This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 150/4/1623    most recent pp.109.140327v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Agricola Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Related Collections Plant Interactions with Bacterial Pathogens

UPDATES - FOCUS ISSUE

Lifestyles of the Effector Rich: Genome-Enabled Characterization of Bacterial Plant Pathogens¹

Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 (A.C., M.L.); and United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Ithaca, New York 14853 (D.J.S.)

Virtually all crop plants are attacked by pathogenic microbes, including bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and nematodes. In many cases, bacterial diseases are still poorly controlled with century-old agents like copper, and cause serious losses, as seen with the recent citrus canker outbreak in Florida (Schubert et al., 2001). Pathogenicity has evolved independently in diverse phylogenetic lineages within the bacteria, resulting in a range of pathogenic lifestyles that parallels those that have evolved in the fungi and oomycetes. Thus, the study of bacterial pathogens is casting light into the interactions of plants with all microbes. This window of investigation was flung open in 2000 with publication of the first complete genome sequence of a phytopathogen, Xylella fastidiosa 9a5c (Simpson et al., 2000). Because it is a xylem-limited, nutritionally fastidious pathogen, its mechanisms of pathogenicity had been a complete mystery prior to analysis of the genome sequence. Subsequent sequencing of experimentally tractable pathogens in the genera Ralstonia (Salanoubat et al., 2002), Xanthomonas (Da Silva et al., 2002), Pseudomonas (Buell et al., 2003), and Pectobacterium (Bell et al., 2004) had a similarly revolutionary impact, revealing unexpected complexities in their virulence systems.

Of particular importance to plant biologists is the genome-enabled, comprehensive identification of proteins and toxins that directly interact with plants and are referred to here as effectors (Hogenhout et al., 2009). Because effectors act during infection and outside of the bacterium, genes encoding them can be systematically identified on the basis of expression in planta and passage of their products through secretion pathways known to be trafficked by virulence proteins. Of the seven secretion systems described to date in gram-negative bacteria, the type II secretion system (T2SS) and type III secretion system (T3SS) are responsible for extracellular localization of the majority of critical virulence factors. Agrobacterium tumefaciens, an important pathogen that relies on the type IV pathway to deliver nucleoprotein T-DNA complexes into plant cells, has also been sequenced (Goodner et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2001) and is addressed in another Update article in this Focus issue. Small molecule effector candidates, which do not typically rely on a dedicated secretion system, can be identified through characterization of nonribosomal peptide and polyketide synthetases identified in the genome (Bender et al., 1999). Since each effector interacts with at least one plant molecule, and these targets involve diverse organelles and metabolic processes, the newly expanded collection of effectors provides a vast new tool box for plant biologists, revealing the unexpected extent of pathogen manipulations of plants (Speth et al., 2007). Importantly, complete genome sequences also enable investigation of how all of the effector parts work together to enable parasitism in different plants and specific plant niches.

This Update highlights insights gained from fully sequenced bacterial pathogen genomes that are of particular relevance to plant biologists. We will describe the range of bacterial phytopathogens and their lifestyles in plants, lessons gained from type III effector repertoires (a focus of much study during this period), major insights arising from each of the phytopathogen groups with completely sequenced genomes, and future challenges.

	THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC BACTERIA AND AN EMERGING BIG PICTURE OF THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH PLANTS

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
Plant pathogens of all classes are now considered to have two broadly different pathogenic lifestyles, with necrotrophs gaining nutrients from rapidly killed tissue and biotrophs gaining nutrients from living host tissue (or in the case of hemibiotrophs, from living tissue that dies in a later stage of pathogenesis; Glazebrook, 2005). The phytopathogenic bacteria with complete and published sequences span this continuum of pathogenic lifestyles, summarized in Table I .

Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis NCPPB382 (Gartemann et al., 2008), C. michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus ATCC33113 (Bentley et al., 2008), and Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli CTCB07 (Monteiro-Vitorello et al., 2004) are the pioneer, sequenced bacteria in the high G + C content, gram-positive group Actinobacteria. These bacteria are closely related and are all xylem colonizers. Analogous to X. fastidiosa, L. xyli subsp. xyli is a fastidious bacterium with a small genome size (2.6 Mb) that appears to be a product of reductive evolution (Moreira et al., 2004). The end point in the continuum toward biotrophic specialization for life within a specific plant niche and associated genome reduction is represented by wall-less bacteria in the low G + C content, gram-positive group, Firmicutes. These bacteria are obligate colonizers of the phloem and their phloem-feeding insect vectors (Hogenhout and Loria, 2008). Notably, the Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris OY-M pioneer genome is only 860 kb (Oshima et al., 2004). In contrast, the largest genome among this pioneering set of phytopathogens is that of P. syringae pv tomato DC3000, which is 6.5 Mb.

A conceptually and agriculturally significant feature of these pathogenic lifestyles and phylogenetic groups is that the plant defenses against necrotrophs and (hemi)biotrophs are different and antagonistic. Specifically, major gene resistance is only effective against hemibiotrophic gram-negative bacteria injecting type III effectors that are recognized by cytoplasmic resistance (R) proteins in the host (Spoel et al., 2007; Poland et al., 2009). A recently formulated model for the interactions of plants with hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria has broad explanatory power (Jones and Dangl, 2006; Gohre and Robatzek, 2008). According to this model, bacteria in the apoplast display pathogen (or microbe)-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), such as flagellin, lipopolysaccharide, peptidoglycan, and elongation factor EF-Tu, which are recognized at the plant cell surface by pattern recognition receptors that elicit PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI). Pathogens defeat this defense by injecting type III effectors that suppress PTI. The T3SS, required for delivery of these effectors and thus essential to virulence in all hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria pathogens, is discussed in another Update in this issue. Although effectors suppress PTI, they may also elicit defenses. Specifically, if the host carries an appropriate R gene for detecting the activity of one or more of these effectors inside plants cells, effector-triggered immunity (ETI) is activated, typically manifested as a defense-related programmed cell death referred to as the hypersensitive response. PTI is addressed in more detail in another Update in this issue but this model, based on plant interaction with hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria, raises important questions about other groups of phytopathogenic bacteria. Are PAMPs also perceived in the xylem or the phloem? How does Clavibacter, which does not appear to inject effectors, evade or suppress PTI? How do necrotrophs defeat PTI? What determines the differing levels of host specificity and tissue specificity observed in various pathogen groups?

	THE TYPE III EFFECTOR REPERTOIRES OF HEMIBIOTROPHIC PROTEOBACTERIA

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
The greatest impact of bacterial phytopathogen genome sequencing so far has been the discovery of large numbers of type III effectors in various phytopathogenic Proteobacteria. Because of gene duplication and functional redundancy, many type III effectors are individually dispensable. In hindsight, it is not surprising that the corresponding genes were largely missed in pregenomics era screens for mutants with reduced virulence. Genomics bypassed this problem by enabling various functional screens and characterization of sequence patterns to identify all probable candidates in each strain, many of which have been experimentally validated. Patterns used have included promoter motifs, amino acid biases associated with type III targeting signals, motifs predicting eucaryote-like functions, and presence in genomic islands (Cunnac et al., 2004; Lindeberg et al., 2006; Vinatzer and Yan, 2008; Furutani et al., 2009). These efforts have revealed complex effector repertoires for several strains, as well as provisional super repertoires for the pangenomes of three phytopathogen groups, as tabulated in recent reviews addressing Xanthomonas spp. (Kay and Bonas, 2009), R. solanacearum (Poueymiro and Genin, 2009), and the P. syringae pathovars (Cunnac et al., 2009).

Effector repertoires are highly variable, even for pathogens of a single plant species. The relative size and variability of these repertoires can be seen in three well-studied tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) pathogens: X. campestris pv vesicatoria 85 to 10 (17 effectors confirmed), R. solanacearum GMI1000 (28 confirmed + 46 candidates), and P. syringae pv tomato DC3000 (28 confirmed; Cunnac et al., 2009; Kay and Bonas, 2009; Poueymiro and Genin, 2009). Of the 17 effectors injected by X. campestris pv vesicatoria, five have homologs in R. solanacearum and three have homologs in P. syringae pv tomato (Kay and Bonas, 2009). This variability in type III effector repertoires is particularly striking in two strains of P. syringae pv tomato: DC3000 and T1. Both strains cause bacterial speck of tomato, but only half of their effector repertoires are shared (Almeida et al., 2009). Complete genome sequences are now published for seven Xanthomonas strains representing diverse species and pathovars, and three pathovars of P. syringae (Da Silva et al., 2002; Buell et al., 2003; Feil et al., 2005; Joardar et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2005; Qian et al., 2005; Thieme et al., 2005; Salzberg et al., 2008; Vorholter et al., 2008). Comparison of their effector repertoires similarly reveals a high degree of variability, with no obvious correlation between repertoire composition and host specificity or tissue specificity (Salzberg et al., 2008; Almeida et al., 2009). Thus, it appears that there are many ways for bacteria to defeat plant defenses with type III effectors.

Enormous progress has been made in identifying the diverse biochemical activities, subcellular targets, and host interactors of type III effectors. These properties of individual effectors are summarized in recent reviews (Block et al., 2008; Gohre and Robatzek, 2008; Cunnac et al., 2009; Kay and Bonas, 2009; Poueymiro and Genin, 2009), and we are limited here to a few highlights that indicate the scope and sophistication of the effector assault on plants. In general, type III effectors manipulate host cell protein turnover, RNA synthesis and stability, and protein phosphorylation (Block et al., 2008). Effectors can insert themselves into host protein processing and targeting pathways, resulting in localization to the plasma membrane, chloroplasts, the nucleus, and other subcellular sites (Gohre and Robatzek, 2008; Dowen et al., 2009). Their molecular targets can range from pattern recognition receptors essential for PAMP perception to promoters for genes controlling cell size (Gohre and Robatzek, 2008). The biological function of most type III effectors appears to be suppression of PTI and/or ETI, and some effectors, such as AvrPtoB, have multiple domains that suppress both defenses (Abramovitch and Martin, 2005; Rosebrock et al., 2007). The bewildering range of activities and subcellular and molecular targets of type III effectors is best appreciated by scanning the tables of recent reviews (as cited above). However, it is worth noting that only a small fraction of the known effectors have been characterized, and the known effectors represent only a fraction of the total that are likely encoded in the pangenomes of the hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria.

	THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT EFFECTOR GROUPS IN PHYTOPATHOGENIC BACTERIA

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
The model described above of pathogenesis based on translocated effectors suppressing PTI while being under R protein surveillance evokes a coevolutionary war between plants and pathogens that can generate large and polymorphic repertoires of effectors and R proteins (McHale et al., 2006; Stavrinides et al., 2008). Importantly, this process appears to generate effector repertoires that are collectively essential but where individual effectors are typically dispensable. Because of this dispensability, effector genes can be lost with little or no virulence penalty by pathogen populations facing a cultivar that relies on R-gene-mediated resistance. Thus, R-gene-mediated resistance is often defeated after a few years of agricultural use, as has been observed with many important bacterial, fungal, and oomycete pathogens (Jones and Dangl, 2006; Poland et al., 2009).

The availability of complete genome sequences and complete type III effector repertoires has enabled investigation of an important property of most effector repertoires, that is, the dispensability of individual effectors. Such dispensability has been inferred from the results of numerous mutant screens involving various hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria and has been systematically explored with R. solanacearum GMI1000 and P. syringae pv tomato DC3000. Mutagenesis of 42 effector and effector candidate genes in GMI1000 revealed that only two had a virulence phenotype in host tomato, manifested as only a slight delay in symptom development (Cunnac et al., 2004). Similarly, a screen of P. syringae pv tomato DC3000 transposon mutants with a sensitive virulence assay based on dip-inoculated Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) plants yielded only a single effector gene, which only quantitatively contributes to lesion formation (Brooks et al., 2004; Badel et al., 2006).

Through the efforts of multiple research groups, the type III effector repertoire of DC3000 has been particularly well established and is thought to comprise 28 actively deployed effectors (Lindeberg et al., 2006). Combinatorial deletions involving 20 of the active effector genes have revealed a redundancy-based structure in the effector repertoire, such that some deletions diminish growth in planta only in combination with other deletions (Kvitko et al., 2009). It was found that two redundant effector groups are particularly important in promoting DC3000 growth in planta, and based on the known activities of some of the members, these internally redundant groups were proposed to target different high-level processes in PTI: perception of PAMPs and vesicle trafficking of antimicrobial factors. These observations suggest that successful pathogenesis by DC3000 depends on blocking of a few key defense processes, with each process targeted redundantly. Host surveillance of the effectors and, possibly, the polymorphic nature of effector targets may explain the apparent need for redundancy.

The phenomenon of redundant effector groups appears widespread in phytopathogenic bacteria. For example, the extracellular components of the T3SS that have been genetically implicated in forming the translocation pore in the host plasma membrane are conserved and individually essential in animal pathogens but more numerous, variable, and individually dispensable in plant pathogens (Kvitko et al., 2007). R. solanacearum and many Xanthomonas spp. also have candidate redundant effector groups represented by the multiple copies of F-box-containing GALA family effectors and transcription activator-like effectors that their respective genomes encode (Angot et al., 2006). Experiments thus far with both effector families indicate that combinatorial mutations are required to produce significant virulence phenotypes (Yang et al., 1996; Angot et al., 2006). As will be discussed in the next section, redundant groups of candidate effectors (broadly defined) can also be found in Pectobacterium and Clavibacter spp.

Systematic identification of redundant effector groups has the potential to reveal processes within plants that contribute to defense against microbial pathogens and may provide clues to the specific plant proteins targeted by and/or involved in the recognition of individual effectors. For example, AvrPto and AvrPtoB, though showing no sequence similarity, are members of a redundant effector group that inhibits the kinase activity of the FLS2 pattern recognition receptor and interacts with Pto, now thought to function as a decoy kinase under R protein surveillance (Shan et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2008; Zhou and Chai, 2008). Identification of redundant effector groups may also have practical utility in suggesting more durable combinations of R genes less likely to be overcome by pathogen mutation. Ultimately, the genomics-enabled characterization of type III effector repertoires and interacting plant proteins is serving to unravel the complex network of host-pathogen interactions in a manner that is biologically significant and agriculturally useful.

	OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN GENOMES

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
The P. atrosepticum genome highlights two other important classes of effectors: pectic enzymes and phytotoxins. Like other soft-rot enterobacteria, P. atrosepticum (formerly Erwinia carotovora subsp. atroseptica) produces multiple pectic enzymes, secreted via the T2SS (Toth and Birch, 2005). Studies with various soft-rot enterobacteria involving mutations in T2SS genes and either single or multiple pectic enzyme genes suggest that pectic enzymes are collectively essential but individually dispensable for the maceration of parenchymatous plant tissues characteristic of soft-rot diseases (Toth et al., 2006). The P. atrosepticum genome sequence revealed 11 new putative pectic enzyme genes, thus bringing the repertoire to 20 (Bell et al., 2004). However, there is no evidence that plant surveillance or inhibitors are driving amplification of the P. atrosepticum pectic enzymes or causing diversification in the repertoire encoded by related species (Glasner et al., 2008). Subtle specialization for substrates and reaction conditions in the cell walls of different plants may account for the amplification of effectors in this class. In contrast, T2SS mutants are only partially reduced in virulence, and pectic enzymes appear to have only a minor role in P. syringae pathogenesis (Bauer and Collmer, 1997; Bronstein et al., 2005).

A surprising discovery in the P. atrosepticum genome was the presence of homologs of P. syringae genes directing biosynthesis of the toxins syringomycin and coronafacic acid (Bell et al., 2004), mutations that strongly reduced black leg disease in potato (Solanum tuberosum; Bell et al., 2004). In P. syringae pv tomato DC3000, coronatine, an amide-linked conjugate of coronafacic acid and an Ile derivative, mimics jasmonic acid Ile, promotes the opening of stomates and bacteria entry, and suppresses salicylic acid-dependent plant defenses (Brooks et al., 2005; Melotto et al., 2008). The biosynthetic capacity for this toxin family is encoded in a horizontally acquired region in DC3000 and is present in only a subset of other P. syringae pathovars and in only P. atrosepticum among the sequenced Pectobacteria spp. (Hwang et al., 2005; Glasner et al., 2008; Lindeberg et al., 2008). Like P. syringae, P. atrosepticum encodes a functional T3SS, but the only effector candidate is a homolog of the widespread P. syringae effector AvrE (Bell et al., 2004). In summary, although P. atrosepticum and P. syringae are in different bacterial families, they appear to have acquired effector genes by horizontal transfer, with their respective effector repertoires being differently expanded in association with their distinct pathogenic lifestyles.

Comparison of phylogenetically divergent organisms with similar pathogen lifestyles provides yet another opportunity for exploring the nature and evolution of bacterial pathogenesis through comparative genomics. For example, the >50 P. syringae pathovars and >100 Xanthomonas species/pathovars are all T3SS-dependent, host-specific pathogens that are often good epiphytes and commonly cause diseases characterized by scattered lesions on foliage (although some Xanthomonas spp. also invade the xylem and cause extensive tissue death). Most crops are attacked by at least one member of each group. Importantly, genome sequencing suggests that phytopathogenicity in these two genera has evolved convergently. For example, not only are their type III effector repertoires largely different, but they also possess independently acquired and distinct T3SS (Alfano and Collmer, 1997). Thus, functional genomic comparisons of strains with common hosts from the parallel pseudomonad and xanthomonad series could indicate the potential range of interactions plants may have with microbes that attack via translocated effector proteins.

R. solanacearum represents a versatile pathogen, unique among the major bacterial phytopathogens given its ability to attack plants via the roots (Genin and Boucher, 2004) and particularly devastating to a variety of tropical crops. The bacterium has large repertoires of candidate effectors traveling the T2SS and the T3SS, and appropriate mutants indicate that the two pathways and their respective repertoires are important for pathogenesis (Poueymiro and Genin, 2009). The type III effector repertoire features three expanded families with multiple members as well as multiple effectors with repeat domains implicated in the recognition of host proteins (Poueymiro and Genin, 2009). The GALA proteins mentioned above provide a good example, with strain GMI1000 producing seven such proteins predicted to target host proteins for degradation via the 26S proteosome (Angot et al., 2006). Analogous to P. syringae pv tomato in its manipulation of hormone signaling with a small-molecule effector, GMI1000 produces ethylene, which affects the expression of ethylene-response host genes during infection (Valls et al., 2006).

Genomic analyses suggest that effector families may be similarly subject to amplification in gram-positive pathogens as well. Pregenomics research had identified two C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis proteins, CelA endo-β1 to 4 glucanase and Pat-1 Ser protease (Hogenhout and Loria, 2008), which appear to be effectors given their role in virulence and predicted extracellular location. One or more yet to be identified proteins in the extracellular fluids from both subspecies have additionally been shown to elicit the hypersensitive response in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum; Nissinen et al., 1997; Alarcon et al., 1998). Genome sequences reveal that homologs of celA family members and pat-1 family members are present in subspecies michiganensis and sepedonicus, as well as in L. xyli subsp. xyli (Monteiro-Vitorello et al., 2004; Bentley et al., 2008; Gartemann et al., 2008). Intriguingly, subspecies michiganensis encodes at least 28 Ser proteases of which 10 are Pat-1-like members of the Chp family. These gene families have several characteristic properties of effector genes including an atypical G + C content suggestive of horizontal acquisition and a demonstrated role in elicitation of the hypersensitive response on nonhost plants for at least one of the family members. Subspecies sepedonicus harbors 11 Chp family genes, and L. xyli subsp. xyli has one. It is tempting to speculate that the Chp family Ser proteases are acting extracellularly to degrade either pattern recognition receptors or antimicrobial peptides/proteins and that ETI surveillance of these proteins or their activities has driven amplification of the family. The Chp Ser proteases thus could provide new clues to how plants defend the xylem against pathogens. It is also noteworthy that C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and L. xyli subsp. xyli encode tomatinase and a fatty acid desaturase, respectively. Tomatinase can release defense-suppressive products from the antifungal saponin tomatine (Bouarab et al., 2002), and the fatty acid desaturase may produce abscisic acid, which could contribute to the major symptom of ratoon stunting of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum; Monteiro-Vitorello et al., 2004). Thus, both of these proteins have the potential to generate small-molecule effectors.

In contrast to the other pathogens discussed, the phytoplasmas can inhabit the intracellular space of both insects and plants and may evade plant defenses in large part through absence of PTI-triggering PAMPs that have been lost during genome reduction. Nonetheless, identification of extracellular effector candidates on the basis of conserved targeting motifs (in this case, N-terminal signal peptides facilitating secretion via a functional Sec pathway) represents a valuable approach for effector identification. Eukaryotic nuclear localization signals have been identified in two of the effector candidates with SAP11 from Candidatus P. asteris AY-WB shown to induce necrosis and alter transcription (Bai et al., 2006; Hogenhout and Oshima, 2008).

	NEW CHALLENGES

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
A primary challenge of genomics research involves discovery of patterns in the DNA and protein sequences. Fortunately, because typical effector genes encoding type III effectors, cell wall-degrading enzymes, extracellular proteases, and biosynthetic enzymes for toxins and phytohormones carry a variety of predictive patterns, we have been able to make substantial progress toward comprehensive identification of effectors in the pioneer pathogen genomes. The subsequent sequencing of strains related to the pioneers has enabled a second round of pattern searching focused on differences in virulence and host or tissue specificity and an initial glimpse of the pangenomes for several species. In the near future, we can expect publication of pioneer genome sequences for other important pathogens, such as Streptomyces scabies, Erwinia amylovora, Pantoea stewartii, and Dickeya dadantii (formerly Erwinia chrysanthemi). Furthermore, next-generation sequencing methods have the potential to yield low-cost draft genomes for a virtually unlimited set of relatives for each pioneer. These advances, coupled with continuing refinements in the iterative process of effector function analysis and pattern recognition, should yield the complete effecterome for each of these pathogen groups.

The next fundamental challenge will be to discern patterns in these effector repertoires that underlie their evolutionary assembly into viable systems for defeat of host defenses and adaption to plant-associated niches. For example, it appears that diverse phytopathogenic bacteria (with the possible exception of the Firmicutes) produce both protein effectors and small molecule effectors. Do these two classes of effectors work coordinately? And, how do effector repertoires function in coordination with the rest of the bacterial genome and physiology? In this regard, it is important to note that effector repertoire composition has so far failed to explain either the host or tissue specificity of different members of the hemibiotrophic Proteobacteria. Furthermore, although R protein surveillance of type III effectors certainly explains race-cultivar specificity in the field, it may not explain the specificity of P. syringae pathovars, R. solanacearum strains, or Xanthomonas spp. for their different plant species. The latter specificity is generally stable in the field despite the observation that loss of just one or two effectors can expand host range to new plant species (Castaneda et al., 2005; Lin and Martin, 2007; Wei et al., 2007; Poueymiro et al., 2009). It is possible that multiple adaptations involving PAMP perception, nutrition, and antimicrobial factors underlie host and tissue specificity.

The ultimate challenge of effector identification and functional characterization involves the integration of their various individual roles into a comprehensive picture of host-pathogen interaction. As one means of managing the increasingly complex data on DC3000 effectors, Gene Ontology annotation is being used to systematically document the biological processes, molecular functions, and cellular locations of individual effectors, enabling comparison among effectors deployed by a single strain as well as among those deployed during the course of other, diverse host-pathogen interactions.

Received April 22, 2009; accepted May 26, 2009; published June 10, 2009.

	FOOTNOTES

 
¹ This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program (grant no. DBI–0605059).

The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Magdalen Lindeberg (ml16{at}cornell.edu).

www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.109.140327

^* Corresponding author; e-mail ml16{at}cornell.edu.

	LITERATURE CITED

TOP THE DIVERSITY OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC... THE TYPE III EFFECTOR... THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUNDANT... OTHER LESSONS FROM PATHOGEN... NEW CHALLENGES LITERATURE CITED

 
Abramovitch RB, Martin GB (2005) AvrPtoB: a bacterial type III effector that both elicits and suppresses programmed cell death associated with plant immunity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 245: 1–8[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Alarcon C, Castro J, Monoz F, Arece-Johnson P, Delgado J (1998) Protein(s) from the gram-positive bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis induces a hypersensitive response in plants. Phytopathology 88: 306–310[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Alfano JR, Collmer A (1997) The type III (Hrp) secretion pathway of plant pathogenic bacteria: trafficking harpins, Avr proteins, and death. J Bacteriol 179: 5655–5662[Free Full Text]

Almeida NF, Yan S, Lindeberg M, Studholme DJ, Schneider DJ, Condon B, Liu H, Viana CJ, Warren A, Evans C, et al (2009) A draft genome sequence of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato T1 reveals a type III effector repertoire significantly divergent from that of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 52–62[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Angot A, Peeters N, Lechner E, Vailleau F, Baud C, Gentzbittel L, Sartorel E, Genschik P, Boucher C, Genin S (2006) Ralstonia solanacearum requires F-box-like domain-containing type III effectors to promote disease on several host plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 14620–14625[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Badel JL, Shimizu R, Oh HS, Collmer A (2006) A Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato avrE1/hopM1 mutant is severely reduced in growth and lesion formation in tomato. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 19: 99–111[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Bai X, Zhang J, Ewing A, Miller SA, Jancso Radek A, Shevchenko DV, Tsukerman K, Walunas T, Lapidus A, Campbell JW, et al (2006) Living with genome instability: the adaptation of phytoplasmas to diverse environments of their insect and plant hosts. J Bacteriol 188: 3682–3696[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bauer DW, Collmer A (1997) Molecular cloning, characterization, and mutagenesis of a pel gene from Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans encoding a member of the Erwinia chrysanthemi PelADE family of pectate lyases. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 10: 369–379[Web of Science][Medline]

Bell KS, Sebaihia M, Pritchard L, Holden MT, Hyman LJ, Holeva MC, Thomson NR, Bentley SD, Churcher LJ, Mungall K, et al (2004) Genome sequence of the enterobacterial phytopathogen Erwinia carotovora subsp. atroseptica and characterization of virulence factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 11105–11110[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bender CL, Alarcon-Chaidez F, Gross DC (1999) Pseudomonas syringae phytotoxins: mode of action, regulation, and biosynthesis by peptide and polyketide synthetases. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 63: 266–292[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bentley SD, Corton C, Brown SE, Barron A, Clark L, Doggett J, Harris B, Ormond D, Quail MA, May G, et al (2008) Genome of the actinomycete plant pathogen Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus suggests recent niche adaptation. J Bacteriol 190: 2150–2160[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Block A, Li G, Fu ZQ, Alfano JR (2008) Phytopathogen type III effector weaponry and their plant targets. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11: 396–403[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Bouarab K, Melton R, Peart J, Baulcombe D, Osbourn A (2002) A saponin-detoxifying enzyme mediates suppression of plant defences. Nature 418: 889–892[CrossRef][Medline]

Bronstein PA, Marrichi M, Cartinhour S, Schneider DJ, Delisa MP (2005) Identification of a twin-arginine translocation system in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 and its contribution to pathogenicity and fitness. J Bacteriol 187: 8450–8461[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brooks D, Bender CL, Kunkel BN (2005) The Pseudomonas syringae phytotoxin coronatine promotes virulence by overcoming salicylic acid-dependent defences in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Plant Pathol 6: 629–639[CrossRef][Web of Science]

Brooks D, Hernandez-Guzman G, Koek AP, Alarcon-Chaidez F, Sreedharan A, Rangaswarmy V, Penaloza-Vasquez A, Bender CL, Kunkel BN (2004) Identification and characterization of a well-defined series of coronatine biosynthetic mutants of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17: 162–174[Web of Science][Medline]

Buell CR, Joardar V, Lindeberg M, Selengut J, Paulsen IT, Gwinn ML, Dodson RJ, Deboy RT, Durkin AS, Kolonay JF, et al (2003) The complete sequence of the Arabidopsis and tomato pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 10181–10186[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Castaneda A, Reddy JD, El-Yacoubi B, Gabriel DW (2005) Mutagenesis of all eight avr genes in Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris had no detected effect on pathogenicity, but one avr gene affected race specificity. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 18: 1306–1317[Web of Science][Medline]

Cunnac S, Lindeberg M, Collmer A (2009) Pseudomonas syringae type III secretion system effectors: repertoires in search of functions. Curr Opin Microbiol 12: 53–60[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Cunnac S, Occhialini A, Barberis P, Boucher C, Genin S (2004) Inventory and functional analysis of the large Hrp regulon in Ralstonia solanacearum: identification of novel effector proteins translocated to plant host cells through the type III secretion system. Mol Microbiol 53: 115–128[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Da Silva AC, Ferro JA, Reinach FC, Farah CS, Furlan LR, Quaggio RB, Monteiro-Vitorello CB, Sluys MA, Almeida NF, Alves LM, et al (2002) Comparison of the genomes of two Xanthomonas pathogens with differing host specificities. Nature 417: 459–463[CrossRef][Medline]

Dowen RH, Engel JL, Shao F, Ecker JR, Dixon JE (2009) A family of bacterial cysteine protease type III effectors utilize acylation-dependent and independent strategies to localize to plasma membranes. J Biol Chem 284: 15867–15879[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Feil H, Feil WS, Chain P, Larimer F, Dibartolo G, Copeland A, Lykidis A, Trong S, Nolan M, Goltsman E, et al (2005) Comparison of the complete genome sequences of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae B728a and pv. tomato DC3000. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 11064–11069[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Furutani A, Takaoka M, Sanada H, Noguchi Y, Oku T, Tsuno K, Ochiai H, Tsuge S (2009) Identification of novel type III secretion effectors in Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 96–106[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Gartemann KH, Abt B, Bekel T, Burger A, Engemann J, Flugel M, Gaigalat L, Goesmann A, Grafen I, Kalinowski J, et al (2008) The genome sequence of the tomato-pathogenic actinomycete Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis NCPPB382 reveals a large island involved in pathogenicity. J Bacteriol 190: 2138–2149[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Genin S, Boucher C (2004) Lessons learned from the genome analysis of Ralstonia solanacearum. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42: 107–134[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Glasner JD, Marquez-Villavicencio M, Kim HS, Jahn CE, Ma B, Biehl BS, Rissman AI, Mole B, Yi X, Yang CH, et al (2008) Niche-specificity and the variable fraction of the Pectobacterium pan-genome. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 1549–1560[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Glazebrook J (2005) Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43: 205–227[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Gohre V, Robatzek S (2008) Breaking the barriers: microbial effector molecules subvert plant immunity. Annu Rev Phytopathol 46: 189–215[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Goodner B, Hinkle G, Gattung S, Miller N, Blanchard M, Qurollo B, Goldman BS, Cao Y, Askenazi M, Halling C, et al (2001) Genome sequence of the plant pathogen and biotechnology agent Agrobacterium tumefaciens C58. Science 294: 2323–2328[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hogenhout SA, Loria R (2008) Virulence mechanisms of Gram-positive plant pathogenic bacteria. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11: 449–456[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Hogenhout SA, Oshima K (2008) Phytoplasmas: bacteria that manipulate plants and insects. Mol Plant Pathol 9: 403–423[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Hogenhout SA, Van der Hoorn RA, Terauchi R, Kamoun S (2009) Emerging concepts in effector biology of plant-associated organisms. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 115–122[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Hwang MS, Morgan RL, Sarkar SF, Wang PW, Guttman DS (2005) Phylogenetic characterization of virulence and resistance phenotypes of Pseudomonas syringae. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 5182–5191[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Joardar V, Lindeberg M, Jackson RW, Selengut J, Dodson R, Brinkac LM, Daugherty SC, DeBoy R, Durkin AS, Giglio MG, et al (2005) Whole genome sequence analysis of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola 1448A reveals sequence divergence among pathovars in genes involved in virulence and mobile genetic elements. J Bacteriol 187: 6488–6498[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Jones JD, Dangl JL (2006) The plant immune system. Nature 444: 323–329[CrossRef][Medline]

Kay S, Bonas U (2009) How Xanthomonas type III effectors manipulate the host plant. Curr Opin Microbiol 12: 37–43[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Kvitko BH, Park DH, Velásquez AC, Wei CF, Russell AB, Martin GB, Schneider DJ, Collmer A (2009) Deletions in the repertoire of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 type III secretion effector genes reveal functional overlap among effectors. PLoS Pathog (in press)

Kvitko BH, Ramos AR, Morello JE, Oh HS, Collmer A (2007) Identification of harpins in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000, which are functionally similar to HrpK1 in promoting translocation of type III secretion system effectors. J Bacteriol 189: 8059–8072[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lee BM, Park YJ, Park DS, Kang HW, Kim JG, Song ES, Park IC, Yoon UH, Hahn JH, Koo BS, et al (2005) The genome sequence of Xanthomonas oryzae pathovar oryzae KACC10331, the bacterial blight pathogen of rice. Nucleic Acids Res 33: 577–586[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lin NC, Martin GB (2007) Pto/Prf-mediated recognition of AvrPto and AvrPtoB restricts the ability of diverse Pseudomonas syringae pathovars to infect tomato. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 20: 806–815[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Lindeberg M, Cartinhour S, Myers CR, Schechter LM, Schneider DJ, Collmer A (2006) Closing the circle on the discovery of genes encoding Hrp regulon members and type III secretion system effectors in the genomes of three model Pseudomonas syringae strains. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 19: 1151–1158[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Lindeberg M, Myers C, Collmer A, Schneider D (2008) Roadmap to new virulence determinants in Pseudomonas syringae: insights from comparative genomics and genome organization. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 685–700[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

McHale L, Tan X, Koehl P, Michelmore RW (2006) Plant NBS-LRR proteins: adaptable guards. Genome Biol 7: 212[Medline]

Melotto M, Underwood W, He SY (2008) Role of stomata in plant innate immunity and foliar bacterial diseases. Annu Rev Phytopathol 46: 101–122[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Monteiro-Vitorello CB, Camargo LE, Van Sluys MA, Kitajima JP, Truffi D, do Amaral AM, Harakava R, de Oliveira JC, Wood D, de Oliveira MC, et al (2004) The genome sequence of the gram-positive sugarcane pathogen Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17: 827–836[Web of Science][Medline]

Moreira LM, de Souza RF, Almeida NF Jr, Setubal JC, Oliveira JC, Furlan LR, Ferro JA, da Silva AC (2004) Comparative genomics analyses of citrus-associated bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42: 163–184[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Nissinen R, Lai FM, Laine MJ, Bauer PJ, Reilley AA, Li S, De Boer SH, Ishimaru CA, Metzler MC (1997) Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus elicits a hypersensitive response in tobacco and secretes hypersensitive response-inducing protein(s). Phytopathology 87: 678–684[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Oshima K, Kakizawa S, Nishigawa H, Jung HY, Wei W, Suzuki S, Arashida R, Nakata D, Miyata S, Ugaki M, et al (2004) Reductive evolution suggested from the complete genome sequence of a plant-pathogenic phytoplasma. Nat Genet 36: 27–29[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Poland JA, Balint-Kurti PJ, Wisser RJ, Pratt RC, Nelson RJ (2009) Shades of gray: the world of quantitative disease resistance. Trends Plant Sci 14: 21–29[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Poueymiro M, Cunnac S, Barberis P, Deslandes L, Peeters N, Cazale-Noel AC, Boucher C, Genin S (2009) Two type III secretion system effectors from Ralstonia solanacearum GMI1000 determine host-range specificity on tobacco. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 538–550[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Poueymiro M, Genin S (2009) Secreted proteins from Ralstonia solanacearum: a hundred tricks to kill a plant. Curr Opin Microbiol 12: 44–52[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Qian W, Jia Y, Ren SX, He YQ, Feng JX, Lu LF, Sun Q, Ying G, Tang DJ, Tang H, et al (2005) Comparative and functional genomic analyses of the pathogenicity of phytopathogen Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris. Genome Res 15: 757–767[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rosebrock TR, Zeng L, Brady JJ, Abramovitch RB, Xiao F, Martin GB (2007) A bacterial E3 ubiquitin ligase targets a host protein kinase to disrupt plant immunity. Nature 448: 370–374[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Salanoubat M, Genin S, Artiguenave F, Gouzy J, Mangenot S, Arlat M, Billault A, Brottier P, Camus JC, Cattolico L, et al (2002) Genome sequence of the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum. Nature 415: 497–502[CrossRef][Medline]

Salzberg SL, Sommer DD, Schatz MC, Phillippy AM, Rabinowicz PD, Tsuge S, Furutani A, Ochiai H, Delcher AL, Kelley D, et al (2008) Genome sequence and rapid evolution of the rice pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae PXO99A. BMC Genomics 9: 204[CrossRef][Medline]

Schubert TS, Rizvi SA, Sun X, Gottwald TR, Graham JH, Dixon WN (2001) Meeting the challenge of eradicating citrus canker in Florida—again. Plant Dis 85: 340–356[CrossRef]

Shan L, He P, Li J, Heese A, Peck SC, Nurnberger T, Martin GB, Sheen J (2008) Bacterial effectors target the common signaling partner BAK1 to disrupt multiple MAMP receptor-signaling complexes and impede plant immunity. Cell Host Microbe 4: 17–27[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Simpson AJ, Reinach FC, Arruda P, Abreu FA, Acencio M, Alvarenga R, Alves LM, Araya JE, Baia GS, Baptista CS, et al (2000) The genome sequence of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa. Nature 406: 151–157[CrossRef][Medline]

Speth EB, Lee YN, He SY (2007) Pathogen virulence factors as molecular probes of basic plant cellular functions. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10: 580–586[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Spoel SH, Johnson JS, Dong X (2007) Regulation of tradeoffs between plant defenses against pathogens with different lifestyles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 18842–18847[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Stavrinides J, McCann HC, Guttman DS (2008) Host-pathogen interplay and the evolution of bacterial effectors. Cell Microbiol 10: 285–292[Web of Science][Medline]

Thieme F, Koebnik R, Bekel T, Berger C, Boch J, Buttner D, Caldana C, Gaigalat L, Goesmann A, Kay S, et al (2005) Insights into genome plasticity and pathogenicity of the plant pathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria revealed by the complete genome sequence. J Bacteriol 187: 7254–7266[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Toth IK, Birch PR (2005) Rotting softly and stealthily. Curr Opin Plant Biol 8: 424–429[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Toth IK, Pritchard L, Birch PR (2006) Comparative genomics reveals what makes an enterobacterial plant pathogen. Annu Rev Phytopathol 44: 305–336[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Valls M, Genin S, Boucher C (2006) Integrated regulation of the type III secretion system and other virulence determinants in Ralstonia solanacearum. PLoS Pathog 2: 798–807[Web of Science]

Vinatzer BA, Yan S (2008) Mining the genomes of plant pathogenic bacteria: how not to drown in gigabases of sequence. Mol Plant Pathol 9: 105–118[Web of Science][Medline]

Vorholter FJ, Schneiker S, Goesmann A, Krause L, Bekel T, Kaiser O, Linke B, Patschkowski T, Ruckert C, Schmid J, et al (2008) The genome of Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris B100 and its use for the reconstruction of metabolic pathways involved in xanthan biosynthesis. J Biotechnol 134: 33–45[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Wei CF, Kvitko BH, Shimizu R, Crabill E, Alfano JR, Lin NC, Martin GB, Huang HC, Collmer A (2007) A Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 mutant lacking the type III effector HopQ1-1 is able to cause disease in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana. Plant J 51: 32–46[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Wood DW, Setubal JC, Kaul R, Monks DE, Kitajima JP, Okura VK, Zhou Y, Chen L, Wood GE, Almeida NF Jr, et al (2001) The genome of the natural genetic engineer Agrobacterium tumefaciens C58. Science 294: 2317–2323[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Xiang T, Zong N, Zou Y, Wu Y, Zhang J, Xing W, Li Y, Tang X, Zhu L, Chai J, et al (2008) Pseudomonas syringae effector AvrPto blocks innate immunity by targeting receptor kinases. Curr Biol 18: 74–80[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Yang Y, Yuan Q, Gabriel DW (1996) Watersoaking function(s) of XcmH1005 are redundantly encoded by members of the Xanthomonas avr/pth gene family. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 9: 105–113[Web of Science]

Zhou JM, Chai J (2008) Plant pathogenic bacterial type III effectors subdue host responses. Curr Opin Microbiol 11: 179–185[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 150/4/1623    most recent pp.109.140327v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Agricola Articles by Collmer, A. Articles by Lindeberg, M. Related Collections Plant Interactions with Bacterial Pathogens