Herbivorous insects independently evolved salivary effectors to regulate plant immunity by destabilizing the malectin-LRR RLP NtRLP4

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-structured and interesting manuscript that investigates how herbivorous insects, specifically whiteflies and planthoppers, utilize salivary effectors to overcome plant immunity by targeting the RLP4 receptor.

Strengths:

The authors present a strong case for the independent evolution of these effectors and provide compelling evidence for their functional roles.

Weaknesses:

Western blot evidence for effector secretion is weak. The possibility of contamination from insect tissues during the sample preparation should be avoided.

Below are some specific comments and suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

(1) Western blot evidence for effector secretion:

The western blot evidence in Figure 1, which aims to show that the insect protein is secreted into plants, is not fully convincing. The band of the expected size (~30 kDa) in the infested tissues is very weak. Furthermore, the high and low molecular weight bands that appear in the infested tissues do not match the size of the protein in the insects themselves, and a high molecular weight band also appears in the uninfested control tissues. It is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion that this protein is secreted into the plants based on this evidence. The authors should also address the possibility of contamination from insect tissues during the sample preparation and explain how they have excluded this possibility.

(2) Inconsistent conclusion (Line 156 and Figure 3c): T

The statement in line 156 is inconsistent with the data presented in Figure 3c. The figure clearly shows that the LRR domain of the protein is the one responsible for the interaction with BtRDP, not the region mentioned in the text. This is a critical misrepresentation of the experimental findings and must be corrected. The conclusion in the text should accurately reflect the data from the figure.

(3) Role of SOBIR1 in the RLP4/SOBIR1 Complex:

The authors demonstrate that the salivary effectors destabilize the RLP4 receptor, leading to a decrease in its protein levels and a reduction in the RLP4/SOBIR1 complex. A key question remains regarding the fate of SOBIR1 within this complex. The authors should clarify what happens to the SOBIR1 protein after the destabilization of RLP4. Does SOBIR1 become unbound, targeted for degradation itself, or does it simply lose its function without RLP4? This would provide further insight into the mechanism of action of the effectors.

(4) Clarification on specificity and evolutionary claims:

The paper's most significant claim is that the effectors from both whiteflies and planthoppers "independently evolved" to target RLP4. While the functional data is compelling, this evolutionary claim would be more convincing with stronger evidence. Showing that two different effector proteins target the same host protein is a fascinating finding but without a robust phylogenetic analysis, the claim of independent evolution is not fully supported. It would be valuable to provide a more detailed evolutionary analysis, such as a phylogenetic tree of the effector proteins, showing their relationship to other known insect proteins, to definitively rule out a shared, but highly divergent, common ancestor.

(5) Role of SOBIR1 in the interaction:

The results suggest that the effectors disrupt the RLP4/SOBIR1 complex. It is not entirely clear if the effectors are specifically targeting RLP4, SOBIR1, or both. Further experiments, such as a co-immunoprecipitation assay with just RLP4 and the effector, could clarify if the effector can bind to RLP4 in the absence of SOBIR1. This would help to definitively place RLP4 as the primary target.

(6) Transcriptome analysis (Lines 130-143):

The transcriptome analysis section feels disconnected from the rest of the manuscript. The findings, or lack thereof, from this analysis do not seem to be directly linked to the other major conclusions of the paper. This section could be removed to improve the manuscript's overall focus and flow. If the authors believe this data is critical, they should more clearly and explicitly connect the conclusions of the transcriptome analysis to the core findings about the effector-RLP4 interaction.

(7) Signal peptide experiments (Lines 145 and beyond):

The experiments conducted with the signal peptide (SP) are questionable. The SP is typically cleaved before the protein reaches its final destination. As such, conducting experiments with the SP attached to the protein may have produced biased observations and could lead to unjustified conclusions about the protein's function within the plant cell. We suggest the authors remove the experiments that include the signal peptide.

(8) Overly strong conclusion and unclear evidence (Line 176):

The use of the word "must" on line 176 is very strong and presents a definitive conclusion without sufficient evidence. The authors state that the proteins must interact with SOBIR1, but they do not provide a clear justification for this claim. Is SOBIR1 the only interaction partner for NtRLP4? The authors should provide a specific reason for focusing on SOBIR1 instead of demonstrating an interaction with NtRLP4 first. Additionally, do BtRDP or NlSP694 also interact with SOBIR1 directly? The authors should either tone down their language to reflect the evidence or provide a clearer justification for this strong claim.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tested an interesting hypothesis that white flies and planthoppers independently evolved salivary proteins to dampen plant immunity by targeting a receptor-like protein.

Strengths:

The authors used a wide range of methods to dissect the function of the white fly protein BtRDP and identify its host target NtRLP4.

Weaknesses:

(1) Serious concerns about protein work.

I did not find the indicated protein bands for anti-BtRDP in Figures 1a and 1b in the original blot pictures shown in Figure S30. In Figure 1a, I can't get the point of showing an unspecific protein band with a size of ~190 kD as a loading control for a protein of ~ 30 kD.

The data discrepancy led me to check other Western blot pictures. Similarly, Figures 2d, 3b, 3d, and S15b (anti-Myc) do not correspond to the original blots shown. In addition, the anti-Myc blot in Figure 4i, all blot pictures in Figures 5b, 5h, and S19a appeared to be compressed vertically. These data raised concerns about the quality of the manuscript.

Blots shown in Figure 3d, 4f, 4g, and 4h appeared to be done at a different exposure rate compared to the complete blot shown in Figure S30. The undesirable connection between Western blot pictures shown in the figures and the original data might be due to the reduced quality of compressed figures during submission. Nevertheless, clarification will be necessary to support the strength of the data provided.

(2) Misinterpretation of data.

I am afraid the authors misunderstood pattern-triggered immunity through receptor-like proteins. It is true that several LRR-type RLPs constitutively associate with SOBIR1, and further recruit BAK1 or other SERKs upon ligand binding. One should not take it for granted that every RLP works this way. To test the hypothesis that NtRLP4 confers resistance to B.tabaci infestation, the author compared transcriptional profiles between an EV plant line and an RLP4 overexpression line. If I understood the methods and figure legends correctly, this was done without B. tabaci treatment. This experimental design is seriously flawed. To provide convincing genetic evidence, independent mutant lines (optionally independent overexpression lines) in combination with different treatments will be necessary. Otherwise, one can only conclude that overexpressing the RLP4 protein generated a nervous plant. In addition, ROS burst, but not H2O2 accumulation, is a common immune response in pattern-triggered immunity.

(3) Lack of logic coherence.

The written language needs substantial improvement. This impeded the readability of the work. More importantly, the logic throughout the manuscript appeared scattered. The choice of testing protein domains for protein-protein interactions, using plants overexpressing an insect protein to study its subcellular localization, switching back and forth between using proteins with signal peptides and without signal peptides, among others, lacks a clear explanation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Wang et al. investigate how herbivorous insects overcome plant receptor-mediated immunity by targeting plant receptor-like proteins. The authors identify two independently evolved salivary effectors, BtRDP in whiteflies and NlSP694 in brown planthoppers, that promote the degradation of plant RLP4 through the ubiquitin-dependent proteasome pathway. NtRLP4 from tobacco and OsRLP4 from rice are shown to confer resistance against herbivores by activating defense signaling, while BtRDP and NlSP694 suppress these defenses by destabilizing RLP4 proteins.

Strengths:

This work highlights a convergent evolutionary strategy in distinct insect lineages and advances our understanding of insect-plant coevolution at the molecular level.

Weaknesses:

(1) I found the naming of BtRDP and NlSP694 somewhat confusing. The authors defined BtRDP as "B. tabaci RLP-degrading protein," whereas NlSP694 appears to have been named after the last three digits of its GenBank accession number (MF278694, presumably). Is there a standard convention for naming newly identified proteins, for example, based on functional motifs or sequence characteristics? As it stands, the inconsistency makes it difficult for readers to clearly distinguish these proteins from those reported in other studies.

(2) Figure 2 and other figures. Transgenic experiments require at least two independent lines, because results from a single line may be confounded by position effects or unintended genomic alterations, and multiple lines provide stronger evidence for reproducibility and reliability.

(3) Figure 3e. Quantitative analysis of NtRLP4 was required. Additionally, since only one band was observed in oeRLP, were any tags included in the construct?

(4) Figure 4a. The RNAi effect appears to be well rescued in Line 1 but poorly in Line 2. Could the authors clarify the reason for this difference?

(5) ROS accumulation is shown for only a single leaf. A quantitative analysis of ROS accumulation across multiple samples would be necessary to support the conclusion. The same applies to Figure 16f.

(6) Figure 4f: NtRLP4 abundance was significantly reduced in oeBtRDP plants but not in oeBtRDP-SP. Although coexpression analysis suggests that BtRDP promotes NtRLP4 degradation in an ubiquitin-dependent manner, the reduced NtRLP4 levels may not result from a direct interaction between BtRDP and NtRLP4. It is possible that BtRDP influences other factors that indirectly affect NtRLP4 abundance. The authors should discuss this possibility.

(7) The statement in lines 335-336 that 'Overexpression of NtRLP4 or NtSOBIR1 enhances insect feeding, while silencing of either gene exerts the opposite effect' is not supported by the results shown in Figures S16-S19. The authors should revise this description to accurately reflect the data.

(8) BtRDP is reported to attach to the salivary sheath. Does the planthopper NlSP694 exhibit a similar secretion localization (e.g., attachment to the salivary sheath)? The authors should supplement this information or discuss the potential implications of any differences in secretion localization between BtRDP and NlSP694 for their respective modes of action.