heterotrophically, allowing mutants in essential photosynthetic genes in both the nuclear and chloroplast genomes to be propagated [57]. Likewise, when kept continuously in the light, photoautotrophy allows mutants in essential respiratory genes in the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes to be isolated [8,9]. Moreover, the only other organism where mitochondrial genomes can be transformed, Sacharomyces cerevisiae, lacks complex I, which has made Chlamydomonas the model of choice for research on this key respiratory complex [10,11].

In order to express proteins in the chloroplast or mitochondria, gene constructs can be introduced into organelle genomes directly via biolistic bombardment, where they will be integrated via homologous recombination [12,13]. Alternatively, transgenes can be introduced into the nuclear genome and gene products targeted to organelles post-translationally. This may be preferable in certain circumstances. While a number of antibiotic resistance selectable marker genes are available for chloroplast and nuclear transformation [13,14], only ble has been established for mitochondria [15]. The presence of multiple copies of the genome in both organelles makes multiple rounds of selection necessary in an attempt to reach homoplasmy, compared to a single selection step for the haploid nuclear genome [2,13]. Finally, there is no in situ transcriptional regulation of organelle genomes, meaning conditional expression of transgenes requires control via nuclear factors [16].

Nuclear expression of transgenes is not without its own challenges, which a lot of work has gone into addressing [14]. One problem is that Chlamydomonas appears to possess a powerful suite of gene silencing mechanisms which need to be circumvented [14]. Adjusted codon usage [17], use of the HSP70A-RBCS2 (AR) fusion promoter [18] and inclusion of introns in the construct [19] help to avoid silencing and boost expression. RBCS2 intron 1 in particular is a popular choice, as it has been shown to contain an enhancer element [20].

Another challenge is the absence of homologous recombination in the nuclear genome. Instead, transformation cassettes are integrated essentially at random [21], leading to large variation in expression levels due to the influence of genomic location on transcription rates [22]. Furthermore, endonucleolytic cleavage of the transformation cassette is common, which can lead to insertion of truncated fragments [6,21]. As a result, it is usually necessary to screen a large number of transformants to identify a strain with acceptable levels of transgene expression. However, the fraction of highly expressing transformants can be substantially increased through bicistronic expression of the gene of interest (GOI) and the selectable marker from the same mRNA [23,24]. The first bicistronic system developed for Chlamydomonas uses a viral sequence motif called “2A”, which allows two genes encoded as a translational fusion to be produced as separate entities due to a ribosomal skip event at a particular place in the sequence [23,25]. A second system achieves bicistronic expression simply by putting the start codon of the second gene in sequence a mere 6 nucleotides (“6N”) behind the stop codon of the first gene [24]. This setup relies on ribosomes to continue scanning along the mRNA and reinitiating translation of the second gene after having terminated translation of the first. Here, the ability of these two systems to drive expression of a Venus fluorescent reporter when using the paromomycin resistance gene AphVIII as selectable marker is compared.

When working with chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes, restoration of photosynthesis and respiration respectively through re-introducing the native gene into a mutant background has been successfully used as alternative to antibiotic selectable markers [12,13]. Following a similar strategy, it should be possible to use nuclear genes as functional reporters of restored organelle activity. For the chloroplast, a number of acetate-requiring strains defective in photosynthesis due to a characterized loss-of-function mutation in a nuclear gene are available [5,7]. One well-characterized candidate is the small subunit of Rubisco (genes: RBCS1 and RBCS2, protein: RBCS). Knock-out mutants (rbcs) exist that are stably non-photosynthetic [26] and which can be restored by re-introducing RBCS1 or RBCS2 into the nuclear genome [26,27].

To use rbcs as a tool that not only allows restoration of photo-autotrophy to be selected for, but also subcellular localisation to be tracked, it would be ideal to combine this functional reporter with a fluorescent reporter such as Venus. While several studies have published RBCS-fluorescent reporter fusions [23,28,29], none have used such a construct to rescue an rbcs mutant, suggesting that tagging RBCS may interfere with protein function. Rather, fusions were expressed in wild-type strains alongside the native, untagged RBCS, in which case the fusion protein localizes to the pyrenoid [23,28,29]. The pyrenoid is a proteinaceous, liquid-like organelle of functional importance to the algal carbon-concentrating mechanism that is located in the chloroplast stroma and traversed by specialized thylakoid membranes [3032]. Since the pyrenoid is the place where the vast majority of Rubisco holoenzymes is typically found [33], this correct localization of the fusion hinted that a certain proportion of tagged RBCS may be tolerated.

This study therefore set out to develop a setup where RBCS is produced in an untagged form the majority of the time, but where a large enough fraction of fused RBCS-Venus is produced to allow for localization via fluorescence microscopy. Such expression of multiple versions of a protein with different lengths was achieved by using a leaky stop codon, inspired by viral read-through [34,35]. Here, read-through is demonstrated in Chlamydomonas for the sequence TAG-CAA-TTA, introducing the use of leaky stop codons as a molecular tool for purposes other than to investigate read-through [3638].

Results

In order to find a vector that would give high levels of a fluorescent reporter in a large fraction of recovered transformants, current state-of-the art expression systems were compared (Fig 1A). Firstly, as a negative control (‘No Venus’), a vector driving the expression of only the selectable marker, paromomycin resistance gene AphVIII (AphVIIIR), via the same HSP70/RBCS2 promoter (ARP) and RBCS2 terminator (R2T) as in the other constructs was used. Secondly, the most common expression system currently used among the Chlamydomonas community is one where the gene of interest (GOI) is physically linked to the selectable marker by virtue of being on the same piece of DNA, but the two genes are driven by independent sets of promoters and terminators [29,39]. Such a ‘separate promoters’ setup was used employing the fluorescent reporter Venus as GOI, and using a second promoter from PSAD (PSADP). Thirdly, two bicistronic expression systems were compared: a ‘ribosomal skip’ system where the two genes are linked in a translational fusion via a viral 2A sequence [23,25], and a ‘ribosome reinitation’ setup where a stop codon followed by the six nucleotides TAGCAT separates the upstream GOI from the downstream selectable marker [24]. Finally, in the ‘extra intron’ construct a second RBCS2 intron was inserted into the Venus coding sequence, with the aim of further increasing expression [14,19,27].

Fig 1. A high fraction of transformants with high transgene expression can be achieved through ribosome reinitiation combined with multiple introns.

Fig 1

(A) Chlamydomonas expression constructs are composed of the following elements—promoters: chimeric HSP70-RBCS2 (ARP), PSAD (PSADP); terminator: RBCS2 (R2T); introns: RBCS2 1 (i1) and 2 (i2); protein coding genes: Paromomycin resistance (AphVIIIR), Venus fluorescent reporter (Venus); tag: triple-FLAG (FLAG); bicistronic expression elements: Viral 2A sequence (2A), the six nucleotides TAG CAT (6N); STOP codons are indicated by black vertical lines (|). (B) For each construct, fluorescence of 24 independent transformant lines is shown. Venus fluorescence intensities were normalized to autofluorescence as measured in ‘No Venus’ transformants; red circles indicate transformants that lie outside the 95% confidence interval for ‘No Venus’ (indicated by dashed lines). Filled circles denote those transformants that were analysed by Western blot (C) as indicated by the colour code. Whole cell protein extracts normalized to 2μg chlorophyll were loaded in each lane. Antibodies against the FLAG-tag at the Venus C-terminus (α-FLAG) and, as loading control, chloroplast ATP-synthase subunit CF1β (α-CF1β) were used. Blots were cropped for clarity, raw images are provided in S1 Raw images. (D) Venus fluorescence levels from (B) are plotted against Venus protein levels, quantified from (C) as Western band intensity relative to the population average. A linear regression line is drawn based on transformants with detectable Venus fluorescence and protein levels (R2 = 0.94). DNA sequences of construct elements and the numeric data underlying the graphs are provided in S1 Data.

To compare these constructs, a simple read-out of expression levels based on the normalized fluorescence of individual transformant lines in the T222+ wild-type background, quantified in a fluorescence plate reader, was used (Fig 1B). Transformants of the ‘no Venus’ control plasmid, expressing the selectable marker only, show a small amount of auto-fluorescence at Venus emission wavelengths. Raw fluorescence values of all transformants were normalized to the ‘no Venus’ population, meaning Venus fluorescence values in Fig 1B are shown as multiples of autofluorescence [24]. Only transformants with fluorescence levels outside a 95% confidence interval defined by the ‘no Venus’ population are considered as expressing detectable levels of Venus. As expected, the ‘separate promoters’ construct gave rise to several GOI-expressing transformants, while a majority of transformants have undetectable levels of Venus. In contrast to previous reports [23,25], the ‘ribosomal skip’ setup failed to give rise to any GOI expressing transformants with our combination of GOI and selectable marker. Meanwhile, a large majority of ‘ribosome reinitiation’ construct transformants showed expression of the GOI in our hands. Levels of expression could further be increased by introducing RBCS2 intron 2 as ‘extra intron’ into the vector.

A Western blot shows that normalized fluorescence signal intensity corresponds to Venus expression levels as detected via the FLAG-tag (Fig 1C). While no absolute quantification of Venus protein levels was done, plotting a quantification of Western bands against Venus fluorescence (Fig 1D) suggests that a relatively large amount of Venus protein is required to generate a detectable Venus fluorescence signal: a Venus fluorescence value of 1 corresponds to a Venus-FLAG Western band intensity 0.49 times as high as the population average (or 0.54 to reach the 95% confidence interval). In other words, Venus fluorescence is indistinguishable from autofluorescence in ‘ribosome reinitiation’ transformants expressing Venus-FLAG up to a level that is ~50% of the population average.

In order to develop a leaky stop codon for Chlamydomonas, three constructs were characterized based on inserting the coding sequence of RBCS2 followed by a linker sequence [29] upstream of the coding sequence of Venus (Fig 2). The first construct (Fig 2A) constitutes a translational fusion of RBCS with downstream Venus through codons GGC ATG CAT. Expression of this construct in RBCS1 and RBCS2 double-knockout strains Cal13.1B- or T60 gives rise to a bright fluorescence spot in the Venus channel (in yellow). Comparing Venus to chlorophyll auto-fluorescence (in magenta), which indicates the position of the chloroplast, shows that the RBCS-Venus fusion protein localizes to the canonical pyrenoid location. The pyrenoid is visible as a characteristic dip in chlorophyll auto-fluorescence [29]. In the second construct (Fig 2B), the RBCS2 coding sequence is followed by the stop codon TAG rendered leaky by the sequence CAA TTA. Expression of this construct also gave rise to Venus fluorescence from the pyrenoid, demonstrating that the leaky stop codon gives rise to a sufficient read-through rate for fluorescence detection. Reduced brightness compared to the fusion construct is as expected if a smaller fraction of expressed RBCS contains Venus. Finally, in a third construct, RBCS was separated from downstream sequences by the stop codon TAA (Fig 2C). In this setup there is no detectable Venus fluorescence. Residual signal in the Venus channel stems from auto-fluorescence that is equally observed in a strain lacking Venus altogether [40].

Fig 2. Use of a leaky stop codon enables photosynthetic rescue using a tagged RBCS.

Fig 2

Constructs were generated by inserting the genomic sequence of Rubisco small subunit 2 (RBCS), including the native targeting peptide (cTP) and introns (i1–i3), followed by a flexible linker sequence (linker), upstream of Venus in the ‘ribosome reinitiation’ expression vector (see Fig 1). RBCS is separated from the flexible linker by three codons, constituting either (A) a translational fusion, (B) a leaky stop codon or (C) a normal stop codon. DNA sequences are detailed in S1 Data. Typical epifluorescence images of resulting transformants in RBCS1 and RBCS2 double-knockout strains Cal13.1B- and T60 show fluorescence from the Venus channel in yellow and chlorophyll autofluorescence in magenta. Scale bars are 5μm. Brightness was adjusted for clarity, original files are available in S2 Data. Transformation efficiencies (D, E) for each construct are shown as percentage relative to a positive control vector encoding RBCS only and selected for photo-autotrophy. Three independent transformation experiments used either T60 (two biological replicates) or Cal13.1B- as host strains. Transformants were selected either for photo-autotrophic growth (D) or paromomycin resistance (E). Values for Cal13.1B- in (E) were divided by 10 to fit on the same scale as T60 values. For comparison: direct colony counts for stop constructs were 29, 54 and 200 in (D) and 27, 11 and ~2700 in (E) for T60 rep.1, T60 rep.2 and Cal13.1B- respectively. Colony counts and calculations are provided in S2 Data, photos of the transformation plates in S3, S4 and S5 Data for T60 rep. 1, T60 rep. 2 and Cal13.1B- respectively.

Comparing the transformation efficiencies when selecting for photo-autotrophy (Fig 2D), it is of note that the ‘fusion’ construct indeed has a rate close to zero (individual transformants do appear). This result confirms that photosynthetic activity is severely compromised by the translational fusion of RBCS to Venus. By contrast, the leaky stop codon shows transformation efficiencies close to the normal stop codon construct, demonstrating that the majority of RBCS is produced untagged. The leaky stop codon thus works as intended, generating a large enough fraction of untagged RBCS to restore photosynthesis while also producing sufficient amounts of the Venus fusion to allow for fluorescence microscopy. The fact that transformation rates for the leaky stop codon are consistently lower than for the normal stop suggests that the tag does still functionally interfere to some extent, even when only a fraction of RBCS copies carry one.

When selecting for paromomycin resistance (Fig 2E), transformation efficiencies are not only generally higher but also the trend is inversed: now the fusion construct shows the highest rates, in line with bicistronic expression via ribosome re-initiation proceeding as normal. The leaky stop construct generally shows somewhat lower values, consistent with only a fraction of translational reads continuing all the way to the end of Venus, which presumably reduces the availability of ribosomes for re-initiation. The normal stop codon shows the lowest values, yet transformation efficiencies even for this construct are far above zero. Being 891bp downstream of the RBCS2 stop codon, ribosome reinitiation at the AphVIII start codon thus appears to occur less frequently, but still often enough to result in between 10–30% of the transformation efficiency of the fusion construct where the distance is only 6 nucleotides.

In a Western blot (Fig 3A), the RBCS-Venus fusion protein could be observed only for ‘fusion’ construct transformants when using a polyclonal antibody recognizing both RBCL and RBCS (α-Rbc). Unfortunately, a direct quantification of stop codon leakiness from a comparison of tagged and un-tagged protein in the same strain [38]) is thus not possible. The fusion protein could be observed using an antibody against the FLAG-tag at the Venus C-terminus (α-FLAG). A relative quantification of these bands would suggest a read-through rate of ~7.5% (Fig 3A). However, even assuming equal loading, such a direct comparison between individual strains is problematic because random integration of the transgene into the genome results in highly variable expression levels [21,22]. Note that neither RBCS-Venus nor free Venus could be detected in transformants expressing the ‘stop’ construct.

Fig 3. The leaky stop-codon has read-through rates of ~2.5% (±0.7).

Fig 3

(A) Whole cell protein extracts from transformants of indicated constructs in a RBCS-knockout strain (T60), with loading normalized to 2μg chlorophyll per lane, were immunolabelled with either a polyclonal antibody against Rubisco (α-Rbc) that recognizes both large (RBCL) and small (RBCS) subunits, or an antibody that recognizes the FLAG-tag (α-FLAG) at the Venus C-terminus. A ‘ribosome reinitiation’ construct transformant was used for the ‘control’ lane as this strain contains free Venus and no RBCS. Blots were cropped for clarity, raw images are available in S1 Raw images. Bands of the α-FLAG blot were quantified and relative amounts indicated in percent, with 100% corresponding to the average across the two ‘fusion’ replicates. (B) For each biological replicate, Venus fluorescence of a randomly drawn sample of transformants selected for paromomycin resistance was quantified and plotted after normalization setting the ‘stop’ construct average as 0 and the ‘fusion’ construct population average as 100%. Empty circles represent individual transformants, drawn in red if the value exceeds the 95% confidence interval for ‘stop’ construct transformants indicated by dashed lines, or in grey if not. Population averages and standard deviation are plotted in black to the right of each distribution. Population averages for the ‘leaky’ construct are written above the point cloud. All numeric data is available in S1 Data.

In order to arrive at a more reliable estimate of stop codon read-through rates in the ‘leaky’ construct, population-level Venus fluorescence data was considered (Fig 3B). Assuming mRNA expression in individual transformants is influenced only by the genomic locus, any differences in average Venus fluorescence across populations of transformants must be due to differences in Venus translation rates. When normalizing Venus fluorescence values such that the ‘stop’ construct population average is set to zero and the ‘fusion’ construct average is set to 100, average Venus fluorescence across ‘leaky’ construct transformants directly corresponds to stop-codon leakiness. Thus, read-through rates ranged from 1.2% to 3.6% between the three biological replicates (Fig 3B), with a mean of 2.5% and a standard error of ±0.7.

Discussion

2A constructs require abundant selectable marker expression

Comparing different vectors confirmed several aspects governing expression in Chlamydomonas that had previously been described: bicistronic expression results in a higher fraction of GOI expressing transformants [23,24] and addition of introns increases transgene expression levels [19]. In particular, RBCS introns 1 and 2 have been documented to reinforce each other in boosting expression [27]. Expression levels might be increased further by exchanging the terminator for that of FDXI or PSAD, since the RBCS2 terminator used here may be liable to producing an antisense RNA [14,41,42].

However, in contrast to previous reports [23,25], no GOI-expressing transformants could be detected when using the ‘ribosomal skip’ construct with a viral 2A sequence (Fig 1A and 1B). Promoter, fluorescent reporter gene and selective marker were all changed relative to pQN4 [23], which was used as source of the viral 2A sequence. Changing the selectable marker appears most likely to account for the difference: previously, the 2A sequence has exclusively been used with ble, whose gene product relies on high affinity binding to prevent Zeocin and related antibiotics from causing DNA damage [43,44]. Sequestration necessitates the production of large amounts of the ble gene product, since each copy of the protein can only bind a single molecule of the antibiotic [45]. Since the 2A-sequence results in quasi-stoichiometric quantities of all proteins in sequence [23], use of ble should thus specifically select for transformants with relatively high expression levels.

By contrast, the paromomycin resistance marker AphVIII is an ATP-consuming enzyme with aminoglycoside 3’-phosphotransferase activity [45]. Very low expression levels clearly suffice to confer antibiotic resistance, allowing for relatively high transformation efficiencies seen even in the stop construct (Fig 2C), where ribosome reinitiation at AphVIII must be very rare. On the other hand, the enzymatic activity of AphVIII might render overexpression above a certain point deleterious and selected against. Given that a relatively large amount of Venus protein appears to be required to give detectable levels of Venus fluorescence (Fig 1D), selection against high levels of AphVIII could account for the lack of GOI expression seen for the viral 2A ‘ribosomal skip’ construct in this study (Fig 1B). Meanwhile, ribosome reinitiation results in much lower expression of the downstream gene [24]–in line with the lack of any detectable Venus expression in stop construct transformants (Figs 2C and 3A)–allowing for highly expressed upstream GOIs when using AphVIII. It would be interesting to see if the use of ble as downstream gene in the context of ribosome reinitiation could be used to specifically select strains with very high GOI expression. Here, AphVIII was chosen for all constructs because one of the intended target strains, Cal13.1B-, already carries a ble resistance cassette (Table 1) [5,46].

Table 1. Strains used in this study.

Strain T222+ Cal13.1B- T60
Chlamydomonas resource centre strain ID CC-5101 CC-4415
Description Wollman lab wild-type Niyogi lab rbcs1,2 Spreitzer lab rbcs1,2
Mating type + - -
Genotype carries mutations nit1 and nit2 carries a deletion at chromosome 2 pos. 6,908,477–6.943.599, encompassing RBCS1 and RBCS2 carries a deletion of the RBCS-locus at chromosome 2, encompassing RBCS1 and RBCS2
carries mutations cwd, arg-7-8 (aka. arg2) carries mutations nit1 and nit2
expresses transgene ARG7.8 expresses transgene ble
Phenotype unable to use nitrate acetate requiring and high light sensitive; unable to use nitrate; resistant to Zeocin acetate requiring and high light sensitive; lacks a cell wall and flagella and cannot be crossed
Genealogy a 137c derivative progeny of a cross between wild-type S24- (CC-5100) and strain CAL005_01_13 (CC-4691), which was generated by insertional mutagenesis of plasmid pSP124S into strain 4A+ (CC-4051), a 137c derivative generated by insertional mutagenesis of plasmid pARG7.8 into strain cwd arg-7-8 mt- (CC-3395)
Reference [57] [5] [26]

A leaky stop codon can be used as a molecular tool

Stop codon read-through has been recognized as a mechanism to generate multiple variants of a protein from a single gene in viruses for some time [34,37,47]. Like all biological processes, translation termination is associated with a certain error rate, which is not identical between the three stop codons in the standard code. This error rate can further be influenced by RNA secondary structures, or simply the immediate sequence environment of the stop codon, meaning that certain sequence constellations can lead to significant read-through rates on the order of 1–10% [34,4850]. In eukaryotes, leaky stop codons appear to be generally selected against [51,52], although examples where read-through fulfills a regulatory function have been documented [53,54]. A fair amount of research has gone into exploiting leakiness therapeutically in cases where disease is caused by premature stop codons [55,56]. Perhaps surprisingly though, leaky stop codons had not yet found their way into the molecular biology tool-box, except for the purpose of investigating read-through [3638,48].

As this study demonstrates, functional read-through can provide a solution to the long-standing problem that reporter gene fusions sometimes impede the function of a gene of interest, exemplified here by the failure of the RBCS-Venus fusion construct to restore photo-autotrophy (Fig 2D). Since it was not clear to what extend RBCS may be able to tolerate any C-terminal sequence modifications, 3’ sequence elements were used to generate stop codon read-through, which are anyway thought to be the main determinants of leakiness [34,37]. The sequence TAG-CAA-TTA in particular was chosen because its efficacy had been demonstrated in S. cerevisiae as well as tobacco [36,37], suggesting eukaryotes across a phylogenetic range that includes Chlamydomonas may be susceptible. With an estimated read-through rate of ~2.5% (Fig 3B), the leakiness generated by this sequence in Chlamydomonas is much lower than the 30% reported in yeast [36], but on par with the ~3% reported for mammalian tissue culture [48] and the 2–5% observed in TMV-infected tobacco [49]. Importantly, this rate is sufficient to visualize the fluorescent reporter under the microscope, while not interfering with the functional rescue of photo-autotrophy (Fig 2D).

Materials and methods

Generation of constructs

Constructs were Gibson assembled as described in [40] based on pMO611, a variant of pMO449 [24] where an upstream start codon was mutated to CTG. The ‘ribosome reinitiation’ and ‘separate promoters’ constructs are plasmids pMO449 and pMO518 respectively [24]. The ‘no Venus’ construct was generated by deleting Venus-FLAG-TAGCAT from pMO611, for the ‘ribosomomal skip’ construct the stop-TAGCAT sequence was replaced by the 2A sequence from pQN4 [23], and RBCS2 intron 2 in the ‘extra intron’ construct was amplified from pLM005_RBCS [28] which also served as template for RBCS and linker sequences for the ‘fusion’, ‘leaky’ and ‘stop’ constructs in Fig 2. Constructs were verified by sequencing (Eurofins). DNA sequences of all elements are provided in S1 Data.

Strains, transformation and culture conditions

Linear transformation cassettes were cut out of circular plasmids using EcoRV-HF (NEB) and transformed into wild-type strain T222+ or RBCS1 and RBCS2 double-knockout strains Cal13.1B- or T60 (Table 1). Transformation via electroporation and screening for expression of the fluorescent reporter in a fluorescence plate reader (CLARIOstar, BMG labtech) were performed as described in [24], except that 4μl of DNA at 2μg ml-1 was used. Transformants were selected either for antibiotic resistance on Tris-Acetate-Phosphate (TAP) plates containing paromomycin in the dark, or for photo-autotrophy on Minimal-plates in constant 30–50μmol photons m-2 s-2. For Western blots, fresh cell material was scraped from TAP-paromomycin plates; for microscopy, cells that had been grown in TAP in 96-well plates for screening were used.

Fluorescence distributions and transformation efficiencies

Distributions of Venus fluorescence (Figs 1B, 1D and 3B) across transformants are derived from fluorescence plate reader data as follows [24]. Absorbance at 750nm (OD750), Venus fluorescence (excitation: 490–505 nm, emission: 530–550 nm, Gain = 1500) and chlorophyll autofluorescence (excitation: 465–480 nm, emission: 670–690 nm, Gain = 1500) values recorded in wells not containing algae were substracted from values recorded in sample wells. Zeroed Venus fluorescence values were further divided by zeroed absorbance (Fig 1B and 1D) or zeroed chlorophyll (Fig 3B) values to account for different cell concentrations, and normalized to the mean of a population of transformants expressing the “No Venus” control construct that was transformed and screened alongside samples. To evaluate leakiness (Fig 3B), for each biological replicate, the mean of a population of transformants expressing the ‘stop’ construct was substracted from sample values, which were subsequently divided by the mean across ‘fusion’ construct transformants. Transformation efficiencies were calculated by counting transformant colonies and then dividing that number by the number of cells used for transformation. Transformation efficiencies were further normalized to those of a construct where the expression of the rbcs2 genomic sequence is driven by the rbcs-hsp70 promoter and the rbcs2 terminator and where transformants were selected for photoautotrophy. Calculations and plotting were done in R (version 3.6.1). Original measurements and derived data are provided in S1 Data, photos of the transformation plates in S3, S4 and S5 Data for T60 rep. 1, T60 rep. 2 and Cal13.1B- respectively.

Western blots and microscopy

For Western Blots, whole cells were boiled for 50 seconds in an SDS/DTT buffer (0.1M DTT/Na2CO3, 10mM NaF, 2% SDS, 12% Sucrose, 1x Roche complete Mini proteinase inhibitor cocktail). Cell debris was discarded by centrifugation (tabletop centrifuge, maximum speed, 15min, 4°C). The chlorophyll concentration in the crude whole cell protein extract was estimated by diluting a 5μl aliquot in 1ml distilled water and recording the absorbance at 680nm (OD680), corrected by any absorbance at 770nm (OD770), as follows: 1μg = chll = 0.11 (OD680OD770). Gels and blots were performed as described in [40] using a precast gel (Bio-Rad) and a 0.1μm nitrocellulose membrane that was cut horizontally and treated with primary antibodies α-FLAG (monoclonal, mouse, Sigma Aldrich F1804, dilution: 1:10 000), CF1-β (polyclonal, rabbit, raised against CF1-β [58], dilution: 1:50 000) or Rubisco (polyclonal, rabbit, raised against Rubisco holoenzyme [59], dilution: 1:20 000). Horseradish peroxidase conjugated anti-mouse and anti-rabbit secondary antibodies (Promega) were revealed using Clarity Western ECL reagents (Bio-Rad) on a ChemiDoc Touch Imaging System (Bio-Rad). Bands were quantified using Image Lab software (version 6.0.0, Bio-Rad). Blots were cropped for clarity, and figures prepared in Powerpoint (Microsoft). Raw images are provided in S1 Raw images, quantification measurements in S1 Data.

Microscopy was performed as described in [40]. In Fiji (http://fiji.sc/Fiji, version 2.0.0-rc-69/1.52p), individual cells were cropped out of larger fields-of-view, brightness was adjusted for clarity linearly and uniformly across each image, and linear yellow or magenta look-up tables were applied. Original image files are available in S2 Data. Final figures were assembled in Powerpoint.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images. Raw image files for Western blots.

(PDF)

S1 Data. Tabulated numeric and sequence data.

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Original fluorescence microscopy image files.

(ZIP)

S3 Data. Photos of transformation plates for T60 rep. 1.

(ZIP)

S4 Data. Photos of transformation plates for T60 rep. 2.

(ZIP)

S5 Data. Photos of transformation plates for Cal13.1B.

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Francis-André Wollman and Michael Schroda for critical reading of the manuscript, Richard Kuras and Yves Choquet for helpful discussions and advice, and David Herrin for his helpful public review.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

ODC received financial support from (a) LabEx Dynamo: ANR-LABX-011, http://www.labexdynamo.ibpc.fr/en/ (b) the Rothschild Foundation: http://www.fedr.ibpc.fr/en/ (c) the ChloroMitoRAMP grant, co-ordinated by Yves Choquet: ANR-19-CE13-0009, https://anr.fr/fileadmin/documents/2019/Aapg-selection-prc-prce-jcjc-2019.pdf (d) annual funding from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Sorbonne Université to UMR7141. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Klucnika A, Ma H. Mapping and editing animal mitochondrial genomes: Can we overcome the challenges? Philos Trans R Soc B. 2019;375: 20190187 10.1098/rstb.2019.0187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Salomé PA, Merchant SS. A Series of Fortunate Events: Introducing Chlamydomonas as a Reference Organism. Plant Cell. 2019;31: 1682–1707. 10.1105/tpc.18.00952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Taunt HN, Stoffels L, Purton S. Green biologics: The algal chloroplast as a platform for making biopharmaceuticals. Bioengineered. 2018;9: 48–54. 10.1080/21655979.2017.1377867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Scaife MA, Nguyen GTDT, Rico J, Lambert D, Helliwell KE, Smith AG. Establishing Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as an industrial biotechnology host. Plant J. 2015;82: 532–546. 10.1111/tpj.12781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dent RM, Sharifi MN, Malnoë A, Haglund C, Calderon RH, Wakao S, et al. Large-scale insertional mutagenesis of Chlamydomonas supports phylogenomic functional prediction of photosynthetic genes and analysis of classical acetate-requiring mutants. Plant J. 2015;82: 337–351. 10.1111/tpj.12806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li X, Zhang R, Patena W, Gang SS, Blum SR, Ivanova N, et al. An indexed, mapped mutant library enables reverse genetics studies of biological processes in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Cell. 2016;28: 367–387. 10.1105/tpc.15.00465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Levine RP, Goodenough UW. The Genetics of Photosynthesis and of the Chloroplast in Chlamydomonas Reinhardi. Annu Rev Genet. 1970;4: 397–408. 10.1146/annurev.ge.04.120170.002145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cardol P, Gloire G, Havaux M, Remacle C, Franck F. Photosynthesis and State Transitions in Mitochondrial Mutants of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Affected in Respiration. Plant Physiol. 2003;133: 2010–2020. 10.1104/pp.103.028076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Randolph-Anderson BL, Boynton JE, Gillham NW, Harris EH, Johnson AM, Dorthu MP, et al. Further characterization of the respiratory deficient dum-1 mutation of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and its use as a recipient for mitochondrial transformation. MGG Mol Gen Genet. 1993;236: 235–244. 10.1007/BF00277118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Subrahmanian N, Castonguay AD, Fatnes TA, Hamel PP. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a plant model system to study mitochondrial complex I dysfunction. Plant Direct. 2020;4: 1–16. 10.1002/pld3.200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Remacle C, Cardol P, Coosemans N, Gaisne M, Bonnefoy N. High-efficiency biolistic transformation of Chlamydomonas mitochondria can be used to insert mutations in complex I genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103: 4771–4776. 10.1073/pnas.0509501103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Larosa V, Remacle C. Transformation of the mitochondrial genome. Int J Dev Biol. 2013;57: 659–665. 10.1387/ijdb.130230cr [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Esland L, Larrea-Alvarez M, Purton S. Selectable Markers and Reporter Genes for Engineering the Chloroplast of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Biology (Basel). 2018;7: 46 10.3390/biology7040046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schroda M. Good News for Nuclear Transgene Expression in Chlamydomonas. Cells. 2019;8: 1534 10.3390/cells8121534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hu Z, Fan Z, Zhao Z, Chen J, Li J. Stable Expression of Antibiotic-Resistant Gene ble from Streptoalloteichus hindustanus in the Mitochondria of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. PLoS One. 2012;7: e35542 10.1371/journal.pone.0035542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ramundo S, Rochaix JD. Controlling Expression of Genes in the Unicellular Alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii with a Vitamin-Repressible Riboswitch 1st ed. Methods in Enzymology. 1st ed Elsevier Inc.; 2015. pp. 267–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Barahimipour R, Neupert J, Bock R. Efficient expression of nuclear transgenes in the green alga Chlamydomonas: synthesis of an HIV antigen and development of a new selectable marker. Plant Mol Biol. 2016;90: 403–418. 10.1007/s11103-015-0425-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schroda M, Beck CF, Vallon O. Sequence elements within an HSP70 promoter counteract transcriptional transgene silencing in Chlamydomonas. Plant J. 2002;31: 445–455. 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2002.01371.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baier T, Wichmann J, Kruse O, Lauersen KJ. Intron-containing algal transgenes mediate efficient recombinant gene expression in the green microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46: 6909–6919. 10.1093/nar/gky532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lumbreras V, Stevens DR, Purton S. Efficient foreign gene expression in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mediated by an endogenous intron. Plant J. 1998;14: 441–447. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00145.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang R, Patena W, Armbruster U, Gang SS, Blum SR, Jonikas MC. High-Throughput Genotyping of Green Algal Mutants Reveals Random Distribution of Mutagenic Insertion Sites and Endonucleolytic Cleavage of Transforming DNA. Plant Cell. 2014;26: 1398–1409. 10.1105/tpc.114.124099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lewis EB. The Phenomenon of Position Effect. Adv Genet. 1950;3: 73–115. 10.1016/s0065-2660(08)60083-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Plucinak TM, Horken KM, Jiang W, Fostvedt J, Nguyen ST, Weeks DP. Improved and versatile viral 2A platforms for dependable and inducible high-level expression of dicistronic nuclear genes in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant J. 2015;82: 717–729. 10.1111/tpj.12844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Onishi M, Pringle JR. Robust Transgene Expression from Bicistronic mRNA in the Green Alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. G3 (Bethesda). 2016;6: 4115–4125. 10.1534/g3.116.033035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rasala BA, Lee PA, Shen Z, Briggs SP, Mendez M, Mayfield SP. Robust Expression and Secretion of Xylanase1 in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii by Fusion to a Selection Gene and Processing with the FMDV 2A Peptide. PLoS One. 2012;7: e43349 10.1371/journal.pone.0043349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Khrebtukova I, Spreitzer RJ. Elimination of the Chlamydomonas gene family that encodes the small subunit of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93: 13689–93. 10.1073/pnas.93.24.13689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Genkov T, Meyer M, Griffiths H, Spreitzer RJ. Functional Hybrid Rubisco Enzymes with Plant Small Subunits and Algal Large Subunits—Engineered rbcS cDNA for Expression in Chlamydomonas. J Biol Chem. 2010;285: 19833–19841. 10.1074/jbc.M110.124230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mackinder LCM, Meyer MT, Mettler-Altmann T, Chen VK, Mitchell MC, Caspari OD, et al. A repeat protein links Rubisco to form the eukaryotic carbon concentrating organelle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113: 5958–5963. 10.1073/pnas.1522866113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mackinder LCM, Chen C, Leib RD, Patena W, Blum SR, Rodman M, et al. A Spatial Interactome Reveals the Protein Organization of the Algal CO2-Concentrating Mechanism. Cell. 2017;171: 133–147. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Caspari OD, Meyer MT, Tolleter D, Wittkopp TM, Cunniffe NJ, Lawson T, et al. Pyrenoid loss in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii causes limitations in CO2 supply, but not thylakoid operating efficiency. J Exp Bot. 2017;68: 3903–3913. 10.1093/jxb/erx197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Freeman Rosenzweig ES, Xu B, Kuhn Cuellar L, Martinez-Sanchez A, Schaffer M, Strauss M, et al. The Eukaryotic CO[2]-Concentrating Organelle Is Liquid-like and Exhibits Dynamic Reorganization. Cell. 2017;171: 148–162.e19. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Engel BD, Schaffer M, Kuhn Cuellar L, Villa E, Plitzko JM, Baumeister W. Native architecture of the Chlamydomonas chloroplast revealed by in situ cryo-electron tomography. Elife. 2015;4: e04889 10.7554/eLife.04889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Borkhsenious ON, Mason CB, Moroney JV. The Intracellular Localization of Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate Carboxylase/Oxygenase in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Physiol. 1998;116: 1585–1591. 10.1104/pp.116.4.1585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schueren F, Thoms S. Functional Translational Readthrough: A Systems Biology Perspective. PLoS Genet. 2016;12: e1006196 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Firth AE, Brierley I. Non-canonical translation in RNA viruses. J Gen Virol. 2012;93: 1385–1409. 10.1099/vir.0.042499-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Namy O, Hatin I, Rousset JP. Impact of the six nucleotides downstream of the stop codon on translation termination. EMBO Rep. 2001;2: 787–793. 10.1093/embo-reports/kve176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Skuzeski JM, Nichols LM, Gesteland RF, Atkins JF. The signal for a leaky UAG stop codon in several plant viruses includes the two downstream codons. J Mol Biol. 1991;218: 365–373. 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90718-l [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fan Y, Evans CR, Barber KW, Banerjee K, Weiss KJ, Margolin W, et al. Heterogeneity of Stop Codon Readthrough in Single Bacterial Cells and Implications for Population Fitness. Mol Cell. 2017;67: 826–836. 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Crozet P, Navarro F, Willmund F, Mehrshahi P, Bakowski K, Lauersen K, et al. Birth of a Photosynthetic Chassis: a MoClo Toolkit Enabling Synthetic Biology in the Microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. ACS Synth Biol. 2018;7: 2074–2086. 10.1021/acssynbio.8b00251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garrido C, Caspari OD, Choquet Y, Wollman F-A, Lafontaine I. An antimicrobial origin of targeting peptides to endosymbiotic organelles. bioRxiv. 2020. 10.1101/2020.03.04.974964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kumar A, Falcao VR, Sayre RT. Evaluating nuclear transgene expression systems in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Algal Res. 2013;2: 321–332. 10.1016/j.algal.2013.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.López-Paz C, Liu D, Geng S, Umen JG. Identification of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii endogenous genic flanking sequences for improved transgene expression. Plant J. 2017;92: 1232–1244. 10.1111/tpj.13731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gatignol A, Durand H, Tiraby G. Bleomycin resistance conferred by a drug-binding protein. FEBS Lett. 1988;230: 171–175. 10.1016/0014-5793(88)80665-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dumas P, Bergdoll M, Cagnon C, Masson JM. Crystal structure and site-directed mutagenesis of a bleomycin resistance protein and their significance for drug sequestering. EMBO J. 1994;13: 2483–2492. 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06535.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sizova I, Fuhrmann M, Hegemann P. A Streptomyces rimosus aphVIII gene coding for a new type phosphotransferase provides stable antibiotic resistance to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Gene. 2001;277: 221–229. 10.1016/s0378-1119(01)00616-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Majeran W, Wostrikoff K, Wollman FA, Vallon O. Role of ClpP in the Biogenesis and Degradation of RuBisCO and ATP synthase in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plants. 2019;8: 191 10.3390/plants8070191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li G, Rice CM. The Signal for Translational Readthrough of a UGA codon in Sindbis Virus RNA Involves a Single Cytidine Residue Immediately Downstream of the Termination Codon. J Virol. 1993;67: 5062–5067. 10.1128/JVI.67.8.5062-5067.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Harrell L, Melcher U, Atkins JF. Predominance of six different hexanucleotide recoding signals 3’ of read-through stop codons. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30: 2011–7. 10.1093/nar/30.9.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bertram G, Innes S, Minella O, Richardson JP, Stansfield I. Endless possibilities: Translation termination and stop codon recognition. Microbiology. 2001;147: 255–269. 10.1099/00221287-147-2-255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Xu Y, Ju H, Deblasio S, Carino EJ, Johnson R, MacCoss MJ, et al. A Stem-Loop Structure in Potato Leafroll Virus Open Reading Frame 5 (ORF5) Is Essential for Readthrough Translation of the Coat Protein ORF Stop Codon 700 Bases Upstream. J Virol. 2018;92: e01544–17. 10.1128/JVI.01544-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ho AT, Hurst LD. In eubacteria, unlike eukaryotes, there is no evidence for selection favouring fail-safe 3’ additional stop codons. PLoS Genet. 2019;15: e1008386 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li C, Zhang J. Stop-codon read-through arises largely from molecular errors and is generally nonadaptive. PLoS Genet. 2019;15: e1008141 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Stiebler AC, Freitag J, Schink KO, Stehlik T, Tillmann BAM, Ast J, et al. Ribosomal Readthrough at a Short UGA Stop Codon Context Triggers Dual Localization of Metabolic Enzymes in Fungi and Animals. PLoS Genet. 2014;10: e1004685 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Anzalone AV, Zairis S, Lin AJ, Rabadan R, Cornish VW. Interrogation of Eukaryotic Stop Codon Readthrough Signals by in Vitro RNA Selection. Biochemistry. 2019;58: 1167–1178. 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b01280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Keeling KM, Xue X, Gunn G, Bedwell DM. Therapeutics Based on Stop Codon Readthrough. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2014;15: 371–394. 10.1146/annurev-genom-091212-153527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dabrowski M, Bukowy-Bieryllo Z, Zietkiewicz E. Advances in therapeutic use of a drug-stimulated translational readthrough of premature termination codons. Mol Med. 2018;24: 25 10.1186/s10020-018-0024-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gallaher SD, Fitz-Gibbon ST, Glaesener AG, Pellegrini M, Merchanta SS. Chlamydomonas genome resource for laboratory strains reveals a mosaic of sequence variation, identifies true strain histories, and enables strain-specific studies. Plant Cell. 2015;27: 2335–2352. 10.1105/tpc.15.00508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Chua NH, Blomberg F. Immunochemical Studies of Thylakoid Membrane Polypeptides from Spinach and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. J Biol Chem. 1979;254: 215–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Whitney SM, John Andrews T. The Gene for the Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate Carboxylase/ Oxygenase (Rubisco) Small Subunit Relocated to the Plastid Genome of Tobacco Directs the Synthesis of Small Subunits That Assemble into Rubisco. Plant Cell. 2001;13: 193–205. 10.1105/tpc.13.1.193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew Webber

11 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-11123

Introduction of a leaky stop codon as molecular tool in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Caspari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew Webber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The review of the manuscript was quite positive. There are a number os suggestions that are worthy of consideration. Hopefully, the authors may already have some data to improve some figures. If not, revising the discussion to account for concerns would be very helpful. Please provide details of all changes with the revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author has provided a potentially new tool for nuclear gene engineering in Chlamydomonas by demonstrating the use of a leaky stop codon that allows bicistronic expression of a selectable marker and another gene from the same promoter. Such a system greatly facilitates nuclear engineering in Chlamy. Thus, I think that a number of research groups will find this work useful. However, I have a few suggestions/comments that may improve the clarity of the protein data, and manuscript.

1. The comparison of tagged Venus expression to CF1 Beta by immunoblotting in Fig. 1D, and in the attendant text (lines 185-190), will be confusing and possibly misleading for some readers. It is not really valid to compare in any relative-quantitative way two different antigen-antibody interactions, and Fig. 1D could be interpreted to mean that Venus levels are much greater than CF1 Beta levels, which is probably not true, right?

CF1 Beta levels detected with an antibody may be useful as a loading control (which means using them internally to adjust the “real” protein loads), although in our hands immunodetection of very abundant proteins (like CF1 subunits) with sensitive chemiluminescence methods is not very accurate unless the protein load is very, very low. Protein stain is probably better for revealing protein loads if you are loading a lot of cellular protein (say, 10 or 20 micrograms of protein in a mini-gel lane), and your control immunotarget is very abundant.

Incidentally, the detection system should be briefly described as well as the amounts of protein loaded in each of the gel lanes; the readers should not have to read another paper or consult their Ouija boards to find those things out.

Finally, if you want to say that a lot of Venus needs to accumulate before you can see the fluorescence, then you should quantify Venus in an absolute way using quantitative immunoblotting and a known amount of Venus standard on the gels.

2. The Figure 3A western also has some confusion. What is the control lane? What are the protein loads, and what is equalized? Finally, I don’t understand the “% of fusion” quantification below the blots; shouldn’t one of them be 100%? It might be clearer that way.

3. I suggest that a Table of the host strains with their genotype/characteristics might be helpful. Along that line, why does strain Cal13 transform much better than T60?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: DAVID L. HERRIN

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0237405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237405.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Jun 2020

I thank David L Herrin for his helpful public review and am glad to hear he thinks people in the community will find my work useful.

Point 1: (Figure 1D and corresponding legend and text)

I agree with him that protein abundances should not be compared directly when inferred from different antibodies without absolute quantification. Most certainly I would expect there to be more CF1 beta than Venus. My use of CF1 beta in Fig. 1D was indeed as a loading control, and I simply used the resulting values directly as an arbitrary unit scale, if you will, to plot Venus quantities on. However, I must admit that this can very easily be misunderstood, and I have thus changed the scale to units relative to the average across my Venus samples. As I did refer to quantities of Venus relative to the population in the text anyway (lines 185-190), this should make the paper easier to understand. Supplementary Table S2 has been updated accordingly.

Indeed the reader should not need Ouija boards or tarot cards, I apologize for the oversight of not having indicated loaded quantities. Crude protein extracts were normalized to 2µg chlorophyll in each lane, which I have now specified in figure legends (lines 158, 271). A description of how bands were revealed was added in the methods section (lines 431-434).

An absolute quantification of Venus would certainly strengthen the case for saying a lot of protein is needed to generate detectable fluorescence. However, I do think the relative quantification I present is suggestive enough in its own right to state the observation. I have weakened the statement in the text to reflect the ambiguity that remains in the absence of absolute quantification (lines 183-190, line 325).

Point 2: (Figure 3A and corresponding legend and text)

Again apologies for the oversight, I have now added a clear statement about the identity of the control lane in the legend (lines 273-274); it is a ‘ribosome reinitiation’ construct transformant.

I understand that the relative quantification of Bands is confusing in that none of the lanes correspond to 100%. However, upon reflection I have decided to keep it that way. This is because 100% is meant to be the ‘real’ protein abundance in ‘fusion’ construct transformants. In the figure, I show two different ‘fusion’ construct transformants, which vary a lot in Venus abundance. If I were to set either of the two replicates to 100%, then I would get an arbitrarily high or low apparent abundance for the ‘leaky’ construct transformants. I do not think it makes sense to treat ‘leaky’ rep1 relative to ‘fusion’ rep1 and ‘leaky’ rep2 relative to ‘fusion’ rep2 either, since there is no a priori reason why they should form sets. Rather, differences in expression levels should be down to differences in the genomic locus that the transgene construct has integrated in. Thus the best thing to do, in my mind, is to take the average of the two ‘fusion’ transformants and set that value to 100%. This is what I have done, and I have updated the legend in a way that hopefully makes this clearer (lines 275-276).

Point 3: (Table of strains)

Adding a table of strains seems a very good idea to me indeed, and I have done so (line 381, text calls: line 335, 385). I must say that I do not really know why there is such a difference in transformation efficiency between Cal13.1B- and T60. However, I would say that Cal13.1B- is quite similar in that respect to T222+, so I’d argue it is T60 that is the outlier with a very low transformation efficiency. T60 is the most cell wall deficient strain I have ever worked with, and the cells are really quite fragile; my guess would be that this is the reason for my difficulties in transforming it.

The fact that Cal13.1B- is not so dissimilar to T60 when it comes to strains recovered photo-autotrophically may reflect an observation made by colleagues in the lab, that Cal13.1B- appears to have depressed levels of PSII subunit D1 in addition to the loss of RBCS1,2. However, while my colleagues are currently preparing a publication on a characterization of this strain, I feel that this is beyond the scope of my article and I have therefore refrained from speculating in that direction in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Andrew Webber

27 Jul 2020

Introduction of a leaky stop codon as molecular tool in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

PONE-D-20-11123R1

Dear Dr. Caspari,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrew Webber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrew Webber

4 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-11123R1

Introduction of a leaky stop codon as molecular tool in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Dear Dr. Caspari:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew Webber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images. Raw image files for Western blots.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data. Tabulated numeric and sequence data.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Original fluorescence microscopy image files.

    (ZIP)

    S3 Data. Photos of transformation plates for T60 rep. 1.

    (ZIP)

    S4 Data. Photos of transformation plates for T60 rep. 2.

    (ZIP)

    S5 Data. Photos of transformation plates for Cal13.1B.

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES