Dataset Information

New Players in the Interaction Between Beetle Polygalacturonases and Plant Polygalacturonase-Inhibiting Proteins: Insights From Proteomics and Gene Expression Analyses.

ABSTRACT: Plants possess various defense strategies to counter attacks from microorganisms or herbivores. For example, plants reduce the cell-wall-macerating activity of pathogen- or insect-derived polygalacturonases (PGs) by expressing PG-inhibiting proteins (PGIPs). PGs and PGIPs belong to multi-gene families believed to have been shaped by an evolutionary arms race. The mustard leaf beetle Phaedon cochleariae expresses both active PGs and catalytically inactive PG pseudoenzymes. Previous studies demonstrated that (i) PGIPs target beetle PGs and (ii) the role of PG pseudoenzymes remains elusive, despite having been linked to the pectin degradation pathway. For further insight into the interaction between plant PGIPs and beetle PG family members, we combined affinity purification with proteomics and gene expression analyses, and identified novel inhibitors of beetle PGs from Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp. pekinensis). A beetle PG pseudoenzyme was not targeted by PGIPs, but instead interacted with PGIP-like proteins. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that PGIP-like proteins clustered apart from "classical" PGIPs but together with proteins, which have been involved in developmental processes. Our results indicate that PGIP-like proteins represent not only interesting novel PG inhibitor candidates in addition to "classical" PGIPs, but also fascinating new players in the arms race between herbivorous beetles and plant defenses.

SUBMITTER: Haeger W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213348 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The PolyGalacturonase-Inhibiting Proteins (PGIP) of plant cell wall limit the invasion of phytopathogenic organisms by interacting with the enzyme PolyGalacturonase (PG) they secrete to degrade pectin present in the cell walls. PGIPs from different or same plant differ in their inhibitory activity towards the same PG. PGIP2 from Phaseolus vulgaris (Pv) inhibits the PG from Fusarium moniliforme (Fm) although PGIP1, another member of the multigene family from the same plant sharing 99% sequence similarity, cannot. Interestingly, PGIP3 from Glycine max (Gm) which is a homologue of PGIP2 is capable of inhibiting the same PG although the extent of similarity is lower and is 88%. It therefore appears that subtle changes in the sequence of plant PGIPs give rise to different specificity for inhibiting pathogenic PGs and there exists no direct dependence of function on the extent of sequence similarity. RESULTS: Structural information for any PGIP-PG complex being absent, we resorted to molecular modelling to gain insight into the mechanism of recognition and discrimination of PGs by PGIPs. We have built homology models of PvPGIP1 and GmPGIP3 using the crystal structure of PvPGIP2 (1OGQ) as template. These PGIPs were then docked individually to FmPG to elucidate the characteristics of their interactions. The mode of binding for PvPGIP1 to FmPG considerably differs from the mode observed for PvPGIP2-FmPG complex, regardless of the high sequence similarity the two PGIPs share. Both PvPGIP2 and GmPGIP3 despite being relatively less similar, interact with residues of FmPG that are known from mutational studies to constitute the active site of the enzyme. PvPGIP1 tends to interact with residues not located at the active site of FmPG. Looking into the electrostatic potential surface for individual PGIPs, it was evident that a portion of the interacting surface for PvPGIP1 differs from the corresponding region of PvPGIP2 or GmPGIP3. CONCLUSION: van der Waals and electrostatic interactions play an active role in PGIPs for proper recognition and discrimination of PGs. Docking studies reveal that PvPGIP2 and GmPGIP3 interact with the residues constituting the active site of FmPG with implications that the proteins bind/block FmPG at its active site and thereby inhibit the enzyme.

Project description:Erwinia chrysanthemi 3937 secretes an arsenal of pectinolytic enzymes, including at least eight endo-pectate lyases encoded by pel genes, which play a major role in the soft-rot disease caused by this bacterium on various plants. E. chrysanthemi also produces some hydrolases that cleave pectin. Three adjacent hydrolase genes, pehV, pehW, and pehX, encoding exo-poly-alpha-D-galacturonosidases, have been characterized. These enzymes liberate digalacturonides from the nonreducing end of pectin. We report the identification of a novel gene, named pehN, encoding a protein homologous to the glycosyl hydrolases of family 28, which includes mainly polygalacturonases. PehN has a low hydrolase activity on polygalacturonate and on various pectins. PehN action favors the activity of the secreted endo-pectate lyases, mainly PelB and PelC, and that of the periplasmic exo-pectate lyase PelX. However, removal of the pehN gene does not significantly alter the virulence of E. chrysanthemi. Regulation of pehN transcription was analyzed by using gene fusions. Like other pectinase genes, pehN transcription is dependent on several environmental conditions. It is induced by pectic catabolic products and is affected by growth phase, catabolite repression, osmolarity, anaerobiosis, nitrogen starvation, and the presence of calcium ions. The transcription of pehN is modulated by the repressor KdgR, which controls almost all the steps of pectin catabolism, and by cyclic AMP receptor protein (CRP), the global activator of sugar catabolism. The regulator PecS, which represses the transcription of the pel genes but activates that of pehV, pehW, and pehX, also activates transcription of pehN. The three regulators KdgR, PecS, and CRP act by direct interaction with the pehN promoter region. The sequences involved in the binding of these three regulators and of RNA polymerase have been precisely defined. Analysis of the simultaneous binding of these proteins indicates that CRP and RNA polymerase bind cooperatively and that the binding of KdgR could prevent pehN transcription. In contrast, the activator effect of PecS is not linked to competition with KdgR or to cooperation with CRP or RNA polymerase. This effect probably results from competition between PecS and an unidentified repressor involved in peh regulation.

Dataset Information

New Players in the Interaction Between Beetle Polygalacturonases and Plant Polygalacturonase-Inhibiting Proteins: Insights From Proteomics and Gene Expression Analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets