Advertisement

Plant Genomics pp 297-314 | Cite as

Application of Chemical Genomics to Plant–Bacteria Communication: A High-Throughput System to Identify Novel Molecules Modulating the Induction of Bacterial Virulence Genes by Plant Signals

  • Elodie Vandelle
  • Maria Rita Puttilli
  • Andrea Chini
  • Giulia Devescovi
  • Vittorio Venturi
  • Annalisa Polverari
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1610)

Abstract

The life cycle of bacterial phytopathogens consists of a benign epiphytic phase, during which the bacteria grow in the soil or on the plant surface, and a virulent endophytic phase involving the penetration of host defenses and the colonization of plant tissues. Innovative strategies are urgently required to integrate copper treatments that control the epiphytic phase with complementary tools that control the virulent endophytic phase, thus reducing the quantity of chemicals applied to economically and ecologically acceptable levels. Such strategies include targeted treatments that weaken bacterial pathogens, particularly those inhibiting early infection steps rather than tackling established infections. This chapter describes a reporter gene-based chemical genomic high-throughput screen for the induction of bacterial virulence by plant molecules. Specifically, we describe a chemical genomic screening method to identify agonist and antagonist molecules for the induction of targeted bacterial virulence genes by plant extracts, focusing on the experimental controls required to avoid false positives and thus ensuring the results are reliable and reproducible.

Key words

Phytopathogenic bacterial virulence Plant extract Reporter gene Virulence gene promoter activity Chemical library High-throughput screening 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Italian Veneto region “Progetto di innovazione per la difesa della pianta del kiwi e per la valorizzazione dei suoi frutti” (DGR n. 2587–23/12/2014). Work in AC’s laboratory was funded by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation grant BIO2013–44407-R. We thank Prof. Scortichini (CREA-FRC, Caserta, Italy) for providing the strain of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae CRAFRU8.43.

References

  1. 1.
    Jones JDG, Dangl JL (2006) The plant immune system. Nature 444:323–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dodds PN, Rathjen JP (2010) Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions. Nat Rev Genet 11:539–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Block A, Li G, Fu ZQ, Alfano JR (2008) Phytopathogen type III effector weaponry and their plant targets. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11:396–403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Espinosa A, Alfano JR (2004) Disabling surveillance: bacterial type III secretion system effectors that suppress innate immunity. Cell Microbiol 6:1027–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chisholm ST, Coaker G, Day B, Staskawicz BJ (2006) Host-microbe interactions: shaping the evolution of the plant immune response. Cell 124:803–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rahme LG, Mindrinos MN, Panopoulos NJ (1992) Plant and environmental sensory signals control the expression of hrp genes in Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola. J Bacteriol 174:3499–3507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xiao Y, Lu Y, Heu S, Hutcheson SW (1992) Organization and environmental regulation of the Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae 61 hrp cluster. J Bacteriol 174:1734–1741CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aldon D, Brito B, Boucher C, Genin S (2000) A bacterial sensor of plant cell contact controls the transcriptional induction of Ralstonia solanacearum pathogenicity genes. EMBO J 19:2304–2314CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haapalainen M, van Gestel K, Pirhonen M, Taira S (2009) Soluble plant cell signals induce the expression of the Type III secretion system of pseudomonas syringae and upregulate the production of pilus protein HrpA. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22:282–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonas U (1994) hrp genes of phytopathogenic bacteria. In: Dangl JL (ed) Bacterial pathogenesis of plants and animals: molecular and cellular mechanisms. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee J-S, Cha J-Y, Baik H-S (2011) Plant cell contact-dependent virulence regulation of hrp genes in pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci 11,528. J Life Sci 21:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marenda M, Brito B, Callard D, Genin S, Barberis P et al (1998) PrhA controls a novel regulatory pathway required for the specific induction of Ralstonia solanacearum hrp genes in the presence of plant cells. Mol Microbiol 27:437–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes F (2003) Transposon-based strategies for microbial functional genomics and proteomics. Annu Rev Genet 37:3–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anthouard R, DiRita VJ (2015) Chemical biology applied to the study of bacterial pathogens. Infect Immun 83:456–469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hicks GR, Raikhel NV (2014) Plant chemical biology: are we meeting the promise? Front Plant Sci 5:455CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fonseca S, Rosado A, Vaughan-Hirsch J, Bishopp A, Chini A (2014) Molecular locks and keys: the role of small molecules in phytohormone research. Front Plant Sci 5:709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serizawa S, Ichikawa T, Takikawa Y, Tsuyumu S, Goto M (1989) Occurrence of bacterial canker of kiwifruit in Japan: description of symptoms, isolation of the pathogen and screening of bactericides. Jpn J Phytopath 55:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scortichini M, Marcelletti S, Ferrante P, Petriccione M, Firrao G (2012) Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae: a re-emerging, multi-faceted, pandemic pathogen. Mol Plant Pathol 13:631–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcelletti S, Ferrante P, Petriccione M, Firrao G, Scortichini M (2011) Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae draft genomes comparison reveal strain-specific features involved in adaptation and virulence to actinidia species. PLoS One 6:e27297CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanneste JL, Poliakoff F, Audusseau C, Cornish DA, Paillard S et al (2011) First report of pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae, the causal agent of bacterial canker of kiwifruit in France. Plant Dis 95:1311–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCann HC, Rikkerink EHA, Bertels F, Fiers M, Lu A et al (2013) Genomic analysis of the Kiwifruit pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae provides insight into the origins of an emergent plant disease. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003503CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kovach ME, Elzer PH, Steven Hill D, Robertson GT, Farris MA et al (1995) Four new derivatives of the broad-host-range cloning vector pBBR1MCS, carrying different antibiotic-resistance cassettes. Gene 166:175–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Passos da Silva D, Castañeda-Ojeda MP, Moretti C, Buonaurio R, Ramos C et al (2014) Bacterial multispecies studies and microbiome analysis of a plant disease. Microbiology 160:556–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chini A (2014) Application of yeast-two hybrid assay to chemical genomic screens: a high-throughput system to identify novel molecules modulating plant hormone receptor complexes. In: Hicks RG, Robert S (eds) Plant chemical genomics: methods and protocols. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Serrano M, Kombrink E, Meesters C (2015) Considerations for designing chemical screening strategies in plant biology. Front Plant Sci 6:131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wise AA, Liu Z, Binns AN (2006) Three methods for the introduction of foreign DNA into agrobacterium. In: Wang K (ed) Agrobacterium protocols. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaner NC, Steinbach PA, Tsien RY (2005) A guide to choosing fluorescent proteins. Nat Methods 2:905–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goktug AN, Chai SC, Chen T (2013) Data analysis approaches in high throughput screening. In: PHA E-S (ed) Drug discovery. InTech, RijekaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elodie Vandelle
    • 1
  • Maria Rita Puttilli
    • 1
  • Andrea Chini
    • 2
  • Giulia Devescovi
    • 3
  • Vittorio Venturi
    • 3
  • Annalisa Polverari
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Phytopathology, Department of BiotechnologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Plant Molecular GeneticsNational Centre for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC)MadridSpain
  3. 3.Bacteriology Group, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)TriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations