Generation of endogenous Kar2p-sfGFP
To generate an endogenous fluorescent Kar2p variant, we exploited the high efficiency of homologous recombination in yeast and the ability to perform chromosomal tagging of endogenous genes with fluorescent proteins (
Huh et al., 2003 
). Two important modifications to previous efforts involving GFP tagging were incorporated. First, our lab recently established that the improved folding capacity of sfGFP prevents significant misfolding of GFP via inappropriate disulfide bonds and minimizes the formation of nonfluorescent species in oxidizing environments, including the ER (
Aronson et al., 2011 
). Therefore we used sfGFP for our tagging efforts. Second, it was previously reported that yeast cells carrying Kar2p-GFP were viable, but the cellular localization of the fusion protein was ambiguous (
Huh et al., 2003 
). This result could be partially explained by disruption of the ER retrieval motif, HDEL, on the resulting fusion protein (
Munro and Pelham, 1987 
;
Snapp, 2009 
). Therefore we added an HDEL motif to the C-terminus of the sfGFP to restore HDEL-mediated slowing of the loss of Kar2p from the ER (). The sfGFP-HDEL construct, along with a
HIS3-selectable marker, was integrated at the
KAR2 locus. Successful tagging of the gene and production of the Kar2p-sfGFP fusion protein was confirmed by immunoblot for both Kar2p and sfGFP (). Imaging of live cells expressing Kar2p-sfGFP revealed a typical pattern of peripheral and nuclear ER fluorescence expected for an ER-localized protein ().
Next we established the functionality of the Kar2p-sfGFP protein.
KAR2 is essential for cell viability (
Normington et al., 1989 
).
KAR2 conditional mutants are unable to rescue cells from low levels of ER stressors such as tunicamycin (Tm), an inhibitor of N-glycosylation (
Rose et al., 1989 
;
Kimata et al., 2003 
), or elevated temperature, that is, 37°C. The Kar2p-sfGFP strain grew well on synthetic media and grew only slightly less well on Tm-containing media relative to the wild-type strain (). For comparison,
ire1Δ cells, which cannot induce the UPR, were unable to survive on Tm. Moreover, when cultured at 37°C, Kar2p-sfGFP cells grew robustly (). This contrasts with temperature-sensitive
KAR2 mutants, which grow robustly at the permissive temperature of 22°C and grow poorly at higher temperatures (
Polaina and Conde, 1982 
;
Kimata et al., 2007 
).
To further characterize the Kar2p-sfGFP fusion protein, we investigated whether the sfGFP fusion on Kar2p affected UPR regulation. A plasmid containing the fluorescent UPR reporter UPR-mCherry (
Merksamer et al., 2008 
) was introduced into wild-type and Kar2p-sfGFP yeast strains. The reporter mCherry expression is driven by a minimal CYC1 promoter and four tandem UPR elements and thus should be expressed only during ER stress. The fluorescence intensity of UPR-mCherry was recorded by flow cytometry () in untreated and dithiothreitol (DTT)-treated (which prevents the formation of disulfide bonds in nascent secretory proteins) strains. In addition, the splicing of
HAC1 mRNA in response to DTT-mediated UPR activation was assessed directly by Northern analysis (). Together these results established two important features of the chromosomally tagged Kar2p-sfGFP strain. First, the GFP fusion does not constitutively activate the UPR at steady state. Second, Kar2p-sfGFP cells can induce a robust UPR in response to unfolded protein stress. Note that efficient release of Kar2p from Ire1p is required for UPR activation and Kar2p binding, and release of substrates correlates with regulated UPR activation (
Kimata et al., 2003 
). However, Ire1p mutants defective in Kar2p binding do not exhibit constitutive UPR, suggesting that Kar2p buffers against unfolded protein levels and modulates the stress response rather than directly regulates Ire1p activation (
Kimata et al., 2004 
;
Oikawa et al., 2009 
;
Pincus et al., 2010 
).
Next we asked whether we could monitor Kar2p-sfGFP levels in living cells during ER stress as a proxy for UPR activation.
KAR2 is a classic UPR target gene, and its expression increases following treatment with ER stressors, including DTT and Tm (
Travers et al., 2000 
). We treated Kar2p-sfGFP cells with either ER stressor and quantified the fluorescence levels by microscopy and flow cytometry. The Kar2p-sfGFP signal increased nearly 10-fold after a 4 h treatment either Tm or DTT (). The increase in Kar2p-sfGFP signal was dependent on stress activation of the UPR, since no change in Kar2p-sfGFP fluorescence intensity was observed in an
ire1Δ strain (). Moreover, the change in Kar2p-sfGFP fluorescence signal was specific, since the fluorescence intensity of the inert reporter ER-sfGFP-HDEL did not change in response to DTT treatment (). Finally, the comparable accumulation of wild-type and Kar2p-sfGFP proteins in response to ER stress indicates that the addition of the sfGFP tag preserves the UPR regulation of target genes, including Kar2p (). These results demonstrate that the Kar2p-sfGFP fusion protein robustly reports on UPR activation by both standard microscopy and by high-throughput methods, including flow cytometry.
ER lumen unfolded protein burden and Kar2p availability
We previously used fluorescence microscopy techniques to establish in mammalian cells that the decrease of BiP-GFP mobility reflects binding of the chaperone to unfolded protein substrates (
Lai et al., 2010 
;
Lajoie and Snapp, 2011 
). We asked whether Kar2p-sfGFP would function comparably as a reporter of unfolded protein accumulation. First, the mobility of Kar2p-sfGFP was assessed using fluorescence loss in photobleaching (FLIP;
Ellenberg et al., 1997 
). For this technique, a discrete region of interest within the cells is repeatedly photobleached while images are acquired. If the protein is mobile within a continuous compartment, the total fluorescence within this compartment will eventually be depleted by FLIP. In unstressed cells, Kar2p-sfGFP is mobile throughout the ER (, top), similar to our previous results with BiP-GFP in mammalian cells (
Lai et al., 2010 
). Total cellular fluorescence was homogeneously depleted within a short time window (), indicating that Kar2p-sfGFP is not immobilized or enriched in ER subdomains. Treatment with ER stressors—Tm or DTT—significantly decreased the mobility of Kar2p-sfGFP as demonstrated by the longer time interval required to deplete 50% of the GFP fluorescence (control, 125 s; +Tm, 230 s; +DTT, 315 s; (, bottom, and ). Of importance, the GFP fluorescence was ultimately homogeneously depleted in the Kar2p-sfGFP strain, excluding the possibility that Kar2p-sfGFP becomes trapped or incorporated into a chaperone matrix following acute ER stress (
Pfeffer and Rothman, 1987 
).
A potential caveat for interpreting these measurements is that soluble protein mobility is affected both by the size of the molecule and the viscosity of its environment (
Einstein, 1905 
). ER luminal viscosity in living cells can be assessed with inert fluorescent protein probes (
Snapp et al., 2006 
;
Lai et al., 2010 
), such as ER-targeted sfGFP, which has no known interacting partners. In this case, treatment with Tm or DTT modestly reduces mobility of ER-sfGFP-HDEL (). The time interval to deplete 50% of the GFP fluorescence was 20 s for the control and 30 s for both Tm- and DTT-treated cells. Thus treatment with ER stressors does not induce gross changes in the ER environment that disrupt ER continuity or immobilize pools of ER luminal proteins. Of importance, the FLIP loss of fluorescence of ER-sfGFP-HDEL in treated cells was significantly more rapid than for the much larger Kar2p-sfGFP. These data are consistent with our previous finding in mammalian cells, in which slower BiP-GFP mobility correlated with binding of the chaperone to substrate.
To further characterize Kar2p substrate binding in yeast, we quantified the mobility of Kar2p-sfGFP using FRAP. During FRAP experiments, changes in the mobility or molecular availability of the fluorescently tagged protein are reflected by the effective diffusion coefficient (D). Changes in D report on changes in the environment viscosity, size of the molecule, or its incorporation into or release from molecular complexes (
Snapp et al., 2003 
). In mammalian cells, the mobility of BiP-GFP was shown to increase after substrate depletion by translational inhibition and with loss of function in the BiP-GFP substrate-binding domain (
Lai et al., 2010 
). FRAP analysis of Kar2p mobility in yeast ER was similarly responsive to substrate depletion (). A significant increase in D was observed following treatment of yeast with the translational inhibitor cycloheximide (CHX) for 30 min (), consistent with depletion of substrate and increased Kar2p-sfGFP availability. We hypothesized that if Kar2p-sfGFP mobility reflects binding of Kar2p to misfolded proteins, then D should decrease as the unfolded protein burden increases. To test this hypothesis, cells were treated with Tm for 2 h and analyzed by FRAP. Indeed, there was a significant decrease in D following Tm treatment (). Of interest, when cells were treated with Tm for 90 min and CHX was added for the last 30 min of treatment, we observed a significant increase in D (). This result indicates that whereas Tm prevents glycosylation of nascent proteins, the inhibition of protein synthesis can decrease the Tm-induced misfolded protein burden and result in increased Kar2p-sfGFP mobility in stressed cells. These data support a role for Kar2p substrate levels as a major contributing factor in affecting Kar2p-sfGFP mobility.
Next the reversibility of Kar2p-sfGFP substrate binding was assessed using DTT treatment, which induces reversible protein unfolding (
Braakman et al., 1992 
;
Lai et al., 2010 
). Washout of DTT permits unfolded secretory proteins to release from ER chaperones and refold (
Simons et al., 1995 
) and is accompanied by a gradual loss of UPR signaling as reported by
HAC1 mRNA splicing and Ire1p clustering (
Pincus et al., 2010 
). The mobility of Kar2p-sfGFP decreased after DTT treatment to a comparable extent as detected with Tm treatment (). Consistent with the reversibility of the DTT-induced protein misfolding, Kar2p-sfGFP mobility was restored after washout of DTT, approaching the mobility level detected in untreated cells.
The increase in ER chaperone and other UPR targeted proteins in response to ER stress (e.g., the 10-fold increase in Kar2p protein levels; ) has the potential to alter ER lumen crowdedness and affect ER-sfGFP-HDEL mobility. Although the FLIP results () did not indicate a gross change in the mobility of the inert ER-sfGFP-HDEL reporter in response to ER stress, we quantified the effect of ER stress on ER environment viscosity using FRAP using the ER-sfGFP strain. Treatment with either DTT or Tm () decreased ER-sfGFP-HDEL mobility by ~25%. A comparable decrease was detected in
ire1Δ cells (Supplemental Figure S3), indicating that the effect is independent of the canonical UPR. The small diameter of ER tubules is conserved from yeast to mammalian cells (40–70 nm;
Voeltz et al., 2002 
) and may limit the diffusional mobility of luminal proteins once unfolded proteins accumulate in response to Tm or DTT treatment. Indeed, we observed no changes in ER-sfGFP-HDEL mobility in most mammalian cell lines during ER stressor treatment (
Lai et al., 2010 
;
Lajoie and Snapp, 2011 
). Nonetheless, the mobility decrease observed for Kar2p-sfGFP (>70%) is significantly greater than the decrease in D of the inert reporter (~35%). Moreover, Kar2p mobility is sensitive to CHX (), whereas ER-sfGFP-HDEL mobility is not. Together these data argue that changes in Kar2p-sfGFP mobility predominantly reflect its binding to substrate.
One challenge to dissecting the various cellular events that affect UPR activation has been the ability to robustly quantify changes in unfolded protein accumulation in the ER lumen at any given time. Our studies in mammalian cells using the BiP-GFP mobility assay demonstrated that changes in unfolded protein burden can be detected independent of the UPR pathway (
Lai et al., 2010 
). These analyses, however, were limited to cells with functional UPR machinery. The Kar2p-sfGFP mobility assay in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae allowed us to assess changes in the ER unfolded protein burden in the absence of a functional UPR (
ire1Δ cells). In unstressed
ire1Δ cells, Kar2p-sfGFP mobility was significantly lower than that of wild-type cells (). There was no difference in ER-sfGFP-HDEL mobility (). The viability of
ire1Δ cells and their lack of gross growth defects under nonstressful conditions () suggest that the decrease in Kar2p-sfGFP mobility in the untreated
ire1Δ cells reflects higher but nonlethal steady-state levels of unfolded protein. Treatment of
ire1Δ cells with 0.025 μg/ml Tm further decreased Kar2p-sfGFP mobility (), consistent with their hypersensitivity to ER stressors (). Kar2p-sfGFP mobilities were indistinguishable between wild-type and mutant cells treated with a high dose of Tm (). Of importance, the Kar2p-sfGFP mobility assay enabled quantitation of the misfolded protein burden in the ER of cells with compromised UPR signaling. The only measure of ER stress independent of UPR signaling has been the quantitation of ER redox potential using a GFP reporter (
Merksamer et al., 2008 
). The Kar2p-sfGFP mobility assay allows not only detection of unfolded protein levels under various conditions, but also reports on differences in unfolded protein levels in unstressed cells of various genetic backgrounds (
Merksamer et al., 2008 
;
Pincus et al., 2010 
).
Just as it is important for cells to cope with an unfolded secretory protein stress, the ability of cells to resolve the UPR, itself, is critical for survival. Yeast demonstrably overcome chemically mediated, unfolded secretory protein stresses and attenuate the UPR (
Pincus et al., 2010 
;
Chawla et al., 2011 
;
Rubio et al., 2011 
). However, yeast expressing Ire1p mutants unable to attenuate the UPR are hypersensitive to tunicamycin and DTT stressors (
Chawla et al., 2011 
;
Rubio et al., 2011 
). Implicit to these problems is whether there is a correlation between resolution of the unfolded protein stress and attenuation of the UPR. That is, is the UPR attenuated at the time that the unfolded protein burden has been resolved? Therefore we investigated Kar2p availability before and after UPR attenuation.
To assess UPR status in live cells, we used a fluorescent reporter (splicing reporter [SR]-GFP) that directly reports on the endonuclease activity of Ire1p (
Pincus et al., 2010 
). The increasing fluorescence signal in stressed cells, expressing the reporter, was measured by flow cytometry (). Cells were treated with 1 μg/ml Tm, a dose sufficient to activate the UPR. Wild-type cells can attenuate the UPR from this Tm dose ~4 h later and continue growing (), consistent with adaptation to this level of unfolded protein stress (
Chawla et al., 2011 
). After 4 h, the median GFP fluorescence reached an asymptote (). The plateau in intensity indicates no additional stress has been detected and signaled (
Pincus et al., 2010 
). The GFP signal persists for several hours as a consequence of the long half-life of GFP. Thus a plateau reports on attenuation of Ire1p endonuclease activity and restoration of the folding capacity of the ER. FRAP at 4 h of Tm treatment revealed significantly reduced Kar2p-sfGFP mobility. After this time, no significant increase in UPR reporter fluorescence was observed. In contrast, it was only after 16 h of Tm treatment that Kar2p-sfGFP mobility returned to D values comparable with those of untreated cells (). The restored mobility is unlikely to reflect the loss of Tm activity, since the media of Tm-treated cells can be used to induce UPR in naive cells (
Chawla et al., 2011 
). Therefore we conclude that the ER folding capacity was restored. UPR-mediated increases in levels of chaperones, ERAD and secretion components, and the ALG7 gene product (the target of Tm) and up-regulation of proteasomal activity probably all account for the decrease in ER misfolded protein in adapted cells.
These results lead to the somewhat surprising conclusion that UPR inactivation occurs even while a substantial unfolded protein burden remains. We hypothesize that UPR attenuation likely occurs when the stressed ER achieves a small (below our limit of detection) increase in the available pool of Kar2p and potentially other quality control machinery components. Simultaneously or in parallel, Ire1p regulatory attenuators, such as the phosphatase Ptc2p (
Welihinda et al., 1998 
), may achieve a sufficient level of activity to turn off the UPR. Although these matters remain speculative, the results suggest that tools capable of measuring the instantaneous status of UPR activity will be needed to understand the temporal and mechanistic aspects of UPR attenuation.
Kar2p mobility distinguishes various forms of UPR
Finally, we investigated the ability of our FRAP assay to distinguish between different types of UPR activation. The UPR is generally considered to depend on increased levels of unfolded proteins (
Credle et al., 2005 
;
Kimata et al., 2007 
;
Kimata and Kohno, 2011;
Gardner and Walter, 2011 
). Recently, however, it was shown that UPR activation by either inositol depletion or deletion of lipid biosynthetic genes does not require the luminal unfolded peptide-binding portion of Ire1p (
Promlek et al., 2011 
). Thus lipid imbalance can lead to UPR activation independent of the accumulation of unfolded proteins, distinct from the response to the classic ER stressors Tm and DTT. We asked how the Kar2p-sfGFP and UPR-mCherry reporters respond to perturbation of lipid metabolism. In the absence of inositol, the phosphatidic acid levels on the ER are high and genes involved in inositol biosynthesis and phospholipid metabolism are actively transcribed (
Carman and Henry, 2007 
). Inositol depletion increased expression of both Kar2p-sfGFP and UPR-mCherry reporters, indicating UPR activation (). Next the effect of inositol depletion on Kar2p-sfGFP mobility was examined by FRAP. Despite strong evidence of UPR activation, inositol depletion did
not decrease Kar2p-sfGFP mobility, unlike the effect of Tm treatment (). On the contrary, the Kar2p-sfGFP mobility increased, paralleling the increase in Kar2p-sfGFP intensity (). The increased mobility may reflect a higher Kar2p/substrate ratio that leads to an increase in unbound Kar2p. Inositol depletion did not significantly change the mobility of the inert ER-sfGFP-HDEL, indicating that the increase in Kar2p mobility was independent of ER viscosity (). Therefore various stresses appear to activate Ire1p and elicit the UPR by distinct mechanisms. Kar2p-sfGFP mobility represents a novel noninvasive assay to distinguish between these different forms of UPR in intact cells.