Late Embryogenesis Abundant Protein–Client Protein Interactions
Lynnette M. A. Dirk,
Caser Ghaafar Abdel,
Imran Ahmad,
Izabel Costa Silva Neta,
Cristiane Carvalho Pereira,
Francisco Elder Carlos Bezerra Pereira,
Sandra Helena Unêda-Trevisoli,
Daniel Guariz Pinheiro,
Allan Bruce Downie
Affiliations
Lynnette M. A. Dirk
Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky Seed Biology Program, Plant Science Building, 1405 Veterans Drive, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0312, USA
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25120, Pakistan
Izabel Costa Silva Neta
Agroceres, Inc., Patos de Minas, Minas Gerais CEP: 38703-240, Brazil
Cristiane Carvalho Pereira
Departamento de Agricultura—Setor de Sementes, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais CEP: 37200-000, Brazil
Francisco Elder Carlos Bezerra Pereira
Germisul Ltd., Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul CEP: 79108-011, Brazil
Sandra Helena Unêda-Trevisoli
Department of Vegetable Production, (UNESP) National University of São Paulo, Jaboticabal, São Paulo CEP: 14884-900, Brazil
Daniel Guariz Pinheiro
Department of Biology, Faculty of Philosophy, Science and Letters of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo CEP: 14040-901, Brazil
Allan Bruce Downie
Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky Seed Biology Program, Plant Science Building, 1405 Veterans Drive, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0312, USA
The intrinsically disordered proteins belonging to the LATE EMBRYOGENESIS ABUNDANT protein (LEAP) family have been ascribed a protective function over an array of intracellular components. We focus on how LEAPs may protect a stress-susceptible proteome. These examples include instances of LEAPs providing a shield molecule function, possibly by instigating liquid-liquid phase separations. Some LEAPs bind directly to their client proteins, exerting a holdase-type chaperonin function. Finally, instances of LEAP–client protein interactions have been documented, where the LEAP modulates (interferes with) the function of the client protein, acting as a surreptitious rheostat of cellular homeostasis. From the examples identified to date, it is apparent that client protein modulation also serves to mitigate stress. While some LEAPs can physically bind and protect client proteins, some apparently bind to assist the degradation of the client proteins with which they associate. Documented instances of LEAP–client protein binding, even in the absence of stress, brings to the fore the necessity of identifying how the LEAPs are degraded post-stress to render them innocuous, a first step in understanding how the cell regulates their abundance.