植物与病原微生物互作分子基础的研究进展

植物在与病原微生物共同进化过程中形成了复杂的免疫防卫体系。植物的先天免疫系统可大致分为两个层面。第一个层面的免疫基于细胞表面的模式识别受体对病原物相关分子模式的识别,该免疫过程被称为病原物相关分子模式触发的免疫(PAMP-triggered immunity,PTI),能帮助植物抵抗大部分病原微生物;第二个层面的免疫起始于细胞内部,主要依靠抗病基因编码的蛋白产物直接或间接识别病原微生物分泌的效应子并且激发防卫反应,来抵抗那些能够利用效应子抑制第一层面免疫的病原微生物,这一过程被称为效应子触发的免疫(Effector-triggered immunity,ETI)。这两个层面的免疫都是基于植物对"自我"及"非我"的识别,依靠MAPK级联等信号网络,将识别结果传递到细胞核内,调控相应基因的表达,做出适当的免疫应答。本文着重阐述了植物与病原微生物互作过程中不同层面的免疫反应所发生主要事件的分子基础及研究进展。     

植物与病原微生物互作分子基础的研究进展

植物在与病原微生物共同进化过程中形成了复杂的免疫防卫体系。植物的先天免疫系统可大致分为两个层面。第一个层面的免疫基于细胞表面的模式识别受体对病原物相关分子模式的识别, 该免疫过程被称为病原物相关分子模式触发的免疫(PAMP-triggered immunity, PTI), 能帮助植物抵抗大部分病原微生物; 第二个层面的免疫起始于细胞内部, 主要依靠抗病基因编码的蛋白产物直接或间接识别病原微生物分泌的效应子并且激发防卫反应, 来抵抗那些能够利用效应子抑制第一层面免疫的病原微生物, 这一过程被称为效应子触发的免疫(Effector-triggered immunity, ETI)。这两个层面的免疫都是基于植物对“自我”及“非我”的识别, 依靠MAPK级联等信号网络, 将识别结果传递到细胞核内, 调控相应基因的表达, 做出适当的免疫应答。本文着重阐述了植物与病原微生物互作过程中不同层面的免疫反应所发生主要事件的分子基础及研究进展。     

Role of pathogen's effectors in understanding host-pathogen interaction

Pathogens can pose challenges to plant growth and development at various stages of their life cycle. Two interconnected defense strategies prevent the growth of pathogens in plants, i.e., molecular patterns triggered immunity (PTI) and pathogenic effector-triggered immunity (ETI) that often provides resistance when PTI no longer functions as a result of pathogenic effectors. Plants may trigger an ETI defense response by directly or indirectly detecting pathogen effectors via their resistance proteins. A typical resistance protein is a nucleotide-binding receptor with leucine-rich sequences (NLRs) that undergo structural changes as they recognize their effectors and form associations with other NLRs. As a result of dimerization or oligomerization, downstream components activate “helper” NLRs, resulting in a response to ETI. It was thought that ETI is highly dependent on PTI. However, recent studies have found that ETI and PTI have symbiotic crosstalk, and both work together to create a robust system of plant defense. In this article, we have summarized the recent advances in understanding the plant's early immune response, its components, and how they cooperate in innate defense mechanisms. Moreover, we have provided the current perspective on engineering strategies for crop protection based on up-to-date knowledge.     

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。     

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.     

Host-microbe interactions: shaping the evolution of the plant immune response

The evolution of the plant immune response has culminated in a highly effective defense system that is able to resist potential attack by microbial pathogens. The primary immune response is referred to as PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) and has evolved to recognize common features of microbial pathogens. In the coevolution of host-microbe interactions, pathogens acquired the ability to deliver effector proteins to the plant cell to suppress PTI, allowing pathogen growth and disease. In response to the delivery of pathogen effector proteins, plants acquired surveillance proteins (R proteins) to either directly or indirectly monitor the presence of the pathogen effector proteins. In this review, taking an evolutionary perspective, we highlight important discoveries over the last decade about the plant immune response.     

Plant systems for recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns

Research of the last decade has revealed that plant immunity consists of different layers of defense that have evolved by the co-evolutional battle of plants with its pathogens. Particular light has been shed on PAMP- (pathogen-associated molecular pattern) triggered immunity (PTI) mediated by pattern recognition receptors. Striking similarities exist between the plant and animal innate immune system that point for a common optimized mechanism that has evolved independently in both kingdoms. Pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) from both kingdoms consist of leucine-rich repeat receptor complexes that allow recognition of invading pathogens at the cell surface. In plants, PRRs like FLS2 and EFR are controlled by a co-receptor SERK3/BAK1, also a leucine-rich repeat receptor that dimerizes with the PRRs to support their function. Pathogens can inject effector proteins into the plant cells to suppress the immune responses initiated after perception of PAMPs by PRRs via inhibition or degradation of the receptors. Plants have acquired the ability to recognize the presence of some of these effector proteins which leads to a quick and hypersensitive response to arrest and terminate pathogen growth.     

水稻免疫机制研究进展

植物先天免疫主要由两部分组成：一类是通过细胞膜上的病原菌分子模式识别受体识别病原微生物表面存在的分子特征激发的免疫反应（PTI）;另一类是专化性的抗病R蛋白识别病原微生物的效应蛋白,从而激发下游的病原菌小种特异性的防卫反应过程（ETI）．随着水稻抗病信号途径中越来越多的抗病基因以及关键的调控基因被克隆和功能鉴定,同时多种水稻病原菌效应蛋白的发现,水稻抗病机理的研究也越来越深入．本文阐述了水稻的PTI,ETI及其下游参与免疫信号转导的关键性组分,从而形成一个初步的水稻免疫调控网络．     

Induction of resistance against pathogens by β-aminobutyric acid

Among the many types of plant stressors, pathogen attack, mainly fungi and bacteria can cause particularly severe damage both to individual plants and, on a wider scale, to agricultural productivity. The magnitude of these pathogen-induced problems has stimulated rapid progress in green biotechnology research into plant defense mechanisms. Plants can develop local and systemic wide-spectrum resistance induced by their exposure to virulent (systemic acquired resistance—SAR) or non-pathogenic microbes and various chemical elicitors (induced systemic resistance—ISR). β-Aminobutyric acid (BABA), non-protein amino acid, is though to be important component of the signaling pathway regulating ISR response in plants. After treatment with BABA or various chemicals, after infection by a necrotizing pathogen, colonization of the roots by beneficial microbes many plants establish a unique physiological state that is called the “primed” state of the plant. This review will focus on the recent knowledge about the role of BABA in the induction of ISR against pathogens mainly against fungi.     

Defense on multiple fronts: how do plants cope with diverse enemies?

Plants have evolved an array of defense mechanisms to protect themselves against the wide variety of pathogens and pests with which they are confronted. Included in these defense mechanisms are inducible responses that are turned on systemically in the plant in response to attempted infection or predation. The two most studied inducible responses are systemic acquired resistance, which provides enhanced resistance to pathogen infection, and the wound response pathway, resulting in enhanced resistance to insect feeding. Recent research suggests that the two pathways are not completely independent, and the induction of one might affect the expression of the other. However, the evidence for cross-talk between different induced defense response pathways is somewhat confusing, and at times contradictory. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of how the different pathways might interact.     

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.     

Responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to challenge by Pseudomonas syringae

Plants are continually exposed to a variety of potentially pathogenic microbes, and the interactions between plants and pathogenic invaders determine the outcome, disease or disease resistance. To defend themselves, plants have developed a sophisticated immune system. Unlike animals, however, they do not have specialized immune cells and, thus all plant cells appear to have the innate ability to recognize pathogens and turn on an appropriate defense response. Using genetic, genomic and biochemical methods, tremendous advances have been made in understanding how plants recognize pathogens and mount effective defenses. The primary immune response is induced by microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs). MAMP receptors recognize the presence of probable pathogens and evoke defense. In the co-evolution of plant-microbe interactions, pathogens gained the ability to make and deliver effector proteins to suppress MAMP-induced defense responses. In response to effector proteins, plants acquired R-proteins to directly or indirectly monitor the presence of effector proteins and activate an effective defense response. In this review we will describe and discuss the plant immune responses induced by two types of elicitors, PAMPs and effector proteins.     

Of PAMPs and effectors: the blurred PTI-ETI dichotomy

Typically, pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) are considered to be conserved throughout classes of microbes and to contribute to general microbial fitness, whereas effectors are species, race, or strain specific and contribute to pathogen virulence. Both types of molecule can trigger plant immunity, designated PAMP-triggered and effector-triggered immunity (PTI and ETI, respectively). However, not all microbial defense activators conform to the common distinction between PAMPs and effectors. For example, some effectors display wide distribution, while some PAMPs are rather narrowly conserved or contribute to pathogen virulence. As effectors may elicit defense responses and PAMPs may be required for virulence, single components cannot exclusively be referred to by one of the two terms. Therefore, we put forward that the distinction between PAMPs and effectors, between PAMP receptors and resistance proteins, and, therefore, also between PTI and ETI, cannot strictly be maintained. Rather, as illustrated by examples provided here, there is a continuum between PTI and ETI. We argue that plant resistance is determined by immune receptors that recognize appropriate ligands to activate defense, the amplitude of which is likely determined by the level required for effective immunity.     

The function of small RNAs in plant biotic stress response

Small RNAs(s RNAs) play essential roles in plants upon biotic stress. Plants utilize RNA silencing machinery to facilitate pathogen-associated molecular pattern-triggered immunity and effector-triggered immunity to defend against pathogen attack or to facilitate defense against insect herbivores. Pathogens, on the other hand, are also able to generate effectors and s RNAs to counter the host immune response. The arms race between plants and pathogens/insect herbivores has triggered the evolution of s RNAs,RNA silencing machinery and pathogen effectors. A great number of studies have been performed to investigate the roles of s RNAs in plant defense, bringing in the opportunity to utilize s RNAs in plant protection. Transgenic plants with pathogen-derived resistance ability or transgenerational defense have been generated, which show promising potential as solutions for pathogen/insect herbivore problems in the field. Here we summarize the recent progress on the function of s RNAs in response to biotic stress, mainly in plant-pathogen/insect herbivore interaction,and the application of s RNAs in disease and insect herbivore control.     

New insights into the regulation of plant immunity by amino acid metabolic pathways

Besides defence pathways regulated by classical stress hormones, distinct amino acid metabolic pathways constitute integral parts of the plant immune system. Mutations in several genes involved in Asp‐derived amino acid biosynthetic pathways can have profound impact on plant resistance to specific pathogen types. For instance, amino acid imbalances associated with homoserine or threonine accumulation elevate plant immunity to oomycete pathogens but not to pathogenic fungi or bacteria. The catabolism of Lys produces the immune signal pipecolic acid (Pip), a cyclic, non‐protein amino acid. Pip amplifies plant defence responses and acts as a critical regulator of plant systemic acquired resistance, defence priming and local resistance to bacterial pathogens. Asp‐derived pyridine nucleotides influence both pre‐ and post‐invasion immunity, and the catabolism of branched chain amino acids appears to affect plant resistance to distinct pathogen classes by modulating crosstalk of salicylic acid‐ and jasmonic acid‐regulated defence pathways. It also emerges that, besides polyamine oxidation and NADPH oxidase, Pro metabolism is involved in the oxidative burst and the hypersensitive response associated with avirulent pathogen recognition. Moreover, the acylation of amino acids can control plant resistance to pathogens and pests by the formation of protective plant metabolites or by the modulation of plant hormone activity.     

Identification of quantitative trait loci controlling gene expression during the innate immunity response of soybean

Microbe-associated molecular pattern-triggered immunity (MTI) is an important component of the plant innate immunity response to invading pathogens. However, most of our knowledge of MTI comes from studies of model systems with relatively little work done with crop plants. In this work, we report on variation in both the microbe-associated molecular pattern-triggered oxidative burst and gene expression across four soybean (Glycine max) genotypes. Variation in MTI correlated with the level of pathogen resistance for each genotype. A quantitative trait locus analysis on these traits identified four loci that appeared to regulate gene expression during MTI in soybean. Likewise, we observed that both MTI variation and pathogen resistance were quantitatively inherited. The approach utilized in this study may have utility for identifying key resistance loci useful for developing improved soybean cultivars.     

Plant immunization

Plant immunization is the process of activating natural defense system present in plant induced by biotic or abiotic factors. Plants are pre-treated with inducing agents stimulate plant defense responses that form chemical or physical barriers that are used against the pathogen invasion. Inducers used usually give the signals to rouse the plant defense genes ultimately resulting into induced systemic resistance. In many plant-pathogen interactions, R-Avr gene interactions results in localized acquired resistance or hypersensitive response and at distal ends of plant, a broad spectrum resistance is induced known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Various biotic or abiotic factors induce systemic resistance in plants that is phenotypically similar to pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Some of the biotic or abiotic determinants induce systemic resistance in plants through salicylic acid (SA) dependent SAR pathway, others require jasmonic acid (JA) or ethylene. Host plant remains in induced condition for a period of time, and upon challenge inoculation, resistance responses are accelerated and enhanced. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) is effective under field conditions and offers a natural mechanism for biological control of plant disease.