Complete Genome Sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559T

Here we announce the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T, which was isolated by high-throughput dilution-to-extinction culturing from the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series station in the Western Sargasso Sea. Strain HTCC2559^T contained genes for carotenoid biosynthesis, flavonoid biosynthesis, and several macromolecule-degrading enzymes. The genome confirmed physiological observations of cultivated Croceibacter atlanticus strain HTCC2559^T, which identified it as an obligate chemoheterotroph.The phylum Bacteroidetes comprises 6 to ∼30% of total bacterial communities in the ocean by fluorescence in situ hybridization (8-10). Most marine Bacteroidetes are in the family Flavobacteriaceae, most of which are aerobic respiratory heterotrophs that form a well-defined clade by 16S rRNA phylogenetic analyses (4). The members of this family are well known for degrading macromolecules, including chitin, DNA, cellulose, starch, and pectin (17), suggesting their environmental roles as detritus decomposers in the ocean (6). Marine Polaribacter and Dokdonia species in the Flavobacteriaceae have also shown to have photoheterotrophic metabolism mediated by proteorhodopsins (11, 12).Several strains of the family Flavobacteriaceae were isolated from the Sargasso Sea and Oregon coast, using high-throughput culturing approaches (7). Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T was cultivated from seawater collected at a depth of 250 m from the Sargasso Sea and was identified as a new genus in the family Flavobacteriaceae based on its 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities (6). Strain HTCC2559^T met the minimal standards for genera of the family Flavobacteriaceae (3) on the basis of phenotypic characteristics (6).Here we report the complete genome sequence of Croceibacter atlanticus HTCC2559^T. The genome sequencing was initiated by the J. Craig Venter Institute as a part of the Moore Foundation Microbial Genome Sequencing Project and completed in the current announcement. Gaps among contigs were closed by Genotech Co., Ltd. (Daejeon, Korea), using direct sequencing of combinatorial PCR products (16). The HTCC2559^T genome was analyzed with a genome annotation system based on GenDB (14) at Oregon State University and with the NCBI Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline (15, 16).The HTCC2559^T genome is 2,952,962 bp long, with 33.9 mol% G+C content, and there was no evidence of plasmids. The number of protein-coding genes was 2,715; there were two copies of the 16S-23S-5S rRNA operon and 36 tRNA genes. The HTCC2559^T genome contained genes for a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, glycolysis, and a pentose phosphate pathway. The genome also contained sets of genes for metabolic enzymes involved in carotenoid biosynthesis and also a serine/glycine hydroxymethyltransferase, which is often associated with the assimilatory serine cycle (13). The potential for HTCC2559^T to use bacterial type III polyketide synthase (PKS) needs to be confirmed because this organism had a naringenin-chalcone synthase (CHS) or chalcone synthase (EC 2.3.1.74), a key enzyme in flavonoid biosynthesis. CHS initiates the addition of three molecules of malonyl coenzyme A (malonyl-CoA) to a starter CoA ester (e.g., 4-coumaroyl-CoA) (1) and takes part in a few bacterial type III polyketide synthase systems (1, 2, 5, 18).The complete genome sequence confirmed that strain HTCC2559^T is an obligate chemoheterotroph because no genes for phototrophy were found. As expected from physiological characteristics (6), the HTCC2559^T genome contained a set of genes coding for enzymes required to degrade high-molecular-weight compounds, including peptidases, metallo-/serine proteases, pectinase, alginate lyases, and α-amylase.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

Timing the switch to phototrophic growth: A possible role of GUN1

In young Arabidopsis seedlings, retrograde signaling from plastids regulates the expression of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes in response to the developmental and functional state of the chloroplasts. The chloroplast-located PPR protein GUN1 is required for signalling following disruption of plastid protein synthesis early in seedling development before full photosynthetic competence has been achieved. Recently we showed that sucrose repression and the correct temporal expression of LHCB1, encoding a light-harvesting chlorophyll protein associated with photosystem II, are perturbed in gun1 mutant seedlings.¹ Additionally, we demonstrated that in gun1 seedlings anthocyanin accumulation and the expression of the “early” anthocyanin-biosynthesis genes is perturbed. Early seedling development, predominantly at the stage of hypocotyl elongation and cotyledon expansion, is also affected in gun1 seedlings in response to sucrose, ABA and disruption of plastid protein synthesis by lincomycin. These findings indicate a central role for GUN1 in plastid, sucrose and ABA signalling in early seedling development.Key words: ABA, ABI4, anthocyanin, chloroplast, GUN1, retrograde signalling, sucroseArabidopsis seedlings develop in response to light and other environmental cues. In young seedlings, development is fuelled by mobilization of lipid reserves until chloroplast biogenesis is complete and the seedlings can make the transition to phototrophic growth. The majority of proteins with functions related to photosynthesis are encoded by the nuclear genome, and their expression is coordinated with the expression of genes in the chloroplast genome. In developing seedlings, retrograde signaling from chloroplasts to the nucleus regulates the expression of these nuclear genes and is dependent on the developmental and functional status of the chloroplast. Two classes of gun (genomes uncoupled) mutants defective in retrograde signalling have been identified in Arabidopsis: the first, which comprises gun2–gun5, involves mutations in genes encoding components of tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.^2,3 The other comprises gun1, which has mutations in a nuclear gene encoding a plastid-located pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein with an SMR (small MutS-related) domain near the C-terminus.^4,5 PPR proteins are known to have roles in RNA processing⁶ and the SMR domain of GUN1 has been shown to bind DNA,⁴ but the specific functions of these domains in GUN1 are not yet established. However, GUN1 has been shown to be involved in plastid gene expression-dependent,⁷ redox,⁴ ABA1,⁴ and sucrose signaling,^1,4,8 as well as light quality and intensity sensing pathways.^9–11 In addition, GUN1 has been shown to influence anthocyanin biosynthesis, hypocotyl extension and cotyledon expansion.^1,11     

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Does OsPHR2, central Pi-signaling regulator,regulate some unknown factors crucial for plant growth?

OsPHR2, the homolog of AtPHR1, is a central Pi-signaling regulator. The Pi-signaling pathway downstream of AtPHR1, similarly of OsPHR2,^1,2 involves a noncoding RNA which targets mimicry of miR399. miRNA399 mediates cleavage of PHO2.^3,4 The regulating pathway downstream of OsPHR2 is negatively regulated by the Pi-signaling responsive gene OsSPX1.^5,6 Overexpression of AtPHR1 and OsPHR2 leads to an increased concentration of Pi in the shoot tissues with leaf toxic symptom and growth retardation similar as the phenotype of pho2 mutant, especially under Pi abundant conditions.^2,6,7 It has been known that the low affinity Pi transporter OsPT2 mainly contributes to the shoot Pi accumulation mediated by OsPHR2, and overexpression of OsPT2 results in shoot Pi accumulation and leaf toxic symptom and growth retardation under Pi abundant conditions.⁶ Two curious questions are emerging from the reported results: How Os SPX1 functions on the negative regulation of the pathway and what mechanism of the growth retardation mediated by OsPHR2. For the second question, our favored hypothesis is that the growth inhibition mediated by overexpression of OsPHR2 is caused by toxic physiological effects due to excessive Pi accumulation in shoots (Pi toxicity). In fact, the toxic symptoms become diminished with decreased Pi levels in growth medium. However, the plant growth retardation mediated by overexpression of OsPHR2 may be caused by some unknown genetic factor(s) regulated by OsPHR2.Key words: Oryza Sativa L, OsPHR2, OsSPX1, pi-signaling, plant growth     

Roles of calcineurin B-like protein-interacting protein kinases in innate immunity in rice

Cytosolic free Ca²⁺ mobilization induced by microbe/pathogen-asssociated molecular patterns (MAMPs/PAMPs) plays key roles in plant innate immunity. However, components involved in Ca²⁺ signaling pathways still remain to be identified and possible involvement of the CBL (calcineurin B-like proteins)-CIPK (CBL-interacting protein kinases) system in biotic defense signaling have yet to be clarified. Recently we identified two CIPKs, OsCIPK14 and OsCIPK15, which are rapidly induced by MAMPs, involved in various MAMP-induced immune responses including defense-related gene expression, phytoalexin biosynthesis and hypersensitive cell death. MAMP-induced production of reactive oxygen species as well as cell browning were also suppressed in OsCIPK14/15-RNAi transgenic cell lines. Possible molecular mechanisms and physiological functions of the CIPKs in plant innate immunity are discussed.Key words: PAMPs/MAMPs, calcium signaling, CBL-CIPK, hypersensitive cell death, reactive oxygen speciesCa²⁺ plays an essential role as an intracellular second messenger in plants as well as in animals. Several families of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins have been identified in higher plants, which decode spatiotemporal patterns of intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration.^1,2 Calcineurin B-Like Proteins (CBLs) comprise a family of Ca²⁺ sensor proteins similar to both the regulatory β-subunit of calcineurin and neuronal Ca²⁺ sensors of animals.^3,4 Unlike calcineurin B that regulates protein phosphatases, CBLs specifically target a family of protein kinases referred to as CIPKs (CBL-Interacting Protein Kinases).⁵ The CBL-CIPK system has been shown to be involved in a wide range of signaling pathways, including abiotic stress responses such as drought and salt, plant hormone responses and K+ channel regulation.^6,7Following the recognition of pathogenic signals, plant cells initiate the activation of a widespread signal transduction network that trigger inducible defense responses, including the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), biosynthesis of phytoalexins, expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and reorganization of cytoskeletons and the vacuole,⁸ followed by a form of programmed cell death known as hypersensitive response (HR).^9,10 Because complexed spatiotemporal patterns of cytosolic free Ca²⁺ concentration ([Ca²⁺]_cyt) have been suggested to play pivotal roles in defense signaling,^1,9 multiple Ca²⁺ sensor proteins and their effectors should function in defense signaling pathways. Although possible involvement of some calmodulin isoforms^11–13 and the calmodulin-domain/calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs)^14–19 has been suggested, other Ca²⁺-regulated signaling components still remain to be identified. No CBLs or CIPKs had so far been implicated as signaling components in innate immunity.     

Nonhost resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis thaliana

Rice blast, caused by Magnaporthe oryzae, is a devastating disease of rice (Oryza sativa). The mechanisms involved in resistance of rice to blast have been studied extensively and the rice—M. oryzae pathosystem has become a model for plant—microbe interaction studies. However, the mechanisms involved in nonhost resistance (NHR) of other plants to rice blast are still poorly understood. We have recently demonstrated that AGB1 and PMR5 contribute to PEN2-mediated preinvasion resistance to M. oryzae in Arabidopsis thaliana, suggesting a complex genetic network regulating the resistance. To determine whether other defense factors: RAR1, SGT1 and NHO1, affected the A. thaliana-M. oryzae interactions, double mutants were generated between pen2 and these defense-related mutants. All these double mutants exhibited a level of penetration resistance similar to that of the pen2 mutant, suggesting that none of these mutants significantly compromised resistance to M. oryzae in a pen2 background.Key words: nonhost resistance, PEN2, RAR1, SGT1, NHO1Plants face microbial attacks and have evolved innate immunity systems to defend against these threats. The initial step of the immunity signaling pathway is recognition of intra- or extracellular pathogen-derived molecules. Externally oriented transmembrane-type proteins containing leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains detect extracellular molecules, whereas cytoplasmic sensors possess nucleotide-binding (NB) and LRR domains (NLR).^1,2 The LRR domain serves as a pattern-recognition receptor to detect pathogen-derived molecules or host proteins that are targeted by pathogen peptides that have entered the cell, effectors.³ NLR-type sensors are the substrates of a structurally and functionally conserved chaperone complex that consists of HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN 90 (HSP90) and its cochaperone SUPPRESSOR OF THE G2 ALLELE OF SKP1 (SGT1). REQUIRED FOR MLA12 RESISTANCE 1 (RAR1) regulated the HSP90-SGT1 complex, resulting in the stabilization of NLR proteins. Thus, SGT1 and RAR1 are required for the function of multiple and distinct R genes that encode NLR immune sensors in plants.⁴ Experiments in RAR1-silenced transgenic rice lines showed that RAR1 is not essential for Pib, which encodes an NLR against rice blast fungus.⁵ In contrast, basal resistance to normally virulent races of rice blast fungus or bacterial blight is significantly reduced in RAR1-silenced lines. This result is consistent with earlier reports that RAR1 is involved in basal resistance to virulent Pseudomonas bacteria in Arabidopsis or blast fungus in barley.^6,7 The requirement of SGT1 for immunity in plants is shown mostly by transient silencing of a number of NLR proteins.^8,9 In addition, SGT1 is also required for immune responses triggered by non-NLR-type sensors.¹⁰ This requirement indicates that either SGT1 function is not limited to the NLR sensors, or some unknown SGT1-dependent NLR proteins also operate downstream of non NLR-type sensors. Furthermore, SGT1 is involved in nonhost resistance, indicating that SGT1 may be a general factor of disease resistance.¹⁰ An Arabidopsis mutant, nho1 (nonhost resistance 1), has been isolated on which Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola grows and causes disease symptoms.^11,12 It is significant that this mutant is also compromised in R-gene-mediated resistance to P. syringae.¹¹ Although NHO1 is the flagellin-induced glycerol kinase, whose exact function in NHR remains elusive.^12,13 A possible explanation might be that altered plant glycerol pools either directly or indirectly affect nutrient availability for P. syringae. NHO1 is also required for resistance to the fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea, indicating that NHO1 is not limited to bacterial resistance.¹² However, these contributions to NHR to M. oryzae in A. thaliana have not been understood.To determine whether these factors were necessary for the resistance to M. oryzae in A. thaliana, the following A. thaliana mutants were inoculated with M. oryzae and monitored by microscopy: rar1-21;¹⁴ edm1-1;¹⁵ nho1-1,¹¹ (all Col-0 background). All these mutants exhibited a level of penetration resistance similar to that of the wild-type plants (data not shown), suggesting that none of these mutants significantly compromised resistance to M. oryzae. We have recently shown that among the penetration (pen) mutants, only the pen2,¹⁶ mutant allowed increased penetration into epidermal cells by M. oryzae.¹⁷ Thus, double mutants were generated between pen2 and these mutants to determine whether these factors were necessary for the resistance to M. oryzae in a pen2 background: pen2 rar1-21; pen2 edm1-1; pen2 nho1-1. All these double mutants exhibited a level of penetration resistance similar to that of the pen2 mutant (Fig. 1), suggesting that none of these mutants significantly compromised resistance to M. oryzae in a pen2 background. This might indicate that NHR against M. oryzae may not be conferred by RAR1- and SGT1-dependent NLR immune sensors. Alternatively, since there has been no report that RAR1 is required for any known transmembrane sensors, such as FLS2, EFR or Xa21, RAR1- and SGT1-independent transmembrane-type immune sensors may be required for NHR against M. oryzae. Future studies will be required to reveal the genetic and mechanistic requirements for NHR in A. thaliana-M. oryzae interactions.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Double mutant analysis to evaluate the role of the defense related genes on resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis thaliana. The frequency of M. oryzae penetration on double mutants at 3 days post-inoculation was expressed as a percentage of total appressoria. Data were collected from six independent plants per line. A minimum of 100 infection sites was inspected per leaf. Results represent mean ± standard error of three independent experiments.