Plant immunity: Evolutionary insights from PBS1, Pto and RIN4

Two layers of plant immune systems are used by plants to defend against phytopathogens. The first layer is pathogen-associate molecular patterns (PAMPs)-triggered immunity (PTI), which is activated by plant cell-surface pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) upon perception of microbe general elicitors. The second layer is effector-triggered immunity (ETI), which is initiated by specific recognition of pathogen type III secreted effectors (T3SEs) with plant intracellular resistance (R) proteins. Current opinions agree that ETI was evolved from PTI, and the impetus for the evolution of plant immunity is pathogen T3SEs, which exhibit virulence functions through blocking PTI, but show avirulence functions for triggering ETI. A decoy model was put forward and explained that the avirulence targets of pathogen T3SEs were evolved as decoys to compete with the virulence targets for binding with pathogen T3SEs. However, little direct evidence for the evolutionary mode has been offered. Here we reviewed the recent progresses about Pto, PBS1 and RIN4 to present our viewpoints about the evolution of plant immunity.Key words: plant immunity, evolution, Pto, PBS1, RIN4     

Separable fragments and membrane tethering of Arabidopsis RIN4 regulate its suppression of PAMP-triggered immunity

RPM1-interacting protein 4 (RIN4) is a multifunctional Arabidopsis thaliana protein that regulates plant immune responses to pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and bacterial type III effector proteins (T3Es). RIN4, which is targeted by multiple defense-suppressing T3Es, provides a mechanistic link between PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity and effector suppression of plant defense. Here we report on a structure-function analysis of RIN4-mediated suppression of PTI. Separable fragments of RIN4, including those produced when the T3E AvrRpt2 cleaves RIN4 and each containing a plant-specific nitrate-induced (NOI) domain, suppress PTI. The N-terminal and C-terminal NOIs each contribute to PTI suppression and are evolutionarily conserved. Native RIN4 is anchored to the plasma membrane by C-terminal acylation. Nonmembrane-tethered derivatives of RIN4 activate a cell death response in wild-type Arabidopsis and are hyperactive PTI suppressors in a mutant background that lacks the cell death response. Our results indicate that RIN4 is a multifunctional suppressor of PTI and that a virulence function of AvrRpt2 may include cleaving RIN4 into active defense-suppressing fragments.     

Recent advances in plant immunity: recognition, signaling, response, and evolution

Innate immune system is employed by plants to defend against phytopathogenic microbes through specific perception of non-self molecules and subsequent initiation of resistance responses. Current researches elucidate that plants mostly rely on cell surface-located pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) and intracellular nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat proteins (NB-LRRs) to recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and effector proteins from microbial pathogens, initiating PAMP- and effector-triggered immunity (PTI and ETI), respectively. Some pathogenic bacterial effector proteins are usually secreted into plant cells and play a virulence function by suppressing plant PTI, implying an evolutionary process of plant immunity from PTI to ETI. In the past several years, a great progress has been achieved to reveal fascinating molecular mechanisms underlying the pathogenic recognition, resistance signaling transduction, and plant immunity evolution. Here, we summarized the latest breakthroughs about these topics, and offered an integral understanding of plant molecular immunity.     

Plant targets for Pseudomonas syringae type III effectors: virulence targets or guarded decoys?

The phytopathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas syringae can suppress both pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) by the injection of type III effector (T3E) proteins into host cells. T3Es achieve immune suppression using a variety of strategies including interference with immune receptor signaling, blocking RNA pathways and vesicle trafficking, and altering organelle function. T3Es can be recognized indirectly by resistance proteins monitoring specific T3E targets resulting in ETI. It is presently unclear whether the monitored targets represent bona fide virulence targets or guarded decoys. Extensive overlap between PTI and ETI signaling suggests that T3Es may suppress both pathways through common targets and by possessing multiple activities.     

The role of type III effectors from Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. manihotis in virulence and suppression of plant immunity

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. manihotis (Xam) causes cassava bacterial blight, the most important bacterial disease of cassava. Xam, like other Xanthomonas species, requires type III effectors (T3Es) for maximal virulence. Xam strain CIO151 possesses 17 predicted T3Es belonging to the Xanthomonas outer protein (Xop) class. This work aimed to characterize nine Xop effectors present in Xam CIO151 for their role in virulence and modulation of plant immunity. Our findings demonstrate the importance of XopZ, XopX, XopAO1 and AvrBs2 for full virulence, as well as a redundant function in virulence between XopN and XopQ in susceptible cassava plants. We tested their role in pathogen‐associated molecular pattern (PAMP)‐triggered immunity (PTI) and effector‐triggered immunity (ETI) using heterologous systems. AvrBs2, XopR and XopAO1 are capable of suppressing PTI. ETI suppression activity was only detected for XopE4 and XopAO1. These results demonstrate the overall importance and diversity in functions of major virulence effectors AvrBs2 and XopAO1 in Xam during cassava infection.     

Cultivar-specific avirulence and virulence functions assigned to avrPphF in Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola, the cause of bean halo-blight disease

The avrPphF gene was cloned from Pseudomonas syringae pathovar phaseolicola (PPH:) races 5 and 7, based on its ability to confer avirulence towards bean cultivars carrying the R1 gene for halo-blight resistance, such as Red Mexican. avrPphF comprised two open reading frames, which were both required for function, and was located on a 154 kb plasmid (pAV511) in PPH: Strain RW60 of PPH:, lacking pAV511, displayed a loss in virulence to a range of previously susceptible cultivars such as Tendergreen and Canadian Wonder. In Tendergreen virulence was restored to RW60 by avrPphF alone, whereas subcloned avrPphF in the absence of pAV511 greatly accelerated the hypersensitive resistance reaction caused by RW60 in Canadian Wonder. A second gene from pAV511, avrPphC, which controls avirulence to soybean, was found to block the activity of avrPphF in Canadian Wonder, but not in Red Mexican. avrPphF also conferred virulence in soybean. The multiple functions of avrPphF illustrate how effector proteins from plant pathogens have evolved to be recognized by R gene products and, therefore, be classified as encoded by avirulence genes.     

A Conserved Peptide Pattern from a Widespread Microbial Virulence Factor Triggers Pattern-Induced Immunity in Arabidopsis

Microbe- or host damage-derived patterns mediate activation of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) in plants. Microbial virulence factor (effector)-triggered immunity (ETI) constitutes a second layer of plant protection against microbial attack. Various necrosis and ethylene-inducing peptide 1 (Nep1)-like proteins (NLPs) produced by bacterial, oomycete and fungal microbes are phytotoxic virulence factors that exert immunogenic activities through phytotoxin-induced host cell damage. We here show that multiple cytotoxic NLPs also carry a pattern of 20 amino acid residues (nlp20) that triggers immunity-associated plant defenses and immunity to microbial infection in Arabidopsis thaliana and related plant species with similar characteristics as the prototype pattern, bacterial flagellin. Characteristic differences in flagellin and nlp20 plant responses exist however, as nlp20s fail to trigger extracellular alkalinization in Arabidopsis cell suspensions and seedling growth inhibition. Immunogenic nlp20 peptide motifs are frequently found in bacterial, oomycete and fungal NLPs. Such an unusually broad taxonomic distribution within three phylogenetic kingdoms is unprecedented among microbe-derived triggers of immune responses in either metazoans or plants. Our findings suggest that cytotoxic NLPs carrying immunogenic nlp20 motifs trigger PTI in two ways as typical patterns and by inflicting host cell damage. We further propose that conserved structures within a microbial virulence factor might have driven the emergence of a plant pattern recognition system mediating PTI. As this is reminiscent of the evolution of immune receptors mediating ETI, our findings support the idea that there is a continuum between PTI and ETI.     

Dynamics of Defense Responses and Cell Fate Change during Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas syringae Interactions

Plant-pathogen interactions involve sophisticated action and counteraction strategies from both parties. Plants can recognize pathogen derived molecules, such as conserved pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and effector proteins, and subsequently activate PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI), respectively. However, pathogens can evade such recognitions and suppress host immunity with effectors, causing effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS). The differences among PTI, ETS, and ETI have not been completely understood. Toward a better understanding of PTI, ETS, and ETI, we systematically examined various defense-related phenotypes of Arabidopsis infected with different Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola ES4326 strains, using the virulence strain DG3 to induce ETS, the avirulence strain DG34 that expresses avrRpm1 (recognized by the resistance protein RPM1) to induce ETI, and HrcC^- that lacks the type three secretion system to activate PTI. We found that plants infected with different strains displayed dynamic differences in the accumulation of the defense signaling molecule salicylic acid, expression of the defense marker gene PR1, cell death formation, and accumulation/localization of the reactive oxygen species, H₂O₂. The differences between PTI, ETS, and ETI are dependent on the doses of the strains used. These data support the quantitative nature of PTI, ETS, and ETI and they also reveal qualitative differences between PTI, ETS, and ETI. Interestingly, we observed the induction of large cells in the infected leaves, most obviously with HrcC^- at later infection stages. The enlarged cells have increased DNA content, suggesting a possible activation of endoreplication. Consistent with strong induction of abnormal cell growth by HrcC^-, we found that the PTI elicitor flg22 also activates abnormal cell growth, depending on a functional flg22-receptor FLS2. Thus, our study has revealed a comprehensive picture of dynamic changes of defense phenotypes and cell fate determination during Arabidopsis-P. syringae interactions, contributing to a better understanding of plant defense mechanisms.     

Toward understanding of rice innate immunity against Magnaporthe oryzae

The blast fungus, Magnaporthe oryzae, causes serious disease on a wide variety of grasses including rice, wheat and barley. The recognition of pathogens is an amazing ability of plants including strategies for displacing virulence effectors through the adaption of both conserved and variable pathogen elicitors. The pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) were reported as two main innate immune responses in plants, where PTI gives basal resistance and ETI confers durable resistance. The PTI consists of extracellular surface receptors that are able to recognize PAMPs. PAMPs detect microbial features such as fungal chitin that complete a vital function during the organism’s life. In contrast, ETI is mediated by intracellular receptor molecules containing nucleotide-binding (NB) and leucine rich repeat (LRR) domains that specifically recognize effector proteins produced by the pathogen. To enhance crop resistance, understanding the host resistance mechanisms against pathogen infection strategies and having a deeper knowledge of innate immunity system are essential. This review summarizes the recent advances on the molecular mechanism of innate immunity systems of rice against M. oryzae. The discussion will be centered on the latest success reported in plant–pathogen interactions and integrated defense responses in rice.     

A plant effector‐triggered immunity signaling sector is inhibited by pattern‐triggered immunity

Since signaling machineries for two modes of plant‐induced immunity, pattern‐triggered immunity (PTI) and effector‐triggered immunity (ETI), extensively overlap, PTI and ETI signaling likely interact. In an Arabidopsis quadruple mutant, in which four major sectors of the signaling network, jasmonate, ethylene, PAD4, and salicylate, are disabled, the hypersensitive response (HR) typical of ETI is abolished when the Pseudomonas syringae effector AvrRpt2 is bacterially delivered but is intact when AvrRpt2 is directly expressed in planta. These observations led us to discovery of a network‐buffered signaling mechanism that mediates HR signaling and is strongly inhibited by PTI signaling. We named this mechanism the ETI‐Mediating and PTI‐Inhibited Sector (EMPIS). The signaling kinetics of EMPIS explain apparently different plant genetic requirements for ETI triggered by different effectors without postulating different signaling machineries. The properties of EMPIS suggest that information about efficacy of the early immune response is fed back to the immune signaling network, modulating its activity and limiting the fitness cost of unnecessary immune responses.     

寄主植物与病原菌免疫反应的分子遗传基础

近年来,大量的植物抗病基因和病原菌无毒基因被克隆,抗病基因和无毒基因的结构、功能及其互作关系的研究也取得重大进展。在植物中,由病原菌模式分子(pathogen-associated molecular patterns, PAMPs)引发的免疫反应(PAMP-triggered immunity, PTI)和由效应因子引发的免疫反应(effector-triggered immunity, ETI)是植物在长期进化过程中形成的两类抵抗病原物的机制。PTI反应主要通过细胞表面受体(patternrecognition receptors, PRRs)识别并结合PAMPs从而激活下游免疫反应,而在ETI反应中,则通过植物R基因(resistance gene,R)与病原菌无毒基因(avirulence gene, Avr)产物间的直接或间接相互作用来完成免疫反应。本文对植物PTI反应和ETI反应分别进行了概述,重点探讨了植物R基因与病原菌Avr基因之间的互作遗传机理,并对目前植物抗性分子遗传机制研究和抗病育种中的问题进行了探讨和展望。     

Xanthomonas euvesicatoria type III effector XopQ interacts with tomato and pepper 14–3–3 isoforms to suppress effector‐triggered immunity

Effector‐triggered immunity (ETI) to host‐adapted pathogens is associated with rapid cell death at the infection site. The plant‐pathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas euvesicatoria (Xcv) interferes with plant cellular processes by injecting effector proteins into host cells through the type III secretion system. Here, we show that the Xcv effector XopQ suppresses cell death induced by components of the ETI‐associated MAP kinase cascade MAPKKKα MEK2/SIPK and by several R/avr gene pairs. Inactivation of xopQ by insertional mutagenesis revealed that this effector inhibits ETI‐associated cell death induced by avirulent Xcv in resistant pepper (Capsicum annuum), and enhances bacterial growth in resistant pepper and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Using protein–protein interaction studies in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and in planta, we identified the tomato 14–3–3 isoform SlTFT4 and homologs from other plant species as XopQ interactors. A mutation in the putative 14–3–3 binding site of XopQ impaired interaction of the effector with CaTFT4 in yeast and its virulence function in planta. Consistent with a role in ETI, TFT4 mRNA abundance increased during the incompatible interaction of tomato and pepper with Xcv. Silencing of NbTFT4 in Nicotiana benthamiana significantly reduced cell death induced by MAPKKKα. In addition, silencing of CaTFT4 in pepper delayed the appearance of ETI‐associated cell death and enhanced growth of virulent and avirulent Xcv, demonstrating the requirement of TFT4 for plant immunity to Xcv. Our results suggest that the XopQ virulence function is to suppress ETI and immunity‐associated cell death by interacting with TFT4, which is an important component of ETI and a bona fide target of XopQ.     

Physical association of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) immune receptors in Arabidopsis

Plants possess two distinct types of immune receptor. The first type, pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), recognizes microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) and initiates pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) on recognition. FLS2 is a PRR, which recognizes a part of bacterial flagellin. The second type, resistance (R) proteins, recognizes pathogen effectors and initiates effector-triggered immunity (ETI) on recognition. RPM1, RPS2 and RPS5 are R proteins. Here, we provide evidence that FLS2 is physically associated with all three R proteins. Our findings suggest that signalling interactions occur between PTI and ETI at very early stages and/or that FLS2 forms a PTI signalling complex, some components of which are guarded by R proteins.     

两类免疫受体强强联手筑牢植物免疫防线

植物先天免疫系统在抵御病原菌入侵过程中发挥至关重要的作用, 主要包括两个层次, 即病原菌相关分子模式和效应因子分别触发的PTI和ETI免疫反应。PTI和ETI分别由植物细胞膜表面模式识别受体(PRRs)和胞内免疫受体(NLRs)激活, 具有特异的激活机制, 但是两者激活的下游免疫事件相互重叠。PTI和ETI是否为泾渭分明的两道防线, 以及ETI与PTI下游事件为何如此相似, 一直是植物免疫领域最受关注的问题之一。最近, 中国科学院分子植物科学卓越创新中心辛秀芳团队与合作者利用拟南芥(Arabidopsis thaliana)与丁香假单胞杆菌(Pseudomonas syringae)互作系统对PTI和ETI在机制上的联系进行了研究。他们发现PRRs和共受体参与ETI, 而活性氧的产生是联系PRRs和NLRs所介导的免疫早期信号事件。他们还发现NLRs信号能够迅速增强PTI关键因子的转录和蛋白水平, PTI的增强在ETI免疫反应中不可或缺。该研究从机制上解析了植物免疫领域中长期悬而未决的PTI与ETI相似性之谜, 是该领域的一项突破性进展, 为未来作物分子设计育种提供了新的启示。     

Arabidopsis RIN4 negatively regulates disease resistance mediated by RPS2 and RPM1 downstream or independent of the NDR1 signal modulator and is not required for the virulence functions of bacterial type III effectors AvrRpt2 or AvrRpm1

Bacterial pathogens deliver type III effector proteins into the plant cell during infection. On susceptible (r) hosts, type III effectors can contribute to virulence. Some trigger the action of specific disease resistance (R) gene products. The activation of R proteins can occur indirectly via modification of a host target. Thus, at least some type III effectors are recognized at site(s) where they may act as virulence factors. These data indicate that a type III effector's host target might be required for both initiation of R function in resistant plants and pathogen virulence in susceptible plants. In Arabidopsis thaliana, RPM1-interacting protein 4 (RIN4) associates with both the Resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv maculicola 1 (RPM1) and Resistance to P. syringae 2 (RPS2) disease resistance proteins. RIN4 is posttranslationally modified after delivery of the P. syringae type III effectors AvrRpm1, AvrB, or AvrRpt2 to plant cells. Thus, RIN4 may be a target for virulence functions of these type III effectors. We demonstrate that RIN4 is not the only host target for AvrRpm1 and AvrRpt2 in susceptible plants because its elimination does not diminish their virulence functions. In fact, RIN4 negatively regulates AvrRpt2 virulence function. RIN4 also negatively regulates inappropriate activation of both RPM1 and RPS2. Inappropriate activation of RPS2 is nonspecific disease resistance 1 (NDR1) independent, in contrast with the established requirement for NDR1 during AvrRpt2-dependent RPS2 activation. Thus, RIN4 acts either cooperatively, downstream, or independently of NDR1 to negatively regulate RPS2 in the absence of pathogen. We propose that many P. syringae type III effectors have more than one target in the host cell. We suggest that a limited set of these targets, perhaps only one, are associated with R proteins. Thus, whereas any pathogen virulence factor may have multiple targets, the perturbation of only one is necessary and sufficient for R activation.     

Expansion of pathogen recognition specificity in plants using pattern recognition receptors and artificially designed decoys

Pathogen/microbe-associated molecular patterns(PAMPs/MAMPs) are recognized by plant pattern recognition receptors(PRRs)localized on the cell surface to activate immune responses.This PAMP-triggered immunity(PTI) confers resistance to a broad range of pathogenic microbes and,therefore,has a great potential for genetically engineering broad-spectrum resistance by transferring PRRs across plant families.Pathogenic effectors secreted by phytopathogens often directly target and inhibit key components of PTI signaling pathways via diverse biochemical mechanisms.In some cases,plants have evolved to produce decoy proteins that mimic the direct virulence target,which senses the biochemical activities of pathogenic effectors.This kind of perception traps the effectors of erroneous targeting and results in the activation of effector-triggered immunity(ETI) instead of suppressing PTI.This mechanism suggests that artificially designed decoy proteins could be used to generate new recognition specificities in a particular plant.In this review,we summarize recent advances in research investigating PAMP recognition by PRRs and virulence effector surveillance by decoy proteins.Successful expansion of recognition specificities,conferred by the transgenic expression of EF-Tu receptor(EFR) and AvrPphB susceptible 1(PBS1) decoys,has highlighted the considerable potential of PRRs and artificially designed decoys to expand plant resistance spectra and the need to further identify novel PRRs and decoys.     

The zig-zag-zig in oomycete–plant interactions

In addition to a range of preformed barriers, plants defend themselves against microbial invasion by detecting conserved, secreted molecules, called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) is the first inducible layer of plant defence that microbial pathogens must navigate by the delivery of effector proteins that act to suppress or otherwise manipulate key components of resistance. Effectors may themselves be targeted by a further layer of defence, effector-triggered immunity (ETI), as their presence inside or outside host cells may be detected by resistance proteins. This 'zig-zag-zig' of tightly co-evolving molecular interactions determines the outcome of attempted infection. In this article, we consider the complex molecular interplay between plants and plant pathogenic oomycetes, drawing on recent literature to illustrate what is known about oomycete PAMPs and elicitors of defence responses, the effectors they utilize to suppress PTI, and the phenomenal molecular 'battle' between effector and resistance ( R ) genes that dictates the establishment or evasion of ETI.