1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
  2. Plant Biology
Download icon

Viral-inducible Argonaute18 confers broad-spectrum virus resistance in rice by sequestering a host microRNA

  1. Jianguo Wu
  2. Zhirui Yang
  3. Yu Wang
  4. Lijia Zheng
  5. Ruiqiang Ye
  6. Yinghua Ji
  7. Shanshan Zhao
  8. Shaoyi Ji
  9. Ruofei Liu
  10. Le Xu
  11. Hong Zheng
  12. Yijun Zhou
  13. Xin Zhang
  14. Xiaofeng Cao
  15. Lianhui Xie
  16. Zujian Wu
  17. Yijun Qi
  18. Yi Li  Is a corresponding author
  1. Peking University, China
  2. Tsinghua University, China
  3. Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
  4. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
  5. Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, China
  6. Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, China
Research Article
  • Cited 92
  • Views 4,569
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e05733 doi: 10.7554/eLife.05733

Abstract

Viral pathogens are a major threat to rice production worldwide. Although RNA interference (RNAi) is known to mediate antiviral immunity in plant and animal models, the mechanism of antiviral RNAi in rice and other economically important crops is poorly understood. Here, we report that rice resistance to evolutionarily diverse viruses requires Argonaute18 (AGO18). Genetic studies reveal that the antiviral function of AGO18 depends on its activity to sequester microRNA168 (miR168) to alleviate repression of rice AGO1 essential for antiviral RNAi. Expression of miR168-resistant AGO1a in ago18 background rescues or increases rice antiviral activity. Notably, stable transgenic expression of AGO18 confers broad-spectrum virus resistance in rice. Our findings uncover a novel cooperative antiviral activity of two distinct AGO proteins and suggest a new strategy for the control of viral diseases in rice.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jianguo Wu

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Zhirui Yang

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yu Wang

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Lijia Zheng

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ruiqiang Ye

    Center for Plant Biology, Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, College of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yinghua Ji

    Institute of Plant Protection, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Shanshan Zhao

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Shaoyi Ji

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ruofei Liu

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Le Xu

    Center for Plant Biology, Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, College of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hong Zheng

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Yijun Zhou

    Institute of Plant Protection, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Xin Zhang

    Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Xiaofeng Cao

    State Key Laboratory of Plant Genomics and National Center for Plant Gene Research, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Lianhui Xie

    Institute of Plant Virology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Zujian Wu

    Institute of Plant Virology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Yijun Qi

    Center for Plant Biology, Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, College of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Yi Li

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene Research, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
    For correspondence
    liyi@pku.edu.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. David Baulcombe, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: November 22, 2014
  2. Accepted: February 13, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 17, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 13, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Wu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,569
    Page views
  • 1,130
    Downloads
  • 92
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Camille Henry et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Reactive oxygen species (ROS) cause damage to DNA and proteins. Here, we report that the RecA recombinase is itself oxidized by ROS. Genetic and biochemical analyses revealed that oxidation of RecA altered its DNA repair and DNA recombination activities. Mass spectrometry analysis showed that exposure to ROS converted four out of nine Met residues of RecA to methionine sulfoxide. Mimicking oxidation of Met35 by changing it for Gln caused complete loss of function, whereas mimicking oxidation of Met164 resulted in constitutive SOS activation and loss of recombination activity. Yet, all ROS-induced alterations of RecA activity were suppressed by methionine sulfoxide reductases MsrA and MsrB. These findings indicate that under oxidative stress MsrA/B is needed for RecA homeostasis control. The implication is that, besides damaging DNA structure directly, ROS prevent repair of DNA damage by hampering RecA activity.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Darryl A Wesener et al.
    Research Article

    Methods for measuring gut microbiota biochemical activities in vivo are needed to characterize its functional states in health and disease. To illustrate one approach, an arabinan-containing polysaccharide was isolated from pea fiber, its structure defined, and forward genetic and proteomic analyses used to compare its effects, versus unfractionated pea fiber and sugar beet arabinan, on a human gut bacterial strain consortium in gnotobiotic mice. We produced ‘Microbiota Functional Activity Biosensors’ (MFABs) consisting of glycans covalently linked to the surface of fluorescent paramagnetic microscopic glass beads. Three MFABs, each containing a unique glycan/fluorophore combination, were simultaneously orally gavaged into gnotobiotic mice, recovered from their intestines, and analyzed to directly quantify bacterial metabolism of structurally distinct arabinans in different human diet contexts. Colocalizing pea-fiber arabinan and another polysaccharide (glucomannan) on the bead surface enhanced in vivo degradation of glucomannan. MFABs represent a potentially versatile platform for developing new prebiotics and more nutritious foods.