From the archives: A plant immune hub before, after, and <i>way</i> after its discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not so fast: an epistatic interaction between effector proteins leads to immune suppressionMany plant pathogenic microbes deploy a repertoire of effector proteins to dampen host immunity and facilitate virulence, and these same effectors can be recognized by host receptors to activate immunity (Jones et al. 2024).These days, we take for granted that different effectors within these large repertoires can interact with one another-either physically or genetically-to influence hostpathogen outcomes.A major reason for that assumption is a 1996 study by Ritter and Dangl (1996).The duo noted that 2 immune-eliciting effectors from the bacterial phytopathogen Pseudomonas syringae, AvrRpm1 and AvrRpt2, elicited a localized cell death response in Arabidopsis thaliana characteristic of immune activation at starkly different timepoints (6 hr post-inoculation for AvrRpm1, 20 hr for AvrRpt2), leading them to ask which timepoint would win out if the 2 effectors were simultaneously introduced.Contrary to their expectations, no cell death was observed at 6 hr when the 2 effectors were coexpressed, suggesting that AvrRpm1-triggered immunity is blocked by the presence of AvrRpt2.Further supporting this, when they knocked out RPS2, the resistance protein that recognizes AvrRpt2, P. syringae carrying both effectors was able to grow to wild-type levels despite the host still having RPM1.This elegant study by Ritter and Dangl was ahead of its time in considering the potential for effectors to genetically interact with one another to suppress immunity, providing a foundation for many significant studies in plant-pathogen interactions.Even more impressive, these findings helped pave the way for the discovery of the immune hub RIN4, a membrane-associated protein that is a key component of both AvrRpm1-and AvrRpt2-triggered immunity (Mackey et al. 2002(Mackey et al. , 2003)), as well as a target of many other bacterial effectors (Fig. 1A).It is astonishing how many future studies into these effectors and RIN4 arose out of the simple observation that AvrRpt2 suppresses AvrRpm1-triggered immunity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".