, pub-4214183376442067, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
21.5 C
New York
Tuesday, June 6, 2023

A glycan receptor kinase facilitates intracellular lodging of arbuscular mycorrhiza and symbiotic rhizobia within the legume Lotus japonicus



Plant symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi of the Glomeromycota is present in 80% to 90% of all land vegetation. Fossil data from early land vegetation and the presence of AM symbiosis in liverworts, hornworts, lycophytes, and ferns recommend that AM symbiosis could have advanced within the earliest land-colonising vegetation [1,2]. Conservation of symbiosis genes in algae additional suggests {that a} frequent genetic programme governing AM symbiosis predated and has been maintained in land vegetation [3]. Mutant research in legumes and non-legumes have recognized a part of this genetic program. The “frequent symbiosis pathway” shared with plant–rhizobial symbiosis is required for regular mycorrhizal invasion and root colonisation [4,5]. Previous to AM colonisation of roots, pre-symbiotic signalling establishes the communication course of to tell apart AM fungi from pathogens and different soil fungi. Germination of AM spores is induced by strigolactones secreted by plant roots [6,7]. The precise nature of the reciprocal fungal sign(s) present in germinating spore extracts is much less properly outlined. Each chitin from the fungal cell wall and lipochito-oligosaccharides (MYC-factors) have been implicated [8,9]. Current leads to Medicago truncatula (Medicago) nfp cerk1 double receptor mutants impaired in each lipochito-oligosaccharide and chitin notion present {that a} mixture of fungal chitin and lipochito-oligosaccharides triggers the plant sign transduction by the frequent symbiosis pathway [10]. Different compounds may contribute. In rice, a butanolide sign perceived by the D14L α/β-fold hydrolase receptor is important for AM an infection, however at this level, the origin of the butanolide sign is unknown [11].

Following activation of the plant mobile program(s) AM hyphae penetrate the basis epidermal and outer cortical cells through a pre-penetration equipment ensuing from mobile rearrangements in a course of involving symbiotic genes [12]. Arbuscules are fashioned by intracellular invasion of the interior cortical cells at a place the place the plasma membrane invaginates and a subtending pre-penetration equipment is established. Following entry at a single place, forming a trunk, the fungal hyphae department out right into a finely branched construction surrounded by a peri-arbuscular membrane derived from the plant plasma membrane. Within the legume vegetation analysed up to now, formation of those feeding and nutrient-exchange arbuscule buildings happens primarily within the interior cortical cells [13,14]. Mutant research have proven {that a} CCaMK-CYCLOPS-DELLA advanced along with the RAM1 transcription issue are required for arbuscule formation [1518]. Nevertheless, the molecular mechanism controlling cell choice and the sign change that directs infecting AM in direction of the interior cortical cells forming intracellular arbuscules stay unidentified.

In Lotus, nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with Mesorhizobium loti (M. loti) entails a two-step recognition course of for intracellular an infection that operates each on the dermis and within the cortical tissue. On this compatibility surveillance mechanism, bacterial exopolysaccharides (EPS) are perceived by the EPR3 exopolysaccharide receptor [19]. This notion is downstream of main lipochito-oligosaccharide (Nod issue) signalling. M. loti exoU mutants that produce truncated types of EPS are severely impaired in intracellular an infection thread (IT) formation and consequently within the formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules [20]. Characterisation of Lotus mutants that restore formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules following inoculation with the exoU mutant and in vitro binding assays recognized EPR3 as a receptor for EPS [19,21]. The construction of the EPR3 ectodomain was not too long ago resolved, revealing EPR3 to be the founding consultant of a novel class of plant RLKs with a particular modular ectodomain association [22]. In vitro, the EPR3 ectodomain binds EPS of a number of rhizobial species, together with micro-symbionts unable to nodulate Lotus, suggesting that the receptor could have a broader function in monitoring glycans from varied root-associated microbes [22].

On this examine, we report on the identification and characterisation of a novel glycan receptor kinase in Lotus that we’ve designated EPR3a. We have now characterised the symbiotic phenotypes of epr3a, epr3, and epr3a epr3 mutants inoculated with AM, wild-type M. loti and M. loti exoU EPS mutants. Mutant phenotypes and biochemical characterisation recommend that the EPR3a and EPR3 receptors most probably sign independently with overlapping downstream pathways throughout rhizobial an infection. Distinct variations in AM symbiosis had been noticed the place expression of Epr3a and an related mutant phenotype had been discovered.


Epr3a induction in arbusculated cells

The Epr3a gene was recognized as (LotjaGi4g1v0157000) and positioned on chromosome 4 of a not too long ago launched de novo genome meeting masking 554 Mb of the Lotus japonicus Gifu accession [23]. Protein alignment towards the beforehand recognized members of the LysM-RLK household in Lotus revealed that EPR3a is most carefully associated to the EPS receptor EPR3 with an total 64% amino acid id (Fig 1A and S1 Fig) [19]. A tertiary construction just like EPR3, with 3 putative ligand-binding modules within the extracellular area, a transmembrane area, and a kinase area, is predicted for EPR3a. The not too long ago resolved crystal construction of the EPR3 ectodomain revealed attribute M1, M2, and M3 ligand-binding modules within the extracellular area [22]. Prediction modelling of the EPR3a ectodomain utilizing Alphafold2 [24,25], signifies that EPR3a and EPR3 ectodomains resemble one another (Fig 1B). Importantly, the distinctive ectodomain construction of a βαββ M1 conformation, a βαβ M2 conformation, and a classical LysM βααβ secondary construction of M3 is conserved between these 2 receptors (Fig 1B and S2 Fig). A wider search within the genome databases reveals that this class of LysM-RLKs is broadly conserved within the plant kingdom [22], with most vegetation capable of kind mycorrhizal and/or bacterial endosymbiosis encoding a minimum of 1 EPR3-type receptor (S3 Fig) [26]. Apparently, useful Epr3 and Epr3a genes weren’t present in genomes of Parasponia and Aeschynomene evenia vegetation [26,27], each of which have endosymbiosis with mycorrhizae and rhizobia.


Fig 1. L. japonicus LysM-RLK household and EPR3a ectodomain construction.

(A) Phylogenetic tree of the L. japonicus Gifu LysM-RLK protein household. EPR3-type (inexperienced), NFR1-type (blue), and NFR5-type (yellow) members are highlighted. Bootstrap values are indicated, and branches with values >80 are in daring. (B) EPR3a ectodomain Alphafold2 prediction mannequin [24,25]. EPR3a structurally resembles the EPR3 ectodomain crystal construction with a Cα superposition RMSD of 0.4 Å [22]. Like EPR3, EPR3a comprises 2 non-canonical M1 (βαββ) and M2 (βαβ) domains along with a traditional LysM3 (βααβ). See S1 Information and S1 Data for underlying knowledge. AM, arbuscular mycorrhizal.

To discover and examine the useful function of EPR3a and EPR3, we investigated whether or not EPR3a could possibly be concerned in AM symbiosis. The expression of Epr3a and Epr3 was examined by qRT-PCR evaluation in a time sequence following inoculation of Lotus roots with AM spores. Epr3a is induced solely in roots throughout AM symbiosis, with an expression sample mirroring that of the Pt4 phosphate transporter, an AM symbiotic marker related to arbuscule formation [28] (Fig 2A and S4A Fig). In distinction, Epr3 expression didn’t differ between mock and AM remedies aside from a minor transient induction at 2 dpi. To find out the mobile expression, promoter exercise throughout AM symbiosis was examined in transgenic Lotus roots utilizing pEpr3a:GUS or pEpr3:GUS reporter constructs. Complementary to the qRT-PCR consequence, Epr3a promoter exercise was noticed in response to AM spore inoculation, whereas no Epr3 promoter exercise was detected (S4B Fig). So as to decide the spatiotemporal regulation of Epr3a promoter exercise in AM-colonised roots, histochemical staining and microscopy had been carried out on transgenic roots expressing the promoter-GUS reporter constructs. Epr3a expression was discovered to be particularly induced in interior cortical cells related to intracellular arbuscule formation (Fig 2B).

Mycorrhization phenotype of epr3a mutants

The Epr3a expression sample prompt that EPR3a could be concerned in arbuscule formation throughout AM symbiosis. To look at the potential useful roles of Epr3a, 2 unbiased LORE1 mutant alleles, epr3a-1 and epr3a-2, had been remoted from the Lotus LORE1 mutant useful resource established within the L. japonicus Gifu accession [29] (S5 Fig and S1 Desk). An epr3a epr3 double mutant was remoted from crosses of epr3-11 [19] and epr3a-2 mutants. After spore inoculation, epr3a single mutants and the epr3a epr3 double mutants confirmed a comparable important discount in arbuscule formation, along with a rise within the presence of AM vesicles (Fig 3). No distinction in AM-symbiosis phenotype was noticed for the epr3 mutant in comparison with Gifu (Fig 3). Arbuscule construction in epr3a mutants seems indistinguishable from these in wild-type vegetation, suggesting a job for EPR3a in fungal entry into cortical cells moderately than in arbuscule growth.

EPR3a binds branched glycans

Localisation of Epr3a expression in arbusculated cells and the lowered frequency of arbuscule growth in epr3a-1 and epr3a-2 mutants recommend that EPR3a could possibly be concerned in communication, perceiving a secreted sign or a floor uncovered molecular sample. To look at the flexibility of EPR3a to understand ligands the ectodomain of EPR3a was expressed in insect cells and purified (S6A Fig). Unbiased purifications of EPR3a ectodomain displaying comparable thermostability had been utilized in biochemical assays (S6B Fig).

Fungal cell partitions consist primarily of chitin polymers, β-1,3 glucan and β-1,6 branched β-1,3 glucan polymers. β-1,3 glucan was beforehand localised to the AM cell wall by immunogold labelling [30]. Right here, we present the presence of β-1,6 glucan within the extracellular matrix (EPS) and cell wall of AM utilizing the fluorescently labelled β-glucan-binding SiFGB1 lectin particular for β-1,6 glucan (Fig 4) [31]. Purified glucans from AM fungal cell partitions or EPS usually are not obtainable; due to this fact, the binding capability of EPR3a ectodomains was examined in native affinity gel electrophoresis utilizing laminarin, which comprises a mixture of β-1,6 branched β-1,3 glucans additionally present in fungal cell partitions (see NMR characterisation beneath). Homogenised unbranched polymeric shrimp shell chitin was used as chitin polymer. A transparent concentration-dependent retention of the EPR3a ectodomain was detected utilizing affinity gel electrophoresis with laminarin from Eisenia bicyclis, whereas no retention was noticed with laminarin from Laminaria digitata, scleroglucan, pustulan, or chitin (Fig 5A and S7A Fig). The alternative behaviour was discovered for the ectodomain of the Arabidopsis thaliana chitin receptor CERK1, which was retained by chitin however not by laminarin. Migration of the EPR3 ectodomain was not influenced by β-glucan or chitin (Fig 5A and S7A Fig).


Fig 5. EPR3a binds fungal-like and fungal-derived β-glucan.

(A) An affinity gel electrophoresis assay confirmed neither EPR3a nor EPR3 ectodomains had been retained in gels containing chitin, in distinction to the constructive management AtCERK1 (purple arrowheads). The EPR3a ectodomain, however not the EPR3 or the AtCERK1 ectodomains, was retained in gels containing the β-1,3/β-1,6-glucan laminarin from E. bicyclis (inexperienced arrowheads). M signifies PageRuler Prestained Protein Ladder, 10 to 180 kDa (Thermo Fisher), and BSA signifies bovine serum albumin, each of which had been included as markers to gauge retention of LysM ectodomains. (B) Quantitative MST binding evaluation confirmed that EPR3a binds the E. bicyclis laminarin with an affinity ≈ 250 μM, which is comparably increased affinity than the laminarin from L. digitata (>3 mM, see S7B Fig). (C) EPR3a binds a well-defined β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide derived from S. indica with a good increased affinity of 51±23 μM. Two binding occasions had been noticed, with the excessive affinity occasion fitted. (D) EPR3a binds the linear β-1,3 laminarihexaose, missing the β-1,6 branches of the S. indica decashaccharide with a low affinity of ≈ 670 μM. (B–D) Fnorm(%) is the measured normalised fluorescence of ectodomains assayed over a ligand focus sequence, n denotes the variety of organic replicates, Okd is the calculated dissociation fixed, and the goodness of match is given by R2. (E) Chemical construction of laminarihexaose and the S. indica β-1,3/β-1,6-glucan decasaccharide [34]. See S1 Information and S1 Uncooked Photographs for underlying knowledge. MST, microscale thermophoresis.

Retention by E. bicyclis laminarin means that the β-1,6 branches are probably recognised within the context of β-1,3 polymer cores. Glucosidic linkage evaluation of the L. digitata and E. bicyclis laminarins confirmed the upper diploma of β-1,6 branches in addition to prolonged β-1,6 motifs of E. bicyclis laminarin (S8A and S8B Fig). As well as, the molecular dimension of the two laminarins differed considerably. Analytical SEC evaluation estimates the L. digitata laminarin dimension to be ≈ 5 kDa, whereas E. bicyclis was round 9-fold bigger, with a median dimension of 44 kDa (S8C Fig). Molecular weights and β-1,3/β-1,6 ratios decided for each laminarins are in keeping with earlier reviews [32,33]. Estimates of oligomerisation levels translate respectively to 30-repeat and 270-repeat oligomers, probably not insignificant contemplating EPR3a retention capabilities. Estimating molar concentrations of laminarins within the assays based mostly on laminarin molecular weights offers a focus of 1 mM for L. digitata gels, whereas E. bicyclis gels contained right down to 60 μM of the β-glucan. This additional illustrates the selectivity of EPR3a in recognising a selected β-1,3/β-1,6 branched glucan construction of the E. bicyclis laminarin.

Microscale thermophoresis (MST) binding assays had been carried out to additional characterise EPR3a β-glucan binding. EPR3a confirmed increased affinity for binding E. bicyclis laminarin in comparison with laminarin from L. digitata, with a Okd ≈ 250 μM for E. bicyclis and >3 mM for L. digitata (Fig 5B and S7B Fig). NMR task of E. bicyclis and L. digitata laminarin confirmed that each samples include a combination of a number of β-1,3/β-1,6 branched carbohydrate species, making it difficult to ascertain the precise molecular sample that EPR3a binds. The buildings differ within the 1,6 branches, the place L. digitata laminarin has terminal glucosyl items in low abundance, whereas E. bicyclis laminarin has extra advanced patterns in increased abundance (S9 Fig). A well-defined β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide, derived from the EPS of the endophytic fungus Serendipita indica or the pathogenic fungus Bipolaris sorokiniana, was not too long ago proven to scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) and to positively regulate fungal colonisation in barley [34]. EPR3a binds the S. indica β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide in 2 occasions, with the primary binding occasion having an estimated Okd = 51±23 μM, indicating binding specificity for an outlined β-1,3/β-1,6 repeating sample (Fig 5C and 5E). The low-affinity binding of L. digitata laminarin and the secondary binding occasion for the S. indica decasaccharide (Okd in mM vary) are probably synthetic as a result of adjustments in resolution viscosity (gelation), which is a widely known property of β-glucans at excessive concentrations. To evaluate the binding specificity for β-1,3-glucans within the absence of β-1,6 branches, the affinity for two linear β-1,3 oligosaccharides, laminarihexaose and laminaripentaose, was assayed. EPR3a bind each β-1,3 oligosaccharides with low affinity (within the vary of 600 to 800 μM), equivalent to a minimum of a 10-fold decrease affinity in comparison with the S. indica β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide (Fig 5D and 5E and S7C Fig), suggesting enhanced binding affinity is gained from β-1,6 branching of a β-1,3 spine polymer. In comparative MST assays, the EPR3 ectodomain binds examined ligands with comparable affinities as noticed for EPR3a except a 2-fold decrease affinity for E. bicyclis laminarin (S10 Fig). β-glucan-induced ROS manufacturing has been reported in a number of plant species [3537]. We examined whether or not EPR3a and EPR3 regulate laminarin elicited ROS in Lotus. ROS was produced in Gifu by utility of laminarin from L. digitata and E. bicyclis and ROS elicitation was not considerably affected in mutant vegetation (S11 Fig). The S. indica β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide didn’t elicit ROS in Gifu or mutant vegetation, which is in keeping with earlier reviews [34].

EPR3a perceives rhizobial exopolysaccharide

The EPR3a receptor is carefully associated to EPR3, which perceives rhizobial EPS from M. loti, R. leguminosarum, and S. meliloti. Rhizobial EPS-like fungal cell wall glucans are β-1,6 branched glycans [19,21]. Benefiting from purified EPS octasaccharides from rhizobia, we investigated if EPR3a ectodomains may also bind rhizobial EPS utilizing quantitative in vitro binding assays. MST assays revealed EPR3a binds EPS from M. loti, S. meliloti, and R. leguminosarum with μM affinity, and the affinity for M. loti EPS is corresponding to that of S. indica decasaccharide β-glucan (Fig 6). The noticed affinities for rhizobial EPS are corresponding to that of EPR3 [22] (S10 Fig) aside from a decrease affinity for S. meliloti EPS. These EPS binding assays point out that each EPR3a and EPR3 survey EPS current both as a secreted sign or on the floor of rhizobia.


Fig 6. EPR3a binds EPS from completely different rhizobia.

MST assays reveal the EPR3a ectodomain binds the repeating EPS octasaccharide unit from symbiotically appropriate and incompatible rhizobia. The EPR3a ectodomain bind the EPS from (A) M. loti and (B) R. leguminosarum with affinities just like that of EPR3, as beforehand reported [22]. EPR3a, nonetheless, was noticed to bind (C) S. meliloti EPS with a minimum of 2-fold decrease affinity in comparison with EPR3 [22]. (D) No binding was noticed for the detrimental management Maltodextrin. See S1 Information for underlying knowledge. EPS, exopolysaccharides; MST, microscale thermophoresis.

To analyze if EPR3a can be concerned in rhizobial EPS notion in vivo, symbiotic phenotyping of the M. loti exoU EPS mutant pressure was carried out. exoU produces a truncated type of low molecular weight EPS and is severely impaired in symbiosis with Gifu, being unable to develop absolutely prolonged ITs and in consequence forming small uninfected nodule primordia [19,20]. epr3 mutants have been proven to suppress the extreme exoU phenotype, permitting for the event of mature nitrogen-fixing nodules [19]. Following inoculation with exoU, epr3a mutants developed mature nitrogen-fixing nodules at a comparable price to the epr3-11 mutant (Fig 7A and 7B). No enhancement within the price of nitrogen-fixing nodule formation is noticed within the epr3a epr3 double mutants in comparison with the one mutant alleles (Fig 7A). These noticed phenotypes following inoculation with exoU EPS mutants, recommend that EPR3a, like EPR3, is concerned within the notion of wild-type and truncated EPS of M. loti.

epr3a mutants are impaired in nodule and IT formation

Epr3a expression stays at a constitutive low stage in Lotus root tissues after rhizobial inoculation and through growth of nitrogen-fixing root nodules (Fig 8A). In distinction, Epr3 expression is strongly induced throughout rhizobial an infection of root hairs and cortical tissues/nodule primordia in a Nod factor-dependent method (Fig 8A) [19,21]. Contemplating this divergent expression sample and the same affinity for rhizobial EPS, we investigated the symbiotic phenotypes of epr3a, epr3, and epr3a epr3 double mutants following inoculation with wild-type M. loti R7A (R7A).


Fig 8. Epr3a expression and symbiotic phenotypes of mutants following R7A inoculation.

(A) Expression of Epr3 and Epr3a in Lotus tissues mock-treated or inoculated with M. loti R7A. M. loti nodC doesn’t produce Nod issue and doesn’t induce symbiosis signalling (management). The normalised expression values offered are from beforehand obtained RNA-seq knowledge [39,40]. (B) IT formation on the indicated genotypes 8 dpi with R7A. (C) Nitrogen-fixing nodule formation on the indicated genotypes grown in pots 5 wpi with R7A. Statistical comparisons between genotypes are proven utilizing ANOVA and Tukey publish hoc testing with p values (<0.05), as indicated by completely different letters. See S1 Information and S3 Data, NCBI BioProject accession: PRJNA953045 for underlying knowledge. IT, an infection thread.

Quantification of IT formation within the mutants inoculated with R7A revealed a extra extreme discount in epr3a-1 and epr3a-2 mutants in comparison with epr3-11. epr3a-1 and epr3a-2 mutants fashioned roughly 25% the variety of wild-type ITs, whereas roughly 75% of the wild-type quantity had been noticed in epr3-11 mutants (Fig 8B). Surprisingly, epr3a epr3 double mutants had been much less severely impaired than epr3a single mutants, forming IT numbers corresponding to epr3-11 (Fig 8B). This consequence suggests direct interplay between the EPR3a and EPR3 receptors or convergence of downstream sign transduction pathways. We infer that EPR3 promotes IT formation in root hairs and inactivation due to this fact results in a discount of ITs in epr3 mutants. Within the absence of EPR3a, the EPR3 acts negatively, lowering IT formation in epr3a mutants. Inactivation of this detrimental regulation in double mutants returns IT formation to epr3 ranges.

epr3a mutants present a big discount within the variety of mature nitrogen-fixing (pink) nodules fashioned, to a stage corresponding to the epr3-11 mutant (Fig 8C). Regardless of each epr3a and epr3 single mutants exhibiting a big discount in nodule formation, an additive impact was not noticed within the epr3a epr3 double mutants. An reverse impact was the truth is noticed; nodulation was improved within the double mutant in comparison with single mutants, forming nodules at a stage extra corresponding to wild-type Gifu (Fig 8C). We conclude that autoregulation controlling the variety of nodules has been triggered in each epr3 and epr3a mutants and correlation between ITs and nodule numbers illustrates the excessive stage of synchronisation between rhizobial an infection and nodule organogenesis [38].

EPR3a has an energetic kinase

LysM receptors are identified to harbour both useful catalytic energetic kinases or pseudokinases [41]. In a primary step to discover the receptor mechanism, the kinase actions of EPR3a and EPR3 had been measured in vitro. The intracellular kinases of every had been expressed in E. coli, purified, and assayed for auto-phosphorylation exercise. Kinase assays point out that each EPR3a and EPR3 include catalytic energetic kinases (S12 Fig).

Working mannequin for EPR3a and EPR3 signalling and interplay in Lotus

The present mannequin for LysM receptor perform based mostly on chitin receptors and LCO receptors signifies that signalling is completed by receptor complexes, consisting of a receptor with an energetic kinase and a pseudokinase receptor with out kinase exercise. Measurable kinase exercise of each EPR3a and EPR3 could due to this fact assist a mannequin the place they every have a co-receptor moderately than working collectively as a fancy. This view is supported by the noticed IT formation within the single and double mutants. Inactivation of Epr3 leads to a modest discount implying that EPR3a can perform alone. Inactivation of EPR3a results in a extreme discount that’s reverted in epr3a epr3 double mutants by inactivation of Epr3. This consequence means that EPR3 within the absence of EPR3a is a detrimental regulator and EPR3a usually acts to counter this detrimental regulation. Based mostly on our phenotypic characterisation and biochemical assays, we can not decide whether or not this interplay is the results of a fancy formation or if the impact is because of convergence of signalling pathways downstream of the person receptor complexes (Fig 9). In an try and elucidate the downstream sign transduction and gene regulation, we assayed root transcriptional responses in wild-type and mutant vegetation by RNA-seq. Principal element evaluation confirmed clear separation of samples based mostly on remedy (mock, M. loti R7A 3dpi and M. loti R7A 7dpi), however no clear separation as a result of genotype inside every remedy cluster (S13A Fig). We analysed the expression of symbiotic genes and located no important distinction between the expression profiles of the wild-type and mutant vegetation (S13B and S13C Fig). Defence gene expression was investigated by evaluating the expression of genes beforehand recognized to be differentially expressed in Gifu in response to the pathogen Ralstonia [39]. No clear variations in expression of the defence genes was recognized between wild-type and mutant vegetation (S13D Fig). Our RNA-seq evaluation on the entire root stage revealed no clear variations in symbiosis and defence-related transcriptional response between wild-type and receptor mutant vegetation after inoculation with M. loti R7A.


Right here, we report on the identification and characterisation of a glycan receptor, EPR3a, in Lotus. We display that Epr3a expression is induced throughout AM symbiosis and that epr3a mutants present lowered arbuscule formation and elevated vesicle formation. This involvement in AM symbiosis clearly separates EPR3a receptor exercise from EPR3, which doesn’t seem to have a job in AM symbiosis. LysM receptors beforehand recognized in AM symbiosis embrace chitin receptors (CERK1 homologues) in rice [42,43], Medicago CERK1 and LYR4 [10,44] and tomato [45]. In Lotus, no LysM-RLK has beforehand been recognized as concerned in AM symbiosis. The CERK1 homologue CERK6, accountable for immune activation in response to chitin, reveals no detectable AM symbiosis phenotype [46]. Expression of Lys11 was discovered to be localised to cortical cells related to AM colonisation; nonetheless, no discount in AM symbiosis was noticed in lys11 mutants [47].

As additional assist for the function of EPR3a in AM symbiosis, we present that the EPR3a ectodomain binds a well-defined β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide derived from the EPS of the endophytic fungus S. indica in MST assays and laminarin from E. bicyclis with a excessive diploma of β-1,6 branches in affinity gel electrophoresis assays. EPR3 additionally binds the β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide in MST assays, whereas binding of E. bicyclis glucan in affinity gel electrophoresis assays was not detected for the EPR3 ectodomain. We infer that EPR3 receptor abundance, interplay with downstream elements, and glucan binding on the ectodomain are inadequate to have an effect on AM colonisation. To our information, neither EPS nor cell wall glucans from AM fungi have been remoted and purified, limiting our skill to carry out quantitative binding assays and decide binding constants. We nonetheless present that AM fungi produce β-1,6-glucan in abundance, which is current within the outer cell wall and extracellular matrix surrounding spores and hyphae. Future research of fungal cell wall elements and different fungal glycans are wanted to find out the ligand affinities and a potential wider ligand repertoire of EPR3a. The binding of the S. indica β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide, the E. bicyclis laminarin, and the rhizobial EPS suggests a choice for particular β-1,3/β-1,6 branched glucan buildings moderately than linear β-1,6 or β-1,3. The low affinity for linear β-1,3-glucan in each MST and gel assays helps this interpretation. All collectively, these outcomes means that EPR3a excessive affinity for β-glucans is gained by β-1,6 branches of a β-1,3 spine.

Epr3a expression stays low in root tissues all through the rhizobial an infection course of, but IT and nodulation are impaired in epr3a mutant alleles. In distinction, EPR3 is strongly induced by appropriate rhizobia, initially in epidermal cells and later inside cortical and nodule primordia cells related to the infecting rhizobia. This expression sample matches the symbiotic phenotypes of epr3 mutants, lowered IT formation, and impaired colonisation of nodule primordia [19,21]. Nevertheless, the discount in IT formation is extra pronounced in epr3a than epr3 mutants. The alleviated symbiotic impairment following inoculation with M. loti exoU is comparable in epr3 and epr3a single mutants with no important enhancement of this within the double mutant. This means that though each EPR3 and EPR3a take part within the notion of truncated EPS, they don’t seem to be completely accountable for the symbiotic impairment ensuing from the manufacturing of incompatible EPS. Our interpretation of those outcomes is that EPR3a, even expressed at low ranges, is vital for modulating rhizobial an infection, doubtlessly by stabilising receptor advanced signalling.

Ligand-binding assays assist the involvement of EPR3a in monitoring rhizobial EPS throughout an infection, with the EPR3a ectodomain having binding affinities for rhizobial EPS corresponding to these reported for the EPR3 ectodomain [22]. The same binding affinities for EPS ligands remoted from symbiotically appropriate M. loti R7A and incompatible S. meliloti and R. leguminosarum means that notion of EPS by EPR-type receptors acts in surveillance, moderately than particularly recognising appropriate symbionts.

Apparently, the epr3a epr3 double mutant seems much less affected than the respective single mutant alleles in symbiotic occasions with M. loti R7A. This means that the downstream signalling from these receptors is altered within the presence/absence of 1 and different. LysM-RLKs are identified to kind receptor complexes to mediate signalling exercise [48,49]. Whether or not or not EPR3 and EPR3a perform as a receptor advanced stays to be resolved. Our evaluation of EPR3 and EPR3a intracellular kinase domains reveals that each are catalytic energetic kinases, which can be of significance when contemplating the likelihood that EPR3 and EPR3a kind particular person receptor complexes with as-yet unknown co-receptors. Recognized LysM-RLK co-receptor pairings typically encompass 1 catalytic energetic kinase paired with an inactive kinase, e.g., NFR1 and NFR5 [49,50] or LYK3 and NFP [51].

Throughout the Lotus LysM-RLK household, EPR3a most carefully aligns to the EPS receptor EPR3 [19,21]. Structural modelling of EPR3a helps the similarity between the two receptors and, importantly, signifies that EPR3a shares the non-canonical ectodomain construction described for EPR3 [22]. This distinct ectodomain construction presumably explains why these EPR3 and EPR3a LysM-RLKs are capable of bind non-GlcNAc containing glycans corresponding to laminarin and rhizobial EPS, as an alternative of conventional GlcNAc containing ligands perceived by LysM-RLKs [46,48,5257].

Our evaluation of EPR-type LysM-RLKs utilizing modelling of the LysM ectodomains recognized this distinct receptor kind in species throughout the plant kingdom [22]. The presence of a number of copies of EPR3-type receptors just isn’t restricted to legumes, and a few legumes apparently encode a single receptor, e.g., Medicago. Given our statement of EPR3a’s function in AM symbiosis, a symbiosis that almost all of vegetation have interaction in, it’s potential {that a} comparable perform is carried out by homologous receptors in different plant species. An excellent broader perform for EPR3-type receptors in vegetation surveillance of glycan sign molecules is recommended by binding of the β-1,3/β-1,6 decasaccharide that could possibly be remoted from each the endophytic Serendipita indica and pathogenic Bipolaris sorokiniana fungi. We suggest that the exercise of EPR3-type receptors in vegetation is to watch surface-exposed glycans produced by microbes throughout their colonisation, inducing a response completely different from an immunity response.

Supplies and strategies

Vegetation and progress situations

L. japonicus ecotype Gifu [58] was used because the wild-type plant. The epr3-11 mutant has beforehand been described [19]. epr3a-1 (30014218) and epr3a-2 (30155999) LORE1 strains within the L. japonicus Gifu accession had been obtained by Lotus Base [59] with homozygous mutant vegetation recognized as beforehand described [29,60]. The epr3/epr3a double mutant was remoted from crosses between epr3-11 and epr3a-2. Seed sterilisation and plant-growth setups for nodulation and IT assays had been as beforehand described [19]. Vegetation had been grown at 21 °C with day and evening cycles of 16 and eight h, respectively. Bushy root transformation was carried out as described beforehand [61]. Plant progress plate nodulation and IT assays, every containing 10 vegetation, had been inoculated with 750 μl of OD600 = 0.02 bacterial suspension. For pot nodulation assays, pots crammed with sterile leca and containing 15 vegetation had been inoculated with 25 ml OD600 = 0.02 bacterial suspension. For AM research, a sandwich progress system was used, as beforehand described [47]. Briefly, seedlings had been sandwiched between 2 nitrocellulose membranes (MontaMil Membrane Filters—47 mm, 0.22 μM pores, Frisenette MCE047022) with roughly 100 Rhizophagus intraradices spores (Symbiom, CZ) per plant. Sandwiches had been planted in sterile quartz (0 to 0.4 mm) in magenta progress containers containing modified Lengthy-Ashton resolution (0.75 mM MgSO4, 1 mM NaNO3, 1 mM Ok2SO4, 2 mM CaCl2, 3.2 μM Na2HPO4, 25 μM FeNa-EDTA, 5 μM MnSO4, 0.25 μM CuSO4, 0.5 μM ZnSO4, 25 μM H3BO3, 0.1 μM Na2MoO4).

Bacterial strains and culturing

Wild-type M. loti R7A [62,63] and R7AexoU [20] had been cultured at 28 °C in YMB media. An R7A+pSKDSRED fluorescent reporter pressure [64] was used for IT counting. E. coli TOP10 was used for cloning and cultured in LB media at 37 °C. Agrobacterium rhizogenes pressure AR1193 [65] was used for bushy root transformation and cultured in LB medium at 28 °C.

Promoter constructs

Epr3 promoter-reporter constructs have beforehand been described [19,21]. For Epr3a, a 1,979 bp putative promoter area was synthesised based mostly on L. japonicus Gifu v1.2 genomic sequence [23]. Epr3a promoter, GUS coding sequence, and 35s terminator modules had been assembled in pIV10 [66] utilizing GoldenGate cloning [67].

Expression and purification of EPR3a ectodomain

The C-terminal boundary of the L. japonicus EPR3a ectodomain was predicted utilizing the transmembrane helix prediction server TMHMM [68]. The native N-terminal secretion peptide was predicted utilizing the SignalP server [69] and changed with the Autographa californica glycoprotein 67 secretion peptide (MVSAIVLYVLLAAAAHSAFA) [70]. A non-cleavable 6xHis-tag was added to the C-terminal and the EPR3a ectodomain (residues 25–223) fusion assemble was codon-optimised for insect cell expression (GenScript, Piscataway, United States of America) and inserted into the switch vector pOET4 (Oxford Expression Applied sciences). Recombinant baculovirus was produced in Sf9 cells utilizing the flashBAC GOLD package (Oxford Expression Applied sciences) supplemented with lipofectin (Thermo Fisher) for transfection effectivity. Sf9 cells had been grown to a density of 106 cells/ml in suspension at 26 °C in HyClone SFX (GE Healthcare), supplemented with 1% v/v Pen/Strep (10,000 U/ml, Life Applied sciences) and 1% v/v chemically outlined lipid focus (Gibco) earlier than an infection with a passage 3 baculovirus inventory acquiring a MOI = 1–3. EPR3a ectodomain was expressed for six days earlier than cell medium was cleared by centrifugation and dialysed towards 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl at 4 °C. EPR3a ectodomain was captured from cell medium utilising a HisTrap Excel column (Cytiva) equilibrated in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl. Protein was eluted in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl, 500 mM imidazole. EPR3a ectodomain was additional purified with a second Ni-AC step utilizing a HisTrap HP column (Cytiva) and purification was finalised with a SEC step utilizing a HiLoad Superdex 75 16/600 pg column (Cytiva) in PBS (pH 7.4), 500 mM NaCl. The EPR3 and AtCERK1 ectodomains had been expressed and purified following an equivalent protocol. EPR3a ectodomain preparation variation was high quality managed by measuring thermostability on a Tycho NT.6 NanoDSF instrument (NanoTemper Applied sciences) at 1 mg/ml focus in PBS (pH 7.4), 500 mM NaCl. Intrinsic fluorescence was measured at 330 and 350 nm over a temperature gradient (35 to 95 °C), and the 330/350 nm ratio was used to supply a transition curve from which an inflection temperature (Ti) was calculated. NanoDSF knowledge was analysed with Prism 8 (GraphPad).

Characterisation of laminarins

The L. digitata and E. bicyclis laminarins had been dissolved in 50 mM ammonium acetate buffer and resolved on GE Healthcare Superose 6, 10/300 GL dimension exclusion column with 50 mM ammonium acetate buffer used because the eluant, at a 0.5 ml/min movement price. The eluting fractions had been monitored with Agilent Applied sciences 1260 infinity II RI (refractive index) detector. The molecular dimension was assigned based mostly on the retention time of the polysaccharide requirements (1,740 kDa (Vo), 500 kDa, 167 kDa, 67 kDa, 40 kDa, 10 kDa, 5 kDa, and 1 kDa). As well as, the molecular dimension of L. digitata was confirmed on GE Healthcare Superdex Peptide 10/300 SEC column with 50 mM ammonium acetate used as eluent at 0.5 ml/min movement and with RI detection. The glycosyl linkage evaluation of impartial sugars constituting laminarins was decided utilizing the strategy based mostly on partially methylated alditol acetates (PMAAs) [71]. GC-MS spectra and uncooked SEC profiles are supplied in S4 Data. For the NMR spectroscopy evaluation, the E. bicyclis laminarin (11.4 mg) and L. digitata laminarin (11.3 mg) had been dissolved in 90% DMSO (d6-99.96%, Sigma-Aldrich) and 10% D2O (d-99.9%, Sigma-Aldrich) and heated at 70 °C for five to 10 min earlier than being transferred to a 5-mm NMR tube (LabScape Stream, Bruker BioSpin AG, Switzerland). No seen aggregates had been noticed within the samples. The 1D and 2D NMR experiments had been recorded as described within the S5 Data.

Carbohydrate ligands

M. loti EPS, S. meliloti EPS, and R. leguminosarum EPS ligands had been obtained as described beforehand [22,72]. Manufacturing and purification of the S. indica decasaccharide for binding assay was carried out as described in [34]. L. digitata laminarin, maltodextrin, and chitin from shrimp shell had been bought from Sigma-Aldrich. Eisenia bicyclis laminarin, Pustulan, and Scleroglucan had been bought from Carbosynth. Laminarihexaose, laminaripentaose, and chitohexaose had been bought from Megazyme.

Protein modelling

The EPR3a ectodomain construction spanning residues 25–223 was modelled utilizing Alphafold2-Colab with a complete of three recycles [24,25]. An MSA of roughly 1,800 sequences was assembled utilizing MMseqs2 with Uniref and Environmental databases, and no template was used for modelling. 5 fashions had been predicted and all fashions generated a excessive total predicted native distance distinction take a look at (pLDDT) rating of roughly 90. Solely the far N- and C-termini confirmed a pLDDT rating <80. One of the best mannequin had an total pLDDT rating of 90.4 and was used for additional analyses. Alphafold fashions for MtLYK10 (residues 25–221, Uniprot: G7JZ13), ToEPR (residues 27–221, Uniprot: A0A221I0T5), FvLYK3 (residues 21–211, GenBank: XP_004300916), ZmRLK8 (residues 23–232, Uniprot: A0A1D6NMX9), HvRLK9 (residues 24–216, GenBank: KAE8783007), and AtLYK3 (residues 20–233, Uniprot: F4IB81) had been generated equally as described for EPR3a. Superposition analyses of EPR3-type ectodomains had been completed utilizing residues spanning the equal polypeptide as visualised within the EPR3 crystal construction [22], e.g., residues 28–207 for EPR3a. Structural analyses and figures had been ready utilizing PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, model 2.4 Schrödinger, LCC.

Histochemical staining and microscopy

IT counts had been carried out utilizing a Zeiss Axioplan 2 fluorescence microscope utilizing the Zeiss Plan-Neofluar 20x/0.5 goal lens with excitation at 561 nm and an emission filter at 580 to 660 nm. Complete roots had been mounted on microscope slides and IT counts carried out on a per-root foundation. Bushy roots expressing promoter-GUS constructs had been GUS-stained as beforehand described [21]. GUS expression on the entire root stage was noticed utilizing a Zeiss Discovery V8 stereo microscope. For concomitant visualisation of GUS-promoter exercise and AM colonisation, GUS-stained roots had been cleared in 10% KOH for 10 min and counterstained with 1 μg/ml WGA-Alexa Fluor 488 (Thermo Fisher, W11261). Vivid subject and fluorescent photos had been captured utilizing a Zeiss Axioplan 2 fluorescence microscope with overlaying of the pictures carried out utilizing Fiji ImageJ [73]. For quantification of AM colonisation, roots had been stained with 5% black ink (Noir de Jais, Shaeffer) in line with [74]. Complete roots had been mounted on microscope slides, and the frequency of arbuscules, fungal hyphae, and vesicles had been counted as beforehand described [75].

Gene expression evaluation

Evaluation of gene expression by qRT-PCR in Lotus throughout AM symbiosis was carried out on a cDNA time sequence beforehand generated [47]. qRT-PCR was carried out on a LightCycler480 instrument utilizing LightCycler480 SYBR Inexperienced I grasp combine (Roche). ATP and UBC had been used as housekeeping reference genes [77]. Quantification of gene ranges was calculated utilizing LinRegPCR [78]. Three organic replicates had been used, every consisting of 5 to 10 vegetation, and a couple of technical replicates had been carried out. Primer info is given in S2 Desk. For RNA-seq, whole RNA was remoted from entire roots minus the basis tip, utilizing a NuceloSpin RNA Plant package (Macherey-Nagel) in line with the producer’s directions. RNA high quality was assessed on an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyser and samples had been despatched to GATC-Biotech ( for library preparation and sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq platform. Mapping was carried out utilizing Salmon [79] and gene expression analysed utilizing R-package DeSEQ2 [80], as beforehand described [81]. RNA-seq uncooked knowledge has been submitted to NCBI below BioProject accession quantity PRJNA953045.

Bioinformatics and statistical evaluation

Lotus LysM-RLK protein sequences had been obtained from Lotus base [59]. Protein alignment and phylogenetic tree development had been made utilizing CLC Major Workbench 8 (QIAGEN). Protein sequences of EPR-type receptors in numerous plant species had been obtained from NCBI. Boxplot technology and statistical evaluation had been carried out in R [82]. Comparability of a number of teams included ANOVA adopted by Tukey’s publish hoc testing to find out statistical significance.

EPR3a and EPR3 kinase expression, purification, and kinase assays

The EPR3 (residue 259–620) and EPR3a (residue 255–615) intracellular kinase domains had been outlined because the polypeptide chain C-terminal of the transmembrane helix, as predicted by the TMHMM server [68]. The kinase constructs had been expressed in Escherichia coli BL21 Rosetta 2 (DE3) cells from a pH10R7Sumo3C vector, containing a ten× histidine tag, a 7× arginine tag, a small ubiquitin-like modifier (Sumo) area, and a 3C protease cleavage website to permit fusion-tag elimination. Cell pellets had been resuspended in lysis buffer, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 500 mM NaCl, 20 mM imidazole, 1 mM benzamidine, 2.5 mM DTT, and 10% (v/v) glycerol. Cell suspensions had been lysed by sonication, and the supernatant was collected after pelleting cell particles by centrifugation at 16,000 g, 4 °C for 30 min. Supernatants had been loaded onto Ni-NTA columns (Macherey-Nagel) and protein was eluted in elution buffer, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 500 mM NaCl, 500 mM imidazole, 2.5 mM DTT, and 5% (v/v) glycerol. Samples had been 3C protease digested and λ-phosphatase de-phosphorylated in dialysis luggage in a single day at 4 °C towards dialysis buffer 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, 1 mM MnCl2, 2.5 mM DTT. Cleaved fusion-tag was eliminated by a second Ni-AC step and pattern purification was finalised by SEC utilizing a Superdex 75 Enhance 10/300 (GE Healthcare) column and eluted in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM DTT. For kinase assays, the dephosphorylated kinases had been incubated for 1 h in SEC buffer with and with out 10 mM MgCl2 and 20 μM ATP. The samples had been loaded onto an SDS-PAGE gel and phosphoproteins had been stained utilizing Professional-Q Diamond phosphoprotein gel stain (Invitrogen) in line with the producer’s protocol. After imaging, the identical gel was stained for whole protein utilizing SYPRO Ruby Protein Stain (Invitrogen) in line with the producer’s protocol.

Supporting info

S4 Fig. Epr3a expression in Lotus tissues and Epr3 and Epr3a promoter exercise in response to AM spore inoculation.

(A) Expression knowledge obtained from the Lotus expression atlas (Lotus Base Epr3a expression is restricted to root tissues with elevated expression in response to arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM_27dpi). (B) Transgenic roots expressing pEpr3a:GUS or pEpr3:GUS had been inoculated with AM spores. GUS staining was carried out on entire root programs 6 wpi. See S1 Information for underlying knowledge.


S6 Fig. LysM ectodomain purifications and EPR3a ectodomain NanoDSF high quality management.

(A) SEC profile and corresponding SDS-PAGE of the ultimate purification step for the EPR3a ectodomain. Protein elutes as a single peak with an elution quantity equivalent to a molecular weight of 32.8 kDa. SDS-PAGE evaluation reveals a smeared band between the 25 and 35 kDa marker bands, becoming the burden estimate from SEC and an anticipated heterogenous N-glycosylated protein preparation. Weight estimates from SEC and SDS-PAGE match properly the theoretical molecular weight of 23.2 kDa for the monomeric protein, plus a further common of roughly 10 kDa N-glycans. (B) A NanoDSF thermal stability assay was used as a high quality management for protein preparations and to find out confidence in comparability between replicates in downstream binding assays. The thermal stability of 4 EPR3a ectodomain organic replicates was assayed with NanoDSF, displaying that every one 4 preparations had comparable Ti. Every organic preparation was assayed in technical triplicates. (C, D) SEC chromatogram and corresponding SDS-PAGE for EPR3 and AtCERK1 ectodomain purifications. Each preparations, like EPR3a, elute as single peaks becoming monomeric N-glycosylated proteins and migrate as smeared bands between marker bands 25 and 35 kDa in SDS-PAGE. (A, C, D) M = molecular weight marker, Inp = enter pattern of SEC purification. Blue numbering in chromatograms corresponds to completely different fractions, that are additionally indicated within the corresponding SDS-PAGE. Blue dashed strains in chromatograms and the horizontal black strains above fraction numbering in SDS-PAGEs signifies the pooled fractions utilized in biochemical assays. All protein preparations had been purified to a excessive >95% purity as estimated by SDS-PAGE. See S1 Information and S1 Uncooked Photographs for underlying knowledge.


S10 Fig. EPR3 MST binding knowledge.

(A) The EPR3 ectodomain binds E. bicyclis laminarin with atleast 2-fold decrease affinity ≈ 670 μM in comparison with EPR3a (Okd ≈ 250 μM) when assayed with MST. (B–G) EPR3 had comparable affinities for different ligands measured as that noticed for EPR3a. Binding affinities for (F) M. loti and (G) R. leguminosarum EPS was comparable as beforehand reported [22]. (A–G) Fnorm(%) is the measured normalised fluorescence of ectodomains assayed over a ligand focus sequence, and ΔFnorm(‰) is the normalised distinction in fluorescence of experiments with a single organic replicate. n denotes the variety of organic replicates, Okd is the calculated dissociation fixed, and the goodness of match is given by R2. See S1 Information for underlying knowledge.


S11 Fig. Laminarin elicited ROS just isn’t affected in Lotus mutants epr3a-2, epr3-11, and epr3a-2/epr3-11.

(A) ROS manufacturing measured over time in response to mock, chitohexaose (CO6, constructive management), and L. digitata laminarin. CO6 elicits a quick and powerful ROS response in Lotus Gifu, epr3-11 and epr3a-2. L. digitata laminarin elicits a delayed and comparatively weaker ROS response in comparison with CO6. (B) Boxplot of normalised whole ROS manufacturing measured over 60 min. L. digitata laminarin (LD lam) ROS elicitation just isn’t considerably affected in epr3-11 or epr3a-2 in comparison with Gifu. Values characterize means ± SEM from 8 wells. Letters characterize important variations based mostly on Kruskal–Wallis and publish hoc Dunn take a look at. (C) E. bicyclis laminarin elicits a comparatively sooner and weaker ROS burst in Gifu and epr3-11/epr3a-2 in comparison with L. digitata laminarin. A single properly/replicate was carried out for the S. indica β-glucan decasaccharide in Gifu and epr3-11/epr3a-2 and no ROS elicitation was detected. (D) Boxplot of normalised whole ROS manufacturing measured over 60 min. E. bicyclis (EB lam) and L. digitata laminarin (LD lam) ROS elicitation just isn’t considerably affected in epr3-11/epr3a-2 in comparison with Gifu. Values characterize means ± SEM from 8 wells. Letters characterize important variations based mostly on Kruskal–Wallis and publish hoc Dunn take a look at. See S1 Information for underlying knowledge.



  1. 1.
    Wealthy MK, Vigneron N, Libourel C, Keller J, Xue L, Hajheidari M, et al. Lipid exchanges drove the evolution of mutualism throughout plant terrestrialization. Science. 2021;372(6544):864–8. pmid:34016782
  2. 2.
    MacLean AM, Bravo A, Harrison MJ. Plant Signaling and Metabolic Pathways Enabling Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Plant Cell. 2017;29(10):2319–35. pmid:28855333
  3. 3.
    Delaux PM, Radhakrishnan GV, Jayaraman D, Cheema J, Malbreil M, Volkening JD, et al. Algal ancestor of land vegetation was preadapted for symbiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(43):13390–5. pmid:26438870
  4. 4.
    Kistner C, Winzer T, Pitzschke A, Mulder L, Sato S, Kaneko T, et al. Seven Lotus japonicus genes required for transcriptional reprogramming of the basis throughout fungal and bacterial symbiosis. Plant Cell. 2005;17(8):2217–29. pmid:15980262
  5. 5.
    Oldroyd GE. Converse, pal, and enter: signalling programs that promote helpful symbiotic associations in vegetation. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11(4):252–63. pmid:23493145
  6. 6.
    Besserer A, Puech-Pages V, Kiefer P, Gomez-Roldan V, Jauneau A, Roy S, et al. Strigolactones stimulate arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by activating mitochondria. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(7):e226. pmid:16787107
  7. 7.
    Akiyama Ok, Matsuzaki Ok, Hayashi H. Plant sesquiterpenes induce hyphal branching in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Nature. 2005;435(7043):824–7. pmid:15944706
  8. 8.
    Style A, Chabaud M, Balzergue C, Puech-Pages V, Novero M, Rey T, et al. Quick-chain chitin oligomers from arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi set off nuclear Ca2+ spiking in Medicago truncatula roots and their manufacturing is enhanced by strigolactone. New Phytol. 2013;198(1):190–202. pmid:23384011
  9. 9.
    Maillet F, Poinsot V, Andre O, Puech-Pages V, Haouy A, Gueunier M, et al. Fungal lipochitooligosaccharide symbiotic indicators in arbuscular mycorrhiza. Nature. 2011;469(7328):58–63. pmid:21209659
  10. 10.
    Feng F, Solar J, Radhakrishnan GV, Lee T, Bozsoki Z, Fort S, et al. A mixture of chitooligosaccharide and lipochitooligosaccharide recognition promotes arbuscular mycorrhizal associations in Medicago truncatula. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5047. pmid:31695035
  11. 11.
    Gutjahr C, Gobbato E, Choi J, Riemann M, Johnston MG, Summers W, et al. Rice notion of symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi requires the karrikin receptor advanced. Science. 2015;350(6267):1521–4. pmid:26680197
  12. 12.
    Style A, Chabaud M, Timmers T, Bonfante P, Barker DG. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi elicit a novel intracellular equipment in Medicago truncatula root epidermal cells earlier than an infection. Plant Cell. 2005;17(12):3489–99. pmid:16284314
  13. 13.
    Gutjahr C, Parniske M. Cell and developmental biology of arbuscular mycorrhiza symbiosis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2013;29:593–617. pmid:24099088
  14. 14.
    Harrison MJ. Mobile applications for arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2012;15(6):691–8. pmid:23036821
  15. 15.
    Floss DS, Levy JG, Levesque-Tremblay V, Pumplin N, Harrison MJ. DELLA proteins regulate arbuscule formation in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(51):E5025–34. pmid:24297892
  16. 16.
    Gutjahr C, Banba M, Croset V, An Ok, Miyao A, An G, et al. Arbuscular mycorrhiza-specific signaling in rice transcends the frequent symbiosis signaling pathway. Plant Cell. 2008;20(11):2989–3005.
  17. 17.
    Pimprikar P, Carbonnel S, Paries M, Katzer Ok, Klingl V, Bohmer MJ, et al. A CCaMK-CYCLOPS-DELLA Advanced Prompts Transcription of RAM1 to Regulate Arbuscule Branching. Curr Biol. 2016;26(8):987–98. pmid:27020747
  18. 18.
    Yano Ok, Yoshida S, Muller J, Singh S, Banba M, Vickers Ok, et al. CYCLOPS, a mediator of symbiotic intracellular lodging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(51):20540–5. pmid:19074278
  19. 19.
    Kawaharada Y, Kelly S, Nielsen MW, Hjuler CT, Gysel Ok, Muszynski A, et al. Receptor-mediated exopolysaccharide notion controls bacterial an infection. Nature. 2015;523(7560):308–12. pmid:26153863
  20. 20.
    Kelly SJ, Muszynski A, Kawaharada Y, Hubber AM, Sullivan JT, Sandal N, et al. Conditional requirement for exopolysaccharide within the Mesorhizobium-Lotus symbiosis. Mol Plant Microbe Work together. 2013;26(3):319–29. pmid:23134480
  21. 21.
    Kawaharada Y, Nielsen MW, Kelly S, James EK, Andersen KR, Rasmussen SR, et al. Differential regulation of the Epr3 receptor coordinates membrane-restricted rhizobial colonization of root nodule primordia. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14534. pmid:28230048
  22. 22.
    Wong J, Gysel Ok, Birkefeldt TG, Vinther M, Muszynski A, Azadi P, et al. Structural signatures in EPR3 outline a novel class of plant carbohydrate receptors. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3797. pmid:32732998
  23. 23.
    Kamal N, Mun T, Reid D, Lin JS, Akyol TY, Sandal N, et al. Insights into the evolution of symbiosis gene copy quantity and distribution from a chromosome-scale Lotus japonicus Gifu genome sequence. DNA Res. 2020;27(3). pmid:32658273
  24. 24.
    Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Inexperienced T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Extremely correct protein construction prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596(7873):583–9. pmid:34265844
  25. 25.
    Mirdita M, Schütze Ok, Moriwaki Y, Heo L, Ovchinnikov S, Steinegger M. ColabFold—Making protein folding accessible to all. bioRxiv. 2021;
  26. 26.
    Dupin S, Klein J, Rutten L, Huisman R, Geurts R. Pseudogenization of the rhizobium-responsive EXOPOLYSACCHARIDE RECEPTOR in Parasponia is a uncommon occasion in nodulating vegetation. BMC Plant Biol. 2022;22(1):225. pmid:35490231
  27. 27.
    Quilbe J, Lamy L, Brottier L, Leleux P, Fardoux J, Rivallan R, et al. Genetics of nodulation in Aeschynomene evenia uncovers mechanisms of the rhizobium-legume symbiosis. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):829. pmid:33547303
  28. 28.
    Harrison MJ, Dewbre GR, Liu J. A phosphate transporter from Medicago truncatula concerned within the acquisition of phosphate launched by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Cell. 2002;14(10):2413–29. pmid:12368495
  29. 29.
    Malolepszy A, Mun T, Sandal N, Gupta V, Dubin M, Urbanski D, et al. The LORE1 insertion mutant useful resource. Plant J. 2016;88(2):306–17. pmid:27322352
  30. 30.
    Balestrini R, Romera C, Puigdomenech P, Bonfante P. Location of a cell-wall hydroxyproline-rich glycoprotein, cellulose and β-1,3-glucans in apical and differentiated areas of maize mycorrhizal roots. Planta. 1994;195(2):201–9.
  31. 31.
    Wawra S, Fesel P, Widmer H, Timm M, Seibel J, Leson L, et al. The fungal-specific beta-glucan-binding lectin FGB1 alters cell-wall composition and suppresses glucan-triggered immunity in vegetation. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13188.
  32. 32.
    Learn SM, Currie G, Bacic A. Evaluation of the structural heterogeneity of laminarin by electrospray-ionisation-mass spectrometry. Carbohydr Res. 1996;281(2):187–201. pmid:8721145
  33. 33.
    Menshova RV, Ermakova SP, Anastyuk SD, Isakov VV, Dubrovskaya YV, Kusaykin MI, et al. Construction, enzymatic transformation and anticancer exercise of branched excessive molecular weight laminaran from brown alga Eisenia bicyclis. Carbohydr Polym. 2014;99:101–9.
  34. 34.
    Chandrasekar B, Wanke A, Wawra S, Saake P, Mahdi L, Charura N, et al. Fungi hijack a ubiquitous plant apoplastic endoglucanase to launch a ROS scavenging beta-glucan decasaccharide to subvert immune responses. Plant Cell. 2022;34(7):2765–84.
  35. 35.
    Aziz A, Poinssot B, Daire X, Adrian M, Bézier A, Lambert B, et al. Laminarin Elicits Protection Responses in Grapevine and Induces Safety Towards Botrytis cinerea and Plasmopara viticola. Mol Plant Microbe Work together. 2003;16(12):1118–28. pmid:14651345
  36. 36.
    Klarzynski O, Plesse B, Joubert JM, Yvin JC, Kopp M, Kloareg B, et al. Linear β-1,3 glucans are elicitors of protection responses in tobacco. Plant Physiol. 2000;124(3):1027–37.
  37. 37.
    Wanke A, Rovenich H, Schwanke F, Velte S, Becker S, Hehemann JH, et al. Plant species-specific recognition of lengthy and brief beta-1,3-linked glucans is mediated by completely different receptor programs. Plant J. 2020;102(6):1142–56.
  38. 38.
    Madsen LH, Tirichine L, Jurkiewicz A, Sullivan JT, Heckmann AB, Bek AS, et al. The molecular community governing nodule organogenesis and an infection within the mannequin legume Lotus japonicus. Nat Commun. 2010;1:10. pmid:20975672
  39. 39.
    Kelly S, Mun T, Stougaard J, Ben C, Andersen SU. Distinct Lotus japonicus Transcriptomic Responses to a Spectrum of Micro organism Ranging From Symbiotic to Pathogenic. Entrance Plant Sci. 2018;9:1218. pmid:30177945
  40. 40.
    Munch D, Gupta V, Bachmann A, Busch W, Kelly S, Mun T, et al. The Brassicaceae Household Shows Divergent, Shoot-Skewed NLR Resistance Gene Expression. Plant Physiol. 2018;176(2):1598–609. pmid:29187571
  41. 41.
    Lohmann GV, Shimoda Y, Nielsen MW, Jorgensen FG, Grossmann C, Sandal N, et al. Evolution and regulation of the Lotus japonicus LysM receptor gene household. Mol Plant Microbe Work together. 2010;23(4):510–21. pmid:20192837
  42. 42.
    Miyata Ok, Kozaki T, Kouzai Y, Ozawa Ok, Ishii Ok, Asamizu E, et al. The bifunctional plant receptor, OsCERK1, regulates each chitin-triggered immunity and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in rice. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014;55(11):1864–72. pmid:25231970
  43. 43.
    Roth R, Chiapello M, Montero H, Gehrig P, Grossmann J, O’Holleran Ok, et al. A rice Serine/Threonine receptor-like kinase regulates arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis on the peri-arbuscular membrane. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4677. pmid:30410018
  44. 44.
    Gibelin-Viala C, Amblard E, Puech-Pages V, Bonhomme M, Garcia M, Bascaules-Bedin A, et al. The Medicago truncatula LysM receptor-like kinase LYK9 performs a twin function in immunity and the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol. 2019;223(3):1516–29. pmid:31058335
  45. 45.
    Liao D, Solar X, Wang N, Tune F, Liang Y. Tomato LysM Receptor-Like Kinase SlLYK12 Is Concerned in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Entrance Plant Sci. 2018;9:1004. pmid:30050553
  46. 46.
    Bozsoki Z, Cheng J, Feng F, Gysel Ok, Vinther M, Andersen KR, et al. Receptor-mediated chitin notion in legume roots is functionally separable from Nod issue notion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(38):E8118–E27. pmid:28874587
  47. 47.
    Rasmussen SR, Fuchtbauer W, Novero M, Volpe V, Malkov N, Style A, et al. Intraradical colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi triggers induction of a lipochitooligosaccharide receptor. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29733. pmid:27435342
  48. 48.
    Cao Y, Liang Y, Tanaka Ok, Nguyen CT, Jedrzejczak RP, Joachimiak A, et al. The kinase LYK5 is a significant chitin receptor in Arabidopsis and types a chitin-induced advanced with associated kinase CERK1. Elife. 2014;3(e03766).
  49. 49.
    Madsen EB, Antolin-Llovera M, Grossmann C, Ye J, Vieweg S, Broghammer A, et al. Autophosphorylation is important for the in vivo perform of the Lotus japonicus Nod issue receptor 1 and receptor-mediated signalling in cooperation with Nod issue receptor 5. Plant J. 2011;65(3):404–17. pmid:21265894
  50. 50.
    Rübsam H, Krönauer C, Abel NB, Ji H, Lironi D, Hansen SB, et al. Nanobody-driven signaling reveals the core receptor advanced in root nodule symbiosis. Science. 2023;379(6629):272–7. pmid:36656954
  51. 51.
    Pietraszewska-Bogiel A, Lefebvre B, Koini MA, Klaus-Heisen D, Takken FL, Geurts R, et al. Interplay of Medicago truncatula lysin motif receptor-like kinases, NFP and LYK3, produced in Nicotiana benthamiana induces defence-like responses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e65055. pmid:23750228
  52. 52.
    Barbour WM, Hattermann DR, Stacey G. Chemotaxis of Bradyrhizobium japonicum to soybean exudates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991;57(9):2635–9. pmid:1768137
  53. 53.
    Bozsoki Z, Gysel Ok, Hansen SB, Lironi D, Kronauer C, Feng F, et al. Ligand-recognizing motifs in plant LysM receptors are main determinants of specificity. Science. 2020;369(6504):663–70. pmid:32764065
  54. 54.
    Fliegmann J, Canova S, Lachaud C, Uhlenbroich S, Gasciolli V, Pichereaux C, et al. Lipo-chitooligosaccharidic symbiotic indicators are acknowledged by LysM receptor-like kinase LYR3 within the legume Medicago truncatula. ACS Chem Biol. 2013;8(9):1900–6. pmid:23808871
  55. 55.
    Liu S, Wang J, Han Z, Gong X, Zhang H, Chai J. Molecular Mechanism for Fungal Cell Wall Recognition by Rice Chitin Receptor OsCEBiP. Construction. 2016;24(7):1192–200. pmid:27238968
  56. 56.
    Gysel Ok, Laursen M, Thygesen MB, Lironi D, Bozsoki Z, Hjuler CT, et al. Kinetic proofreading of lipochitooligosaccharides determines sign activation of symbiotic plant receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(44). pmid:34716271
  57. 57.
    Liu T, Liu Z, Tune C, Hu Y, Han Z, She J, et al. Chitin-Induced Dimerization Prompts a Plant Immune Receptor. Science. 2012;336:1160–4. pmid:22654057
  58. 58.
    Handberg Ok, Stougaard J. Lotus japonicus, an autogamous, diploid legume species for classical and molecular genetics. Plant J. 1992;2:487–96.
  59. 59.
    Mun T, Bachmann A, Gupta V, Stougaard J, Andersen SU. Lotus Base: An built-in info portal for the mannequin legume Lotus japonicus. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–18.
  60. 60.
    Urbanski DF, Malolepszy A, Stougaard J, Andersen SU. Genome-wide LORE1 retrotransposon mutagenesis and high-throughput insertion detection in Lotus japonicus. Plant J. 2012;69(4):731–41. pmid:22014280
  61. 61.
    Hansen J, Jorgensen JE, Stougaard J, Marcker KA. Bushy roots—a brief lower to transgenic root nodules. Plant Cell Rep. 1989;8(1):12–5. pmid:24232586
  62. 62.
    Sullivan JT, Trzebiatowski JR, Cruickshank RW, Gouzy J, Brown SD, Elliot RM, et al. Comparative sequence evaluation of the symbiosis island of Mesorhizobium loti pressure R7A. J Bacteriol. 2002;184(11):3086–95. pmid:12003951
  63. 63.
    Kelly S, Sullivan J, Ronson C, Tian R, Bräu L, Munk C, et al. Genome sequence of the Lotus spp. microsymbiont Mesorhizobium loti pressure R7A. Stand Genomic Sci. 2014;9(1):1–7. pmid:25780499
  64. 64.
    Kelly S, Sullivan JT, Kawaharada Y, Radutoiu S, Ronson CW, Stougaard J. Regulation of Nod issue biosynthesis by various NodD proteins at distinct levels of symbiosis gives extra compatibility scrutiny. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20(1):97–110. pmid:29194913
  65. 65.
    Stougaard J, Abildsten D, Marcker Ok. The Agrobacterium rhizogenes pRi TL-DNA phase as a gene vector system for transformation of vegetation. Mol Gen Genet. 1987;207(2–3):251–5.
  66. 66.
    Stougaard J. Agobacterium rhizogenes as a Vector for Remodeling Greater Vegetation. In: Jones H, editor. Plant Gene Switch and Expression Protocols. Totowa, NJ: Springer New York; 1995. p. 49–61.
  67. 67.
    Engler C, Gruetzner R, Kandzia R, Marillonnet S. Golden gate shuffling: a one-pot DNA shuffling technique based mostly on kind IIs restriction enzymes. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5553. pmid:19436741
  68. 68.
    Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer EL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov mannequin: utility to finish genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80. pmid:11152613
  69. 69.
    Almagro Armenteros JJ, Tsirigos KD, Sonderby CK, Petersen TN, Winther O, Brunak S, et al. SignalP 5.0 improves sign peptide predictions utilizing deep neural networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(4):420–3. pmid:30778233
  70. 70.
    Chakraborty S, Trihemasava Ok, Xu G. Modifying Baculovirus Expression Vectors to Produce Secreted Plant Proteins in Insect Cells. J Vis Exp. 2018(138). pmid:30176019
  71. 71.
    Black I, Heiss C, Carlson RW, Azadi P. Linkage Evaluation of Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides: A Tutorial. Strategies Mol Biol. 2021;2271:249–71.
  72. 72.
    Muszynski A, Heiss C, Hjuler CT, Sullivan JT, Kelly SJ, Thygesen MB, et al. Constructions of Exopolysaccharides Concerned in Receptor-mediated Notion of Mesorhizobium loti by Lotus japonicus. J Biol Chem. 2016;291(40):20946–61. pmid:27502279
  73. 73.
    Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image evaluation. Nat Strategies. 2012;9(7):676–82. pmid:22743772
  74. 74.
    Vierheilig H, Coughlan AP, Wyss U, Piche Y. Ink and vinegar, a easy staining method for arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64(12):5004–7. pmid:9835596
  75. 75.
    McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA. A brand new technique which supplies an goal measure of colonization of roots by vesicular—arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 1990;115(3):495–501. pmid:33874272
  76. 76.
    Wawra S, Fesel P, Widmer H, Neumann U, Lahrmann U, Becker S, et al. FGB1 and WSC3 are in planta-induced beta-glucan-binding fungal lectins with completely different capabilities. New Phytol. 2019;222(3):1493–506.
  77. 77.
    Czechowski T, Stitt M, Altmann T, Udvardi MK, Scheible WR. Genome-wide identification and testing of superior reference genes for transcript normalization in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2005;139(1):5–17. pmid:16166256
  78. 78.
    Ramakers C, Ruijter JM, Deprez RH, Moorman AF. Assumption-free evaluation of quantitative real-time polymerase chain response (PCR) knowledge. Neurosci Lett. 2003;339(1):62–6. pmid:12618301
  79. 79.
    Patro R, Duggal G, Love MI, Irizarry RA, Kingsford C. Salmon gives quick and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat Strategies. 2017;14(4):417–9. pmid:28263959
  80. 80.
    Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq knowledge with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550. pmid:25516281
  81. 81.
    Lin J, Roswanjaya YP, Kohlen W, Stougaard J, Reid D. Nitrate restricts nodule organogenesis by inhibition of cytokinin biosynthesis in Lotus japonicus. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6544. pmid:34764268
  82. 82.
    R Core Staff. R: A language and atmosphere for statistical computing. R Basis for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2017.
  83. 83.
    Kim Y, Kim E, Cheong C, Williams DL, Kim C, Lim S. Structural characterization of b-D-(1–3, 1–6)-linked glucans utilizing NMR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res. 2000;328(3):331–41.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles