Next Article in Journal
Things Able to Treat Pain
Next Article in Special Issue
SsCak1 Regulates Growth and Pathogenicity in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Previous Article in Journal
Imbalance of Lymphocyte Subsets and CD45RA-Expressing Cells in Intrathoracic Lymph Nodes, Alveolar Compartment and Bloodstream of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigation of the Role of a Zinc Uptake Regulator (Zur) in the Virulence of Pectobacterium odoriferum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 12
10.3390/ijms241210343
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

GDSL Esterase/Lipase GELP1 Involved in the Defense of Apple Leaves against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Infection

by
Zhirui Ji
1,2,
Meiyu Wang
2,
Shuwu Zhang
1,
Yinan Du
2,
Jialin Cong
2,
Haifeng Yan
2,
Haimeng Guo
2,
Bingliang Xu
1,* and
Zongshan Zhou
2,*
1
College of Plant Protection, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2
Research Institute of Pomology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xingcheng 125100, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(12), 10343; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210343
Submission received: 21 April 2023 / Revised: 7 June 2023 / Accepted: 16 June 2023 / Published: 19 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances of Plants-Pathogen Interaction 2023)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
GDSL esterases/lipases are a subclass of lipolytic enzymes that play critical roles in plant growth and development, stress response, and pathogen defense. However, the GDSL esterase/lipase genes involved in the pathogen response of apple remain to be identified and characterized. Thus, in this study, we aimed to analyze the phenotypic difference between the resistant variety, Fuji, and susceptible variety, Gala, during infection with C. gloeosporioides, screen for anti-disease-associated proteins in Fuji leaves, and elucidate the underlying mechanisms. The results showed that GDSL esterase/lipase protein GELP1 contributed to C. gloeosporioides infection defense in apple. During C. gloeosporioides infection, GELP1 expression was significantly upregulated in Fuji. Fuji leaves exhibited a highly resistant phenotype compared with Gala leaves. The formation of infection hyphae of C. gloeosporioides was inhibited in Fuji. Moreover, recombinant His:GELP1 protein suppressed hyphal formation during infection in vitro. Transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana showed that GELP1-eGFP localized to the endoplasmic reticulum and chloroplasts. GELP1 overexpression in GL-3 plants increased resistance to C. gloeosporioides. MdWRKY15 expression was upregulated in the transgenic lines. Notably, GELP1 transcript levels were elevated in GL-3 after salicylic acid treatment. These results suggest that GELP1 increases apple resistance to C. gloeosporioides by indirectly regulating salicylic acid biosynthesis.

1. Introduction

GDSL-type esterase/lipase proteins (GELPs) belong to the SGNH hydrolase superfamily and contain a conserved GDSL motif at the N-terminus. Over 1100 members of the GDSL family of esterases/lipases have been found in 12 fully sequenced plant genomes [1], and they have become highly attractive topics because of their recently discovered properties and functions. Several plant GELPs have been isolated, cloned, and characterized. Members of the GELP family are primarily involved in the regulation of plant development, morphogenesis, secondary metabolite synthesis, and defense response [2,3]. In Arabidopsis, GELP77 functions in pollen dissociation and fecundity [4], secondary metabolism [5,6], and immunity [7]. The overexpression of AtGDSL1 promotes resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in oilseed rape by modulating salicylic acid (SA)–dependent and jasmonic acid (JA)–dependent pathways, thereby increasing phosphatidic acid accumulation and activating downstream stress response pathways following Sclerotinia infection [8]. OsGLIP1 and OsGLIP2 negatively regulate rice defense by modulating lipid metabolism, providing novel insights into lipid function in plant immunity [9]. In addition, GDSL lipases play roles in plant development, seed germination, morphogenesis, and pathogen defense responses [10,11]. However, the enzymatic or biological functions of most GELPs remain unclear.
Glomerella leaf spot of apple (GLSA), a destructive fungal disease caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, severely affects apple quality and yield [12,13,14]. Since GLSA was first reported and identified to be caused by Glomerella cingulate (anamorph: C. gloeosporioides) in the USA [15,16], it has affected the apple industry in many countries worldwide [15,17,18]. In China, GLSA was first discovered in the Gala apple orchard in Jiaozuo, Henan Province. The disease occurs at a rapid rate during the growing season, causing severe defoliation in 20% of the leaves within 2–3 days [17,19]. In recent years, this disease has become serious in major apple–producing areas and has caused serious economic losses to the apple industry [20,21,22]. Currently, GLSA is controlled through the spray application of the fungicides dithiocarbamate, tebuconazole, and prochloraz; however, this approach decreases food safety, pollutes the environment, and increases production cost [23,24]. The Fuji variety group exhibits a high disease resistance phenotype [25]. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms underlying disease resistance is important for controlling the disease through molecular breeding. In recent years, some studies have focused on the molecular mechanisms underlying the interaction between pathogens and host plants, and a small number of effectors have been identified in Colletotrichum [24,26].
When pathogen–associated molecular patterns or effectors are recognized by plants during an infection, cellular signaling inside the cell may be activated, leading to the influx of calcium, the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), the activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), and the induction of defense genes [27]. Studies have confirmed that WRKY transcription factors exert their disease-resisting properties via the MAPK signaling pathway. Arabidopsis WRKY22/29 is induced by a signaling cascade which includes AtMEKK1, AtMKK4/5 and AtMPK3/6, thereby enhancing fungal resistance in the plants [28]; Similarly, AtWRKY25/33 is induced by a cascade which includes AtMEKK1, AtMEK1/AtMKK2 and AtMPK4 to regulate the expression of various downstream defense genes which partici-pate in SA inhibition and JA activation [29]. Resistance–related genes have also been identified in apples (Malus domestica Borkh) [30,31,32]. Zhang et al., reported that miRln20, a GLSA–responsive gene, negatively regulates GLSA resistance [30]. WRKY transcription factors play key roles in plant resistance to various pathogens as important targets of MAPK signaling cascade members. MKK4-MPK3-WRKY17–mediated SA degradation increases Glomerella leaf spot susceptibility in apples [31]. MdWRKY100 positively regulates plants’ resistance against C. gloeosporioides [32]. Additionally, MPK3/MPK6 signaling and downstream WRKY transcription modulate GDSL lipase gene expression [33]. Plant GDSL esterases/lipases (GLIP1 and GLIP3) from Arabidopsis contribute to plant resistance against Botrytis cinerea [33]. GLIP1 regulates systemic immunity by modulating ethylene (ET) signaling components [34]. GLIP2 is involved in the resistance against Erwinia carotovora by negatively regulating auxin signaling [35]. Consistent with previous findings, the regulatory model of AtWRKY33 and MdWRKY17 that participate in fungal disease resistance downstream of the MAPK cascade was constructed (Figure S1) [31,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. However, the signaling pathways through which GDSL esterases/lipases confer apple resistance against C. gloeosporioides and their application in breeding C. gloeosporioides–resistant apple cultivars remain to be identified.
To explore the resistance mechanisms of Fuji, we aimed to analyze the phenotypic difference between the resistant variety, Fuji, and the susceptible variety, Gala, during infection with C. gloeosporioides and screen for disease-resistance–related proteins in Fuji leaves. Specifically, we characterized the GELP1 protein in apple leaves and determined its role in regulating apple resistance to the C. gloeosporioides wild-type strain W16.

2. Results

2.1. Fuji Leaves Resist C. gloeosporioides Infection

Infection characteristics of the resistant variety, Fuji, and susceptible variety, Gala, were detected. After 4 days of inoculation with C. gloeosporioides, large disease spots appeared on Gala leaves, but none appeared on Fuji leaves (Figure 1A). The disease index of Gala was up to 76.1%, whereas that of Fuji was 0% at 4 days postinoculation (dpi; Figure 1A). The infection structures of W16 were observed 24 h postinoculation (hpi) and reached 83.3% in Gala leaves but only 51.2% in Fuji leaves (Figure 1B). At 72 hpi, the formation of infection hyphae in Fuji leaves was 0%, whereas that in Gala was 53.1% (Figure 1B). These results indicated that Fuji produced certain structures or substances that impede the formation of infection hyphae and prevent W16 from completing leaf infection and disease.
Host plants recognize pathogens and produce high levels of defense genes, ROS generation, and corpus callosum deposition to inhibit pathogen infections [43,44]. We detected H2O2 accumulation at the infection site using 3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) staining. Histological examination revealed that H2O2 accumulation was dramatically higher at the infection site in Fuji leaves than in Gala leaves (Figure 1C). Callose synthase 2-like was also upregulated in Fuji leaves during infection (Figure 1D). The amounts of callose deposits were higher in Fuji leaves infected with the deletion mutant of effector Sntf2 than in those infected with W16 (Figure 1E). Sntf2 has previously been shown to play an important role in inhibiting plant defense responses to C. gloeosporioides infection [45]. These results indicated that C. gloeosporioides induces the plant immune defense response during the infestation of Fuji apple leaves.

2.2. GELP1 Expression Is Upregulated in Fuji during Infection

GDSL lipases/esterases play important roles in plant development and disease defense [9,46]. The screening of the Fuji Y2H library revealed a potential interacting protein of the virulence effector Sntf2 that encodes a GDSL lipase/esterase-like protein (Gene ID: 103451100), which we named GELP1 (Figure 2A). The transient co-expression showed that the signal of GELP1–eGFP was co-localized in the chloroplasts with the signal of Sntf2Δsp-TagRFP (Figure S2A). However, the qRT–PCR results showed that GELP1 expression was significantly upregulated in Fuji at 24 hpi (Figure 2B). To determine the role of GELP1 in the infection, we analyzed its expression in Gala at different stages of infection. The results showed that GELP1 was downregulated during the infection (Figure 2C). Semi-quantitative RT–PCR analysis showed that the transcription levels of GELP1 were higher in Fuji leaves than in Gala leaves (Figure 2D). GELP1 was induced by C. gloeosporioides infection in Fuji (Figure 2D). These results indicated that GELP1 participated in the immune defense response of apple.

2.3. GELP1 Is a GDSL Lipase/Esterase-Like Protein

NCBI BlastP analysis revealed that another GDSL lipase/esterase–like gene (GELP2) in the Golden Delicious genome (Gene ID: 103434228) is 93.37% similar to GELP1 (Figure S3A). Golden Delicious was also susceptible to GLSA (Figure S3B). GELP1 and GELP2 are encoded as 362-aa proteins containing a GDSL domain, and hydrolase activity acts on ester bonds, as predicted by InterPro 85.0 (Figure 3A). RT–PCR analysis showed that the expression of GELP2 in Gala and Fuji leaves was similar to that of GELP1 (Figure 3B). However, GELP2 expression was upregulated in Gala leaves at 12 hpi and downregulated at 24 hpi. Furthermore, cis–element analysis revealed that the promoter region of GELP1 contained defensive and stress–responsive cis–elements and SA–responsive cis–elements (Table S1). GELP2 is mainly involved in light-responsive cis-elements but also contains abscisic acid- and methyl jasmonate–responsive cis–elements (Table S2). Thus, GELP2 and GELP1 may respond to different stresses.
SignalP analysis revealed that GELP1 contains an N–terminal signal peptide (SP) (1–24 aa). To determine GELP1 localization, we constructed GELP1 (with or without SP) and GFP–fused expression vector and expressed the GELP1–eGFP protein using Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. The GELP1–eGFP fluorescent signal accumulated in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and chloroplasts (Figure 3C). However, the GELP1 signaling peptide was not associated with its localization in N. benthamiana (Figure 3C). Therefore, exploring the localization of GELP1 in the leaves of Fuji apple and the function of the protein is essential.

2.4. GELP1 Suppresses the Formation of Infection Structures

To determine the antimicrobial activity of GELP1 against C. gloeosporioides, we expressed recombinant His–GELP1 fusion proteins in Escherichia coli M15 cells (Figure 4A). The purified His–GELP1 was determined through Western blotting (Figure 4A). No significant difference in appressorium formation was observed between the groups treated with His–GELP1 and His (the blank control) at 12 h of co–incubation (Figure 4B). However, the formation of infection hyphae was suppressed by His–GELP1 at 24 h of co–incubation (Figure 4B). We also inoculated the incubated conidia on GL–3 leaves to analyze whether His–GELP1 induces local and systemic plant resistance. The co–incubation of apple leaves for 24 h inhibited the germination and formation of C. gloeosporioides and reduced the formation of infection hyphae compared with the control (Figure 4C). These results suggested that GELP1 inhibited the formation of infection hyphae.

2.5. GELP1 Enhances Plant Resistance to C. gloeosporioides

To further analyze the function of GELP1, we constructed an overexpression transgenic plant. All transgenic lines were screened using kanamycin. Transgenic lines overexpressing GELP1 (OE–GELP1) were confirmed using qRT–PCR and RT–PCR. GELP1 expression was significantly higher in the transgenic lines than in GL–3 (Figure 5A) and Fuji (Figure 5B). Compared with GL–3, the transgenic lines showed a similar phenotype on Murashige and Skoog medium (Figure 5C) and showed good growth rate and redifferentiation. The pathogenicity of W16 in OE–GELP1 leaves was also investigated. The disease index of the overexpression strain was significantly reduced compared with that of GL–3 (Figure 5D). In addition, after inoculation with spore suspension for 72 h, disease spots appeared on GL–3, whereas the transgenic plants had no disease spots, indicating that the disease resistance of OE–GELP1 was significantly improved (Figure 5E).
No significant difference in appressorium formation was found between W16 and GL–3 leaves at 24 hpi (Figure 6A). However, the infectious phase of OE–GELP1 was significantly suppressed compared with that of GL–3 (Figure 6A). In addition, aniline blue staining showed higher amounts of callose deposits in the infection sites of OE–GELP1–1 and OE–GELP1–2 leaves than in those of GL–3 leaves at 24 hpi (Figure 6B). qRT–PCR analysis showed that the expression of Callose synthase 2-like was higher in OE–GELP1–1 leaves than in GL–3 leaves (Figure 6B). In addition, MdLAPX6 and MAPKKK3 were upregulated in OE–GELP1–1 and Fuji leaves (Figure 6C). MAPKKK3 encodes a component of the MAPK pathway, and MAPKKK3/MAPKKK5 is required for basal resistance to Pto-DC3000 [47]. These results suggested that GELP1 overexpression increased resistance to C. gloeosporioides in GL–3.

2.6. GELP1 Was Related with SA Accumulation

Exogenous SA application in apple leaves enhances resistance to GLSA [48]. In the present study, we sprayed SA onto Fuji and Gala leaves. Under SA stress, GELP1 expression was upregulated in Gala leaves (Figure 7A) but showed no change at 0 and 24 h in Fuji leaves (Figure 7A). However, the GELP1 expression in Gala leaves was similar to that in Fuji leaves at 24 h under SA stress (Figure 7A). In the present study, MdWRKY15 expression was only slightly upregulated in OE–GELP1–1 leaves compared with GL-3 leaves at 24 hpi, and it was also upregulated in Fuji leaves at 24 hpi (Figure 7B). The transcription factor MdWRKY15 activates the SA synthetase MdICS [49]. Furthermore, WRKY17 expression was downregulated in OE–GELP1–1 leaves than in GL-3 leaves at 24 hpi and upregulated in GL–3 leaves at 24 hpi (Figure 7C). Moreover, WRKY100 expression was only slightly upregulated in OE–GELP1–1 leaves (Figure 7D). MdWRKY100 and MdWRKY17 have been linked to SA accumulation [31,32]. Reducing SA accumulation helps apples infected with Colletotrichum fructicola [31]. These results indicated that GELP1 promoted plant resistance to C. gloeosporioides by increasing SA accumulation.

3. Discussion

C. gloeosporioides causes semi-in vitro nutrient infection on the susceptible cultivar, Gala, and mismatch or latent infection in vitro on the resistant cultivar, Fuji [50]. In the present study, in infected Fuji leaves, the formation of infection hyphae was inhibited, and the H2O2 accumulation and callose deposition increased. In addition, we identified a GDSL esterase/lipase At5g33370-like protein, GELP1, and found that its expression was significantly upregulated during Fuji infection. GDSL plays a role in plant growth and development, disease resistance, and lipid synthesis. Arabidopsis At5g33370 encodes the protein AtGELP95 (CUS2), which is involved in cutin polymer formation and cuticle permeability [51]. Tomato lipase GDSL1 is embedded in the cuticle matrix outside the epithelial cells and is associated with epidermal thickness, cuticle density, and resistance [52,53]. The GDSL esterase/lipase OsGELP78 modulates lipid metabolism to regulate rice resistance to disease [54]. In the present study, we found that GELP1 was highly similar to the LTL1–like GDSL esterase/lipase protein, whereas Arabidopsis thaliana Li-tolerant lipase 1 (AtLTL1) expression was activated by SA, suggesting that this lipase may also be involved in pathogen defense [55]. GELP1 overexpression increased apple resistance to C. gloeosporioides in GL–3. Callose deposits increased, and the expression of Callose synthase 2-like and MdLAPX6 was also upregulated. Apxs plays a role in scavenging ROS and protecting cells. In the present study, GELP1 is also involved in biotic stress responses.
The enzyme responsible for TAP in E. coli is a multifunctional GDSL esterase/lipase that functions as a thioesterase, protease, arylesterase, lysophospholipase, and esterase [56,57]. GDSL hydrolases have a flexible active site and switch conformation when different substrates are present, and some GDSL enzymes have a wide range of enzymatic activities, including esterase and protease activities in the same enzyme [58,59]. AtLTL1 and SlGDSL1 are orthologous extracellular acyltransferases in Arabidopsis and tomato, respectively, which catalyze the formation of line cuttings in oligomers using 2-MHG in vitro [52,60]. The recombinant GLIP1 protein possesses lipase and antimicrobial activities, which directly disrupt the integrity of fungal spores [9,61]. GLIP2 also possesses lipase and antimicrobial activities that inhibit the germination of fungal spores [62]. In the present study, recombinant GELP1 inhibited the formation of C. gloeosporioides infected hyphae. Plant GDSL lipase/esterase GLL25 is required for normal ER morphology and regular organelle distribution, and lipase/esterase activity is lost without a conserved active site of the GDSL motif [63].
Chloroplasts are important energy-converting cells in plants. In addition to photosynthesis, it plays a role in the synthesis of amino acids, fatty acids, plant growth substances, nucleotides, vitamins, and secondary metabolites [64]. Chloroplasts can be targeted as effectors, such as bacterial effectors HopI1, HopK1, and AvrRps4, which inhibit chloroplast-derived ROS or SA [65,66]. In the present study, a small fraction of GELP1-eGFP fluorescence was observed in the chloroplasts. Lipids are widely distributed in plants and are thought to be involved in regulating plant immunity [9]. DGDG are abundant galactolipids present in the thylakoid membranes and photosynthesis systems I and II [67]. Interestingly, DGDG contributes to the biosyntheses of NO and SA, which are involved in defense responses [6]. In the present study, WRKY genes were upregulated in the GELP1 overexpression transgenic lines, which was related to SA accumulation. We speculate that the chloroplast location is linked to SA biosynthesis.
The defense responses of plants to pathogens are regulated by networks of SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways [68]. In Arabidopsis, PRLIP1 induction depends on a functioning SA and ET signal transduction pathway [69]. GLIP1 responds to SA and functions in resistance to Alternaria brassicicola [61]. It directly targets MPK3/MPK6 and its downstream transcription factor WRKY33. Arabidopsis GDSL lipase 1 (GLIP1) requires ET signaling components for its expression and regulates systemic immunity via the positive (i.e., ERF1 activation) and negative (i.e., EIN3 degradation) feedback regulation of ET signaling [70]. In the present study, GELP1 overexpression indirectly upregulated the expression of WRKY genes, which are associated with SA generation. GELP1 expression was also upregulated by the external application of SA. In another study, the overexpression of the GDSL motif lipase/hydrolase-like protein GLIP1 or treatment with exudates from 35S: GLIP1 plants induce systemic pathogen resistance, and this effect has been associated with JA/ET and SA [61]. In the present study, GELP1 overexpression increased resistance to C. gloeosporioides. In our next work, we will investigate whether GELP1 can elicit a broad spectrum of resistance to multiple pathogens.
WRKY transcription factors play important roles in resistance to various fungal diseases in apples [71,72]. MdWRKY100 positively regulates resistance to C. gloeosporioides infection [32]. RNAi-mediated silencing of MdWRKY17 in Gala plants promotes GLS tolerance, and MdWRKY17 negatively regulates SA levels, leading to GLS susceptibility [31]. Other studies have shown that SA is critical for GLS tolerance [48]. In plants, SA levels are primarily determined by the balance between SA biosynthesis (mainly controlled by ICS1) and degradation [73]. The transcription factor MdWRKY15 activates the SA synthetase MdICS1 [49]. SA confers enhanced resistance to GLSA [48]. In the present study, GELP1 overexpression increased resistance to C. gloeosporioides. The expression of MdWRKY15 and MdWRKY100 was upregulated, whereas that of MdWRKY17 was downregulated in the GELP1 overexpression transgenic lines. These findings highlight that SA plays a role in regulating resistance to C. gloeosporioides infection and that GELP1 contributes to this resistance by enhancing SA accumulation.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Materials and Growth Conditions

W16 was isolated and purified by our group [74] GL–3 (Royal Gala) plants were supplied by Professor Zhihong Zhang [75]. Table S3 lists the primers used in the present study. W16 was cultured on PDA agar plates at 25 °C in the dark. Transgenic lines overexpressing GELP1 (OE–GELP1) and GL-3 plants were grown on Murashige and Skoog medium in a climate-controlled culture room at 25 ± 1 °C with a light/dark photoperiod of 16/8 h [75,76]. Seedlings of N. benthamiana were grown in a greenhouse at 22–25 °C and 75% humidity. Healthy leaves of Fuji and Gala were obtained from seedlings in our research orchard (Institute of Pomology of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, CAAS, Xingcheng, Liaoning Province, China).

4.2. Phenotypic Analysis

Fresh conidial suspensions were harvested from the surface of PDA cultures (9 cm-diameter plates) with 10 mL of sterile distilled water. The conidial suspensions were centrifuged at 5000 rpm, resuspended in normal saline, and then washed three times. For plant inoculation, fresh conidial suspensions (1 × 106 conidia/mL) were sprayed onto the leaves. The inoculated apple leaves were grown at 28 °C with a humidity of 75%. The formation of fungal appressoria and infection hyphae in the leaves was assessed via light microscopy after discoloration by boiling with 95% anhydrous ethanol and transparency using chloral hydrate. Pathogenicity assays were performed by examining disease lesions at 3 dpi. The proportion of diseased lesions (lesion area/leaf area) was graded in accordance with the following scale: 1: ≤20%; 3: >20%, ≤40%; 5: >40%, ≤60%; 7: >60%, ≤80%; 9: >80%. The disease index was expressed as ∑ (number of lesions × associated lesion grade)/(total number of lesions × largest lesion grade).

4.3. Histochemical Assays

DAB staining was performed as previously described to evaluate H2O2 production in plants [77]. Samples of inoculated leaves were collected at different stages of infection. DAB oxidation leads to the formation of a yellow polymer at the site of H2O2 accumulation. Callose deposits were detected via aniline blue staining. Samples were obtained from WT–inoculated leaves, which were decolorized by boiling in 95% ethanol for 5 min, and then dipped in chloral hydrate to make them transparent. The processed leaf segments were stained with 0.05% aniline blue in 0.067 M K2HPO4 (pH 9.6) [77]. For microscopy, the samples were preserved in 40% glycerol. The experiments were conducted at 0, 24, 36, and 48 hpi.

4.4. RNA Extraction and RNA Analyses

Total RNA was isolated from apple leaves using an RNA Prep Pure Plant Kit (TianGen Biotech, Beijing, China) in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocol. First-strand complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesized using a Two-Step RT–PCR SuperMix kit (TransGen Biotech). RT–PCR analysis of 100 ng total RNA was performed using RT-PCR SuperMix (TransGen Biotech) for the detection of GELP1 and MdUBQ. 5 The assay was conducted in triplicate. qRT–PCR was performed using the Tip Green qPCR SuperMix (TransGen Biotech). All of the qRT–PCR products were analyzed using Bio-Rad CFX Manager 3.0 software. Gene expression was measured by normalizing the expression values to those obtained from conidia or non-inoculated apple leaves using the β–tubulin gene as an endogenous reference. Each sample and the entire experiment were performed in three separate triplicates.

4.5. Yeast Two-Hybrid Assay

The coding sequences of SNTF2 were cloned into pGBKT7-BD as bait, and the Matchmaker GAL4 system (Shanghai OE Biotech, Shanghai, China) was used to screen a library of cDNA constructed from RNA isolated from infected Fuji leaves. The screening was performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Shanghai OE Biotech). The prey vector pGBKT7–GELP1 was constructed using the GELP1 cDNA from Fuji leaves to confirm the interaction between Sntf2 and GELP1. The corresponding prey and bait vectors were co-transformed into the Y2HGold strain. The transformed yeast strains were grown on a medium (SD/–Leu/–Trp and SD/–Leu/–Trp/–His/–Ade) at 30 °C for 3 days to select the positive transformants.

4.6. Transient Expression Analysis in N. benthamiana

For the subcellular localization assay, GELP1 was cloned into pGR35s–eGFP and transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404. The transformed strains were resuspended in infiltration buffer (10 mM MgCl2, 10 μM AS, 10 mM 2–(N–morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid, pH 5.6) at OD600 = 0.3 and injected into 4-week-old N. benthamiana leaves. The empty vector pGR35s-eGFP served as a positive control. After 2 days of infiltration, the injected leaves were observed with an epifluorescence microscope (Leica TCS SP8). For GFP fluorescence detection, the excitation and emission wavelengths were 488 and 495–545 nm, respectively.

4.7. Protein Extraction and Western Blot Analysis

GELP1 was cloned into the pQE30 vector and transformed into E. coli M15 cells. Transformed cell suspension (OD600 = 0.80) was cultured, and protein expression was induced by 100 μM isopyl β–D–thiogalactopyranoside at 180 rpm for 3 h at 37 °C. Induced samples were centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min, suspended with 1 × PBS (sodium phosphate buffer) (140 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 1.8 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.3) with lysozyme and proteinase inhibitor, and then disrupted via sonication. After centrifugation at 12,000 rpm for 30 min at 4 °C, the supernatant was purified using Ni-NTA beads (CWBIO, CW0894S) in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocol. The induced proteins were detected through SDS-PAGE and Coomassie Blue staining. For immune detection, the purified proteins were transferred onto polyvinylidene fluoride membranes and detected using the corresponding mouse anti-His antibody (1:1000; cat. no. HT501; TRANS, China) with secondary horseradish peroxidase-labelled goat anti-mouse IgG (1:2000; cat. no. A0216, Beyotime, Shanghai, China). Images were acquired using a Bio-Rad ChemiDoc imaging system.

4.8. Chemical Treatment

SA (Fluka) was dissolved in water (1 mM SA, 0.01% Tween 20) and sprayed onto the leaves (1 mL/plant). GELP1 transcript levels were measured through RT–PCR at 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment with 1 mM SA. Leaves of uniform size to the control were sprayed with distilled water. The antimicrobial activity of GELP1 was determined by adding recombinant proteins (0.5, 1, and 3 μg) to 10 μL of conidia suspension in (1 × 106), and the onion epidermis and leaf surface were inoculated at 25 °C. The formation rates of appressoria and infection hyphae were detected using light microscopy.

4.9. Generation of Transgenic GL–3 Plants with GELP1 Over-Expression

The GELP1 coding sequence was amplified and inserted into the pRPHA vector, which was then used to transform LBA4404 cells. The transformed strains were used to generate the overexpression transgenic line OE–GELP1. The Agrobacterium–mediated transformation of GL–3 was conducted as previously described [75].

5. Conclusions

We identified the GDSL esterase/lipase protein GELP1 and found that its expression was significantly upregulated in Fuji during C. gloeosporioides infection. GELP1 accumulated in the ER and chloroplasts and inhibited the formation of infection hyphae. GELP1 overexpression increased resistance to C. gloeosporioides. In addition, GELP1 was involved in SA biosynthesis. These results indicate that GELP1 contributes to C. gloeosporioides resistance by enhancing SA accumulation. This study provides insights into the mechanisms underlying GLSA resistance in apple and may serve as a basis for developing novel strategies to control the disease.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms241210343/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Z. and B.X.; methodology, Z.J., M.W., S.Z. and Y.D.; software, Z.J. and M.W.; validation, Z.J., M.W., Z.Z. and J.C.; formal analysis, Z.J., M.W., H.G. and J.C.; investigation, Z.J., M.W., H.Y. and Y.D.; resources, Z.Z. and B.X.; data curation, Z.J.; writing, original draft preparation, Z.J.; writing, review and editing, Z.Z. and B.X.; visualization, Z.Z. and B.X.; supervision, Z.Z. and B.X.; project administration, Z.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by The Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS–ASTIP–2021–RIP–05), China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS–27), and Special Funds for Basic Scientific Research Operation of Central-level Public Welfare Scientific Research Institutes.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Zhihong Zhang (Shenyang Agricultural University) for providing tissue-cultured GL–3 (cultivar Royal Gala) plants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Su, H.-G.; Zhang, X.-H.; Wang, T.-T.; Wei, W.-L.; Wang, Y.-X.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Y.-B.; Chen, M.; Ma, Y.-Z.; Xu, Z.-S. Genome-wide identification, evolution, and expression of GDSL–type esterase/lipase gene family in soybean. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agee, A.E.; Surpin, M.; Sohn, E.J.; Girke, T.; Rosado, A.; Kram, B.W.; Carter, C.; Wentzell, A.M.; Kliebenstein, D.J.; Jin, H.C. MODIFIED VACUOLE PHENOTYPE1 is an Arabidopsis myrosinase-associated protein involved in endomembrane protein trafficking. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Zhang, Z.; Ober, J.A.; Kliebenstein, D.J. The gene controlling the quantitative trait locus EPITHIOSPECIFIER MODIFIER1 alters glucosinolate hydrolysis and insect resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 1524–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Tsugama, D.; Fujino, K.; Liu, S.; Takano, T. A GDSL-type esterase/lipase gene, GELP77, is necessary for pollen dissociation and fertility in Arabidopsis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2020, 526, 1036–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Huang, L.-M.; Lai, C.-P.; Chen, L.-F.O.; Chan, M.-T.; Shaw, J.-F. Arabidopsis SFAR4 is a novel GDSL-type esterase involved in fatty acid degradation and glucose tolerance. Bot. Stud. 2015, 56, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Reina-Pinto, J.J.; Yephremov, A. Surface lipids and plant defenses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2009, 47, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rajarammohan, S.; Pradhan, A.K.; Pental, D.; Kaur, J. Genome-wide association mapping in Arabidopsis identifies novel genes underlying quantitative disease resistance to Alternaria brassicae. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 19, 1719–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ding, L.N.; Li, M.; Guo, X.J.; Tang, M.Q.; Cao, J.; Wang, Z.; Liu, R.; Zhu, K.M.; Guo, L.; Liu, S.Y. Arabidopsis GDSL1 overexpression enhances rapeseed Sclerotinia sclerotiorum resistance and the functional identification of its homolog in Brassica napus. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 1255–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gao, M.; Yin, X.; Yang, W.; Lam, S.M.; Tong, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, X.; Li, Q.; Shui, G.; He, Z. GDSL lipases modulate immunity through lipid homeostasis in rice. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Brick, D.J.; Brumlik, M.J.; Buckley, J.T.; Cao, J.-X.; Davies, P.C.; Misra, S.; Tranbarger, T.J.; Upton, C. A new family of lipolytic plant enzymes with members in rice, arabidopsis and maize. FEBS Lett. 1995, 377, 475–480. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ling, H.; Zhao, J.; Zuo, K.; Qiu, C.; Yao, H.; Qin, J.; Sun, X.; Tang, K. Isolation and expression analysis of a GDSL-like lipase gene from Brassica napus L. BMB Rep. 2006, 39, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Wang, W.; Fu, D.; Zhang, R.; Sun, G. Etiology of apple leaf spot caused by Colletotrichum spp. Mycosystema 2015, 34, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wang, M.Y.; Ji, Z.R.; Wang, N.; Chi, F.M.; Zhou, Z.S.; Zhang, J.X. Detection of the sensitivity of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides to three fungicides. J. Fruit Sci. 2018, 35, 458–468. [Google Scholar]
  14. Li, B.H.; Wang, C.X.; Dong, X.L. Research progress in apple diseases and problems in the disease management in China. Plant Prot. 2013, 39, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. González, E.; Sutton, T. First report of Glomerella leaf spot (Glomerella cingulata) of apple in the United States. Plant Dis. 1999, 83, 1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Taylor, J. A necrotic leaf blotch and fruit rot of apple caused by a strain of Glomerella cingulata. Phytopathology 1971, 61, e224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, C.X.; Zhang, Z.F.; Li, B.H.; Wang, H.Y.; Dong, X.L. First report of Glomerella leaf spot of apple caused by Glomerella cingulata in China. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Casanova, L.; Hernández, L.; Martínez, E.; Velho, A.; Rockenbach, M.; Stadnik, M.; Alaniz, S.; Mondino, P. First report of Glomerella leaf spot of apple caused by Colletotrichum fructicola in Uruguay. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dang, J.M.; Hu, Q.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.T.; Cao, K.Q. Occurrence and trend analysis of Glomerella leaf spot in apple producing areas of China. North Hortic. 2014, 10, 177–179. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ren, B.; Gao, X.N.; Han, C.M.; Huang, L.L. Etiology and infection process of Glomerella cingulata causing Glomerella leaf spot of apple. Acta Phytophylacica Sin. 2014, 41, 608–614. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sun, G.M.; Liu, L.M.; Zhu, Q.G.; Jia, D.H.; Shi, Z.X.; Gao, F.Y. Occurrence and control of Glomerella leaf spot of apple. Friends Fruit Farmers 2011, 12, 21. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sun, F.J.; Zha, Y.L.; Li, B.H.; Gao, D.S.; Hu, X.W. Occurrence and control of Glomerella leaf spot on apple in Xianyang, Shaanxi Province. China Fruits 2015, 01, 72–74. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, B.; Li, B.H.; Dong, X.L.; Wang, C.X.; Zhang, Z.F. Effects of temperature, wetness duration, and moisture on the conidial germination, infection, and disease incubation period of Glomerella cingulata. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Wang, M.Y.; Zhou, Z.S.; Wu, J.Y.; Ji, Z.R.; Zhang, J.X. Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals significant differences in gene expression between appressoria and hyphae in Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Gene 2018, 670, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wu, J.Y.; Wang, N.; Ji, Z.R.; Chi, F.M.; Zhou, Z.S.; Zhang, J.X. Pathogenicity Differentiation of Pathogen Causing Glomerella Leaf Spot of Apple(GLSA) and Evaluation of Resistance to GLSA in Apple Germplasms. J. Plant Genet. Resour. 2017, 18, 210–216. [Google Scholar]
  26. Shang, S.; Wang, B.; Zhang, S.; Liu, G.; Liang, X.; Zhang, R.; Gleason, M.L.; Sun, G. A novel effector CfEC92 of Colletotrichum fructicola contributes to glomerella leaf spot virulence by suppressing plant defences at the early infection phase. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 21, 936–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Couto, D.; Zipfel, C. Regulation of pattern recognition receptor signalling in plants. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2016, 16, 537–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Asai, T.; Tena, G.; Plotnikova, J.; Willmann, M.R.; Chiu, W.L.; Gomez-Gomez, L.; Boller, T.; Ausubel, F.M.; Sheen, J. MAP kinase signalling cascade in Arabidopsis innate immunity. Nature 2002, 415, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eulgem, T.; Somssich, I.E. Networks of WRKY transcription factors in defense signaling. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 366–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Hao, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, S.; Zhang, W.; Xu, C.; Yu, Y.; Li, T. A novel miRNA negatively regulates resistance to Glomerella leaf spot by suppressing expression of an NBS gene in apple. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Shan, D.; Wang, C.; Zheng, X.; Hu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Jiang, A.; Zhang, H.; Shi, K.; Bai, Y. MKK4-MPK3-WRKY17-mediated salicylic acid degradation increases susceptibility to Glomerella leaf spot in apple. Plant Physiol. 2021, 186, 1202–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, F.; Wang, F.; Yang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Xue, H.; Wang, Y.; Yan, S.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, Y. MdWRKY100 encodes a group I WRKY transcription factor in Malus domestica that positively regulates resistance to Colletotrichum gloeosporioides infection. Plant Sci. 2019, 286, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Han, X.; Li, S.; Zhang, M.; Yang, L.; Liu, Y.; Xu, J.; Zhang, S. Regulation of GDSL lipase gene expression by the MPK3/MPK6 cascade and its downstream WRKY transcription factors in Arabidopsis immunity. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2019, 32, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kim, H.G.; Kwon, S.J.; Jang, Y.J.; Chung, J.H.; Nam, M.H.; Park, O.K. GDSL lipase 1 regulates ethylene signaling and ethylene-associated systemic immunity in Arabidopsis. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588, 1652–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Lai, C.-P.; Huang, L.-M.; Chen, L.-F.O.; Chan, M.-T.; Shaw, J.-F. Genome-wide analysis of GDSL-type esterases/lipases in Arabidopsis. Plant Mol. Biol. 2017, 95, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Andreasson, E.; Jenkins, T.; Brodersen, P.; Thorgrimsen, S.; Petersen, N.H.T.; Zhu, S.; Qiu, J.L.; Micheelsen, P.; Rocher, A.; Petersen, M. The MAP kinase substrate MKS1 is a regulator of plant defense responses. EMBO J. 2005, 24, 2579–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Qiu, J.L.; Fiil, B.K.; Petersen, K.; Nielsen, H.B.; Botanga, C.J.; Thorgrimsen, S.; Palma, K.; Suarez-Rodriguez, M.C.; Sandbech-Clausen, S.; Lichota, J. Arabidopsis MAP Kinase4 regulates gene expression via transcription factor release in the nucleus. EMBO J. 2008, 27, 2214–2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Mao, G.; Meng, X.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, S. Phosphorylation of a WRKY transcription factor by two pathogen-responsive MAPKs drives phytoalexin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 1639–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Lai, Z.; Wang, F.; Zheng, Z.; Fan, B.; Chen, Z. A critical role of autophagy in plant resistance to necrotrophic fungal pathogens. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2011, 66, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, C.; Tong, C.; Cao, L.; Zheng, P.; Tang, X.; Wang, L.; Miao, M.; Liu, Y.; Cao, S. Regulatory module WRKY33-ATL31-IRT1 mediates cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Environ. 2023, 46, 1653–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Song, H.; Geng, Q.; Wu, X.; Hu, M.; Ye, M.; Yu, X.; Chen, Y.; Xu, J.; Jiang, L.; Cao, S. The transcription factor MYC1 interacts with FIT to negatively regulate iron homeostasis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2023, 114, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Zhang, M.; Zhang, S. Mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades in plant signaling. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2022, 64, 301–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jabs, T.; Tschöpe, M.; Colling, C.; Hahlbrock, K.; Scheel, D. Elicitor-stimulated ion fluxes and O2- from the oxidative burst are essential components in triggering defense gene activation and phytoalexin synthesis in parsley. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 4800–4805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Peng, Y.; van Wersch, R.; Zhang, Y. Convergent and divergent signaling in PAMP-triggered immunity and effector-triggered immunity. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2018, 31, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wang, M.Y.; Ji, Z.R.; Yan, H.F.; Xu, J.; Zhao, X.Z.; Zhou, Z.S. Effector Sntf2 Interacted with Chloroplast-Related Protein Mdycf39 Promoting the Colonization of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in Apple Leaf. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, J.; Long, T.; Wang, Y.; Tong, X.; Tang, J.; Li, J.; Wang, H.; Tang, L.; Li, Z.; Shu, Y. RMS2 encoding a GDSL lipase mediates lipid homeostasis in anthers to determine rice male fertility. Plant Physiol. 2020, 182, 2047–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Sun, T.; Nitta, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, D.; Tian, H.; Lee, J.S.; Zhang, Y. Antagonistic interactions between two MAP kinase cascades in plant development and immune signaling. EMBO Rep. 2018, 19, e45324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, Y.; Shi, X.P.; Li, B.H.; Zhang, Q.M.; Liang, W.X.; Wang, C.X. Salicylic acid confers enhanced resistance to Glomerella leaf spot in apple. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 106, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, X.Y.; Qi, C.H.; Jiang, H.; Zhong, M.S.; You, C.X.; Li, Y.Y.; Hao, Y.J. MdWRKY15 improves resistance of apple to Botryosphaeria dothidea via the salicylic acid-mediated pathway by directly binding the MdICS1 promoter. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2020, 62, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Benning, C.; Ohta, H. Three enzyme systems for galactoglycerolipid biosynthesis are coordinately regulated in plants. J. Biol. Chem. 2005, 280, 2397–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Hong, L.; Brown, J.; Segerson, N.A.; Rose, J.K.; Roeder, A.H. CUTIN SYNTHASE 2 maintains progressively developing cuticular ridges in Arabidopsis sepals. Mol. Plant 2017, 10, 560–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Girard, A.-L.; Mounet, F.; Lemaire-Chamley, M.; Gaillard, C.; Elmorjani, K.; Vivancos, J.; Runavot, J.-L.; Quemener, B.; Petit, J.; Germain, V. Tomato GDSL1 is required for cutin deposition in the fruit cuticle. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 3119–3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Gao, Q.-M.; Zhu, S.; Kachroo, P.; Kachroo, A. Signal regulators of systemic acquired resistance. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Kobayashi, K.; Kondo, M.; Fukuda, H.; Nishimura, M.; Ohta, H. Galactolipid synthesis in chloroplast inner envelope is essential for proper thylakoid biogenesis, photosynthesis, and embryogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 17216–17221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Gao, Q.-m.; Yu, K.; Xia, Y.; Shine, M.; Wang, C.; Navarre, D.; Kachroo, A.; Kachroo, P. Mono-and digalactosyldiacylglycerol lipids function nonredundantly to regulate systemic acquired resistance in plants. Cell Rep. 2014, 9, 1681–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Lee, L.-C.; Lee, Y.-L.; Leu, R.-J.; Shaw, J.-F. Functional role of catalytic triad and oxyanion hole-forming residues on enzyme activity of Escherichia coli thioesterase I/protease I/phospholipase L1. Biochem. J. 2006, 397, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Huang, Y.-T.; Liaw, Y.-C.; Gorbatyuk, V.Y.; Huang, T.-H. Backbone dynamics of Escherichia coli thioesterase/protease I: Evidence of a flexible active-site environment for a serine protease. J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 307, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mølgaard, A.; Kauppinen, S.; Larsen, S. Rhamnogalacturonan acetylesterase elucidates the structure and function of a new family of hydrolases. Structure 2000, 8, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Lee, Y.-L.; Chen, J.C.; Shaw, J.-F. The Thioesterase I of Escherichia coli Has Arylesterase Activity and Shows Stereospecificity for Protease Substrates. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1997, 231, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yeats, T.H.; Huang, W.; Chatterjee, S.; Viart, H.M.F.; Clausen, M.H.; Stark, R.E.; Rose, J.K. Tomato Cutin Deficient 1 (CD1) and putative orthologs comprise an ancient family of cutin synthase-like (CUS) proteins that are conserved among land plants. Plant J. 2014, 77, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oh, I.S.; Park, A.R.; Bae, M.S.; Kwon, S.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, J.E.; Kang, N.Y.; Lee, S.; Cheong, H.; Park, O.K. Secretome analysis reveals an Arabidopsis lipase involved in defense against Alternaria brassicicola. Plant Cell 2005, 17, 2832–2847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lee, D.S.; Kim, B.K.; Kwon, S.J.; Jin, H.C.; Park, O.K. Arabidopsis GDSL lipase 2 plays a role in pathogen defense via negative regulation of auxin signaling. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2009, 379, 1038–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nakano, R.T.; Matsushima, R.; Nagano, A.J.; Fukao, Y.; Fujiwara, M.; Kondo, M.; Nishimura, M.; Hara-Nishimura, I. ERMO3/MVP1/GOLD36 is involved in a cell type-specific mechanism for maintaining ER morphology in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Leister, D. Chloroplast research in the genomic age. TRENDS Genet. 2003, 19, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jelenska, J.; Van Hal, J.A.; Greenberg, J.T. Pseudomonas syringae hijacks plant stress chaperone machinery for virulence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 13177–13182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Li, G.; Froehlich, J.E.; Elowsky, C.; Msanne, J.; Ostosh, A.C.; Zhang, C.; Awada, T.; Alfano, J.R. Distinct Pseudomonas type-III effectors use a cleavable transit peptide to target chloroplasts. Plant J. 2014, 77, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Shah, J. Lipids, lipases, and lipid-modifying enzymes in plant disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2005, 43, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Schenk, P.M.; Kazan, K.; Wilson, I.; Anderson, J.P.; Richmond, T.; Somerville, S.C.; Manners, J.M. Coordinated plant defense responses in Arabidopsis revealed by microarray analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 11655–11660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Jakab, G.; Manrique, A.; Zimmerli, L.; Métraux, J.-P.; Mauch-Mani, B. Molecular characterization of a novel lipase-like pathogen-inducible gene family of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 2230–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Kim, H.G.; Kwon, S.J.; Jang, Y.J.; Nam, M.H.; Chung, J.H.; Na, Y.-C.; Guo, H.; Park, O.K. GDSL LIPASE1 modulates plant immunity through feedback regulation of ethylene signaling. Plant Physiol. 2013, 163, 1776–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Fan, H.; Wang, F.; Gao, H.; Wang, L.; Xu, J.; Zhao, Z. Pathogen-induced MdWRKY1 in ‘Qinguan’apple enhances disease resistance. J. Plant Biol. 2011, 54, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meng, D.; Li, C.; Park, H.-J.; González, J.; Wang, J.; Dandekar, A.M.; Turgeon, B.G.; Cheng, L. Sorbitol modulates resistance to Alternaria alternata by regulating the expression of an NLR resistance gene in apple. Plant Cell 2018, 30, 1562–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Seyfferth, C.; Tsuda, K. Salicylic acid signal transduction: The initiation of biosynthesis, perception and transcriptional reprogramming. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Wu, J.Y.; Ji, Z.R.; Wang, N.; Chi, F.M.; Xu, C.N.; Zhou, Z.S.; Zhang, J.X. Identification of conidiogenesis-associated genes in Colletotrichum gloeosporioides by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation. Curr. Microbiol. 2016, 73, 802–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dai, H.; Li, W.; Han, G.; Yang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z. Development of a seedling clone with high regeneration capacity and susceptibility to Agrobacterium in apple. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 164, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Srinivasan, C.; Liu, Z.; Scorza, R. Ectopic expression of class 1 KNOX genes induce adventitious shoot regeneration and alter growth and development of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) and European plum (Prunus domestica L.). Plant Cell Rep. 2011, 30, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Chen, M.; Zeng, H.; Qiu, D.; Guo, L.; Yang, X.; Shi, H.; Zhou, T.; Zhao, J. Purification and characterization of a novel hypersensitive response-inducing elicitor from Magnaporthe oryzae that triggers defense response in rice. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijms 24 10343 g001 550
Figure 1. Phenotypic features of C. gloeosporioides resistance on Fuji leaves. (A) Pathogenicity of C. gloeosporioides on Gala and Fuji leaves. Disease severity was determined at 4 dpi. Each experiment was repeated three times, with 10 leaves used per replicate. (B) Infection structures of the W16 at 24, 48, and 96 h post–inoculation (hpi). The rate of appressoria and infection hyphae formation of W16 were detected. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). Co, conidia; Ap, appressorium; IH, infection hyphae; PH, primary hyphae; SH, secondary hyphal. Bar = 10 μm. (C) DAB staining was used to detect H2O2 accumulation. Oxidation of DAB results in the formation of a yellow polymer, which becomes deposited at the site of H2O2 accumulation. (D) qRT–PCR analysis of Callose synthase 2–like expression in Fuji leaves at 0, 12, and 24 hpi. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments compared with those from samples at 0 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (E) Aniline blue staining to observe callose deposition on apple leaves at 24 hpi.
Figure 1. Phenotypic features of C. gloeosporioides resistance on Fuji leaves. (A) Pathogenicity of C. gloeosporioides on Gala and Fuji leaves. Disease severity was determined at 4 dpi. Each experiment was repeated three times, with 10 leaves used per replicate. (B) Infection structures of the W16 at 24, 48, and 96 h post–inoculation (hpi). The rate of appressoria and infection hyphae formation of W16 were detected. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). Co, conidia; Ap, appressorium; IH, infection hyphae; PH, primary hyphae; SH, secondary hyphal. Bar = 10 μm. (C) DAB staining was used to detect H2O2 accumulation. Oxidation of DAB results in the formation of a yellow polymer, which becomes deposited at the site of H2O2 accumulation. (D) qRT–PCR analysis of Callose synthase 2–like expression in Fuji leaves at 0, 12, and 24 hpi. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments compared with those from samples at 0 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (E) Aniline blue staining to observe callose deposition on apple leaves at 24 hpi.
Ijms 24 10343 g001
Ijms 24 10343 g002 550
Figure 2. Interaction and expression analysis of GELP1. (A) Confirmation of the Sntf2–GELP1 interaction using Y2H assays. (B) qRT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji leaves and GL–3 tissues. (C) GELP1 expression during infection. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments compared with those of samples at 0 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (D) RT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji and GL–3, MdUBQ was used as a control.
Figure 2. Interaction and expression analysis of GELP1. (A) Confirmation of the Sntf2–GELP1 interaction using Y2H assays. (B) qRT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji leaves and GL–3 tissues. (C) GELP1 expression during infection. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments compared with those of samples at 0 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (D) RT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji and GL–3, MdUBQ was used as a control.
Ijms 24 10343 g002
Ijms 24 10343 g003 550
Figure 3. GELP1 localization and GELP2 expression analysis. (A) GELP1 was predicted to contain a signal peptide, a GDSL–like domain using Signal Pand InterPro 85.0. (B) qRT–PCR and RT–PCR analysis of the expression of GELP2 in Fuji and GL–3 leaves. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments. (C) Localization of GELP1 (with or without SP) in Nicotianabenthamiana. eGFP protein was used as a control. Bar = 10 μm. (D) Relative expression levels of GELP1 and GELP2 in Fuji and GL–3 from 0 to 48 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Figure 3. GELP1 localization and GELP2 expression analysis. (A) GELP1 was predicted to contain a signal peptide, a GDSL–like domain using Signal Pand InterPro 85.0. (B) qRT–PCR and RT–PCR analysis of the expression of GELP2 in Fuji and GL–3 leaves. Results are presented as the average fold of values from three independent experiments. (C) Localization of GELP1 (with or without SP) in Nicotianabenthamiana. eGFP protein was used as a control. Bar = 10 μm. (D) Relative expression levels of GELP1 and GELP2 in Fuji and GL–3 from 0 to 48 hpi. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Ijms 24 10343 g003
Ijms 24 10343 g004 550
Figure 4. Antimicrobial activity of recombinant GELP1 proteins against C. gloeosporioides. (A) Coomassie blue–stained gel of purified recombinant His:GELP1 and Western blots analysis. Recombinant His:GELP1 proteins (3 μg) were added to 10 μL of a W16 spore suspension (1 × 105 spores/mL). (B) Samples were incubated on onion epidermis for 24 h at 25 °C. (C) Samples were incubated on GL–3 leaves for 24 and 48 h at 25 °C. His expression vector was used as a mock control. The rate of appressoria and infection hyphal formation of W16 was detected. Each experiment was repeated three times. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Figure 4. Antimicrobial activity of recombinant GELP1 proteins against C. gloeosporioides. (A) Coomassie blue–stained gel of purified recombinant His:GELP1 and Western blots analysis. Recombinant His:GELP1 proteins (3 μg) were added to 10 μL of a W16 spore suspension (1 × 105 spores/mL). (B) Samples were incubated on onion epidermis for 24 h at 25 °C. (C) Samples were incubated on GL–3 leaves for 24 and 48 h at 25 °C. His expression vector was used as a mock control. The rate of appressoria and infection hyphal formation of W16 was detected. Each experiment was repeated three times. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Ijms 24 10343 g004
Ijms 24 10343 g005 550
Figure 5. GELP1 overexpression increases resistance to C. gloeosporioides in GL–3. (A) Relative expression levels of GELP1 in transgenic lines using qRT–PCR. The vertical axis represents the relative fold-changes of transcripts compared with leaves of the GL–3 sample. Apple leaf MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Error bars represent standard deviations. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (B) Analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji, GL–3, and transgenic lines leaves by qRT–PCR. (C) GELP1 overexpression lines and GL–3 were cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium. (D) Susceptibility of GELP1-overexpression lines 72 h after W16 inoculation. Susceptibility was evaluated based on the disease index. Three replicates were performed for each experiment, with six leaves for each replicate. (E) GELP1 overexpression lines and GL–3 were cultured in a seedling bowl, and pathogenesis was observed after 72 h inoculation.
Figure 5. GELP1 overexpression increases resistance to C. gloeosporioides in GL–3. (A) Relative expression levels of GELP1 in transgenic lines using qRT–PCR. The vertical axis represents the relative fold-changes of transcripts compared with leaves of the GL–3 sample. Apple leaf MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Error bars represent standard deviations. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01). (B) Analysis of GELP1 expression in Fuji, GL–3, and transgenic lines leaves by qRT–PCR. (C) GELP1 overexpression lines and GL–3 were cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium. (D) Susceptibility of GELP1-overexpression lines 72 h after W16 inoculation. Susceptibility was evaluated based on the disease index. Three replicates were performed for each experiment, with six leaves for each replicate. (E) GELP1 overexpression lines and GL–3 were cultured in a seedling bowl, and pathogenesis was observed after 72 h inoculation.
Ijms 24 10343 g005
Ijms 24 10343 g006 550
Figure 6. Overexpression of GELP1 suppressed the invasion of C. gloeosporioides. (A) Formation of W16 infection hyphae in GL–3 and OE-GELP1 leaves during the infection. Values are presented as means ± SEs. Lowercase letters represent significant differences (p < 0.01). Co, conidia; Ap, appressorium; Ve, infection vesicle; PH, primary hyphae; Bar = 10 μm. (B) Aniline blue staining to observe callose deposition on leaves at 24 hpi. qRT–PCR analysis the expression of Callose synthase 2-like in GL-3 and OE–GELP1 leaves at 0 and 24 hpi. (C) Relative expression levels of MdLAPX6 and MAPKKK3 in OE–GELP1, GL–3 and Fuji at 0 and 24 hpi. The vertical axis represents the relative fold-changes of transcripts compared with the GL–3 sample. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene.
Figure 6. Overexpression of GELP1 suppressed the invasion of C. gloeosporioides. (A) Formation of W16 infection hyphae in GL–3 and OE-GELP1 leaves during the infection. Values are presented as means ± SEs. Lowercase letters represent significant differences (p < 0.01). Co, conidia; Ap, appressorium; Ve, infection vesicle; PH, primary hyphae; Bar = 10 μm. (B) Aniline blue staining to observe callose deposition on leaves at 24 hpi. qRT–PCR analysis the expression of Callose synthase 2-like in GL-3 and OE–GELP1 leaves at 0 and 24 hpi. (C) Relative expression levels of MdLAPX6 and MAPKKK3 in OE–GELP1, GL–3 and Fuji at 0 and 24 hpi. The vertical axis represents the relative fold-changes of transcripts compared with the GL–3 sample. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene.
Ijms 24 10343 g006
Ijms 24 10343 g007 550
Figure 7. Relative expression levels of WRKYs genes. (A) MdWRKY15 expression in OE-GELP1, Fuji, and GL–3 by qRT-PCR analysis. (B) qRT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression under the salicylic acid (SA, 0.1 mM) stress. (C) qRT–PCR analysis of WRKY17 expression in OE–GELP1 and GL–3. (D) qRT–PCR analysis of WRKY100 expression in OE–GELP1 and Fuji. The vertical axis represents the relative fold–changes of transcripts compared with GL–3 or 0 hpi samples. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Figure 7. Relative expression levels of WRKYs genes. (A) MdWRKY15 expression in OE-GELP1, Fuji, and GL–3 by qRT-PCR analysis. (B) qRT–PCR analysis of GELP1 expression under the salicylic acid (SA, 0.1 mM) stress. (C) qRT–PCR analysis of WRKY17 expression in OE–GELP1 and GL–3. (D) qRT–PCR analysis of WRKY100 expression in OE–GELP1 and Fuji. The vertical axis represents the relative fold–changes of transcripts compared with GL–3 or 0 hpi samples. MdUBQ was used as the reference gene. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.01).
Ijms 24 10343 g007
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ji, Z.; Wang, M.; Zhang, S.; Du, Y.; Cong, J.; Yan, H.; Guo, H.; Xu, B.; Zhou, Z. GDSL Esterase/Lipase GELP1 Involved in the Defense of Apple Leaves against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Infection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 10343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210343

AMA Style

Ji Z, Wang M, Zhang S, Du Y, Cong J, Yan H, Guo H, Xu B, Zhou Z. GDSL Esterase/Lipase GELP1 Involved in the Defense of Apple Leaves against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Infection. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(12):10343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210343

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ji, Zhirui, Meiyu Wang, Shuwu Zhang, Yinan Du, Jialin Cong, Haifeng Yan, Haimeng Guo, Bingliang Xu, and Zongshan Zhou. 2023. "GDSL Esterase/Lipase GELP1 Involved in the Defense of Apple Leaves against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Infection" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 12: 10343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210343

APA Style

Ji, Z., Wang, M., Zhang, S., Du, Y., Cong, J., Yan, H., Guo, H., Xu, B., & Zhou, Z. (2023). GDSL Esterase/Lipase GELP1 Involved in the Defense of Apple Leaves against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Infection. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(12), 10343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210343

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop