Patent Grant
10900094
The Sequence Listing in an ASCII text file, 33716_3685_1_SEQ_Feb. 14, 2019 ST25.txt of 99 KB, created on Feb. 14, 2019, and submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office via EFS-Web, is incorporated herein by reference.
Host-pathogen co-evolution has been described for many species interactions and is the major focus of research on innate immunity in plant and animal systems. In what is commonly referred to as a co-evolutionary “arms race”, models predict adaptation and counter-adaption, whereby both host and pathogen genomes undergo complementary changes to thwart or facilitate infection, respectively (Boller, T. & He, S. Y., Science, 324, 742 (2009)). Because of the focus on co-evolved hosts and microbes, there exist few models that predict the mechanism by which exotic pathogens counter innate immune responses and infect non-coevolved host species (Anagnostakis, S. L., Mycologia, 79, 23-37 (1987)). Diseases that exemplify such interactions include Dutch elm disease, chestnut blight (Anagnostakis, S. L., Mycologia, 79, 23-37 (1987)), white pine blister rust (Kinloch, Jr. et al., Phytopathol, 93, 1044-1047 (2003)), sudden oak death (Tomlinson, I., Environ. Polit., 25, 1-20 (2015)) and Chalara dieback of ash (Harvell, C. D. et al., Science, 296, 2158-2162 (2002)). These examples highlight the catastrophic consequences of exotic diseases. In each case, most genotypes of the host species are susceptible, as these genotypes disappear; ecosystem structure and function are perturbed, resulting in declines in forest health (Cobb, R. C. et al., J. Ecol., 100, 712-722 (2012)). This is particularly problematic in an age where global trade and climate change are permanently altering species distributions, potentially resulting in new host-pathogen sympatries (Tobias, P. A. & Guest, D. I., Trends Plant Sci., 19, 367-370 (2014)).
Plant innate immune systems that combat co-evolved pathogens consist of multiple layers, including constitutive and inducible defenses that collectively function to protect against pathogens (Jones, J. D. & Dangl, J. L, Nature 444, 323-329 (2006)). In the so-called PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI), pattern recognition receptors (PRR) recognize conserved pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP) to trigger an immune response (Feau, N. et al., Can. J. Plant Pathol., 32, 122-134 (2010)). Compatible pathogens deploy an arsenal of effector proteins; collectively dampening PTI and promoting susceptibility. In a second layer of immunity, genotypes of the host can encode resistance proteins that recognize the presence or action of a corresponding effector, leading to a rapid and robust immune response called effector triggered immunity (ETI). The evolutionary interplay continues as pathogen populations remold their repertoire of effectors and host populations gain new resistance specificities. It is unclear whether this model sufficiently describes the interactions between plants and exotic, non-adapted pathogens.
Poplar trees (Populus), as foundation species within many ecosystems, occur across most of North America in native populations hundreds- to thousands-of-years old. These species are ecologically and commercially important as a result of their broad geographic distribution and potential use as a bioenergy feedstock. The primary limitation to the use of Populus for fiber, biomass, and bioenergy in central and eastern North America are the fungal diseases.
Populus is cultivated worldwide for pulp and paper, veneer, packing material, engineered wood products (e.g., oriented strand board), lumber, and has recently emerged as the preeminent fast-growing woody crop for bioenergy research. Populus can be grown on economically marginal agricultural land thereby minimizing the competition between food and fuel production.
Fungi that infect a living host, but kill host cells in order to obtain their nutrients, are called necrotrophic fungi. The family of fungi in the Sphaerulina family are pathogenic, necrotrophic fungi for many commercially important plants. For example, Sphaerulina rubi is a fungal plant pathogen infecting caneberries, Sphaerulina oryzina is a fungal plant pathogen infecting rice, Sphaerulina rehmiana is a fungal plant pathogen infecting roses, and Sphaerulina musiva (aka. Septoria musiva) is a fungal plant pathogen infecting poplar trees.
Stem canker, caused by Septoria musiva, is the most serious disease limiting intensive hybrid poplar cultures in eastern North America. Populus deltoides Marshall, the Eastern cottonwood, is known to be resistant to stem canker. S. musiva does cause leaf spots on P. deltoides, but this disease is seldom associated with serious damage. However, hybrids of P. deltoides with species in Populus section Tacamahaca are typically susceptible to stem canker. In particular, P. trichocatpa Torr. & Gray×P. deltoides F1 hybrids have proven susceptible in many locations in eastern North America. The susceptibility of P. trichocarpa itself has also been demonstrated many times in various trials where stem canker occurs.
The cankers often develop on the primary shoots of 2- to 3-year-old trees, leading to restrictions in the movement of water and nutrients and weakening the wood within a few feet of ground level. The weakened trunks collapse easily, greatly reducing the production of biomass. Cankers caused by S. musiva can greatly hamper the production of hybrid poplars in the eastern United States and Canada and threaten poplars in western North America.
Septoria musiva (S. musiva), taxonomic name: Sphaerulina musiva (teleomorph: Mycosphaerella populorum), is an ascomycete fungus responsible of a leaf spot and canker disease on poplar trees. It is native on the eastern cottonwood poplar Populus deltoides (P. deltoides), causing only a leaf spot symptom. On susceptible hybrid poplars, S. musiva causes necrotic lesions on the leaves which lead to premature defoliation, and cankers on the stem and branches which can reduce growth, predispose the tree to colonization by secondary organisms, and cause stem breakage.
A major concern with S. musiva is with migration to new areas. The pathogen is endemic and appears to have originated on poplars in eastern North America, where it occurs commonly on leaves of the eastern cottonwood, P. deltoides. During the past 20 years S. musiva has appeared in South America and western Canada, where it is spreading rapidly on native and hybrid poplars causing economic damage as well as threatening native poplars in important riparian zones. It is not yet known in Europe or Asia but has the potential to cause extensive damage if introduced to those areas. Global warming and trade may facilitate the spread of the disease by making northern popular-growing areas more favorable to growth of the fungus.
In eastern North America the fungal pathogen Sphaerulina musiva is endemic in natural stands of Populus where it has co-evolved with its host P. deltoides and causes leaf-spot disease. However, S. musiva was recently introduced to western North America (Herath, P. et al. Biol. Invasions, doi: 10.1007/s10530-015-1051-8 (2016)) and when it interacts with a non-co-evolved host, P. trichocarpa, it causes severe stem and branch cankers that often girdle the vascular tissue of the tree, leading to premature crown death and an increased risk of stem breakage. It is predicted that as a non-co-evolved host, P. trichocarpa will either: 1) lack immunity to S. musiva due to niche separation; or 2) that there will be a trade-off in immunity in terms of the ability to recognize and respond to pathogenic vs. beneficial microbes.
In one aspect, this disclosure provides a method of selecting for a plant resistant to a necrotrophic fungus comprising sequencing the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes of the plant, and determining that said plant is resistant to the necrotrophic fungi if each of the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes in said plant is substantially functional.
In some embodiments, the plant of this disclosure is selected from the group consisting of Populus, corn, soybean, rose, rice, caneberry, Salix (willow), alder, spruce, chestnut, oak, citrus, grape, eucalyptus, coffee, pine, rhododendron, birch, cucumber, tomato, betulia, clover, wheat, maize, sorghum, and blueberry. In some embodiments, the necrotropic fungus is from the Sphaerulina genus.
In some embodiments, the necrotropic fungus of this disclosure is selected from the group consisting of Sphaerulina abeliceae, Sphaerulina aceris, Sphaerulina acetabulum, Sphaerulina acori, Sphaerulina aechmeae, Sphaerulina affinis, Sphaerulina albispiculata, Sphaerulina alni, Sphaerulina amelanchier, Sphaerulina amicta, Sphaerulina amphilomatis, Sphaerulina amygdali, Sphaerulina anemones, Sphaerulina annae, Sphaerulina antarctica, Sphaerulina arctica, Sphaerulina arthoniae, Sphaerulina assurgens, Sphaerulina aucubae, Sphaerulina azaleae, Sphaerulina baccarum, Sphaerulina bambusicola, Sphaerulina berberidis, Sphaerulina betulae, Sphaerulina blyttii, Sphaerulina bonariana, Sphaerulina boudieriana, Sphaerulina bryophila, Sphaerulina callista, Sphaerulina camelliae, Sphaerulina camelliae, Sphaerulina carestiae, Sphaerulina caricae, Sphaerulina caricis, Sphaerulina ceanothi, Sphaerulina centellae, Sphaerulina cercidis, Sphaerulina cetraricola, Sphaerulina cetrariicola, Sphaerulina chlorococca, Sphaerulina cibotii, Sphaerulina citri, Sphaerulina codiicola, Sphaerulina coffaeicola, Sphaerulina coffeicola, Sphaerulina concinna, Sphaerulina conflicta, Sphaerulina coriariae, Sphaerulina cornicola, Sphaerulina corniculata, Sphaerulina coronillae-junceae, Sphaerulina corynephora, Sphaerulina cucumeris, Sphaerulina cucurbitae, Sphaerulina datiscae, Sphaerulina diapensiae, Sphaerulina dioscoreae, Sphaerulina divergens, Sphaerulina dolichotera, Sphaerulina dryadis, Sphaerulina dryophila, Sphaerulina dubiella, Sphaerulina empetri, Sphaerulina endococcoidea, Sphaerulina epigaea, Sphaerulina eucalypti, Sphaerulina ferruginosa, Sphaerulina frondicola, Sphaerulina fuegiana, Sphaerulina gei, Sphaerulina gentianae, Sphaerulina gigantea, Sphaerulina giliae, Sphaerulina hainensis, Sphaerulina halophila, Sphaerulina hamadryadum, Sphaerulina hederae, Sphaerulina helicicola, Sphaerulina hyperici, Sphaerulina inaequalis, Sphaerulina inquinans, Sphaerulina intermedia, Sphaerulina intermixta, Sphaerulina Ipomoeae, Sphaerulina islandica, Sphaerulina iwatensis, Sphaerulina juglandis, Sphaerulina leightonii, Sphaerulina lepidiotae, Sphaerulina limnanthemi, Sphaerulina lini, Sphaerulina linicola, Sphaerulina ludwigiae, Sphaerulina mappiae, Sphaerulina marattiae, Sphaerulina marginata, Sphaerulina maroccana, Sphaerulina marsileae, Sphaerulina maydis, Sphaerulina menispermi, Sphaerulina microthyrioides, Sphaerulina mimosae-pigrae, Sphaerulina miyakei, Sphaerulina musae, Sphaerulina muscicola, Sphaerulina muscorum, Sphaerulina musicola, Sphaerulina musiva, Sphaerulina myriadea, Sphaerulina myriadea subsp. myriadea, Sphaerulina myrtillina, Sphaerulina naumovii, Sphaerulina nephromiaria, Sphaerulina oleifolia, Sphaerulina orae-maris, Sphaerulina oryzae, Sphaerulina oryzina, Sphaerulina oxalidis, Sphaerulina oxyacanthae, Sphaerulina pallens, Sphaerulina parvipuncta, Sphaerulina patriniae, Sphaerulina paulistana, Sphaerulina peckii, Sphaerulina pedicellata, Sphaerulina pelargonii, Sphaerulina phalaenopsidis, Sphaerulina phellogena, Sphaerulina phoenicis, Sphaerulina phyllostachydis, Sphaerulina pini, Sphaerulina plantaginea, Sphaerulina pleuropogonis, Sphaerulina polygonorum, Sphaerulina polypodii, Sphaerulina polypodii, Sphaerulina polyspora, Sphaerulina populi, Sphaerulina populicola, Sphaerulina porothelia, Sphaerulina potebniae, Sphaerulina potentillae, Sphaerulina poterii, Sphaerulina primulicola, Sphaerulina pruni, Sphaerulina pseudovirgaureae, Sphaerulina pterocarpi, Sphaerulina pulii, Sphaerulina quercicola, Sphaerulina quercifolia, Sphaerulina quitensis, Sphaerulina rehmiana, Sphaerulina rhabdoclinis, Sphaerulina rhodeae, Sphaerulina rhododendri, Sphaerulina rhododendricola, Sphaerulina rubi, Sphaerulina saccardiana, Sphaerulina saccardoana, Sphaerulina sacchari, Sphaerulina salicina, Sphaerulina sambucina, Sphaerulina sasae, Sphaerulina schaereri, Sphaerulina scirpi, Sphaerulina sepincola, Sphaerulina serograpta, Sphaerulina silacincola, Sphaerulina smilacincola, Sphaerulina socia, Sphaerulina spartii, Sphaerulina staphyleae, Sphaerulina staurochili, Sphaerulina steganostroma, Sphaerulina subgen. Pharcidiella, Sphaerulina subgen, Sphaerulina, Sphaerulina sub glacialis, Sphaerulina subtropica, Sphaerulina suchumica, Sphaerulina tabacinae, Sphaerulina tanaceti, Sphaerulina tarda, Sphaerulina taxi, Sphaerulina taxicola, Sphaerulina thujopsidis, Sphaerulina tiliaris, Sphaerulina tirolensis, Sphaerulina todeae, Sphaerulina trapae-bispinosae, Sphaerulina trifolii, Sphaerulina tritici, Sphaerulina umbilicata, Sphaerulina valerianae, Sphaerulina viciae, Sphaerulina vincae, Sphaerulina violae, Sphaerulina vismiae, Sphaerulina vulpina, Sphaerulina westendorpii, Sphaerulina worsdellii, Sphaerulina xerophylli, Sphaerulina yerbae, Sphaerulina ziziphi, Sphaerulina zizyphae, and Sphaerulina zizyphi.
Another aspect of this disclosure provides a method of determining necrotropic fungi resistance in a plant comprising infecting the plant with a necrotropic fungus; and detecting the expression level of at least one gene selected from the group consisting of RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes before and after the infection, wherein a transient increase in the expression level of the at least one gene 24 hours after the infection indicates that the plant is resistant to the necrotropic fungus.
An additional aspect of this application provides a method of converting a necrotropic fungi-susceptible plant into a necrotropic fungi-resistant plant comprising sequencing the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes in the plant; determining the presence of a deleterious mutation in at least one of the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes; and restoring the function of the at least one of the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes comprising the deleterious mutation.
In some embodiments, the restoring of the function of the at least one of the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes is achieved by CRISPR-mediated genome editing. In some embodiments, CRISPR-mediated genome editing comprises introducing into the plant a first nucleic acid encoding a Cas9 nuclease, a second nucleic acid comprising a guide RNA (gRNA) and a third nucleic acid comprising a homologous repair template of the at least one of RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes comprising the deleterious mutation.
In some embodiments, the restoring of the function of said at least one of the RLP1, L-type lecRLK genes comprising the deleterious mutation is achieved by introducing into the plant at least one plasmid comprising a substantially functional RLP1, RLP2, or L-type lecRLK gene corresponding to the at least one mutated RLP1, RLP2, or L-type lecRLK gene. In other words, if the RLP1 gene comprises a deleterious mutation in a plant, its function is restored by introducing into the plant a plasmid comprising a substantially functional RLP1 gene. If the RLP2 gene comprises a deleterious mutation in a plant, its function is restored by introducing into the plant a plasmid comprising substantially functional RLP2 gene. If the L-type lecRLK gene comprises a deleterious mutation in a plant, its function is restored by introducing into the plant a plasmid comprising substantially functional L-type lecRLK gene.
In some embodiments, the deleterious mutation in the RLP1 gene is selected from the group consisting of the genomic mutations described Table 1.
In some embodiments, the deleterious mutation in the RLP2 gene is e group consisting of the genomic mutations described. Table 2.
In some embodiments, the deleterious mutation in the L-type lecRLK gene is selected from the group consisting of the genomic mutations described Table 3.
In some embodiments, the present method further comprises inactivating the G-type lecRLK gene in the plant.
An aspect of this disclosure provides a method of converting a necrotropic fungi-susceptible plant into a necrotropic fungi-resistant plant comprising inactivating a G-type lecRLK gene in the plant.
Another aspect of this disclosure provides a method of determining necrotropic fungi resistance in a plant comprising infecting the plant with a necrotropic fungus; and determining expression levels of one or more genes selected from the group consisting of RLP1, RLP2, L-type lecRLK, BAK1a, BAK1b, S-NPR1, WRKY40, WRKY70a and WRKY70b genes before and after the infection, wherein a transient increase in the expression level of the one or more genes around 24 hours after the infection indicates that the plant is resistant to the necrotropic fungus.
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Pathogenic fungi, especially necrotrophic fungi, infections are deleterious to plant species used for biofuels, bioproducts, food and fiber production, therefore have a significant economic impact. In order to increase plant health and product yield, there is a great need for methods of identifying susceptible plants, and also for methods to confer disease resistance to necrotrophic fungi susceptible plants. Accordingly, the present application is directed to methods of selecting necrotrophic fungi-resistant plants for growing, and methods of genetically engineering susceptible plants to make them resistant to necrotrophic fungi infections.
Pathogenic Fungi
In some embodiments, the pathogenic fungus is a necrotrophic fungus. In some embodiments said necrotrophic fungus is from genus Sphaerulina. In other embodiments, said necrotropic fungus is selected from the group consisting of Sphaerulina musiva, Sphaerulina oryzina, Sphaerulina rehmiana and Sphaerulina rubi.
In yet another embodiment, the necrotropic fungus is selected from the group consisting of Sphaerulina abeliceae, Sphaerulina aceris, Sphaerulina acetabulum, Sphaerulina acori, Sphaerulina aechmeae, Sphaerulina affinis, Sphaerulina albispiculata, Sphaerulina alni, Sphaerulina amelanchier, Sphaerulina amicta, Sphaerulina amphilomatis, Sphaerulina amygdali, Sphaerulina anemones, Sphaerulina annae, Sphaerulina antarctica, Sphaerulina arctica, Sphaerulina arthoniae, Sphaerulina assurgens, Sphaerulina aucubae, Sphaerulina azaleae, Sphaerulina baccarum, Sphaerulina bambusicola, Sphaerulina berberidis, Sphaerulina betulae, Sphaerulina blyttii, Sphaerulina bonariana, Sphaerulina boudieriana, Sphaerulina bryophila, Sphaerulina callista, Sphaerulina camelliae, Sphaerulina camelliae, Sphaerulina carestiae, Sphaerulina caricae, Sphaerulina caricis, Sphaerulina ceanothi, Sphaerulina centellae, Sphaerulina cercidis, Sphaerulina cetraricola, Sphaerulina cetrariicola, Sphaerulina chlorococca, Sphaerulina cibotii, Sphaerulina citri, Sphaerulina codiicola, Sphaerulina coffaeicola, Sphaerulina coffeicola, Sphaerulina concinna, Sphaerulina conflicta, Sphaerulina coriariae, Sphaerulina cornicola, Sphaerulina corniculata, Sphaerulina coronillae-junceae, Sphaerulina corynephora, Sphaerulina cucumeris, Sphaerulina cucurbitae, Sphaerulina datiscae, Sphaerulina diapensiae, Sphaerulina dioscoreae, Sphaerulina divergens, Sphaerulina dolichotera, Sphaerulina dryadis, Sphaerulina dryophila, Sphaerulina dubiella, Sphaerulina empetri, Sphaerulina endococcoidea, Sphaerulina epigaea, Sphaerulina eucalypti, Sphaerulina ferruginosa, Sphaerulina frondicola, Sphaerulina fuegiana, Sphaerulina gei, Sphaerulina gentianae, Sphaerulina gigantea, Sphaerulina giliae, Sphaerulina hainensis, Sphaerulina halophila, Sphaerulina hamadryadum, Sphaerulina hederae, Sphaerulina helicicola, Sphaerulina hyperici, Sphaerulina inaequalis, Sphaerulina inquinans, Sphaerulina intermedia, Sphaerulina intermixta, Sphaerulina Ipomoeae, Sphaerulina islandica, Sphaerulina iwatensis, Sphaerulina juglandis, Sphaerulina leightonii, Sphaerulina lepidiotae, Sphaerulina limnanthemi, Sphaerulina lini, Sphaerulina linicola, Sphaerulina ludwigiae, Sphaerulina mappiae, Sphaerulina marattiae, Sphaerulina marginata, Sphaerulina maroccana, Sphaerulina marsileae, Sphaerulina maydis, Sphaerulina menispermi, Sphaerulina microthyrioides, Sphaerulina mimosae-pigrae, Sphaerulina miyakei, Sphaerulina musae, Sphaerulina muscicola, Sphaerulina muscorum, Sphaerulina musicola, Sphaerulina musiva, Sphaerulina myriadea, Sphaerulina myriadea subsp. myriadea, Sphaerulina myrtillina, Sphaerulina naumovii, Sphaerulina nephromiaria, Sphaerulina oleifolia, Sphaerulina orae-maxis, Sphaerulina oryzae, Sphaerulina oryzina, Sphaerulina oxalidis, Sphaerulina oxyacanthae, Sphaerulina pallens, Sphaerulina parvipuncta, Sphaerulina patriniae, Sphaerulina paulistana, Sphaerulina peckii, Sphaerulina pedicellata, Sphaerulina pelargonii, Sphaerulina phalaenopsidis, Sphaerulina phellogena, Sphaerulina phoenicis, Sphaerulina phyllostachydis, Sphaerulina pini, Sphaerulina plantaginea, Sphaerulina pleuropogonis, Sphaerulina polygonorum, Sphaerulina polypodii, Sphaerulina polypodii, Sphaerulina polyspora, Sphaerulina populi, Sphaerulina populicola, Sphaerulina porothelia, Sphaerulina potebniae, Sphaerulina potentillae, Sphaerulina poterii, Sphaerulina primulicola, Sphaerulina pruni, Sphaerulina pseudovirgaureae, Sphaerulina pterocarpi, Sphaerulina pulii, Sphaerulina quercicola, Sphaerulina quercifolia, Sphaerulina quitensis, Sphaerulina rehmiana, Sphaerulina rhabdoclinis, Sphaerulina rhodeae, Sphaerulina rhododendri, Sphaerulina rhododendricola, Sphaerulina rubi, Sphaerulina saccardiana, Sphaerulina saccardoana, Sphaerulina sacchari, Sphaerulina salicina, Sphaerulina sambucina, Sphaerulina sasae, Sphaerulina schaereri, Sphaerulina scirpi, Sphaerulina sepincola, Sphaerulina serograpta, Sphaerulina silacincola, Sphaerulina smilacincola, Sphaerulina socia, Sphaerulina spartii, Sphaerulina staphyleae, Sphaerulina staurochili, Sphaerulina steganostroma, Sphaerulina subgen. Pharcidiella, Sphaerulina subgen, Sphaerulina, Sphaerulina sub glacialis, Sphaerulina subtropica, Sphaerulina suchumica, Sphaerulina tabacinae, Sphaerulina tanaceti, Sphaerulina tarda, Sphaerulina taxi, Sphaerulina taxicola, Sphaerulina thujopsidis, Sphaerulina tiliaris, Sphaerulina tirolensis, Sphaerulina todeae, Sphaerulina trapae-bispinosae, Sphaerulina trifolii, Sphaerulina tritici, Sphaerulina umbilicata, Sphaerulina valerianae, Sphaerulina viciae, Sphaerulina vincae, Sphaerulina violae, Sphaerulina vismiae, Sphaerulina vulpina, Sphaerulina westendorpii, Sphaerulina worsdellii, Sphaerulina xerophylli, Sphaerulina yerbae, Sphaerulina ziziphi, Sphaerulina zizyphae, and Sphaerulina zizyphi.
Plant Species
In some embodiments, the plant species of this disclosure can be selected from any plant used for producing biofuels, bioproducts, food and fiber. In another embodiment the plant is selected from the group consisting of Populus, corn, soybean, rose, rice, caneberry, Salix (willow), alder, spruce, chestnut, oak, citrus, grape, eucalyptus, coffee, pine, rhododendron, birch, cucumber, tomato, betulia, clover, wheat, maize, sorghum, and blueberry.
“A resistant plant” refers to a plant that exhibits no symptoms or insignificant symptoms in response to a pathogenic fungal infection.
“A susceptible plant” refers to a plant that exhibits symptoms of infection in response to a pathogenic fungal infection. Symptoms of infection include, hut are not limited to, necrotic lesions on the leaves which lead to premature defoliation, and cankers on the stem and branches which can reduce growth, predispose the tree to colonization by secondary organisms, and cause stem breakage.
Resistance Genes
The present inventors investigated susceptible and resistant Populus plants to find genotypes that are associated with plant resistance to necrotrophic fungi infection. The inventors discovered that RLP1 (Potri.005G012100), RLP2 (Potri.003G028200), and L-type lecRLK (Potri.009G036300) genes were all substantially functional in nectrotrophic fungi-resistant Populus plants. The inventors also discovered that a deleterious mutation in any one of these three genes rendered a plant susceptible. The inventors also discovered that a substantially functional copy of G-type lecRLK (Potri.005G018000) is associated with disease susceptibility.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional RLP1 gene (Potri.005G012100) has the wild type genomic nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 1, and encodes a protein with the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 2.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional RLP2 gene (Potri.003G028200) has the wild type genomic nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 3, and encodes a protein with the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 4.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional L-type lecRLK (Potri.009G036300) gene has the wild type genomic nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 5, and encodes a protein with the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 6.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional G-type lecRLK gene (Potri.005G018000) has the wild type genomic nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 7, and encodes a protein with the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 8.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional RLP1 gene has a nucleotide sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 1, and encodes a protein that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 2.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional RLP2 gene has a nucleotide sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 3, and encodes a protein that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 4.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional L-type lecRLK gene has a nucleotide sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 5, and encodes a protein that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 6.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional G-type lecRLK gene has a nucleotide sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type nucleotide sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 7, and encodes a protein that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identical to the wild type amino acid sequence as defined by SEQ ID NO: 8.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional gene lacks deleterious mutations including, but not limited to, early termination codons, frameshift mutations, inversions, deletions and non-conservative mutations which result in an amino acid change that has different properties than the wild type.
In some embodiments, a substantially functional gene retains all domains that are believed to be critical for functionality intact. For example, for the RLP1 and RLP2 genes, some of the critical domains are Leucine-rich Repeat (LRR) domains, plant specific Leucine-rich Repeat (LRR) domains and the signal peptide. On the other hand, for the L-type lectin receptor-like kinase (L-type lecRLK) gene, some of the critical domains are Protein Kinase domain, transmembrane domain, Legume lectin domain and the signal peptide. For the G-type lectin receptor-like kinase (G-type lecRLK) gene, some of the critical domains are Protein Kinase domain, PAN domain, S-locus glycoprotein domain, Bulb lectin domain and the signal peptide. The boundaries of the functional domains of RLP1 (Potri.005G012100), RLP2 (Potri.003G028200), L-type lecRLK (Potri.009G0363001) and G-type lecRLK (Potri.005G018000) genes are disclosed in
In some embodiments, for the RLP1 and RLP2 genes, a mutation in the extracellular domain, which comprises the Leucine-rich Repeat (LRR) domains, plant specific Leucine-rich Repeat (LRR) domains and the signal peptide, is believed to be deleterious to functionality.
In some embodiments, for the L-type lectin receptor-like kinase (L-type lecRLK) gene, a mutation in the protein kinase domain is believed to be deleterious to functionality.
In some embodiments, for the G-type lectin receptor-like kinase (G-type lecRLK) gene, a mutation in the protein kinase domain or in the Bulb lectin domain is believed to be deleterious to functionality.
In some embodiments, for the RLP1 gene, a functionally deleterious mutation is selected from the mutations listed in Table 1.
In some embodiments, for the RLP2 gene, a functionally deleterious mutation is selected from the mutations listed in Table 2.
In some embodiments, for the L-type lecRLK gene, a functionally deleterious mutation is selected from the mutations listed in Table 3.
In some embodiments, for the G-type lecRLK gene, a functionally deleterious mutation is selected from the mutations listed in Table 4.
In one embodiment, in order to determine whether a plant is resistant to a necrotrophic fungus that can infect said plant, RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes of said plant are sequenced and it is determined that said plant is resistant to necrotrophic fungus infection if all of the RLP1, RLP2, L-type lecRLK genes are substantially functional.
Infection of Plants
In some embodiments, plants are infected with pathogenic fungi. Inoculation with pathogenic fungi is carried out as described in LeBoldus et al. (Plant Dis., (2010), 94, 1238-1242 (2010)). Briefly, plants are grown until a minimum height of 30 cm (e.g., approximately 54 days after planting for Populus). Pathogenic fungi are grown on plates (petri dishes) containing KV-8 growth media amended with chloramphenicol at 300 mg/liter and streptomycin sulfate at 25 mg/liter. These dishes are then sealed with Parafilm and placed on a light bench under Gro-Lux wide-spectrum fluorescent bulbs (Sylvania; Osram GmbH, Munich) at room temperature, where they receive 24 hours of light. Pure colonies are obtained by making transfers to K-V8 medium and allowing the fungi to grow until sporulation occurs. Isolates are stored at −90° C. in vials containing 300 μl of 50% glycerol and 700 μl of potato dextrose broth (PDB; Difco laboratories)
On the day of infection, approximately 1 ml of deionized water is added to a plate of grown fungi. An inoculation loop is rubbed on the plate surface to dislodge the spores and the spore suspension is collected with a pipette. The spore suspension (infection solution) to be applied to plants comprise between 1×104 and 5×106 spores conidia)/liter. In a specific embodiment the spore suspension (infection solution) comprises 1×106 spores (conidia)/liter. Plants are sprayed with the spore suspension until the entire leaf and stem are wet, and placed into a black plastic bag for 48 hours, Following incubation plants are placed on the greenhouse bench for 3 weeks.
In a specific embodiment, in order to determine whether a plant is resistant to a neurotrophic fungus, said plant is infected with the necrotrophic fungus as described above; and gene expression levels of one or more of RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes are measured at least at 0, 24 and 72 hours after infection. In some embodiments, measurements can be made every 8, 12 or 24 hours. If expression levels of one or more of the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes transiently increase and peak around the 24 hour time point after infection in said plant (similar to shown in
In yet another embodiment, in order to determine whether a plant is resistant to a necrotrophic fungus, said plant is infected with the necrotrophic fungus and gene expression levels of one or more of BAK1a, BAK1b, S-NPR1, WRKY40, WRKY70a and WRKY70b genes are measured at 0, 24 and 72 hours after infection. In some embodiments, measurements can be made every 8, 12 or 24 hours. If expression levels of one or more of the BAK1a, BAK1b, S-NPR1, WRKY40, WRKY70a or WRKY70b genes transiently increase and peak at about the 24 hour time point after infection in said plant as shown in
Gene expression changes can be measured with methods including, but not limited to, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), Real-time RT-PCR, Western Blotting, Northern Blotting, in-situ hybridization and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq).
Methods of Using Resistant Plants
In some embodiments, plants that are resistant to necrotropic fungi are used in producing lignocellulosic products. The term “lignocellulosic” refers to a composition containing both lignin and cellulose. In a specific embodiment, the lignocellulosic products include, but are not limited to, paper and pulp.
In some embodiments, plants that are resistant to necrotropic fungi are used for producing food.
In some embodiments, plants that are resistant to necrotropic fungi are used for producing biofuels.
Converting a Necrotropic Fungi-Susceptible Plant into a Necrotropic Fungi-Resistant Plant
In some embodiments, a necrotropic fungi-susceptible plant is converted into a necrotropic fungi-resistant plant. Briefly, the RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes are sequenced and if there is a deleterious mutation in one or more of these genes, then the plant can be converted into a necrotropic fungi-resistant plant by restoring the function of said one or more mutated genes in the plant.
Targeted genome engineering (also known as genome editing) has emerged as an alternative to classical plant breeding and transgenic (Genetically Modified Organism—GMO) methods to improve crop plants. Available methods for introducing site-specific double strand DNA breaks include zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), TAL effector nucleases (TALENs) and CRISPR/Cas system. ZFNs are reviewed in Carroll, D. (Genetics, 188.4 (2011): 773-782), and TALENs are reviewed in Zhang et al, (Plant Physiology, 161.1 (2013): 20-27), which are incorporated herein in their entirety.
CRISPR/Cas system is a method based on the bacterial type II CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas (CRISPR-associated) immune system. The CRISPR/Cas system allows targeted cleavage of genomic DNA guided by a customizable small noncoding RNA, resulting in gene modifications by both non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR) mechanisms. Belhaj et al. (Plant Methods, 2013, 9:39) summarizes and discusses applications of the CRISPR-Cas technology in plants and is incorporated herein in its entirety.
In some embodiments, restoring function to a mutated gene is achieved by genome editing technologies. In a specific embodiment genome editing is achieved by CRISPR (Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas technology. CRISPR-Cas and similar gene targeting systems are well known in the art, with reagents and protocols readily available. Exemplary genome editing protocols are described in Jennifer Doudna, and Prashant Mali “CRISPR-Cas: A Laboratory Manual” (2016) (CSHL Press, ISBN: 978-1-621821-30-4) and Ran, F. Ann, et al. (Nature Protocols (2013), 8 (11): 2281-2308).
In a specific embodiment, CRISPR-mediated gene repair comprises introducing said plant a first nucleic acid encoding a wild type Cas9 nuclease, a second nucleic acid comprising a guide RNA (gRNA) specific for targeting the mutated genomic region and a third nucleic acid comprising a homologous repair template (aka. Homology Directed Repair—HDR template) of said RLP1, RLP2, L-type lecRLK genes with said deleterious mutation. In this embodiment, the specific guide RNA targets the Cas9 nuclease to the mutated genomic region and the Cas9 nuclease introduces a double strand break in the targeted DNA region. In the presence of the homology template which contains a substantially functional copy of the mutated genomic region (with the deleterious mutation corrected), DNA repair mechanism favors Homology Directed Repair (HDR) and the mutation in the targeted gene is corrected.
In another specific embodiment, CRISPR-mediated gene repair comprises introducing said plant a first nucleic acid encoding a mutated Cas9 nuclease, wherein said mutated Cas9 nuclease can only introduce single strand nicks to the genome, a second nucleic acid comprising a guide RNA (gRNA) specific for targeting the mutated genomic region, a third nucleic acid comprising a guide RNA (gRNA) specific for targeting the mutated genomic region in the reverse complement strand and a third nucleic acid comprising a homologous repair template (HDR template) of said RLP1, RLP2, L-type lecRLK genes with said deleterious mutation. In this embodiment, one of the specific guide RNAs targets the mutated Cas9 nuclease to one strand of the mutated genomic region and the mutated Cas9 nuclease introduces a single strand nick in the targeted. DNA region. The second specific guide RNA is designed to target the mutated Cas9 nuclease to the opposite strand of the mutated genomic region, and the mutated Cas9 nuclease introduces a single strand nick in the targeted DNA region in the opposite strand as well. The two single nicks on opposite strands effectively cause a double strand break in the targeted region. In the presence of the homology template which contains a substantially functional copy of the mutated genomic region (with the deleterious mutation corrected), DNA repair mechanism favors Homology Directed Repair (HDR) and the mutation in the targeted gene is corrected.
In some embodiments, restoration of mutated gene function in one or more of RLP1, RLP2, and L-type lecRLK genes is achieved by introduction of a substantially functional RLP1, RLP2, or L-type lecRLK gene corresponding to the mutated gene by plasmid delivery. Plasmid delivery methods comprise agrobacterium-mediated transformation, viral based transformation, particle bombardment/biolistics electro-transfection, delivery by silicon carbide fibers, polymer-based transfection (polyfection), liposome-mediated transfection (lipofection), micro injection, wave and beam mediated transformation and desiccation based transformation. Methods of plasmid (DNA) delivery to produce transgenic plants are described in Behrooz D. al. (Biotechnology, (2008), 7: 385-402).
In some embodiments, inactivation of the G-type lecRLK gene confers resistance to neurotrophic fungi in a susceptible plant. In specific embodiments, the inactivation of the G-type lecRLK gene includes a deletion of the whole or a part of the gene such that no functional protein product is expressed (also known as gene knock out). The inactivation of a gene may include a deletion of the promoter or the coding region, in whole or in part, such that no functional protein product is expressed. In other embodiments, the inactivation of G-type lecRLK includes introducing an inactivating mutation to the gene, such as an early STOP codon in the coding sequence of the gene, such that no functional protein product is expressed.
In some embodiments, gene inactivation is achieved using available gene targeting technologies in the art. Examples of gene targeting technologies include the Cre/Lox system (described in Kühn, R., & M. Torres, R., Transgenesis Techniques: Principles and Protocols, (2002), 175-204), homologous recombination (described in Capecchi, Mario R., Science (1989), 244: 1288-1292), and TALENs (described in Sommer et al., Chromosome Research (2015), 23: 43-55, and Cermak et al. Nucleic Acids Research (2011): gkr218).
In one embodiment, G-type lecRLK inactivation is achieved by a CRISPR/Cas system. CRISPR-Cas and similar gene targeting systems are well known in the art with reagents and protocols readily available. Exemplary genome editing protocols are described in Jennifer Doudna, and Prashant Mali, “CRISPR-Cas: A Laboratory Manual” (2016) (CSHL Press, ISBN: 978-1-621821-30-4) and Ran, F. Ann, et al. Nature Protocols (2013), 8 (11): 2281-2308.
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one skilled in the art to which this invention belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can also be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, the preferred methods and materials are now described. All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by reference to disclose and describe the methods and/or materials in connection with which the publications are cited.
The present description is further illustrated by the following examples, which should not be construed as limiting in any way.
Materials and Methods:
Plant Material
Plant material from 1,081 Populus trichocarpa (Torr & Gray) genotypes, originally collected from wild populations in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, were planted in a stool bed at the Oregon State University Research Farm in Corvallis, Oreg. (Slavov et al., New Phytol; 196(3):71.3-25 (2012)). During January 2014 dormant branch cuttings were collected and sent to the North Dakota State University's Agricultural experiment station research greenhouse complex in Fargo, N.Dak. For each genotype, branches were cut into 10 cuttings, measuring 10 cm in length, with at least one bud. Cuttings were soaked in distilled water for 48 h, planted in cone-tainers (Ray Leach SC10 Super Cone-tainers, Stuewe and Sons, Inc. Tangent, Ore., USA) measuring 3.8-cm in diameter and 21-cm deep filled with growing medium (SunGro Professional Mix #8; SunGro Horticulture Ltd., Agawam, Mass.) amended with 12 g of Nutricote slow release fertilizer (15-9-12) (N-P-K) (7.0% NH3N, 8.0% NO3—N, 9.0% P2O5, 12.0% K2O, 1.0% Mg, 2.3% S, 0.02% B, 0.05% Cu, 0.45% Fe, 0.23% chelated Fe, 0.06% Mn, 0.02% Mo, 0.05% Zn; Scotts Osmocote Plus; Scotts Company Ltd., Marysville, Ohio). The cuttings were planted such that the upper most bud remained above the surface of the growing medium. Plants were grown in a greenhouse with a temperature regime of 20° C./16° C. (day/night) and an 18-h photoperiod supplemented with 600 W high-pressure sodium lamps. Slow release fertilizer was added weekly with 15-30-15 (N-P-K) Jack's fertilizer (JR PETERS INC; Allentown, Pa.) at 200 ppm for two months to promote root growth and subsequently fertilized with 20-20-20 (N-P-K) liquid fertilizer (Scotts Peters Professional; Scotts Company Ltd., Marysville, Ohio) once a week. Plants were watered as needed.
Pathogen Culture
Three isolates of Sphaerulina musiva (MN-12, MN-14, MN-20) collected in Minnesota, were chosen for inoculation and transferred from storage (−80° C.) onto K-V8 (180 ml of V8 juice [Campbell Soup Company, Camden, N.J.]; 2 g of calcium carbonate, 20 g of agar, and 820 ml of deionized water) growing media, sealed with Parafilm (Structure Probe Inc., West Chester, Pa.) and placed on a light bench under full-spectrum fluorescent bulbs (Sylvania; Osram Gmbh, Munich) at room temperature until sporulation was observed. Following sporulation, five 5-mm plugs were transferred onto another K-V8 plate for 14 days under continuous light. There were a total of total of 200 plates for each isolate.
Inoculation
Plants were inoculated when they reached a minimum height of 30 cm (−54 days after planting). Plates containing isolates were unsealed and 1 mL of deionized water was added to the plate. Rubbing the media surface with an inoculation loop dislodged the spores and the spore suspension was collected with a pipette. The spore suspensions were individually bulked from the three isolates at a concentration of 106 spores mL−1 for each isolate. Plants were taken out of the greenhouse and there heights were measured prior to inoculation, sprayed with a HVLP gravity fed air spray gun (Central Pneumatic, Harbor Freight Tools) at 20 psi until the entire leaf and stem was wet (15 ml), and placed into a black plastic bag for 48 hours. Following incubation plants were placed on the greenhouse bench for 3 weeks.
Phenotyping
At three weeks post-inoculation phenotypic responses were characterized by measuring the height and caliper of each tree. Subsequently, the number of cankers was counted and digital images were acquired. This information was analyzed providing a range of phenotypes: (i) number of cankers; (ii) number of cankers per cm; and (iii) disease severity based on digital imagery. In total 280 person hours were expended to collect the phenotypic data for the genome-wide association study.
GWAS Analysis
To assess genetic control, the emmax algorithm was used with kinship as the correction factor for genetic background effects (Lorang, J. et al. Tricking the guard: Exploiting plant defense for disease susceptibility. Science 338, 659-662 (2012)) to compute genotype to phenotype associations using 8.2 million SNP variants with minor allele frequencies >0.05 identified from whole-genome resequencing (Slavov, G. T. et al., New Phytol, 196, 713-725 (2012)). A number of loci highly associated with Sphaerulina response were identified (i.e. susceptibility/resistance loci) (Table 5).
RNAseq Experiment
The resistant genotype BESC-22 and the susceptible genotype BESC-801 were selected based on the results from the GWAS described above. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three blocks. Each plant by time point combination occurred once per block.
Inoculum was prepared in an identical manner to that described above. However, in order to ensure that only tissue exposed to the fungal pathogen was used for transcriptome sequencing, position-based inoculations at the lenticels rather than whole-tree inoculations were conducted. A total of three lenticels on each plant were inoculated with a 5 mm plug of sporulating mycelium wrapped in parafilm. At the time of sample collection tissue from all three lenticels was sampled, placed in a single extraction tube, and flash frozen.
Approximately 100 mg of symptomatic tissue from each inoculation point was harvested, placed in a MP Biomedicals® Lysing Matrix tube and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. The frozen samples were placed in a BeadBeater homogenizer and ground to a fine powder. The mRNA from each sample was enriched for using the Dynabeads mRNA DIRECT Kit, following the manufacturer's protocol with the additional steps of adding Ambion Plant Isolation Aid to the lysis buffer as well as a chloroform cleanup step after centrifuging the lysate.
Stranded RNA Seq library(s) were generated and quantified using qPCR. Sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 (150mer paired end sequencing). Raw fastq file reads were filtered and trimmed using the JGI QC pipeline. Using BBDuk, raw reads were evaluated for sequence artifacts by kmer matching (kmer=25) allowing 1 mismatch, and detected artifacts were trimmed from the 3′ end of the reads. RNA spike-in reads, PhiX reads and reads containing any Ns were removed. Quality trimming was performed using the phred trimming method set at Q6. Following trimming, reads under the length threshold were removed (minimum length 25 bases or ⅓ of the original read length; whichever was longer). Raw reads from each library were aligned to the reference genome using TopHat. Only reads that mapped uniquely to one locus were counted. FeatureCounts was used to generate raw gene counts. Raw gene counts were used to evaluate the level of correlation between biological replicates, using Pearson's correlation to identify which replicates would be used in the DGE analysis. DESeq2 (v1.2.10) (Cingolani P et al., Fly (Austin), 6: 80-92 (2012)) was subsequently used to determine which genes were differentially expressed between pairs of conditions. The parameters used to “call a gene” between conditions was determined at a p-value ≤0.05.
RNASeq differential expression analysis for Sphaerulina was performed using the Tuxedo suite pipeline. Illumina short paired reads were trimmed for quality, using Sickle (Trapnell et al., Nat Protoc. 7, 562-578 (2012)) set with a minimum quality score cutoff of 30 and a minimum read length of 100 bp. Using TopHat v2.1.0 and Bowtie2 v2.2.3, trimmed reads for each sample replicate were aligned to combined assembly contigs from Sphaerulina musiva strain SO2202 (GenBank accession: GCA_000320565.2) and Populus trichocarpa (GenBank accession: GCF_000002775.3). Reads were mapped with settings “-r 0 -i 36 -I 1000 -p 4” and “-G” with combined gene annotations from the S. musiva and P. trichocarpa reference genomes. Sphaerulina musiva contigs and mapped reads were extracted using Samtools v0.1.1.8. Transcript isoforms for each of the sample replicates were individually assembled and quantified using Cufflinks v2.2.1 (Cingolani P et al., Fly (Austin), 6: 80-92 (2012)) guided by the S. musiva reference genome and gene annotations. Transcripts assembled from each alignment were merged using Cuffmerge (Cingolani P et al., Fly (Austin), 6: 80-92 2012)).
Differential gene expression analysis was performed using Cuffdiff (Cingolani P et al., Fly (Austin), 6: 80-92 (2012)). Time-series comparisons were performed for resistant interaction between BESC-22 and S. musiva (24-h and 72-h post-inoculation) and the susceptible interaction with BESC-801 and S. musiva (24 h and 72 h), with three replicates per time point. These analyses excluded time point 0 due to low sequencing depth for Sphaerulina. Differential expression analyses were also performed comparing gene expression at time points 24 h and 72 h between the resistant and susceptible interactions.
Generation of Constructs for Protein Expression
The predicted lectin domains of G-type lecRLK and L-type lecRLK were cloned (23). Briefly, to create Gateway entry clones truncated coding regions of G-type lecRLK (Amino Acids 36-192) and L-type lecRLK (Amino Acids 30-281) were amplified from P. trichocarpa cDNA using the following gene specific primer pairs: G-RLK1-36F, 5′-AACTTGACTTICAAGGCCAGTCTCTCTCTGCAAGC-3′ (SEQ ID NO:21)/G-RLK1-192R, 5′-ACAAGAAAGCTGGGTCCTAACCTGGTGCAGGATCTT-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 22) and L-RLK2-30F, 5′-AACTTGACITTCAAGGCCACTTCATCTATCATGG-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 23)/L-RLK2-281, 5′-ACAAGAAAGCTGGGTCCTAAGGCAACTTTGACACATC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 24). The control protein was a non-catalytic peptide fragment of Arabidopsis ESK1 (Amino Acids 44-133), and was amplified from Arabidopsis cDNA using the following gene specific primer pairs: ESK1-44F, 5′-AACTTGACTTTCAAGGCGTGGAATTGCCGCCG-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 25)/ESK1133R, 5′-ACAAGAAAGCTGGGTCCTACGAACGGGAAATGATAC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 26). Italicized sequences indicate the partial attB adapter sequences appended to the primers for the first round of PCR amplification, and the bold sequences denote the inserted STOP codon. A second set of universal primers, attB_Adapter-F, 5′-GGGGACAAGTTTGTACAAAAAAGCAGGCTCTGAAAACTTGIACTTTCAAGGC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 27)/attB_Adapter-R, 5′-GGGGACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTCGGGTC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 28) was used to complete the attB recombination site and append a tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease cleavage site (Meng L, et al. (2013), J. Biol. Chem., 288:34680-34698). The attB-PCR product was cloned into pDONR221 (Life technologies) using Gateway BP Clonase II Enzyme Mix (life technologies) to create entry clones. To generate expression clones of G-type lecRLK (pGEn2-EXP-G-type lecRLK36-192) and L-type lecRLK (pGEn2-EXP-L-type lecRLK30-281), the entry clones were recombined into a Gateway-adapted version of the pGEn2 mammalian expression vector (pGEn2-REST) (Gilbert H J. et al, (2013), Curr. Opi., Struct. Biol. 23:669-677), using Gateway LR Clonase II Enzyme Mix (Life Technologies). The resulting expression constructs (His-GFP-G-type lecRLKΔ36-192 and His-GFP-L-type lecRLKΔ30-281) encode fusion proteins comprised of an amino-terminal signal sequence, an 8×His tag, an AviTag recognition site, the “superfolder” GFP (sfGFP) coding region, the recognition sequence of the tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease, and the indicated lectin domains. For transfection, plasmids were purified using the PureLink HiPure Plasmid Filter Maxiprep Kit (Life Technologies).
Expression and Purification of His-GFP-G-type lecRLK36-192 and His-GFP-L-type lecRLK30-281
Recombinant expression was performed by transient transfection of suspension culture HEK293-F cells (FreeStyle™ 293-F cells, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham Mass.) in a humidified CO2 platform shaker incubator at 37° C. with 80% humidity. The HEK293-F cells were maintained in Freestyle™ 293 expression medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.) and transfection with plasmid DNA using polyethyleneimine as transfection reagent (linear 25-kDa polyethyleneimine, Polysciences, Inc., Warrington, Pa.) was performed as previously described (Zhang Y, et al. (2010), Plant Cell, 22:3153-316, Urbanowicz B R et al., Plant J. 80:197-206). After 24 h, the cell cultures were diluted 1:1 with fresh media supplemented with valproic acid (2.2 mM final concentration) and protein production was continued for an additional 4-5 days at 37° C. The cell culture was harvested, clarified by sequential centrifugation at 1200 rpm for 10 min and 3500 rpm for 20 min, and passed through a 0.45 μM filter (Millipore, Billerica, Mass.).
All chromatography experiments were carried out on an ÄKTA FPLC System (GE Healthcare). The medium was adjusted to contain HEPES (50 mM, pH 7.2), sodium chloride (400 mM), and imidazole (20 mM) prior to column loading. Small scale purification of His8-GFP tagged enzymes secreted into the culture medium by HEK293 cells was performed using HisTrap HP columns (GE Healthcare). To eliminate the possibility of protein contamination, purification of each enzyme was carried out on individual 1 ml HisTrap HP column. Prior to use, a blank run was performed on each new column to remove any weakly bound Ni2+ ions. Adjusted medium was loaded onto HisTrap HP columns (GE Healthcare) equilibrated with Buffer A (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.2, 0.4 M sodium chloride, and 20 mM imidazole). The columns were washed and eluted with a step gradient, consisting of five CV per condition of Buffer A to Buffer B (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.2, 0.4 M sodium chloride, and 500 mM imidazole). These consisted of three sequential wash steps of 0%, 10%, and 20% Buffer B, followed by two elution steps of 60% and 100% Buffer B. Fractions containing GFP fluorescence (60% Buffer B elution) were collected and pooled. Protein purity was assessed by SDS-Page. Purified His-GFP-G-type lecRLK36-192 and His-GFP-L-type lecRLK30-281 were concentrated to approximately 1.5 mg/ml using a 30-kDa molecular weight cut-off Amicon Ultra centrifugal filter device (Merck Millipore) and dialyzed (3500 MWCO) into binding buffer without divalent metals (75 mM HEPES-HCl, pH 6.8; 150 NaCl) in the presence of CI ELEX® 100 Molecular Biology Grade Resin (1 g L-1 Bio-Rad, USA) (CHELEX® 100 Resin chelates polyvalent metal ions, with a selectivity for divalent over monovalent ions of approximately 5,000 to 1. The resin avidly binds divalent cations such as Mg2+, inactivating DNases and other enzymes, as well as binding other compounds that can interfere with enzyme-based applications such as PCR and ligation. Due to the high selectivity for divalent over monovalent ions, CHELEX® 100 Molecular Biology Grade Resin can be used for DNA purification from samples with high levels of salts) and used directly for binding experiments. Protein concentrations were determined with the Pierce BCA. Protein Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) and BSA standards.
Growth of Sphaerulina musiva in Liquid Culture
Sporulating 1-week old S. musiva cultures growing on solid K-V8 medium (V8 juice 180 ml/l, CaCO3 2 g/l, agar 2% v/v) were rinsed with 1 ml of sterile double distilled water, and the conidia were dislodged with an inoculating loop. For the inoculation of the liquid cultures, 200 μl aliquots of the spore suspensions were pipetted into 100 ml of liquid K-V8 medium in 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks. The cultures were incubated at ambient temperature in darkness for five days. During the incubation, the cultures were constantly agitated at 150 rpm with an orbital platform shaker (Innova 2100, New Brunswick). To harvest the mycelium, the cultures were filtered with Miracloth. The harvested mycelium was rinsed with 50 ml of double distilled water and squeezed dry by pressing the mycelium inside the Miracloth between stacks of paper towels. Finally, 50 mg mycelium samples were collected and lyophilized for lectin binding assays.
Analysis of Lectin Binding to Sphaerulina musiva Cell Walls
In order to evaluate the ability of recombinant plant lectins to bind to S. musiva, cell walls from cultured fungi were sequentially extracted with cold-water, hot-water, and aqueous KOH (32), with minor modifications. Briefly, freeze dried fungal mycelium was resuspended in cold water (100 ml/g) containing sodium azide (0.02%) and extensively homogenized using a polytron homogenizer (Brinkmann Instruments, USA) in a cold room at 4° C. The homogenate was centrifuged (10,000 rpm, 15 min) and the pellet was washed extensively with cold water. The debris containing the cell walls was resuspended in hot water containing sodium azide (0.02%), homogenized again, and incubated at 60° C. overnight in a shaking incubator (250 rpm). The pellets were collected again by centrifugation and treated with hot water for 1 hr and centrifuged again. This was repeated another two times. The washed pellets were resuspended in 1 M KOH containing sodium borohydride (1%) and incubated overnight at 30° C. Next, residues were pelleted again and washed extensively with water. A portion of the hot water and KOH insoluble S. musiva cell walls were collected, washed extensively with acetone, and air dried under vacuum.
Lectin binding assays were carried out based on the methods of Lim et al. L et al, (1994), Biochem. Biophys. Res. Com. 202:1674-1680) with minor modifications. Microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel PH-101, SigmaAldrich, St. Louis, Mo.) was used as a control substrate for all binding assays. For lectin pull down assays, 2 mgs of each dry substrate were carefully weighed into tubes. Then 250 pi of protein (50 ug ml−1) in lectin binding buffer (75 mM HEPES-HCl pH 6.8; 150 mM NaCl; 5 mM MnCl2, 5 mM CaCl2, 1 mg ml-1 BSA) was added, and samples were incubated for 2 h at room temperature with end over end rotation. Samples were centrifuged (12,000 rpm, 5 min), and 100 μl of the supernatants containing the unbound proteins were assayed for GFP fluorescence (Ex 415, Em 550). The percent of bound enzyme was calculated by the depletion method (Chundawat S P, et al. (2011), J. Am. Chem. Soc., 133:11163-11174).
In vivo Overexpression of L-Type lecRLK and G-Type lecRLK in Populus Protoplasts
Protoplast transfection: Protoplasts from P. tremulaxP. alba clone INRA 717-1-B4 were 409 isolated and subsequently transfected, as previously described (Guo J, et al. (2012), PLoS One, 7:e44908). For overexpression, 10 μg of L-type lecRLK constructs with a 35S promoter and vector control were transfected into 100 μl of protoplasts. After 12 h incubation, protoplasts were collected by a 2 min centrifugation at 2,000×g and frozen in liquid nitrogen for the qRT-PCR experiment.
Generation of Transgenic Populus Hairy Roots
To generate binary vectors of G-type lecRLK for hairy roots transformation, the cDNA sequence was first cloned into pENTR/D TOPO vectors and then into the pGWB402omega binary vector by LR recombination reaction. The binary vector was transformed into A. rhizogenes strain ARqua1 by electroporation, and hairy roots were generated by transforming P. tremulaxP. alba clone INRA 717-1-B4 with A. rhizogenes (Yoshida K. et al., (2015), Plant physiol., 167:693-710). Hairy root cultures were inoculated with S. musiva in a similar manner to that described above. Briefly, each plate was sprayed with a suspension of 1×106 spores ml-1 of S. musiva isolate MN-14. The mock-inoculated roots were sprayed with sterile distilled water. After a 24 h incubation period samples were flash frozen in liquid nitrogen for RNA extraction and the qRT-PCR experiment.
RNA Extract and qRT-PCR
RNA was extracted from protoplasts and hairy roots samples using Plant RNA extraction kit (Sigma, St Louis, Mo.). cDNA synthesis was performed using DNAse free total RNA (1.5 μg), oligo dT primers and RevertAid Reverse Transcriptase (Thermofisher). Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed using 3 ng cDNA, 250 nM gene specific primers and iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (Bio Rad). Gene expression was calculated by 2-ddCt method using UBQ10b as internal control.
In a replicated greenhouse experiment 3,404 plants, from a population of 1,081 unrelated trichocarpa genotypes, were characterized for post-inoculation phenotypic responses to S. musiva. Phenotypes were correlated to 8.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertion/deletions (indels). This process allowed identification of 82 candidate genes encompassing 113 polymorphisms within 5 months of planting the trees (Table 5). Notably, four of the most significant associations were to genes predicted to encode proteins with domains common to pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), including two paralogous leucine-rich receptor-like proteins (RLPs) [Potri.005G012100, p-value=1.56E-38; Potri.003G028200, p-value=2.78E-14], an L-type lectin receptor-like kinase (L-type lecRLK) [Potri.009G036300, p-value=2.115E-16] and a G-type lectin receptor-like kinase (G-type lecRLK) [Potri.005G018000, p-value=1.161E-13], See
The two RLPs are predicted to contain an extracellular leucine-rich repeat domain, a transmembrane domain, and a short cytoplasmic tail, but lack a kinase domain. The two RLKs contain predicted extracellular domains and intercellular kinase domains. RLPs have been shown to interact with RLKs to perceive a ligand signal and trigger protein phosphorylation cascades (Liebrand et al., PNAS, 110, 10010-10015 (2013)). A similar protein-protein interaction has been described for resistance to both Cladosporium fulvum and Verticillium dahlia, where two RLPs, (Cf-4 or Ve1) interact with an RLK, (SOBIR1/EVR) in tomato to mediate resistance to C. fulvum and V. dahlia, respectively (Duplessis et al., Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 24, 808-818 (2011)). The absence of kinase domains from the candidate RLPs of P. trichocarpa is indicative of the proteins forming a complex with the L-type lecRLK in a similar manner. It is postulated that resistant P. trichocarpa genotypes perceive an S. musiva ligand, resulting in resistance.
Transcriptome changes of resistant (BESC-22) and susceptible (BESC-801) genotypes were compared at 0-, 24-, and 72-h post-inoculation (hpi) with S. musiva. Transcriptional changes within (different time points) and between genotypes (same time points) were analyzed. In total 4,872 genes were differentially expressed between the 0- and 72-hpi in the resistant compared to 79 in the susceptible genotype. PFAM domain-enrichment analysis revealed major protein families associated with innate immunity responses, with >2× up-regulation in the resistant genotype and no response in the susceptible genotype. Interestingly, these results are inconsistent with previous observations on co-evolved pathosystems, which suggested that resistant and susceptible responses share similar sets of differentially expressed genes that vary only in timing and amplitude of expression (Chen, W. et al., Plant J., 46, 794-804 (2000).
A specific examination of transcriptional responses of the candidate genes in the resistant genotype, the two RLPs and the L-type lecRLK, revealed a peak in expression at the 24-h time-point; a pairwise comparison indicated that these genes were significantly different in terms their expression (
To correlate the predicted function of these loci within the P. trichocarpa population with susceptibility and resistance to the fungal pathogen the population-wide occurrence of mutations were examined using a SnpEff analysis (Cingolani P et al., Fly (Austin), 6: 80-92 (2012)). This revealed extensive occurrences of high-impact (deleterious) mutations (early translation termination, frame-shift, and changes in splice-site acceptor, and/or splice-site donor sequences) in the putative resistance-associated RLP-encoding loci (
The samples used in the RNAseq experiments contained both host and pathogen transcripts. To exploit this transcriptome changes of the pathogen were examined, a challenge because the biomass of the pathogen does not increase substantially during the initial 24 hours. As a consequence, the amount of RNA is low, resulting in low read counts and low statistical power. Nonetheless, 16 and 44 differentially expressed S. musiva genes 24 hpi were identified in the resistant and susceptible interactions, respectively. Further inspection of the gene annotations revealed that 7 and 19 of the genes in the resistant and susceptible interactions, respectively, encoded small proteins, with no conserved domains and had predicted secretion signals. These are hallmarks of fungal effectors (LeBoldus, J. M. et al., Plant Ms., 94, 1238-1242 (2010)) that are likely involved in mediating interactions with host plants and potentially influencing the host responses described above.
Putative pattern recognition receptors were identified that were significant in their associations with resistance and susceptibility to S. musiva consistent with contrasting expression responses between resistant and susceptible genotypes. Furthermore, the loss of function in genes encoding immunity receptors (RLPs and L-type lecRLK) in parallel with the conservation of a susceptibility locus (G-type lecRLK) resulted in population-wide susceptibility of P. trichocarpa to the allopathic pathogen S. musiva. Conservation of the G-type lecRLK within the sampled population suggests that this locus is under purifying selection and has been exapted by S. musiva. In addition, the observation that resistance loci in the sampled population harbor many predicted high-impact mutations is consistent with the absence of selection pressure maintaining the ability of the host to recognize S. musiva. The prevalence of the functional susceptibility locus and rarity of functional resistance loci implies that riparian ecosystems where P. trichocarpa serves as a keystone species are extremely vulnerable to the continued spread of this invasive pathogen.
Transcriptome changes of resistant (BESC-22) and susceptible (BESC-801) genotypes were determined at 0-, 24-, and 72-h post-inoculation (hpi) with S. musiva. The BESC-22 genotype was chosen for carrying functional alleles of the resistance-associated loci (RLP1, RLP2, and the L-type lecRLK) and a defective allele of the susceptibility-associated locus (G-type lecRLK). In contrast, BESC-801 was selected for carrying a functional allele of the susceptibility-associated locus (G-type lecRLK) and defective alleles of the resistance-associated loci (RLP1, RLP2, and the L-type lecRLK). Comparisons were made within (different time points) and between genotypes (same time points). In total 4,686 genes were differentially expressed between the 0- and 24-hpi in the resistant genotype compared to 76 in the susceptible genotype. Additionally, 16 of the 62 GWAS candidates exhibited differential expression. PFAM domain-enrichment analysis, comparing responses of resistant to susceptible genotypes, revealed major protein families associated with innate immunity responses with a ≥2× up-regulation in the resistant genotype.
The two RLPs and the L-type lecRLK, associated with resistance (
The N-terminal lectin domains of the L-type (AA 30-283) and G-type (AA 36-318) lecRLKs were expressed as a fusion to “superfolder” GFP in HEK293 cells (Urbanowicz Bret al., (2014), Plant 80:197-206; Meng L, et al. (2013), J. Biol. Chem., 288:34680-34698). The expressed proteins were purified and subsequently incubated with cell wall fractions of S. musiva. Microcrystalline cellulose was used as a binding substrate control and a non-catalytic fragment of Arabidopsis ERK1 was used as a protein control in all the experiments. The G-type and L-type lectin domains specifically bound to cell wall preparations of S. musiva, but not to the controls, indicating specificity for fungal cell wall carbohydrates or proteoglycans. The G-type lectin bound a larger proportion of the cell wall fractions than the L-type lectin regardless of treatment. Interestingly, binding of the L-type lectin to S. musiva significantly increased after treatment of the walls with indicating that recognition of the ligand is restricted by either alkaline-extractable cell wall components or esterification (Gilbert H J et al., (2013), Curr Opi. Struct, Biol., 23:669-677; Marcus S E, et al. (2008), BMC Plant Biology, 8:60). Very few LecRLKs have been functionally characterized. Ligand identification has been challenging, due to difficulties in expressing and purifying high-quality, functional preparations of these highly glycosylated eukaryotic proteins.
In summary, genes predicted to encode receptors that were significant in their association with resistance and susceptibility to S. musiva were identified. The population-wide allele analysis revealed that in the sampled population, the loci associated with resistance harbor many high-impact mutations, potentially impairing the ability of genotypes to recognize S. musiva and initiate an immune response. Furthermore, the loss of function in genes encoding putative immunity receptors (RLPs and L-type lecRLK) in parallel with the conservation of a locus implicated in susceptibility (G-type lecRLK) results in population-wide susceptibility of P. trichocarpa to the all allopatric pathogen S. musiva. The genes associated with host-pathogen interactions exhibited contrasting expression responses between resistant and susceptible genotypes. Biochemical analysis demonstrated that both the G-type and L-type lectin domains bind S. musiva cell walls. The associations and gene expression profiles are predictive of the resistance/susceptibility phenotype. As such, the use of high-resolution phenotyping and host resequencing across the species range enabled the identification of candidate loci associated with P. trichocarpa response to S. musiva. These loci can be incorporated into future breeding efforts that include marker-based selection of parents and progeny resistant to Septoria stem canker to potentially accelerate the mitigation of disease in native ecosystems.
This application claims the benefit of priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/585,105, filed Nov. 13, 2017, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
This invention was made with government support under a research project supported by Prime Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The government has certain rights in this invention.
| Entry |
|---|
| Vaid et al (2013 Molecular Plant 6:1405-1418 (Year: 2013). |
| Leboldus, J.M., et al., “A method to induce stem cankers by inoculating nonwounded Populus clones with Septoria musiva spore suspensions”, Plant Dis., (2010), 94, 1238-1242. |
| Belhaj, et al., “Plant genome editing made easy: targeted mutagenesis in model and crop plants using the CRISPR/Cas system.” Plant methods, (2013), 9.1: 39. |
| Carroll, D. “Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases.” Genetics, (2011), 188.4: 773-782. |
| Liang, H., et al. “Comparative expression analysis of resistant and susceptible Populus clones inoculated with Septoria musiva.” Plant Science, (2014), 223: 69-78. |
| Newcombe, G., et al., “Recessive resistance to Septoria stem canker of hybrid poplar.” Phytopathology, (2001), 91.11:1081-1084. |
| Zhang Y. et al “Transcription activator-like effector nucleases enable efficient plant genome engineering.” Plant physiology, (2013), 161.1: 20-27. |
| Cobb, R.C., et al., “Ecosystem transformation by emerging infectious disease: loss of large tanoak from California forests”, J. Ecol., (2012), 100, 712-722. |
| Anagnostakis, S.L., “Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen”, Mycologia, (1987), 79, 23-37. |
| Kinloch, Jr, B.B., “White pine blister rust in North America: past and prognosis”, Phytopathol., (2003), 93, 1044-1047. |
| Slavov, G.T., et al., “Genome resequencing reveals multiscale geographic structure and extensive linkage disequilibnum in the forest tree Populus trichocarpa”, New Phytol., (2012), 196, 713-725. |
| Herath, P. et al., “Anthopogenic signature in the incidence and distribution of an emerging pathogen of poplars”, Biol. Invasions, (2016), doi: 10.1007/s10530-015-1051-8. |
| Harvell, C.D. et al. “Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota”, Science, (2002), 296, 2158-2162. |
| Jones, J.D. et al., “The plant immune system”, Nature, (2006), 444, 323-329. |
| Shiu, S.H. et al., “Expansion of the receptor-like kinase/Pelle gene family and receptor-like proteins in Arabidopsis”, Plant Physiol., (2003), 132, 530-543. |
| Liebrand, T.W. et al., “Receptor-like kinase SOBIR1/EVR interacts with receptor-like proteins in plant immunity against fungal infection”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, (2013), 110, 10010-10015. |
| Duplessis, S. et al., “Melampsora larici-populina transcript profiling during germination and time-course infection of poplar leaves reveals dynamic expression patterns associated with virulence and biotrophy”, Mol. Plant Microbe Interact., (2011), 24, 808-818. |
| Chen, W. et al., “A B-lectin receptor-kinase gene conferring rice blast resistance”, Plant J., (2006), 46, 794-804. |
| Navarro-Gochicoa, M.T. et al., “Characterization of four lectin-like receptor kinases expressed in roots of Medicago truncatula: structure, location, regulation of expression, and potential role in the symbiosis with Sinorhizobium meliloti”, Plant Physiol., (2003), 133, 1893-1910. |
| Ohm, R.A. et al., “Diverse lifestyles and strategies of plant pathogenesis encoded in the genomes of eighteen Dothideomycete fungi”, PLoS Pathog., (2012), 8, e1003037. |
| Lorang, J. et al., “Tricking the guard: Exploiting plant defense for disease susceptibility”, Science, (2012), 338, 659-662. |
| Cingolani P, et al., “A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3”, Fly (Austin), (2012), 6: 80-92. |
| Joshi, N.A. et al., “Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files” (V1.33). https://github.com/najoshi/sickle (2011). |
| Chinchilla, D., et al., “One for all: the receptor-associated kinase BAK1”, Trends Plant Sci., (2009), 14, 535-541. |
| Xu, X., et al. “Physical and functional interactions between pathogen-induced Arabidopsis WRKY18, WRKY40, and WRKY60 transcription factors”, Plant Cell, (2006), 18, 1310-1326. |
| Zhang, Y., et al., “A gain-of-function mutation in a plant disease resistance gene leads to constitutive activation of downstream signal transduction pathways in suppressor of npr1-1, constitutive 1”, Plant Cell, (2003), 15, 2636-2646. |
| Zhang, Y. et al., “Arabidopsis snc2-1D activates receptor-like protein-mediated immunity transduced through WRKY70”, Plant Cell, (2010), 22, 3153-316. |
| Burdon, J.J. et al., “Co-evolution of plants and their pathogens in natural habitats”, Science, (2009), 324, 755-756. |
| Boller, T. et al., “Innate immunity in plants: an arms race between pattern recognition receptors in plants and effectors in microbial pathogens”, Science, (2009), 324, 742-743. |
| Brasier, C.M. “Ophiostoma novo-ulmi sp. nov., causative agent of current Dutch elm disease pandemics”, Mycopathologia, (1991), 115, 151-161. |
| Tomlinson, I. “The discovery of ash dieback in the UK: the making of a focusing event”, Environ. Polit., (2015), 25, 1-23. |
| Tobias, P.A. et al., “Tree immunity: Growing old without antibodies”, Trends Plant Sci., (2014), 19, 367-370. |
| Feau, N., et al., “Recent advances related to poplar leaf spot and canker caused by Septoria musiva”, Can. J. Plant Pathol., (2010), 32, 122-134. |
| Kang, H. M. et al., “Variance component model to account for sample structure in genome-wide association studies”, Nat. Genet., (2010), 42, 348-354. |
| Trapnell, C. et al., “Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNAseq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks”, Nat Protoc., (2012), 7, 562-578. |
| Langmead, B. et al., “Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2”, Nat. Methods, (2012), 9, 357-359. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190194763 A1 | Jun 2019 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62585105 | Nov 2017 | US |
