Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
Cellulose is a major component of the primary cell wall of growing cells and it is made by cellulose synthases (CESAs) organized into multi-subunit complexes in the plasma membrane. Previous results have resolved the structure of secondary cell wall CESAs, which are only active in a subset of cells. Here, the authors evaluate the structure of CESAs from soybeans (Glycine max, Gm) via cryo-EM and compare these structures to secondary cell wall CESAs. First, they expressed GmCESA1, GmCESA3, or GmCESA6 in insect cells, purified these proteins as both monomers and homotrimers and demonstrated their capacity to incorporate 3H-labelled glucose into the cellulase-sensitive product in a pH and divalent cation (e.g., Mg2+) -dependant fashion (Figure 1). Although CESA1, CESA3, and a CESA6-like isoform are essential for cellulose synthesis in Arabidopsis, in this study, monomers and homotrimers both showed catalytic activity, and there was more variation between individual isoforms than between their oligomerization states (i.e., CESA3 monomers and trimers showed similar activities, which were substantially different from CESA1 monomers or trimers).
They next use cryo-EM to solve the structure of each homotrimer to ~3.0 to 3.3 A (Figure 2). They compare this with PttCESA8 and find important similarities, such as the unidentified density at a positively-charged region near Arg449, Lys452, and Arg453, and differences, such as the position and relatively low resolution (suggesting higher flexibility) of TM7, which presumably creates a large lateral lipid-exposed channel opening, rather than the transmembrane pore in PttCESA8. Like PttCESA8, an oligosaccharide in the translocation channel was co-resolved with the protein structure. Neither the N-terminal domains nor the CSRs (a plant-specific insert into the cytosolic loop between TM2 and TM3) are resolved well.
Several previous models have proposed that the cellulose synthase complexes may be composed of multiple heterotrimers, but since the authors were able to isolate beta-glucan-synthesizing homotrimers, their results challenge this model. Using the purified trimers, the authors investigated how the CESA homotrimers might assemble into higher-order complexes. They detected interactions between each pair of CESA homotrimers via pull-down assays (Figure 3), although these same interactions were also detected among monomers (Supplemental Figure 4). Neither catalytic activity nor these inter-homotrimer interactions required the N-terminal domain (Figure 4). When populations of homotrimers were mixed, they formed larger aggregations in vitro (Figure 4) and displayed increased activity, compared to the predicted additive activity of each enzyme alone (Figure 5). Intriguingly, this synergistic behavior is observed even when one trimer is chemically inactivated before mixing (Supplemental Figure 6), suggesting that the synergistic effects are due to structural interactions.
Strengths:
The main strength of this manuscript is its detailed characterization of the structure of multiple CESAs, which complements previous studies of secondary cell wall CESAs. They provide a comprehensive comparison of these new structures with previously resolved CESA structures and discuss several intriguing similarities and differences. The synergistic activity observed when different homotrimers are mixed is a particularly interesting result. These results provide fundamental in vitro support for a cellulose synthase complex comprised of a hexamer of CESA homotrimers.
Weaknesses:
There are several weaknesses in the manuscript. The authors do not present any data to indicate that GmCESA1, GmCESA3, and GmCESA6 are primary cell wall CESAs (e.g. expression patterns, phylogenetic evidence). Furthermore, their evidence that these proteins make cellulose in vitro is limited to the beta-glucanase-sensitive digestion of the product. Previous reports characterizing CESA structures have used multiple independent methods: sensitivity and resistance of the product to various enzymes, linkage analysis, and importantly, TEM of the product to ensure that it makes genuine cellulose microfibrils, rather than amorphous beta-glucan. Without demonstrating that GmCESA1, GmCESA3, and GmCESA6 are genuinely synthesizing cellulose microfibrils (via TEM) and that they are primary cell wall CESAs (via expression patterns & phylogenetic evidence), it is difficult to place the results into context. Finally, the authors indicate that they were unable to isolate heterotrimers in vitro, but they do not present any evidence of these experiments, which is essential to evaluate their conclusion that these CESAs operate as homotrimers in vitro.

