4.6 Article

Verticillium dahliae manipulates plant immunity by glycoside hydrolase 12 proteins in conjunction with carbohydrate-binding module 1

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 1914-1932

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.13695

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAAS (an Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program grant)
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671986, 31200113, 31171799]
  3. Special Public Welfare Industry Research on Agriculture [201503109]
  4. Incremental Budget Program for the Fundamental Research of the CAAS [2015ZL047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycoside hydrolase 12 (GH12) proteins act as virulence factors and pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) in oomycetes. However, the pathogenic mechanisms of fungal GH12 proteins have not been characterized. In this study, we demonstrated that two of the six GH12 proteins produced by the fungus Verticillium dahliae Vd991, VdEG1 and VdEG3 acted as PAMPs to trigger cell death and PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) independent of their enzymatic activity in Nicotiana benthamiana. A 63-amino-acid peptide of VdEG3 was sufficient for cell death-inducing activity, but this was not the case for the corresponding peptide of VdEG1. Further study indicated that VdEG1 and VdEG3 trigger PTI in different ways: BAK1 is required for VdEG1- and VdEG3-triggered immunity, while SOBIR1 is specifically required for VdEG1-triggered immunity in N. benthamiana. Unlike oomycetes, which employ RXLR effectors to suppress host immunity, a carbohydrate-binding module family 1 (CBM1) protein domain suppressed GH12 protein-induced cell death. Furthermore, during infection of N. benthamiana and cotton, VdEG1 and VdEG3 acted as PAMPs and virulence factors, respectively indicative of host-dependent molecular functions. These results suggest that VdEG1 and VdEG3 associate differently with BAK1 and SOBIR1 receptor-like kinases to trigger immunity in N. benthamiana, and together with CBM1-containing proteins manipulate plant immunity.

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