CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,047Plant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lifestyle transitions in plant pathogenic Colletotrichum fungi deciphered by genome and transcriptome analyses

Open access
O'Connell, Richard J, Thon, Michael R, Hacquard, Stéphane, Amyotte, Stefan G, Kleemann, Jochen, Torres, Maria F, Damm, Ulrike, Buiate, Ester A, Epstein, Lynn, Alkan, Noam, Altmüller, Janine, Alvarado-Balderrama, Lucia, Bauser, Christopher A, Becker, Christian, Birren, Bruce W, Chen, Zehua, Choi, Jaeyoung, Crouch, Jo Anne, Duvick, Jonathan P, Farman, Mark A, Gan, Pamela, Heiman, David, Henrissat, Bernard, Howard, Richard J, Kabbage, Mehdi, Koch, Christian, Kracher, Barbara, Kubo, Yasuyuki, Law, Audrey D, Lebrun, Marc-Henri, Lee, Yong-Hwan, Miyara, Itay, Moore, Neil, Neumann, Ulla, Nordström, Karl, Panaccione, Daniel G, Panstruga, Ralph, Place, Michael, Proctor, Robert H, Prusky, Dov, Rech, Gabriel, Reinhardt, Richard, Rollins, Jeffrey A, Rounsley, Steve, Schardl, Christopher L, Schwartz, David C, Shenoy, Narmada, Shirasu, Ken, Sikhakolli, Usha R, Stüber, Kurt, Sukno, Serenella A, Sweigard, James A, Takano, Yoshitaka, Takahara, Hiroyuki, Trail, Frances, van der Does, H Charlotte, Voll, Lars M, Will, Isa, Young, Sarah, Zeng, Qiandong, Zhang, Jingze, Zhou, Shiguo, Dickman, Martin B, Schulze-Lefert, Paul, Ver Loren van Themaat, Emiel, Ma, Li-Jun, Vaillancourt, Lisa J·2012·Nature Genetics
DOI 10.1038/ng.2372PMC PMC9754331
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Richard O'Connell and colleagues report the genomes and transcriptomes of two Colletotrichum plant fungal pathogens. C. higginsianum infects Arabidopsis thaliana, and C. graminicola infects maize (Zea mays); comparative genomics in both species lead to molecular insights into the transition from biotrophic to necrotrophic life stages. Colletotrichum species are fungal pathogens that devastate crop plants worldwide. Host infection involves the differentiation of specialized cell types that are associated with penetration, growth inside living host cells (biotrophy) and tissue destruction (necrotrophy). We report here genome and transcriptome analyses of Colletotrichum higginsianum infecting Arabidopsis thaliana and Colletotrichum graminicola infecting maize. Comparative genomics showed that both fungi have large sets of pathogenicity-related genes, but families of genes encoding secreted effectors, pectin-degrading enzymes, secondary metabolism enzymes, transporters and peptidases are expanded in C. higginsianum. Genome-wide expression profiling revealed that these genes are transcribed in successive waves that are linked to pathogenic transitions: effectors and secondary metabolism enzymes are induced before penetration and during biotrophy, whereas most hydrolases and transporters are upregulated later, at the switch to necrotrophy. Our findings show that preinvasion perception of plant-derived signals substantially reprograms fungal gene expression and indicate previously unknown functions for particular fungal cell types.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ng.2372

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Phylogeny and infection of the two Colletotrichum species analyzed in this study. (a) Cladogram showing the phylogenetic relationship of Colletotrichum to other sequenced fungi, including 13 species used for comparative analyses (see Fig. 3). The unscaled tree was constructed using CVTree34 with Rhizopus oryzae as the outgroup. (b) Infection process of C. higginsianum (Ch) and leaf anthracnose symptoms on Brassica and Arabidopsis. The Brassica image is reproduced with permission of University of Georgia Plant Pathology Archive (bugwood.org/). (c) Infection process of C. graminicola (Cg), and leaf-blight, top die-back and stalk-rot symptoms on maize. SP, spore; AP, appressorium; PH, biotrophic primary hyphae; SH, necrotrophic secondary hyphae.
Figure 1 Phylogeny and infection of the two Colletotrichum species analyzed in this study. (a) Cladogram showing the phylogenetic relationship of Colletotrichum to other sequenced fungi, including 13 species used for comparative analyses (see Fig. 3). The unscaled tree was constructed using CVTree34 with Rhizopus oryzae as the outgroup. (b) Infection process of C. higginsianum (Ch) and leaf anthracnose symptoms on Brassica and Arabidopsis. The Brassica image is reproduced with permission of University of Georgia Plant Pathology Archive (bugwood.org/). (c) Infection process of C. graminicola (Cg), and leaf-blight, top die-back and stalk-rot symptoms on maize. SP, spore; AP, appressorium; PH, biotrophic primary hyphae; SH, necrotrophic secondary hyphae.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Conservation of synteny between the genomes of C. graminicola and C. higginsianum. (a) Dot plot showing the syntenic blocks between the 13 chromosomes (optical linkage groups) of C. graminicola (horizontal axis) and the 12 chromosomes of C. higginsianum (vertical axis). Homologies between chromosomes of each species are highlighted in red dashed boxes. Homologous sequences of C. graminicola chromosome 9, indicated between the blue dashed lines, are dispersed among many C. higginsianum chromosomes. (b) Global view of syntenic alignments between the genomes of C. graminicola and C. higginsianum. Linkage groups of C. graminicola are shown as the reference, with linkage group lengths defined by the C. graminicola optical map. For each chromosome, numbered genomic scaffolds (dark gray) positioned on the optical linkage groups are separated by scaffold breaks. The magenta blocks show syntenic mapping of the C. higginsianum sequences; notably, there is a near absence of homologous sequences among the minichromosomes.
Figure 2 Conservation of synteny between the genomes of C. graminicola and C. higginsianum. (a) Dot plot showing the syntenic blocks between the 13 chromosomes (optical linkage groups) of C. graminicola (horizontal axis) and the 12 chromosomes of C. higginsianum (vertical axis). Homologies between chromosomes of each species are highlighted in red dashed boxes. Homologous sequences of C. graminicola chromosome 9, indicated between the blue dashed lines, are dispersed among many C. higginsianum chromosomes. (b) Global view of syntenic alignments between the genomes of C. graminicola and C. higginsianum. Linkage groups of C. graminicola are shown as the reference, with linkage group lengths defined by the C. graminicola optical map. For each chromosome, numbered genomic scaffolds (dark gray) positioned on the optical linkage groups are separated by scaffold breaks. The magenta blocks show syntenic mapping of the C. higginsianum sequences; notably, there is a near absence of homologous sequences among the minichromosomes.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Comparison of fungal carbohydrate-active enzyme (CAZyme) repertoires. (a) Hierarchical clustering of CAZyme classes from Colletotrichum and 13 other fungal genomes. GH, glycoside hydrolase; GT, glycosyltransferase; PL, polysaccharide lyase; CE, carbohydrate esterase; CBM, carbohydrate-binding module. The numbers of enzyme modules in each genome are shown. Overrepresented (orange to red) and underrepresented modules (pale yellow to white) are depicted as fold changes relative to the class mean. (b) Comparison of the pectin-degrading enzyme repertoires of C. higginsianum and C. graminicola shown as the number of modules in each CAZyme family11. In total, C. higginsianum encodes 86 such modules, whereas C. graminicola encodes only 42.
Figure 3 Comparison of fungal carbohydrate-active enzyme (CAZyme) repertoires. (a) Hierarchical clustering of CAZyme classes from Colletotrichum and 13 other fungal genomes. GH, glycoside hydrolase; GT, glycosyltransferase; PL, polysaccharide lyase; CE, carbohydrate esterase; CBM, carbohydrate-binding module. The numbers of enzyme modules in each genome are shown. Overrepresented (orange to red) and underrepresented modules (pale yellow to white) are depicted as fold changes relative to the class mean. (b) Comparison of the pectin-degrading enzyme repertoires of C. higginsianum and C. graminicola shown as the number of modules in each CAZyme family11. In total, C. higginsianum encodes 86 such modules, whereas C. graminicola encodes only 42.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Structure and transcription of a secondary metabolism gene cluster. (a) Gene cluster 18 from C. graminicola (Cg) is orthologous to cluster 10 from C. higginsianum (Ch). The latter is split between four small scaffolds in the Broad Institute genome annotation (supercontigs (SCs) 37, 481, 2,277 and 4,474) and was reconstructed based on an improved genome assembly (Supplementary Note). Microsynteny is indicated by gray bars. The 14 genes highlighted in red in the C. higginsianum cluster are co-regulated. Functional annotation for the cluster genes is provided in Supplementary Table 12. (b) Visualization of RNA-Seq coverage across the C. higginsianum polyketide biosynthesis cluster. The gray curves indicate read coverage (log scale) for the four samples. Co-regulated gene models are highlighted in red. VA, in vitro appressoria; PA, in planta appressoria; BP, biotrophic phase; NP, necrotrophic phase.
Figure 4 Structure and transcription of a secondary metabolism gene cluster. (a) Gene cluster 18 from C. graminicola (Cg) is orthologous to cluster 10 from C. higginsianum (Ch). The latter is split between four small scaffolds in the Broad Institute genome annotation (supercontigs (SCs) 37, 481, 2,277 and 4,474) and was reconstructed based on an improved genome assembly (Supplementary Note). Microsynteny is indicated by gray bars. The 14 genes highlighted in red in the C. higginsianum cluster are co-regulated. Functional annotation for the cluster genes is provided in Supplementary Table 12. (b) Visualization of RNA-Seq coverage across the C. higginsianum polyketide biosynthesis cluster. The gray curves indicate read coverage (log scale) for the four samples. Co-regulated gene models are highlighted in red. VA, in vitro appressoria; PA, in planta appressoria; BP, biotrophic phase; NP, necrotrophic phase.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Expression profiling of pathogenicity-related genes in C. higginsianum. (a) Schematic representation of the four C. higginsianum developmental stages selected for RNA sequencing. Gray indicates polystyrene, green indicates living plant cell, and brown indicates dead plant cell. Hpi, hours post-inoculation. (b) Heatmaps of gene expression showing the 100 most highly expressed and significantly regulated genes (log2 fold change >2, P < 0.05) in five functional categories. Overrepresented (pale red to dark red) and underrepresented transcripts (pale blue to dark blue) are shown as log2 fold changes relative to the mean expression measured across all four stages. The arrow indicates the CSEP-encoding gene ChEC6 (CH063_01084). (c) The statistical significance of gene induction (y axis) in five functional categories during fungal developmental transitions (x axis). The P values were calculated using a one-sided Fisher's exact test and represent the probability of observing the number of significantly induced genes for a specific category during a transition given the total number of significantly induced genes during that transition (log2 fold change >2, P < 0.05) and the total number of genes in the category. (d) Transcriptional regulation of the effector gene ChEC6 by plant-derived signals. Confocal micrographs showing C. higginsianum expressing the mCherry reporter gene under the native ChEC6 promoter (overlays of bright-field and fluorescence channels). Appressoria (A) formed on polystyrene are unlabeled (top left), whereas those on the leaf surface (top right) have fluorescent cytoplasm. After host penetration, labeling is visible in young biotrophic hyphae (YH) but not older biotrophic hyphae (OH) (bottom). Scale bars, 10 μm. C, conidium.
Figure 5 Expression profiling of pathogenicity-related genes in C. higginsianum. (a) Schematic representation of the four C. higginsianum developmental stages selected for RNA sequencing. Gray indicates polystyrene, green indicates living plant cell, and brown indicates dead plant cell. Hpi, hours post-inoculation. (b) Heatmaps of gene expression showing the 100 most highly expressed and significantly regulated genes (log2 fold change >2, P < 0.05) in five functional categories. Overrepresented (pale red to dark red) and underrepresented transcripts (pale blue to dark blue) are shown as log2 fold changes relative to the mean expression measured across all four stages. The arrow indicates the CSEP-encoding gene ChEC6 (CH063_01084). (c) The statistical significance of gene induction (y axis) in five functional categories during fungal developmental transitions (x axis). The P values were calculated using a one-sided Fisher's exact test and represent the probability of observing the number of significantly induced genes for a specific category during a transition given the total number of significantly induced genes during that transition (log2 fold change >2, P < 0.05) and the total number of genes in the category. (d) Transcriptional regulation of the effector gene ChEC6 by plant-derived signals. Confocal micrographs showing C. higginsianum expressing the mCherry reporter gene under the native ChEC6 promoter (overlays of bright-field and fluorescence channels). Appressoria (A) formed on polystyrene are unlabeled (top left), whereas those on the leaf surface (top right) have fluorescent cytoplasm. After host penetration, labeling is visible in young biotrophic hyphae (YH) but not older biotrophic hyphae (OH) (bottom). Scale bars, 10 μm. C, conidium.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Frank, B. Ueber einige neue und weniger bekannte Pflanzenkrankheiten. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesell. 1, 29–34 (1883).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
O'Connell, R. J., Thon, M. R., Hacquard, S., Amyotte, S. G., Kleemann, J., Torres, M. F., Damm, U., Buiate, E. A., Epstein, L., Alkan, N., Altmüller, J., Alvarado-Balderrama, L., Bauser, C. A., Becker, C., Birren, B. W., Chen, Z., Choi, J., Crouch, J. A., Duvick, J. P., Farman, M. A., Gan, P., Heiman, D., Henrissat, B., Howard, R. J., Kabbage, M., Koch, C., Kracher, B., Kubo, Y., Law, A. D., Lebrun, M.-H., Lee, Y.-H., Miyara, I., Moore, N., Neumann, U., Nordström, K., Panaccione, D. G., Panstruga, R., Place, M., Proctor, R. H., Prusky, D., Rech, G., Reinhardt, R., Rollins, J. A., Rounsley, S., Schardl, C. L., Schwartz, D. C., Shenoy, N., Shirasu, K., Sikhakolli, U. R., Stüber, K., Sukno, S. A., Sweigard, J. A., Takano, Y., Takahara, H., Trail, F., van der Does, H. C., Voll, L. M., Will, I., Young, S., Zeng, Q., Zhang, J., Zhou, S., Dickman, M. B., Schulze-Lefert, P., Ver Loren van Themaat, E., Ma, L.-J., & Vaillancourt, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Salamanca (ES)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research (DE)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (NL)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Agricultural Research Organization (IL)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • GATC Biotech (Germany) (DE)
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • DuPont (United States) (US)
  • RIKEN (JP)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Kyoto Prefectural University (JP)
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Vaillancourt, Lisa J
ORCID
Venue
Nature Genetics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-08-12
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
1060-1065
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
DOI
10.1038/ng.2372
PMC
PMC9754331
OpenAlex
W2003266704
Cited by
1,047
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 6
FWCI
26.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL AMU (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
  • KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • University of Kentucky
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP1212)
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (20093445720125, 2007-35600-17829)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Disease Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Keywords
Colletotrichum higginsianum, Colletotrichum graminicola, plant pathogenic fungi, secreted effectors, pectin-degrading enzymes, hydrolytic enzymes, gene expression profiling, host-pathogen interaction, Arabidopsis thaliana, maize, comparative genomics
MeSH terms
Mitosporic Fungi, Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Plant Diseases, Gene Expression Regulation, Fungal, Cluster Analysis, Genome, Fungal, Arabidopsis, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Colletotrichum, Gene Expression Profiling, Host-Pathogen Interactions, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review