| Literature DB >> 29720102 |
Marianne Elliott1, Jennifer Yuzon2, Mathu Malar C3, Sucheta Tripathy3, Mai Bui4, Gary A Chastagner1, Katie Coats1, David M Rizzo2, Matteo Garbelotto5, Takao Kasuga6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that genome plasticity allows filamentous plant pathogens to adapt to changing environments. Recently, the generalist plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum has been documented to undergo irreversible phenotypic alterations accompanied by chromosomal aberrations when infecting trunks of mature oak trees (genus Quercus). In contrast, genomes and phenotypes of the pathogen derived from the foliage of California bay (Umbellularia californica) are usually stable. We define this phenomenon as host-induced phenotypic diversification (HIPD). P. ramorum also causes a severe foliar blight in some ornamental plants such as Rhododendron spp. and Viburnum spp., and isolates from these hosts occasionally show phenotypes resembling those from oak trunks that carry chromosomal aberrations. The aim of this study was to investigate variations in phenotypes and genomes of P. ramorum isolates from non-oak hosts and substrates to determine whether HIPD changes may be equivalent to those among isolates from oaks.Entities:
Keywords: Aneuploidy; Invasive pathogens; Loss of heterozygosity; Transposable elements
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29720102 PMCID: PMC5932867 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-4709-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Isolates used in this study
| Isolate numbers | Sourcea | Year | State | SSR multilocus genotype | Colony phenotype | Contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washington State University Collection (WA 2017) | ||||||
| WSU106–0009 | Stream bait | 2006 | WA | NA1-D02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU106–0019 b |
| 2006 | WA | NA1-D06 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU107–0016 | Soil bait | 2007 | WA | NA1-D01 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU107–0019 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A21 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0042 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A21 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0043 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A21 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0054 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A03 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0057 b | 2007 | WA | NA1-A03 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0066 | 2007 | WA | NA1-D01 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0072 b | 2007 | WA | NA1-A05 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0073 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A05 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0081 b |
| 2007 | WA | NA1-A25 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU107–0086 b | 2007 | WA | NA1-A03 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0093 | 2007 | WA | NA1-D02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0094 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A03 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0095 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A10 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0096 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A10 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU107–0100 | 2007 | WA | NA1-A29 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU108–0003 | Stream bait | 2008 | WA | NA1-A28 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU108–0006 |
| 2008 | WA | NA1-A17 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU108–0021 b |
| 2008 | WA | NA1-A02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU108–0022 |
| 2008 | WA | NA1-A02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU108–0024 |
| 2008 | WA | NA1-A02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU108–0025 |
| 2008 | WA | NA1-A02 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU111–0001 b | Stream bait | 2011 | WA | NA1-A29 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU111–0002 | Stream bait | 2011 | WA | NA1-A05 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU115–0077 | 2015 | WA | NA1-A13 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU115–0089 | Soil bait | 2015 | WA | NA1-A17 | M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | |
| WSU115–0095 | Soil bait | 2015 | WA | NA1-A30 |
| M. Elliott & G. Chastagner |
| WSU115–0118 b | 2015 | WA | NA1-A13 | M. Elliott & G. Chastagner | ||
| UC Davis Collection (CA 2017) | ||||||
| BS2014–584 |
| 2014 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| BS96 |
| 2004 | CA |
| D. Huberli | |
| Pr-106 b |
| 2001 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-218 |
| 2002 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-438 |
| 2006 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-451 |
| 2004 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-455 |
| 2005 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-458 |
| 2005 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-467 |
| 2006 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-472 |
| 2006 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-486 | 2006 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | ||
| Pr-1537 |
| 2012 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-1652 | Stream bait | 2014 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| 9D1 | (Re) Pr-1556 from | 2012 | CA |
| T. Kasuga | |
| California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Collection (CA 2017) | ||||||
| CDFA1418886; ND886 b, c | 2004 | CA | NA1-B20 |
| S. Latham & C. Blomquist | |
| CDFA1644994–2 | 2011 | CA |
| S. Latham & C. Blomquist | ||
| UC Davis Collection, genome analysis published (Kasuga et al. [ | ||||||
| Pr-16 |
| 2000 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-102 b |
| 2001 | CA |
| D. Rizzo | |
| Pr-745 | Rain water near infected | 2010 | CA |
| Phytosphere Research | |
| Pr-745#3 | (Re) Pr-745 from | 2011 | CA |
| K. Aram | |
| Pr-745#4 | (Re) Pr-745 from | 2011 | CA |
| K. Aram | |
| Pr-1556 |
| 2011 | CA |
| T. Kasuga | |
| Pr-1556#7#1 | (Re) Pr-1556 from | 2013 | CA |
| T. Kasuga | |
| Pr-140.7 | 2014 | CA |
| Phytosphere Research | ||
| Pr-140.9 | 2014 | CA |
| Phytosphere Research | ||
| MK516a |
| 2008 | CA |
| M. Garbelotto | |
a (Re) indicates re-isolates. These isolates were artificially inoculated and recovered from indicated hosts
b Isolates that have been both sequenced and phenotyped
c CDFA1418886 is abbreviated to ND886 in this report
Fig. 1Nwt isolates from foliage of Rhododendron plants are indistinguishable from those from oak stem lesions. Isolates were grown on 1× CV8A medium for 1 week in dark. a, b nwt isolates from coast live oak showing irregular colony morphology, whereas c wt isolate from coast live oak grew to a circular mycelial mat. d, e nwt isolates from Rhododendron and f wt isolate from Rhododendron
Fig. 2Phenotypic profiles of Phytophthora ramorum isolates. Each dot represents the standardized mean value of one of 34 isolates for which irregularity index (percent difference of the maximum and minimum radii within a 45-degree sector) of axenic culture and lesion size on Rhododendron foliage were measured. K-means clustering grouped isolates into three clusters. Isolates with nwt colony phenotype (shown in red circles and squares) are found only in Cluster 3. Cluster 1 contains wt isolates that were aggressive on Rhododendron leaves, whereas Cluster 2 contains isolates that were less aggressive and had wild-type colony morphology. Symbols are: red circle, nwt Washington state isolates; red square, nwt California isolates; green circle, wt Washington State isolates; green square, wt California isolates. Isolate numbers and chromosomal aberration types are indicated for those subjected to genome analyses
Fig. 3Minimum spanning network of 15 SSR MLGs observed among the 30 Washington State isolates. Node colors represent K-means cluster membership proportional to the pie size and the number of P. ramorum isolates is indicated at each node. Edge thickness represents minimum genetic distance between genotypes. Population subdivision according to the K-means clusters was not detected
Fig. 4Read-depth analyses revealed diverse chromosomal aberrations in P. ramorum from Washington State isolates. BIC-seq analysis reveals CCNVs (upper graph for each panel), while a read-depth analysis for heterozygous allele ratios (SNP ratios) detects LOH (lower graph). A concatenated view of the 31 largest scaffolds with a total length of 30 MB (c.a. half of the genome) is shown. A wild type euploid isolate ND886 was used as a reference. Scaffold numbers for large CCNV regions are indicated with pink bars, and those for cnLOH are shown with blue bars. Scales show log (base 2) fold difference between sample isolates and the reference isolate for BIC-seq analysis and log (base 2) ratios of SNP alleles of sample isolates for the heterozygous allele frequency analysis. a WSU107–0081 and b WSU107–0086 are examples of CCNV profile for the category “normal euploid”. Two wt isolates, c WSU108–0021 from Viburnum and d WSU107–0057 from Rhododendron, showed numerous CNVs in small chromosomal segments (sCNV euploid). e Wt stream isolate WSU111–0001 showed c.a. 10% reduction in copy numbers in three scaffolds 19, 27, and 28, indicating it is a heterokaryon of monosomy (1× CCNV) and euploid. f Nwt Rhododendron isolate WSU115–0118 showed slight copy number changes in numbers of scaffolds, indicating it is a mixture of monosomic nuclei. g Nwt Rhododendron isolate WSU107–0019 showed increases in SNP ratios in scaffold 7, 9, and 22 while a consistent change in chromosome copy number was not detected, which indicates cnLOH. Close inspection of short segments with CNV seen as spikes in cnLOH regions (above the blue bars) reveal the wt reference genome has heterozygous indels in these regions. Loss of chromosomal segments harboring these indels in the nwt isolate WSU107–0019 resulted in spikes in the BIC-seq analysis. h A nwt isolate WSU107–0072 revealed CCNVs and cnLOH indicating it is a heterokaryon having cnLOH and aneuploid nuclei
Summary of isolates with chromosomal aberrations
| CCNV category a | Isolate b | colony phenotype | Source c |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1× CCNV | Pr-140.9 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 1× CCNV HK | WSU111–0001 ( |
| WA 2017 |
| 1× CCNV complex HK | Pr-140.7 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 1× CCNV HK | Pr-1556#7#1 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 1× CCNV HK | WSU115–0118 ( |
| WA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV + 1× CCNV Complex HK | BS2014–584 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 2× cnLOH | MK516a ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 2× cnLOH | WSU107–0019 ( |
| WA 2017 |
| 2× cnLOH | Pr-455 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 2× cnLOH complex HK | WSU107–0072 ( |
| WA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV | Pr-745#3 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 3× CCNV | Pr-218 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV | Pr-102 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 3× CCNV + 1× CCNV HK | Pr-745#4 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 3× CCNV + 2× cnLOH | Pr-16 ( |
| CA 2016 |
| 3× CCNV HK | BS96 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV HK | Pr-472 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV HK | Pr-486 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| 3× CCNV HK | 9D1 ( |
| CA 2017 |
| sCNV euploid | WSU108–0021 ( |
| WA 2017 |
| sCNV euploid | WSU107–0057 ( |
| WA 2017 |
a Due to CNV and allele ratio analyses, chromosomal aberrations were categorized into five groups: 1× CCNV, monosomy; 3× CCNV, trisomy; cnLOH, copy-number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and short CNV (sCNV) euploid. HK indicates heterokaryotic isolate
b In the parentheses, colony phenotypes and host plants are indicated. Arrows such as bay→QUCH indicates the isolate was originally from California bay, inoculated and recovered from canyon live oak (see Kasuga et al., [12])
Species names are: bay (California bay, Umbellularia californica); QUAG (coast live oak, Q. agrifolia); QUEN (Engelmann oak, Q. engelmannii); QUWI (interior live oak, Q. wislizeni); QUCH (canyon live oak, Q. chrysolepis); QUPS (Shreve oak, Q. parvula var. shrevei)
c CA 2016 indicates California isolates, published in Kasuga et al., [12]. CA 2017 and WA 2017 indicate California and Washington State isolates, respectively, determined in this study
Short copy number variations are found in repetitive genomic regions
| Isolates | WSU107–0081 ( | WSU107–0086 ( | Pr-106 ( | WSU107–0057 ( | WSU108–0021 ( | Overlap between WSU107–0057 and 108–0021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sCNV (average size) | 71 (1888 bp) | 71 (3021 bp) | 102 (1751 bp) | 357 (1255 bp) | 446 (988 bp) | 275 |
| sCNV at multicopy regions | 62 (87.3%) | 68 (96%) | 96 (94%) | 319 (89.4%) | 393 (88.1%) | 267 |
| sCNVs at TEsa | 18 (25.3%) | 6 (8.5%) | 32 (31%)a | 135 (37.8%)a | 169 (37.9%)a | 97 |
| sCNVs at tandem repeat regionsa | 15 (21.5%)a | 18 (25.3%)a | 10 (9.8%)a | 58 (16.2%)a | 70 (15.7%)a | 51 |
a A randomization test showed that observed sCNVs at TEs or tandem repeats were significantly more frequent than expected by chance (p < 0.01)
Fig. 5Examples of chromosomal aberrations found in P. ramorum in California. See Fig. 4 for further explanation of the figure legend. A wild type euploid isolate Pr-1556 was used as a reference. a Nwt isolate Pr140.9 from Shreve oak (Q. parvula var. shrevei) is an example of monosomy (1× CCNV) at scaffold 9. b Nwt isolate Pr-455 from mountain sweet cicely Osmorhiza berteroi showing copy number neutral LOH (cnLOH) at scaffolds 6, 9, 17, 19, 24, 27, 28, and 30. c A re-isolate 9D1 from a log of coast live oak showing a small copy number change at scaffold 9 in comparison to its original isolate Pr-1556 (wt, bay) used as a reference. 9D1 is likely a heterokaryon (HK) carrying trisomic (3× CCNV) and euploid nuclei. d Nwt isolate Pr-472 from Mexican orange blossom Choisya ternata is likely a heterokaryon carrying at least two types of trisomic nuclei, one with 3× CCNV at scaffolds (5, 8, 14, 15, 20) and the other with 3× CCNV at scaffold 10 (see Fig. 6 for scaffold linkage grouping)
Trisomy formation in P. ramorum isolates with nuclear aberrations, related to host and geographic location of origin
| Comparison a | Trisomic | Non-trisomic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| WA | 0 | 6 | 0.011 |
| CA | 10 | 4 | |
| WA | 0 | 4 | 0.022 |
| CA | 10 | 4 |
a WA: Washington State isolates, CA: California isolates. Isolates passed through race tubes were not included
b P-value according to Fisher’s exact test, 2-tailed
Fig. 6Summary of physical linkage of genome scaffolds and inferred haplotype combinations at each scaffold. Only the 20 largest scaffolds are shown and representative isolates carrying CCNVs and their scaffolds showing copy number variations were arranged to highlight physical linkage. See Additional file 7 for details. A and B denote homologous haplotypes at each individual scaffold. In other words, A on one scaffold does not necessarily link to A on the other scaffold. Inferred haplotype combinations are shown when those are deviated from a heterozygous disomic haplotype combination, AB. AAB, AA and A denote three copies of a DNA segment (i.e. trisomy), cnLOH, and copy deletion (i.e. monosomy), respectively. AB + X indicates a mixture of AB disomy and monosomy with an unknown haplotype. Likewise, AB + XXX indicates a mixture of AB disomy and trisomy with an unknown haplotype combination. HK in CCNV type indicates a heterokaryon. Scaffolds 5, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are likely physically linked, whereas each of scaffold 9 and 10 do not link to any of the 31 largest scaffolds in the current assembly
Fig. 7Hypothetical mechanism for host-induced phenotypic diversification and associated chromosomal alterations in P. ramorum. The K-means Cluster 1 (Fig. 2) is comprised of individuals that are aggressive on host foliage, showing wt colony type, and carrying euploid genomes (including sCNV euploid). When individuals in Cluster 1 undergo stress such as during colonizing a sub-optimal host plant, epigenetic changes occur which will cause reduction in aggressiveness. Epigenetic changes may also result in increased rate of genome aberration while growth rate and colony morphology are unaffected (Cluster 2). The transition of membership between Cluster 1 and 2 is possibly reversible. Accumulation of aberrated nuclei in the multinucleated cells will result in the manifestation of nwt colony type and detection of chromosomal aberrations (Cluster 3). Transition from Cluster 2 to 3 is likely irreversible