↓ Skip to main content

Two Strategies of Pseudomonas syringae to Avoid Recognition of the HopQ1 Effector in Nicotiana Species

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Two Strategies of Pseudomonas syringae to Avoid Recognition of the HopQ1 Effector in Nicotiana Species
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrycja Zembek, Aleksandra Danilecka, Rafał Hoser, Lennart Eschen-Lippold, Marta Benicka, Marta Grech-Baran, Wojciech Rymaszewski, Izabela Barymow-Filoniuk, Karolina Morgiewicz, Jakub Kwiatkowski, Marcin Piechocki, Jaroslaw Poznanski, Justin Lee, Jacek Hennig, Magdalena Krzymowska

Abstract

Pseudomonas syringae employs a battery of type three secretion effectors to subvert plant immune responses. In turn, plants have developed receptors that recognize some of the bacterial effectors. Two strain-specific HopQ1 effector variants (for Hrp outer protein Q) from the pathovars phaseolicola 1448A (Pph) and tomato DC3000 (Pto) showed considerable differences in their ability to evoke disease symptoms in Nicotiana benthamiana. Surprisingly, the variants differ by only six amino acids located mostly in the N-terminal disordered region of HopQ1. We found that the presence of serine 87 and leucine 91 renders PtoHopQ1 susceptible to N-terminal processing by plant proteases. Substitutions at these two positions did not strongly affect PtoHopQ1 virulence properties in a susceptible host but they reduced bacterial growth and accelerated onset of cell death in a resistant host, suggesting that N-terminal mutations rendered PtoHopQ1 susceptible to processing in planta and, thus, represent a mechanism of recognition avoidance. Furthermore, we found that co-expression of HopR1, another effector encoded within the same gene cluster masks HopQ1 recognition in a strain-dependent manner. Together, these data suggest that HopQ1 is under high host-pathogen co-evolutionary selection pressure and P. syringae may have evolved differential effector processing or masking as two independent strategies to evade HopQ1 recognition, thus revealing another level of complexity in plant - microbe interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 20%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#14,082
of 20,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,924
of 326,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#373
of 485 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 485 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.