| Literature DB >> 32784854 |
Luca Capriotti1, Elena Baraldi2, Bruno Mezzetti1, Cecilia Limera1, Silvia Sabbadini1.
Abstract
Downy mildew, powdery mildew, and grey mold are some of the phytopathological diseases causing economic losses in agricultural crops, including grapevine, worldwide. In the current scenario of increasing global warming, in which the massive use of agrochemicals should be limited, the management of fungal disease has become a challenge. The knowledge acquired on candidate resistant (R) genes having an active role in plant defense mechanisms has allowed numerous breeding programs to integrate these traits into selected cultivars, even though with some limits in the conservation of the proper qualitative characteristics of the original clones. Given their gene-specific mode of action, biotechnological techniques come to the aid of breeders, allowing them to generate simple and fast modifications in the host, without introducing other undesired genes. The availability of efficient gene transfer procedures in grapevine genotypes provide valid tools that support the application of new breeding techniques (NBTs). The expertise built up over the years has allowed the optimization of these techniques to overexpress genes that directly or indirectly limit fungal and oomycetes pathogens growth or silence plant susceptibility genes. Furthermore, the downregulation of pathogen genes which act as virulence effectors by exploiting the RNA interference mechanism, represents another biotechnological tool that increases plant defense. In this review, we summarize the most recent biotechnological strategies optimized and applied on Vitis species, aimed at reducing their susceptibility to the most harmful fungal and oomycetes diseases. The best strategy for combating pathogenic organisms is to exploit a holistic approach that fully integrates all these available tools.Entities:
Keywords: RNA interference; Vitis vinifera; biotic stresses; genome editing; plant biotechnology
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32784854 PMCID: PMC7460970 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21165701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Representative attempts of genetic transformation applied in Vitis species to enhance resistance against the most harmful fungal and oomycetes pathogens.
| Gene Name | Gene Source | Description | Biological Effect | Host | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Key signal in salicylic acid pathway and local basal resistance to biotrophs | Enhanced resistance to | [ | |
|
|
| PR protein Class I Chitinase | Major resistance to | [ | |
|
|
| These genes encode for two antifungal proteins | Susceptibility to | [ | |
|
|
| Pathogenesis-related protein | Late and reduced manifestation of | [ | |
|
| Scab-infected Sumai 3 wheat | Pathogenesis-related proteins | Chitinase was more effective than glucanase in conferring tolerance to | [ | |
|
|
| PR4 proteins are considered chitin-binding proteins | Improved tolerance to | [ | |
|
| Pathogenesis-related protein 5 | Increased resistance to | [ | ||
|
| Pathogenesis-related protein 5 | Increased resistance to powdery mildew, but decreased resistance to |
| [ | |
|
| PR5 proteins have endo-β-1,3-glucanase activity; binding β-1,3-glucan | Reinforced resistance to | [ | ||
|
|
| PR10 have in vitro ribonuclease activity | Increased tolerance to | [ | |
|
| |||||
|
| Magainin extracts from the skin of | Magainins with broad-spectrum in vitro antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi | Resistance to bacterial diseases such as crown gall diseases, minor susceptibility against | [ | |
|
| Magainin extracts from the skin of | AMP belonging to the Magainins family | PGL protein seems to inhibit | [ | |
|
| |||||
|
| WRKY protein isolated after | Increased tolerance to | [ | ||
|
|
| WRKY protein | Enhanced resistance to | [ | |
|
| WRKY protein isolated after | Improved tolerance to | [ | ||
|
|
| Transcription factor isolated after | Enhanced resistance to | [ | |
|
| Transcription factor isolated after | Enhanced resistance to | [ | ||
|
| Transcription factor that activates the accumulation of salicylic acid and the expression of PR1 protein | Enhanced resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ | |
|
|
| Protein involved in plant growth, development, and plant defense | Enhanced resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ |
|
|
| Protein highly expressed in leaves. Play an active role in SA pathway | Increased resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ |
|
|
| This protein expression is regulated by salicylic acid and methyl jasmonate | Enhanced resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ |
|
| |||||
|
| Stilbenes production | Decreased susceptibility to | 41B rootstock ( | [ | |
|
|
| Stilbenes production | Reinforced resistant against | [ | |
|
|
| Stilbenes synthesis | Transgenic plants with high resveratrol content | [ | |
|
|
| Regulator of the biosynthetic pathways of resveratrol | Increased expression of | Cell cultures of | [ |
|
|
| Stilbenes production | Improved tolerance against | [ | |
|
|
| Stilbenes production | Improved resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ |
|
|
| Stilbenes production | Improved resistance to |
| [ |
|
|
| Stilbenoids accumulation | Improved resistance to | [ | |
|
| |||||
|
| This gene is upregulated after | Improved resistance to powdery mildew and enhanced susceptibility to |
| [ | |
|
| Pear fruit | PGIPs are plant cell wall proteins that specifically inhibit fungal endo-polygalacturonases (PGs). | Increased resistance to | [ | |
|
|
| Extracellular endochitinases of biocontrol agents and chitinolytic genes | Enhanced resistance to | [ | |
|
| This protein activates plant defense response through the proteolysis of VpWRKY11 transcription factor | Enhanced resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ | |
|
|
| Transcription of EIFP protein is induced after powdery mildew infection and activation of PR genes | Enhanced tolerance to | [ | |
|
|
| Executors of hypersensitive response (HR), isolated after | Programmed cell death (PCD) activation | [ | |
|
|
| Protein essential for melatonin production and for SA and JA signaling pathways activation | Improved resistance to powdery mildew |
| [ |
|
|
| Protein that encodes for small basic protein, with weak homology with NB-LRR protein | [ | ||
|
|
| Type E3 ubiquitin ligase is involved in many immune regulation responses | Decreased resistance to | [ | |
|
|
| U-box protein E3 ligase causes downregulation of PR10 | Transgenic plants were susceptible as control to | [ | |
|
| Pattern recognition receptor (PRR) that belongs to leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein kinase | Induce H2O2, NO, and callose accumulation. Leaves showed less spores and | [ | ||
Figure 1Description of transgenic plant–pathogen arms race during pathogenesis. The first impediment to fungal invasion is represented by chemical and physical barriers already existing before the infection. The trophic activity begins with lytic enzyme production (e.g., polygalacturonase, PG), that can be suppressed by the production of specific inhibitors (e.g., polygalacturonase inhibitor, PGIP), which can be expressed also by the use of genetic engineering techniques. A specific recognition takes place when elicitors coded by avirulence (Avr) genes of the fungal cell are recognized by host receptors, driving effector-triggered immunity (ETI). ETI results in the activation of defense gene expression (i.e., defense molecules, antimicrobial peptides, phytoalexins), through the salicylic/jasmonic acid (SA/JA) signaling pathways [28]. The aforementioned defense molecules together with pathogenesis-related proteins (PRs) and transcription factors can be overexpressed in the host cell, imparting a harmful effect against the pathogen. Intriguingly, transcription factors are responsible for activating plant defense response, and their overexpression leads to the stimulation of SA/JA signaling pathways. Solid arrows and dashed arrows indicate direct or indirect induction processes, respectively.
Figure 2In addition to trans/cisgenesis methods, the expression of RNAi gene constructs in the plant, the exogenous applications of double strand RNA (dsRNA) molecules targeting host/pathogen genes, or plant genome editing, represent valid alternatives to enhance plant immunity during pathogenesis. (a) Candidate genes capable of limiting pathogen aggression or improve plant defense responses can be identified during the infection processes caused by the fungal and oomycetes causal agents of the most impactful diseases for grapevine production. RNAi-based strategies can be exploited to improve plant defense by providing dsRNAs to the plant cell through the expression of an introgressed hairpin-based gene construct in the plant genome, or through their delivery by exogenous application. (b) In host-induced gene silencing (HIGS), as a result of transcription of an RNAi sequence, a long dsRNA molecule is formed. When this molecule is recognized by Dicer-like protein, it is cleaved into siRNAs, which can knockdown related target gene expression [100]. (c) A transgenic-free procedure in which dsRNAs are directly sprayed on the surface of plants and pathogens is known as spray-induced gene silencing (SIGS). These molecules can be absorbed by both types of cells, and, depending on the delivery method used, dsRNAs can be processed by either the fungal/oomycetes and host RNAi machinery, leading to virulence gene knockdown and reduction in pathogen detrimental effects. Low-pressure spray, high-pressure spray, petiole adsorption, and trunk injection of dsRNAs represent some of the different available exogenous dsRNA delivery methods to confer plant protection against different plant pathogens, included fungi [143]. d) CRISPR/Cas9 system can be used for inducing targeted genome editing in plants, including the inactivation of specific plant susceptibility genes expression, which can help to regulate plant–pathogen interaction processes and disease resistance enhancement. Cas 9 protein complex is guided by artificially designed single guide RNA molecule (sgRNA) and leads to double-strand breaks (DSBs) of targeted DNA. SgRNA contains a seed sequence (around 8–12 bp, shown in red) complementary to target DNA that guides the binding of the Cas 9 protein to the target genomic sequence. The site of cleavage takes place three nucleotides upstream to the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM, shown in green) [20].
Description of different biotechnological approaches highlighting biosafety concerns and consumer acceptance.
| Technology | Type of Modification | Target Origin and Description | Time Needed | Classification According to EU-Legislation | Side Effects | Biosafety Concerns | Consumer Acceptance (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Breeding and several backcrosses generation, introgression breeding, induced mutagenesis, and somatic hybridization | Genes found in crossable, sexually compatible organisms | At least 10-15 years | Non-GMO | Altered clone identity, partial resistance to biotic stresses | No biosafety concerns and basic regulation needed [ | High [ |
|
| Genetic transformation | Overexpression of genes also from non-sexually compatible organisms, presence of gene sequences (i.e., promoter, selectable marker gene) from non-compatible organisms | Around 1 or 2 years | GMO | Release in the environment of genes of different origins; expression of new protein products with possible allergen/toxic effects | Expression of unknown protein/enzyme; use of antibiotic/herbicide resistance markers, lack of coexistence with non-GM, organic cultivations | Low [ |
|
| Genetic transformation | Expression/overexpression of a gene originating from the recipient plant itself (cisgenesis), or expression of full/partial coding sequence originating from a sexually compatible plant (intragenesis) | Around 1 or 2 years | GMO | Scarce availability of efficient cisgenic selectable marker genes | cisgenic/intragenic plants solve the current biosafety problems regarding the presence of foreign genes in the plant host genome [ | Medium/High |
|
| Genetic transformation | Overexpression of non-coding dsRNAs downregulating exogenous or endogenous gene expression | Around 1 or 2 years | GMO | Efficacy of gene silencing varies with the genes and target organisms. | Reduced off-target effects by designing RNAi sequences with high specificity and verified with bioinformatic studies. Minimal biosafety concerns when HIGS is applied only to rootstocks by trans-grafting technique [ | Medium [ |
|
| No genetic modification | External application of non-coding dsRNAs downregulating exogenous or endogenous gene expression | Few months | Non-GMO | Efficacy of gene silencing depends on the efficiency and specificity of the RNAi sequence and on the degree of adsorption showed by plants and pathogens cells | RNAi sequence should be selected in order to avoid off-target effects [ | Medium/High |
|
| Genetic transformation/plasmid-free protoplast transformation | Artificially gene modification/target random mutation | About 1 or 2 years. More time necessary if transgene segregation is required from T0 plants, or if protoplast in vitro regeneration is required | Non-GMO/GMO in Europe | Possible appearance of off-target mutations; difficulties in plant regeneration from protoplasts | Transgene integration, effect of the expression of Cas9 protein, specificity and fidelity of Cas9 protein [ | Medium/High |