1. Introduction
The survival of organisms in their respective environments can be attributed to genome evolution and natural selection that have propagated and maintained the genes necessary for them to thrive. An important subset of these genes encodes molecules called effectors. They are traditionally defined as pathogen proteins that alter host cell structure and physiology, thereby facilitating infection or inducing a defense response [1,2]. Effectors have since been discovered in non-pathogenic organisms such as mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria, cementing their place as essential molecules across ecological interactions with the plant host. We define effectors as secreted or translocated molecules that influence organisms’ interactions with each other, usually to the benefit of the producer organism. These molecules induce physical and physiological changes in other organisms, and in some cases, in the said producer organism, influencing their interaction with others. These molecules can be proteins [3,4,5], secondary metabolites [6,7,8] or small RNAs [9,10,11], but the majority of characterized effectors are proteins [12,13].
Effector molecules are involved in microbe penetration and proliferation in the host, suppression of host immune responses and nutrient acquisition [14,15,16,17], and though these genes are encoded in the genome of an organism, the secreted or translocated gene products mainly function in the plant host [4,18]. Effector molecules are integral to plant-microbe interactions, having been identified in insects [19,20], nematodes [21,22,23], fungi and oomycetes [24,25,26], bacteria [27,28], viruses [29,30] and, surprisingly, in plants [31].
Effectors allow the pathogen or endophyte to colonize the plant host through various mechanisms; these include preventing recognition by the host, regulating host gene expression, interfering with phytohormone defense pathways and influencing host protein trafficking [15,32,33,34]. Common targets of effectors of bacteria, oomycetes and fungi include host proteases, the ubiquitin-proteasome system, autophagy components, reactive oxygen species (ROS) homeostasis, immune receptors and phytohormones [13,35,36]. Once the effector leaves the producer organism, it may target the host apoplast [37,38] or the cytoplasm, where many effectors target intracellular organelles [39,40,41]. Fluorescence protein-tagging coupled with confocal microscopy and protein–protein interaction experiments such as co-immunoprecipitation and yeast-2-hybrid assays, are techniques that have been commonly used to identify effector targets in model plants amenable to transformation. Increasing reports show effectors at the helm of pathogen invasions, where they induce disease susceptibility, although the majority of effector targets remain unknown [18,26].
Many effector targets are associated with plant protection and are positive regulators of plant immunity, such as the NBS-LRR receptors that are often resistance (R) gene products. Other targets are associated with susceptibility, plant genes that foster the establishment of an infection and, as such, are negative regulators of plant immunity [26,42,43]. With respect to these susceptibility factors, their overexpression in the host results in increased pathogen growth and their deletion results in a reduction in disease symptomology or loss of susceptibility [44,45]. We are still understanding the interactions between receptors and effectors; the interaction between susceptibility factors and effectors is one that is more challenging to understand [46]. The exploitation of these targets was once heavily associated with necrotrophic pathogens during host colonization, but recent investigations have highlighted biotrophic pathogen effectors targeting host susceptibility (S) gene products [45,47,48].
The identification of effectors in phytopathogens has dominated effectoromics. Understanding their effectors and their interactions with host targets is important for safeguarding plant health. Effector-based screening of germplasm containing resistance genes has been useful for resistance breeding [49,50] and finding novel resistance genes [51,52]. Concurrently, effector-assisted selection of plants lacking susceptibility genes or selection of plants with reduced sensitivity to certain susceptibility-targeting effectors is also occurring [53,54]. Likewise, the mutation of these susceptibility genes in plants may confer a more durable resistance than that which is mediated by resistance genes [55,56,57], and successful S gene mutation using CRISPR gene editing was recently documented in rice for resistance against the bacterial blight causal agent, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae [58]. Unfortunately, effectors are constantly evolving to outwit their hosts, putting plant health at risk; effector-triggered defense or R-gene mediated resistance is constantly being overcome by the crafty pathogens in their pathosystems [59,60,61,62]. On the other hand, effectors in plant beneficial organisms are lesser-studied molecules in effectoromics but represent a mine of underdeveloped potential for disease management. This review aims to highlight some of the interesting effectors recently identified in plant-pathogenic and mutualistic microorganisms and forges a path for better effector identification and implementation in plant protection
2. Effectors and Plant Defense
In order to better understand how effectors function, the role of effectors in plant immunity is discussed. Plants have an innate immune system comprised of two levels: MAMP-triggered immunity (MTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI). We only briefly discuss these concepts here as they have been amply discussed elsewhere [63,64,65,66,67]. In MTI, microbe-associated molecular patterns, or MAMPs, are defined as broadly conserved molecules common to various organisms, e.g., fungal chitin and bacterial flagellin. MAMPs are commonly recognized by transmembrane pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) in the plant apoplast. Effectors, on the other hand, have conceptually been understood as less-conserved molecules (although exceptions exist where effectors are highly conserved among varying species [68,69]).
Our understanding of effectors, in large part, is owed to the investigation of plant–pathogen interactions. Effectors were first called ‘avirulence factors’ by the botanist Flor in the 1940s [70]; these proteins (shortened to ‘Avr’) are recognized in the plant by a cognate ‘R’ or resistance protein, which confers resistance to that particular pathogen. Resistance proteins are receptors mostly belonging to the family of nucleotide binding (NB) and leucine rich repeat (LRR) domain (NB-LRR) proteins [71,72]. The recognition of the pathogen Avr protein by the resistance protein R results in an incompatible interaction, producing an inhospitable environment for the pathogen which stymies disease progression. This Avr–R interaction was dubbed the ‘gene-for-gene hypothesis’ and in Flor’s work it was applied to the fungus Melampsora lini and the plant host, the flax plant, Linum usitatissimum. The name ‘effectors’ was more aptly adopted later, as the molecule could display virulent or avirulent activity, depending on whether the host possesses the resistance gene or not and can therefore have a positive or negative effect on the fitness of the pathogen and its ability to cause disease [2,73]. Avrs, by definition, are effectors that trigger ETI resulting in the visible dry necrotic lesions of the hypersensitive response. Resistance genes of the host are molecular land mines; once they are tripped by the pathogen Avr, the plant launches a defense response against the invading organism (ETI), which is disadvantageous to the pathogen. Since the effector is expected to benefit the producer organism, it is suspected that each Avr protein has a primary function in virulence, but this activity is masked when the effector is recognized by the dominant resistance protein of the plant [74].
MAMPs and effectors are both elicitors of host defense mechanisms. MTI and ETI are described as “stages” in a model described for plant immunity called the zig-zig model [63]. In MTI, the MAMPs of the pathogen are recognized by plant receptors resulting in the deposition of callose, induction of mitogen-activated kinase (MAPK) signaling, induction of pathogenicity related proteins and the oxidative burst (production of reactive oxygen species or ROS) in the plant host [75]. MTI culminates with the pathogen being unable to progress with the infection and the plants remaining healthy. Pathogens release effectors to hamper this first stage of immunity (MTI) resulting in effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS). Plants, in turn, have evolved with receptors (resistance proteins) which recognize these (Avr) effector molecules and trigger effector-triggered immunity or ETI, a hallmark of the incompatible plant–pathogen interaction previously mentioned. ETI is characterized by an oxidative burst and the upregulation of defense-related proteins such as phytoalexins and can culminate in the hypersensitive response (HR) (a type of programmed cell death or PCD) that ultimately stops pathogen growth at the site of infection. In the last stage of the zig-zag model, the pathogens outwit the plants once again; they evade recognition by the plant’s receptors by modifying the effector genes or using other effectors that help suppress the ETI response in the plant and target plant proteins (Figure 1). Recently, great advances have been made in the understanding of plant immunity. It is now better appreciated that MTI and ETI are not static stages in plant defense, but rather an interconnected system where one relies on the other [66,76].
2.1. Effectors in Plant–Pathogen Interactions
Although the original discovery of Flor’s gene-for-gene hypothesis was made between the flax plant and the rust fungus, it has since been demonstrated that effectors are key to all plant–pathogen interactions. The Avr effector, commonly associated with pathogenesis, is only one type of effector among various that can influence organisms’ interactions. Effectors of the major disease-causing organisms that compromise plant health and their roles in the establishment of plant-pathogen interactions are presented.
2.2. Fungal and Oomycete Effectors
Fungal and oomycete pathogens are the major disease-causing eukaryotic microorganisms [77,78]. They were once believed to be in the same kingdom due to their similar morphologies and lifestyles but have since been separated into different kingdoms as fungi (kingdom: Fungi) are evolutionarily more similar to animals, and the oomycetes (kingdom: Chromista) to golden-brown algae. These organisms are similar in their vegetative growth phase, where they both produce thread-like mycelia and form sexual and asexual spores. They are also similar in their production of haustoria-specialized feeding appendages that form an interface between them and the plant cell to retrieve plant nutrients and to release effector molecules [79].
Fungi and oomycetes present three main lifestyles: biotrophy, hemibiotrophy and necrotrophy. Biotrophic organisms require live hosts to complete their life cycle, and their effectors allow them to stealthily enter and remain in the host while avoiding recognition and suppressing the host’s defenses to maintain an optimum environment. Many effectors prevent MTI from being induced in the plant host such as Foa3 of Fusarium oxysporum [80] and Rip1 of Ustilago maydis [81]. Some effectors help in the establishment of pathogen reproductive structures such as BAS2 of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides [82], while others aid hyphal attachment and proliferation in the host, such as lep1 of Ustilago maydis [83]. This is just the tip of the iceberg for fungal effector functions, and comprehensive reviews on fungal and oomycete effector functions can be found elsewhere [18,26,35,84].
While biotrophic effectors often suppress host immunity and generally avoid setting off alarms in the plant host, necrotrophic fungi such as Sclerotinia sclerotium and Botrytis cinerea have a more aggressive approach and induce cell death in susceptible hosts with the help of their effectors. Hemibiotrophic pathogens such as the oomycete Phytophthora infestans employ both mechanisms; they suppress cell death early in the biotrophic phase, but, at later stages, cell death-inducing effectors are upregulated. This later induction produces the necrotic tissue necessary for the pathogen to complete its disease cycle [17,32]. Hemibiotrophic fungi and oomycetes are estimated to have the largest arsenal of effectors [85]. Necrotrophs, however, have smaller effectoromes that are just as important for necrotroph pathogenicity [85,86,87]. Host-specific necrotrophs, such as wheat pathogens Parastagonospora nodorum and Pyrenophora tritici-repentis, produce effectors that interact with dominant host proteins encoded by susceptibility (S) genes. This interaction is called the inverse gene-for-gene interaction because the interaction between necrotrophic host specific toxins (HST) and the S protein results in susceptibility (disease) instead of resistance to the plant disease (health). The interaction has great similarity to the resistance protein (R) and Avr interaction, leading to an oxidative burst and programmed cell death (PCD) [88]. Victorin, a non-ribosomal peptide from Cochliobolus victoriae [89] and SnTox1 of Parastagonospora nodorum [90], is an example of a necrotrophic effector that induces PCD upon interaction with the S gene products in their hosts, inducing disease susceptibility. Examples of functionally characterized avirulence effectors (Avrs) associated with disease resistance and other effectors that are associated with susceptibility are given in Table 1.
2.3. Bacterial Effectors
In bacteria, effectors are commonly secreted through type III, IV and VI systems, with the type III effectors (T3Es) being the most common effector type studied [129,130]; bacteria employ a nanosyringe forming a conduit for the direct delivery of proteins to the host [131]. The roles of bacterial effectors in plant disease have been better understood thanks to functional genomics studies in the hemibiotrophic model organism, Pseudomonas syringae [132,133]. Many T3Es display functional redundancy which complicates studying their contribution to pathogen virulence in P. syringae [134].
Regarding effector types, some are defense-related avirulence effectors that induce ETI in the presence of a resistance protein, e.g., RipB [103] and RipJ [104], while other bacterial T3Es can suppress ETI and PTI-associated cell death caused by other effectors and elicitors. For example, AvrRpt2 suppresses ETI cell death caused by the effector HopA1, and HopF2 suppresses flagellin-induced PTI [135]. Similarly, RipAC suppresses ETI induced by the Avr effector RipAA [136]. The effector AvrPtoB is both a cell death inducer and suppressor. This effector can promote cell death in tomato plants which carry the Pto resistance protein but is a general cell death suppressor in N. benthamiana of the Cf9-mediated and Bax-mediated cell death responses as well as Pto-AvrPto-mediated cell death [134,137,138].
Host defense suppression is the main function associated with bacterial T3Es, although they also function in nutrient acquisition [139,140] and bacterial colonization and dissemination within the host [141,142]. The molecular mechanisms of these effectors include interfering with signal transduction, transcription, and host secretory pathways [13,143,144]. Perhaps one of the most fascinating classes of T3SS effectors is the transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs) found in Xanthomonas sp. These effectors act like transcription factors, binding to sequences in or near promoter regions of host genes and activating their transcription in the host nucleus. Targets of TALEs in the plant host include nutrient transporters [142,145] as well as various plant transcription factors involved in promoting disease susceptibility [146,147]. Predictive tools are now available for the identification of bacterial effectors in the three types of secretion systems; type III secreted effectors [148], type IV secreted effectors [149], type VI secreted effectors [150] and the improved ability to predict new effectors is driving bacterial effectoromics research.
2.4. Effectors in Plant-Beneficial Microbe Interactions
Two decades ago, a mycorrhizae-plant interaction first produced evidence of effectors secreted by beneficial organisms [151]. Beneficial organisms (or mutualists), as the name suggests, provide benefits to the plant host, usually by increasing nutrient availability for plant roots and inducing disease resistance. In exchange, plants provide protection and photosynthates [152]. Mutualists, such as pathogens, need to reprogram the plant’s immune system to prevent their detection by the plant. While colonizing plant roots, mutualist MAMPs are recognized as foreign molecules to the plant, setting off alarms and triggering a plant defense response. In response, beneficial microbes such as mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria have developed effectors to suppress the defense mechanisms of the plant during their colonization of plant roots. Initially, these organisms trigger MTI which is weaker in comparison with the plant’s response to true pathogens [153]. The plant later reaps the benefits of systemic resistance against a wide range of incoming pathogens (induced systemic resistance, ISR) after the symbiosis with the beneficial organism is established [154]. Beneficial organisms that are inducers of ISR include plant growth-bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas spp. and Rhizobium spp., among others, and fungi in the genus Trichoderma sp. and Serendipita indica [155,156]. Examples of their effectors and how they influence interactions with the plant host can be found in Table 2.
Many of the effectors discovered in beneficial organisms appear to target hormone signaling pathways in the plant host. The effector, SP7, of the endomycorrhiza Glomus intraradices, interacts with the transcription factor ERF19 involved in ethylene signaling. The effector alters the production of this phytohormone, which regulates the transcription of many defense-related genes [157]. MiSSP7, of the ectomycorrhiza Laccaria bicolor, interacts with plant repressor proteins PtJAZ5 and PtJAZ6 and prevents their degradation, which would otherwise result in the transcription of jasmonate acid (JA)-controlled genes that act in the plant’s defense [158]. Other effectors directly aid in the establishment of the mutualistic interaction such as RiCRN1, a Crinkler effector of Rhizophagus irregularis that aids in the formation of the interaction structures of the fungi called arbuscules [159]. Another R. irregularis effector, RiNLE1, promotes colonization by interacting with a host histone protein (H2B), preventing its ubiquitination and leading to the downregulation of defense-related genes [160].
Effectors are also key in the establishment of plant endophytic microbial communities and the interactions between endophytes and plants. Endophytes colonize plant tissues of the phyllosphere or rhizosphere, without causing apparent harm to their host and both plant and endophyte benefit from the association [161]. Mutualistic mycorrhizae are not characterized as endophytes, being phylogenetically distinct from most other endophytes [162]; root endophytes also do not commonly establish nutrient transfer interfaces like mycorrhizae do [163]. Like their mycorrhizal counterparts, endophytic organisms produce effectors that manipulate host defense, especially MTI, in order to establish the endophyte–host symbiosis; for example, the endophytic fungus Pestalotiopsis sp. secretes an effector with chitin deacetylase activity that hydrolyzes elicitors and chitin oligomers to prevent chitin-triggered immunity in the rice host [164]. The effector FGBI of the endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica is another suppressor of MTI, which prevents β-glucan-triggered immunity in the host, through its binding to β-glucans in the fungal cell wall [165].
In the best of times, endophytes are defenders of plant health in the face of biotic and abiotic stress. Endophyte-mediated resistance against plant pathogens is generated in plant hosts as a result of endophyte antagonism against pathogens [166,167,168], increased nutrient availability to the host [169,170], endophyte-produced antimicrobial compounds [171,172] and the induction of plant-produced defense compounds through effectors that modulate phytohormone pathways involved in ISR [173,174,175]. Interestingly, some endophytic effectors induce the expression of defense genes conferring protection to plants against pathogens [176] or regulate the expression of pathogen effectors to the benefit of the host [177]. Endophyte effectors associated with ISR are listed in Table 2, along with other common endophyte effector functions in plant interactions.
Endophytes are integral components of plant microbiomes, and microbial communities are indeed influenced by the endophyte-secreted molecules. Bacteria of the genera Variovorax and Acidovorax, among others, identified from the root-associated microbiome of Arabidopsis thaliana, were shown to protect A. thaliana from pathogenic fungi and oomycetes while maintaining the microbiome’s equilibrium and, in turn, plant health [178]. Interestingly, another study identified Hyde1 proteins from Acidovorax bacteria that were shown to have antibacterial properties against E. coli as well as other bacterial isolates [179], an indication that these proteins are probable effectors associated with microbial competition. A glycoside hydrolase 25 family member with lysozyme activity is another potential effector associated with microbial antagonism; this protein was found to be a major contributing factor to the antagonism of the oomycete Albugo laibachii by the commensal yeast Moesziomyces bullatus ex Albugo in the A. thaliana phyllosphere [180]. Taken together, the evidence shows that microbial incompatibility is mediated by effector molecules. Additional examples of effectors associated with microbial antagonism can be found for pathogens in competition with other microbes [181,182,183] and mycoparasites/biological control agents against pathogens [184,185].
It must be acknowledged that plant immunity is a function of innate immunity mechanisms against incoming pathogens, as well as, microbiota-mediated disease resistance [186,187]. Effectors are important determinants which shape microbial communities, determining their lifestyle, level of host specialization as well as their compatibility with other microorganisms [188]. Synergistic interactions in the plant microbiome are major contributors to plant resistance. The design and inoculation of synthetic microbial communities (SynComs) derived from native plant populations is a promising avenue for plant health promotion [178,186,189,190,191]. A noteworthy example of microbial synergism is displayed by the root endophyte Serendipita vermifera, which works with bacterial microbiota to confer protection against the soil-borne fungal pathogen, Bipolaris sorokiniana in Arabidopsis thaliana and barley; modulation of effector expression was observed for both the pathogenic and the endophytic fungus [192]. A. thaliana actively recruits and promotes the colonization of three bacterial species against infection by the pathogen, Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis. In this tripartite interaction, the combination of bacteria, not any single species, significantly impacted plant protection by inducing systemic resistance in the primary plants and conferring protection to their offspring as well [193]. The plant microbiome and plant immunity are influenced by each other and are also each affected by environmental and host factors [194]; the reciprocal interplay between these components is displayed in Figure 2.
Table 2Examples of effectors from beneficial microorganisms and their associated functions.
| Beneficial Organism | Effector | Associated Plant | Function | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mycorrhizae | ||||
| Laccaria bicolor | MiSSP7 |
Populus trichocarpa
|
Interacts with host plant JA signaling repressors to suppress JA-related host defense signaling | [158] |
| Laccaria bicolor | MiSSP7.6 | Populus tremula x Populus alba | Interacts with two host transcription factors: PtTrihelix1 and PtTrihelix2; involved in the establishment of Hartig net | [195] |
| Laccaria bicolor | MiSSP8 | Populus tremula x Populus alba | Involved in mantle formation and Hartig net development for the establishment of symbiosis with host | [196] |
| Glomus intraradices | SP7 | Medicago truncatula | Interacts with the host transcription factor ERF19 involved in ethylene-related defense signaling to suppress host defense | [157] |
| Rhizophagus irregularis | RiCRN1 | Medicago truncatula | Localizes to plant nucleus; involved in arbuscule development | [159] |
| Rhizophagus irregularis | RiSLM | Medicago truncatula | Binds chitin and protects against hydrolysis by chitinases. Interferes with host chitin-triggered immunity to suppress defense response | [197] |
| Pisolithus albus | PaMiSSP10b | Eucalyptus grandis | Interacts with an S-adenosyl methionine decarboxylase (AdoMetDC) in the polyamine pathway; alters polyamine biosynthesis to aid colonization | [198] |
| Rhizophagus irregularis | RiNLE1 | Medicago truncatula | Interacts with the host histone 2B protein (H2B) impairing its mono-ubiquitination which suppresses host defense-related gene expression | [160] |
| Endophytes | ||||
| Bradryhizobium elkanii USDA61 | Bel2-5 | Glycine max | Cysteine protease; involved in root nodulation | [199] |
| Rhizobium sp. NGR234 | NopM | Lablab purpureus | E3 ubiquitin ligase; promotes root nodulation | [200] |
| Rhizobium sp. NGR234 | NopE | Glycine |
Calcium binding protein; regulates host root nodulation | [201] |
| Serendipita indica | FGB1 | Hordeum vulgare, Nicotiana benthamiana, Arabidopsis thaliana | β-glucan binding lectin; alters fungal cell wall composition and suppresses β-glucan-triggered plant immunity | [165] |
| Serendipita indica | Dld1 | Hordeum vulgare | Fungal metal ion homeostasis and micronutrient acquisition; antioxidant; enhances host root colonization | [202] |
| Trichoderma asperellum | TasXyn29.4 and TasXyn24.2 | Populus davidiana × P. alba var. pyramidalis | Xylanases; induced Me-JA accumulation. ISR against A. alternata, R. solani, and F. oxysporum | [203] |
| T. harzianum Th22 | Thph1 and Thph2 | Maize (Inbred line Huangzao 4) | Cellulases; triggered production of (ROS) and induced genes related to the jasmonate/ethylene signaling pathway. ISR against C. lunata. | [173] |
| T. atroviride IMI 206040 | Epl1 | Solanum lycopersicum | Ceratoplatanin family protein; induced the expression of a host peroxidase. ISR against A. solani and B. cinerea | [204] |
| T. virens Gv29-8 | Sm1 | Gossypium hirsutum | Ceratoplatanin family protein; triggered production of ROS and induces the expression of host defense-related genes. ISR against Colletotrichum sp. | [205] |
The endophyte–plant relationship is usually asymptomatic but sometimes endophytic microorganisms can become pathogenic due to changes in light/environment, host gene expression, nutrient balance/availability, type of host [188,206] or even an infection; a mycovirus that infected Sclerotinia slerotorium caused the pathogen to become an endophyte through the regulation of the expression of its pathogenicity genes [207]. The molecules which determine this continuum or the transition from one lifestyle to the other remain to be uncovered, but it is likely that effectors play a major role here. For example, in Fusarium oxysporum, secreted in xylem (SIX) effector profiles were different among the endophytic and pathogenic isolates assessed in the study [208]. Furthermore, a greater number of effector gene candidates and host-specific effectors were associated with pathogenicity in F. oxysporum compared to endophytic strains [209]. It is truly fascinating how effectors can play similar roles in pathogenic and beneficial microorganisms, but the outcomes of their interactions are contrasting. Further interactomics analyses are required to unravel these intriguing processes.
2.5. The New Age of Effector Identification and Characterization
The omics sciences, coupled with various bioinformatics tools, have supported investigations into the complete effector content or effectoromes of organisms. As such, effector identification is somewhat becoming less challenging as certain criteria have been established to identify canonical protein effector candidates. These are based on their small size (less than 400 amino acids), cysteine richness (at least 4 Cys residues, characteristic of fungal apoplastic effectors), the presence of a secretory signal peptide, the absence of transmembrane domains, overexpression data in host interactions and limited homology to proteins in other organisms [35,85,210,211]. Additionally, N-terminal effector motifs such as RXLR have been particularly important for oomycete effector identification [212,213].
Initially, it was common for researchers to establish in-house effector identification pipelines that required the use of many separate tools to determine effector candidature of a given protein. More recently, the EffHunter algorithm [85] and machine learning (ML) tools trained to predict effectors based on shared physiochemical protein properties are facilitating easier high-throughput effector identification from pathogen genomes. EffectorP versions 1, 2 and 3 (
Caution is required in the interpretation of in silico effector predictions for plant-beneficial organisms. As it becomes increasingly more evident that beneficial microorganisms also possess effectors and use their effectors in similar ways as plant pathogens, improved effector predictors should include effectors of these non-pathogenic microbes in their positive training sets to reduce the false negative rate in non-pathogenic effector identification. Saprophytes, organisms that obtain nutrients from dead or decaying organic matter, are often excluded from the effector narrative as they are considered depleted in effector molecules [214]. The possibility exists that true effectors, particularly of species in the genus Trichoderma sp., (well-known saprophytes that can engage in mutualistic plant interactions and in antagonism against other fungi) are being relegated to negative datasets. Predector (
3. Conclusions and Perspectives
The elucidation of pathogen effectoromes helps us better understand how pathogens successfully infect their hosts, causing significant crop losses in agriculture that range from food shortages to famines. In the last 20 years, our knowledge of these molecules has greatly expanded, but our understanding of effectors is still in its infancy as we continue to uncover numerous effectors and novel classes of effectors in plant-pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms. In effectoromics, we have naturally seen a bias towards plant pathogenic effectors since these organisms are formidable threats to food security. R-gene pyramiding and S-gene manipulation through gene editing are among the prevalent effector-assisted disease control strategies [221,222,223,224]. Comparative studies are necessary to ascertain whether promoting effector-triggered defense or hindering effector-triggered susceptibility is more durable in plant protection; the suitability of each approach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the advancement of effector biology, we suggest the following lines of investigation:
-
(a). Bottlenecks still exist in effector identification; effectors of plant-beneficial organisms as well as those pathogenic effectors which do not possess all the canonical effector characteristics (small size, high cysteine content, etc.) may not be well represented in in silico deduced effectoromes. Newer pipelines should take these limitations into consideration, looking beyond the common physicochemical protein characteristics of effectors currently used.
-
(b). Effector identification is occurring at a rapid pace, but characterization is lagging relative to the large amount of effector candidates identified per organism. It is necessary to propose novel strategies and, if possible, establish standardized means of prioritizing candidates for further characterization.
-
(c). More attention should be placed on the effectors of plant-beneficial organisms and their characterization. This can foster effector-based screening and selection of better strains of biological control organisms for their implementation in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the isolation and application of novel effectors from pathogens, as well as plant-beneficial organisms, may prove viable in plant protection strategies.
B.C.-C. and J.N.A.T. conceived and drafted the review. K.G.C.-A. created the figures for the review. B.C.-C., J.N.A.T., K.G.C.-A. and I.I.-F. contributed to the writing and correction of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Effectors are major determinants of plant disease. Pathogens secrete effectors that can induce disease susceptibility through targeting host susceptibility factors and subverting the ETI defense response resulting in disease, ETS, (left). On the other hand, pathogens can also induce ETI and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) when hosts have the corresponding resistance proteins that recognize Avr effectors, producing the HR and stopping the progression of the pathogen (right). Conserved molecules, called MAMPs, from both pathogens and mutualists elicit the MTI defense response in the host; mutualist MAMPs induce ISR. Endophytic fungi and rhizobacteria as well as mycorrhizae promote plant defense through the activation of ISR and the plant becomes “primed” to resist infection from incoming pathogens (right).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. The health and disease triangle. Disease resistance or susceptibility is determined by the host plant, its microbiome and the environment. The composition of the plant microbiome is also influenced by the host plant and environmental factors. Effectors of endophytes and pathogens (left corner, represented by small circles and stars) play a major role in plant health; disease susceptibility or resistance are mediated by these molecules. Effectors are also determinants of the endophyte-pathogen lifestyle continuum and help regulate the composition of the plant microbiome. Lastly, plants regulate the environment through photosynthesis and respiration; microbes are also key components that regulate climate homeostasis.
Examples of characterized effectors of biotrophic, necrotrophic and hemibiotrophic fungal and oomycete pathogens that are associated with disease resistance and disease susceptibility.
| Effector Classification | Organism Type | Organism | Effector Name and Uniprot ID | Function | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistance or Defense Associated Effectors | Biotrophic |
Cladosporium fulvum | Avr4 | Induces ETI when recognized by host resistance protein Cf-4; protects fungal cell walls against hydrolysis by plant chitinases | [ |
| Biotrophic |
Cladosporium fulvum | Avr4E | Induces ETI; recognized by resistance protein Hcr9-4E | [ |
|
| Biotrophic |
Cladosporium fulvum | Ecp6 | Induces ETI when recognized by resistance protein Cf-ECP6; binds to fungal chitin to prevent chitin-triggered immunity in host | [ |
|
| Biotrophic |
Melamspora lini | AvrM | Induces ETI in host; recognized by resistance protein M | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Magnaporthe oryzae | AvrPia (B9WZW9) | Induces ETI in host; recognized by resistance protein RGA5 | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Magnaporthe oryzae | AVR-Pik |
Induces ETI in host; recognized by resistance protein Pik | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Magnaporthe oryzae | PWT3 | Recognized by host resistance protein Rwt3 | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora infestans | AVRamr3 | Recognized by host resistance protein Rpi-amr3 | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Ascochyta lentis | AlAvr1 | Unidentified resistance gene; ETI induced in host | [ |
|
| Biotrophic |
Puccinia polysora | AvrRppC | Recognized by host resistance protein RppC | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Ralstonia solanacearum | RipB | Recognized by host resistance protein Roq1 | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Ralstonia solanacearum | RipJ | Unidentified resistance gene; ETI induced in host | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Ralstonia solanacearum | RipAZ1 | Unidentified resistance gene; ETI induced in host | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae strain 61 | HopA1Pss61 | Recognized by RPS6 resistance protein; ETI induced | [ |
|
| Susceptibility Associated Effectors | Biotrophic |
Ustilago maydis | Umrip1 | Targets susceptibility factor ZmLox3, ZmLox3 represses ROS burst | [ |
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora infestans | Pi02860 | Targets susceptibility factor NRL1. NLR1 promotes degradation of positive regulator of immunity, StSWAP70 | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora infestans | Pi04314/RD24 | Targets PP1 catalytic subunits |
[ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora sojae | PsAvh52 | Targets susceptibility factor GmTAP1, causing relocation from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. GmTAP1 promotes H3K9 acetylation to promote disease susceptibility | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora infestans | PiAvr2 | Interacts with BRI1-SUPPRESSOR1-like (BSL) BSL1, BSL2, and BSL3; BSL1 and BSL3 suppress INF1-triggered cell death (PTI) | [ |
|
| Necrotrophic |
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis | ToxA |
Targets Tsn1, susceptibility factor involved in ToxA-triggered cell death which favors necrotrophy | [ |
|
| Necrotrophic |
Parastagonospora nodorum | SnTox1 |
Targets Snn1, susceptibility factor involved in SnTox1-triggered cell death which favors necrotrophy; protects fungus from host chitinases |
[ |
|
| Necrotophic |
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis | PtrToxB |
Targets Tsc2, susceptibility factor involved in PtrToxB triggered cell death which favors necrotrophy | [ |
|
| Hemibiotrophic |
Phytophthora sp. | PSR2 | Inhibits secondary siRNA (PPR-siRNAs) production in Arabidopsis to promote disease susceptibility | [ |
|
| Biotrophic oomycete | Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis | HaRxL21 | Responsible for transcriptional repression via interaction with TPL/TPR1 Arabidopsis proteins | [ |
|
| Necrotrophic fungus | Sclerotinia sclerotiorum | SsITL | Inhibits SA accumulation through interaction with CAS receptor in chloroplast | [ |
|
| Biotrophic fungus | Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici | Pst_12806 | Reduces photosynthesis and ROS accumulation; interacts with TaISP, a subunit of Cyt b6/f in the chloroplast | [ |
|
| Biotrophic fungus | Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici | PstGSRE1 | Disrupts nuclear localization of a ROS associated transcription factor TaLOL2 to suppress ROS-mediated cell death | [ |
|
| Biotrophic fungus | Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici | PstGSRE4 | Inhibits the enzyme activity of wheat copper zinc superoxide dismutase TaCZSOD2 reducing H2O2 accumulation and HR | [ |
|
| Biotrophic fungus | Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici | Pst18363 | Pst18363 stabilizes TaNUDX23, which suppresses ROS accumulation inducing susceptibility | [ |
|
| Biotrophic fungus | Ustilaginoidea virens | SCRE6 | Interacts with and dephosphorylates the target OsMPK6 for its stabilization, suppressing plant immunity | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Xanthomonas translucens pv. undulosa | Tal8 | Upregulates expression of the host gene 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase (TaNCED-5BS) involved in the biosynthesis of abscisic acid; decreases ex-pression of defense gene TaNPR1 | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae | PthXo3JXOV | Upregulates expression of the susceptibility gene OsSWEET14 to trigger sugar release; effector also inhibits HR and callose deposition | [ |
|
| Bacteria | Ralstonia solanacearum | RipAL | Putative lipase that catalyzes the release of linoleic acid from chloroplast lipids; induces JA production and suppresses SA signaling | [ |
ROS, reactive oxygen species; JA, jasmonic acid; SA, salicylic acid.
References
1. Kamoun, S. A Catalogue of the Effector Secretome of Plant Pathogenic Oomycetes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2006; 44, pp. 41-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143436] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16448329]
2. Hogenhout, S.A.; Van der Hoorn, R.A.L.; Terauchi, R.; Kamoun, S. Emerging Concepts in Effector Biology of Plant-Associated Organisms. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2009; 22, pp. 115-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-22-2-0115] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19132864]
3. Liu, L.; Xu, L.; Jia, Q.; Pan, R.; Oelmüller, R.; Zhang, W.; Wu, C. Arms Race: Diverse Effector Proteins with Conserved Motifs. Plant Signal. Behav.; 2019; 14, 1557008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2018.1557008]
4. Rocafort, M.; Fudal, I.; Mesarich, C.H. Apoplastic Effector Proteins of Plant-Associated Fungi and Oomycetes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2020; 56, pp. 9-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2020.02.004]
5. Schreiber, K.J.; Chau-Ly, I.J.; Lewis, J.D. What the Wild Things Do: Mechanisms of Plant Host Manipulation by Bacterial Type III-Secreted Effector Proteins. Microorganisms; 2021; 9, 1029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051029] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34064647]
6. Stergiopoulos, I.; Collemare, J.; Mehrabi, R.; De Wit, P.J.G.M. Phytotoxic Secondary Metabolites and Peptides Produced by Plant Pathogenic Dothideomycete Fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.; 2013; 37, pp. 67-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00349.x]
7. Ditengou, F.A.; Müller, A.; Rosenkranz, M.; Felten, J.; Lasok, H.; van Doorn, M.M.; Legué, V.; Palme, K.; Schnitzler, J.-P.; Polle, A. Volatile Signalling by Sesquiterpenes from Ectomycorrhizal Fungi Reprogrammes Root Architecture. Nat. Commun.; 2015; 6, 6279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7279]
8. Meena, M.; Gupta, S.K.; Swapnil, P.; Zehra, A.; Dubey, M.K.; Upadhyay, R.S. Alternaria Toxins: Potential Virulence Factors and Genes Related to Pathogenesis. Front. Microbiol.; 2017; 8, 1451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01451]
9. Weiberg, A.; Wang, M.; Lin, F.-M.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Kaloshian, I.; Huang, H.-D.; Jin, H. Fungal Small RNAs Suppress Plant Immunity by Hijacking Host RNA Interference Pathways. Science; 2013; 342, pp. 118-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1239705]
10. Wang, M.; Weiberg, A.; Dellota, E.; Yamane, D.; Jin, H. Botrytis Small RNA Bc-SiR37 Suppresses Plant Defense Genes by Cross-Kingdom RNAi. RNA Biol.; 2017; 14, pp. 421-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15476286.2017.1291112]
11. Wang, Y.; Cui, C.; Wang, G.; Li, Y.; Wang, S. Insects Defend against Fungal Infection by Employing MicroRNAs to Silence Virulence-Related Genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2021; 118, e2023802118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023802118] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33941699]
12. Selin, C.; de Kievit, T.R.; Belmonte, M.F.; Fernando, W.G.D. Elucidating the Role of Effectors in Plant-Fungal Interactions: Progress and Challenges. Front. Microbiol.; 2016; 7, 600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00600] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199930]
13. Khan, M.; Seto, D.; Subramaniam, R.; Desveaux, D. Oh, the Places They’ll Go! A Survey of Phytopathogen Effectors and Their Host Targets. Plant J.; 2018; 93, pp. 651-663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13780]
14. Büttner, D. Behind the Lines-Actions of Bacterial Type III Effector Proteins in Plant Cells. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.; 2016; 40, pp. 894-937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuw026]
15. Uhse, S.; Djamei, A. Effectors of Plant-Colonizing Fungi and Beyond. PLoS Pathog.; 2018; 14, e1006992. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006992]
16. Yan, Q.; Zhang, W.; Lin, M.; Teymournejad, O.; Budachetri, K.; Lakritz, J.; Rikihisa, Y. Iron Robbery by Intracellular Pathogen via Bacterial Effector–Induced Ferritinophagy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2021; 118, e2026598118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026598118]
17. Zhang, S.; Li, C.; Si, J.; Han, Z.; Chen, D. Action Mechanisms of Effectors in Plant-Pathogen Interaction. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2022; 23, 6758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23126758]
18. Figueroa, M.; Ortiz, D.; Henningsen, E.C. Tactics of Host Manipulation by Intracellular Effectors from Plant Pathogenic Fungi. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2021; 62, 102054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102054]
19. Rodriguez, P.A.; Escudero-Martinez, C.; Bos, J.I.B. An Aphid Effector Targets Trafficking Protein VPS52 in a Host-Specific Manner to Promote Virulence. Plant Physiol.; 2017; 173, pp. 1892-1903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.01458]
20. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Fu, Y.; Crespo-Herrera, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J. Salivary Effector Sm9723 of Grain Aphid Sitobion miscanthi Suppresses Plant Defense and Is Essential for Aphid Survival on Wheat. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2022; 23, 6909. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136909]
21. Leelarasamee, N.; Zhang, L.; Gleason, C. The Root-Knot Nematode Effector MiPFN3 Disrupts Plant Actin Filaments and Promotes Parasitism. PLoS Pathog.; 2018; 14, e1006947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006947] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29543900]
22. Kud, J.; Wang, W.; Gross, R.; Fan, Y.; Huang, L.; Yuan, Y.; Gray, A.; Duarte, A.; Kuhl, J.C.; Caplan, A. et al. The Potato Cyst Nematode Effector RHA1B Is a Ubiquitin Ligase and Uses Two Distinct Mechanisms to Suppress Plant Immune Signaling. PLoS Pathog.; 2019; 15, e1007720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1007720] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30978251]
23. Hu, L.-J.; Wu, X.-Q.; Li, H.-Y.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Y.-C.; Ye, J.-R. An Effector, BxSapB1, Induces Cell Death and Contributes to Virulence in the Pine Wood Nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2018; 32, pp. 452-463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-10-18-0275-R] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30351223]
24. Pandey, P.; Leary, A.Y.; Tumtas, Y.; Savage, Z.; Dagvadorj, B.; Duggan, C.; Yuen, E.L.; Sanguankiattichai, N.; Tan, E.; Khandare, V. et al. An Oomycete Effector Subverts Host Vesicle Trafficking to Channel Starvation-Induced Autophagy to the Pathogen Interface. eLife; 2021; 10, e65285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65285]
25. Zhu, C.; Liu, J.-H.; Zhao, J.-H.; Liu, T.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Wang, C.-H.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Guo, H.-S.; Duan, C.-G. A Fungal Effector Suppresses the Nuclear Export of AGO1–MiRNA Complex to Promote Infection in Plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2022; 119, e2114583119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2114583119]
26. He, Q.; McLellan, H.; Boevink, P.C.; Birch, P.R.J. All Roads Lead to Susceptibility: The Many Modes of Action of Fungal and Oomycete Intracellular Effectors. Plant Commun.; 2020; 1, 100050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xplc.2020.100050]
27. Choi, S.; Jayaraman, J.; Segonzac, C.; Park, H.-J.; Park, H.; Han, S.-W.; Sohn, K.H. Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae Type III Effectors Localized at Multiple Cellular Compartments Activate or Suppress Innate Immune Responses in Nicotiana Benthamiana. Front. Plant Sci.; 2017; 8, 2157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.02157]
28. Rufián, J.S.; Rueda-Blanco, J.; López-Márquez, D.; Macho, A.P.; Beuzón, C.R.; Ruiz-Albert, J. The Bacterial Effector HopZ1a Acetylates MKK7 to Suppress Plant Immunity. New Phytol.; 2021; 231, pp. 1138-1156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.17442]
29. Zvereva, A.S.; Golyaev, V.; Turco, S.; Gubaeva, E.G.; Rajeswaran, R.; Schepetilnikov, M.V.; Srour, O.; Ryabova, L.A.; Boller, T.; Pooggin, M.M. Viral Protein Suppresses Oxidative Burst and Salicylic Acid-Dependent Autophagy and Facilitates Bacterial Growth on Virus-Infected Plants. New Phytol.; 2016; 211, pp. 1020-1034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.13967]
30. Wu, D.; Qi, T.; Li, W.-X.; Tian, H.; Gao, H.; Wang, J.; Ge, J.; Yao, R.; Ren, C.; Wang, X.-B. et al. Viral Effector Protein Manipulates Host Hormone Signaling to Attract Insect Vectors. Cell Res.; 2017; 27, pp. 402-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.2]
31. Plett, J.M.; Yin, H.; Mewalal, R.; Hu, R.; Li, T.; Ranjan, P.; Jawdy, S.; Paoli, H.C.D.; Butler, G.; Burch-Smith, T.M. et al. Populus trichocarpa Encodes Small, Effector-like Secreted Proteins That Are Highly Induced during Mutualistic Symbiosis. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00400-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28336910]
32. Toruño, T.Y.; Stergiopoulos, I.; Coaker, G. Plant-Pathogen Effectors: Cellular Probes Interfering with Plant Defenses in Spatial and Temporal Manners. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2016; 54, pp. 419-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100204] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27359369]
33. Weber, O.B.; dos Garruti, D.S.; Norões, N.P.; de Silva, S.O.; Weber, O.B.; dos Garruti, D.S.; Norões, N.P.; de Silva, S.O. Performance of Banana Genotypes with Resistance to Black Leaf Streak Disease in Northeastern Brazil. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras.; 2017; 52, pp. 161-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2017000300003]
34. Han, X.; Kahmann, R. Manipulation of Phytohormone Pathways by Effectors of Filamentous Plant Pathogens. Front. Plant Sci.; 2019; 10, 822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00822]
35. Lo Presti, L.; Lanver, D.; Schweizer, G.; Tanaka, S.; Liang, L.; Tollot, M.; Zuccaro, A.; Reissmann, S.; Kahmann, R. Fungal Effectors and Plant Susceptibility. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.; 2015; 66, pp. 513-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114623] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25923844]
36. Wilson, R.A.; McDowell, J.M. Recent Advances in Understanding of Fungal and Oomycete Effectors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2022; 68, 102228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102228] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35605341]
37. Tanaka, S.; Kahmann, R. Cell Wall–Associated Effectors of Plant-Colonizing Fungi. Mycologia; 2021; 113, pp. 247-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2020.1831293] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33534652]
38. Hu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Cai, B.; Qin, X.; Wu, J.; Yuan, M.; Wan, S.; Zhao, Y.; Xin, X.-F. Bacterial Effectors Manipulate Plant Abscisic Acid Signaling for Creation of an Aqueous Apoplast. Cell Host Microbe; 2022; 30, pp. 518-529.e6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.02.002]
39. Robin, G.P.; Kleemann, J.; Neumann, U.; Cabre, L.; Dallery, J.-F.; Lapalu, N.; O’Connell, R.J. Subcellular Localization Screening of Colletotrichum higginsianum Effector Candidates Identifies Fungal Proteins Targeted to Plant Peroxisomes, Golgi Bodies, and Microtubules. Front. Plant Sci.; 2018; 9, 562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00562]
40. Yang, F.; Xiao, K.; Pan, H.; Liu, J. Chloroplast: The Emerging Battlefield in Plant–Microbe Interactions. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 637853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.637853]
41. Fabro, G. Oomycete Intracellular Effectors: Specialised Weapons Targeting Strategic Plant Processes. New Phytol.; 2022; 233, pp. 1074-1082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.17828] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34705271]
42. van Schie, C.C.N.; Takken, F.L.W. Susceptibility Genes 101: How to Be a Good Host. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2014; 52, pp. 551-581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-045854] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25001453]
43. Shao, D.; Smith, D.L.; Kabbage, M.; Roth, M.G. Effectors of Plant Necrotrophic Fungi. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 687713. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.687713] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34149788]
44. Murphy, F.; He, Q.; Armstrong, M.; Giuliani, L.M.; Boevink, P.C.; Zhang, W.; Tian, Z.; Birch, P.R.J.; Gilroy, E.M. The Potato MAP3K StVIK Is Required for the Phytophthora infestans RXLR Effector Pi17316 to Promote Disease. Plant Physiol.; 2018; 177, pp. 398-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.18.00028]
45. Lan, X.; Liu, Y.; Song, S.; Yin, L.; Xiang, J.; Qu, J.; Lu, J. Plasmopara viticola Effector PvRXLR131 Suppresses Plant Immunity by Targeting Plant Receptor-like Kinase Inhibitor BKI1. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2019; 20, pp. 765-783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12790] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30945786]
46. Chan, C. The Intricate Dance between Ustilago Effector and Maize Defense. Plant Cell; 2022; 34, pp. 2586-2587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac109]
47. Ma, L.; Djavaheri, M.; Wang, H.; Larkan, N.J.; Haddadi, P.; Beynon, E.; Gropp, G.; Borhan, M.H. Leptosphaeria maculans Effector Protein AvrLm1 Modulates Plant Immunity by Enhancing MAP Kinase 9 Phosphorylation. iScience; 2018; 3, pp. 177-191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2018.04.015]
48. Yang, Q.; Huai, B.; Lu, Y.; Cai, K.; Guo, J.; Zhu, X.; Kang, Z.; Guo, J. A Stripe Rust Effector Pst18363 Targets and Stabilises TaNUDX23 That Promotes Stripe Rust Disease. New Phytol.; 2020; 225, pp. 880-895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.16199]
49. Vleeshouwers, V.G.A.A.; Rietman, H.; Krenek, P.; Champouret, N.; Young, C.; Oh, S.-K.; Wang, M.; Bouwmeester, K.; Vosman, B.; Visser, R.G.F. et al. Effector Genomics Accelerates Discovery and Functional Profiling of Potato Disease Resistance and Phytophthora infestans Avirulence Genes. PLoS ONE; 2008; 3, e2875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002875] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18682852]
50. Rietman, H.; Bijsterbosch, G.; Cano, L.M.; Lee, H.-R.; Vossen, J.H.; Jacobsen, E.; Visser, R.G.F.; Kamoun, S.; Vleeshouwers, V.G.A.A. Qualitative and Quantitative Late Blight Resistance in the Potato Cultivar Sarpo Mira Is Determined by the Perception of Five Distinct RXLR Effectors. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2012; 25, pp. 910-919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-01-12-0010-R]
51. Timilsina, S.; Abrahamian, P.; Potnis, N.; Minsavage, G.V.; White, F.F.; Staskawicz, B.J.; Jones, J.B.; Vallad, G.E.; Goss, E.M. Analysis of Sequenced Genomes of Xanthomonas perforans Identifies Candidate Targets for Resistance Breeding in Tomato. Phytopathology; 2016; 106, pp. 1097-1104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-03-16-0119-FI]
52. Giesbers, A.K.J.; Pelgrom, A.J.E.; Visser, R.G.F.; Niks, R.E.; Van den Ackerveken, G.; Jeuken, M.J.W. Effector-Mediated Discovery of a Novel Resistance Gene against Bremia lactucae in a Nonhost Lettuce Species. New Phytol.; 2017; 216, pp. 915-926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14741]
53. Vleeshouwers, V.G.A.A.; Oliver, R.P. Effectors as Tools in Disease Resistance Breeding against Biotrophic, Hemibiotrophic, and Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2014; 27, pp. 196-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-10-13-0313-IA]
54. See, P.T.; Iagallo, E.M.; Oliver, R.P.; Moffat, C.S. Heterologous Expression of the Pyrenophora tritici-repentis Effector Proteins ToxA and ToxB, and the Prevalence of Effector Sensitivity in Australian Cereal Crops. Front. Microbiol.; 2019; 10, 182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00182] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30809209]
55. Gust, A.A.; Brunner, F.; Nürnberger, T. Biotechnological Concepts for Improving Plant Innate Immunity. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.; 2010; 21, pp. 204-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.02.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20181472]
56. Pavan, S.; Jacobsen, E.; Visser, R.G.F.; Bai, Y. Loss of Susceptibility as a Novel Breeding Strategy for Durable and Broad-Spectrum Resistance. Mol. Breed.; 2010; 25, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11032-009-9323-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20234841]
57. Garcia-Ruiz, H.; Szurek, B.; Van den Ackerveken, G. Stop Helping Pathogens: Engineering Plant Susceptibility Genes for Durable Resistance. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.; 2021; 70, pp. 187-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2021.05.005] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34153774]
58. Xu, Z.; Xu, X.; Gong, Q.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Yang, Y.; Ma, W.; Liu, L.; Zhu, B. et al. Engineering Broad-Spectrum Bacterial Blight Resistance by Simultaneously Disrupting Variable TALE-Binding Elements of Multiple Susceptibility Genes in Rice. Mol. Plant; 2019; 12, pp. 1434-1446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2019.08.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31493565]
59. Iida, Y.; van ‘t Hof, P.; Beenen, H.; Mesarich, C.; Kubota, M.; Stergiopoulos, I.; Mehrabi, R.; Notsu, A.; Fujiwara, K.; Bahkali, A. et al. Novel Mutations Detected in Avirulence Genes Overcoming Tomato Cf Resistance Genes in Isolates of a Japanese Population of Cladosporium fulvum. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0123271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123271]
60. Zhang, X.; Peng, G.; Kutcher, H.R.; Balesdent, M.-H.; Delourme, R.; Fernando, W.G.D. Breakdown of Rlm3 Resistance in the Brassica napus–Leptosphaeria maculans Pathosystem in Western Canada. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.; 2016; 145, pp. 659-674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10658-015-0819-0]
61. Yan, H.; Nelson, B. Adaptation of Phytophthora sojae to Rps Resistance Genes over the Past Two Decades in North Dakota. Plant Health Prog.; 2019; 20, pp. 88-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHP-10-18-0062-RS]
62. Ivanov, A.A.; Ukladov, E.O.; Golubeva, T.S. Phytophthora infestans: An Overview of Methods and Attempts to Combat Late Blight. J. Fungi; 2021; 7, 1071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof7121071]
63. Jones, J.D.G.; Dangl, J.L. The Plant Immune System. Nature; 2006; 444, 323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05286] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108957]
64. Dodds, P.N.; Rathjen, J.P. Plant Immunity: Towards an Integrated View of Plant–Pathogen Interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet.; 2010; 11, pp. 539-548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg2812] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585331]
65. Boyd, L.A.; Ridout, C.; O’Sullivan, D.M.; Leach, J.E.; Leung, H. Plant–Pathogen Interactions: Disease Resistance in Modern Agriculture. Trends Genet.; 2013; 29, pp. 233-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.10.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23153595]
66. Ngou, B.P.M.; Ahn, H.-K.; Ding, P.; Jones, J.D.G. Mutual Potentiation of Plant Immunity by Cell-Surface and Intracellular Receptors. Nature; 2021; 592, pp. 110-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03315-7]
67. Alhoraibi, H.; Bigeard, J.; Rayapuram, N.; Colcombet, J.; Hirt, H. Plant Immunity: The MTI-ETI Model and Beyond. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol.; 2019; 30, pp. 39-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21775/cimb.030.039]
68. Hemetsberger, C.; Mueller, A.N.; Matei, A.; Herrberger, C.; Hensel, G.; Kumlehn, J.; Mishra, B.; Sharma, R.; Thines, M.; Hückelhoven, R. et al. The Fungal Core Effector Pep1 Is Conserved across Smuts of Dicots and Monocots. New Phytol.; 2015; 206, pp. 1116-1126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.13304] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25628012]
69. Irieda, H.; Inoue, Y.; Mori, M.; Yamada, K.; Oshikawa, Y.; Saitoh, H.; Uemura, A.; Terauchi, R.; Kitakura, S.; Kosaka, A. et al. Conserved Fungal Effector Suppresses PAMP-Triggered Immunity by Targeting Plant Immune Kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2019; 116, pp. 496-505. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807297116] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30584105]
70. Flor, H.H. Inheritance of Pathogenicity in Melampsora lini. Phytopathology; 1942; 32, pp. 653-669.
71. Eitas, T.K.; Dangl, J.L. NB-LRR Proteins: Pairs, Pieces, Perception, Partners and Pathways. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2010; 13, pp. 472-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483655]
72. Wei, H.; Liu, J.; Guo, Q.; Pan, L.; Chai, S.; Cheng, Y.; Ruan, M.; Ye, Q.; Wang, R.; Yao, Z. et al. Genomic Organization and Comparative Phylogenic Analysis of NBS-LRR Resistance Gene Family in Solanum pimpinellifolium and Arabidopsis thaliana. Evol. Bioinform.; 2020; 16, 1176934320911055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1176934320911055]
73. Win, J.; Chaparro-Garcia, A.; Belhaj, K.; Saunders, D.G.O.; Yoshida, K.; Dong, S.; Schornack, S.; Zipfel, C.; Robatzek, S.; Hogenhout, S.A. et al. Effector Biology of Plant-Associated Organisms: Concepts and Perspectives. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol.; 2012; 77, pp. 235-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/sqb.2012.77.015933]
74. Bent, A.F.; Mackey, D. Elicitors, Effectors, and R Genes: The New Paradigm and a Lifetime Supply of Questions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2007; 45, pp. 399-436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.45.062806.094427] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17506648]
75. Chisholm, S.T.; Coaker, G.; Day, B.; Staskawicz, B.J. Host-Microbe Interactions: Shaping the Evolution of the Plant Immune Response. Cell; 2006; 124, pp. 803-814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.008]
76. Yuan, M.; Jiang, Z.; Bi, G.; Nomura, K.; Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Cai, B.; Zhou, J.-M.; He, S.Y.; Xin, X.-F. Pattern-Recognition Receptors Are Required for NLR-Mediated Plant Immunity. Nature; 2021; 592, pp. 105-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03316-6]
77. Derevnina, L.; Petre, B.; Kellner, R.; Dagdas, Y.F.; Sarowar, M.N.; Giannakopoulou, A.; De la Concepcion, J.C.; Chaparro-Garcia, A.; Pennington, H.G.; van West, P. et al. Emerging Oomycete Threats to Plants and Animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.; 2016; 371, 20150459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0459]
78. Almeida, F.; Rodrigues, M.L.; Coelho, C. The Still Underestimated Problem of Fungal Diseases Worldwide. Front. Microbiol.; 2019; 10, 214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00214] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30809213]
79. Dodds, P.N.; Rafiqi, M.; Gan, P.H.P.; Hardham, A.R.; Jones, D.A.; Ellis, J.G. Effectors of Biotrophic Fungi and Oomycetes: Pathogenicity Factors and Triggers of Host Resistance. New Phytol.; 2009; 183, pp. 993-1000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02922.x]
80. Tintor, N.; Nieuweboer, G.A.M.; Bakker, I.A.W.; Takken, F.L.W. The Intracellularly Acting Effector Foa3 Suppresses Defense Responses When Infiltrated into the Apoplast. Front. Plant Sci.; 2022; 13, 1628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.813181] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35677245]
81. Saado, I.; Chia, K.-S.; Betz, R.; Alcântara, A.; Pettkó-Szandtner, A.; Navarrete, F.; D’Auria, J.C.; Kolomiets, M.V.; Melzer, M.; Feussner, I. et al. Effector-Mediated Relocalization of a Maize Lipoxygenase Protein Triggers Susceptibility to Ustilago maydis. Plant Cell; 2022; 34, pp. 2785-2805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac105] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35512341]
82. An, B.; Wang, W.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Q.; Luo, H.; He, C. BAS2 Is Required for Conidiation and Pathogenicity of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides from Hevea brasiliensis. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2018; 19, 1860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms19071860] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29941774]
83. Fukada, F.; Rössel, N.; Münch, K.; Glatter, T.; Kahmann, R. A Small Ustilago maydis Effector Acts as a Novel Adhesin for Hyphal Aggregation in Plant Tumors. New Phytol.; 2021; 231, pp. 416-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.17389]
84. Rodriguez-Moreno, L.; Ebert, M.K.; Bolton, M.D.; Thomma, B.P.H.J. Tools of the Crook- Infection Strategies of Fungal Plant Pathogens. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol.; 2018; 93, pp. 664-674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13810]
85. Carreón-Anguiano, K.G.; Islas-Flores, I.; Vega-Arreguín, J.; Sáenz-Carbonell, L.; Canto-Canché, B. EffHunter: A Tool for Prediction of Effector Protein Candidates in Fungal Proteomic Databases. Biomolecules; 2020; 10, 712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom10050712]
86. Duplessis, S.; Cuomo, C.A.; Lin, Y.-C.; Aerts, A.; Tisserant, E.; Veneault-Fourrey, C.; Joly, D.L.; Hacquard, S.; Amselem, J.; Cantarel, B.L. et al. Obligate Biotrophy Features Unraveled by the Genomic Analysis of Rust Fungi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2011; 108, pp. 9166-9171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019315108]
87. Nemri, A.; Saunders, D.G.O.; Anderson, C.; Upadhyaya, N.M.; Win, J.; Lawrence, G.J.; Jones, D.A.; Kamoun, S.; Ellis, J.G.; Dodds, P.N. The Genome Sequence and Effector Complement of the Flax Rust Pathogen Melampsora Lini. Front. Plant Sci.; 2014; 5, 98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00098]
88. Faris, J.D.; Friesen, T.L. Plant Genes Hijacked by Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogens. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2020; 56, pp. 74-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2020.04.003]
89. Tada, Y.; Kusaka, K.; Betsuyaku, S.; Shinogi, T.; Sakamoto, M.; Ohura, Y.; Hata, S.; Mori, T.; Tosa, Y.; Mayama, S. Victorin Triggers Programmed Cell Death and the Defense Response via Interaction with a Cell Surface Mediator. Plant Cell Physiol.; 2005; 46, pp. 1787-1798. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pci193]
90. Liu, Z.; Gao, Y.; Kim, Y.M.; Faris, J.D.; Shelver, W.L.; de Wit, P.J.G.M.; Xu, S.S.; Friesen, T.L. SnTox1, a Parastagonospora nodorum Necrotrophic Effector, Is a Dual-Function Protein That Facilitates Infection While Protecting from Wheat-Produced Chitinases. New Phytol.; 2016; 211, pp. 1052-1064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.13959]
91. van Esse, H.P.; Bolton, M.D.; Stergiopoulos, I.; de Wit, P.J.G.M.; Thomma, B.P.H.J. The Chitin-Binding Cladosporium fulvum Effector Protein Avr4 Is a Virulence Factor. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact.; 2007; 20, pp. 1092-1101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-20-9-1092] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17849712]
92. Stergiopoulos, I.; van den Burg, H.A.; Ökmen, B.; Beenen, H.G.; van Liere, S.; Kema, G.H.J.; de Wit, P.J.G.M. Tomato Cf Resistance Proteins Mediate Recognition of Cognate Homologous Effectors from Fungi Pathogenic on Dicots and Monocots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2010; 107, pp. 7610-7615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002910107] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368413]
93. Westerink, N.; Brandwagt, B.F.; de Wit, P.J.G.M.; Joosten, M.H.A.J. Cladosporium fulvum Circumvents the Second Functional Resistance Gene Homologue at the Cf-4 Locus (Hcr9-4E) by Secretion of a Stable Avr4E Isoform. Mol. Microbiol.; 2004; 54, pp. 533-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04288.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469522]
94. Bolton, M.D.; Esse, H.P.V.; Vossen, J.H.; Jonge, R.D.; Stergiopoulos, I.; Stulemeijer, I.J.E.; Berg, G.C.M.V.D.; Borrás-Hidalgo, O.; Dekker, H.L.; Koster, C.G.D. et al. The Novel Cladosporium fulvum Lysin Motif Effector Ecp6 Is a Virulence Factor with Orthologues in Other Fungal Species. Mol. Microbiol.; 2008; 69, pp. 119-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06270.x]
95. de Jonge, R.; van Esse, H.P.; Kombrink, A.; Shinya, T.; Desaki, Y.; Bours, R.; van der Krol, S.; Shibuya, N.; Joosten, M.H.A.J.; Thomma, B.P.H.J. Conserved Fungal LysM Effector Ecp6 Prevents Chitin-Triggered Immunity in Plants. Science; 2010; 329, pp. 953-955. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190859]
96. Ve, T.; Williams, S.J.; Catanzariti, A.-M.; Rafiqi, M.; Rahman, M.; Ellis, J.G.; Hardham, A.R.; Jones, D.A.; Anderson, P.A.; Dodds, P.N. et al. Structures of the Flax-Rust Effector AvrM Reveal Insights into the Molecular Basis of Plant-Cell Entry and Effector-Triggered Immunity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2013; 110, pp. 17594-17599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307614110]
97. Cesari, S.; Thilliez, G.; Ribot, C.; Chalvon, V.; Michel, C.; Jauneau, A.; Rivas, S.; Alaux, L.; Kanzaki, H.; Okuyama, Y. et al. The Rice Resistance Protein Pair RGA4/RGA5 Recognizes the Magnaporthe oryzae Effectors AVR-Pia and AVR1-CO39 by Direct Binding. Plant Cell; 2013; 25, pp. 1463-1481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1105/tpc.112.107201]
98. Kanzaki, H.; Yoshida, K.; Saitoh, H.; Fujisaki, K.; Hirabuchi, A.; Alaux, L.; Fournier, E.; Tharreau, D.; Terauchi, R. Arms Race Co-Evolution of Magnaporthe oryzae AVR-Pik and Rice Pik Genes Driven by Their Physical Interactions. Plant J.; 2012; 72, pp. 894-907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.05110.x]
99. Inoue, Y.; Vy, T.T.P.; Yoshida, K.; Asano, H.; Mitsuoka, C.; Asuke, S.; Anh, V.L.; Cumagun, C.J.R.; Chuma, I.; Terauchi, R. et al. Evolution of the Wheat Blast Fungus through Functional Losses in a Host Specificity Determinant. Science; 2017; 357, pp. 80-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9654]
100. Lin, X.; Olave-Achury, A.; Heal, R.; Pais, M.; Witek, K.; Ahn, H.-K.; Zhao, H.; Bhanvadia, S.; Karki, H.S.; Song, T. et al. A Potato Late Blight Resistance Gene Protects against Multiple Phytophthora Species by Recognizing a Broadly Conserved RXLR-WY Effector. Mol. Plant; 2022; 15, pp. 1457-1469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2022.07.012]
101. Henares, B.M.; Debler, J.W.; Farfan-Caceres, L.M.; Grime, C.R.; Syme, R.A.; Blake, S.N.; Herdina,; Davidson, J.A.; Oliver, R.P.; Singh, K.B. et al. The Novel Avirulence Effector AlAvr1 from Ascochyta lentis Mediates Host Cultivar Specificity of Ascochyta Blight in Lentil. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2022; 23, pp. 984-996. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.13203] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246929]
102. Deng, C.; Leonard, A.; Cahill, J.; Lv, M.; Li, Y.; Thatcher, S.; Li, X.; Zhao, X.; Du, W.; Li, Z. et al. The RppC-AvrRppC NLR-Effector Interaction Mediates the Resistance to Southern Corn Rust in Maize. Mol. Plant; 2022; 15, pp. 904-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2022.01.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35032688]
103. Nakano, M.; Mukaihara, T. The Type III Effector RipB from Ralstonia solanacearum RS1000 Acts as a Major Avirulence Factor in Nicotiana Benthamiana and Other Nicotiana Species. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2019; 20, pp. 1237-1251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12824] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31218811]
104. Pandey, A.; Moon, H.; Choi, S.; Yoon, H.; Prokchorchik, M.; Jayaraman, J.; Sujeevan, R.; Kang, Y.M.; McCann, H.C.; Segonzac, C. et al. Ralstonia solanacearum Type III Effector RipJ Triggers Bacterial Wilt Resistance in Solanum pimpinellifolium. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2021; 34, pp. 962-972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-09-20-0256-R] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33881922]
105. Moon, H.; Pandey, A.; Yoon, H.; Choi, S.; Jeon, H.; Prokchorchik, M.; Jung, G.; Witek, K.; Valls, M.; McCann, H.C. et al. Identification of RipAZ1 as an Avirulence Determinant of Ralstonia solanacearum in Solanum americanum. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2021; 22, pp. 317-333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.13030]
106. Kang, H.; Nguyen, Q.-M.; Iswanto, A.B.B.; Hong, J.C.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Gassmann, W.; Kim, S.H. Nuclear Localization of HopA1Pss61 Is Required for Effector-Triggered Immunity. Plants; 2021; 10, 888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10050888]
107. He, Q.; Naqvi, S.; McLellan, H.; Boevink, P.C.; Champouret, N.; Hein, I.; Birch, P.R.J. Plant Pathogen Effector Utilizes Host Susceptibility Factor NRL1 to Degrade the Immune Regulator SWAP70. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2018; 115, pp. E7834-E7843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808585115]
108. Yang, L.; McLellan, H.; Naqvi, S.; He, Q.; Boevink, P.C.; Armstrong, M.; Giuliani, L.M.; Zhang, W.; Tian, Z.; Zhan, J. et al. Potato NPH3/RPT2-Like Protein StNRL1, Targeted by a Phytophthora infestans RXLR Effector, Is a Susceptibility Factor. Plant Physiol.; 2016; 171, pp. 645-657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00178]
109. Boevink, P.C.; Wang, X.; McLellan, H.; He, Q.; Naqvi, S.; Armstrong, M.R.; Zhang, W.; Hein, I.; Gilroy, E.M.; Tian, Z. et al. A Phytophthora infestans RXLR Effector Targets Plant PP1c Isoforms That Promote Late Blight Disease. Nat. Commun.; 2016; 7, 10311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10311]
110. Li, H.; Wang, H.; Jing, M.; Zhu, J.; Guo, B.; Wang, Y.; Lin, Y.; Chen, H.; Kong, L.; Ma, Z. et al. A Phytophthora Effector Recruits a Host Cytoplasmic Transacetylase into Nuclear Speckles to Enhance Plant Susceptibility. eLife; 2018; 7, e40039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40039]
111. Gilroy, E.M.; Breen, S.; Whisson, S.C.; Squires, J.; Hein, I.; Kaczmarek, M.; Turnbull, D.; Boevink, P.C.; Lokossou, A.; Cano, L.M. et al. Presence/Absence, Differential Expression and Sequence Polymorphisms between PiAVR2 and PiAVR2-like in Phytophthora infestans Determine Virulence on R2 Plants. New Phytol.; 2011; 191, pp. 763-776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03736.x]
112. Turnbull, D.; Wang, H.; Breen, S.; Malec, M.; Naqvi, S.; Yang, L.; Welsh, L.; Hemsley, P.; Zhendong, T.; Brunner, F. et al. AVR2 Targets BSL Family Members, Which Act as Susceptibility Factors to Suppress Host Immunity. Plant Physiol.; 2019; 180, pp. 571-581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.18.01143]
113. Faris, J.D.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, H.; Lu, S.; Reddy, L.; Cloutier, S.; Fellers, J.P.; Meinhardt, S.W.; Rasmussen, J.B.; Xu, S.S. et al. A Unique Wheat Disease Resistance-like Gene Governs Effector-Triggered Susceptibility to Necrotrophic Pathogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2010; 107, pp. 13544-13549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004090107]
114. See, P.T.; Marathamuthu, K.A.; Iagallo, E.M.; Oliver, R.P.; Moffat, C.S. Evaluating the Importance of the Tan Spot ToxA–Tsn1 Interaction in Australian Wheat Varieties. Plant Pathol.; 2018; 67, pp. 1066-1075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12835]
115. Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Faris, J.D.; Oliver, R.P.; Syme, R.; McDonald, M.C.; McDonald, B.A.; Solomon, P.S.; Lu, S.; Shelver, W.L. et al. The Cysteine Rich Necrotrophic Effector SnTox1 Produced by Stagonospora Nodorum Triggers Susceptibility of Wheat Lines Harboring Snn1. PLoS Pathog.; 2012; 8, e1002467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002467]
116. Friesen, T.L.; Faris, J.D. Molecular Mapping of Resistance to Pyrenophora tritici-repentis Race 5 and Sensitivity to Ptr ToxB in Wheat. TAG Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet.; 2004; 109, pp. 464-471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1678-9]
117. Figueroa, M.; Manning, V.A.; Pandelova, I.; Ciuffetti, L.M. Persistence of the Host-Selective Toxin Ptr ToxB in the Apoplast. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2015; 28, pp. 1082-1090. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-05-15-0097-R]
118. Hou, Y.; Zhai, Y.; Feng, L.; Karimi, H.Z.; Rutter, B.D.; Zeng, L.; Choi, D.S.; Zhang, B.; Gu, W.; Chen, X. et al. A Phytophthora Effector Suppresses Trans-Kingdom RNAi to Promote Disease Susceptibility. Cell Host Microbe; 2019; 25, pp. 153-165.e5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2018.11.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30595554]
119. Harvey, S.; Kumari, P.; Lapin, D.; Griebel, T.; Hickman, R.; Guo, W.; Zhang, R.; Parker, J.E.; Beynon, J.; Denby, K. et al. Downy Mildew Effector HaRxL21 Interacts with the Transcriptional Repressor TOPLESS to Promote Pathogen Susceptibility. PLoS Pathog.; 2020; 16, e1008835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008835]
120. Zhu, W.; Wei, W.; Fu, Y.; Cheng, J.; Xie, J.; Li, G.; Yi, X.; Kang, Z.; Dickman, M.B.; Jiang, D. A Secretory Protein of Necrotrophic Fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum That Suppresses Host Resistance. PLoS ONE; 2013; 8, e53901. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053901]
121. Tang, L.; Yang, G.; Ma, M.; Liu, X.; Li, B.; Xie, J.; Fu, Y.; Chen, T.; Yu, Y.; Chen, W. et al. An Effector of a Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogen Targets the Calcium-Sensing Receptor in Chloroplasts to Inhibit Host Resistance. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2020; 21, pp. 686-701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12922] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32105402]
122. Xu, Q.; Tang, C.; Wang, X.; Sun, S.; Zhao, J.; Kang, Z.; Wang, X. An Effector Protein of the Wheat Stripe Rust Fungus Targets Chloroplasts and Suppresses Chloroplast Function. Nat. Commun.; 2019; 10, 5571. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13487-6]
123. Qi, T.; Guo, J.; Liu, P.; He, F.; Wan, C.; Islam, M.A.; Tyler, B.M.; Kang, Z.; Guo, J. Stripe Rust Effector PstGSRE1 Disrupts Nuclear Localization of ROS-Promoting Transcription Factor TaLOL2 to Defeat ROS-Induced Defense in Wheat. Mol. Plant; 2019; 12, pp. 1624-1638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2019.09.010]
124. Liu, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Du, Y.; Song, C.; Song, P.; Yang, Q.; He, F.; Bai, X.; Huang, L. et al. Glycine-Serine-Rich Effector PstGSRE4 in Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici Inhibits the Activity of Copper Zinc Superoxide Dismutase to Modulate Immunity in Wheat. PLoS Pathog.; 2022; 18, e1010702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010702]
125. Zheng, X.; Fang, A.; Qiu, S.; Zhao, G.; Wang, J.; Wang, S.; Wei, J.; Gao, H.; Yang, J.; Mou, B. et al. Ustilaginoidea virens Secretes a Family of Phosphatases That Stabilize the Negative Immune Regulator OsMPK6 and Suppress Plant Immunity. Plant Cell; 2022; 34, pp. 3088-3109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac154]
126. Peng, Z.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Huguet-Tapia, J.C.; Block, A.K.; Park, S.; Sapkota, S.; Liu, Z.; Liu, S.; White, F.F. Xanthomonas translucens Commandeers the Host Rate-Limiting Step in ABA Biosynthesis for Disease Susceptibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2019; 116, pp. 20938-20946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911660116] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31575748]
127. Li, R.; Wang, S.; Sun, R.; He, X.; Liu, Y.; Song, C. Xanthomonas oryzae Pv. oryzae Type III Effector PthXo3JXOV Suppresses Innate Immunity, Induces Susceptibility and Binds to Multiple Targets in Rice. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.; 2018; 365, fny037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny037] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514188]
128. Nakano, M.; Mukaihara, T. Ralstonia solanacearum Type III Effector RipAL Targets Chloroplasts and Induces Jasmonic Acid Production to Suppress Salicylic Acid-Mediated Defense Responses in Plants. Plant Cell Physiol.; 2018; 59, pp. 2576-2589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcy177]
129. Hu, Y.; Huang, H.; Cheng, X.; Shu, X.; White, A.P.; Stavrinides, J.; Köster, W.; Zhu, G.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Y. A Global Survey of Bacterial Type III Secretion Systems and Their Effectors. Environ. Microbiol.; 2017; 19, pp. 3879-3895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13755] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401683]
130. Ruano-Gallego, D.; Sanchez-Garrido, J.; Kozik, Z.; Núñez-Berrueco, E.; Cepeda-Molero, M.; Mullineaux-Sanders, C.; Naemi-Baghshomali Clark, J.; Slater, S.L.; Wagner, N.; Glegola-Madejska, I. et al. Type III Secretion System Effectors Form Robust and Flexible Intracellular Virulence Networks. Science; 2021; 371, eabc9531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9531]
131. Wagner, S.; Grin, I.; Malmsheimer, S.; Singh, N.; Torres-Vargas, C.E.; Westerhausen, S. Bacterial Type III Secretion Systems: A Complex Device for the Delivery of Bacterial Effector Proteins into Eukaryotic Host Cells. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.; 2018; 365, fny201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny201]
132. Collmer, A.; Badel, J.L.; Charkowski, A.O.; Deng, W.-L.; Fouts, D.E.; Ramos, A.R.; Rehm, A.H.; Anderson, D.M.; Schneewind, O.; van Dijk, K. et al. Pseudomonas syringae Hrp Type III Secretion System and Effector Proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2000; 97, pp. 8770-8777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.16.8770]
133. Xin, X.-F.; He, S.Y. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000: A Model Pathogen for Probing Disease Susceptibility and Hormone Signaling in Plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2013; 51, pp. 473-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102321] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23725467]
134. Wei, H.-L.; Collmer, A. Defining Essential Processes in Plant Pathogenesis with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 Disarmed Polymutants and a Subset of Key Type III Effectors. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2018; 19, pp. 1779-1794. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12655]
135. Guo, M.; Tian, F.; Wamboldt, Y.; Alfano, J.R. The Majority of the Type III Effector Inventory of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 Can Suppress Plant Immunity. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2009; 22, pp. 1069-1080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-22-9-1069]
136. Nakano, M.; Ichinose, Y.; Mukaihara, T. Ralstonia solanacearum Type III Effector RipAC Targets SGT1 to Suppress Effector-Triggered Immunity. Plant Cell Physiol.; 2020; 61, pp. 2067-2076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcaa122] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32991707]
137. Abramovitch, R.B.; Kim, Y.-J.; Chen, S.; Dickman, M.B.; Martin, G.B. Pseudomonas Type III Effector AvrPtoB Induces Plant Disease Susceptibility by Inhibition of Host Programmed Cell Death. EMBO J.; 2003; 22, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg006]
138. Abramovitch, R.B.; Martin, G.B. AvrPtoB: A Bacterial Type III Effector That Both Elicits and Suppresses Programmed Cell Death Associated with Plant Immunity. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.; 2005; 245, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.femsle.2005.02.025]
139. Xian, L.; Yu, G.; Wei, Y.; Rufian, J.S.; Li, Y.; Zhuang, H.; Xue, H.; Morcillo, R.J.L.; Macho, A.P. A Bacterial Effector Protein Hijacks Plant Metabolism to Support Pathogen Nutrition. Cell Host Microbe; 2020; 28, pp. 548-557.e7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.07.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32735848]
140. Xing, Y.; Xu, N.; Bhandari, D.D.; Lapin, D.; Sun, X.; Luo, X.; Wang, Y.; Cao, J.; Wang, H.; Coaker, G. et al. Bacterial Effector Targeting of a Plant Iron Sensor Facilitates Iron Acquisition and Pathogen Colonization. Plant Cell; 2021; 33, pp. 2015-2031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koab075]
141. Yu, Y.; Streubel, J.; Balzergue, S.; Champion, A.; Boch, J.; Koebnik, R.; Feng, J.; Verdier, V.; Szurek, B. Colonization of Rice Leaf Blades by an African Strain of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Depends on a New TAL Effector That Induces the Rice Nodulin-3 Os11N3 Gene. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2011; 24, pp. 1102-1113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-11-10-0254] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21679014]
142. Cernadas, R.A.; Doyle, E.L.; Niño-Liu, D.O.; Wilkins, K.E.; Bancroft, T.; Wang, L.; Schmidt, C.L.; Caldo, R.; Yang, B.; White, F.F. et al. Code-Assisted Discovery of TAL Effector Targets in Bacterial Leaf Streak of Rice Reveals Contrast with Bacterial Blight and a Novel Susceptibility Gene. PLoS Pathog.; 2014; 10, e1003972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003972] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586171]
143. Dou, D.; Zhou, J.-M. Phytopathogen Effectors Subverting Host Immunity: Different Foes, Similar Battleground. Cell Host Microbe; 2012; 12, pp. 484-495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2012.09.003]
144. Kazan, K.; Lyons, R. Intervention of Phytohormone Pathways by Pathogen Effectors. Plant Cell; 2014; 26, pp. 2285-2309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.125419]
145. Cox, K.L.; Meng, F.; Wilkins, K.E.; Li, F.; Wang, P.; Booher, N.J.; Carpenter, S.C.D.; Chen, L.-Q.; Zheng, H.; Gao, X. et al. TAL Effector Driven Induction of a SWEET Gene Confers Susceptibility to Bacterial Blight of Cotton. Nat. Commun.; 2017; 8, 15588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15588] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28537271]
146. Schwartz, A.R.; Morbitzer, R.; Lahaye, T.; Staskawicz, B.J. TALE-Induced BHLH Transcription Factors That Activate a Pectate Lyase Contribute to Water Soaking in Bacterial Spot of Tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2017; 114, pp. E897-E903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620407114]
147. Zlobin, N.; Lebedeva, M.; Monakhova, Y.; Ustinova, V.; Taranov, V. An ERF121 Transcription Factor from Brassica oleracea Is a Target for the Conserved TAL-Effectors from Different Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris Strains. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2021; 22, pp. 618-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.13048]
148. Xue, L.; Tang, B.; Chen, W.; Luo, J. DeepT3: Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Accurately Identify Gram-Negative Bacterial Type III Secreted Effectors Using the N-Terminal Sequence. Bioinformatics; 2019; 35, pp. 2051-2057. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty931]
149. Wang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Pu, X.; Li, M. Effective Prediction of Bacterial Type IV Secreted Effectors by Combined Features of Both C-Termini and N-Termini. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.; 2017; 31, pp. 1029-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0080-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29127583]
150. Dhroso, A.; Eidson, S.; Korkin, D. Genome-Wide Prediction of Bacterial Effector Candidates across Six Secretion System Types Using a Feature-Based Statistical Framework. Sci. Rep.; 2018; 8, 17209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33874-1]
151. Plett, J.M.; Kemppainen, M.; Kale, S.D.; Kohler, A.; Legué, V.; Brun, A.; Tyler, B.M.; Pardo, A.G.; Martin, F. A Secreted Effector Protein of Laccaria bicolor Is Required for Symbiosis Development. Curr. Biol.; 2011; 21, pp. 1197-1203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.033]
152. Field, K.J.; Pressel, S. Unity in Diversity: Structural and Functional Insights into the Ancient Partnerships between Plants and Fungi. New Phytol.; 2018; 220, pp. 996-1011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.15158]
153. Nishad, R.; Ahmed, T.; Rahman, V.J.; Kareem, A. Modulation of Plant Defense System in Response to Microbial Interactions. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 1298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01298]
154. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Zamioudis, C.; Berendsen, R.L.; Weller, D.M.; Van Wees, S.C.M.; Bakker, P.A.H.M. Induced Systemic Resistance by Beneficial Microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2014; 52, pp. 347-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340]
155. Yu, Y.; Gui, Y.; Li, Z.; Jiang, C.; Guo, J.; Niu, D. Induced Systemic Resistance for Improving Plant Immunity by Beneficial Microbes. Plants; 2022; 11, 386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants11030386]
156. Jaiswal, S.K.; Mohammed, M.; Ibny, F.Y.I.; Dakora, F.D. Rhizobia as a Source of Plant Growth-Promoting Molecules: Potential Applications and Possible Operational Mechanisms. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2021; 4, 619676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.619676]
157. Kloppholz, S.; Kuhn, H.; Requena, N. A Secreted Fungal Effector of Glomus intraradices Promotes Symbiotic Biotrophy. Curr. Biol. CB; 2011; 21, pp. 1204-1209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.044]
158. Plett, J.M.; Daguerre, Y.; Wittulsky, S.; Vayssières, A.; Deveau, A.; Melton, S.J.; Kohler, A.; Morrell-Falvey, J.L.; Brun, A.; Veneault-Fourrey, C. et al. Effector MiSSP7 of the Mutualistic Fungus Laccaria bicolor Stabilizes the Populus JAZ6 Protein and Represses Jasmonic Acid (JA) Responsive Genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2014; 111, pp. 8299-8304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322671111]
159. Voß, S.; Betz, R.; Heidt, S.; Corradi, N.; Requena, N. RiCRN1, a Crinkler Effector from the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Rhizophagus irregularis, Functions in Arbuscule Development. Front. Microbiol.; 2018; 9, 2068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02068]
160. Wang, P.; Jiang, H.; Boeren, S.; Dings, H.; Kulikova, O.; Bisseling, T.; Limpens, E. A Nuclear-Targeted Effector of Rhizophagus irregularis Interferes with Histone 2B Mono-Ubiquitination to Promote Arbuscular Mycorrhization. New Phytol.; 2021; 230, pp. 1142-1155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.17236]
161. Yan, L.; Zhu, J.; Zhao, X.; Shi, J.; Jiang, C.; Shao, D. Beneficial Effects of Endophytic Fungi Colonization on Plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2019; 103, pp. 3327-3340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09713-2]
162. Arnold, A.E.; Lutzoni, F. Diversity and Host Range of Foliar Fungal Endophytes: Are Tropical Leaves Biodiversity Hotspots?. Ecology; 2007; 88, pp. 541-549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/05-1459]
163. Porras-Alfaro, A.; Bayman, P. Hidden Fungi, Emergent Properties: Endophytes and Microbiomes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2011; 49, pp. 291-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081831]
164. Cord-Landwehr, S.; Melcher, R.L.J.; Kolkenbrock, S.; Moerschbacher, B.M. A Chitin Deacetylase from the Endophytic Fungus Pestalotiopsis sp. Efficiently Inactivates the Elicitor Activity of Chitin Oligomers in Rice Cells. Sci. Rep.; 2016; 6, 38018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep38018]
165. Wawra, S.; Fesel, P.; Widmer, H.; Timm, M.; Seibel, J.; Leson, L.; Kesseler, L.; Nostadt, R.; Hilbert, M.; Langen, G. et al. The Fungal-Specific β-Glucan-Binding Lectin FGB1 Alters Cell-Wall Composition and Suppresses Glucan-Triggered Immunity in Plants. Nat. Commun.; 2016; 7, 13188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13188]
166. Zeng, J.; Xu, T.; Cao, L.; Tong, C.; Zhang, X.; Luo, D.; Han, S.; Pang, P.; Fu, W.; Yan, J. et al. The Role of Iron Competition in the Antagonistic Action of the Rice Endophyte Streptomyces Sporocinereus OsiSh-2 Against the Pathogen Magnaporthe Oryzae. Microb. Ecol.; 2018; 76, pp. 1021-1029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00248-018-1189-x]
167. Rajani, P.; Rajasekaran, C.; Vasanthakumari, M.M.; Olsson, S.B.; Ravikanth, G.; Uma Shaanker, R. Inhibition of Plant Pathogenic Fungi by Endophytic Trichoderma spp. through Mycoparasitism and Volatile Organic Compounds. Microbiol. Res.; 2021; 242, 126595. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2020.126595]
168. Abdel-Rahim, I.R.; Abo-Elyousr, K.A.M. Talaromyces pinophilus Strain AUN-1 as a Novel Mycoparasite of Botrytis cinerea, the Pathogen of Onion Scape and Umbel Blights. Microbiol. Res.; 2018; 212–213, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2018.04.004]
169. Mehetre, S.T.; Mukherjee, P.K. Trichoderma Improves Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crop Plants. Nutrient Use Efficiency: From Basics to Advances; Rakshit, A.; Singh, H.B.; Sen, A. Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 173-180. ISBN 978-81-322-2169-2
170. Li, R.-X.; Cai, F.; Pang, G.; Shen, Q.-R.; Li, R.; Chen, W. Solubilisation of Phosphate and Micronutrients by Trichoderma harzianum and Its Relationship with the Promotion of Tomato Plant Growth. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0130081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130081]
171. Yao, Y.Q.; Lan, F.; Qiao, Y.M.; Wei, J.G.; Huang, R.S.; Li, L.B. Endophytic Fungi Harbored in the Root of Sophora tonkinensis Gapnep: Diversity and Biocontrol Potential against Phytopathogens. MicrobiologyOpen; 2017; 6, e00437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.437]
172. Mohamad, O.A.A.; Li, L.; Ma, J.-B.; Hatab, S.; Xu, L.; Guo, J.-W.; Rasulov, B.A.; Liu, Y.-H.; Hedlund, B.P.; Li, W.-J. Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Endophytic Bacterial Populations from Chinese Traditional Medicinal Plant Licorice and Characterization of the Bioactive Secondary Metabolites Produced by Bacillus atrophaeus Against Verticillium dahliae. Front. Microbiol.; 2018; 9, 924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00924]
173. Saravanakumar, K.; Fan, L.; Fu, K.; Yu, C.; Wang, M.; Xia, H.; Sun, J.; Li, Y.; Chen, J. Cellulase from Trichoderma harzianum Interacts with Roots and Triggers Induced Systemic Resistance to Foliar Disease in Maize. Sci. Rep.; 2016; 6, 35543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep35543]
174. Siddaiah, C.N.; Satyanarayana, N.R.; Mudili, V.; Kumar Gupta, V.; Gurunathan, S.; Rangappa, S.; Huntrike, S.S.; Srivastava, R.K. Elicitation of Resistance and Associated Defense Responses in Trichoderma hamatum Induced Protection against Pearl Millet Downy Mildew Pathogen. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 43991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43991]
175. Guo, R.; Ji, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z. Trichoderma asperellum Xylanases Promote Growth and Induce Resistance in Poplar. Microbiol. Res.; 2021; 248, 126767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2021.126767]
176. Veloso, J.; Díaz, J. The Non-Pathogenic Fusarium Oxysporum Fo47 Induces Distinct Responses in Two Closely Related Solanaceae Plants against the Pathogen Verticillium dahliae. J. Fungi; 2021; 7, 344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof7050344]
177. La Spada, F.; Stracquadanio, C.; Riolo, M.; Pane, A.; Cacciola, S.O. Trichoderma Counteracts the Challenge of Phytophthora nicotianae Infections on Tomato by Modulating Plant Defense Mechanisms and the Expression of Crinkler, Necrosis-Inducing Phytophthora Protein 1, and Cellulose-Binding Elicitor Lectin Pathogenic Effectors. Front. Plant Sci.; 2020; 11, 583539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.583539]
178. Durán, P.; Thiergart, T.; Garrido-Oter, R.; Agler, M.; Kemen, E.; Schulze-Lefert, P.; Hacquard, S. Microbial Interkingdom Interactions in Roots Promote Arabidopsis Survival. Cell; 2018; 175, pp. 973-983.e14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.020]
179. Levy, A.; Salas Gonzalez, I.; Mittelviefhaus, M.; Clingenpeel, S.; Herrera Paredes, S.; Miao, J.; Wang, K.; Devescovi, G.; Stillman, K.; Monteiro, F. et al. Genomic Features of Bacterial Adaptation to Plants. Nat. Genet.; 2017; 50, pp. 138-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-017-0012-9]
180. Eitzen, K.; Sengupta, P.; Kroll, S.; Kemen, E.; Doehlemann, G. A Fungal Member of the Arabidopsis thaliana Phyllosphere Antagonizes Albugo laibachii via a GH25 Lysozyme. eLife; 2021; 10, e65306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65306] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33427195]
181. Wang, J.; Shen, D.; Ge, C.; Du, Y.; Lin, L.; Liu, J.; Bai, T.; Jing, M.; Qian, G.; Dou, D. Filamentous Phytophthora Pathogens Deploy Effectors to Interfere with Bacterial Growth and Motility. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 581511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.581511]
182. Snelders, N.C.; Kettles, G.J.; Rudd, J.J.; Thomma, B.P.H.J. Plant Pathogen Effector Proteins as Manipulators of Host Microbiomes?. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2018; 19, pp. 257-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12628] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29368817]
183. Kettles, G.J.; Bayon, C.; Sparks, C.A.; Canning, G.; Kanyuka, K.; Rudd, J.J. Characterization of an Antimicrobial and Phytotoxic Ribonuclease Secreted by the Fungal Wheat Pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. New Phytol.; 2018; 217, pp. 320-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14786] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28895153]
184. Guzmán-Guzmán, P.; Alemán-Duarte, M.I.; Delaye, L.; Herrera-Estrella, A.; Olmedo-Monfil, V. Identification of Effector-like Proteins in Trichoderma spp. and Role of a Hydrophobin in the Plant-Fungus Interaction and Mycoparasitism. BMC Genet.; 2017; 18, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12863-017-0481-y]
185. Laur, J.; Ramakrishnan, G.B.; Labbé, C.; Lefebvre, F.; Spanu, P.D.; Bélanger, R.R. Effectors Involved in Fungal–Fungal Interaction Lead to a Rare Phenomenon of Hyperbiotrophy in the Tritrophic System Biocontrol Agent–Powdery Mildew–Plant. New Phytol.; 2018; 217, pp. 713-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14851] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29044534]
186. Vannier, N.; Agler, M.; Hacquard, S. Microbiota-Mediated Disease Resistance in Plants. PLoS Pathog.; 2019; 15, e1007740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1007740]
187. Li, J.; Wang, C.; Liang, W.; Liu, S. Rhizosphere Microbiome: The Emerging Barrier in Plant-Pathogen Interactions. Front. Microbiol.; 2021; 12, 772420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.772420]
188. Redkar, A.; Sabale, M.; Zuccaro, A.; Di Pietro, A. Determinants of Endophytic and Pathogenic Lifestyle in Root Colonizing Fungi. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2022; 67, 102226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102226] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35526366]
189. Shayanthan, A.; Ordoñez, P.A.C.; Oresnik, I.J. The Role of Synthetic Microbial Communities (SynCom) in Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Agron.; 2022; 4, 896307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.896307]
190. Liu, H.; Qiu, Z.; Ye, J.; Verma, J.P.; Li, J.; Singh, B.K. Effective Colonisation by a Bacterial Synthetic Community Promotes Plant Growth and Alters Soil Microbial Community. J. Sustain. Agric. Environ.; 2022; 1, pp. 30-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sae2.12008]
191. Marín, O.; González, B.; Poupin, M.J. From Microbial Dynamics to Functionality in the Rhizosphere: A Systematic Review of the Opportunities with Synthetic Microbial Communities. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 650609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.650609] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34149752]
192. Mahdi, L.K.; Miyauchi, S.; Uhlmann, C.; Garrido-Oter, R.; Langen, G.; Wawra, S.; Niu, Y.; Guan, R.; Robertson-Albertyn, S.; Bulgarelli, D. et al. The Fungal Root Endophyte Serendipita vermifera Displays Inter-Kingdom Synergistic Beneficial Effects with the Microbiota in Arabidopsis thaliana and Barley. ISME J.; 2022; 16, pp. 876-889. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01138-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34686763]
193. Berendsen, R.L.; Vismans, G.; Yu, K.; Song, Y.; de Jonge, R.; Burgman, W.P.; Burmølle, M.; Herschend, J.; Bakker, P.A.H.M.; Pieterse, C.M.J. Disease-Induced Assemblage of a Plant-Beneficial Bacterial Consortium. ISME J.; 2018; 12, pp. 1496-1507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0093-1]
194. Hacquard, S.; Spaepen, S.; Garrido-Oter, R.; Schulze-Lefert, P. Interplay Between Innate Immunity and the Plant Microbiota. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2017; 55, pp. 565-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035623] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28645232]
195. Kang, H.; Chen, X.; Kemppainen, M.; Pardo, A.G.; Veneault-Fourrey, C.; Kohler, A.; Martin, F.M. The Small Secreted Effector Protein MiSSP7.6 of Laccaria bicolor Is Required for the Establishment of Ectomycorrhizal Symbiosis. Environ. Microbiol.; 2020; 22, pp. 1435-1446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14959] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32090429]
196. Pellegrin, C.; Daguerre, Y.; Ruytinx, J.; Guinet, F.; Kemppainen, M.; dit Frey, N.F.; Puech-Pagès, V.; Hecker, A.; Pardo, A.G.; Martin, F.M. et al. Laccaria bicolor MiSSP8 Is a Small-Secreted Protein Decisive for the Establishment of the Ectomycorrhizal Symbiosis. Environ. Microbiol.; 2019; 21, pp. 3765-3779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14727] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31260142]
197. Zeng, T.; Rodriguez-Moreno, L.; Mansurkhodzaev, A.; Wang, P.; van den Berg, W.; Gasciolli, V.; Cottaz, S.; Fort, S.; Thomma, B.P.H.J.; Bono, J.-J. et al. A Lysin Motif Effector Subverts Chitin-Triggered Immunity to Facilitate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. New Phytol.; 2020; 225, pp. 448-460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.16245]
198. Plett, J.M.; Plett, K.L.; Wong-Bajracharya, J.; de Freitas Pereira, M.; Costa, M.D.; Kohler, A.; Martin, F.; Anderson, I.C. Mycorrhizal Effector PaMiSSP10b Alters Polyamine Biosynthesis in Eucalyptus Root Cells and Promotes Root Colonization. New Phytol.; 2020; 228, pp. 712-727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.16759] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32562507]
199. Ratu, S.T.N.; Teulet, A.; Miwa, H.; Masuda, S.; Nguyen, H.P.; Yasuda, M.; Sato, S.; Kaneko, T.; Hayashi, M.; Giraud, E. et al. Rhizobia Use a Pathogenic-like Effector to Hijack Leguminous Nodulation Signalling. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 2034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81598-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33479414]
200. Xin, D.-W.; Liao, S.; Xie, Z.-P.; Hann, D.R.; Steinle, L.; Boller, T.; Staehelin, C. Functional Analysis of NopM, a Novel E3 Ubiquitin Ligase (NEL) Domain Effector of Rhizobium sp. Strain NGR234. PLoS Pathog.; 2012; 8, e1002707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002707] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22615567]
201. Wenzel, M.; Friedrich, L.; Göttfert, M.; Zehner, S. The Type III-Secreted Protein NopE1 Affects Symbiosis and Exhibits a Calcium-Dependent Autocleavage Activity. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. MPMI; 2010; 23, pp. 124-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-23-1-0124] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19958145]
202. Nostadt, R.; Hilbert, M.; Nizam, S.; Rovenich, H.; Wawra, S.; Martin, J.; Küpper, H.; Mijovilovich, A.; Ursinus, A.; Langen, G. et al. A Secreted Fungal Histidine- and Alanine-Rich Protein Regulates Metal Ion Homeostasis and Oxidative Stress. New Phytol.; 2020; 227, pp. 1174-1188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.16606] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32285459]
203. Guo, X.; Zhong, D.; Xie, W.; He, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Lin, Y.; Chen, Z.; Han, Y.; Tian, D.; Liu, W. et al. Functional Identification of Novel Cell Death-Inducing Effector Proteins from Magnaporthe oryzae. Rice; 2019; 12, 59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12284-019-0312-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31388773]
204. Salas-Marina, M.A.; Isordia-Jasso, M.I.; Islas-Osuna, M.A.; Delgado-Sánchez, P.; Jiménez-Bremont, J.F.; Rodríguez-Kessler, M.; Rosales-Saavedra, M.T.; Herrera-Estrella, A.; Casas-Flores, S. The Epl1 and Sm1 Proteins from Trichoderma atroviride and Trichoderma virens Differentially Modulate Systemic Disease Resistance against Different Life Style Pathogens in Solanum lycopersicum. Front. Plant Sci.; 2015; 6, 77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00077] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25755658]
205. Djonović, S.; Pozo, M.J.; Dangott, L.J.; Howell, C.R.; Kenerley, C.M. Sm1, a Proteinaceous Elicitor Secreted by the Biocontrol Fungus Trichoderma virens Induces Plant Defense Responses and Systemic Resistance. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2006; 19, pp. 838-853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-19-0838]
206. Rai, M.; Agarkar, G. Plant–Fungal Interactions: What Triggers the Fungi to Switch among Lifestyles?. Crit. Rev. Microbiol.; 2016; 42, pp. 428-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2014.958052] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25383649]
207. Zhang, H.; Xie, J.; Fu, Y.; Cheng, J.; Qu, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Cheng, S.; Chen, T.; Li, B.; Wang, Q. et al. A 2-Kb Mycovirus Converts a Pathogenic Fungus into a Beneficial Endophyte for Brassica Protection and Yield Enhancement. Mol. Plant; 2020; 13, pp. 1420-1433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.08.016]
208. Czislowski, E.; Zeil-Rolfe, I.; Aitken, E.A.B. Effector Profiles of Endophytic Fusarium Associated with Asymptomatic Banana (Musa sp.) Hosts. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2021; 22, 2508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22052508] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33801529]
209. Constantin, M.E.; Fokkens, L.; de Sain, M.; Takken, F.L.W.; Rep, M. Number of Candidate Effector Genes in Accessory Genomes Differentiates Pathogenic from Endophytic Fusarium Oxysporum Strains. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 761740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.761740]
210. Sonah, H.; Deshmukh, R.K.; Bélanger, R.R. Computational Prediction of Effector Proteins in Fungi: Opportunities and Challenges. Front. Plant Sci.; 2016; 7, 126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00126] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26904083]
211. Jones, D.A.; Bertazzoni, S.; Turo, C.J.; Syme, R.A.; Hane, J.K. Bioinformatic Prediction of Plant–Pathogenicity Effector Proteins of Fungi. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.; 2018; 46, pp. 43-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2018.01.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29462764]
212. Nur, M.; Wood, K.; Michelmore, R. EffectorO: Motif-Independent Prediction of Effectors in Oomycete Genomes Using Machine Learning and Lineage Specificity. bioRxiv; 2021; In Print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.19.436227]
213. Sperschneider, J.; Dodds, P.N.; Gardiner, D.M.; Manners, J.M.; Singh, K.B.; Taylor, J.M. Advances and Challenges in Computational Prediction of Effectors from Plant Pathogenic Fungi. PLoS Pathog.; 2015; 11, e1004806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004806] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26020524]
214. Sperschneider, J.; Dodds, P.N. EffectorP 3.0: Prediction of Apoplastic and Cytoplasmic Effectors in Fungi and Oomycetes. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2021; 35, pp. 146-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-08-21-0201-R] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34698534]
215. Sperschneider, J.; Gardiner, D.M.; Dodds, P.N.; Tini, F.; Covarelli, L.; Singh, K.B.; Manners, J.M.; Taylor, J.M. EffectorP: Predicting Fungal Effector Proteins from Secretomes Using Machine Learning. New Phytol.; 2016; 210, pp. 743-761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.13794] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26680733]
216. Sperschneider, J.; Dodds, P.N.; Gardiner, D.M.; Singh, K.B.; Taylor, J.M. Improved Prediction of Fungal Effector Proteins from Secretomes with EffectorP 2.0. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2018; 19, pp. 2094-2110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12682] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29569316]
217. Sperschneider, J.; Dodds, P.N.; Singh, K.B.; Taylor, J.M. ApoplastP: Prediction of Effectors and Plant Proteins in the Apoplast Using Machine Learning. New Phytol.; 2018; 217, pp. 1764-1778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14946]
218. Wang, C.; Wang, P.; Han, S.; Wang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Juan, L. FunEffector-Pred: Identification of Fungi Effector by Activate Learning and Genetic Algorithm Sampling of Imbalanced Data. IEEE Access; 2020; 8, pp. 57674-57683. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982410]
219. Wagner, N.; Avram, O.; Gold-Binshtok, D.; Zerah, B.; Teper, D.; Pupko, T. Effectidor: An Automated Machine-Learning-Based Web Server for the Prediction of Type-III Secretion System Effectors. Bioinformatics; 2022; 38, pp. 2341-2343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac087] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35157036]
220. Jones, D.A.B.; Rozano, L.; Debler, J.W.; Mancera, R.L.; Moolhuijzen, P.M.; Hane, J.K. An Automated and Combinative Method for the Predictive Ranking of Candidate Effector Proteins of Fungal Plant Pathogens. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 19731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99363-0]
221. Ramalingam, J.; Raveendra, C.; Savitha, P.; Vidya, V.; Chaithra, T.L.; Velprabakaran, S.; Saraswathi, R.; Ramanathan, A.; Arumugam Pillai, M.P.; Arumugachamy, S. et al. Gene Pyramiding for Achieving Enhanced Resistance to Bacterial Blight, Blast, and Sheath Blight Diseases in Rice. Front. Plant Sci.; 2020; 11, 591457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.591457] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33329656]
222. Carrillo, M.G.C.; Martin, F.; Variar, M.; Bhatt, J.C.; L Perez-Quintero, A.; Leung, H.; Leach, J.E.; Vera Cruz, C.M. Accumulating Candidate Genes for Broad-Spectrum Resistance to Rice Blast in a Drought-Tolerant Rice Cultivar. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 21502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00759-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34728643]
223. Zaidi, S.S.-A.; Mukhtar, M.S.; Mansoor, S. Genome Editing: Targeting Susceptibility Genes for Plant Disease Resistance. Trends Biotechnol.; 2018; 36, pp. 898-906. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.04.005]
224. Kieu, N.P.; Lenman, M.; Wang, E.S.; Petersen, B.L.; Andreasson, E. Mutations Introduced in Susceptibility Genes through CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Confer Increased Late Blight Resistance in Potatoes. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 4487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83972-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33627728]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Karla Gisel Carreón-Anguiano 1
; Islas-Flores, Ignacio 2 ; Canto-Canché, Blondy 1
1 Unidad de Biotecnología, Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C., Calle 43 No. 130 x 32 y 34, Colonia Chuburná de Hidalgo, Mérida C.P. 97205, Yucatán, Mexico
2 Unidad de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular de Plantas, Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C., Calle 43 No. 130 x 32 y 34, Colonia Chuburná de Hidalgo, Mérida C.P. 97205, Yucatán, Mexico