# New perspectives on the molecular mechanisms of stress signalling by the nucleotide guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp), an emerging regulator of photosynthesis in plants and algae

Marwa Mehrez, Shanna Romand, Ben Field

► To cite this version:

Marwa Mehrez, Shanna Romand, Ben Field. New perspectives on the molecular mechanisms of stress signalling by the nucleotide guanosine tetraphosphate ( ppGpp ), an emerging regulator of photosynthesis in plants and algae. New Phytologist, 2023, 237, pp.1086-1099. 10.1111/nph.18604 . hal-03857857v2

HAL Id: hal-03857857

https://amu.hal.science/hal-03857857v2

Submitted on 8 Feb 2023

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Tansley review

New perspectives on the molecular mechanisms
of stress signalling by the nucleotide guanosine
tetraphosphate (ppGpp), an emerging
regulator of photosynthesis in plants and algae

Author for correspondence:

Ben Field

Email: ben.field@univ-amu.fr

Received: 19 August 2022

Accepted: 13 October 2022

Marwa Mehrez<fnref n="1" />,², Shanna Romand<fnref n="1" /> and Ben Field<fnref n="1" /> ID

Contents

<table><tr><td>Summary</td><td>1086</td><td>IV. Molecular mechanisms of (p)ppGpp signalling in plants and algae</td><td>1091</td></tr><tr><td>I. Introduction</td><td>1086</td><td>V. Concluding remarks</td><td>1096</td></tr><tr><td>II. Specialisation of RSH enzymes for (p)ppGpp metabolism in plants and algae</td><td>1088</td><td>Acknowledgements</td><td>1096</td></tr><tr><td>III. The physiological roles of (p)ppGpp in photosynthetic eukaryotes</td><td>1088</td><td>References</td><td>1096</td></tr></table>

Summary

New Phytologist (2023) 237: 1086–1099

doi: 10.1111/nph.18604

**Key words:** algae, chloroplast, guanosine tetraphosphate, nitrogen, photosynthesis, ppGpp, RelA SpoT Homologue.

I. Introduction

Thanks to the domestication of the chloroplast, plants and algae are
among the most successful and important organisms on the planet.
A pair of purine nucleotides called guanosine tetraphosphate
(ppGpp) and guanosine pentaphosphate (pppGpp), collectively
(p)ppGpp, may have helped tame the chloroplast and at the same
time allow efficient acclimation to environmental fluctuations.
These signalling molecules (also known as alarmones), which are
synthesised from GTP/GDP and ATP by RelA SpoT Homologue

(RSH) enzymes (Fig. 1a), were discovered > 50 yr ago in bacteria where they play a major role in growth control and in acclimation to environmental change by targeting a wide range of effector enzymes to slow proliferation and promote resilience (Irving *et al.*, 2020; Bange *et al.*, 2021). (p)ppGpp signalling (also referred to as the stringent response) was discovered more recently in plants and algae (van der Biezen *et al.*, 2000; Takahashi *et al.*, 2004), where it takes place in the chloroplast (Boniecka *et al.*, 2017; Field, 2018). The chloroplast is the site of photosynthesis, which fuels plant growth and nearly all life on earth by converting sunlight into chemical

<footnote n="1">¹Aix-Marseille University, CEA, CNRS, BIAM, UMR7265, 13009 Marseille, France; ²Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, Laboratory of</footnote>

<footnote>Molecular Genetics, Immunology and Biotechnology, University of Tunis El Manar, 2092 Tunis, Tunisia</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>(a)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>(b)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>(d)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>(c)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** RelA SpoT Homologue (RSH) enzymes are involved in guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) and pentaphosphate (pppGpp) biosynthesis in plants, algae and bacteria. (a) Outline of the synthesis and hydrolysis of (p)ppGpp by RSH superfamily enzymes. (b) A schematic outline showing the evolutionary relationship of RSH enzymes based on the phylogenetic analysis of Avilan *et al.* (2019). The three main plant and algal families are shown (RSH1, RSH2/3 and RSH4/CRSH). (c) The domain structure of long RSH in bacteria and Arabidopsis. For bacteria, we show the structure of a typical member of the Rel subgroup which is thought to represent the original bacterial long RSH (Atkinson *et al.*, 2011). (d) The structure of *Escherichia coli* RelA, a bacterial long RSH, when bound to the ribosome. Inset shows the position of RelA on the ribosome, and the uncharged tRNA (grey) that interacts with RelA in the AH domain of the regulatory C-terminal region. Protein Data Bank identifier, 5L3P. CTP, chloroplast transit peptide; hydrolase, (p)ppGpp hydrolase domain; synthetase, (p)ppGpp synthetase domain; TGS, ThrRS, GTPase, and SpoT; AH, alpha-helical domain; RIS, ribosome-intersubunit domain; ACT, aspartate kinase-chorismate mutase-tyrA (prephenate dehydrogenase); EF X2, two EF-hand domains. Crossed-out text indicates the presence of a domain that is not catalytically active.</figcaption></figure>

energy, and is also a hub for stress perception and regulation (Kleine *et al.*, 2021). (p)ppGpp signalling is therefore well placed to play important roles in regulating both the nutrition and stress acclimation of photosynthetic eukaryotes. Indeed, as we will discuss, recent studies highlight (p)ppGpp as a conserved regulator of photosynthetic activity and open new perspectives on the emerging roles of (p)ppGpp in acclimation to environmental stress. We will then look at how rapid advances in the study of prokaryotic

(p)ppGpp signalling are now revealing gaps in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of (p)ppGpp signalling in plants and algae. Filling in these gaps is likely to lead to the discovery of highly conserved mechanisms as well as new plant- and algal-specific mechanisms that will offer fresh insights into the remarkable success of the cohabitation between the chloroplast and the eukaryotic cell, and a greater understanding of stress acclimation in these organisms.
## II. Specialisation of RSH enzymes for (p)ppGpp metabolism in plants and algae

RSH superfamily enzymes carry out the synthesis and hydrolysis of (p)ppGpp (Fig. 1a). A synthetase domain catalyses the Mg²⁺-dependent transfer of a pyrophosphate group from ATP to the ribose 3'-OH of GDP (or GTP) to form (p)ppGpp, whereas a hydrolase domain catalyses the Mn²⁺-dependent removal of the 3'-diphosphate from (p)ppGpp to produce GDP (or GTP) and pyrophosphate. Multi-domain long RSH enzymes that possess both (p)ppGpp synthetase and hydrolase domains, as well as the related single-domain small alarmone synthetases (SAS) and small alarmone hydrolases, have been identified in almost all bacterial groups studied, as well as in photosynthetic eukaryotes, and some members of the Archaea (Atkinson et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2017; Avilan et al., 2019). An interesting recent development is the identification of the SAS called Metazoan SpoT homologue 1 (MESH1) in animals, along with the presence of (p)ppGpp (Sun et al., 2010; Young et al., 2021; Ito et al., 2022). However, the absence of an obvious enzyme responsible for (p)ppGpp synthetase activity and the dual activities of MESH1 as an efficient hydrolase of both (p)ppGpp and NADPH mean that the physiological role played by (p)ppGpp in animals is not yet fully resolved (Mestre et al., 2022). Plants and algae have at least three conserved families of long RSH enzymes, RSH1, RSH2/3 and RSH4 (or Ca²⁺-activated RSH, CRSH) (Atkinson et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2017; Avilan et al., 2019) (Fig. 1b). These families originated at an early stage in the evolution of the Archaeplastida because representatives can be found in the three major lineages—green plants and algae (Viridiplantae), red algae (Rhodophyta) and blue-green algae (Glaucophyta). Evolutionary inference in multiple studies places the Archaeplastida RSH families far from the cyanobacteria, the likely ancestors of the chloroplast, pointing to a complex evolutionary history that may not be possible to explain by simple vertical descent. Indeed, the RSH1 family groups with RSH from the Deinococcus-Thermus bacteria (Atkinson et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2017; Avilan et al., 2019), and there are signs of the more recent emergence of clades of diatom RSH that may have involved lateral gene transfer from bacteria (Avilan et al., 2019).

Plant and algal RSH enzymes show important differences in domain structure from bacterial RSH, as well as a higher diversity and functional specialisation (Fig. 1c). The majority of plant and algal RSH so far tested are nuclear encoded and possess a predicted or experimentally verified chloroplast transit peptide (CTP). Except for the CTP and an N-terminal extension, members of the RSH1 family show a strong resemblance to bacterial long RSH enzymes (Fig. 1c), with both (p)ppGpp hydrolase and synthetase domains, and a bacteria-like C-terminal regulatory region (CTR) with the threonyl-tRNA synthetase-GTPase-SpoT and helical domains. While Arabidopsis lacks a clearly identifiable aspartate kinase-chorismate mutase-TyrA (prephenate dehydrogenase) domain in the CTR, this domain is found in the CTR of many other plant and algal RSH1 (Avilan et al., 2019). In bacteria, the CTR controls the switch between hydrolase and synthetase activities by interacting with partners such as stalled ribosomes (Fig. 1d) (Arenz et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2016; Loveland

et al., 2016) and regulatory proteins (Battesti & Bouveret, 2006; Ronneau et al., 2019; Krüger et al., 2021). It is not yet known whether RSH1 family enzymes are also regulated by interactions at the CTR in a similar way. However, the report of an evolutionarily conserved interaction between Arabidopsis RSH1 and the chloroplastic ribosome-associated GTPase spo0B-associated GTP-binding protein (ObgC) by a yeast two-hybrid system suggests that such interactions are a real possibility (Bang et al., 2012). In the land plant-clade of RSH1 enzymes, despite an early report showing ppGpp synthetase activity in *Escherichia coli* complementation assays (van der Biezen et al., 2000), it is now generally accepted that the synthetase domain is not catalytically functional (Mizusawa et al., 2008; Sugliani et al., 2016; Avilan et al., 2019), and the enzyme functions as the main (p)ppGpp hydrolase limiting (p)ppGpp levels *in planta* (Sugliani et al., 2016; Li et al., 2022) (Fig. 2).

RSH2/RSH3 family enzymes show bifunctional (p)ppGpp synthetase/hydrolase activity and in Arabidopsis act as the major ppGpp synthetases during the day (Maekawa et al., 2015; Sugliani et al., 2016) and are required for constraining (p)ppGpp levels at night (Ono et al., 2020). In addition to the catalytic region, plant RSH2/RSH3 enzymes have significant N-terminal region (NTR) and CTR extensions with high sequence conservation, which bear little or no homology to their bacterial counterparts (Fig. 1c). The RSH2/RSH3 NTR and CTR may therefore be involved in novel, plant-specific regulatory processes.

The RSH4/CRSH family enzymes identified so far all contain a nonfunctional (p)ppGpp hydrolase domain, and except for the CTP they lack an extension in the NTR. In plants and some green algae, the CTR contains EF-hand domains which permit the Ca²⁺-mediated activation of (p)ppGpp synthetase activity (Tozawa et al., 2007; Masuda et al., 2008a; Avilan et al., 2019) (Fig. 1c). Interestingly, the acquisition of novel domains is frequent among algal members of the RSH4 family (Ito et al., 2017; Avilan et al., 2019). This suggests that the regulation of synthetase domain activity observed in bacterial RSH can readily be repurposed to permit new regulatory connections.

## III. The physiological roles of (p)ppGpp in photosynthetic eukaryotes

Although the (p)ppGpp pathway was discovered some time ago in plants and algae, it is only recently that significant progress has been made in understanding its physiological roles. Progress has come principally from manipulating ppGpp levels *in vivo* (pppGpp is not usually detected in plants) via the use of different RSH mutants or the expression of ppGpp synthetases and hydrolases initially in Arabidopsis (Maekawa et al., 2015; Yamburenko et al., 2015; Sugliani et al., 2016; Abdelkefi et al., 2018; Honoki et al., 2018; Ono et al., 2020; Goto et al., 2022; Romand et al., 2022), and more recently using similar approaches in rice, moss and algae (Imamura et al., 2018; Avilan et al., 2021; Harchouni et al., 2022; Ito et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). These studies have highlighted the role of (p)ppGpp signalling in regulating chloroplast function (and in particular photosynthesis) during growth and development, acceleration to nitrogen starvation, and the onset of night and immune responses (Fig. 2).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** The physiological roles of guanosine tetraphosphate and guanosine pentaphosphate ((p)ppGpp) in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. A simplified outline of the known physiological roles of (p)ppGpp signalling in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. Dashed lines indicate potential interactions where there is no direct evidence, and blunt-ended arrows indicate inhibition. ROS, reactive oxygen species.</figcaption></figure>

## 1. ppGpp is a conserved regulator of photosynthesis in plants and algae

A common theme emerging from multiple studies on plants and algae is that manipulation of ppGpp levels alters photosynthetic activity. Specifically, ppGpp accumulation causes a decrease in photosynthesis – reducing maximal quantum efficiency ($F_v/F_m$) and operating efficiency (or quantum yield) and electron transport rate (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Honoki *et al.*, 2018; Avilan *et al.*, 2021; Harchouni *et al.*, 2022; Ito *et al.*, 2022; Li *et al.*, 2022; Romand *et al.*, 2022). In Arabidopsis, moss and diatoms, these changes are associated with modifications in the architecture of the photosynthetic electron transport chain. Notably at photosystem II (PSII), there is a decrease in the quantity of PSII reaction centres compared with the peripheral light-harvesting antenna (Maekawa *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Avilan *et al.*, 2021; Harchouni *et al.*, 2022). Photosystem I (PSI) would appear to be less affected, although more work is required to determine the relative impact of ppGpp on PSI and PSII. Rubisco levels also drop markedly in response to ppGpp accumulation, and *RSH* mutants deficient in (p)ppGpp metabolism show defects in nitrogen remobilisation from Rubisco during stress-induced senescence (Maekawa *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Honoki *et al.*, 2018; Harchouni *et al.*, 2022; Li *et al.*, 2022; Romand *et al.*, 2022). Interestingly, while the decrease in photosynthetic activity in response to ppGpp accumulation is conserved, certain features vary. For example, Rubisco is not sensitive to even very high levels of ppGpp in the diatom *Phaeodactylum tricornutum* (Avilan *et al.*, 2021). This suggests

that (p)ppGpp is able to trigger specific responses in different photosynthetic organisms.

The effects of ppGpp on photosynthesis were first established via the artificial overaccumulation of ppGpp. The relevance of these effects was also demonstrated at physiological levels of ppGpp in wild-type (WT) organisms, as well as in the absence of stress (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Romand *et al.*, 2022). *RSH* mutants deficient in (p)ppGpp biosynthesis or hydrolysis show small defects in photosynthetic parameters under standard growth conditions (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Honoki *et al.*, 2018). More recently, very large ppGpp-dependent effects on photosynthesis were observed during nitrogen starvation in Arabidopsis (Romand *et al.*, 2022), and also in field-grown rice plants carrying a mutation in the (p) ppGpp hydrolase gene *RSH1* (also known as *ABC1 REPRESSOR2*, *ARE2*) (Li *et al.*, 2022). These points are discussed in detail in the following section.

## 2. (p)ppGpp signalling influences growth and development

Several studies have reported that the perturbation of (p)ppGpp levels has effects on growth and development. Such effects might be expected given the role of (p)ppGpp in the regulation of photosynthetic activity as discussed earlier. However, the situation is complex because (p)ppGpp overaccumulation in plants including Arabidopsis, rice and moss has variously been reported to increase (Maekawa *et al.*, 2015), decrease (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Li *et al.*, 2022) or have no detectable effect on plant size (Harchouni *et al.*, 2022; Ito *et al.*, 2022). These conflicting results may be
related to differing levels of (p)ppGpp, species-specific effects,
differences in light intensity/quality and nutrient levels. Indeed,
there is recent support for the idea that variation in nutrient levels,
which can vary considerably during the course of plant culture and
in different growth substrates, might explain the different effects
reported for ppGpp on plants size in Arabidopsis. Goto *et al.* (2022)
showed that plants with high ppGpp levels can grow to a greater size
than WT plants under moderately low nitrogen conditions.
Defects in (p)ppGpp signalling also affect senescence. In Ara-
didopsis, dark-induced and natural senescence are accelerated in
mutants of the (p)ppGpp hydrolase RSH1 that have higher (p)
ppGpp levels, and delayed in mutants unable to accumulate WT
levels of (p)ppGpp (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Li *et al.*, 2022).

3. A pivotal role in acclimation to nitrogen deprivation

(p)ppGpp signalling was recently shown to play a major role in
acclimation to nitrogen deprivation (Romand *et al.*, 2022). The
artificial accumulation of ppGpp in an *RSH3* overexpression line
was found to protect Arabidopsis plants against nitrogen limitation
(Maekawa *et al.*, 2015; Honoki *et al.*, 2018; Goto *et al.*, 2022)
suggesting that (p)ppGpp might be involved in acclimation. Using
mutants defective in ppGpp accumulation, Romand *et al.* (2022)
demonstrated that ppGpp accumulation is required for the
acclimation of Arabidopsis plants to nitrogen limitation under
physiological conditions that may be encountered in nature.
Interestingly, another study performed in parallel further supports
these findings by showing that the increase in ppGpp levels caused
by a mutation in the rice (p)ppGpp hydrolase gene *RSH1* can
suppress and overcome the constitutive nitrogen-starved pheno-
type of the *ABNORMAL CYTOKININ RESPONSE1* mutant (Li
*et al.*, 2022). During nitrogen starvation, (p)ppGpp signalling is
required for the safe downregulation of the photosynthetic
machinery, whose products are no longer necessary due to a
general growth arrest. ppGpp-mediated downregulation of the
photosynthetic machinery is associated with downregulation of
chloroplast transcript levels, a reduction in the GTP pool, and
remodelling of PSII (Romand *et al.*, 2022). These changes are very
similar to those observed in ppGpp-overaccumulating lines
(Maekawa *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016). Limiting ppGpp
biosynthesis during nitrogen starvation delays the downregulation
of photosynthesis, and results in increased reactive oxygen species
(ROS) accumulation, tissue damage, and a major disruption of the
coordination between chloroplast and nuclear gene expression
(Romand *et al.*, 2022). Surprisingly, ppGpp levels do not increase
to very high levels during nitrogen starvation, suggesting that (p)
ppGpp signalling is somehow potentiated during stress by other
factors. For example, potentiation of (p)ppGpp signalling could be
related to the increase in the ppGpp/GTP ratio that occurs under
nitrogen starvation, which would enhance the inhibition of
enzymes where ppGpp is a competitive inhibitor. In any case,
these findings show that the strong connection between (p)ppGpp
signalling and photosynthesis is physiologically relevant and
demonstrate a clear role for (p)ppGpp in abiotic stress acclimation.
Downregulation of the photosynthetic machinery reduces carbon
assimilation and at the same time liberates significant quantities of

nitrogen as the machinery accounts for over half of leaf nitrogen in C3 plants (Evans & Clarke, 2019). While (p)ppGpp can reduce the risk of ROS accumulation from excessive photosynthetic activity during nitrogen limitation, it is likely that the nitrogen liberated from the photosynthetic machinery also serves a major role in supporting other cellular processes. Indeed, the photosynthetic and growth phenotypes of (p)ppGpp mutants under normal growth conditions (Sugliani et al., 2016; Honoki et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022) suggest that (p)ppGpp signalling continually fine-tunes the cellular carbon/nitrogen equilibrium.

4. (p)ppGpp for quiet nights?

(p)ppGpp signalling is likely to be involved in regulating chloroplast gene expression at night in plants. In Arabidopsis, ppGpp levels increase at the onset of night (Ihara et al., 2015) in a CRSH-dependent manner (Ono et al., 2020), although the final concentration requires the participation of RSH1, RSH2 and RSH3. The onset of night also triggers a transient Ca²⁺ flux into the chloroplast stroma (Johnson et al., 1995; Sai & Johnson, 2002) which may be responsible for directly activating CRSH via the EF-hand domains in the CTR. While a CRSH mutant did not show any obvious growth phenotype, the authors observed a probable defect in the night-triggered downregulation of transcript levels for certain chloroplast-encoded genes (Ono et al., 2020). This may therefore be one of the processes by which dark-induced stromal Ca²⁺ transients can influence chloroplast function (Rocha et al., 2014). Cyanobacteria and algae also accumulate (p)ppGpp in the dark but do not have RSH enzymes with EF-hand domains for Ca²⁺ binding (Hood et al., 2016; Puszynska & O'Shea, 2017; Jin et al., 2022). This suggests that dark-induced (p)ppGpp signalling is widespread in photosynthetic organisms, although the activation of RSH enzymes must occur via distinct mechanisms.

5. (p)ppGpp signalling influences plant immunity

The chloroplast, and in particular chloroplast-generated ROS,
plays a key role in plant immunity (Littlejohn *et al.*, 2021).
Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that (p)ppGpp signalling,
with its ability to downregulate photosynthesis where ROS are
generated, can influence plant immunity against pathogens. The
expression of plant *RSH2/3* genes is upregulated by plant
pathogens, wounding, pathogen-associated molecules and
defence-related hormones (Givens *et al.*, 2004; Takahashi
*et al.*, 2004; Kim *et al.*, 2009; Abdelkefi *et al.*, 2018; Petrova
*et al.*, 2021). However, *RSH2/3* upregulation is associated with
pathogen susceptibility suggesting that under at least some cases (p)
ppGpp accumulation can favour the pathogen (Petrova
*et al.*, 2021). Consistent with this, overaccumulation of ppGpp
in Arabidopsis leads to strong reductions in the levels of transcripts
for defence-related genes (Abdelkefi *et al.*, 2018). Furthermore,
high ppGpp levels lead to greater susceptibility to Turnip Mosaic
virus, whereas lower levels are associated with increased resistance,
accumulation of the defence hormone salicylic acid and precocious
expression of the defence-related protein PATHOGENESIS-
RELATED 1 (Abdelkefi *et al.*, 2018). Pathogen-associated
molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) provokes
stromal Ca²⁺ fluxes in a similar way to darkness, suggesting that
CRSH might be activated during PTI. However, treatment of a
*CRSH* mutant with the PAMP flagellin22 induced defence-related
genes in a similar fashion to the WT control (Ono *et al.*, 2020).
Therefore, the links between (p)ppGpp and Ca²⁺ signalling during
immunity remain uncertain. Altogether, more work is required for
understanding the full role that (p)ppGpp signalling has on plant
immunity, and in particular during interactions with biotrophic
and necrotrophic pathogens as well as herbivores. Furthermore,
comparing the pathogenicity of WT pathogens with mutants
unable to deliver their effector machinery may allow the identi-
fication of pathogens that are able to subvert (p)ppGpp signalling to
overcome host defence.

IV. Molecular mechanisms of (p)ppGpp signalling in plants and algae

Despite recent advances in understanding the physiological roles of (p)ppGpp as discussed earlier, few if any chloroplastic effectors of (p)ppGpp have been firmly identified. This contrasts with the situation in bacteria where (p)ppGpp and related nucleotides are known to interact directly with specific effector enzymes to regulate growth rate and promote stress acclimation and survival (Irving et al., 2020; Bange et al., 2021). Over recent years, the development of systematic approaches has led to a considerable expansion in the number of known (p)ppGpp-binding proteins and effectors in bacteria. These advances were driven by techniques such as the differential radial capillary action of ligand assay, a rapid and quantitative method that can be used for testing candidate protein-(p)ppGpp interactions in crude extracts and without the need for protein purification (Roelofs et al., 2011; Corrigan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018), as well as by the use of ppGpp analogues to directly capture and identify ppGpp-binding proteins in cellular extracts (Wang et al., 2019; Haas et al., 2022). Such approaches may also have considerable potential for identifying effectors in plants and algae. At the same time, the growing list of (p)ppGpp targets in bacteria also provides insights into the possible molecular mechanisms of (p)ppGpp signalling in plants. Indeed, bacterial ppGpp effectors are known today in transcription, nucleotide metabolism, translation, ribosome assembly, fatty acid biosynthesis and amino acid metabolism (Kanjee et al., 2012; Irving et al., 2020; Steinchen et al., 2020; Bange et al., 2021). Many of these processes are conserved in the chloroplasts of plants and algae and should therefore be considered potential targets of (p)ppGpp signalling (Table 1).

1. Does (p)ppGpp directly inhibit chloroplast transcription?

Multiple studies show that (p)ppGpp accumulation *in vivo*, either
artificially or during stress, results in the downregulation of
chloroplast transcript levels in plants (Maekawa *et al.*, 2015;
Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Harchouni *et al.*, 2022; Romand *et al.*, 2022).
Direct analysis of transcription by chloroplast run-on or labelling of
nascent transcripts in Arabidopsis indicates that the reduction in
chloroplast transcript abundance caused by (p)ppGpp is due to the

inhibition of transcription (Yamburenko *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016). Chloroplast transcription is carried out by a bacterial-like plastid-encoded polymerase (PEP) and a phage-like nucleus-encoded polymerase (NEP). Some studies have observed a preferential effect of (p)ppGpp on the levels of PEP transcripts (Sato *et al.*, 2009; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016), while others have not observed a clear separation between NEP and PEP transcripts (Romand *et al.*, 2022). The role of (p)ppGpp in regulating chloroplast transcription is therefore established; however, it is not yet clear exactly how (p)ppGpp is able to mediate this effect.

In *E. coli*, (p)ppGpp directly modulates the activity of the RNA
polymerase (RNAP) to downregulate the expression of ribosomal
RNAs (rRNA) and upregulate the expression of genes involved in
stress acclimation. The bacterial RNAP core is a complex composed
of two α subunits, a β subunit, a β' subunit, a ω subunit and a σ
subunit (α₂ββ'ωσ) (Fig. 3a; Table 1). There are two allosteric (p)
ppGpp-binding sites on RNAP that are conserved in *E. coli* and
other proteobacteria. Site 1 is located at the interface between the β'
and ω subunits (Ross *et al.*, 2013), and site 2 at the interface
between the β' subunit and the transcription factor DksA (Ross
*et al.*, 2016). The major transcriptional effects of (p)ppGpp
accumulation in *E. coli* can be explained by (p)ppGpp binding at
these two sites, although it does not explain all the effects of (p)
ppGpp on growth (Wang *et al.*, 2019). In plants, PEP has a
bacterial-like core complex consisting of two α subunits, a β
subunit, β' and β'' subunits, and a σ subunit (α₂ββ'β''σ) (Igloi &
Kössel, 1992; Suzuki *et al.*, 2003; Borner *et al.*, 2015) (Fig. 3a;
Table 1). The β' and β'' subunits correspond to the N-terminal and
C-terminal portions of the bacterial β' subunit, and the same split is
also present in the RNAP of cyanobacteria which is presumably
ancestral. The plant PEP has also acquired additional co-purifying
accessory factors called PEP-associated proteins that are not present
in bacteria or even green algae (Pfannschmidt *et al.*, 2000; Suzuki
*et al.*, 2004; Steiner *et al.*, 2011). Strikingly, with regard to the
action of (p)ppGpp, PEP completely lacks site 1 and site 2: there is
no ω subunit, the conserved β' K615 residue required for (p)
ppGpp binding (Myers *et al.*, 2020) is lacking from the
corresponding Arabidopsis β'' subunit, and there is no orthologue
of the DksA transcription factor in plant or algal genomes (Fig. 3a;
Table 1). From an evolutionary perspective, the lack of *E. coli*-like
(p)ppGpp-binding sites is not surprising because the *E. coli*
mechanism is a relatively recent evolutionary innovation that is
restricted to the proteobacterial (Ross *et al.*, 2016), and the RNAP
of other bacterial groups is insensitive to (p)ppGpp.

Despite the clear absence of proteobacteria-equivalent ppGpp-
binding sites for the control of PEP, several studies nevertheless
indicate that PEP may be directly targeted by (p)ppGpp. Takahashi
et al. (2004) first showed that exogenous application of ppGpp or
pppGpp can inhibit transcription in chloroplast extracts. A follow-
on study then showed that ppGpp is able to specifically inhibit
transcription in extracts enriched for PEP and not in extracts
enriched for the alternative chloroplast RNAP NEP (Sato
et al., 2009). Furthermore, radiolabelled 6-thio-ppGpp was found
to bind to the PEP β' subunit (Sato et al., 2009). It is therefore
reasonable to suppose that a novel ppGpp-binding site on the β'
subunit is necessary for PEP inhibition, although the exact residues
<table><caption>**Table 1** Bacterial (p)ppGpp effectors and their likely chloroplastic orthologues in *Arabidopsis thaliana*.</caption><thead><tr><th>Bacterial (p)ppGpp targets</th><th>Chloroplast orthologue(s)</th><th>Escherichia coli</th><th>Bacillus subtilis</th><th>Chloroplast</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Transcription</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Core RNAP complex</td><td>PEP complex</td><td>*</td><td>-</td><td>*</td><td>Takahashi et al. (2004); Sato et al. (2009); Imamura et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Alpha1 (RpoA)</td><td>RpoA/AtCg00740</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beta (RpoB)</td><td>RpoB/AtCg00190</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beta' (RpoC)</td><td>RpoC1/AtCg00180<br>RpoC2 /AtCg00170</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Sato et al. (2009); Ross et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Omega (RpoZ)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Ross et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Sigma</td><td>Sig1/At1g64860, Sig2/<br>At1g08540, Sig3/At3g53920,<br>Sig4/At5g13730, Sig5/<br>At5g24120, Sig6/At2g36990</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Transcription factor, DksA</td><td>no orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ross et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Ribosome- and translation-associated GTPases</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Translation initiation factor 2 (IF2)</td><td>At1g17220/FUG1</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Legault et al. (1972); Milon et al. (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Elongation factor TU (EF-TU)</td><td>At4g20360/SVR11</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Legault et al. (1972); Rojas et al. (1984)</td></tr><tr><td>Elongation factor G (EF-G)</td><td>At1g62750/SCO1, At1g45332,<br>At2g45030</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Rojas et al. (1984); Mitkevich<br>et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Elongation factor 4 (EF4/LepA)</td><td>At5g08650/LepA</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase Der (Der/EngA)</td><td>At3g12080/Der</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Bharat &amp; Brown (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase Era (Era)</td><td>At5g66470/Era1</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Corrigan et al. (2016); Zhang<br>et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase Obg (ObgE/CgtA)</td><td>At5g18570/ObgC</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Buglino et al. (2002); Persky<br>et al. (2009); Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase HflX (Hflx)</td><td>At5g57960/HflX</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Corrigan et al. (2016); Zhang<br>et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase BipA (BipA/TypA)</td><td>At5g13650/SVR3</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Fan et al. (2015); Kumar et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase RsgA (RsgA)</td><td>At1g67440/RsgA</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>GTPase RbgA (RbgA)</td><td>At4g02790/RbgA</td><td></td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Corrigan et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Translation release factor RF3</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kihira et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Purine metabolism</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Adenylosuccinate synthetase<br>(PurA)</td><td>At3G57610/ADSS</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Stayton &amp; Fromm (1979)</td></tr><tr><td>Amidophosphoribosyltransferase<br>(PurF)</td><td>At2g16570/ASE1, At4g34740/<br>ASE2, At4g38880/ASE3</td><td>*</td><td>-</td><td></td><td>Wang et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Inosine-5'-monophosphate<br>dehydrogenase (GuaB)</td><td>At1g16350</td><td>(*)</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Pao &amp; Dyes (1981); Kriel et al. (2012);<br>Wang et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Guanylate kinase (GmK)</td><td>At3g06200/GMK3/GKpm</td><td>-</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Kriel et al. (2012); Liu et al. (2015);<br>Nomura et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Hypoxanthine<br>phosphoribosyltransferase (Hpt)</td><td>No chloroplast orthologue</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Hochstadt-Ozer &amp; Cashel (1972); Kriel<br>et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2018);<br>Anderson et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Xanthine<br>phosphoribosyltransferase (XpT)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td></td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Anderson et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Adenine phosphoribosyltransferase<br>(Apt)</td><td>No chloroplast orthologue</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td><td>Hochstadt-Ozer &amp; Cashel (1972); Haas<br>et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Nucleotide 5'-monophosphate<br>nucleosidase (YgdH/PpnN)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Others</strong></td></tr><tr><td>DNA primase (DnaG)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Wang et al. (2007); Maciag<br>et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Lysine decarboxylase (Ldcl)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kanjee et al. (2011a)</td></tr><tr><td>Lysine decarboxylase (Ldcc)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kanjee et al. (2011b)</td></tr><tr><td>Ornithine decarboxylase (SpeF)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kanjee et al. (2011b)</td></tr><tr><td>Ornithine decarboxylase (SpeC)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kanjee et al. (2011b)</td></tr><tr><td>pppGpp pyrophosphatase (GppA)</td><td>No chloroplast orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Keasling et al. (1993)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (Continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Bacterial (p)ppGpp targets</th><th>Chloroplast orthologue(s)</th><th>Escherichia coli</th><th>Bacillus subtilis</th><th>Chloroplast</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(p)ppGpp synthetase (RelA)</td><td>At4g02260/RSH1, At3g14050/RSH2, At1g54130/RSH3, At3g17470/CRSH</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Shyp et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogenase maturation factor (HypB)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td>*</td><td></td><td></td><td>Zhang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>3-Hydroxydecanoyl-[acyl-carrier-protein] dehydratase (FabA)</td><td>No orthologue</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Stein Jr. & Bloch (1976)</td></tr><tr><td>3-Hydroxyacyl-[acyl-carrier-protein] dehydratase (FabZ)</td><td>At2g22230, At5g10160</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Stein Jr. & Bloch (1976)</td></tr><tr><td>Acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACC)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Polakis et al. (1973)</td></tr><tr><td>Alpha subunit (AccA)</td><td>CAC3/At2g38040</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beta subunit (AccD)</td><td>ACCD/AtCg00500</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

A green square indicates the presence of a gene encoding the enzyme in the host genome. Lighter green indicates subunits of the same enzymatic complex. In the case of Arabidopsis, only chloroplast-targeted (predicted or demonstrated) enzymes are shown. An asterisk indicates experimental evidence for (p)ppGpp binding, dashes indicate experimental evidence showing a lack of (p)ppGpp binding. Brackets indicate conflicting evidence. FabA, FabZ, ACC and Arabidopsis guanylate kinase are inhibited by (p)ppGpp but binding has not been directly shown. References for studies demonstrating inhibition, activation or binding of the indicated enzymes by (p)ppGpp are listed to the right.

involved remain to be identified and tested. ppGpp was also found to inhibit transcription of the chloroplast 16S rRNA in crude extracts from the unicellular red alga, *Cyanidioschyzon merolae* (Imamura *et al.*, 2018). In both plants and algae, the concentration of ppGpp required for the *in vitro* inhibition of chloroplast transcription is at the high end of ppGpp sensitivities observed for bacterial enzymes (Steinchen *et al.*, 2020), and is higher than the levels estimated to naturally occur within the chloroplast under nonstress conditions (c. 1–3 µM) (Ihara *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016; Ito *et al.*, 2022). The authors of both the plant and algal PEP studies therefore propose that, *in vivo*, other unidentified factors may potentiate the action of ppGpp on PEP in a similar manner to DksA (Sato *et al.*, 2009; Imamura *et al.*, 2018). The possibility of very local peaks in ppGpp concentration has also been suggested, and these findings could also point to the existence of strong and weak targets of (p)ppGpp in the chloroplast to allow for a graded response to (p)ppGpp levels as observed in bacteria (Steinchen *et al.*, 2020).

## 2. Purine nucleotide metabolism, a universal target of (p)ppGpp signalling?

Purine biosynthesis has emerged as a major target of (p)ppGpp signalling in diverse bacteria (Irving *et al.*, 2020; Bange *et al.*, 2021). A large part of the purine biosynthetic pathway takes place in the chloroplast of plants and algae and involves orthologues of the bacterial enzymes (Fig. 3b; Table 1) (Smith & Atkins, 2002; Kusumi & Iba, 2014; Witte & Herde, 2020). These enzymes include orthologues of the bacterial (p)ppGpp targets adenylosuccinate synthetase (PurA or ADSS) (Stayton & Fromm, 1979; Wang *et al.*, 2019; Yang *et al.*, 2020a), amidophosphoribosyltransferase (PurF or ASE) (Wang *et al.*, 2019), inosine-5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase (GuaB or IMDH) (Gallant *et al.*, 1971; Kriel

*et al.*, 2012), guanylate kinase (GmK) (A. Kriel *et al.*, 2012) and the RSH enzymes themselves (Steinchen *et al.*, 2015; Zhang *et al.*, 2018; Yang *et al.*, 2020b). Currently, there is evidence that the chloroplast guanylate kinase of plants is inhibited at physiological ppGpp levels *in vitro* (Nomura *et al.*, 2014). Furthermore, there is evidence that (p)ppGpp signalling can affect plant purine metabolism *in vivo* with the recent demonstration that (p)ppGpp accumulation is required to promote a decrease in total GTP levels during nitrogen starvation stress in Arabidopsis (Romand *et al.*, 2022). In addition, overexpression of *RSH3* in the conditional GmK mutant *virescent-2* in rice strongly enhanced the mutant phenotype, suggesting an interaction between increased ppGpp levels and reduced GmK function (Ito *et al.*, 2022). However, the situation may be more complex than it appears because artificially increasing (p)ppGpp levels does not always affect the total GTP pool (Bartoli *et al.*, 2020; Avilan *et al.*, 2021).

The inhibition of bacterial purine nucleotide metabolism by (p)ppGpp may occur for several reasons. These include the conservation of metabolic precursors to allow a rapid return to growth, meeting the reduced demands of bulk RNA biosynthesis which itself is also a target of inhibition by (p)ppGpp, and reducing GTP levels to downregulate growth and potentiate the competitive inhibition of GTP-dependent enzymes targeted by (p)ppGpp (Wang *et al.*, 2020). Indeed, a (p)ppGpp-mediated decrease in GTP is required for downregulation of transcription in the Firmicute, Actinobacteria and Deinococcus-Thermus groups of bacteria where RNAP is (p)ppGpp insensitive (Krasny & Gourse, 2004; Liu *et al.*, 2015). In the model Firmicute *Bacillus subtilis*, (p)ppGpp accumulation causes a drop in GTP levels via the inhibition of guanylate kinase. This reduction in GTP levels inhibits transcription from genes where GTP is the initiating NTP, which notably includes the rRNA genes. A similar mechanism may explain the observed downregulation of chloroplast transcription
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Known and potential targets of guanosine tetraphosphate and guanosine pentaphosphate (p)ppGpp in the chloroplast. (a) p)ppGpp (purple circles) may be able to modulate chloroplast transcription through an interaction with the β' subunit of the plastid encoded polymerase (PEP) (right). This interaction site is distinct to those found in *Escherichia coli* RNA polymerase (RNAP) (left). PAPs, PEP-associated proteins. (b) Chloroplastic (p)ppGpp targets in purine metabolism. GmK is directly inhibited by (p)ppGpp *in vitro*, and other enzymes of purine metabolism are potential targets based on their predicted chloroplastic localisation and targeting by (p)ppGpp in bacteria. PRPP, phosphoribosylpyrophosphate; IMP, inosine monophosphate; AdS, adenylosuccinate. The blunt-ended arrow indicates inhibition. (c) Chloroplastic enzymes implicated in ribosome biogenesis, translation and ribosome hibernation/recycling that may be inhibited by (p)ppGpp. PSRP1, plastid-specific ribosomal protein 1 an orthologue of bacterial hibernation promoting factor (HPF). IC, initiation complex. See Table 1 for list of bacterial (p)ppGpp targets and their chloroplastic orthologues in plants.</figcaption></figure>

by ppGpp in plants (Yamburenko *et al.*, 2015; Sugliani *et al.*, 2016). As discussed earlier, the chloroplastic GmK is specifically inhibited by ppGpp (Nomura *et al.*, 2014), and GTP levels drop in a ppGpp-dependent fashion under physiological stress conditions (Romand *et al.*, 2022). GTP is also the initiating NTP for the chloroplast operon containing the 23S and 16S rRNAs in at least several plant species (Sugliani *et al.*, 2016). Therefore, multiple lines of evidence point to the existence of a firmicute-like mechanism for regulating transcription in chloroplasts. However,

more detailed direct investigations into the role of GmK in plant (p) ppGpp signalling are required for demonstrating a direct causal link between ppGpp-mediated inhibition of GmK and the inhibition of chloroplast transcription.

3. A role for ppGpp in regulating chloroplast translation?

In bacteria, (p)ppGpp signalling downregulates global translation by targeting a wide range of GTP-binding enzymes involved in
translation as well as in ribosome biogenesis and ribosome hibernation/recycling (Table 1) (Irving et al., 2020; Bange et al., 2021; Zegarra et al., 2023). (p)ppGpp is also likely to directly regulate translation in the chloroplast: many features of the prokaryotic translation mechanism are retained in the chloroplast (Zoschke & Bock, 2018) and, extending on previous observations (Masuda et al., 2008b; Masuda, 2012), we can identify chloroplast orthologues of all the major bacterial (p)ppGpp-targeted enzymes involved in translation regulation (Fig. 3c; Table 1).

Despite the promising theoretical situation, there is still relatively little experimental evidence on the effects of (p)ppGpp on chloroplast translation. Using an *in vitro* chloroplast translation system from pea (*Pisum sativum*), ppGpp was found to inhibit the peptide elongation cycle of chloroplast translation by c. 50% at 400 µM (Nomura et al., 2012). This is consistent with the presence of LepA (Ji et al., 2012) and SNOWY COTYLEDON1 (Albrecht et al., 2006) in the chloroplast, orthologues of EF4 and EF-G which participate in polypeptide elongation in bacteria and are well-known targets of inhibition by (p)ppGpp (Fig. 3c; Table 1) (Bange et al., 2021). Artificial accumulation of ppGpp *in vivo* was also found to have a major effect on chloroplast translation, as measured by the incorporation of the antibiotic puromycin (a structural analogue of aminoacyl-tRNA) into nascent peptide chains (Sugliani et al., 2016). However, the observed inhibition was difficult to separate from the transcriptional downregulation of rRNA and tRNA that is also caused by ppGpp.

Recently, the role of (p)ppGpp in promoting the stress-induced hibernation of bacterial ribosomes has received particular attention (Prossliner et al., 2018; Trösch & Willmund, 2019; Irving et al., 2020; Bange et al., 2021). Under stress conditions, bacterial 70S ribosomes are inactivated as monomers or dimers that are also known as 100S ribosomes. Inactivation contributes to the down-regulation of translation and also allows rapid re-activation of translation upon return to favourable conditions. Notably, (p) ppGpp accumulation promotes the transcriptional upregulation of hibernation factors such as ribosome-associated inhibitor A, ribosome modulation factor and hibernation promoting factor (HPF) that trigger ribosome inactivation. The chloroplasts of plants and algae possess an HPF orthologue named plastid-specific ribosomal protein 1 (PSRP1, Fig. 3c) that can trigger the formation of inactive 70S monomers (Sharma et al., 2010). However, the physiological function of PSRP1 is not yet elucidated (Swift et al., 2020), and it is unlikely to be transcriptionally regulated by (p)ppGpp as it is encoded on the nuclear genome. The ribosome-associated GTPase high frequency of lysogeny X (HflX) is also implicated in ribosome inactivation in bacteria. In *Staphylococcus aureus*, HflX is able to dissociate the hibernating 100S complex and this activity is inhibited by (p)ppGpp binding (Basu & Yap, 2017). HflX and other GTPases involved in ribosome biogenesis and assembly (RsgA, RbgA, Era, Obg) are all inhibited by (p)ppGpp to reduce subunit maturation or prevent 70S assembly in the translation cycle (Bennison et al., 2019). Notably, and as discussed earlier, Obg and its chloroplast orthologue ObgC share conserved interactions with RSH enzymes (Wout et al., 2004; Bang et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014), indicating that there is a profound link between (p)ppGpp signalling and ribosome biogenesis that

appears to have been maintained over a vast expanse of evolutionary time.

## 4. Are there chloroplast-specific targets of (p)ppGpp signalling?

Since the original acquisition of the chloroplast, there has been ample time for the evolution of new (p)ppGpp signalling mechanisms. Furthermore, the cohabitation of the chloroplast and the eukaryotic cell, the development of multicellularity and the colonisation of new niches including the land would have provided powerful selection pressures to drive the emergence of novel mechanisms. Chloroplastic GTPases are prime candidates as ppGpp targets simply because ppGpp has a tendency to target GTPases in bacteria (Fig. 3c; Table 1). Outside translation, only a handful of chloroplast GTPases are known, and these play roles in ribosome assembly, photosynthesis, chloroplast division, vesicle trafficking and membrane remodelling. The circularly permuted GTPases SUPPRESSOR OF VARIEGATION 10 and BRZ INSENSITIVE PALE GREEN2 are implicated in chloroplast ribosome assembly (Qi et al., 2016); the GTPase PsbO is a subunit of the oxygen evolving complex involved in the turnover of the PSII reaction centre (Spetea et al., 2004; Lundin et al., 2007); chloroplast FtsZ tubulin-like GTPases ensure the formation of a contractile ring within the stroma during chloroplast division (Osteryoung & Vierling, 1995; Yoshida et al., 2016); the chloroplast-localised Rab family small GTPases are implicated in chloroplast vesicle trafficking (Ebine et al., 2011; Alezzawi, 2014; Alezzawi et al., 2014; Karim et al., 2014; Karim & Aronsson, 2014); and finally the GTPase vesicle-inducing protein in plastids 1 (VIPP1) is essential for the biogenesis and maintenance of thylakoid membranes (Ohnishi et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2021). Interestingly, accumulation of ppGpp was shown to cause hyper-stacking of the thylakoid membranes in the moss *Physcomitrium patens* (Harchouni et al., 2022). While this might simply be explained by an increase in the quantity of PSII antenna subunits, it also raises the possibility that ppGpp can promote membrane remodelling by acting on proteins like VIPP1. Beyond the GTPases, there may be evidence that other classes of protein are targeted by ppGpp. For example, we previously speculated that the higher sensitivity of some chloroplast proteins to ppGpp, and Rubisco in particular, could involve the ppGpp-mediated regulation of chloroplast protein turnover (Romand et al., 2022). However, it is clear that more intensive studies aimed specifically at identifying chloroplast (p)ppGpp targets using both candidate-based and more open-ended approaches will be required to move beyond speculation.

## 5. A larger family of related signalling nucleotides in plants?

In this review, we have dealt exclusively with (p)ppGpp. However, these are just two of a larger family of related nucleotides that also include pGpp and (p)ppApp. Discovered in the 1970s (Oki et al., 1976; Nishino et al., 1979), pGpp and (p)ppApp can be synthesised by RSH and SAS enzymes, and their functions are stimulating renewed interest among microbiologists. pGpp,
ppGpp and pppGpp act in similar ways, though have preferences for different target enzymes (Gaca *et al.*, 2015; Yang *et al.*, 2020b). (p)ppApp, on the other hand, can bind RNAP on a different site to (p)ppGpp and is able to activate transcription (Travers, 1978; Bruhn-Olszewska *et al.*, 2018). To our knowledge, there are no reports of the detection of pGpp or (p)ppApp in plants or algae. Furthermore, while ppGpp is now readily detected (Ihara *et al.*, 2015; Jin *et al.*, 2018; Bartoli *et al.*, 2020), pppGpp has only been reported once (Takahashi *et al.*, 2004) suggesting that it is unstable or present only under certain circumstances. In future, it will be interesting to determine whether other members of the extended (p)ppGpp family of nucleotides are present in plants and algae, and what role they play.

V. Concluding remarks

(p)ppGpp was originally discovered >50 yr ago (Cashel & Gallant, 1969). Since that time, work on bacteria, algae, plants and more recently animals has revealed the extraordinary diversity and reach of (p)ppGpp signalling. Over recent years, our understanding of (p)ppGpp signalling in plants and algae has advanced considerably, thanks to studies of its physiological roles *in vivo* notably revealing the conserved action of (p)ppGpp on photosynthesis and its likely role in regulating cellular carbon/ nitrogen status. To understand how (p)ppGpp acts at a molecular level, it will be necessary to build on the early *in vitro* experiments and adopt new approaches including those so successfully employed in bacteria for identifying the physiologically relevant targets of (p)ppGpp and related nucleotides. Likewise, the functional diversification of plant and algal members of the RSH superfamily promises to reveal exciting new features of (p)ppGpp signalling.

Acknowledgements

We thank Stefano D'Alessandro and Patrice Crété for critical discussion of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-CE13-0005).

ORCID

Ben Field https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2142-4606

References

Abdelkefi H, Sugliani M, Ke H, Harchouni S, Soubigou-Taconnat L, Citerne S, Mouille G, Fakhfakh H, Robaglia C, Field B. 2018. Guanosine tetraphosphate modulates salicylic acid signalling and the resistance of *Arabidopsis thaliana* to Turnip mosaic virus. *Molecular Plant Pathology* 19: 634–646.

Albrecht V, Ingenfeld A, Apel K. 2006. Characterization of the snowy cotyledon 1 mutant of *Arabidopsis Thaliana*: the impact of chloroplast elongation factor G on chloroplast development and plant vitality. *Plant Molecular Biology* 60: 507–518.

Alezzawi M. 2014. Vesicle transport in chloroplasts with emphasis on Rab proteins. *PhD thesis*, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Alezzawi M, Karim S, Khan NZ, Aronsson H. 2014. Gene expression pattern for putative chloroplast localized COPII related proteins with emphasis on Rab related proteins. *Plant Signaling & Behavior* 9: e28330.

Anderson BW, Hao A, Satyshur KA, Keck JL, Wang JD. 2020. Molecular mechanism of regulation of the purine salvage enzyme XPRT by the alarmones pppGpp, ppGpp, and pGpp. *Journal of Molecular Biology* 432: 4108–4126.

Anderson BW, Liu K, Wolak C, Dubiel K, She F, Satyshur KA, Keck JL, Wang JD. 2019. Evolution of (p)ppGpp-HPRT regulation through diversification of an allosteric oligomeric interaction. *eLife* 8: e47534.

Arenz S, Abdelshahid M, Sohmen D, Payoe R, Starosta AL, Berninghausen O, Hauryliuk V, Beckmann R, Wilson DN. 2016. The stringent factor RelA adopts an open conformation on the ribosome to stimulate ppGpp synthesis. *Nucleic Acids Research* 44: 6471–6481.

Atkinson GC, Tenson T, Hauryliuk V. 2011. The RelA/SpoT homolog (RSH) superfamily: distribution and functional evolution of ppGpp synthetases and hydrolases across the tree of life. *PLoS ONE* 6: e23479.

Avilan L, Lebrun R, Puppo C, Citerne S, Cuiné S, Li-Beisson Y, Menand B, Field B, Gontero B. 2021. ppGpp influences protein protection, growth and photosynthesis in *Phaeodactylum tricornutum*. *New Phytologist* 230: 1517–1532.

Avilan L, Puppo C, Villain A, Bouveret E, Menand B, Field B, Gontero B. 2019. RSH enzyme diversity for (p)ppGpp metabolism in *Phaeodactylum tricornutum* and other diatoms. *Scientific Reports* 9: 1–11.

Bang WY, Chen J, Jeong IS, Kim SW, Kim CW, Jung HS, Lee KH, Kweon HS, Yoko I, Shiina T *et al.* 2012. Functional characterization of Obg C in ribosome biogenesis during chloroplast development. *The Plant Journal* 71: 122–134.

Bange G, Brodersen DE, Liuzzi A, Steinchen W. 2021. Two P or not two P: understanding regulation by the bacterial second messengers (p)ppGpp. *Annual Review of Microbiology* 75: 383–406.

Bartoli J, Citerne S, Mouille G, Bouveret E, Field B. 2020. Quantification of guanosine triphosphate and tetraphosphate in plants and algae using stable isotope-labelled internal standards. *Talanta* 219: 121261.

Basu A, Yap M-NF. 2017. Disassembly of the *Staphylococcus aureus* hibernating 100S ribosome by an evolutionarily conserved GTPase. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 114: E8165–E8173.

Battesti A, Bouveret E. 2006. Acyl carrier protein/SpoT interaction, the switch linking SpoT-dependent stress response to fatty acid metabolism. *Molecular Microbiology* 62: 1048–1063.

Bennison DJ, Irving SE, Corrigan RM. 2019. The impact of the stringent response on TRAFAC GTPases and prokaryotic ribosome assembly. *Cell* 8: 1313.

Bharat A, Brown ED. 2014. Phenotypic investigations of the depletion of EngA in *Escherichia coli* are consistent with a role in ribosome biogenesis. *FEMS Microbiology Letters* 353: 26–32.

van der Biezen EA, Sun J, Coleman MJ, Bibb MJ, Jones JD. 2000. Arabidopsis RelA/SpoT homologs implicate (p)ppGpp in plant signaling. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 97: 3747–3752.

Boniecka J, Prusinska J, Dabrowska GB, Goc A. 2017. Within and beyond the stringent response-RSH and (p)ppGpp in plants. *Planta* 246: 817–842.

Borner T, Aleynikova AY, Zubo YO, Kusnetsov VV. 2015. Chloroplast RNA polymerases: role in chloroplast biogenesis. *Biochimica et Biophysica Acta* 1847: 761–769.

Brown A, Fernandez IS, Gordiyenko Y, Ramakrishnan V. 2016. Ribosome-dependent activation of stringent control. *Nature* 534: 277–280.

Bruhn-Olszewska B, Molodtsov V, Sobala M, Dylewski M, Murakami KS, Cashel M, Potrykus K. 2018. Structure-function comparisons of (p)ppApp vs (p)ppGpp for *Escherichia coli* RNA polymerase binding sites and for rrnB P1 promoter regulatory responses *in vitro*. *Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Regul Mech* 1861: 731–742.

Buglino J, Shen V, Hakimian P, Lima CD. 2002. Structural and biochemical analysis of the Obg GTP binding protein. *Structure* 10: 1581–1592.

Cashel M, Gallant J. 1969. Two compounds implicated in the function of the RC gene of *Escherichia coli*. *Nature* 221: 838–841.

Chen J, Bang WY, Lee Y, Kim S, Lee KW, Kim SW, Son YS, Kim DW, Akhter S, Bahk JD. 2014. AtObgC-AtRSH1 interaction may play a vital role in stress response signal transduction in Arabidopsis. *Plant Physiology and Biochemistry* 74: 176–184.

Corrigan RM, Bellows LE, Wood A, Grundling A. 2016. ppGpp negatively impacts ribosome assembly affecting growth and antimicrobial tolerance in gram-positive bacteria. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 113: E1710–E1719.
Ebine K, Fujimoto M, Okatani Y, Nishiyama T, Goh T, Ito E, Dainobu T, Nishitani A, Uemura T, Sato MH *et al.* 2011. A membrane trafficking pathway regulated by the plant-specific RAB GTPase ARA6. *Nature Cell Biology* **13**: 853–859.

Evans JR, Clarke VC. 2019. The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. *Journal of Experimental Botany* 70: 7–15.

Fan H, Hahm J, Diggs S, Perry JJP, Blaha G. 2015. Structural and functional analysis of BipA, a regulator of virulence in enteropathogenic *Escherichia coli*. *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 290: 20856–20864.

Field B. 2018. Green magic: regulation of the chloroplast stress response by (p) ppGpp in plants and algae. *Journal of Experimental Botany* 69: 2797–2807.

Gaca AO, Kudrin P, Colomer-Winter C, Beljantseva J, Liu K, Anderson B, Wang JD, Rejman D, Potrykus K, Cashel M *et al.* 2015. From (p)ppGpp to (pp)pGpp: characterization of regulatory effects of pGpp synthesized by the small alarmone synthetase of *Enterococcus faecalis*. *Journal of Bacteriology* 197: 2908–2919.

Gallant J, Irr J, Cashel M. 1971. The mechanism of amino acid control of guanylate and adenylate biosynthesis. *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 246: 5812–5816.

Givens RM, Lin MH, Taylor DJ, Mechold U, Berry JO, Hernandez VJ. 2004. Inducible expression, enzymatic activity, and origin of higher plant homologues of bacterial RelA/SpoT stress proteins in *Nicotiana tabacum*. *The Journal of Biological Chemistry* 279: 7495–7504.

Goto M, Oikawa A, Masuda S. 2022. Metabolic changes contributing to large biomass production in the Arabidopsis ppGpp-accumulating mutant under nitrogen deficiency. *Planta* 255: 48.

Gupta TK, Klumpe S, Gries K, Heinz S, Wietrzynski W, Ohnishi N, Niemeyer J, Spaniol B, Schaffer M, Rast *A* *et al.* 2021. Structural basis for VIPP1 oligomerization and maintenance of thylakoid membrane integrity. *Cell* 184: 3643–3659.

Haas TM, Laventie B-J, Lagies S, Harter C, Prucker I, Ritz D, Saleem-Batcha R, Qiu D, Hüttel W, Andexer J *et al.* 2022. Photoaffinity capture compounds to profile the magic spot nucleotide interactomes. *Angewandte Chemie International Edition* 61: e202201731.

Harchouni S, Uk S, Vieu J, Romand S, Aouane A, Citerne S, Legeret B, Alric J, Li-Beisson Y, Menand B *et al.* 2022. Guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) accumulation inhibits chloroplast gene expression and promotes super grana formation in the moss Physcomitrella (Physcomitrella) patens. *New Phytologist* 236: 86–98.

Hochstadt-Ozer J, Cashel M. 1972. The regulation of purine utilization in bacteria. V. Inhibition of purine phosphoribosyltransferase activities and purine uptake in isolated membrane vesicles by guanosine tetraphosphate. *The Journal of Biological Chemistry* 247: 7067–7072.

Honoki R, Ono S, Oikawa A, Saito K, Masuda S. 2018. Significance of accumulation of the alarmone (p)ppGpp in chloroplasts for controlling photosynthesis and metabolite balance during nitrogen starvation in Arabidopsis. *Photosynthesis Research* 135: 299–308.

Hood RD, Higgins SA, Flamholz A, Nichols RJ, Savage DF. 2016. The stringent response regulates adaptation to darkness in the cyanobacterium *Synechococcus elongatus*. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 113: E4867–E4876.

Ihara Y, Ohta H, Masuda S. 2015. A highly sensitive quantification method for the accumulation of alarmone ppGpp in *Escherichia thaliana* using UPLC-ESI-qMS/MS. *Journal of Plant Research* 128: 511–518.

Imamura S, Nomura Y, Takemura T, Pancha I, Taki K, Toguchi K, Tozawa Y, Tanaka K. 2018. The checkpoint kinase TOR (target of rapamycin) regulates expression of a nuclear-encoded chloroplast RelA-SpoT homolog (RSH) and modulates chloroplast ribosomal RNA synthesis in a unicellular red alga. *The Plant Journal* 94: 327–339.

Irving SE, Choudhury NR, Corrigan RM. 2020. The stringent response and physiological roles of (pp)pGpp in bacteria. *Nature Reviews Microbiology* 19: 256–271.

Ito D, Ihara Y, Nishihara H, Masuda S. 2017. Phylogenetic analysis of proteins involved in the stringent response in plant cells. *Journal of Plant Research* 130: 625–634.

Ito K, Ito D, Goto M, Suzuki S, Masuda S, Iba K, Kusumi K. 2022. Regulation of ppGpp synthesis and its impact on chloroplast biogenesis during early leaf development in rice. *Plant and Cell Physiology* 63: 919–931.

Ji D-L, Lin H, Chi W, Zhang L-X. 2012. CpLEPA is critical for chloroplast protein synthesis under suboptimal conditions in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. *PLoS ONE* 7: e49746.

Jin H, Lao YM, Zhou J, Cai ZH. 2022. Identification of a RelA/SpoT homolog and its possible role in the accumulation of astaxanthin in *Haematococcus pluvialis*. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 13: 79697.

Jin H, Lao YM, Zhou J, Zhang HJ, Cai ZH. 2018. A rapid UHPLC-HILIC method for algal guanosine 5'-diphosphate 3'-diphosphate (ppGpp) and the potential separation mechanism. *Journal of Chromatography. B, Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences* 1096: 143–153.

Johnson CH, Knight MR, Kondo T, Masson P, Sedbrook J, Haley A, Trewavas A. 1995. Circadian oscillations of cytosolic and chloroplastic free calcium in plants. *Science* 269: 1863–1865.

Kanjee U, Gutsche I, Alexopoulos E, Zhao B, El Bakkouri M, Thibault G, Liu K, Ramachandran S, Snider J, Pai EF *et al.* 2011a. Linkage between the bacterial acid stress and stringent responses: the structure of the inducible lysine decarboxylase. *EMBO Journal* 30: 931–944.

Kanjee U, Gutsche I, Ramachandran S, Houry WA. 2011b. The enzymatic activities of the *Escherichia coli* basic aliphatic amino acid decarboxylases exhibit a pH zone of inhibition. *Biochemistry* 50: 9388–9398.

Kanjee U, Ogata K, Houry WA. 2012. Direct binding targets of the stringent response alarmone (p)ppGpp. *Molecular Microbiology* 85: 1029–1043.

Karim S, Alezzawi M, Garcia-Petit C, Solymosi K, Khan NZ, Lindquist E, Dahl P, Hohmann S, Aronsson H. 2014. A novel chloroplast localized Rab GTPase protein CPRabA5e is involved in stress, development, thylakoid biogenesis and vesicle transport in Arabidopsis. *Plant Molecular Biology* 84: 675–692.

Karim S, Aronsson H. 2014. The puzzle of chloroplast vesicle transport – involvement of GTPases. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 5: 1–12.

Keasling JD, Bertsch L, Kornberg A. 1993. Guanosine pentaphosphate phosphohydrolase of *Escherichia coli* is a long-chain exopolyphosphatase. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 90: 7029–7033.

Kihira K, Shimizu Y, Shomura Y, Shibata N, Kitamura M, Nakagawa A, Ueda T, Ochi K, Higuchi Y. 2012. Crystal structure analysis of the translation factor RF3 (release factor 3). *FEBS Letters* 586: 3705–3709.

Kim T-H, Ok SH, Kim D, Suh S-C, Byun MO, Shin JS. 2009. Molecular characterization of a biotic and abiotic stress resistance-related gene RelA/SpoT homologue (Pep RSH) from pepper. *Plant Science* 176: 635–642.

Kleine T, Nägele T, Neuhaus HE, Schmitz-Linneweber C, Fernie AR, Geigenberger P, Grimm B, Kaufmann K, Klipp E, Meurer *J* *et al.* 2021. Acclimation in plants – the Green Hub consortium. *The Plant Journal* 106: 23–40.

Krasny L, Gourse RL. 2004. An alternative strategy for bacterial ribosome synthesis: *Bacillus subtilis* rRNA transcription regulation. *EMBO Journal* 23: 4473–4483.

Kriel A, Bittner AN, Kim SH, Liu K, Tehranchi AK, Zou WY, Rendon S, Chen R, Tu BP, Wang JD. 2012. Direct regulation of GTP homeostasis by (p)ppGpp: a critical component of viability and stress resistance. *Molecular Cell* 48: 231–241.

Krüger L, Herzberg C, Wicke D, Bähre H, Heidemann JL, Dickmanns A, Schmitt K, Ficner R, Stülke J. 2021. A meet-up of two second messengers: the c-di-AMP receptor DarB controls (p)ppGpp synthesis in *Bacillus subtilis*. *Nature Communications* 12: 1210.

Kumar V, Chen Y, Ero R, Ahmed T, Tan J, Li Z, Wong ASW, Bhushan S, Gao Y-G. 2015. Structure of BipA in GTP form bound to the ratcheted ribosome. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 112: 10944–10949.

Kusumi K, Iba K. 2014. Establishment of the chloroplast genetic system in rice during early leaf development and at low temperatures. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 5: 386.

Legault L, Jeantet C, Gros F. 1972. Inhibition of *in vitro* protein synthesis by ppGpp. *FEBS Letters* 27: 71–75.

Iglol GL, Kössel H. 1992. The transcriptional apparatus of chloroplasts. *Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences* 10: 525–558.

Li H, Nian J, Fang S, Guo M, Huang X, Zhang F, Wang Q, Zhang J, Bai J, Dong G *et al.* 2022. Regulation of nitrogen starvation responses by the alarmone (p) ppGpp in rice. *Journal of Genetics and Genomics* 49: 469–480.

Littlejohn GR, Breen S, Smirnoff N, Grant M. 2021. Chloroplast immunity illuminated. *New Phytologist* 229: 3088–3107.
Liu K, Myers AR, Pisithkul T, Claas KR, Satyshur KA, Amador-Noguez D, Keck JL, Wang JD. 2015. Molecular mechanism and evolution of guanylate kinase regulation by (p)ppGpp. *Molecular Cell* 57: 735-749.

Loveland AB, Bah E, Madireddy R, Zhang Y, Brilot AF, Grigorieff N, Korostelevs AA. 2016. Ribosome RelA structures reveal the mechanism of stringent response activation. *eLife* 5: e17029.

Lundin B, Hansson M, Schoefs B, Vener AV, Spetea C. 2007. The Arabidopsis PsbO2 protein regulates dephosphorylation and turnover of the photosystem II reaction centre D1 protein. *The Plant Journal* 49: 528-539.

Maciag M, Kochanowska M, Lyzen R, Wegrzyn G, Szalewska-Palasz A. 2010. *ppGpp inhibits the activity of Escherichia coli DNA G primase. Plasmid* 63: 61-67.

Maekawa M, Honoki R, Ihara Y, Sato R, Oikawa A, Kanno Y, Ohta H, Seo M, Saito K, Masuda S. 2015. Impact of the plastidial stringent response in plant growth and stress responses. *Nature Plants* 1: 15167.

Masuda S. 2012. The stringent response in phototrophs. In: Najafpour M, ed. *Advances in photosynthesis - fundamental aspects*. Shanghai, China: Intech, 487-500.

Masuda S, Mizusawa K, Narisawa T, Tozawa Y, Ohta H, Takamiya K. 2008a. The bacterial stringent response, conserved in chloroplasts, controls plant fertilization. *Plant & Cell Physiology* 49: 135-141.

Masuda S, Tozawa Y, Ohta H. 2008b. Possible targets of "magic spots" in plant signalling. *Plant Signaling & Behavior* 3: 1021-1023.

Mestre AA, Zhou P, Chi J-T. 2022. Metazoan stringent-like response mediated by MESH1 phenotypic conservation via distinct mechanisms. *Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal* 20: 2680-2684.

Milon P, Tischenko E, Tomsic J, Caserta E, Folkers G, La Teana A, Rodnina MV, Pon CL, Boelens R, Gualerzi CO. 2006. The nucleotide-binding site of bacterial translation initiation factor 2 (IF2) as a metabolic sensor. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 103: 13962-13967.

Mitkevich VA, Ermakov A, Kulikova AA, Tankov S, Shyp V, Soosaar A, Tenson T, Makarov AA, Ehrenberg M, Hauryliuk V. 2010. Thermodynamic characterization of *ppGpp* binding to *EF-G* or *IF2* and of Initiator tRNA binding to Free *IF2* in the presence of GDP, GTP, or *ppGpp*. *Journal of Molecular Biology* 402: 838-846.

Mizusawa K, Masuda S, Ohta H. 2008. Expression profiling of four RelA/SpoT-like proteins, homologues of bacterial stringent factors, in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. *Planta* 228: 553-562.

Myers AR, Thistle DP, Ross W, Gourse RL. 2020. Guanosine tetraphosphate has a similar affinity for each of its two binding sites on *Escherichia coli* RNA Polymerase. *Frontiers in Microbiology* 11: 1-10.

Nishino T, Gallant J, Shalit P, Palmer L, Wehr T. 1979. Regulatory nucleotides involved in the Rel function of *Bacillus subtilis*. *Journal of Bacteriology* 140: 671-679.

Nomura Y, Izumi A, Fukunaga Y, Kusumi K, Iba K, Watanabe S, Nakahira Y, Weber APM, Nozawa A, Tozawa Y. 2014. Diversity in guanosine 3',5'-bisdiphosphate (ppGpp) sensitivity among guanylate kinases of bacteria and plants. *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 289: 15631-15641.

Nomura Y, Takabayashi T, Kuroda H, Yukawa Y, Sattasuk K, Akita M, Nozawa A, Tozawa Y. 2012. *ppGpp* inhibits peptide elongation cycle of chloroplast translation system *in vitro*. *Plant Molecular Biology* 78: 185-196.

Ohnishi N, Zhang L, Sakamoto W. 2018. VIPP1 involved in chloroplast membrane integrity has GTPase activity *in vitro*. *Plant Physiology* 177: 328-338.

Oki T, Yoshimoto A, Ogasawara T, Sato S, Takamatsu A. 1976. Occurrence of *PPP*-synthesizing activity in actinomycetes and isolation of purine nucleotide pyrophosphotransferase. *Archives of Microbiology* 107: 183-187.

Ono S, Suzuki S, Ito D, Tagawa S, Shiina T, Masuda S. 2020. Plastidial (p)ppGpp synthesis by the Ca²⁺-dependent RelA-SpoT homolog regulates the adaptation of chloroplast gene expression to darkness in Arabidopsis. *Plant and Cell Physiology* 61: 2077-2086.

Osteryoung KW, Vierling E. 1995. Conserved cell and organelle division. *Nature* 376: 473-474.

Pao CC, Dyes BT. 1981. Effect of unusual guanosine nucleotides on the activities of some *Escherichia coli* cellular enzymes. *Biochimica et Biophysica Acta* 677: 358-362.

Persky NS, Ferullo DJ, Cooper DL, Moore HR, Lovett ST. 2009. The Obg E/CgtA GTPase influences the stringent response to amino acid starvation in *Escherichia coli*. *Molecular Microbiology* 73: 253-266.

Petrova O, Parfirova O, Gogolev Y, Gorshkov V. 2021. Stringent response in bacteria and plants with infection. *Phytopathology* 111: 1811-1817.

Pfannschmidt T, Ogrzewalla K, Baginsky S, Sickmann A, Meyer HE, Link G. 2000. The multisubunit chloroplast RNA polymerase A from mustard (*Sinapis alba* L.). *European Journal of Biochemistry* 267: 253-261.

Polakis SE, Guchhait RB, Lane MD. 1973. Stringent control of fatty acid synthesis in *Escherichia coli*. *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 248: 7957-7966.

Prossliner T, Skovbo Winther K, Sørensen MA, Gerdes K. 2018. Ribosome hibernation. *Annual Review of Genetics* 52: 321-348.

Puszynska AM, O'Shea EK. 2017. *ppGpp* controls global gene expression in light and in darkness in *S. elongatus*. *Cell Reports* 21: 3155-3165.

Qi Y, Zhao J, An R, Zhang J, Liang S, Shao J, Liu X, An L, Yu F. 2016. Mutations in circularly permuted GTPase family genes AtNOA1/RIF1/SVR10 and BPG2 suppress var2-mediated leaf variegation in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. *Photosynthesis Research* 127: 355-367.

Rocha AG, Mehlmer N, Stael S, Mair A, Parvin N, Chigri F, Teige M, Vothknecht UC. 2014. Phosphorylation of Arabidopsis transketolase at Ser428 provides a potential paradigm for the metabolic control of chloroplast carbon metabolism. *Biochemical Journal* 458: 313-322.

Roelofs KG, Wang J, Sintim HO, Lee VT. 2011. Differential radial capillary action of ligand assay for high-throughput detection of protein-metabolite interactions. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 108: 15528-15533.

Rojas A-M, Ehrenberg M, Andersson SGE, Kurland CG. 1984. *ppGpp* inhibition of elongation factors Tu, G and Ts during polypeptide synthesis. *Molecular & General Genetics* 197: 36-45.

Romand S, Abdelkefi H, Lecampion C, Belaroussi M, Dussenne M, Ksas B, Citerne S, Caius J, D'Alessandro S, Fakhfakh H *et al*. 2022. A guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) mediated brake on photosynthesis is required for acclimation to nitrogen limitation in Arabidopsis. *eLife* 11: e75041.

Ronneau S, Caballero-Montes J, Coppine J, Mayard A, Garcia-Pino A, Hallez R. 2019. Regulation of (p)ppGpp hydrolysis by a conserved archetypal regulatory domain. *Nucleic Acids Research* 47: 843-854.

Ross W, Sanchez-Vazquez P, Chen AY, Lee JH, Burgos HL, Gourse RL. 2016. *ppGpp* binding to a site at the RNAP-DksA interface accounts for its dramatic effects on transcription initiation during the stringent response. *Molecular Cell* 62: 811-823.

Ross W, Vrentas CE, Sanchez-Vazquez P, Gaal T, Gourse RL. 2013. The magic spot: a *ppGpp* binding site on *E. coli* RNA polymerase responsible for regulation of transcription initiation. *Molecular Cell* 50: 420-429.

Sai J, Johnson CH. 2002. Dark-stimulated calcium ion fluxes in the chloroplast stroma and cytosol. *Plant Cell* 14: 1279-1291.

Sato M, Takahashi K, Ochiai Y, Hosaka T, Ochi K, Nabeta K. 2009. Bacterial alarmone, guanosine 5'-diphosphate 3'-diphosphate (ppGpp), predominantly binds the beta' subunit of plastid-encoded plastid RNA polymerase in chloroplasts. *Chembiochem* 10: 1227-1233.

Sharma MR, Dönhöfer A, Barat C, Marquez V, Datta PP, Fucini P, Wilson DN, Agrawal RK. 2010. PSRP1 Is Not a ribosomal protein, but a ribosome-binding factor that is recycled by the ribosome-recycling factor (RRF) and elongation factor G (EF-G) 2. *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 285: 4006-4014.

Shyp V, Tankov S, Ermakov A, Kudrin P, English BP, Ehrenberg M, Tenson T, Elf J, Hauryliuk V. 2012. Positive allosteric feedback regulation of the stringent response enzyme RelA by its product. *EMBO Reports* 13: 835-839.

Smith PM, Atkins CA. 2002. Purine biosynthesis. Big in cell division, even bigger in nitrogen assimilation. *Plant Physiology* 128: 793-802.

Peteva C, Hundal T, Lundin B, Heddad M, Adamska I, Andersson B. 2004. Multiple evidence for nucleotide metabolism in the chloroplast thylakoid lumen. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 101: 1409-1414.

Stayton MM, Fromm HJ. 1979. Guanosine 5'-diphosphate-3'-diphosphate inhibition of adenylosuccinate synthetase. *The Journal of Biological Chemistry* 254: 2579-2581.

Stein JP Jr, Bloch KE. 1976. Inhibition of *E. coli* beta-hydroxydecanoyl thioester dehydrase by *ppGpp*. *Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications* 73: 881-884.
Steinchen W, Schuhmacher JS, Altegoer F, Fage CD, Srinivasan V, Linne U, Marahiel MA, Bange G. 2015. Catalytic mechanism and allosteric regulation of an oligomeric (p)ppGpp synthetase by an alarmone. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 112: 13348–13353.

Steinchen W, Zegarra V, Bange G. 2020. (p)ppGpp: magic modulators of bacterial physiology and metabolism. *Frontiers in Microbiology* 11: 2072.

Steiner S, Schröter Y, Pfalz J, Pfannschmidt T. 2011. Identification of essential subunits in the plastid-encoded RNA polymerase complex reveals building blocks for proper plastid development. *Plant Physiology* 157: 1043–1055.

Sugliani M, Abdelkefi H, Ke H, Bouveret E, Robaglia C, Caffarri S, Field B. 2016. An ancient bacterial signaling pathway regulates chloroplast function to influence growth and development in Arabidopsis. *Plant Cell* 28: 661–679.

Sun D, Lee G, Lee JH, Kim HY, Rhee HW, Park SY, Kim KJ, Kim Y, Kim BY, Hong JI *et al*. 2010. A metazoan ortholog of SpoT hydrolyzes ppGpp and functions in starvation responses. *Nature Structural & Molecular Biology* 17: 1188–1194.

Suzuki JY, Jimmy Ytterberg A, Beardslee TA, Allison LA, van Wijk KJ, Maliga P. 2004. Affinity purification of the tobacco plastid RNA polymerase and *in vitro* reconstitution of the holoenzyme. *The Plant Journal* 40: 164–172.

Suzuki JY, Sriraman P, Svab Z, Maliga P. 2003. Unique architecture of the plastid ribosomal RNA operon promoter recognized by the multisubunit RNA polymerase in tobacco and other higher plants. *Plant Cell* 15: 195–205.

Swift K, Chotewutmontri P, Belcher S, Williams-Carrier R, Barkan A. 2020. Functional analysis of PSRP1, the chloroplast homolog of a cyanobacterial ribosome hibernation factor. *Plants* 9: 209.

Takahashi K, Kasai K, Ochi K. 2004. Identification of the bacterial alarmone guanosine 5'-diphosphate 3'-diphosphate (ppGpp) in plants. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA* 101: 4320–4324.

Tozawa Y, Nozawa A, Kanno T, Narisawa T, Masuda S, Kasai K, Nanamiya H. 2007. Calcium-activated (p)ppGpp synthetase in chloroplasts of land plants. *The Journal of Biological Chemistry* 282: 35536–35545.

Travers AA. 1978. ppApp alters transcriptional selectivity of *Escherichia coli* RNA polymerase. *FEBS Letters* 94: 345–348.

Trösch R, Willmund F. 2019. The conserved theme of ribosome hibernation: from bacteria to chloroplasts of plants. *Biological Chemistry* 400: 879–893.

Wang B, Dai P, Ding D, Del Rosario A, Grant RA, Pentelute BL, Laub MT. 2019. Affinity-based capture and identification of protein effectors of the growth regulator ppGpp. *Nature Chemical Biology* 15: 141–150.

Wang B, Grant RA, Laub MT. 2020. ppGpp coordinates nucleotide and amino-acid synthesis in *E. coli* during starvation. *Molecular Cell* 80: 29–42.

Wang JD, Sanders GM, Grossman AD. 2007. Nutritional control of elongation of DNA replication by (p)ppGpp. *Cell* 128: 865–875.

Witte C-P, Herde M. 2020. Nucleotide metabolism in plants. *Plant Physiology* 182: 63–78.

Wout P, Pu K, Sullivan SM, Reese V, Zhou S, Lin B, Maddock JR. 2004. The *Escherichia coli* GTPase CgtAE cofractionates with the 50S ribosomal subunit and interacts with SpoT, a ppGpp synthetase/hydrolase. *Journal of Bacteriology* 186: 5249–5257.

Yamburenko MV, Zubo YO, Borner T. 2015. Abscisic acid affects transcription of chloroplast genes via protein phosphatase 2C-dependent activation of nuclear genes: repression by guanosine-3'-5'-bisdiphosphate and activation by sigma factor 5. *The Plant Journal* 82: 1030–1041.

Yang J, Anderson BW, Turdiev A, Turdiev H, Stevenson DM, Amador-Noguez D, Lee VT, Wang JD. 2020a. Systemic characterization of pppGpp, ppGpp and pGpp targets in *Bacillus* reveal SatA converts (p)ppGpp to pGpp to regulate alarmone composition and signaling. *BioRxiv*. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.23.003749.

Yang J, Anderson BW, Turdiev A, Turdiev H, Stevenson DM, Amador-Noguez D, Lee VT, Wang JD. 2020b. The nucleotide pGpp acts as a third alarmone in *Bacillus*, with functions distinct from those of (p)ppGpp. *Nature Communications* 11: 5388.

Yoshida Y, Mogi Y, Ter Bush AD, Osteryoung KW. 2016. Chloroplast FtsZ assembles into a contractible ring via tubulin-like heteropolymerization. *Nature Plants* 2: 1–10.

Young W, Zhang X, Daixi H, Zhou E, Liu Y, Wang T, Zhang W, Zhang X, Rao Y. 2021. ppGpp is present in and functions to regulate sleep in drosophila. *BioRxiv*. doi: 10.1101/2021.09.16.460595.

Zegarra V, Bedrunka P, Bange G, Czech L. 2023. How to save a bacterial ribosome in times of stress. *Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology* 136: 3–12.

Zhang Y, Zborníková E, Rejman D, Gerdes K. 2018. Novel (p)ppGpp binding and metabolizing proteins of *Escherichia coli*. *mBio* 9: e02188–e02117.

Zoschke R, Bock R. 2018. Chloroplast translation: structural and functional organization, operational control, and regulation. *Plant Cell* 30: 745–770.