Back

Expression of putative effectors of different Xylella fastidiosa subspecies/strains reveals recognition and defense activation in various model plants

Sertedakis, M.; Kotsaridis, K.; Tsakiri, D.; Dominguez-Ferreras, A.; Ntoukakis, V.; Sarris, P. F.

2021-05-27 microbiology
10.1101/2021.05.27.445625 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The re-emergence of Gram-negative bacterium Xylella fastidiosa in Europe in 2013 impelled the scientific community to discover novel strategies for crop protection. The wide host range of Xylella indicates the existence of yet not characterized pathogenic mechanisms to overcome plant defenses. The recent uprising accuracy of a variety of bioinformatics tools, with the ability to predict the function of putative microbial protein represent a useful approach for understanding which of these proteins are associated with pathogens virulence. In this study we collected a number of putative effectors from two X. fastidiosa strains: Temecula1 and CoDiRo and the subspecies (ssp.) Sandyi Ann-1. We designed an in-planta Agrobacterium based expression system that drives the expressed proteins to the cell apoplast, in order to investigate their ability to activate defense in various model plants. Furthermore, we organized the resulted proteins according to their sequential and structural similarities via the I-TASSER online tool. We identified that various X. fastidiosa proteins were able to differentially elicit cell death-like phenotypes in Nicotiana tabacum, N. sylvestris and N. benthamiana. These proteins are members of different enzymatic groups: a) hydrolases/hydrolases inhibitors, b) serine proteases and c) metal transferases. Collectively, we identified structurally similar proteins that were able to differentially elicit cell death-like phenotypes in different cultivars of the same species. Our findings provide the bases for further studies on the mechanisms that underlie host-defense activation by X. fastidiosa putative effectors, as well as, pathogens adaptation in susceptible hosts.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
10.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.3%
4
Molecular Plant Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Microbiological Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
6
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
7
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
8
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
50% of probability mass above
9
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
10
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.9%
12
Microbial Biotechnology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
14
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.6%
16
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
17
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.2%
18
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
21
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
23
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Virulence
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
Journal of Fungi
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
26
Plant Biotechnology Journal
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.7%
28
Plant Pathology
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
29
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%