Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- bacteria:t3e:xopaq [2025/01/29 23:21] – [Biological function] jfpothier
+++ bacteria:t3e:xopaq [2025/02/12 23:41] (current) – jfpothier
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 === (Experimental) evidence for being a T3E ===
-A functional screen to isolate //Ralstonia solanacearum// genes encoding proteins translocated into plant cells revealed that the genes //rip6 //and //rip11 //encode two new translocated proteins. XopAQ is 60% identical to Rip6 and Rip11. BlastP alignment between XopAQ and Rip6 indicates that the homology is spanned along the whole protein, including the N-terminal part, suggesting that the functional motif that drives translocation in Rip6 is conserved in XopAQ. Translocation assays using a strain deleted in the //hpaB// gene of //Ralstonia// indicates that Rip6 and Rip11 requires HpaB for their effective translocation into plant cells via the Hrp-T3SS (Mukaihara //et al//., 2010). However, to the best of our knowledge, no functional translocation assay has been performed for //Xanthomonas// XopAQ.
+A functional screen to isolate //Ralstonia solanacearum// genes encoding proteins translocated into plant cells revealed that the genes //rip6// and //rip11// encode two new translocated proteins. XopAQ is 60% identical to Rip6 and Rip11. BlastP alignment between XopAQ and Rip6 indicates that the homology is spanned along the whole protein, including the N-terminal part, suggesting that the functional motif that drives translocation in Rip6 is conserved in XopAQ. Translocation assays using a strain deleted in the //hpaB// gene of //Ralstonia// indicates that Rip6 and Rip11 requires HpaB for their effective translocation into plant cells via the Hrp-T3SS (Mukaihara //et al//., 2010). However, to the best of our knowledge, no functional translocation assay has been performed for //Xanthomonas// XopAQ.
 === Regulation ===
-The coding sequence of //xopAQ// from //X. gardneri// was found 68 bps downstream of a perfect PIP box (Potnis //et al.//, 2011). Similarly, in //X. arboricola// the //xopAQ //gene has a putative plant-inducible promoter box (PIP-BOX) sequence, 67 bp upstream of the TATA box (Garita-Cambronero, 2016). The //xopAQ X. citri// pv. //citri// 306 and //X. citri// pv. //citri// A<sup>w</sup>  12879 (restricted to Mexican lime) were grown in XVM2 (a medium that is known to induce expression of //hrp// genes and several effector genes in //Xanthomonas// sp.), as compared with nutrient broth (NB). However, no differential expression was observed
+The coding sequence of //xopAQ// from //X. gardneri// was found 68 bps downstream of a perfect PIP box (Potnis //et al.//, 2011). Similarly, in //X. arboricola// the //xopAQ// gene has a putative plant-inducible promoter box (PIP-BOX) sequence, 67 bp upstream of the TATA box (Garita-Cambronero, 2016). The //xopAQ X. citri// pv. //citri// 306 and //X. citri// pv. //citri// A<sup>w</sup> 12879 (restricted to Mexican lime) were grown in XVM2 (a medium that is known to induce expression of //hrp// genes and several effector genes in //Xanthomonas// sp.), as compared with nutrient broth (NB). However, no differential expression was observed
 for this gene among these two strains (Jalan //et al.//, 2013).
 === Phenotypes ===
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 === In xanthomonads ===
-Yes. The effector is widely present in the most agressive citrus canker-causing //X.citri// A strains but also in the AW strain (narrow host range) (Escalon //et al//., 2013; Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2019), and also in the milder //X. fuscans// B strain, but not in the //X. fuscans// C strain, whic is restricted to //C. aurantifoli// (Dalio //et al//., 2017). Present in //Xanthomonas gardneri// but not in some strains of //X. perforans// nor //X. euvesicatoria// strains affecting pepper and tomato (Potnis //et al//., 2011; Schwartz //et al//., 2015; Vancheva //et al//., 2015; Jibrin //et al//., 2018). Two paralogs of XopAQ are present in strains 66b and LMG 918 of //X. euvesicatoria//, but not present in other LMG strains, 83b, 85-10, or //X. euvesicatoria// pv. //rosa// (Barak //et al//., 2016). Present in pathogenic but not in non-pathogenic// X. arboricola// pv. //pruni// (Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2016, 2019). Absent in the related //X. juglandis// or //X. corylina// (Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2018). Also present in //X. citri// pv. //viticola// (Schwartz //et al//., 2015) and other //X. citri// pathovars (blastp analysis). //X. phaseolis// //and X. populi//, among others, posess putative genes encoding proteins with moderate homology to XopAQ based on Blastp analysis.
+Yes. The effector is widely present in the most agressive citrus canker-causing //X.citri// A strains but also in the AW strain (narrow host range) (Escalon //et al//., 2013; Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2019), and also in the milder //X. fuscans// B strain, but not in the //X. fuscans// C strain, whic is restricted to //C. aurantifoli// (Dalio //et al//., 2017). Present in //Xanthomonas gardneri// but not in some strains of //X. perforans// nor //X. euvesicatoria// strains affecting pepper and tomato (Potnis //et al//., 2011; Schwartz //et al//., 2015; Vancheva //et al//., 2015; Jibrin //et al//., 2018). Two paralogs of XopAQ are present in strains 66b and LMG 918 of //X. euvesicatoria//, but not present in other LMG strains, 83b, 85-10, or //X. euvesicatoria// pv. //rosa// (Barak //et al//., 2016). Present in pathogenic but not in non-pathogenic //X. arboricola// pv. //pruni// (Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2016, 2019). Absent in the related //X. juglandis// or //X. corylina// (Garita-Cambronero //et al//., 2018). Also present in //X. citri// pv. //viticola// (Schwartz //et al//., 2015) and other //X. citri// pathovars (blastp analysis). //X. phaseolis// //and X. populi//, among others, posess putative genes encoding proteins with moderate homology to XopAQ based on Blastp analysis.
 === In other plant pathogens/symbionts ===

EuroXanth DokuWiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools