Virulence strategies of an insect herbivore and oomycete plant pathogen converge on a host E3 SUMO ligase

  1. S. Liu
  2. C.J.G. Lenoir
  3. T.M.M.M. Amaro
  4. P.A. Rodriguez
  5. E. Huitema
  6. J.I.B. Bos

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Pathogens and pests secrete proteins (effectors) to interfere with plant immunity through modification of host target functions and disruption of immune signalling networks. Importantly, molecular virulence strategies of distinct pathogens converge on a small set of regulators with central roles in plant immunity. The extent of convergence between pathogen and herbivorous insect virulence strategies is largely unexplored. We found that effectors from the oomycete pathogen, Phytophthora capsici , and the major aphid pest, Myzus persicae target the host immune regulator SIZ1, an E3 SUMO ligase. We show that the oomycete and aphid effector, which both contribute to virulence, feature different activities towards SIZ1. While M. persicae effector Mp64 increases SIZ1 protein levels, P. capsici effector CRN83_152 enhances SIZ1-E3 SUMO ligase activity in vivo . Loss of SIZ1 in host plants leads to reduced host susceptibility to aphids and an oomycete pathogen. Our results suggest convergence of distinct pathogen and pest virulence strategies on an E3 SUMO ligase to enhance host susceptibility.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.18.159178v3 on bioRxiv
  2. eLife

    Author Response

    Summary: A major tenet of plant pathogen effector biology has been that effectors from very different pathogens converge on a small number of host targets with central roles in plant immunity. The current work reports that effectors from two very different pathogens, an insect and an oomycete, interact with the same plant protein, SIZ1, previously shown to have a role in plant immunity. Unfortunately, apart from some technical concerns regarding the strength of the data that the effectors and SIZ1 interact in plants, a major limitation of the work is that it is not demonstrated that the effectors alter SIZ1 activity in a meaningful way, nor that SIZ1 is specifically required for action of the effects.

    We thank the editor and reviewers for their time to review our manuscript and their helpful and constructive comments. The reviews have helped us focus our attention on additional experiments to test the hypothesis that effectors Mp64 (from an aphid) and CRN83-152 (from an oomycete) indeed alter SIZ1 activity or function. We have revised our manuscript and added the following data:

    1. Mp64, but not CRN83-152, stabilizes SIZ1 in planta. (Figure 1 in the revised manuscript).

    2. AtSIZ1 ectopic expression in Nicotiana benthamiana triggers cell death from 3-4 days after agroinfiltration. Interestingly CRN83-152_6D10 (a mutant of CRN83-152 that has no cell death activity), but not Mp64, enhances the cell death triggered by AtSIZ1 (Figure 2 in the revised manuscript).

    For 1) we have added the following panel to Figure 1 as well as three biological replicates of the stabilisation assays in the Supplementary data (Fig S3):

    Figure 1 panel C. Stabilisation of SIZ1 by Mp64. Western blot analyses of protein extracts from agroinfiltrated leaves expressing combinations of GFP-GUS, GFP Mp64 and GFP-CRN83_152_6D10 with AtSIZ1-myc or NbSIZ1-myc. Protein size markers are indicated in kD, and equal protein amounts upon transfer is shown upon ponceau staining (PS) of membranes. Blot is representative of three biological replicates , which are all shown in supplementary Fig. S3. The selected panels shown here are cropped from Rep 1 in supplementary Fig. S3.

    For 2) we have added the folllowing new figure (Fig. 2 in the revised manuscript):

    Fig. 2. SIZ1-triggered cell death in N. benthamiana is enhanced by CRN83_152_6D10 but not Mp64. (A) Scoring overview of infiltration sites for SIZ1 triggered cell death. Infiltration site were scored for no symptoms (score 0), chlorosis with localized cell death (score 1), less than 50% of the site showing visible cell death (score 2), more than 50% of the site showing cell death (score 3). (B) Bar graph showing the proportions of infiltration sites showing different levels of cell death upon expression of AtSIZ1, NbSIZ1 (both with a C-terminal RFP tag) and an RFP control. Graph represents data from a combination of 3 biological replicates of 11-12 infiltration sites per experiment (n=35). (C) Bar graph showing the proportions of infiltration sites showing different levels of cell death upon expression of SIZ1 (with C-terminal RFP tag) either alone or in combination with aphid effector Mp64 or Phytophthora capsica effector CRN83_152_6D10 (both effectors with GFP tag), or a GFP control. Graph represent data from a combination of 3 biological replicates of 11-12 infiltration sites per experiment (n=35).

    Our new data provide further evidence that SIZ1 function is affected by effectors Mp64 (aphid) and CRN83-152 (oomycete), and that SIZ1 likely is a vital virulence target. Our latest results also provide further support for distinct effector activities towards SIZ1 and its variants in other species. SIZ1 is a key immune regulator to biotic stresses (aphids, oomycetes, bacteria and nematodes), on which distinct virulence strategies seem to converge. The mechanism(s) underlying the stabilisation of SIZ1 by Mp64 is yet unclear. However, we hypothesize that increased stability of SIZ1, which functions as an E3 SUMO ligase, leads to increased SUMOylation activity towards its substrates. We surmise that SIZ1 complex formation with other key regulators of plant immunity may underpin these changes. Whether the cell death, triggered by AtSIZ1 upon transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana, is linked to E3 SUMO ligase activity remains to be investigated. Expression of AtSIZ1 in a plant species other than Arabidopsis may lead to mistargeting of substrates, and subsequent activation of cell death. Dissecting the mechanistic basis of SIZ1 targeting by distinct pathogens and pests will be an important next step in addressing these hypotheses towards understanding plant immunity.

    Reviewer #1:

    In this manuscript, the authors suggest that SIZ1, an E3 SUMO ligase, is the target of both an aphid effector (Mp64 form M. persicae) and an oomycete effector (CRN83_152 from Phytophthora capsica), based on interaction between SIZ1 and the two effectors in yeast, co-IP from plant cells and colocalization in the nucleus of plant cells. To support their proposal, the authors investigate the effects of SIZ1 inactivation on resistance to aphids and oomycetes in Arabidopsis and N. benthamiana. Surprisingly, resistance is enhanced, which would suggest that the two effectors increase SIZ1 activity.

    Unfortunately, not only do we not learn how the effectors might alter SIZ1 activity, there is also no formal demonstration that the effects of the effectors are mediated by SIZ1, such as investigating the effects of Mp64 overexpression in a siz1 mutant. We note, however, that even this experiment might not be entirely conclusive, since SIZ1 is known to regulate many processes, including immunity. Specifically, siz1 mutants present autoimmune phenotype, and general activation of immunity might be sufficient to attenuate the enhanced aphid susceptibility seen in Mp64 overexpressers.

    To demonstrate unambiguously that SIZ1 is a bona fide target of Mp64 and CRN83_152 would require assays that demonstrate either enhanced SIZ1 accumulation or altered SIZ1 activity in the presence of Mp64 and CRN83_152.

    The enhanced resistance upon knock-down/out of SIZ1 suggests pathogen and pest susceptibility requires SIZ1. We hypothesize that the effectors either enhance SIZ1 activity or that the effectors alter SIZ1 specificity towards substrates rather than enzyme activity itself. To investigate how effectors coopt SIZ1 function would require a comprehensive set of approaches and will be part of our future work. While we agree that this aspect requires further investigation, we think the proposed experiments go beyond the scope of this study.

    After receiving reviewer comments, including on the quality of Figure 1, which shows western blots of co-immunoprecipitation experiments, we re-analyzed independent replicates of effector-SIZ1 coexpression/ co-immunoprecipitation experiments. The reviewer rightly pointed out that in the presence of Mp64, SIZ1 protein levels increase when compared to samples in which either the vector control or CRN83-152_6D10 are co-infiltrated. Through carefully designed experiments, we can now affirm that Mp64 co-expression leads to increased SIZ1 protein levels (Figure 1C and Supplementary Figure S3, revised manuscript). Our results offer both an explanation of different SIZ1 levels in the input samples (original submission, Figure 1A/B) as well as tantalizing new clues to the nature of distinct effector activities.

    Besides, we were able to confirm a previous preliminary finding not included in the original submission that ectopic expression of AtSIZ1 in Nicotiana benthamiana triggers cell death (3/4 days after infiltration) and that CRN83-152_6D10 (which itself does not trigger cell death) enhances this phenotype.

    We have considered overexpression of Mp64 in the siz1 mutant, but share the view that the outcome of such experiments will be far from conclusive.

    In summary, we have added new data that further support that SIZ1 is a bonafide target of Mp64 and CRN83-152 (i.e. increased accumulation of SIZ1 in the presence of Mp64, and enhanced SIZ cell death activation in the presence of CRN83-152_6D10).

    Reviewer #2:

    The study provides evidence that an aphid effector Mp64 and a Phytophthora capsici effector CRN83_152 can both interact with the SIZ1 E3 SUMO-ligase. The authors further show that overexpression of Mp64 in Arabidopsis can enhance susceptibility to aphids and that a loss-of-function mutation in Arabidopsis SIZ1 or silencing of SIZ1 in N. benthamiana plants lead to increased resistance to aphids and P. capsici. On siz1 plants the aphids show altered feeding patterns on phloem, suggestive of increased phloem resistance. While the finding is potentially interesting, the experiments are preliminary and the main conclusions are not supported by the data.

    Specific comments:

    The suggestion that SIZ1 is a virulence target is an overstatement. Preferable would be knockouts of effector genes in the aphid or oomycete, but even with transgenic overexpression approaches, there are no direct data that the biological function of the effectors requires SIZ1. For example, is SIZ1 required for the enhanced susceptibility to aphid infestation seen when Mp64 is overexpressed? Or does overexpression of SIZ1 enhance Mp64-mediated susceptibility?

    What do the effectors do to SIZ1? Do they alter SUMO-ligase activity? Or are perhaps the effectors SUMOylated by SIZ1, changing effector activity?

    We agree that having effector gene knock-outs in aphids and oomycetes would be ideal for dissecting effector mediated targeting of SIZ1. Unfortunately, there is no gene knock-out system established in Myzus persicae (our aphid of interest), and CAS9 mediated knock-out of genes in Phytophthora capsici has not been successful in our lab as yet, despite published reports. Moreover, repeated attempts to silence Mp64, other effector and non-effector coding genes, in aphids (both in planta and in vitro) have not been successful thus far, in our hands. As detailed in our response to Reviewer 1, we considered the use of transgenic approaches not appropriate as data interpretation would become muddied by the strong immunity phenotype seen in the siz1-2 mutant.

    As stated before, we hypothesize that the effectors either enhance SIZ1 activity or alter SIZ1 substrate specificity. Mp64-induced accumulation of SIZ1 could form the basis of an increase in overall SIZ1 activity. This hypothesis, however, requires testing. The same applies to the enhanced SIZ1 cell death activation in the presence of CRN83-152_6D10.

    Whilst our new data support our hypothesis that effectors Mp64 and CRN83-152 affect SIZ1 function, how exactly these effectors trigger susceptibility, requires significant work. Given the substantial effort needed and the research questions involved, we argue that findings emanating from such experiments warrant standalone publication.

    While stable transgenic Mp64 overexpressing lines in Arabidopsis showed increased susceptibility to aphids, transient overexpression of Mp64 in N. benthamiana plants did not affect P. capsici susceptibility. The authors conclude that while the aphid and P. capsici effectors both target SIZ1, their activities are distinct. However, not only is it difficult to compare transient expression experiments in N. benthamiana with stable transgenic Arabidopsis plants, but without knowing whether Mp64 has the same effects on SIZ1 in both systems, to claim a difference in activities remains speculative.

    We agree that we cannot compare effector activities between different plant species. We carefully considered every statement regarding results obtained on SIZ1 in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana. We can, however, compare activities of the two effectors when expressed side by side in the same plant species. In our original submission, we show that expression of CRN83 152 but not Mp64 in Nicotiana benthamiana enhances susceptibility to Phytophthora capsici. In our revised manuscript, we present new data showing distinct effector activities towards SIZ1 with regards to 1) enhanced SIZ1 stability and 2) enhanced SIZ1 triggered cell death. These findings raise questions as to how enhanced SIZ1 stability and cell death activation is relevant to immunity. We aim to address these critical questions by addressing the mechanistic basis of effector-SIZ1 interactions.

    The authors emphasize that the increased resistance to aphids and P. capsici in siz1 mutants or SIZ1 silenced plants are independent of SA. This seems to contradict the evidence from the NahG experiments. In Fig. 5B, the effects of siz1 are suppressed by NahG, indicating that the resistance seen in siz1 plants is completely dependent on SA. In Fig 5A, the effects of siz1 are not completely suppressed by NahG, but greatly attenuated. It has been shown before that SIZ1 acts only partly through SNC1, and the results from the double mutant analyses might simply indicate redundancy, also for the combinations with eds1 and pad4 mutants.

    We emphasized that siz1-2 increased resistance to aphids is independent of SA, which is supported by our data (Figure 5A). Still, we did not conclude that the same applies to increased resistance to Phytophthora capsici (Figure 5B). In contrast, the siz1-2 enhanced resistance to P. capsici appears entirely dependent on SA levels, with the level of infection on the siz1-2/NahG mutants even slightly higher than on the NahG line and Col-0 plants. We exercise caution in the interpretation of this data given the significant impact SA signalling appears to have on Phytophthora capsici infection.

    The reviewer commented on the potential for functional redundancy in the siz1-2 double mutants. Unfortunately, we are unsure what redundancy s/he is referring to. SNC1, EDS1, and PAD4 all are components required for immunity, and their removal from the immune signalling network (using the mutations in the lines we used here) impairs immunity to various plant pathogens. The siz1-2 snc1-11, siz1-2 eds1-2, and siz1-2 pad4-1 double mutants have similar levels of susceptibility to the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae when compared to the corresponding snc1-11, eds1-2 and pad4-1 controls (at 22oC). These previous observations indicate that siz1 enhanced resistance is dependent on these signalling components (Hammoudi et al., 2018, Plos Genetics).

    In contrast to this, we observed a strong siz1 enhanced resistance phenotype in the absence of snc1- 11, eds1 2 and pad4-1. Notably, the siz1-2 snc1-11 mutant does not appear immuno-compromised when compared to siz1-2 in fecundity assays, indicating that the siz1-2 phenotype is independent of SNC1. In our view, these data suggest that signalling components/pathways other than those mediated by SNC1, EDS1, and PAD4 are involved. We consider this to be an exciting finding as our data points to an as of yet unknown SIZ1-dependent signalling pathway that governs immunity to aphids.

    How do NahG or Mp64 overexpression affect aphid phloem ingestion? Is it the opposite of the behavior on siz1 mutants?

    We have not performed further EPG experiments on additional transgenic lines used in the aphid assay. These experiments are quite challenging and time consuming. Moreover, accommodating an experimental set-up that allows us to compare multiple lines at the same time is not straightforward. Considering that NahG did not affect aphid performance (Figure 5A), we do not expect to see an effect on phloem ingestion.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.18.159178v2 on bioRxiv
  4. eLife

    ###Reviewer #2:

    The study provides evidence that an aphid effector Mp64 and a Phytophthora capsici effector CRN83_152 can both interact with the SIZ1 E3 SUMO-ligase. The authors further show that overexpression of Mp64 in Arabidopsis can enhance susceptibility to aphids and that a loss-of-function mutation in Arabidopsis SIZ1 or silencing of SIZ1 in N. benthamiana plants lead to increased resistance to aphids and P. capsici. On siz1 plants the aphids show altered feeding patterns on phloem, suggestive of increased phloem resistance. While the finding is potentially interesting, the experiments are preliminary and the main conclusions are not supported by the data.

    Specific comments:

    The suggestion that SIZ1 is a virulence target is an overstatement. Preferable would be knockouts of effector genes in the aphid or oomycete, but even with transgenic overexpression approaches, there are no direct data that the biological function of the effectors requires SIZ1. For example, is SIZ1 required for the enhanced susceptibility to aphid infestation seen when Mp64 is overexpressed? Or does overexpression of SIZ1 enhance Mp64-mediated susceptibility?

    What do the effectors do to SIZ1? Do they alter SUMO-ligase activity? Or are perhaps the effectors SUMOylated by SIZ1, changing effector activity?

    While stable transgenic Mp64 overexpressing lines in Arabidopsis showed increased susceptibility to aphids, transient overexpression of Mp64 in N. benthamiana plants did not affect P. capsici susceptibility. The authors conclude that while the aphid and P. capsici effectors both target SIZ1, their activities are distinct. However, not only is it difficult to compare transient expression experiments in N. benthamiana with stable transgenic Arabidopsis plants, but without knowing whether Mp64 has the same effects on SIZ1 in both systems, to claim a difference in activities remains speculative.

    The authors emphasize that the increased resistance to aphids and P. capsici in siz1 mutants or SIZ1 silenced plants are independent of SA. This seems to contradict the evidence from the NahG experiments. In Fig. 5B, the effects of siz1 are suppressed by NahG, indicating that the resistance seen in siz1 plants is completely dependent on SA. In Fig 5A, the effects of siz1 are not completely suppressed by NahG, but greatly attenuated. It has been shown before that SIZ1 acts only partly through SNC1, and the results from the double mutant analyses might simply indicate redundancy, also for the combinations with eds1 and pad4 mutants.

    How do NahG or Mp64 overexpression affect aphid phloem ingestion? Is it the opposite of the behavior on siz1 mutants?

  5. eLife

    ###Reviewer #1:

    In this manuscript, the authors suggest that SIZ1, an E3 SUMO ligase, is the target of both an aphid effector (Mp64 form M. persicae) and an oomycete effector (CRN83_152 from Phytophthora capsica), based on interaction between SIZ1 and the two effectors in yeast, co-IP from plant cells and colocalization in the nucleus of plant cells. To support their proposal, the authors investigate the effects of SIZ1 inactivation on resistance to aphids and oomycetes in Arabidopsis and N. benthamiana. Surprisingly, resistance is enhanced, which would suggest that the two effectors increase SIZ1 activity.

    Unfortunately, not only do we not learn how the effectors might alter SIZ1 activity, there is also no formal demonstration that the effects of the effectors are mediated by SIZ1, such as investigating the effects of Mp64 overexpression in a siz1 mutant. We note, however, that even this experiment might not be entirely conclusive, since SIZ1 is known to regulate many processes, including immunity. Specifically, siz1 mutants present autoimmune phenotype, and general activation of immunity might be sufficient to attenuate the enhanced aphid susceptibility seen in Mp64 overexpressers.

    To demonstrate unambiguously that SIZ1 is a bona fide target of Mp64 and CRN83_152 would require assays that demonstrate either enhanced SIZ1 accumulation or altered SIZ1 activity in the presence of Mp64 and CRN83_152.

  6. eLife

    ##Preprint Review

    This preprint was reviewed using eLife’s Preprint Review service, which provides public peer reviews of manuscripts posted on bioRxiv for the benefit of the authors, readers, potential readers, and others interested in our assessment of the work. This review applies only to version 1 of the manuscript. Detlef Weigel (Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology) served as the Reviewing Editor.

    ###Summary:

    A major tenet of plant pathogen effector biology has been that effectors from very different pathogens converge on a small number of host targets with central roles in plant immunity. The current work reports that effectors from two very different pathogens, an insect and an oomycete, interact with the same plant protein, SIZ1, previously shown to have a role in plant immunity. Unfortunately, apart from some technical concerns regarding the strength of the data that the effectors and SIZ1 interact in plants, a major limitation of the work is that it is not demonstrated that the effectors alter SIZ1 activity in a meaningful way, nor that SIZ1 is specifically required for action of the effects.

  7. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.18.159178v1 on bioRxiv