Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- bacteria:t3e:xopag [2020/07/03 11:00]
rkoebnik
+++ — (current)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== XopAG ======
-Author: [[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Verniere|Christian Vernière ]] & Trainees from the 2<sup>nd</sup>  EuroXanth Training School ([[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Songul_Erken|Songül Erken]], [[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Damla_Ertimurtas|Damla Ertimurtaş]], [[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jelena_Menkovic|Jelena Menković]], [[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andjelka_Prokic|Andjelka Prokić]])\\
-Internal reviewer: FIXME \\
-Expert reviewer: FIXME
-Class: XopAG\\
-Family: XopAG\\
-Prototype: XopAG (//Xanthomonas//; strain)\\
-RefSeq ID: [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/WP_080633702.1|WP_080633702.1]] (425 aa)\\
-D structure:
-===== Biological function =====
-=== How discovered? ===
-//Xanthomonas citri// pv. //citri// (Xcc-A) causing citrus bacterial canker can infect most of the commercial citrus species and are worldwide distributed. Strains that were pathogenic on Key lime (//Citrus aurantifolia//), but that did not cause canker symptoms on grapefruit, were reported in Florida and designated as Xcc-AW. Three clones were selected from a genomic library of the 12879 strain of Xcc-Aw that caused rapid necrosis in grapefruit leaves, but not in tomato leaves when they were expressed in //X. perforans// (Rybak //et al//., 2009). A 1599-bp open reading frame (ORF) was found within the nucleotide sequence of DNA from a 2.3-kb subclone from pL799 that caused HR in grapefruit leaves. The complete sequence of the ORF, designated as //avrGf1// (Rybak //et al//., 2009). Genes //avrGf1// and //avrGf2// were found to share low sequence similarity at the nucleotide level, except for a small region in the last 200 nucleotides of the genes, which showed a high level of identity (68%) (Gochez //et al//., 2017). The alignment of translated proteins AvrGf1 (533 amino acids) and AvrGf2 (509 amino acids) determined that AvrGf2 had a low degree of sequence identity (45% amino acid identity) with the previously identified AvrGf1. The highest sequence similarities were observed between AvrGf1 and AvrGf2 in the C-terminal portions of the effector proteins (74.5% identity at the amino acid level over 51 amino acids) (Gochez //et al//., 2017).
-=== (Experimental) evidence for being a T3E ===
-=== Regulation ===
-=== Phenotypes ===
-All //xopAG//-containing strains of //X. citri// pv. //citri// induced the hypersensitive response (HR) on grapefruit (//Citrus paradisi//) and sweet orange (//C. sinensis//) but express canker symptoms on Key lime (Escalon //et al//., 2013). After infiltration of grapefruit leaves with inoculum adjusted to 5×108 cfu/mL, internal bacterial populations of Xcc-A (strain A 40) and Xcc-Aw (strain 12879) were similar through the second day, but populations of Xcc-A were significantly greater than those of Xcc-Aw after six days. The symptoms caused by the Xac-AwΔavrGf1 strain that was mutated on avrGf1 were more similar to those produced by the wild-type Xac-A strain than to those produced by the wild-type Xac-Aw strain (Rybak //et al//., 2009). So the whole pathogenicity was not restored.
-=== Localization ===
-AvrGf1 (Figueiredo //et al//., 2011) and AvrGf2 (Gochez //et al//., 2017) possess a N-terminal chloroplast localization signal. The signal is not shared by all members of the XopAG effector family (Gochez //et al//., 2017). Transient expression of the protein with the first 116 amino acids deleted in grapefruit leaves resulted in the elimination of the HR and a lack of accumulation of the protein in the chloroplast.
-=== Enzymatic function ===
-=== Interaction partners ===
-The XopAG AvrGf2 effector contains a Cyp-binding site that is essential for the elicitation of HR in citrus (Gochez //et al//., 2017).
-===== Conservation =====
-=== In xanthomonads ===
-Yes (e.g. //X.c.// pv. //vasculorum//, //X.c.// pv. //musacearum//, //X.c.// pv. //campestris//) (Gochez //et al//., 2017).
-=== In other plant pathogens/symbionts ===
-Yes (e.g. //P.s.// pv. //phaseolicola// (HopG1), //P.s.// pv. //tomato// (HopG1), //Ralstonia solanacearum//, //Acidovorax citrulli//) (Gochez //et al//., 2017).
-===== References =====
-Escalon A, Javegny S, Vernière C, Noël LD, Vital K, Poussier S, Hajri A, Boureau T, Pruvost O, Arlat M, Gagnevin L (2013). Variations in type III effector repertoires, pathological phenotypes and host range of //Xanthomonas citri// pv. //citri// pathotypes. Mol. Plant Pathol. 14: 483-496. DOI: [[https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12019|10.1111/mpp.12019]]
-Figueiredo JF, Romer P, Lahaye T, Graham JH, White FF, Jones JB (2011). //Agrobacterium//-mediated transient expression in citrus leaves: a rapid tool for gene expression and functional gene assay. Plant Cell Rep. 30: 1339-1345. DOI: [[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-011-1045-7|10.1007/s00299-011-1045-7]]
-Gochez AM, Shantharaj D, Potnis N, Zhou X, Minsavage GV, White FF, Wang N, Hurlbert JC, Jones JB (2017). Molecular characterization of XopAG effector AvrGf2 from //Xanthomonas fuscans// ssp. //aurantifolii// in grapefruit. Mol. Plant Pathol. 18: 405-419. DOI: [[https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12408|10.1111/mpp.12408]]
-Rybak M, Minsavage GV, Stall RE, Jones JB (2009). Identification of //Xanthomonas citri// ssp. //citri// host specificity genes in a heterologous expression host. Mol. Plant Pathol. 10: 249-262. DOI: [[https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2008.00528.x|10.1111/j.1364-3703.2008.00528.x]]

EuroXanth DokuWiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools