Plant Immunity: Thinking Outside and Inside the Box

Models are extensively used to describe the coevolution of plants and microbial attackers. Such models distinguish between different classes of plant immune responses, based on the type of danger signal that is recognized or on the strength of the defense response that the danger signal provokes. However, recent molecular and biochemical advances have shown that these dichotomies are blurred. With molecular proof in hand, we propose here to abandon the current classification of plant immune responses, and to define the different forms of plant immunity solely based on the site of microbe recognition – either extracellular or intracellular. Using this spatial partition, our ‘spatial immunity model’ facilitates a broadly inclusive, but clearly distinguishing nomenclature to describe immune signaling in plant–microbe interactions.</p

Of PAMPs and Effectors: The Blurred PTI-ETI Dichotomy[OA]

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

Plant Immunity: Thinking Outside and Inside the Box

Models are extensively used to describe the coevolution of plants and microbial attackers. Such models distinguish between different classes of plant immune responses, based on the type of danger signal that is recognized or on the strength of the defense response that the danger signal provokes. However, recent molecular and biochemical advances have shown that these dichotomies are blurred. With molecular proof in hand, we propose here to abandon the current classification of plant immune responses, and to define the different forms of plant immunity solely based on the site of microbe recognition – either extracellular or intracellular. Using this spatial partition, our ‘spatial immunity model’ facilitates a broadly inclusive, but clearly distinguishing nomenclature to describe immune signaling in plant–microbe interactions.</p

Tomato Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and LeMPK3 Are Activated during the Cf-4/Avr4-Induced Hypersensitive Response and Have Distinct Phosphorylation Specificities1[C][W]

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants with the Cf-4 resistance gene recognize strains of the pathogenic fungus Cladosporium fulvum that secrete the avirulence protein Avr4. Transgenic tomato seedlings coexpressing Cf-4 and Avr4 mount a hypersensitive response (HR) at 20°C, which is suppressed at 33°C. Within 120 min after a shift from 33°C to 20°C, tomato mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase (LeMPK) activity increases in Cf-4/Avr4 seedlings. Searching tomato genome databases revealed at least 16 LeMPK sequences, including the sequence of LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and LeMPK3 that cluster with biotic stress-related MAP kinase orthologs from Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and LeMPK3 are simultaneously activated in Cf-4/Avr4 seedlings, and, to reveal whether they are functionally redundant or not, recombinant LeMPKs were incubated on PepChip Kinomics slides carrying peptides with potential phosphorylation sites. Phosphorylated peptides and motifs present in them discriminated between the phosphorylation specificities of LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and LeMPK3. LeMPK1, LeMPK2, or LeMPK3 activity was specifically suppressed in Cf-4-tomato by virus-induced gene silencing and leaflets were either injected with Avr4 or challenged with C. fulvum-secreting Avr4. The results of these experiments suggested that the LeMPKs have different but also overlapping roles with regard to HR and full resistance in tomato

Kinase activity of SOBIR1 and BAK1 is required for immune signalling

Leucine-rich repeat-receptor-like proteins (LRR-RLPs) and LRR-receptor-like kinases (LRR-RLKs) trigger immune signalling to promote plant resistance against pathogens. LRR-RLPs lack an intracellular kinase domain, and several of these receptors have been shown to constitutively interact with the LRR-RLK Suppressor of BIR1-1/EVERSHED (SOBIR1/EVR) to form signalling-competent receptor complexes. Ligand perception by LRR-RLPs initiates recruitment of the co-receptor BRI1-Associated Kinase 1/Somatic Embryogenesis Receptor Kinase 3 (BAK1/SERK3) to the LRR-RLP/SOBIR1 complex, thereby activating LRR-RLP-mediated immunity. We employed phosphorylation analysis of in planta-produced proteins, live cell imaging, gene silencing and co-immunoprecipitation to investigate the roles of SOBIR1 and BAK1 in immune signalling. We show that Arabidopsis thaliana (At) SOBIR1, which constitutively activates immune responses when overexpressed in planta, is highly phosphorylated. Moreover, in addition to the kinase activity of SOBIR1 itself, kinase-active BAK1 is essential for AtSOBIR1-induced constitutive immunity and for the phosphorylation of AtSOBIR1. Furthermore, the defence response triggered by the tomato LRR-RLP Cf-4 on perception of Avr4 from the extracellular pathogenic fungus Cladosporium fulvum is dependent on kinase-active BAK1. We argue that, in addition to the trans-autophosphorylation of SOBIR1, it is likely that SOBIR1 and BAK1 transphosphorylate, and thereby activate the receptor complex. The signalling-competent cell surface receptor complex subsequently activates downstream cytoplasmic signalling partners to initiate RLP-mediated immunity

Knocking out SOBIR1 in Nicotiana benthamiana abolishes functionality of transgenic receptor-like protein Cf-4

Knocking out SOBIR1 in Nicotiana benthamiana by CRISPR/Cas9, abolishes the functionality of the transgenic receptor-like protein Cf-4, recognizing the Avr4 effector of the fungus Cladosporium fulvum

Kinase activity of SOBIR1 and BAK1 is required for immune signalling

Leucine-rich repeat-receptor-like proteins (LRR-RLPs) and LRR-receptor-like kinases (LRR-RLKs) trigger immune signalling to promote plant resistance against pathogens. LRR-RLPs lack an intracellular kinase domain, and several of these receptors have been shown to constitutively interact with the LRR-RLK Suppressor of BIR1-1/EVERSHED (SOBIR1/EVR) to form signalling-competent receptor complexes. Ligand perception by LRR-RLPs initiates recruitment of the co-receptor BRI1-Associated Kinase 1/Somatic Embryogenesis Receptor Kinase 3 (BAK1/SERK3) to the LRR-RLP/SOBIR1 complex, thereby activating LRR-RLP-mediated immunity. We employed phosphorylation analysis of in planta-produced proteins, live cell imaging, gene silencing and co-immunoprecipitation to investigate the roles of SOBIR1 and BAK1 in immune signalling. We show that Arabidopsis thaliana (At) SOBIR1, which constitutively activates immune responses when overexpressed in planta, is highly phosphorylated. Moreover, in addition to the kinase activity of SOBIR1 itself, kinase-active BAK1 is essential for AtSOBIR1-induced constitutive immunity and for the phosphorylation of AtSOBIR1. Furthermore, the defence response triggered by the tomato LRR-RLP Cf-4 on perception of Avr4 from the extracellular pathogenic fungus Cladosporium fulvum is dependent on kinase-active BAK1. We argue that, in addition to the trans-autophosphorylation of SOBIR1, it is likely that SOBIR1 and BAK1 transphosphorylate, and thereby activate the receptor complex. The signalling-competent cell surface receptor complex subsequently activates downstream cytoplasmic signalling partners to initiate RLP-mediated immunity.</p

Knocking down expression of the auxin-amidohydrolase IAR3 alters defense responses in Solanaceae family plants

In plants, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) amido hydrolases (AHs) participate in auxin homeostasis by releasing free IAA from IAA-amino acid conjugates. We investigated the role of IAR3, a member of the IAA amido hydrolase family, in the response of Solanaceous plants challenged by biotrophic and hemi-biotrophic pathogens. By means of genome inspection and phylogenic analysis we firstly identified IAA-AH sequences and putative IAR3 orthologs in Nicotiana benthamiana, tomato and potato. We evaluated the involvement of IAR3 genes in defense responses by using virus-induced gene silencing. We observed that N. benthamiana and tomato plants with knocked-down expression of IAR3 genes contained lower levels of free IAA and presented altered responses to pathogen attack, including enhanced basal defenses and higher tolerance to infection in susceptible plants. We showed that IAR3 genes are consistently up-regulated in N. benthamiana and tomato upon inoculation with Phytophthora infestans and Cladosporium fulvum respectively. However, IAR3 expression decreased significantly when hypersensitive response was triggered in transgenic tomato plants coexpressing the Cf-4 resistance gene and the avirulence factor Avr4. Altogether, our results indicate that changes in IAR3 expression lead to alteration in auxin homeostasis that ultimately affects plant defense responses.</p