No abstract

Two isolates of the potyvirus Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV), UK 1 and CDN 1, differ both in their general symptoms on the susceptible propagation host Brassica juncea and in their ability to infect B. napus lines possessing a variety of dominant resistance genes. The isolate CDN 1 produces a more extreme mosaic in infected brassica leaves than UK 1 and is able to overcome the resistance genes TuRB01, TuRB04, and TuRB05. The resistance gene TuRB03, in the B. napus line 22S, is effective against CDN 1 but not UK 1. The nucleic acid sequences of the UK 1 and CDN 1 isolates were 90% identical. The C-terminal half of the P3 protein was identified as being responsible for the differences in symptoms in B. juncea. A single amino acid in the P3 protein was found to be the avirulence determinant for TuRB03. Previous work already has identified the P3 as an avirulence determinant for TuRB04. Our results increase the understanding of the basis of plant-virus recognition, show the importance of the potyviral P3 gene as a symptom determinant, and provide a role in planta for the poorly understood P3 protein in a normal infection cycle.

Protein production encoded by the avirulence gene avrPphB from Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola was examined. Incorporation of [35S]-labeled methionine into the AvrPphB protein indicated processing of the full-length peptide in Escherichia coli to give a major 28-kDa product. The 28-kDa native peptide was isolated from E. coli following over-expression of avrPphB and found not to elicit the hypersensitive response (HR) after infiltration into bean leaves. Antiserum raised to the 28-kDa peptide allowed expression of avrPphB and processing of AvrPphB protein to be examined in P. syringae pv. phaseolicola; immunoreactive peptides of both 35 and 28-kDa were detected in races 3 and 4 (which contain avrPphB) only after induction in minimal medium + 10 mM sucrose. Antiserum raised to a synthetic peptide, derived from the sequence of the 62 amino acids found to be cleaved from the full-length AvrPphB protein, revealed the accumulation of peptides corresponding to the smaller cleavage products, in both E. coli and P. syringae pv. phaseolicola. Biochemical localization experiments showed that all AvrPphB peptides were cytoplasmic in P. syringae pv. phaseolicola. No AvrPphB peptides were produced in a hrpL mutant unless expression of the gene was directed by a strong vector promoter; induction kinetics similar to wild type were observed in a hrpY- strain, although it also failed to cause a confluent HR. Growth of P. syringae pv. phaseolicola under inducing conditions removed the requirement for rifampicin-sensitive mRNA synthesis by bacteria to allow HR development (the induction time) in bean and lettuce leaves. Constitutive expression of hrpL reduced but did not remove the induction time. Expression of the hrp gene cluster of P. syringae pv. phaseolicola from plasmid pPPY430 in E. coli enabled phenotypic expression of avrPphE (also carried by pPPY430) and avrPphB (if over-expressed from pPPY3031). Despite constitutive expression of the hrp and avr genes in E. coli, a protein synthesis dependent induction time was still required for development of the HR in bean genotypes with matching resistance genes. The significance of processing for the function of AvrPphB peptides and the delivery of elicitors of the HR are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The release of transgenic organisms has evoked an unusual legal process in that laws governing it are prospective on perceived risks rather than retrospective on experienced risks as is the usual case with legislating against problems. Most countries undertaking transgenic releases have adopted a regulatory structure usually comprising controlled releases to address questions of perceived risks followed by uncontrolled commercial releases. There has been an increasing number of commercial releases from approximately 11 million hectares of transgenic crops in 1997 to more than 27 million hectares in 1998. Most of these commercial releases have been in industrialized countries with only a small proportion in developing countries. The controlled releases, together with laboratory experiments, have addressed a range of perceived risks which can be put into three groups: risks to humans and domesticated animals, risks tO the environment, and commercial risks. These perceived risks have to be assessed against the baseline of current and projected farming practices with non-transgenic crops. Few, if any, of these perceived risks have been shown to be real risks which are significantly more important than the non-transgenic situation. The situation with plants transgenically protected against virus infection was discussed. In some countries, the discussions on transgenic crop releases have entered the public domain. The debate has raised various ethical issues and reflects the wish of society to be involved in the adoption of new technologies. [L]