Elicitation of hypersensitive responses in <i> <scp>N</scp> icotiana glutinosa </i> by the suppressor of <scp>RNA</scp> silencing protein <scp>P</scp> 0 from poleroviruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant disease resistance (R) proteins that confer resistance to viruses recognize viral gene products with diverse functions, including viral suppressors of RNA silencing (VSRs). The P0 protein from poleroviruses is a VSR that targets the ARGONAUTE1 (AGO1) protein for degradation, thereby disrupting RNA silencing and antiviral defences. Here, we report resistance against poleroviruses in Nicotiana glutinosa directed against Turnip yellows virus (TuYV) and Potato leafroll virus (PLRV). The P0 proteins from TuYV (P0(T) (u) ), PLRV (P0(PL) ) and Cucurbit aphid-borne yellows virus (P0(CA) ) were found to elicit a hypersensitive response (HR) in N. glutinosa accession TW59, whereas other accessions recognized P0(PL) only. Genetic analysis showed that recognition of P0(T) (u) by a resistance gene designated RPO1 (Resistance to POleroviruses 1) is inherited as a dominant allele. Expression of P0 from a Potato virus X (PVX) expression vector transferred recognition to the recombinant virus on plants expressing RPO1, supporting P0 as the unique Polerovirus factor eliciting resistance. The induction of HR required a functional P0 protein, as P0(T) (u) mutants with substitutions in the F-box motif that abolished VSR activity were unable to elicit HR. We surmised that the broad P0 recognition seen in TW59 and the requirement for the F-box protein motif could indicate detection of P0-induced AGO1 degradation and disruption of RNA silencing; however, other viral silencing suppressors, including the PVX P25 that also causes AGO1 degradation, failed to elicit HR in N. glutinosa. Investigation of P0 elicitation of RPO1 could provide insight into P0 activities within the cell that trigger resistance.
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".