↓ Skip to main content

Uptake of the Fusarium Effector Avr2 by Tomato Is Not a Cell Autonomous Event

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Uptake of the Fusarium Effector Avr2 by Tomato Is Not a Cell Autonomous Event
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01915
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaotang Di, Jo Gomila, Lisong Ma, Harrold A van den Burg, Frank L W Takken

Abstract

Pathogens secrete effector proteins to manipulate the host for their own proliferation. Currently it is unclear whether the uptake of effector proteins from extracellular spaces is a host autonomous process. We study this process using the Avr2 effector protein from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol). Avr2 is an important virulence factor that is secreted into the xylem sap of tomato following infection. Besides that, it is also an avirulence factor triggering immune responses in plants carrying the I-2 resistance gene. Recognition of Avr2 by I-2 occurs inside the plant nucleus. Here, we show that pathogenicity of an Avr2 knockout Fusarium (FolΔAvr2) strain is fully complemented on transgenic tomato lines that express either a secreted (Avr2) or cytosolic Avr2 (ΔspAvr2) protein, indicating that Avr2 exerts its virulence functions inside the host cells. Furthermore, our data imply that secreted Avr2 is taken up from the extracellular spaces in the presence of the fungus. Grafting studies were performed in which scions of I-2 tomato plants were grafted onto either a ΔspAvr2 or on an Avr2 rootstock. Although the Avr2 protein could readily be detected in the xylem sap of the grafted plant tissues, no I-2-mediated immune responses were induced suggesting that I-2-expressing tomato cells cannot autonomously take up the effector protein from the xylem sap. Additionally, ΔspAvr2 and Avr2 plants were crossed with I-2 plants. Whereas ΔspAvr2/I-2 F1 plants showed a constitutive immune response, immunity was not triggered in the Avr2/I-2 plants confirming that Avr2 is not autonomously taken up from the extracellular spaces to trigger I-2. Intriguingly, infiltration of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in leaves of Avr2/I-2 plants triggered I-2 mediated cell death, which indicates that Agrobacterium triggers effector uptake. To test whether, besides Fol, effector uptake could also be induced by other fungal pathogens the ΔspAvr2 and Avr2 transgenic lines were inoculated with Verticillium dahliae. Whereas ΔspAvr2 plants became hyper-susceptible to infection, no difference in disease development was found in the Avr2 plants as compared to wild-type plants. These data suggest that effector uptake is not a host autonomous process and that Fol and A. tumefaciens, but not V. dahliae, facilitate Avr2 uptake by tomato cells from extracellular spaces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 26%
Psychology 1 1%
Engineering 1 1%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,214,710
of 24,137,933 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#2,131
of 22,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,445
of 428,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#51
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,933 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,546 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.