Abstract
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a pathogenic bacterium capable of transforming plants through horizontal gene transfer, is nowadays the preferred vector for plant genetic engineering. The vehicle for transfer is the T-strand, a single-stranded DNA molecule bound by the bacterial protein VirD2, which guides the T-DNA into the plant’s nucleus where it integrates. How VirD2 is removed from T-DNA, and which mechanism acts to attach the liberated end to the plant genome is currently unknown. Here, using newly developed technology that yields hundreds of T-DNA integrations in somatic tissue of Arabidopsis thaliana, we uncover two redundant mechanisms for the genomic capture of the T-DNA 5′ end. Different from capture of the 3′ end of the T-DNA, which is the exclusive action of polymerase theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ), 5′ attachment is accomplished either by TMEJ or by canonical non-homologous end joining (cNHEJ). We further find that TMEJ needs MRE11, whereas cNHEJ requires TDP2 to remove the 5′ end-blocking protein VirD2. As a consequence, T-DNA integration is severely impaired in plants deficient for both MRE11 and TDP2 (or other cNHEJ factors). In support of MRE11 and cNHEJ specifically acting on the 5′ end, we demonstrate rescue of the integration defect of double-deficient plants by using T-DNAs that are capable of forming telomeres upon 3′ capture. Our study provides a mechanistic model for how Agrobacterium exploits the plant’s own DNA repair machineries to transform it.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Effect of a suitable treatment period on the genetic transformation efficiency of the plant leaf disc method
Plant Methods Open Access 15 February 2023
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Code availability
The custom java program used for junction calling is available from GitHub (https://github.com/RobinVanSchendel/TRANSGUIDE).
References
Bevan, M. W. & Chilton, M.-D. T-DNA of the Agrobacterium Ti and Ri plasmids. Annu. Rev. Genet. 16, 357–384 (1982).
Stachel, S. E., Timmerman, B. & Zambryski, P. Generation of single-stranded T-DNA molecules during the initial stages of T-DNA transfer from Agrobacterium tumefaciens to plant cells. Nature 322, 706–712 (1986).
Ward, E. R. & Barnes, W. M. VirD2 protein of Agrobacterium tumefaciens very tightly linked to the 5′ end of T-strand DNA. Science 242, 927 (1988).
Scheiffele, P., Pansegrau, W. & Lanka, E. Initiation of Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA processing. Purified proteins VirD1 and VirD2 catalyze site- and strand-specific cleavage of superhelical T-border DNA in vitro. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 1269–1276 (1995).
van Kregten, M., Lindhout, B. I., Hooykaas, P. J. & van der Zaal, B. J. Agrobacterium-mediated T-DNA transfer and integration by minimal VirD2 consisting of the relaxase domain and a type IV secretion system translocation signal. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 22, 1356–1365 (2009).
Winans, S. C. Two-way chemical signaling in Agrobacterium–plant interactions. Microbiol. Rev. 56, 12–31 (1992).
Citovsky, V. & Zambryski, P. Transport of nucleic acids through membrane channels: snaking through small holes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 47, 167–197 (1993).
Kim, S. I., Veena & Gelvin, S. B. Genome-wide analysis of Agrobacterium T-DNA integration sites in the Arabidopsis genome generated under non-selective conditions. Plant J. 51, 779–791 (2007).
van Kregten, M. et al. T-DNA integration in plants results from polymerase-theta-mediated DNA repair. Nat. Plants 2, 16164 (2016).
Schimmel, J., van Schendel, R., den Dunnen, J. T. & Tijsterman, M. Templated insertions: a smoking gun for polymerase theta-mediated end joining. Trends Genet. 35, 632–644 (2019).
Ramsden, D. A., Carvajal-Garcia, J. & Gupta, G. P. Mechanism, cellular functions and cancer roles of polymerase-theta-mediated DNA end joining. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 125–140 (2022).
Kleinboelting, N. et al. The structural features of thousands of T-DNA insertion sites are consistent with a double-strand break repair-based insertion mechanism. Mol. Plant 8, 1651–1664 (2015).
Tinland, B. The integration of T-DNA into plant genomes. Trends Plant Sci. 1, 178–184 (1996).
Tzfira, T., Li, J., Lacroix, B. & Citovsky, V. Agrobacterium T-DNA integration: molecules and models. Trends Genet. 20, 375–383 (2004).
Shilo, S. et al. T-DNA–genome junctions form early after infection and are influenced by the chromatin state of the host genome. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006875 (2017).
Nishizawa-Yokoi, A. et al. Agrobacterium T-DNA integration in somatic cells does not require the activity of DNA polymerase theta. N. Phytol. 229, 2859–2872 (2021).
Friesner, J. & Britt, A. B. Ku80‐ and DNA ligase IV‐deficient plants are sensitive to ionizing radiation and defective in T‐DNA integration. Plant J. 34, 427–440 (2003).
Li, J. et al. Involvement of KU80 in T-DNA integration in plant cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 19231–19236 (2005).
Jia, Q., Bundock, P., Hooykaas, P. J. J. & de Pater, S. Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA integration and gene targeting in Arabidopsis thaliana non-homologous end-joining mutants. J. Bot. 2012, 989272 (2012).
Mestiri, I., Norre, F., Gallego, M. E. & White, C. I. Multiple host–cell recombination pathways act in Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plant cells. Plant J. 77, 511–520 (2014).
Gallego, M. E., Bleuyard, J. Y., Daoudal-Cotterell, S., Jallut, N. & White, C. I. Ku80 plays a role in non-homologous recombination but is not required for T-DNA integration in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 35, 557–565 (2003).
van Attikum, H. et al. The Arabidopsis AtLIG4 gene is required for the repair of DNA damage, but not for the integration of Agrobacterium T-DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 4247–4255 (2003).
Park, S. Y. et al. Agrobacterium T-DNA integration into the plant genome can occur without the activity of key non-homologous end-joining proteins. Plant J. 81, 934–946 (2015).
Vaghchhipawala, Z. E., Vasudevan, B., Lee, S., Morsy, M. R. & Mysore, K. S. Agrobacterium may delay plant nonhomologous end-joining DNA repair via XRCC4 to favor T-DNA integration. Plant Cell 24, 4110–4123 (2012).
Hartsuiker, E., Neale, M. J. & Carr, A. M. Distinct requirements for the Rad32Mre11 nuclease and Ctp1CtIP in the removal of covalently bound topoisomerase I and II from DNA. Mol. Cell 33, 117–123 (2009).
Hartung, F. et al. The catalytically active tyrosine residues of both SPO11-1 and SPO11-2 are required for meiotic double-strand break induction in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 19, 3090–3099 (2007).
Neale, M. J., Pan, J. & Keeney, S. Endonucleolytic processing of covalent protein-linked DNA double-strand breaks. Nature 436, 1053–1057 (2005).
Puizina, J., Siroky, J., Mokros, P., Schweizer, D. & Riha, K. Mre11 deficiency in Arabidopsis is associated with chromosomal instability in somatic cells and Spo11-dependent genome fragmentation during meiosis. Plant Cell 16, 1968–1978 (2004).
Bundock, P. & Hooykaas, P. Severe developmental defects, hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, and lengthened telomeres in Arabidopsis MRE11 mutants. Plant Cell 14, 2451–2462 (2002).
Zeng, Z., Cortés-Ledesma, F., El Khamisy, S. F. & Caldecott, K. W. TDP2/TTRAP is the major 5′-tyrosyl DNA phosphodiesterase activity in vertebrate cells and is critical for cellular resistance to topoisomerase II-induced DNA damage. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 403–409 (2011).
Nelson, A. D., Lamb, J. C., Kobrossly, P. S. & Shippen, D. E. Parameters affecting telomere-mediated chromosomal truncation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 23, 2263–2272 (2011).
Bundock, P., van Attikum, H. & Hooykaas, P. Increased telomere length and hypersensitivity to DNA damaging agents in an Arabidopsis KU70 mutant. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3395–3400 (2002).
Riha, K., Watson, J. M., Parkey, J. & Shippen, D. E. Telomere length deregulation and enhanced sensitivity to genotoxic stress in Arabidopsis mutants deficient in Ku70. EMBO J. 21, 2819–2826 (2002).
Chilton, M.-D. M. & Que, Q. Targeted integration of T-DNA into the tobacco genome at double-stranded breaks: new insights on the mechanism of T-DNA integration. Plant Physiol. 133, 956–965 (2003).
Tzfira, T., Frankman, L. R., Vaidya, M. & Citovsky, V. Site-specific integration of Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA via double-stranded intermediates. Plant Physiol. 133, 1011–1023 (2003).
Bakkeren, G., Koukolikova-Nicola, Z., Grimsley, N. & Hohn, B. Recovery of Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA molecules from whole plants early after transfer. Cell 57, 847–857 (1989).
Singer, K., Shiboleth, Y. M., Li, J. & Tzfira, T. Formation of complex extrachromosomal T-DNA structures in Agrobacterium tumefaciens-infected plants. Plant Physiol. 160, 511–522 (2012).
Pucker, B., Kleinbolting, N. & Weisshaar, B. Large scale genomic rearrangements in selected Arabidopsis thaliana T-DNA lines are caused by T-DNA insertion mutagenesis. BMC Genomics 22, 599 (2021).
Jupe, F. et al. The complex architecture and epigenomic impact of plant T-DNA insertions. PLoS Genet. 15, e1007819 (2019).
Levy, A. A. T-DNA integration: Pol θ controls T-DNA integration. Nat. Plants 2, 16170 (2016).
Hustedt, N. & Durocher, D. The control of DNA repair by the cell cycle. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 1–9 (2016).
Llorens-Agost, M. et al. POLθ-mediated end joining is restricted by RAD52 and BRCA2 until the onset of mitosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 23, 1095–1104 (2021).
Kamp, J. et al. Helicase Q promotes homology-driven DNA double-strand break repair and prevents tandem duplications. Nat. Commun. 12, 7126 (2021).
van Tol, N. et al. Gene targeting in polymerase theta‐deficient Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 109, 112–125 (2021).
Du, Y., Hase, Y., Satoh, K. & Shikazono, N. Characterization of gamma irradiation-induced mutations in Arabidopsis mutants deficient in non-homologous end joining. J. Radiat. Res. 61, 639–647 (2020).
Inagaki, S. et al. Arabidopsis TEBICHI, with helicase and DNA polymerase domains, is required for regulated cell division and differentiation in meristems. Plant Cell 18, 879–892 (2006).
Lazo, G. R., Stein, P. A. & Ludwig, R. A. A DNA transformation-competent Arabidopsis genomic library in Agrobacterium. Biotechnology (N Y) 9, 963–967 (1991).
Grefen, C. et al. A ubiquitin‐10 promoter‐based vector set for fluorescent protein tagging facilitates temporal stability and native protein distribution in transient and stable expression studies. Plant J. 64, 355–365 (2010).
Yu, W., Lamb, J. C., Han, F. & Birchler, J. A. Telomere-mediated chromosomal truncation in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 17331–17336 (2006).
Fauser, F., Schiml, S. & Puchta, H. Both CRISPR/Cas‐based nucleases and nickases can be used efficiently for genome engineering in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 79, 348–359 (2014).
Shen, H., Strunks, G. D., Klemann, B. J., Hooykaas, P. J. & de Pater, S. CRISPR/Cas9-induced double-strand break repair in Arabidopsis nonhomologous end-joining mutants. G3 (Bethesda) 7, 193–202 (2017).
Tsai, S. Q. et al. GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 187–197 (2015).
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was in part funded by ALW OPEN grants (OP.393 and OP.269) from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research for Earth and Life Sciences to M.T.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.E.M.K., S.d.P., P.J.J.H. and M.T. conceived the study. L.E.M.K., R.v.S. and S.L.K. developed the TRANSGUIDE method. L.E.M.K., H.S. and S.d.P. conducted experiments. L.E.M.K. and R.v.S. performed bioinformatic analyses. L.E.M.K. and M.T. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors, who read the manuscript and authorized its publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Plants thanks Anne Britt, Shunping Yan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Genomic position of wild-type junctions obtained with TRANSGUIDE.
Arabidopsis chromosomes (1-5) were divided into 0.4 mb bins, in which RB (purple) and LB (green) junctions were counted. The brightness of the colour indicates the number of junctions (note the scales). Centromere positions were rounded to the nearest border between bins. The shown data is from 11 wt samples, transformed with either pUBC, pCAS9, or pWY82.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Homology, filler, and T-DNA loss profiles for 4 different constructs.
Frequency of different lengths of microhomology (a - d), filler (e - h), or T-DNA loss (i - l) at RB (purple) and LB (green) junctions, for 3 constructs after somatic transformation (pUBC, pCAS9, and pWY82) and for 1 construct after germ-line transformation (pAC161). The overlap between LB and RB is indicated in olive-green. The medians (dashed lines), the number of observations (n), and shifts in the RB distribution relative to LB (s) are indicated. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to find the direction (one-sided tests) and the significance of the shifts (two-sided tests, phomology_pUBC = 7 × 10−68, phomology_pCAS9 = 7 × 10−24, phomology_pWY82 = 2 × 10−14, phomology_pAC161 = 8 × 10−4, pfiller_pUBC = 2 × 10−1, pfiller_pCAS9 = 9 × 10−1, pfiller_pWY82 = 3 × 10−1, pfiller_pAC161 = 7 × 10−3, pdeletion_pUBC = 4 × 10−222, pdeletion_pCAS9 = 1 × 10−63, pdeletion_pWY82 = 1 × 10−32, pdeletion_pAC161 = 1 × 10−11). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Seamless junctions.
Average percentages of RB and LB junctions without T-DNA loss and without insertions, after somatic transformation (pUBC, pCAS9, pWY82) and germ-line transformation (pAC161). The number in bold indicates the number of samples over which the mean and error bars (standard error of the mean) have been calculated; the number in italic indicates the total number of junctions amongst those samples that were scored for ‘seamlessness’. Two-sided Student’s t-tests have been performed to test whether the percentage of seamless junctions differed significantly between RB and LB junctions (ppUBC = 6 × 10−9, ppCAS9 = 6 × 10−3, ppWY82 = 9 × 10−2). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Homology, filler, and T-DNA loss profiles for cNHEJ mutants.
Frequency of different lengths of microhomology (a - d), filler (e - h), or T-DNA loss (i - l) at RB and LB junctions, comparing wt (yellow) with cNHEJ mutants ku70 and lig4 (blue). The third colour in each panel indicates the overlapping area. The medians (dashed lines), the number of observations (n), and shifts in the mutant distribution relative to wt (s) are indicated. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to find the direction and the significance of the shifts (phomology_ku70_RB = 7 × 10−38, phomology_ku70_LB = 4 × 10−1, phomology_lig4_RB = 2 × 10−14, phomology_lig4_LB = 5 × 10−1, pfiller_ku70_RB = 4 × 10−1, pfiller_ku70_LB = 4 × 10−1, pfiller_lig4_RB = 4 × 10−3, pfiller_lig4_LB = 4 × 10−1, pdeletion_ku70_RB = 3 × 10−28, pdeletion_ku70_LB = 5 × 10−8, pdeletion_lig4_RB = 4 × 10−21, pdeletion_lig4_LB = 1 × 10−12). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Homology, filler, and T-DNA loss profiles for mre11 mutant.
Frequency of different lengths of microhomology (a, b), filler (c, d), or T-DNA loss (e, f) at RB and LB junctions, comparing wt (yellow) with the mre11 mutant (light red). The overlapping area is indicated in orange. The medians (dashed lines), the number of observations (n), and shifts in the mutant distribution relative to wt (s) are indicated. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to find the direction (one-sided tests) and the significance of the shifts (two-sided tests, phomology_RB = 2 × 10−6, phomology_LB = 6 × 10−1, pfiller_RB = 8 × 10−6, pfiller_LB = 3 × 10-1, pdeletion_RB = 9 × 10-8, pdeletion_LB = 8 × 10-4). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Regenerative ability.
Average percentage of calli with shoot tissue on non-selective plates. The number in italic indicates the total number of calli that were scored for that genotype. The number in bold indicates the number of experiments over which the mean (coloured bars) and standard error of the mean (error bars) were calculated. One-sided Student’s t-tests were performed to test for significant reductions in T-DNA integration efficiency of mutant compared to wt (pku70c = 9 × 10−1, plig4 = 7 × 10−1, ptdp2 = 7 × 10−1, pku70w = 6 × 10−1, pmre11 = 2 × 10−2, pmre11ku70 = 3 × 10−2, pmre11lig4 = 2 × 10−1, pmre11tdp2 = 8 × 10−4). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001. Mutants were compared to the wt of the same genetic background, except for mutants with a hybrid genetic background, which were compared to the Col-0 wt.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Comparison of junction numbers by competitive TRANSGUIDE.
Number of RB (a) and LB (b) junctions in competitive TRANSGUIDE, in which equimolar amounts of genomic DNA of two samples with differently barcoded T-DNA (barcode 1 in light grey, and barcode 2 in dark grey) were combined.
Extended Data Fig. 8 All tested genotypes show (transient) T-DNA expression.
Pictures show GUS-stained roots in well plates shortly after co-cultivation with Agrobacterium. The blue colour indicates expression of the T-DNA (pCAMBIA3301). Scale, 1 cm.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Homology, filler, and T-DNA loss profiles for tdp2 mutant.
Frequency of different lengths of microhomology (a, b), filler (c, d), or T-DNA loss (e, f) at RB and LB junctions, comparing wt (yellow) with the tdp2 mutant (cyan). The overlapping area is indicated in turquoise. The medians (dashed lines), the number of observations (n), and shifts in the mutant distribution relative to wt (s) are indicated. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to find the direction (one-sided tests) and the significance of the shifts (two-sided tests, phomology_RB = 7 × 10−11, phomology_LB = 2 × 10−1, pfiller_RB = 3 × 10−2, pfiller_LB = 7 × 10−1, pdeletion_RB = 2 × 10−24, pdeletion_LB = 6 × 10−2). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Relative genomic position of junctions.
Relative frequency of LB junctions after transformation with pWY82 (+ TRA, panels a-e) or pUBC (- TRA, panels f-j) along all chromosome arms, comparing wt (yellow) and mutants (other colours). Mutants were compared to wt of the same genetic background, with the exception of the hybrids (mre11 lig4 and mre11 tdp2), which were compared to the Col-0 wt. 0 % indicates centromeric position and 100 % telomeric; n indicates the number of mutant junctions. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to find the direction (one-sided tests) and significance level (two-sided tests) of the shifts (s) in relative position (plig4+TRA = 6 × 10−1, ptdp2+TRA = 4 × 10−1, pmre11+TRA = 4 × 10−1, pmre11lig4+TRA = 9 × 10−4, pmre11tdp2+TRA = 2 × 10−1, plig4-TRA = 3 × 10−3, ptdp2-TRA = 3 × 10−1, pmre11-TRA = 4 × 10−1, pmre11lig4-TRA = 7 × 10−1, pmre11tdp2-TRA = 2 × 10−3). ns: p ≥ 0.05, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001. Only junctions that are represented by more than 20 different DNA molecules (thus representing events that are compatible with multiple cell divisions) were included in this analysis.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary Data 1–3.
Supplementary Table
Supplementary Table 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kralemann, L.E.M., de Pater, S., Shen, H. et al. Distinct mechanisms for genomic attachment of the 5′ and 3′ ends of Agrobacterium T-DNA in plants. Nat. Plants 8, 526–534 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01147-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01147-5
This article is cited by
-
Effect of a suitable treatment period on the genetic transformation efficiency of the plant leaf disc method
Plant Methods (2023)
-
Making it stick
Nature Plants (2022)
