Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A recently evolved hexose transporter variant confers resistance to multiple pathogens in wheat

Nature Genetics volume 47, pages 1494–1498 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

As there are numerous pathogen species that cause disease and limit yields of crops, such as wheat (Triticum aestivum), single genes that provide resistance to multiple pathogens are valuable in crop improvement1,2. The mechanistic basis of multi-pathogen resistance is largely unknown. Here we use comparative genomics, mutagenesis and transformation to isolate the wheat Lr67 gene, which confers partial resistance to all three wheat rust pathogen species and powdery mildew. The Lr67 resistance gene encodes a predicted hexose transporter (LR67res) that differs from the susceptible form of the same protein (LR67sus) by two amino acids that are conserved in orthologous hexose transporters. Sugar uptake assays show that LR67sus, and related proteins encoded by homeoalleles, function as high-affinity glucose transporters. LR67res exerts a dominant-negative effect through heterodimerization with these functional transporters to reduce glucose uptake. Alterations in hexose transport in infected leaves may explain its ability to reduce the growth of multiple biotrophic pathogen species.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Mutational and comparative genomic and analysis of the Lr67 region.
Figure 2: Location of amino acid changes resulting from mutagenesis in the LR67 protein.
Figure 3: Characterization of the LR67sus hexose transporter.
Figure 4: Characterization of LR67 homeologs and interaction analysis.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

NCBI Reference Sequence

References

  1. Dangl, J.L., Horvath, D.M. & Staskawicz, B.J. Pivoting the plant immune system from dissection to deployment. Science 341, 746–751 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hulbert, S. & Pumphrey, M. A time for more booms and fewer busts? Unravelling cereal-rust interactions. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 27, 207–214 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. Wheat CRP Annual Report 2013: The Vital Grain of Civilization and Food Security (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 2014).

  4. Ellis, J.G., Lagudah, E.S., Spielmeyer, W. & Dodds, P.N. The past, present and future of breeding rust resistant wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 641 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolmer, J.A. et al. Analysis of the Lr34/Yr18 rust resistance region in wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 48, 1841–1852 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Risk, J.M. et al. Functional variability of the Lr34 durable resistance gene in transgenic wheat. Plant Biotechnol. J. 10, 477–487 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Herrera-Foessel, S.A. et al. Lr67/Yr46 confers adult plant resistance to stem rust and powdery mildew in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 127, 781–789 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Krattinger, S.G. et al. A putative ABC transporter confers durable resistance to multiple fungal pathogens in wheat. Science 323, 1360–1363 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dyck, P.L., Kerber, E.R. & Aung, T. An interchromosomal reciprocal translocation in wheat involving leaf rust resistance gene Lr34. Genome 37, 556–559 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dyck, P.L. & Samborski, D.J. Adult plant resistance in PI250413, an introduction of common wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59, 329–332 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lagudah, E.S. et al. Gene-specific markers for the wheat gene Lr34/Yr18/Pm38 which confers resistance to multiple fungal pathogens. Theor. Appl. Genet. 119, 889–898 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Herrera-Foessel, S.A. et al. New slow-rusting leaf rust and stripe rust resistance genes Lr67 and Yr46 in wheat are pleiotropic or closely linked. Theor. Appl. Genet. 122, 239–249 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Spielmeyer, W., Mago, R., Wellings, C. & Ayliffe, M. Lr67 and Lr34 rust resistance genes have much in common—they confer broad spectrum resistance to multiple pathogens in wheat. BMC Plant Biol. 13, 96 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Büttner, M. The Arabidopsis sugar transporter (AtSTP) family: an update. Plant Biol. 12, 35–41 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nørholm, M.H., Nour-Eldin, H.H., Brodersen, P., Mundy, J. & Halkier, B.A. Expression of the Arabidopsis high-affinity hexose transporter STP13 correlates with programmed cell death. FEBS Lett. 580, 2381–2387 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes, M.A., Feechan, A. & Dry, I.B. Involvement of abscisic acid in the coordinated regulation of a stress-inducible hexose transporter (VvHT5) and a cell wall invertase in grapevine in response to biotrophic fungal infection. Plant Physiol. 153, 211–221 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lemonnier, P. et al. Expression of Arabidopsis sugar transport protein STP13 differentially affects glucose transport activity and basal resistance to Botrytis cinerea. Plant Mol. Biol. 85, 473–484 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wieczorke, R. et al. Concurrent knock-out of at least 20 transporter genes is required to block uptake of hexoses in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett. 464, 123–128 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayes, M.A., Davies, C. & Dry, I.B. Isolation, functional characterization, and expression analysis of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) hexose transporters: differential roles in sink and source tissues. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 1985–1997 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen, L.Q. et al. Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468, 527–532 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McCurdy, D.W., Dibley, S., Cahyanegara, R., Martin, A. & Patrick, J.W. Functional characterization and RNAi-mediated suppression reveals roles for hexose transporters in sugar accumulation by tomato fruit. Mol. Plant 3, 1049–1063 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lemoine, R. & Delrot, S. Recognition of phlorizin by the carriers of sucrose and hexose in broad bean leaves. Physiol. Plant. 69, 639–644 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Liesche, J. et al. Sucrose transporter regulation at the transcriptional, post-transcriptional and post-translational level. J. Plant Physiol. 168, 1426–1433 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Xuan, Y.H. et al. Functional role of oligomerization for bacterial and plant SWEET sugar transporter family. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, E3685–E3694 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sonnewald, S. et al. Regulation of cell wall–bound invertase in pepper leaves by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria type three effectors. PLoS ONE 7, e51763 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Proels, R.K. & Hückelhoven, R. Cell-wall invertases, key enzymes in the modulation of plant metabolism during defence responses. Mol. Plant Pathol. 15, 858–864 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hiebert, C.W. et al. An introgression on wheat chromosome 4DL in RL6077 (Thatcher*6/PI 250413) confers adult plant resistance to stripe rust and leaf rust (Lr67). Theor. Appl. Genet. 121, 1083–1091 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rolland, F., Baena-Gonzalez, E. & Sheen, J. Sugar sensing and signaling in plants: conserved and novel mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 57, 675–709 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jørgensen, J.H. Discovery, characterization and exploitation of MLO powdery mildew resistance in barley. Euphytica 63, 141–152 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Panstruga, R. Serpentine plant MLO proteins as entry portals for powdery mildew fungi. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 33, 389–392 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fu, D. et al. A kinase-START gene confers temperature-dependent resistance to wheat stripe rust. Science 323, 1357–1360 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gou, J.Y. et al. Wheat stripe rust resistance protein WKS1 reduces the ability of the thylakoid-associated ascorbate peroxidase to detoxify reactive oxygen species. Plant Cell 27, 1755–1770 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Omasits, U., Ahrens, C.H., Müller, S. & Wollscheid, B. Protter: interactive protein feature visualization and integration with experimental proteomic data. Bioinformatics 30, 884–886 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Periyannan, S. et al. The gene Sr33, an ortholog of barley Mla genes, encodes resistance to wheat stem rust race Ug99. Science 341, 786–788 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stodart, B.J., Raman, H., Coombes, N. & Mackay, M. Evaluating landraces of bread wheat Triticum aestivum L. for tolerance to aluminium under low pH conditions. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 54, 759–766 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, M.B., Matthews, P.R., Upadhyaya, N.M. & Waterhouse, P.M. Improved vectors for Agrobacterium tumefaciens–mediated transformation of monocot plants. Acta Hortic. 461, 401–408 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ishida, Y., Tsunashima, M., Hiei, Y. & Komari, T. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) transformation using immature embryos. Methods Mol. Biol. 1223, 189–198 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Richardson, T., Thistleton, J., Higgins, T.J., Howitt, C. & Ayliffe, M. Efficient Agrobacterium transformation of elite wheat germplasm without selection. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 119, 647–659 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tingay, S. et al. Agrobacterium tumefaciens–mediated barley transformation. Plant J. 11, 1369–1376 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson, R., Campbell, A. & Hannah, A. A diagrammatic scale for estimating rust intensity on leaves and stems of cereals. Can. J. Res. 26c, 496–500 (1948).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ayliffe, M. et al. A simple method for comparing fungal biomass in infected plant tissues. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 26, 658–667 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ruijter, J.M. et al. Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, e45 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pfaffl, M.W., Horgan, G.W. & Dempfle, L. Relative expression software tool (REST©) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, e36 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mumberg, D., Muller, R. & Funk, M. Regulatable promoters of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: comparison of transcriptional activity and their use for heterologous expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 5767–5768 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gietz, R.D. & Woods, R.A. Transformation of yeast by lithium acetate/single-stranded carrier DNA/polyethylene glycol method. Methods Enzymol. 350, 87–96 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds provided through Grains Research and Development Corporation (CSP00161, CSP00164), Australia, and the Office of the Chief Executive (OCE) Post Doctoral Fellowship of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia. We are grateful to S. Chandramohan, V. Calvo-Salazar, T. Richardson, H. Miah and X. Xia for technical assistance. We thank A. Ashton, I. Dry, P. Ryan and A. Rae for helpful discussions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. John W Moore and Sybil Herrera-Foessel: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Agriculture, Canberra, Australia

    John W Moore, Wendelin Schnippenkoetter, Michael Ayliffe, Libby Viccars, Ricky Milne, Sambasivam Periyannan, Wolfgang Spielmeyer, Mark Talbot, Peter Dodds & Evans Lagudah

  2. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), México DF, Mexico

    Sybil Herrera-Foessel, Caixia Lan & Ravi Singh

  3. Campo Experimental Valle de México INIFAP, Chapingo, Edo de México, México

    Julio Huerta-Espino

  4. Department of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.,

    Morten Lillemo

  5. The National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

    Xiuying Kong

  6. The University of Sydney Plant Breeding Institute–Cobbitty, Narellan, Australia

    Harbans Bariana

  7. The University of Newcastle, School of Environmental & Life Sciences, Callaghan, Australia

    John W Patrick

Authors
  1. John W Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybil Herrera-Foessel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caixia Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wendelin Schnippenkoetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Ayliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julio Huerta-Espino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Morten Lillemo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Libby Viccars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ricky Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sambasivam Periyannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Xiuying Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wolfgang Spielmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Mark Talbot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Harbans Bariana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. John W Patrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Peter Dodds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ravi Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Evans Lagudah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.H.-F., C.L., W. Schnippenkoetter, L.V., J.H.-E., M.L., S.P., R.M., X.K., H.B., R.S. and E.L. conducted pathological studies, molecular genetic analysis of populations, development and analysis of gamma and EMS mutants. J.W.M., J.W.P., P.D. and E.L. planned the transporter functional studies. J.W.M. conducted the transporter functional experiments. W. Schnippenkoetter, M.A. and E.L. conducted transgenic studies in wheat and barley. W. Spielmeyer provided DNA samples of azide mutants. J.W.M. and M.T. conducted the microscopy studies. E.L., J.W.M., M.A., P.D. and J.W.P. wrote the manuscript, and all coauthors commented on the draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evans Lagudah.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Quantification of fungal biomass (relative fluorescence units, RFU) in Lr67 mutants using a wheat germ agglutinin fluorophore binding to chitin.

(a) EMS mutants. (b) Gamma mutants. Resistant (R) and susceptible (S) sibs from flag leaves at a field site infected with Pst in Cobbitty, Australia 2013. Samples are n = 4, and error bars are s.d.

Supplementary Figure 2 Transgenic wheat and barley plants with Lr67res genomic construct expressing rust resistance.

(a) Field plot of Lr67 transgenic and non-transgenic wheat (Fielder) infected with stripe rust (Pst). (b) Genomic blot of NdeI restricted DNA probed with DNA fragment from Lr67 promoter region. The first lane is from Fielder sib line without the transgene, and the remaining lanes from Lr67res transgenic lines showing DNA fragments inherited from copies of the transgene (shown by asterisks). (c) Gene construct used in wheat transformation. The Lr67res genomic fragment (7,133 bp) was inserted in the NotI site (N) of pVecNeo and consists of the native promoter (5’ region), three exons, two introns and the 3’ regulatory region. The probe used to determine copy number is shown as a blue box in the 5’ region, and left and right borders of the T-DNA are marked as LB and RB, respectively. (d) Leaves of Lr67 transgenic and non-transgenic sib lines of barley (Golden Promise) infected with barley leaf rust (P. hordeii) 14 days post infection. (e,f) UV fluorescence microscopic images of barley leaf rust infected Golden Promise and transgenic Golden Promise stained with WGA-FITC at 12 days post infection. Well developed uredia are observed in the non-transgenic sib line without Lr67 (f) in contrast to restricted fungal growth in the Lr67 transgenic line (e).

Supplementary Figure 3 Phylogeny of LR67 relative to other sugar transporter proteins from the STP family.

At, Arabidopsis thaliana; Bradi, Brachypodium distachyon; Hv, Hordeum vulgare; Le, Lycopersicon esculentum; Mt, Medicago truncatula; Os, Oryza sativa; Sb, Sorghum bicolor; Si, Setaria italica; Vv, Vitis vinifera; Zm, Zea mays. Phylogenetic analysis was carried out using MUSCLE alignment, Gblocks curation followed by PhyML phylogeny (Dereeper, A. et al., Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist, Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W465–W469, 2008).

Supplementary Figure 4 Expression of the Lr67 homoeologs from the AA, BB and DD genomes of Tc (Thatcher) and Tc67 (RL6077) seedlings by qRT-PCR.

Mock-inoculated plants are labeled as Mock 24 h and Mock 72 h, and plants inoculated with Pt are at 24 h and 72 h post inoculation (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3). Statistical significance levels, depicted by lowercase letters, are from comparisons within homoeologs for each genotype separately.

Supplementary Figure 5 Functional characterization of LR67.

(a) Glucose transport by LR67 allelic variants. Time course of EBY.VW4000 expressing LR67 resistant and susceptibility alleles following exposure to 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose in pH 5 phosphate buffer. Samples are taken at 2 min junctures and an empty p426ADH1 provided background scintillation counter readings (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3). (b,c) Substrate binding specificity of LR67sus. EBY.VW4000 expressing LR67sus was incubated with 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose and 500 μM of the specified competing sugar or glucose analog. Data are represented as percentage of the transport rate obtained for LR67sus supplied with 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose only (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3). (d) Effect of pharmacological membrane modifiers and metabolic inhibitors on LR67sus carrier function. EBY.VW4000 expressing LR67sus was incubated with 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose and the membrane modifier/metabolic inhibitor at the specified concentration. Data are represented as percentage of the transport rate obtained for LR67sussupplied with 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose only (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3). Phlorizin inhibition is suggestive of a sugar transporter; PCMBS and NEM are sulfhydryl reagents indicating presence of such groups in the protein that contribute to its transport ability. NEM is membrane permeant while PCMBS is not. The latter finding points to a plasma membrane localization of the transporter. DEPC binds to a histidine residue in the binding site of the transporter. (e) LR67sus glucose transport function is pH dependent. EBY.VW4000 expressing LR67sus was incubated with 50 μM D-[U-14C] glucose in 25 mM NaHPO4/NaH2PO4 buffered to the specified pH (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3). (f) Co-expression of HXT and LR67. Glucose uptake of EBY.VW4000 individually expressing ScHXT5 in p426ADH1 and co-expressed with LR67res in pJM67 (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–5 and Supplementary Tables 1–7 (PDF 1795 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, J., Herrera-Foessel, S., Lan, C. et al. A recently evolved hexose transporter variant confers resistance to multiple pathogens in wheat. Nat Genet 47, 1494–1498 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3439

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3439

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing