A fungal member of the Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere antagonizes Albugo laibachii via a GH25 lysozyme

  1. Katharina Eitzen
  2. Priyamedha Sengupta
  3. Samuel Kroll
  4. Eric Kemen  Is a corresponding author
  5. Gunther Doehlemann  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cologne, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Germany
  3. University of Tübingen, Germany

Abstract

Plants are not only challenged by pathogenic organisms, but also colonized by commensal microbes. The network of interactions these microbes establish with their host and amongst each other is suggested to contribute to the immune responses of plants against pathogens. In wild Arabidopsis thaliana populations, the oomycete pathogen Albugo laibachii plays an influential role in structuring the leaf phyllosphere. We show that the epiphytic yeast Moesziomyces bullatus ex Albugo on Arabidopsis, a close relative of pathogenic smut fungi, is an antagonistic member of the A. thaliana phyllosphere, which reduces infection of A. thaliana by A. laibachii. Combination of transcriptomics, reverse genetics and protein characterization identified a GH25 hydrolase with lysozyme activity as a major effector of this microbial antagonism. Our findings broaden the understanding of microbial interactions within the phyllosphere, provide insights into the evolution of epiphytic basidiomycete yeasts and pave the way for novel biocontrol strategies.

Data availability

Genome information and RNA sequencing have been submitted to NCBI Genbank and are available under the following links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE148670

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katharina Eitzen

    Institute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Priyamedha Sengupta

    Institute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Samuel Kroll

    AG Kemen, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Eric Kemen

    Center for Plant Molecular Biology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    For correspondence
    eric.kemen@uni-tuebingen.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gunther Doehlemann

    Institute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    For correspondence
    g.doehlemann@uni-koeln.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7353-8456

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP 2125 DECRyPT)

  • Katharina Eitzen
  • Priyamedha Sengupta

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC-2048/1,Project ID 390686111)

  • Katharina Eitzen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Caroline Gutjahr, Technical University of Munich, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: November 30, 2020
  2. Accepted: January 10, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 11, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 8, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Eitzen 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

  • 2,316
    Page views
  • 364
    Downloads
  • 21
    Citations

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

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)

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

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

  1. Katharina Eitzen
  2. Priyamedha Sengupta
  3. Samuel Kroll
  4. Eric Kemen
  5. Gunther Doehlemann
(2021)
A fungal member of the Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere antagonizes Albugo laibachii via a GH25 lysozyme
eLife 10:e65306.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65306

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65306

Further reading

    1. Plant Biology
    Daniel S Yu, Megan A Outram ... Simon J Williams
    Research Article

    Plant pathogens secrete proteins, known as effectors, that function in the apoplast or inside plant cells to promote virulence. Effector recognition by cell-surface or cytosolic receptors results in the activation of defence pathways and plant immunity. Despite their importance, our general understanding of fungal effector function and recognition by immunity receptors remains poor. One complication often associated with effectors is their high sequence diversity and lack of identifiable sequence motifs precluding prediction of structure or function. In recent years, several studies have demonstrated that fungal effectors can be grouped into structural classes, despite significant sequence variation and existence across taxonomic groups. Using protein X-ray crystallography, we identify a new structural class of effectors hidden within the secreted in xylem (SIX) effectors from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol). The recognised effectors Avr1 (SIX4) and Avr3 (SIX1) represent the founding members of the Fol dual-domain (FOLD) effector class, with members containing two distinct domains. Using AlphaFold2, we predicted the full SIX effector repertoire of Fol and show that SIX6 and SIX13 are also FOLD effectors, which we validated experimentally for SIX6. Based on structural prediction and comparisons, we show that FOLD effectors are present within three divisions of fungi and are expanded in pathogens and symbionts. Further structural comparisons demonstrate that Fol secretes effectors that adopt a limited number of structural folds during infection of tomato. This analysis also revealed a structural relationship between transcriptionally co-regulated effector pairs. We make use of the Avr1 structure to understand its recognition by the I receptor, which leads to disease resistance in tomato. This study represents an important advance in our understanding of Fol-tomato, and by extension plant–fungal interactions, which will assist in the development of novel control and engineering strategies to combat plant pathogens.

    1. Ecology
    2. Plant Biology
    Jamie Mitchel Waterman, Tristan Michael Cofer ... Matthias Erb
    Research Article

    Volatiles emitted by herbivore-attacked plants (senders) can enhance defenses in neighboring plants (receivers), however, the temporal dynamics of this phenomenon remain poorly studied. Using a custom-built, high-throughput proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS) system, we explored temporal patterns of volatile transfer and responses between herbivore-attacked and undamaged maize plants. We found that continuous exposure to natural blends of herbivore-induced volatiles results in clocked temporal response patterns in neighboring plants, characterized by an induced terpene burst at the onset of the second day of exposure. This delayed burst is not explained by terpene accumulation during the night, but coincides with delayed jasmonate accumulation in receiver plants. The delayed burst occurs independent of day:night light transitions and cannot be fully explained by sender volatile dynamics. Instead, it is the result of a stress memory from volatile exposure during the first day and secondary exposure to bioactive volatiles on the second day. Our study reveals that prolonged exposure to natural blends of stress-induced volatiles results in a response that integrates priming and direct induction into a distinct and predictable temporal response pattern. This provides an answer to the long-standing question of whether stress volatiles predominantly induce or prime plant defenses in neighboring plants, by revealing that they can do both in sequence.