Simple Science

Cutting edge science explained simply

# Biology # Plant Biology

Wheat's Fight Against Fungal Intruders

Discover how wheat defends itself from fungi using unique genes.

Jonatan Isaksson, Matthias Heuberger, Milena Amhof, Lukas Kunz, Salim Bourras, Beat Keller

― 7 min read


Wheat vs Fungi: A Battle Wheat vs Fungi: A Battle fungal foes. Learn how wheat fights back against
Table of Contents

Plants, much like us, have their own ways to defend themselves from pesky invaders such as fungi. One key player in this battle is the wheat Pm3 resistance gene, which works like a bodyguard for our beloved wheat. This gene comes with a whole bunch of alleles-at least 17 of them-each with its own unique specialty in fighting off a specific type of fungal villain called Blumeria graminis, particularly its wheat-targeting version known as Bgt. It’s like having a team of superheroes, each ready to tackle a different baddie.

The Superheroes: Pm3 Alleles

Think of the Pm3 alleles as a lineup of superheroes, each equipped with its own set of skills. These alleles help the plant recognize the sneaky moves of the Bgt fungus. When the fungus tries to invade, the Pm3 alleles trigger a defense mechanism that causes cells to die in a certain area. This is a bit like firing a warning shot to scare off the invaders, limiting their growth. Interestingly, even though these alleles share a lot of similarities (over 97% of their amino acid sequences, to be precise), they are picky about which fungal actions they respond to. Some alleles are tough cookies, while others are a bit softer but still effective.

The Fungal Intruders: Bgt Effectors

The Bgt fungus uses various tricks to evade plant defenses, called effectors. These are like sneaky gadgets that help the fungus hide from the plant's protection systems. The Bgt effectors have a similar structural theme, resembling a mix between a Swiss army knife and a secret agent. Despite their similarities, not all effector proteins can sidle up to the Pm3 alleles. It’s a pick-and-choose game, with certain alleles only recognizing specific effectors.

The Dance of Recognition

In this ongoing battle between wheat and Bgt, the effectiveness of the Pm3 alleles often hinges on how well they can recognize the correct effector. Some alleles act like exclusive club bouncers, only letting specific effector “guests” in. For example, alleles like Pm3b are known to recognize certain effectors while ignoring others. This dance of recognition is complex, and sometimes, these alleles even work in pairs-like a buddy cop duo-against the fungus.

The Role of Suppressors: SvrPm3

But wait, there’s a twist! Just when you think the Pm3 alleles have the upper hand, along comes a character known as SVRPM3a1/f1, a suppressor that can throw a wrench into the works. This stealthy suppressor dulls the effectiveness of the Pm3 alleles, making it trickier for them to recognize the invaders. It's like having a spy in the plant's defenses, enabling the fungus to slip past unnoticed in certain situations.

The Battle in the Lab

Researchers have jumped into this dramatic saga, investigating how the Pm3 alleles and their corresponding effectors work together (or against each other) in a thriving laboratory setting. To learn more about these battles in plants, scientists used various techniques, including co-immunoprecipitation, luciferase assays, and fluorescent tagging. Picture scientists in lab coats playing detective, trying to figure out how these relationships unfold amid the chaos of plant-pathogen interactions.

Multimer Formation: A Closer Look

One critical area of focus has been the formation of multimers-think of them as tag teams of effectors or alleles. Some research explored whether AVRPM3b2/c2, an important effector, could team up with itself. When scientists tested this, they found that it could form dimers (two proteins sticking together) and even trimers (three proteins), which is like a friendship circle among the effector proteins.

Cross-Linking: A Key to Stability

To further see how these proteins interacted in a real-world environment, researchers employed a technique called cross-linking. By applying formaldehyde to the plant tissues, they found that the associated proteins stayed bonded together, confirming that these multimers were stable.

Homodimer Formation Validation

The team then confirmed these interactions through several experiments. They first used co-immunoprecipitation to see if different versions of their proteins would stick together when introduced into plants like Nicotiana benthamiana. They observed that when AVRPM3b2/c2 was combined with itself, they formed detectable dimers. They also checked its popularity with another effector named AVRPM17 but found that they did not kick it together at the party.

Split-Luciferase Assays: Measuring Interactions

Next, they tried a different technique called split-luciferase assays, which is sort of like setting off a lightbulb when two proteins hug each other. They observed bright signals when AVRPM3b2/c2 interacted with itself, while other pairings yielded dim or no lights at all. This reinforced the idea that AVRPM3b2/c2 has a selective affinity for forming homodimers.

Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation: A Colorful Approach

In another colorful test, researchers used bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC). This method involved tagging the protein halves with fluorescent dyes. When the two halves met, they glowed, signaling that interaction had taken place. When they mixed AVRPM3b2/c2 with itself, a striking fluorescence was observed, confirming their previous findings and suggesting that these complexes predominantly hang out in the cytoplasm of the plant cells.

Exploring SVRPM3 Interactions

The scientists didn’t stop there; they also investigated SVRPM3a1/f1 to see if this suppressor could play nice with the AVRPM3 effectors. They found that both versions of this suppressor could dimerize and also interact with the AVRPM3 proteins. This suggests that SVRPM3a1/f1 could be forming alliances with the effectors, which may help the fungus evade detection.

Understanding Structural Similarity

An interesting point that emerged from this research is that while the effectors might look quite similar in structure, they can behave differently in function. They share a common RNase-like fold-like a blueprint-but small differences in their sequences can lead to significant changes in how they interact. It’s a reminder that in biology, looks can be deceiving!

The Quest for Structural Models

To further their understanding, researchers turned to structure prediction techniques, creating models for SVRPM3a1/f1 and the AVRPM3 effectors using advanced software. These models enabled researchers to visualize the proteins' shapes and compare how variations in their structures could affect their interactions.

Single Amino Acid Changes: A Game-Changer

As they delved deeper, they thought there might be unique ways to alter the proteins to improve or change recognition. They focused on specific mutations in the AVRPM3 proteins to see if a simple change could shift who recognizes whom. This is where it gets really funny-an amino acid substitution led to AVRPM3a2/f2-L91Y being recognized by the non-corresponding PM3b variant. It’s like a costume change that misleads the plant into thinking it’s dealing with a different enemy.

Activation and Dimerization

Interestingly, the research also suggested that the "inactive" form of PM3b made for stronger interactions with AVRPM3b2/c2. This raises the question: Does dimerization of these effectors affect recognition? Researchers think it does, as the presence of these homodimers could suddenly change the plant’s reaction to fungal attacks.

The Model of Interaction

The researchers proposed a model to illustrate how these interactions develop. When the AVRPM3 effectors outnumber SVRPM3a1/f1 suppressors, the plant activates its defenses against the fungus. However, if SVRPM3a1/f1 has a higher presence, it forms a complex that neutralizes the plant’s responses, allowing the fungus to thrive.

Conclusion: Insights into Plant Immunity

Overall, this exploration of the interactions between plant resistance genes, fungal effectors, and suppressors highlights the intricate dance that occurs in nature. It reveals not only the relentless battle for survival between plants and fungi but also offers insights into how plant defenses can be enhanced. With further research, the findings could pave the way for smarter strategies to bolster plant immunity against fungal freeloaders.

And as we wrap up, remember: in the world of plants, it’s not just about surviving; it’s about thriving in the face of fungal foes. So next time you munch on a slice of bread or pasta, tip your hat to the brave little wheat plants fighting off those sneaky fungi. Who knew plant battles could be this exciting?

Original Source

Title: Interactions of sequence diverse effector proteins of wheat powdery mildew control recognition specificity by the corresponding immune receptor

Abstract: To successfully colonize the living tissue of its host, the fungal wheat powdery mildew pathogen produces diverse effector proteins that are suggested to reprogram host defense responses and physiology. When recognized by host immune receptors, these proteins become avirulence (AVR) effectors. Several sequence-diverse AVRPM3 effectors and the suppressor of AVRPM3-PM3 recognition (SVRPM3a1/f1) are involved in triggering allele-specific, Pm3-mediated resistance, but the molecular mechanisms controlling their function in the host cell remain unknown. Here, we describe that AVRPM3b2/c2, AVRPM3a2/f2 and SVRPM3a1/f1 form homo- and heteromeric complexes with each other, suggesting they are present as dimers in the host cell. Alphafold2 modelling substantiated previous predictions that AVRPM3b2/c2, AVRPM3a2/f2 and SVRPM3a1/f1 all adopt a core RNase-like fold. We found that a single amino acid mutation in a predicted surface exposed region of AVRPM3a2/f2 resulted in recognition by the PM3b immune receptor, which does not recognize wildtype AVRPM3a2/f2. This indicates that differential AVRPM3 recognition by variants of the highly related PM3 immune receptors is due to subtle differences in similar protein surfaces of sequence-diverse AVRs. Based on our findings, we propose a model in which homodimers of AVRPM3s are recognized by their corresponding PM3 variants and that heterodimer formation with SVRPM3a1/f1 allows for evasion of recognition.

Authors: Jonatan Isaksson, Matthias Heuberger, Milena Amhof, Lukas Kunz, Salim Bourras, Beat Keller

Last Update: Dec 30, 2024

Language: English

Source URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.30.629670

Source PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.30.629670.full.pdf

Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Changes: This summary was created with assistance from AI and may have inaccuracies. For accurate information, please refer to the original source documents linked here.

Thank you to biorxiv for use of its open access interoperability.

More from authors

Similar Articles