Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Author Interviews
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Journal of Human Immunity
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Life Science Alliance
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Journal of Human Immunity
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research
  • My alerts
Life Science Alliance

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Author Interviews
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Follow LSA on Bluesky
  • Follow lsa Template on Twitter
Research Article
Transparent Process
Open Access

Unfolded protein-independent IRE1 activation contributes to multifaceted developmental processes in Arabidopsis

View ORCID ProfileKei-ichiro Mishiba  Correspondence email, Yuji Iwata, Tomofumi Mochizuki, Atsushi Matsumura, Nanami Nishioka, Rikako Hirata, Nozomu Koizumi
Kei-ichiro Mishiba
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kei-ichiro Mishiba
  • For correspondence: mishiba@plant.osakafu-u.ac.jp
Yuji Iwata
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tomofumi Mochizuki
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Atsushi Matsumura
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nanami Nishioka
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rikako Hirata
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nozomu Koizumi
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Published 10 October 2019. DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900459
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. Arabidopsis IRE1C does not contribute to the UPR.

    (A) Structures of Arabidopsis IRE1A, IRE1B, and IRE1C proteins. (B) Phylogenetic tree of IRE1 proteins from mammals (Homo sapiens), fungi (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces pombe) and plants was constructed by UPGMA using MEGA 6 (Tamura et al, 2013). The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Poisson correction method and are in the units of the number of amino acid substitutions per site. (C) Wild-type (WT) and ire1 mutant plants 40 d after germination (DAG). Bar = 10 mm. (D) DTT sensitivity of the ire1 mutants. Seedlings at 15 DAG of the indicated lines were treated with or without 1 mM DTT. (E) The relative mRNA levels of BiP3 (upper), bZIP60s (middle), and PR-4 (lower) in WT and ire1 mutants. RNA from seedlings at 10 DAG were treated with 5 mg/l Tm, 2 mM DTT, or mock for 5 h and subjected to qPCR. Data are means ± SEM of three independent experiments. Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. SS, signal sequence; TM, transmembrane domain.

  • Figure S1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S1. Characterization of ire1 mutants.

    (A) Schematic representation of T-DNA insertion sites in ire1a, ire1b, and ire1c. Grey and white boxes indicate coding sequences and untranslated regions, respectively. Arrows indicate the positions of primers (Table S1) used for genotyping. (B) Tm sensitivity of the ire1 mutants. Seedlings at 15 DAG of the indicated lines were treated with or without Tm. (C) Relative shoot fresh weight of seedlings at 15 DAG treated with 0.1 mg/l Tm (left) or 1 mM DTT (right) compared with untreated seedlings. Data are means ± SEM of three independent experiments. Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test. (D) Genotyping of wild-type, ire1a, ire1b, ire1c, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c, and selfed siblings (ire1c/+ or +/+) of ire1a ire1b ire1c/+. Lanes 1–3, three independent plants for each mutant. Lane M, 100-bp DNA ladder. M, mutant; W, wild-type.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. ire1a ire1b homozygous and ire1c heterozygous plants show developmental defects.

    (A) Self-pollinated progenies of ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutant plants at 40 DAG. Genotypes are shown on the left. Bar = 10 mm. (B) Siliques of ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ (left) and ire1a ire1b +/+ (right) plants. Bar = 10 mm. (C) Reproductive development of ire1 mutants. Flowers at stage 14 (Smyth et al, 1990; upper; bar = 1 mm), siliques (middle; bar = 3 mm), and anthers at stage 12 stained with Alexander’s stain (lower; bar = 100 μm) from wild-type (WT) and ire1 mutants are shown.

  • Figure S2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S2. T-DNA constructs of the binary vectors used in this study.

    (A) IRE1C promoter-driven GUS reporter gene construct. IRE1C promoter region within pENTR vector was transferred into pSMAB-GW-GUS binary vector through Gateway LR reaction. (B) FLAG-tagged IRE1A and IRE1B constructs. Genomic regions of the IRE1A and IRE1B genes were cloned into pENTR vector and transferred into pSMAB-GW binary vector. Modifications are indicated in each panel. (C) A CRISPR/Cas9 binary vector containing gRNA1 and gRNA2 targeting the sensor domain of the IRE1B gene (see Fig 7A).

  • Figure S3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S3. Tissue-specific expression of IRE1C gene.

    (A, B, C) GUS histochemical staining of transgenic Arabidopsis containing IRE1C promoter–GUS fusion construct in floral tissues (A), ovules, and embryo (B). Bar = 100 μm. (C) 8-d-old seedlings treated with or without Tm for 5 h, and 11-d-old seedlings treated with glycerol for 3 d. Bar = 5 mm. (D) WT (upper), ire1a ire1b (middle), and ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ (lower) plants at 30 DAG cultured on 1/2 MS plate containing 1% sucrose. Plants were cultured on medium containing 2% sucrose for 10 d and then transferred to the 1% sucrose medium. (E, F) The relative mRNA level of IRE1C in WT, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1b ire1c/+, and ire1c plants (E) as indicated in (D) or flower bud tissues (F). Data are means ± SEM of four independent experiments. Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3. Transgenic ire1a ire1b plants expressing FLAG-tagged wild-type or mutant IRE1.

    (A) Schema of FLAG-tagged IRE1 proteins. Mutations of kinase and RNase domains are shown as arrowheads. (B) Detection of FLAG-IRE1 proteins in the transgenic ire1a ire1b plants with anti-FLAG antibody. Ponceau S staining was used as loading control. (C) RNA blot analysis of BiP3 and PR-4 in wild-type (WT), ire1a ire1b mutant, and transgenic ire1a ire1b plants. Seedlings at 10 DAG were treated with (+) or without (−) 5 mg/l Tm for 5 h. (D) Detection of FLAG-IRE1B(WT) and FLAG-IRE1B(K487A) with anti-FLAG antibody in the transgenic ire1a ire1b plants treated with Tm or DTT. Samples were resolved on Phos-tag SDS–PAGE to detect the phosphorylated FLAG-IRE1B (p-IRE1B). (E) DTT and Tm sensitivities of the transgenic ire1a ire1b plants. Seedlings at 15 DAG of the indicated lines were treated with or without 1 mM DTT or 0.1 mg/l Tm. SS, signal sequence; TM, transmembrane domain.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4. Phenotypic complementation of ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutants by FLAG-IRE1B(WT) or ΔLD.

    Phenotypes of the transgenic ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ plant having FLAG-IRE1B(WT) (left) or ΔLD (center), and ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ plant (right). (A, B, C) Plants at 40 DAG. Bar = 10 mm. (D, E, F) Flowers at stage 14. Bar = 500 μm. (G, H, I) Siliques. Bar = 3 mm. (J, K, L) Anthers at stage 12 stained with Alexander’s stain. Bar = 100 μm. (M, N, O) Tetrads stained with toluidine blue. Bar = 20 μm.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5. Abnormal pollen development in ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ is partially complemented by ΔLD.

    Transverse sections of developing anthers at stages 8, 9, and 11 in WT (left), ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutant (middle), and transgenic ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ plants having ΔLD (right). Arrowheads indicate collapsed pollen grains. Bar = 50 μm.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6. Glycerol treatment stimulates IRE1 kinase and RNase activities.

    (A) Percentages of saturated fatty acids (16:0 and 18:0) in WT and ire1a ire1b plants at 10 DAG treated with (G) or without (C) glycerol for 3 d. Error bars represent SD (n = 6). Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.01) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test. (B, C) Detection of bZIP60 mRNA splicing in WT, ire1a ire1b plants (B), and FLAG-IRE1 transgenic ire1a ire1b plants (C) at 10 DAG. RT-PCR was performed using bZIP60s-specific primers. Actin2 (Act2) was used as an internal control. (B) Glycerol treatment was performed for 0–4 d. (C) Plants were treated with (+) or without (−) glycerol for 3 d. (D) Detection of FLAG-IRE1B(WT) with anti-FLAG antibody in the transgenic ire1a ire1b plants treated with glycerol for 0–3 d. Samples were resolved on SDS–PAGE (upper) and Phos-tag SDS–PAGE (lower) followed by immunodetection with anti-FLAG antibody. An equal loading was shown by CBB staining after SDS–PAGE (middle). (E) RNA blot analysis of PR-4, PRX34, and MBL1 in WT and ire1a ire1b plants at 10 DAG. Plants were treated with or without glycerol for 3 d and plants at 10 DAG were treated with cordycepin (Cord) for 0–5 h. (F) Relative mRNA levels of PR-4, PRX34, and MBL1 in FLAG-IRE1B(WT, K821A, ΔLD) transgenic ire1a ire1b plants. 3-d glycerol-treated plants at 10 DAG were treated with Cord for 1 and 3 h and subjected to qPCR. log2 fold change was calculated by dividing average mRNA level of Cord 3 h by that of Cord 1 h. Data are means ± SEM of 3–6 independent experiments. (G, H) Detection of ΔLD with anti-FLAG antibody in the transgenic ire1a ire1b plants treated with glycerol, Tm, or DTT. (G) Samples were resolved on SDS–PAGE followed by immunodetection with anti-FLAG antibody. CBB staining was used as loading control. (H) Samples were resolved on Phos-tag SDS–PAGE to detect the phosphorylated ΔLD (p-ΔLD). Asterisks indicate possible degradation products of ΔLD. (I) The relative mRNA expression levels of FLAG-IRE1B(WT, ΔLD) transgenes. RNA from seedlings at 10 DAG treated with (G) or without (C) glycerol for 3 d was subjected to qPCR. Data are means ± SEM of four independent experiments. Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test. AP, alkaline phosphatase-treated sample.

  • Figure S4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S4. Effect of RNase and sensor domain of IRE1B on bZIP60 splicing and RIDD under glycerol treatment.

    (A) Detection of bZIP60s mRNA splicing in WT, ire1a ire1b, and FLAG-IRE1B(WT, ΔLD) transgenic ire1a ire1b plants at 10 DAG. RT-PCR was performed using bZIP60s-specific primers. Actin2 (Act2) was used as an internal control. Glycerol treatment was performed for 0, 1, and 3 d. (B, C, D) The relative mRNA levels of bZIP60s (B), cytosolic marker protein genes (C), and RIDD target genes (D) in WT, ire1a ire1b, and FLAG-IRE1B(WT, K821A, ΔLD) transgenic ire1a ire1b plants. RNA from seedlings at 10 DAG treated with (+) or without (−) glycerol for 3 d was subjected to qPCR. Data are means ± SEM of four independent experiments. Different letters within each treatment indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated IREB gene editing in ire1a ire1c mutant.

    (A) Schema of hypothetical IRE1B products in the IRE1B-mutated ire1a ire1c T3 plant lines #2–5 and #1–10. Positions of gRNA target sites are shown as arrowheads. (B) Tm sensitivity of the ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c, and IRE1B-mutated ire1a ire1c plants. Seedlings at 15 DAG of the indicated lines were treated with or without 0.1 mg/l Tm. (C) RNA blot analysis of BiP3 and PR-4 in WT, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c mutant, and IRE1B-mutated ire1a ire1c plants. Seedlings at 10 DAG were treated with (+) or without (−) 5 mg/l Tm for 5 h. (D) Detection of bZIP60 mRNA splicing in WT, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c, and IRE1B-mutated ire1a ire1c plants at 10 DAG treated with (+) or without (−) glycerol for 3 d. (E) RNA blot analysis of PR-4 and PRX34 in WT, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c, and IRE1B-mutated ire1a ire1c plants at 10 DAG treated with glycerol for 3 d. The samples were treated with (+) or without (−) Cord for 2 h immediately before sampling. SS, signal sequence; TM, transmembrane domain.

  • Figure S5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S5. Characteristics of the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated IRE1B mutant lines #2–5 and #9–6.

    (A) Genotyping of IRE1A-C genes in wild-type, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c mutants, and T3 plants of lines #2–5 and #9–6. Lane M, 100 bp DNA ladder. Lanes 1–6, six independent plants for each line. Note that PCR amplification of Cas9 gene was performed to detect T-DNA and that #9–6 lane 7 (asterisk) is a T2 sibling plant having T-DNA used as a control. (B) RT-PCR of IRE1B mRNA in ire1a ire1c, ire1a ire1b mutants, and T3 plants of #2–5 and #9–6. Actin2 (Act2) was used as an internal control. (C) DTT sensitivity of the ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c mutants, and T3 plants of #2–5 and #9–6. Seedlings at 15 DAG were treated with or without 1 mM DTT. M, mutant; W, wild-type.

  • Figure S6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S6. #2–5 and #9–6 lines retain RIDD activity and show no phenotypic abnormality.

    (A) The relative mRNA levels of RIDD target genes in WT, ire1a ire1b, ire1a ire1c, and ire1a ire1c with IRE1B mutation T3 lines #2–5 and #9–6. RNA from seedlings at 10 DAG treated with glycerol for 3 d was subjected to qPCR. Data are means ± SEM of four independent experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test. (B) T3 plants of lines #2–5 and #9–6 and ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutant at 40 DAG. Bar = 10 mm. (C) Siliques of the lines #2–5 (left) and #9–6 (right) plants. Bar = 3 mm.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Transmission of the ire1c allele through the male and female gametophyte in the progenies of the ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutants crossed with the ire1a ire1b mutant or self-pollination.

    Parental GenotypeGenotypes of ProgenyObserved RatioExpected Ratio
    FemaleMale+/+c/+c/cTotal+/+:c/+:c/c+/+:c/+:c/c
    a/a b/b c/+a/a b/b c/+832501081.0:0.30:0a1:2:1
    a/a b/b c/+a/a b/b +/+1863902251.0:0.21:0a1:1:0
    a/a b/b +/+a/a b/b c/+11900119119:0:0a1:1:0
    • ↵a Significantly different from the Mendelian segregation ratio (χ2, P < 0.01).

    • +, wild-type allele; a, ire1a allele; b, ire1b allele; c, ire1c allele.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Transmission of the ire1c allele through the male and female gametophyte in the progenies of the ire1a ire1b ire1c/+ mutants having IRE1B or ΔLD transgenes crossed with wild-type or self-pollination.

    Parental GenotypeGenotypes of ProgenyObserved RatioExpected Ratio
    FemaleMale+/+c/+c/cTotal+/+:c/+:c/c+/+:c/+:c/c
    +/+ +/+ +/+a/a b/b c/+20200202202:0:0a1:1:0
    +/+ +/+ +/+a/a b/b c/+ IRE1B43140571.0:0.33:0a1:1:0
    +/+ +/+ +/+a/a b/b c/+ ΔLD60340941.0:0.57:0a1:1:0
    a/a b/b c/++/+ +/+ +/+2668103471.0:0.30:0a1:1:0
    a/a b/b c/+ IRE1B+/+ +/+ +/+1303201621.0:0.25:0a1:1:0
    a/a b/b c/+ ΔLD+/+ +/+ +/+ 1352501601.0:0.19:0a1:1:0
    a/a b/b c/+ IRE1Ba/a b/b c/+ IRE1B5310101541.0:1.9:0a1:2:1
    a/a b/b c/+ ΔLDa/a b/b c/+ ΔLD9714002371.0:1.4:0a1:2:1
    • ↵a Significantly different from the Mendelian segregation ratio (χ2, P < 0.01).

    • +, wild-type allele; a, ire1a allele; b, ire1b allele; c, ire1c allele; IRE1B, FLAG-IRE1B(WT) transgene (homozygote); ΔLD, ΔLD transgene (homozygote).

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Table S1 Primers and oligonucleotides used in this study.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Life Science Alliance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Unfolded protein-independent IRE1 activation contributes to multifaceted developmental processes in Arabidopsis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Life Science Alliance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Life Science Alliance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Unfolded protein-independent IRE1 activation in Arabidopsis
Kei-ichiro Mishiba, Yuji Iwata, Tomofumi Mochizuki, Atsushi Matsumura, Nanami Nishioka, Rikako Hirata, Nozomu Koizumi
Life Science Alliance Oct 2019, 2 (5) e201900459; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900459

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Unfolded protein-independent IRE1 activation in Arabidopsis
Kei-ichiro Mishiba, Yuji Iwata, Tomofumi Mochizuki, Atsushi Matsumura, Nanami Nishioka, Rikako Hirata, Nozomu Koizumi
Life Science Alliance Oct 2019, 2 (5) e201900459; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900459
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
Issue Cover

In this Issue

Volume 2, No. 5
October 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Masthead (PDF)
Advertisement

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Development
  • Genetics, Gene Therapy & Genetic Disease
  • Plant Science

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Cited By...

  • Endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin (ERO) provides resilience against reductive stress and hypoxic conditions by mediating luminal redox dynamics
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Human GIGYF2 and GRB10 do not interact
  • hnRNP A1 binds a novel ESS element inducing CFTR missplicing
  • Mitochondria form inhibition granules
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

EMBO Press LogoRockefeller University Press LogoCold Spring Harbor Logo

Content

  • Home
  • Newest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Guidelines
  • License, copyright, Fee

Other Services

  • Alerts
  • Bluesky
  • X/Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • Editors & Staff
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Feedback
  • Licensing and Reuse
  • Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2575-1077
© 2025 Life Science Alliance LLC

Life Science Alliance is registered as a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office and in the European Union Intellectual Property Office.