4.6 Article

Deciphering the Monilinia fructicola Genome to Discover Effector Genes Possibly Involved in Virulence

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12040568

关键词

brown rot; stone fruit; annotation; necrosis; cell-death

资金

  1. European Union [741964]
  2. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [741964] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to generate a high-quality genome of M. fructicola and to identify genes that may contribute to pathogen virulence. Using PacBio sequencing technology, the genome of M. fructicola was assembled, resulting in 10,086 trustworthy gene models. A set of 134 putative effectors was defined, with some triggering necrotic lesions when transiently expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana plants. This research will help better understand the interaction between M. fructicola and stone fruit host plants.
Brown rot is the most economically important fungal disease of stone fruits and is primarily caused by Monilinia laxa and Monlinia fructicola. Both species co-occur in European orchards although M. fructicola is considered to cause the most severe yield losses in stone fruit. This study aimed to generate a high-quality genome of M. fructicola and to exploit it to identify genes that may contribute to pathogen virulence. PacBio sequencing technology was used to assemble the genome of M. fructicola. Manual structural curation of gene models, supported by RNA-Seq, and functional annotation of the proteome yielded 10,086 trustworthy gene models. The genome was examined for the presence of genes that encode secreted proteins and more specifically effector proteins. A set of 134 putative effectors was defined. Several effector genes were cloned into Agrobacterium tumefaciens for transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana plants, and some of them triggered necrotic lesions. Studying effectors and their biological properties will help to better understand the interaction between M. fructicola and its stone fruit host plants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据