4.7 Article

Inactivation of tomato WAT1 leads to reduced susceptibility to Clavibacter michiganensis through downregulation of bacterial virulence factors

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1082094

关键词

susceptibility genes; Clavibacter michiganensis; CRISPR; Cas9; auxin; ethylene; disease; Walls Are Thin1; bacterium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tomato bacterial canker caused by Clavibacter michiganensis is a destructive disease with no resistance identified. This study finds that tomato gene SlWAT1 is a susceptibility gene to the pathogen. Inactivation of SlWAT1 reduces susceptibility by affecting hormone content and bacterial virulence factor expression.
Tomato bacterial canker caused by Clavibacter michiganensis (Cm) is considered to be one of the most destructive bacterial diseases of tomato. To date, no resistance to the pathogen has been identified. While several molecular studies have identified (Cm) bacterial factors involved in disease development, the plant genes and mechanisms associated with susceptibility of tomato to the bacterium remain largely unknown. Here, we show for the first time that tomato gene SlWAT1 is a susceptibility gene to Cm. We inactivated the gene SlWAT1 through RNAi and CRISPR/Cas9 to study changes in tomato susceptibility to Cm. Furthermore, we analysed the role of the gene in the molecular interaction with the pathogen. Our findings demonstrate that SlWAT1 functions as an S gene to genetically diverse Cm strains. Inactivation of SlWAT1 reduced free auxin contents and ethylene synthesis in tomato stems and suppressed the expression of specific bacterial virulence factors. However, CRISPR/Cas9 slwat1 mutants exhibited severe growth defects. The observed reduced susceptibility is possibly a result of downregulation of bacterial virulence factors and reduced auxin contents in transgenic plants. This shows that inactivation of an S gene may affect the expression of bacterial virulence factors.

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

4.7
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