Differences

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

--- bacteria:t3e:xopf [2020/09/10 18:29]
rkoebnik [Conservation]
+++ bacteria:t3e:xopf [2020/09/10 18:31] (current)
rkoebnik
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 === How discovered? ===
-XopF1 and XopF2 were identified in a genetic screen, using a Tn//5//-based transposon construct harboring the coding sequence for the HR-inducing domain of AvrBs2, but devoid of the effectors' T3SS signal, that was randomly inserted into the genome of //X. campestris// pv. //vesicatoria// (//Xcv//)strain 85-10. The XopF1::AvrBs2 and XopF2::AvrBs2 fusion proteins triggered a //Bs2//-dependent hypersensitive response (HR) in pepper leaves (Roden //et al//., 2004).
+XopF1 and XopF2 were identified in a genetic screen, using a Tn//5//-based transposon construct harboring the coding sequence for the HR-inducing domain of AvrBs2, but devoid of the effectors' T3SS signal, that was randomly inserted into the genome of //X. campestris// pv. //vesicatoria// (//Xcv//) strain 85-10. The XopF1::AvrBs2 and XopF2::AvrBs2 fusion proteins triggered a //Bs2//-dependent hypersensitive response (HR) in pepper leaves (Roden //et al//., 2004).
 === (Experimental) evidence for being a T3E ===
-Type III-dependent secretion of XopF1 and XopF2 was confirmed using a calmodulin-dependent adenylate cyclase reporter assay, with a Δ//hrpF// mutant strain serving as negative control (Roden //et al.//, 2004, Mondal et al, 2016).
+Type III-dependent secretion of XopF1 and XopF2 was confirmed using a calmodulin-dependent adenylate cyclase reporter assay, with a Δ//hrpF// mutant strain serving as negative control (Roden //et al.//, 2004, Mondal //et al.//, 2016).
 Fragments of the //xopF1// gene are located within the //hrp// cluster of many //Xanthomonas// spp., although a complete ORF is present only in the //Xcv// and //Xanthomonas oryzae// pv. //oryzae// (//Xoo//) //hrp// clusters (Roden //et al//., 2004).
-XopF1 belongs to the class A effectors (Büttner //et al//., 2006). XopF2 is 59% identical and 68% similar to XopF1 when analysed with the pairwise BLAST algorithm. //xopF2// appears to be co-transcribed with ORF1. ORF1 analysis revealed characteristics shared by type III chaperones, and is suggested to encode an Xcv chaperone (Roden //et al//., 2004).
+XopF1 belongs to the class A effectors (Büttner //et al//., 2006). XopF2 is 59% identical and 68% similar to XopF1 when analysed with the pairwise BLAST algorithm. //xopF2// appears to be co-transcribed with ORF1. ORF1 analysis revealed characteristics shared by type III chaperones, and is suggested to encode an //Xcv// chaperone (Roden //et al//., 2004).
 === Regulation ===
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 === Phenotypes ===
-  * Roden et al. did not find significant growth defects of a //Xcv//  Δ//xopF1//  or Δ//xopF2//  mutant in susceptible pepper and tomato leaves (Roden et al., 2004)
+  * Roden et al. did not find significant growth defects of a //Xcv//  Δ//xopF1//  or Δ//xopF2//  mutant in susceptible pepper and tomato leaves (Roden //et al.//, 2004)
-  * To study the possible virulence function of the putative //xopF1//  operon encoding HpaD, HpaI, and XopF1 these three genes were deleted from the genome of //X. campestris//  pv. //vesicatoria//  85-10. The resultant mutant strain 85-10Δ//EF//  displayed a wild-type phenotype when infiltrated into susceptible and resistant plants. To investigate a possible functional redundancy due to homologous genes, //xopF2//  and the flanking ORF //XCV2943//  were also deleted in strain 85-10Δ//EF//. Since the resulting multiple mutant strain 85-10Δ//EF//Δ//xopF2//  also behaved like the wild type in infection tests//, xopF1//  and //xopF2//  regions did not seem to play an obvious role in the bacterial interaction with the host plant. (Büttner //et al//., 2007).
+  * To study the possible virulence function of the putative //xopF1//  operon encoding HpaD, HpaI, and XopF1 these three genes were deleted from the genome of //Xcv //85-10. The resultant mutant strain 85-10Δ//EF//  displayed a wild-type phenotype when infiltrated into susceptible and resistant plants. To investigate a possible functional redundancy due to homologous genes, //xopF2//  and the flanking ORF //XCV2943//  were also deleted in strain 85-10Δ//EF//. Since the resulting multiple mutant strain 85-10Δ//EF//Δ//xopF2//  also behaved like the wild type in infection tests//, xopF1//  and //xopF2//  regions did not seem to play an obvious role in the bacterial interaction with the host plant (Büttner //et al//., 2007).
   * Later, //Xoo//  XopF1 was proven to contribute to virulence in rice, as infection with //xopF1//  mutant has shown a reduced lesion size comparing to wild type (Mondal //et al//., 2016).
   * Additionally, XopF1 and XopF2 of //X. euvesicatoria//  and //Xoo//  seem to have a role in PTI suppression //in planta//, namely by inhibiting callose deposition and by suppressing the induction of PTI marker genes, overall contributing to development of symptoms (Mondal //et al//., 2016; Popov //et al//., 2016).
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 === In xanthomonads ===
-Yes (//e.g.//, //X. arboricola, X. bromi//, //X. citri, X. oryzae// pv.// oryzae//, //X. euvesicatoria//, //X. translucens//, //X. vasicola//). Since the G+C content of the //xopF1// gene is similar to that of the //Xcv// //hrp// gene cluster, it may be a member of a “core” group of //Xanthomonas// spp. effectors (Roden //et al.//, 2004).
+Yes (//e.g.//, //X. arboricola, X. bromi//, //X. citri, X. oryzae//  pv.// oryzae//, //X. euvesicatoria//, //X. translucens//, //X. vasicola//). Since the G+C content of the //xopF1//  gene is similar to that of the //Xcv//  //hrp//  gene cluster, it may be a member of a “core” group of //Xanthomonas//  spp. effectors (Roden //et al.//, 2004).
 === In other plant pathogens/symbionts ===

EuroXanth DokuWiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools