Relationships between puroindoline-prolamin interactions and wheat grain hardness

Abstract

Grain hardness is an important quality trait of cereal crops. In wheat, it is mainly determined by the Hardness locus that harbors genes encoding puroindoline A (PINA) and puroindoline B (PINB). Any deletion or mutation of these genes leading to the absence of PINA or to single amino acid changes in PINB leads to hard endosperms. Although it is generally acknowledged that hardness is controlled by adhesion strength between the protein matrix and starch granules, the physicochemical mechanisms connecting puroindolines and the starch-protein interactions are unknown as of this time. To explore these mechanisms, we focused on PINA. The overexpression in a hard wheat cultivar (cv. Courtot with the Pina-D1a and Pinb-D1d alleles) decreased grain hardness in a dose-related effect, suggesting an interactive process. When PINA was added to gliadins in solution, large aggregates of up to 13 {micro}m in diameter were formed. Turbidimetry measurements showed that the PINA-gliadin interaction displayed a high cooperativity that increased with a decrease in pH from neutral to acid (pH 4) media, mimicking the pH change during endosperm development. No turbidity was observed in the presence of isolated - and {gamma}-gliadins, but non-cooperative interactions of PINA with these proteins could be confirmed by surface plasmon resonance. A significant higher interaction of PINA with {gamma}-gliadins than with -gliadins was observed. Similar binding behavior was observed with a recombinant repeated polypeptide that mimics the repeat domain of gliadins, i.e., (Pro-Gln-Gln-Pro-Tyr)8. Taken together, these results suggest that the interaction of PINA with a monomeric gliadin creates a nucleation point leading to the aggregation of other gliadins, a phenomenon that could prevent further interaction of the storage prolamins with starch granules. Consequently, the role of puroindoline-prolamin interactions on grain hardness should be addressed on the basis of previous observations that highlight the similar subcellular routing of storage prolamins and puroindolines.