Development of PVY resistance in tomato by knockout of host eukaryotic initiation factors by CRISPR-Cas9

Kumar, Surender; Abebie, Bekele; Kumari, Ritu; Kravchik, Michael; Shnaider, Yulia; Leibman, Diana; Bornstein, Menachem; Gaba, Victor; Gal‐On, Amit

doi:10.1007/s12600-022-00991-7

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, after infection of eIF4E1 KO tomato, no features of RB, such as infection of only a fraction of plants or delayed development of symptoms, were observed. Accordingly, no VPg mutations were observed (Kumar et al, 2022). This speaks in favor of the ability of different PVY and TEV strains to use eIF4E2 in tomato directly without any adaptation.…”

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…In the genomes of different plants of the Solanaceae family, i.e., pepper, tomato, and potato, two homologous eIF4E variants, eIF4E1 and eIF4E2, were reported (Piron et al, 2010;Lebaron et al, 2016;Lucioli et al, 2022). In tomato, simultaneous inactivation of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 genes caused dwarfism, in contrast to the separate inactivation of eIF4E1 or eIF4E2 (Gauffier et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022); interestingly, the double knockout of eIF(iso)4E and eIF4E2 in tomato was lethal (Bastet et al, 2017). Cultivated Nicotiana tabacum, which is an allotetraploid derived from the natural interspecific hybridization between Nicotiana sylvestris (S-genome) and Nicotiana tomentosiformis (T-genome), contains as many as 12 genes encoding eIF4Es, i.e., six eIF4E (eIF4E-1 to eIF4E-6), two eIF(iso)4E, and four nCBP (Julio et al, 2015;Michel et al, 2019).…”

Section: Bc-3 Desc Cyvmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…eIF4E1 is the susceptibility factor to these viruses in tomato because its alleles (pot-1 and pot-1 2 , with 4 and 2 amino acid substitutions, respectively) confer resistance to diverse PVY and TEV strains in different tomato species and interspecific hybrids (Ruffel et al, 2005;Gauffier et al, 2016;Lebaron et al, 2016). Strikingly, inactivation of eIF4E1 yields low, if any, resistance to these viruses, with the exception of a single PVY strain (Piron et al, 2010;Gauffier et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022). In tomato with inactivated eIF4E1, these viruses use eIF4E2 as a susceptibility factor because double knockout of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 leads to resistance (Gauffier et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022).…”

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strikingly, inactivation of eIF4E1 yields low, if any, resistance to these viruses, with the exception of a single PVY strain (Piron et al, 2010;Gauffier et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022). In tomato with inactivated eIF4E1, these viruses use eIF4E2 as a susceptibility factor because double knockout of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 leads to resistance (Gauffier et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022). Interestingly, after infection of eIF4E1 KO tomato, no features of RB, such as infection of only a fraction of plants or delayed development of symptoms, were observed.…”

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Plant eIF4E isoforms as factors of susceptibility and resistance to potyviruses

Zlobin

Taranov

2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potyviruses are the largest group of plant-infecting RNA viruses that affect a wide range of crop plants. Plant resistance genes against potyviruses are often recessive and encode translation initiation factors eIF4E. The inability of potyviruses to use plant eIF4E factors leads to the development of resistance through a loss-of-susceptibility mechanism. Plants have a small family of eIF4E genes that encode several isoforms with distinct but overlapping functions in cell metabolism. Potyviruses use distinct eIF4E isoforms as susceptibility factors in different plants. The role of different members of the plant eIF4E family in the interaction with a given potyvirus could differ drastically. An interplay exists between different members of the eIF4E family in the context of plant–potyvirus interactions, allowing different eIF4E isoforms to modulate each other’s availability as susceptibility factors for the virus. In this review, possible molecular mechanisms underlying this interaction are discussed, and approaches to identify the eIF4E isoform that plays a major role in the plant–potyvirus interaction are suggested. The final section of the review discusses how knowledge about the interaction between different eIF4E isoforms can be used to develop plants with durable resistance to potyviruses.

show abstract

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Bc-3 Desc Cyvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Many Potyviruses Can Use Alternative Eif4e Isoform Variants ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Plant eIF4E isoforms as factors of susceptibility and resistance to potyviruses

Zlobin

Taranov

2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the editing of eIF4E1 reduced susceptibility to the pepper mottle virus (PepMoV) (Yoon et al, 2020), potato virus Y N strain (PVYN), and cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) (Atarashi et al, 2020), while the knockout of eIF4E2 produced full resistance to one isolate of pepper veinal mottle virus (PVMV) but only partial resistance to another isolate (Kuroiwa et al, 2022). A double knockout of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2, as well as the single mutants for these genes, was further analysed in a study by Kumar et al (2022) and it was confirmed that eIF4E1 is responsible for resistance to PVY and that the editing of both genes affected plant growth (Kumar et al, 2022). The mutants were also challenged with CMV, eggplant mild leaf mottle virus (EMLMV), pepino mosaic virus (PepMV), and tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) to verify if a broad-spectrum resistance was obtained, but the edited plants did not show reduced susceptibility to these viruses.…”

Section: Editingofhostplantfactorsfor Virusresistancementioning

confidence: 99%

CRISPR/Cas‐based tools for the targeted control of plant viruses

Robertson

Burger

Campa

2022

Molecular Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant viruses are known to infect most economically important crops and pose a major threat to global food security. Currently, few resistant host phenotypes have been delineated, and while chemicals are used for crop protection against insect pests and bacterial or fungal diseases, these are inefficient against viral diseases. Genetic engineering emerged as a way of modifying the plant genome by introducing functional genes in plants to improve crop productivity under adverse environmental conditions. Recently, new breeding technologies, and in particular the exciting CRISPR/Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR‐associated proteins) technology, was shown to be a powerful alternative to engineer resistance against plant viruses, thus has great potential for reducing crop losses and improving plant productivity to directly contribute to food security. Indeed, it could circumvent the “Genetic modification” issues because it allows for genome editing without the integration of foreign DNA or RNA into the genome of the host plant, and it is simpler and more versatile than other new breeding technologies. In this review, we describe the predominant features of the major CRISPR/Cas systems and outline strategies for the delivery of CRISPR/Cas reagents to plant cells. We also provide an overview of recent advances that have engineered CRISPR/Cas‐based resistance against DNA and RNA viruses in plants through the targeted manipulation of either the viral genome or susceptibility factors of the host plant genome. Finally, we provide insight into the limitations and challenges that CRISPR/Cas technology currently faces and discuss a few alternative applications of the technology in virus research.

show abstract