Cited by 7Plant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityProtein Structure and DynamicsPolysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls

In-silico study of E169G and F242K double mutations in leucine-rich repeats (LRR) polygalacturonase inhibiting protein (PGIP) of Gossypium barbadense and associated defense mechanism against plant pathogens

Open access
Murmu, Sneha, Rashmi, Mayank, Nagrale, Dipak T., Kour, Tejasman, Singh, Mahender Kumar, Chaurasia, Anurag, Behera, Santosh Kumar, Shankar, Raja +6 more·2025·Journal of Cotton Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Polygalacturonase inhibiting proteins (PGIPs) play a pivotal role in plant defense against plant pathogens by inhibiting polygalacturonase (PG), an enzyme produced by pathogens to degrade plant cell wall pectin. PGIPs, also known as leucine-rich repeat pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, activate the host’s defense response upon interaction with PG, thereby reinforcing the host defense against plant pathogens attacks. In Egyptian or extra-long staple cotton ( Gossypium barbadense ), the interaction between PGIP and PG is one of the crucial steps in the defense mechanism against major pathogens such as Xanthomonas citri pv. malvacearum and Alternaria macrospora , which are responsible for bacterial leaf blight and leaf spot diseases, respectively. Results: To unravel the molecular mechanisms underlying these PR proteins, we conducted a comprehensive study involving molecular modeling, protein-protein docking, site-specific double mutation (E169G and F242K), and molecular dynamics simulations. Both wild-type and mutated cotton PGIPs were examined in the interaction with the PG enzyme of a bacterial and fungal pathogen. Our findings revealed that changes in conformations of double-mutated residues in the active site of PGIP lead to the inhibition of PG binding. The molecular dynamics simulation studies provide insights into the dynamic behaviour and stability of the PGIP-PG complexes, shedding light on the intricate details of the inhibitory and exhibitory mechanism against the major fungal and bacterial pathogens of G. barbadense , respectively. Conclusions: The findings of this study not only enhance our understanding of the molecular interactions between PGs of Xanthomonas citri pv. malvacearum and Alternaria macrospora and PGIP of G. barbadense but also present a potential strategy for developing the disease-resistant cotton varieties. By variations in the binding affinities of PGs through specific mutations in PGIP, this research offers promising avenues for the development of enhanced resistance to cotton plants against bacterial leaf blight and leaf spot diseases.

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 · 10.1186/s42397-024-00203-z

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Murmu, S., Rashmi, M., Nagrale, D. T., Kour, T., Singh, M. K., Chaurasia, A., Behera, S. K., Shankar, R., Ranjan, R., Jha, G. K., Gawande, S. P., Hiremani, N. S., Prasad, Y. G., & Kumar, S.
Affiliations
  • Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IN)
  • Central Institute for Cotton Research (IN)
  • Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir (IN)
  • National Brain Research Centre (IN)
  • Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IN)
  • National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research - Ahmedabad (IN)
  • Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IN)
  • Dayalbagh Educational Institute (IN)
Venue
Journal of Cotton Research
Published
2025-01-13
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2096-5044 (ISSN-L)
  • 2523-3254
OpenAlex
W4406294783
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cotton Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Indian Council of Agricultural Research (F. no. Agril. Edn.4-1/2013-A & P)
  • Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (BT/PR40161/ BTIS/137/32/2021)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
Keywords
polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein, polygalacturonase, Gossypium barbadense, cotton, leucine-rich repeat proteins, pathogenesis-related proteins, protein-protein docking, molecular dynamics simulation, Xanthomonas citri pv. malvacearum, Alternaria macrospora, bacterial leaf blight, leaf spot, plant-pathogen interaction, disease resistance, pectin degradation

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