Recovery of <i>Nicotiana benthamiana</i> Plants from a Necrotic Response Induced by a Nepovirus Is Associated with RNA Silencing but Not with Reduced Virus Titer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery of plants from virus-induced symptoms is often described as a consequence of RNA silencing, an antiviral defense mechanism. For example, recovery of Nicotiana clevelandii from a nepovirus (tomato black ring virus) is associated with a decreased viral RNA concentration and sequence-specific resistance to further virus infection. In this study, we have characterized the interaction of another nepovirus, tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV), with host defense responses during symptom induction and subsequent recovery. Early in infection, ToRSV induced a necrotic phenotype in Nicotiana benthamiana that showed characteristics typical of a hypersensitive response. RNA silencing was also activated during ToRSV infection, as evidenced by the presence of ToRSV-derived small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) that could direct degradation of ToRSV sequences introduced into sensor constructs. Surprisingly, disappearance of symptoms was not accompanied by a commensurate reduction in viral RNA levels. The stability of ToRSV RNA after recovery was also observed in N. clevelandii and Cucumis sativus and in N. benthamiana plants carrying a functional RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 ortholog from Medicago truncatula. In experiments with a reporter transgene (green fluorescent protein), ToRSV did not suppress the initiation or maintenance of transgene silencing, although the movement of the silencing signal was partially hindered. Our results demonstrate that although RNA silencing is active during recovery, reduction of virus titer is not required for the initiation of this phenotype. This scenario adds an unforeseen layer of complexity to the interaction of nepoviruses with the host RNA silencing machinery. The possibility that viral proteins, viral RNAs, and/or virus-derived siRNAs inactivate host defense responses is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".