Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Plant Biotechnology Journal logoLink to Plant Biotechnology Journal
. 2023 Oct 11;22(1):248–261. doi: 10.1111/pbi.14183

Specific members of the TOPLESS family are susceptibility genes for Fusarium wilt in tomato and Arabidopsis

Thomas R Aalders 1, † , Mara de Sain 1, † , Fleur Gawehns 1, † , Nina Oudejans 1, Yoran D Jak 1, Henk L Dekker 2, Martijn Rep 1, Harrold A van den Burg 1, Frank LW Takken 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10754003  PMID: 37822043

Summary

Vascular wilt diseases caused by Fusarium oxysporum are a major threat to many agriculturally important crops. Genetic resistance is rare and inevitably overcome by the emergence of new races. To identify potentially durable and non‐race‐specific genetic resistance against Fusarium wilt diseases, we set out to identify effector targets in tomato that mediate susceptibility to the fungus. For this purpose, we used the SIX8 effector protein, an important and conserved virulence factor present in many pathogenic F. oxysporum isolates. Using protein pull‐downs and yeast two‐hybrid assays, SIX8 was found to interact specifically with two members of the tomato TOPLESS family: TPL1 and TPL2. Loss‐of‐function mutations in TPL1 strongly reduced disease susceptibility to Fusarium wilt and a tpl1;tpl2 double mutant exerted an even higher level of resistance. Similarly, Arabidopsis tpl;tpr1 mutants became significantly less diseased upon F. oxysporum inoculation as compared to wildtype plants. We conclude that TPLs encode susceptibility genes whose mutation can confer resistance to F. oxysporum.

Keywords: susceptibility gene, disease resistance, SIX8 effector, Fusarium oxysporum, virulence

Introduction

The fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum is a major threat to global food security (Chaloner et al., 2021; Edel‐Hermann and Lecomte, 2019; Gordon, 2017). The F. oxysporum species complex is able to infect over 100 different plant species, including economically important field crops, for example soybean, cotton, banana—vegetable crops, for example spinach, melon, tomato—and ornamentals, for example cyclamen, chrysanthemum and tulip (Edel‐Hermann and Lecomte, 2019). Control measures applied to infested fields are often impracticable or ineffective; the most effective method to control the pathogen is the use of resistant varieties. The development of resistant plant varieties by traditional breeding typically relies on introgression of naturally occurring, dominant resistance (R) genes, into cultivars. However, only for a limited number of crop species introgressable resistance sources are available in the wild or cultivated germplasms limiting their applicability. R genes mediate resistance by recognition of pathogen‐derived effector proteins (Bailey‐Serres et al., 2019; Kourelis and van der Hoorn, 2018). However, R gene‐mediated resistance is eventually broken by the emergence of new races that evade recognition, for instance, by mutations in the cognate effector protein or loss thereof (Dangl et al., 2013).

As an alternative, durable genetic resistance against plant pathogens can be established via inactivation of so‐called susceptibility (S) genes, which are plant genes that facilitate the infection process and support compatibility with the pathogen (van Schie and Takken, 2014; Zaidi et al., 2018). To overcome such resistance, mutations or gene loss on the pathogen side do not suffice; the pathogen is required to establish a new infection strategy independent of the host S gene product. S genes often have important functions for the plant. Hence, besides disease resistance their inactivation can result in pleiotropic effects such as reduced vigour, plant deformation or reduced fruit production (Garcia‐Ruiz, 2018; Garcia‐Ruiz et al., 2021; Pavan et al., 2010; van Schie and Takken, 2014). Notwithstanding these potential drawbacks, S genes hold great potential for application, as exemplified by MILDEW RESISTANCE LOCUS O (MLO). Loss‐of‐function mutant alleles of MLO confer broad‐spectrum powdery mildew (PM) resistance in barley, with little pleiotropic effects, for over 50 years (Freisleben and Lein, 1942; Kusch and Panstruga, 2017). MLO genes are present as small families in the genomes of all higher plant species. Their function in plant immunity is evolutionary conserved as specific mlo mutants also confer PM resistance in crops such as wheat, tomato, pea and grapevine (Acevedo‐Garcia et al., 2014). Another example of a ubiquitously used S gene is eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) (Sonenberg et al., 1978), which is essential for viral RNA replication. Inactivation of eIF4E leads to potyvirus resistance, and loss‐of‐function eIF4E mutans confer resistance in barley, rice, tomato, lettuce, pea, pepper and melon (Wang and Krishnaswamy, 2012). Inactivation of one of its isoforms, eIF4E or elF(iso)4E, is often sufficient for potyvirus resistance and evades pleiotropic effects (Charron et al., 2008). The functions of S genes are often conserved in plants as exemplified above and as shown for SlDMR6‐1. This tomato orthologue of DOWNY MILDEW RESISTANCE 6, which was originally identified in Arabidopsis, also confers broad‐spectrum disease resistance when inactivated in tomato (de Toledo Thomazella et al., 2021).

Although most S genes have been identified via forward genetics, an alternative approach to identify susceptibility factors is to screen for host targets of conserved pathogen effectors (Gawehns et al., 2013). Currently, no Fusarium S genes are known that can be applied in agri‐ or horticulture. To identify an S gene against F. oxysporum, we performed an effector‐host target screen using the tomato—F. oxysporum forma specialis (f. sp.) lycopersici (Fol) pathosystem (Takken and Rep, 2010). The Fol genome encodes a relatively small effectorome, including 14 SECRETED IN XYLEM (SIX) effectors (Houterman et al., 2009). We used the effector SIX8Fol (hereafter referred to as SIX8) to identify interacting proteins because (i) SIX8 is upregulated during infection (Sun et al., 2022; van der Does et al., 2016), (ii) SIX8 is present in at least 14 different formae speciales (ff. spp.) capable of infecting various important crops such as tulip, banana, lettuce, melon and spinach (Table S1) and (iii) SIX8 orthologs are absent in non‐pathogenic isolates such as Fo47 (Constantin et al., 2021; van Dam et al., 2016). SIX8 does not suppress general plant immunity triggered by bacterial and fungal elicitors flg22 or chitin, implying that SIX8 has a distinctive function during infection (Tintor et al., 2020). Here, we identified a host target of SIX8: TOPLESS—and show that specific members of this gene family act as susceptibility genes for Fusarium wilt disease in tomato and Arabidopsis.

Results

SIX8 interacts specifically with tomato TPL1 and TPL2

To identify host targets of the F. oxysporum SIX8 effector protein pull‐down experiments were performed using transiently transformed Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. As a negative control the sequence‐unrelated effector SIX6 was included (Gawehns et al., 2014). To prevent secretion, the endogenous signal peptides were deleted. Both effectors were C‐terminally fused to a HASBP‐tag (Hemagglutinin and Streptavidin‐binding protein) to aid purification. The co‐immunoprecipitated proteins were subjected to tryptic digestion and analysed by LC–MS/MS. Four peptides were uniquely identified in the SIX8 samples: two matched SIX8 and two peptides (LIEANPLFR and TLINQSLNWQHQLCK) corresponded to the C‐terminal regions of 12 out of the 13 TOPLESS‐related proteins present in the NbDE proteome database (Data S1) (Kourelis et al., 2019). TPR proteins are named after the founder TOPLESS (TPL) protein from Arabidopsis thaliana. Members of the TPL/TPR protein family act as negative co‐regulators of gene expression controlling a wide array of plant processes impacting (a)biotic stress, but also development and hormone responses (Causier et al., 2012; Ke et al., 2015; Long et al., 2002; Plant et al., 2021).

To assess whether the tomato TPL homologues could be targets of SIX8, their potential interaction was analysed in planta using bi‐molecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC). The tomato genome encodes six TPL homologues: TPL1 to TPL6 (Hao et al., 2014). Interactions of SIX8 with TPL homologues 1 to 5 were analysed (not TPL6), as these five TPLs are (i) root expressed (Figure S1), (ii) nuclear localized and (iii) shown to interact with known TPL interactors such as Aux/IAA transcription factors (Hao et al., 2014). The TPLs were N‐terminally fused to the N‐terminal half of a yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) variant VENUSN. As negative control SIX3 (also known as Avr2) was used because (i) it has a similar molecular weight as SIX8, (ii) it exerts a nucleo‐cytoplasmic distribution, and (iii) Avr2 targets processes independent of TPLs (Blekemolen et al., 2023; Cao et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2013). The effectors, without their signal peptide, were N‐terminally fused to the C‐terminal half of a cyan fluorescent protein (CFP): CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX8 and CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX3 (Ma et al., 2013). Upon interaction of the chimeric proteins a green‐fluorescent protein is reconstituted. The gene fusions were transiently co‐expressed in N. benthamiana leaves to assess a potential interaction of the encoded proteins. TPL protein accumulation and size was confirmed by immunoblotting (Figure S2, VENUSN‐TPLs ~150 kDa, CFP3A C ‐SIX8 ~25 kDa, CFP3A C ‐SIX3 ~28 kDa). To label transformed cells an NLS‐2xRFP construct was co‐expressed resulting in red fluorescent nuclei (Figure 1a). Bright green‐fluorescent nuclei, indicative of protein–protein interactions, were primarily observed when SIX8 was co‐expressed with TPL1, TPL2 or TPL5 (Figure 1a). Of note, weak green fluorescence was observed in all samples. This is likely caused by protein crowding in the nucleus leading to self‐association of GFP protein halves (Tunc‐Ozdemir et al., 2016). Therefore, we quantified the intensity of the GFP signal in transformed cells as a proxy for interaction strength of the two proteins (Figure 1b). In both replicates the GFP intensity in VENUS N ‐TPL1 expressing nuclei was found to be significantly higher in the CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX8 samples than in CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX3 controls, suggesting a SIX8‐TPL1 interaction. For VENUS N ‐TPL3 and VENUS N ‐TPL4 the green fluorescence was identical or lower than that of the negative control, implying that SIX8 does not interact with TPL3 or ‐4. For both VENUS N ‐TPL2 and VENUS N ‐TPL5 a signal higher than the negative control was only observed in one replicate, which identifies these as plausible targets of SIX8. Together, the BiFC experiments indicate that SIX8 localizes to the plant nucleus where it interacts with TPL1, TPL2 and TPL5, but not TPL3 and TPL4.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

SIX8 interacts with TPL1 and TPL2. (a) BiFC assay in transiently transformed N. benthamiana leaves. Co‐agroinfiltration was performed with (i) NLS‐2xRFP fusion as a fluorescent nuclear marker and (ii) five TPL family members from tomato (TPL1 to TPL5) N‐terminally fused to VENUS N in combination with (iii) either CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX8 or CFP3A C ‐ΔspSIX3 as a negative control. White arrows exemplify transformed nuclei (RFP) with a positive BiFC signal (GFP). (b) Quantification of the levels of green fluorescence in the nuclei following BiFC. The figure depicts two independent replicates. Significance tested by Kruskal–Wallis tests: **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001, ****P ≤ 0.0001. (c) Yeast two‐hybrid assays of tomato TPL1 to TPL5 with either Fol SIX8 or an empty vector (ev) control. Bottom panel: same as (b) but bait (‐BD) and prey (‐AD) are switched.

To further investigate the specificity and to test for a direct interaction between SIX8 and TPL1 to TPL5, GAL4‐based yeast two‐hybrid (Y2H) assays were performed. All genes were tested in both prey (pDEST22 or ‐AD) and bait (pDEST32 or ‐BD) vectors and interactions were scored by assessing yeast growth on selective plates (‐WLH or ‐WLA). SIX8 was found to specifically interact with TPL1 and TPL2 and not with the other TPLs. Irrespective of whether TPL1 and TPL2 were expressed as bait or prey, yeast growth was observed on selective ‐WLH plates in the presence of SIX8 (Figure 1c). When provided as bait, both TPLs also complemented growth on the more stringent ‐WLA selection, suggesting a strong and specific interaction between SIX8 and TPL1 and ‐2. Of note, BD‐TPL2 in combination with the ev (pDEST22) showed some growth on ‐WLH selection, indicating a weak auto‐activity of TPL2. No growth was observed for other TPLs or the empty vector (ev) controls. Protein accumulation and size were confirmed by immunoblotting (Figure S3) (AD‐TPLs ~140 kDa). In conclusion, together the BiFC and Y2H data imply a specific, direct and nuclear‐localized interaction between SIX8 with TPL1 and TPL2.

TOPLESS loss‐of‐function mutants confer resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, but do not affect susceptibility to Verticillium dahliae or Pseudomonas syringae

To examine the role of TPL1 and TPL2 in susceptibility of tomato towards Fol, targeted knockouts were generated in the susceptible variety Motelle using CRISPR‐Cas9‐mediated gene editing (Cermak et al., 2017; Figure 2). Stable transgenic lines were generated co‐expressing the CAS9 gene and four guideRNAs (gRNAs); two gRNAs per TPL gene. To ensure functional disruption of the gene product, the region encoding the C‐terminal CT11 RanBPM (CRA) domain was targeted. Small indels were observed in the targeted TPLs showing that one of the two gRNAs per TPL gene was working. Out of 67 lines analysed, one tpl1, two tpl2's and three tpl1;tpl2 double mutants were identified (Table S2). In our greenhouse growth and development of the tpl single and double mutants was like that of the progenitor line. No apparent phenotypic differences were observed between the single tpl1 and tpl2 mutants and wildtype plants. However the flowers of the tpl1;tpl2 double mutant were slightly larger than those of the progenitor (Figure S4). Furthermore, although fruit number and yield of the Motelle variety was similar as that of the tpl1;tpl2 mutants the latter produced less seeds. Wildtype plants produced ~27.15 seeds per fruit, while both double mutants tpl1‐2;tpl2‐2 and tpl1‐2;tpl2‐3 produced, respectively, ~4.74 and 3.06 seeds per fruit (Figures S5 and S6).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Mutant alleles of tomato TPL1 and TPL2 generated by CRISPR‐Cas9‐mediated gene editing. Two gene‐edited alleles of TPL1 were generated by targeting the 6th exon with a gRNA. The TPL protein domains are indicated in the depicted protein model (not to scale): LisH (Lissencephaly type‐1‐like homology motif), CTLH (C‐terminal LisH domain) and two WD40 repeat regions. Four gene‐edited alleles of TPL2 were generated by targeting the 5th exon. The functional gRNA sequences are highlighted in bold. The PAM sequence is underlined, the predicted cleavage site is indicated with a black arrow. Gene edits are indicated by a dash for each deleted nucleotide or a red letter for an inserted nucleotide.

To assess disease susceptibility, the TOPLESS mutants were inoculated with F. oxysporum race 3 isolate Fol029. The susceptible progenitor (Motelle) and a resistant variety (E779) carrying the I‐3 resistance gene were included as controls (Rep et al., 2005). Seedlings were inoculated with Fol029 or mock‐treated, and disease symptoms and plant weight were scored 3 weeks post‐inoculation. As expected, wildtype Motelle plants challenged with Fol029 showed severe wilt disease symptoms, including stunting, yellowing of the leaves and wilting, while the resistant E779 variety remained healthy (Figure 3a). Disease index (DI) and plant weight of the tpl2‐1 and tpl2‐2 single mutants inoculated with Fol029 were indistinguishable from those of the susceptible wildtype controls (Figure 3b,c). The biomass of the tpl1‐1 single knockout, however, was significantly increased implying a reduced susceptibility, although the DI was like that of the susceptible control. The tpl1‐1;tpl2‐4 double mutant showed a DI and fresh weight similar to the tpl1‐1 single mutant, indicating that the tpl2‐4 mutant allele (−3 bp; TPL2ΔP215) is not a loss‐of‐function mutation. Notably, compared with the susceptible controls the Fol029‐inoculated tpl1‐2;tpl2‐2 and tpl1‐2;tpl2‐3 double mutants displayed both increased weight and a strong reduction in DI (Figure 3b,c). Resistance of these tpl1/tpl2 double mutants was indistinguishable to that of the E779 resistant control showing that these tpl's are genuine S genes. Taken together, a loss‐of‐function mutation in TPL1 suffices to reduce susceptibility to Fol029, but near complete resistance was obtained when tpl1 and tpl2 mutants were combined.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Gene‐edited tomato tpl mutants are less susceptible to Fusarium oxysporum. (a) Photographs of tomato plants inoculated with Fol029 or sterile water (Mock), 21 days post‐inoculation. (b) Disease index scores based on plant size and vascular browning. (c) Tukey boxplots (min–max) of plant fresh weight above the cotyledon, individual data points are indicated by black dots. Significance tested by ANOVA followed by t‐tests with Dunnett's multiple testing correction: n.s., non‐significant, *P ≤ 0.05, ****P ≤ 0.0001. The assay was repeated four times with similar results.

To assess whether susceptibility to another vascular fungal pathogen was altered in the tpl lines, disease assays were performed using Verticillium dahliae. Ten‐day‐old seedlings were root‐dip inoculated with either mock or spores of V. dahliae (Dvd‐S26). Disease progression was scored at 14 days post‐inoculation by measuring the canopy area. In general, Dvd‐S26 inoculated plants had a smaller canopy than the mock controls (Figure S7). Although among the three repetitions differences in canopy areas were occasionally observed for some tpl lines, for example, for tpl2‐1, these differences were not consistent over the replicates. Also because a reduction of canopy area was not observed in the other tpl2 (tpl2‐2) mutant, we conclude that TPL1 and/or TPL2 do not affect susceptibility to V. dahliae.

Earlier, it was reported that A. thaliana, tpl;tpr1 and tpl;tpr1;tpr4 triple mutants are more susceptible towards infection with P. syringae strain DC3000 (Zhu et al., 2010). To test whether loss‐of‐function mutations in tomato TPL1 and TPL2 affect susceptibility to P. syringae DC3000, disease assays were performed. In vitro grown tomato seedlings were submerged in a bacterial inoculum (OD600 = 0.005) and cultivated for 4 days (Hassan et al., 2020). Host colonization was quantified by determining bacterial titres in the infected cotyledons (Figure S8). No significant differences between the wildtype cultivar and the tpl mutants were found, showing that tpl1 and tpl2 are not involved in susceptibility to P. syringae DC3000 in tomato.

tpl‐mediated resistance to F. oxysporum is root‐based and graft‐transmissible

Greenhouse‐grown tomatoes are commonly grafted on resistant rootstocks to protect the elite scion against infection with F. oxysporum or other pathogens (Thies, 2021). To determine whether tpl1;tpl2‐ rootstocks can protect a susceptible scion, wildtype (cv. Motelle) scions were grafted onto tpl1‐2;tpl2‐2 and tpl1‐2;tpl2‐3 rootstocks (scion|rootstock) (Figure 4a). Subsequently, the chimeric plants were either mock‐ or Fol029‐inoculated, and fresh weight and DI were scored. The fresh weight of mock‐inoculated wildtype|wildtype grafts was identical of that of mock‐inoculated wildtype|tpl1;tpl2 plants. As expected Fol029‐inoculated wildtype|wildtype grafts showed severe disease symptoms, resulting in a disease index score of 4 (Figure 4b). In contrast, Fol029‐inoculated plants carrying a tpl1;tpl2 mutant rootstock were more vigorous and exhibited fewer F. oxysporum‐related disease symptoms than those on wildtype rootstocks. Actually, fresh weight of the former was similar to that of mock‐treated chimeras (Figure 4c) even though brown vessels were frequently observed. Brown vessels suggest the presence of the pathogen in the vessels. The presence of Fol029 in the vasculature was assessed by placing stem pieces on Potato Dextrose Agar plates. Whereas all stem pieces taken at the 2nd true leaf height of wildtype|wildtype plants showed fungal outgrowth, wildtype|tpl1;tpl2 grafted chimeras showed significant less colonization (Figure S9). These data show that tpl1;tpl2 confers systemic root‐based resistance to F. oxysporum protecting a susceptible scion against disease development. The resistance of the grafted chimera is identical to that of the tpl1;tpl2 double mutants.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Grafting susceptible tomato scions on tpl1;tpl2 rootstocks confers resistance to Fusarium oxysporum. Wildtype scions (cv. Motelle) were placed on rootstocks of Motelle, tpl1‐2;tpl2‐2 or the tpl1‐2;tpl2‐3 double mutant. Plants were either mock‐inoculated (sterile water) or inoculated with Fol029, using the root‐dip method. (a) Representative pictures of plants 3 weeks post‐inoculation. (b) Bar graph showing disease index of the (grafted) genotypes (scion|rootstock). Significant differences were determined using a Kruskal–Wallis rank test by comparison to wildtype (cv. Motelle). (c) Tukey boxplots (min–max) of plant fresh weight above the cotyledons, all data points are indicated by black dots. Significance tested by ANOVA followed by t‐tests with Dunnett's multiple testing correction: Significance is indicated: n.s., non‐significant, ****P ≤ 0.0001. This assay was replicated three times, with similar outcomes.

TOPLESS loss‐of‐function mutants confer resistance against F. oxysporum isolate Fo5176 in Arabidopsis thaliana

Considering the omnipresence of TPLs in land plants, and the conservation of SIX8 in the F. oxysporum species complex (Table S1), we hypothesized that TPL homologues may also act as F. oxysporum susceptibility genes in another plant species. F. oxysporum strain Fo5176 (Foa) causes wilt disease in A. thaliana, and a SIX8 knockout is compromised in virulence (Ayukawa et al., 2021). To test whether the five Arabidopsis TPLs: AtTPL and the four TOPLESS‐related (TPR) gene products, interact with SIX8Foa Y2H assays were performed. Correct size and accumulation of the chimeric proteins was confirmed by immunoblotting (Figure S10) (Tagged‐TPL/TPRs ~130–140 kDa). Yeast growth on ‐WLH plates was observed when TPL, TPR1 and TPR2 were combined with SIX8Foa (Figure 5a). Some growth was observed for the empty vector control for TPR2 indicating weak auto‐activity of the pDEST32‐TPR2 construct. No growth was observed for TPR2 on more stringent ‐WLA selection, while TPL and TPR1 retained their ability to grow suggesting a specific interaction of the latter proteins with SIX8Foa. To determine the interaction site of SIX8Foa with TPR1, the protein was separated into its three functional domains: a N‐terminal TOPLESS (TPD) domain and the two WD40‐repeat regions (WD40‐1 and WD40‐2) (Figure 5b). Full‐length TPR1 and the three fragments, each compromising one of the three domains, were tested in a Y2H assay (Figure 5c). The correct size and accumulation of the chimeric proteins was confirmed by immunoblotting (Figure S10). Yeast growth was observed when SIX8Foa was combined with full‐length TPR1 and with the first WD40 repeat domain (WD40‐1) on both ‐WLH and ‐WLA plates suggesting a strong interaction (Figure 5c). These data show that SIX8Foa interacts specifically with the first WD40 domain of TPR1.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

SIX8 from Fo5176 interacts with the WD40‐1 repeat of Arabidopsis TPR1. (a) Yeast two‐hybrid assays of TPL and TPR1‐T4 from A. thaliana with Foa SIX8 or an empty vector (ev) control. (b) Schematic drawing of the domain structure of TPR1, with an N‐terminal TOPLESS (TPD) domain, consisting of Lissencephaly Homologue (LisH) domain, a C‐terminal to LisH (CTLH) domain and CT11‐RanBPM (CRA) domain. Towards the C‐terminus of the protein the two WD40 repeat domains (WD40‐1 and WD40‐2) are depicted. Numbers indicate amino acid position. (c) Yeast two‐hybrid assays of individual TPR1 protein domain fragments with Foa SIX8 or an empty vector (ev) control. Yeast containing bait and prey plasmid grows on selective medium lacking ‐WL. Growth on ‐H or ‐A is indicative for an interaction between bait and prey proteins.

To test whether the SIX8‐interacting TPL/TPRs also contribute to disease susceptibility in Arabidopsis Col‐0, single tpl and tpr1 mutants and the tpl;tpr1 double were inoculated with F. oxysporum isolate Fo5176. The relative resistant progenitor Col‐0 and the hypersusceptible accession Ty‐0 were included as controls (Diener and Ausubel, 2005). Following Fo5176 inoculation Ty‐0 plants developed strong disease symptoms such as vascular chlorosis, growth retardation and tissue collapse (Figure 6a). Around 60% of the inoculated Ty‐0 plants had a maximum DI score of 5 (Figure 6b). Col‐0 plants showed less disease symptoms; only 20% had a DI of 5 and over half showed a DI ≧ 1. The DI of the Fo5176 inoculated tpl single mutant was like that of the Col‐0 control, however, plant weight was significantly higher indicating reduced susceptibility (Figure 6c). Also, the DI of the inoculated tpr1 single mutant was indistinguishable from Col‐0, while its biomass was significantly increased as compared to Col‐0. The DI of the inoculated tpl;tpr1 double mutant, however, was significantly decreased; 70% of the plants showed no visible disease symptoms while the others had a score of 1. The fresh weight of the inoculated tpl;tpr1 mutants was indistinguishable to that of the mock controls indicating an additive effect of the TOPLESS alleles on resistance. Interestingly, mock‐treated tpl;tpr1 plants showed an increase in biomass as compared to Col‐0, indicating increased growth at 28 °C. This growth increase remained upon inoculation with Fo5176, resulting in an even larger increase in weight. Together these data show that tpl and tpr1 reduce susceptibility towards Fo5176. The tpl allele contributes most strongly to resistance to Fo5176, but a combination of tpl;tpr1 alleles confers an even higher reduction in susceptibility.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Arabidopsis tpl mutants are less susceptible to Fusarium oxysporum Fo5176. (a) Representative photographs of Arabidopsis seedlings inoculated with Fo5176 or water (Mock), 14 days post‐inoculation. The elevated ambient temperature required for consistent infection resulted in etiolated plants. (b) Disease index scores based on plant size and leaf/vein chlorosis. (c) Tukey boxplots (min–max) of plant fresh weight, individual data points are indicated by black dots. Significance tested by ANOVA followed by t‐tests with Dunnett's multiple testing correction: n.s., non‐significant, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001, ****P ≤ 0.0001. The assay was repeated four times with similar outcomes. DI was scored in all replicates while plant weight was recorded in two of the four replicates.

Discussion

We report identification of an S gene against Fusarium wilt: the transcriptional co‐repressor TOPLESS and show that null mutants confer resistance in two different plant species. A tomato tpl1 null mutation confers a modest level of disease protection, reflected by increased plant weight upon Fol infection. Whereas tpl2 alone did not affect susceptibility to Fusarium, near full resistance was observed when combined with tpl1. Likewise, Arabidopsis single tpl and tpr1 null mutants exerted mildly reduced disease susceptibility to Fo5176 while strongly reduced DI and increased plant weight was observed for the tpl;tpr1 double mutant. Grafting experiments revealed that tpl1;tpl2‐mediated resistance is root‐based, which corresponds with the infection process of the soil‐born root invading fungus (Figure 4).

Plant growth and development of the single and double mutants of the SIX8‐interacting TPLs—in both Arabidopsis and tomato—was like that of wildtype plants. The absence of an apparent major phenotype in plants in which two important transcriptional co‐regulators are compromised, was surprising and might be explained by functional redundancy conferred by non‐SIX8‐interacting TPLs. This would be reminiscent to the ElF4a and MLO S genes, where the pathogen relies on specific family members that are redundant for the host—but essential for pathogenesis. A loss‐of‐function mutation in the required allele compromises susceptibility without (severely) affecting host performance. TOPLESS genes encode transcriptional co‐repressors with important functions. These co‐repressors control gene expression involved in various cellular processes including plant development, hormonal pathways and (a)biotic stress responses (Causier et al., 2012; Liu and Karmarkar, 2008; Szemenyei et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2010). Transcriptional repression is essential to orchestrate tissue specific, and developmentally regulated gene expression patterns. To repress gene activity, TOPLESS proteins interact with other proteins to assemble repression complexes in the nucleus. Known interactors include mediator proteins (MED21, MED10), hundreds of different transcription factors (TFs) and histone modifiers such as histone deacetylases (HDA19) (Causier et al., 2012; Krogan et al., 2012; Leydon et al., 2021). Besides interacting with different partners, TPLs also differ among each other in their expression levels and ‐patterns (Figure S1). Although not all TPLs are expressed in all plant organs, typically multiple members are expressed in a given tissue. In tomato, TPL1 is highly expressed in roots, leaves, flowers and young fruits (Figure S1). The lack of an apparent phenotype in the tpl1 knockout—and the modest phenotype of the tpl1/tpl2 mutant—implies that the other TPLs expressed in these tissues take over its function.

Functional inactivation of S genes frequently results in pleiotropic phenotypes (van Schie and Takken, 2014). Arabidopsis tpl;tpr1 mutants were reported to be hypersusceptible to Pseudomonas syringae DC3000 and to avirulent isolates carrying AvrRps4, but not AvrRpt2 (Zhu et al., 2010). This contrasts our findings in tomato, susceptibility to this bacterium was unaffected in both the single and the double tpl1/tpl2 mutants. Likewise, susceptibility to V. dahliae was unaltered in the mutants implying that tpl‐mediated resistance in tomato might be Fusarium wilt specific. A mild developmental defect on seed production and flower size was observed, but only when multiple TPL genes were mutated (Figures S2–S4). Scions grafted on tpl1;tpl2 rootstocks developed normal and did not display this phenotype, showing that resistance can be uncoupled from this potential trade‐off. For breeding purposes, a single tpl1 mutant might suffice, as it confers a modest level of resistance to Fusarium wilt without any apparent phenotype. When grown at elevated temperatures (30/35 °C) silencing of TPL1 in tomato was reported to increase fruit production by inducing facultative parthenocarpy (He et al., 2021). To assess the usefulness of the Fusarium S gene in agri‐ or horticulture, a detailed investigation of the responses of the single and double TOPLESS mutants exposed to various (a)biotic stresses is recommended.

The mechanism by which SIX8 manipulates TPLs to benefit the fungus is unknown. For the virulence function, we deem it unlikely that SIX8 (fully) compromises TPL activity, as it would phenocopy the tpl1;tpl2 knockout resulting in increased resistance. Since a tpl2 mutant is still fully susceptible and manipulation of tomato TPL1 by SIX8 suffices to cause disease, the effect must be dominant, also as it would otherwise be masked by other TPLs. Therefore, we hypothesize that SIX8 specifically enhances TPL‐mediated repression of specific target gene(s) that are disadvantageous for fungal proliferation. To identify such genes flower dip transformation of Arabidopsis was done with a CaMV35S promotor‐driven SIX8 Fol construct. This resulted in low numbers of transformants, which showed dwarfism and developmental defects. The autoimmune phenotype suggests that the effector might be recognized in Col‐0 preventing functional analyses of its virulence function and identification of the target genes of the SIX8‐TPL protein complex. Interestingly, besides F. oxysporum, various other phytopathogenic fungi, bacteria and oomycetes carry effectors that target TPLs, highlighting their involvement in susceptibility. MLP124017 from the rust fungus Melampsora larici‐populina interacts with TOPLESS‐related 4 (TPR4) from poplar (Petre et al., 2015). HaRXL21, from the oomycete Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis interacts with TPL1 and TPR1 from Arabidopsis and affects expression of TPR1‐repressed genes (Harvey et al., 2020). Rhizogenic Agrobacterium contains RolB, an effector that targets TPL1, ‐2 and ‐4 in tomato, that plays a major role in the hairy root development. Interestingly, RolB contains two LxLxL Ethylene‐responsive element binding factor‐associated amphiphilic repression (EAR) motifs, that are required for binding the TPLs and for its the virulence function. Ustilago maydis contains multiple TPL‐binding effectors, Naked1 (Nkd1) binds TPL1, TPL3 and TPL4 from Zea mays, and Nkd1‐expression in Arabidopsis de‐repressed auxin‐ and jasmonate signalling (Navarrete et al., 2022). Moreover, U. maydis contains a cluster of six additional TOPLESS interacting proteins (Tips) that induce genes involved in the auxin pathway (Bindics et al., 2022). Tip1 to ‐4 bind the TPD region of different maize TPLs. Binding is dependent on the LxLxL EAR motif that is present in many TPR‐interacting transcription factors (TFs). Finally, Jsi1 from U. maydis interacts, through an DLNxxP‐type EAR motif with the C‐terminal WD40 domain of ZmTPL1 (Darino et al., 2020). This motif is important for TPL‐binding proteins, such as VRN5, to bind to WD40 domains (Collins et al., 2019). Interestingly, we did not detect any known TPL‐binding motif, including an EAR motif in SIX8, while the effector binds to the first WD40 domain of TPR1. The peptide motif or protein interaction surface involved in this binding remains to be elucidated. Moreover, heterologous Jsi1 expression in Arabidopsis and Z. mays triggers the transcriptional induction of the ethylene response factor (ERF) branch of the jasmonate/ethylene signalling pathway. In tomato jasmonate appears not to be involved in Fol susceptibility, whereas ethylene has an important contribution identifying this signalling pathway as a potential target for SIX8 (Di et al., 2017b). The role of these hormones in susceptibility to F. oxysporum differs between plant species (Di et al., 2016).

TOPLESS orthologs are conserved among land plants, including Picocystis spp, Chlorophyta‐ and Streptophyta species that diverged over 1 billion years ago (Plant et al., 2021). It is tempting to speculate that tpl‐mediated resistance is translatable to other crops. Many of the genomes of F. oxysporum isolates that infect crops such as cabbage, lettuce, tulip, melon, spinach and banana carry SIX8 genes (Table S1). A knockout of SIX8 in the banana infecting F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4 (TR4) (also known as F. odoratissimum) strongly compromises fungal virulence (Dita et al., 2018; García‐Bastidas et al., 2020). If the mode of action of TR4 SIX8 resembles that of Fol SIX8, a knockout of banana SIX8‐interacting TPLs might also confer protection against this disease.

Experimental procedures

Arabidopsis plant materials and growth conditions

Loss‐of‐function Arabidopsis mutants for TPL (tpl‐2; SALK_097230; referred to as tpl) were obtained from the NASC collection. The TPR1 (tpr1‐1 [mos10]; referred to as tpr1) mutant was obtained from Zhu et al. (2010). The tpl;tpr1 double mutant was generated by crossing tpl and tpr1 single mutants and selecting homozygotes in the F2.

Plasmid construction

The TPL1‐5 genes and SIX6 and SIX8 genes, without encoding signal peptides, were PCR‐amplified from cDNA of Fol007‐infected tomato roots (cv. GCR161) (De La Fuente et al., 2005) using high‐fidelity Phusion (ThermoFisher) and sequence verified by Sanger sequencing (primers used are listed in Table S4). The gene fragments encoding SIX620–225 and SIX818–141 are referred to as ΔspSIX6 and ΔspSIX8, respectively. The PCR fragments carrying ΔspSIX8‐HASBP and ΔspSIX6‐HASBP were ligated into the XbaI and BamHI sites of pSLDB3104 (Tameling et al., 2010; Table S3). For SIX3 the entry vector pENTR207::SIX3 was used (Houterman et al., 2009). The ΔspSIX8 gene fragment was equipped with attB1 and attB2 gateway‐recombineering sites by PCR using primers FP872 and FP873. Thereafter, ΔspSIX8 was recombined into pDONR207using BP clonase II (ThermoFisher), resulting in pENTR207::ΔspSIX8.

TPL, TPR1 and TPR3 were amplified from plasmids kindly provided by Causier et al. (2012) (Table S3). TPR2, TPR4 and SIX8 were PCR amplified from cDNA isolated from Fo5176 infected Arabidopsis (Col‐0). TPR1 fragments for Y2H analyses of were generated by PCR. All gene (fragments) were equipped with attB1 and attB2 sites by PCR using primers FP872 and FP873 and subsequently recombined into pDONR207 and/or pDONR221.

To fuse ΔspSIX8 and ΔspSIX3 to the C‐terminal half of CFP3AC and the TPLs to the N‐terminus of VenusN, a Gateway‐compatible vector set was used (Gehl et al., 2009). BiFC destination vectors were obtained by performing LR clonase II reactions between pENTR207::TPL1‐5 and pDEST‐VYNE(R)GW and between pENTR207::ΔspSIX8, pENTR207::ΔspSIX3 and pDEST‐SCYCE(R)GW. The pGWB454::NLS‐2xRFP (NLS‐2xRFP) construct was described previously (Cao et al., 2018).

The GAL4 yeast two‐hybrid vectors were generated by transferring TPLs sequences and ΔspSIX8 sequence from their respective entry vectors to pDEST22 and pDEST32 or pDEST32_amp using LR clonase II (ThermoFisher). pDEST32_amp was generated by replacing the gentamicin resistance cassette for the ampicillin resistance cassette of pDEST22 following LguI digestion resulting in pDEST32_amp, to facilitate bacterial selection (Table S3).

Transient expression and protein pull‐down of SIX8‐HASBP from N. benthamiana leaves

Nicotiana benthamiana plants were cultivated in a greenhouse (21 °C, 60% RH, 16/8 h day/night). Transient transformation was performed using A. tumefaciens GV3101 resuspended at an OD600 of 1.0 (Ma et al., 2012). A. tumefaciens‐infiltrated leaves were sampled at 24–48 hpi and frozen at −80 °C. 6 g of the frozen leaves was ground in liquid N2 using a mortar and pestle and thawn in 12 mL extraction buffer (25 mm Tris–HCl pH 8.0, 150 mm NaCl, 1 mm EDTA, 5 mm DTT, 1× Complete protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche), 2% w/v PVPP, and 0.1% v/v NP‐40). Cell debris was removed by pelleting at 17 000 g (30 min, 4 °C). The supernatant was filtered over Miracloth and 400 μL streptavidin (SA‐) Sepharose slurry was added to allow protein binding for 1 h at 4 °C on a rotating wheel. The beads were washed 10× in 500 μL washing buffer IPP150 (10 mm Tris–HCl pH 8.0, 150 mm NaCl, and 0.1% v/v NP‐40). Bound proteins were eluted by incubating the beads twice in 100 μL elution buffer (IPP150 with 4 mm biotin), digested with Trypsin gold (2 μg, 18 h) (Promega) and analysed by LC–MS/MS analysis (Heilmann et al., 2011). Protein identification was performed by using the MASCOT search engine using a N. benthamiana peptide database (NbDE) (Kourelis et al., 2019), supplemented with the peptide sequences of the tagged effectors.

Yeast two‐hybrid assays

The yeast strain PJ69‐4a (James et al., 1996) was grown on non‐selective rich YPDA medium or on minimal medium (MM) supplemented with 20 mg/L L‐histidine HCL monohydrate (H), 100 mg/L L‐leucine (L), 20 mg/L L‐tryptophan (W), 20 mg/L adenine hemi sulphate (A), 30 mg/L lysine‐HCl (K), 20 mg/L methionine (M), and 20 mg/L uracil (U) (Gietz and Woods, 2002). For the selection of auxotrophic growth, one or more amino acids were omitted from the MM medium. Yeast transformation was performed by lithium acetate and polyethylene glycol 3350 methods (Gietz and Woods, 2002). To select for presence of bait and prey plasmids, transformed cells were grown for 4 to 5 days on MM–WL at 30 °C. 5 μL of resuspended cells were spotted on MM–WL, MM–WLH and MM–WLA plates to assess protein–protein interactions. Plates were imaged after 3 days of incubation at 30 °C.

Protein accumulation of TPLs and SIX8 fused to ‐AD or ‐BD was assessed by Western blot analysis. Proteins were extracted using the Urea/SDS method from the Clontech Yeast Protocols Handbook (https://www.takarabio.com). To detect fusions proteins, anti‐AD and anti‐BD monoclonal antibodies (Clontech 630402, Clontech 630403) were used, at a 1 : 2000 and 1 : 2500 dilution, respectively. In both cases, a secondary goat‐anti‐mouse antibody (Pierce 31430) was used in a 1 : 5000 dilution. Upon addition of commercial ECL solution (Amersham RPN22323), chemiluminescent signal was detected on light‐sensitive X‐ray film (Fuji RX) or on a Chemidoc MP imaging system.

Bi‐molecular fluorescence complementation assay

Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101 was transformed with pDEST‐VYNE(R) GW ::TPL1 to ‐TPL5, pDEST‐SCYCE(R) GW ::SIX3 or ‐SIX8 and pGWB454::NLS‐mCherry. Equal amounts of A. tumefaciens transformed with (1) pDEST‐VYNE(R)GW containing a specific TOPLESS homologue, (2) pDEST‐SCYCE(R)GW containing either SIX3 or SIX8 and (3) pGWB454::NLS‐mCherry were mixed to an OD600 of 1.0 and infiltrated in the same leaf. Leaves were harvested at 24 hpi for fluorescence imaging of epidermal cells (LSM510, Zeiss, 40×/1.2 and 20×/0.75 objectives). The fluorophores were excited at 488 nm (GFP) or 543 nm (RFP) and emission was detected using a band‐pass filter (505–530 nm or 585–615 nm, respectively). The GFP intensity of the resulting images was analysed using an ImageJ script (Data S2). The data were log10 normalized before statistical analysis. Accumulation of the c‐myc‐tagged TPLs and HA‐tagged SIX8 and SIX3 effectors was assessed by immunoblotting. Proteins were extracted from four leaf discs (4 mm) as described (Cao et al., 2018). To detect the fusions proteins, anti c‐myc (α‐myc, 9E10, Roche 11667149001, 1 : 1000 dilution) and anti‐HA monoclonal antibodies (α‐HA 3F10, Roche 11867423001, 1 : 2000 dilution) were used. In both cases, a secondary goat‐anti‐mouse antibody (Pierce 31430) was used in a 1 : 5000 dilution. Chemiluminescence was detected using a Chemidoc MP imaging system.

Gene editing of TPL1 and TPL2 in tomato

For CRISPR‐Cas9‐mediated gene editing a GoldenGate‐compatible cloning kit was used (Cermak et al., 2017). Four gRNAs were designed using CRISPR‐P, two gRNAs per TPL gene (Table S5). These gRNAs were assembled in a polycistronic CmYLCV Pro ::(gRNA:Csy4)4 cassette using GoldenGate‐mediated directional cloning with SapI in pDIRECT22C (Addgene 91135) according to protocol 3. The resulting vector pDIRECT22C_T4G was transformed into A. tumefaciens strain EHA105 and used for transformation of tomato cotyledons and regenerative in vitro culturing of explants on callus‐inducing media as described (Cortina and Culiañez‐Macia, 2004). Kanamycin‐resistant tomato plantlets were genotyped for the presence of the transgene and for TPL1 and TPL2 gene edits using primers FP8839/FP8840 and FP8841/FP8842, respectively (Table S4). T1 plants were screened for absence of the T‐DNA construct and for homozygous gene edits in ±300–400 bp fragments spanning the gRNA target sequences. The raw sequence reads (.abi files) were analysed using the ICE Synthego webtool to reveal edits (Hsiau et al., 2018). Out of 67 T0 plants analysed, eight plants (15%) were edited only in tpl1, 27 plants (51%) were edited only in tpl2 and 5 plants were edited in both (7%). For this study, two knockout alleles for TPL1 (a −10 bp [tpl1‐1] and −2 bp deletion [tpl1‐2]) were used, while for TPL2 four independent alleles were selected (a −5 bp (tpl2‐1), −2 bp (tpl2‐2), −1 bp (tpl2‐3), −3 bp deletion (tpl2‐4) (Figure 2). Three different tpl1;tpl2 double mutants were identified carrying small indels in both genes (tpl1‐1;tpl2‐4, tpl1‐2;tpl2‐2 and tpl1‐2;tpl2‐3).

Phenotypic analysis of tpl tomatoes

Four tomato plants of each tpl mutant line and cv. Motelle were grown in a greenhouse for 20 weeks (25/23 °C, 16/8 h day/night). Plants were photographed every week to monitor their development. Ripe tomatoes were harvested weekly, and fruit and seed yield were assessed by weighing.

Tomato seedling grafting

Tomato seedlings were grown for 16 days in a greenhouse (25/23 °C, 16/8 h day/night) after which they were grafted using Grafting Cassettes™ (GRA&GREEN Inc). In short, seedlings were cut below the cotyledons and the scions were placed on the rootstocks of two tpl double mutants (tpl1‐2,tpl2‐2 or tpl1‐2,tpl2‐3) (Figure 1). To facilitate recovery, the grafted seedlings were placed inside a plastic propagator to attain high humidity (>90%) for 12 days. During the first week, the propagators were covered with paper to reduce evaporation, after 9 days the vents were opened to equilibrate the humidity to ambient levels (50%–70% RH).

Tomato and Arabidopsis disease assays

Ten‐day‐old greenhouse‐grown tomato seedlings (25 °C, 16/8 h light/dark cycle) were uprooted and inoculated with Fusarium by the root‐dip method by placing them for 5 min in a Fol029 spore suspension (Rep et al., 2005). The concentrations used were either 1 × 107 spores/mL or 1 × 106 spores/mL for grafted plants, as described (Gawehns et al., 2014; Rep et al., 2004). 3 weeks post‐inoculation, disease symptoms were scored (Rep et al., 2004). V. dahliae disease assays were performed on ten‐day‐old tomato seedlings using the root‐dip inoculation method as described previously (Fradin et al., 2009). At 14dpi, all plants were photographed from the top, resulting images were analysed in ImageJ to measure the canopy area. P. syringae assays were performed with the DC3000 isolate as described (Hassan et al., 2020). In short, tomato plants were germinated on ½ MS agar plates and grown for 10 days. Thereafter, seedlings were submerged in a bacterial inoculum (OD600 0.005). 4 days after inoculation, single cotyledons were sampled, and surface sterilized for a bacterial count assay.

For the Arabidopsis Fusarium assays seedlings were grown in climate‐controlled chambers (20 °C, 11/13 h light/dark cycle, 70% relative humidity). 14‐day‐old seedlings were uprooted and placed for 5 min in a suspension of 1 × 106 Fo5176 spores/mL (Thatcher et al., 2009). Thereafter, seedlings were re‐potted and cultivated in a climate chamber at 28 °C to facilitate infection (11/13 h light/dark cycle, 80% relative humidity). Disease symptoms were scored 2 weeks after inoculation (Di et al., 2017a).

Funding

TA was supported by NWO (GSGT.2018.0001 to TA) and Dekker Chrysanten B.V., Deliflor Chrysanten B.V., Dümmen Orange B.V., ENZA zaden Benelux B.V., Rijk Zwaan Nederland B.V. and Royal van Zanten B.V. FG and FT were supported by the Centre for BioSystems Genomics, a Netherlands Genomics Initiative and FT obtained support from the NWO‐Earth and Life Sciences funded VICI Project No. 865.14.003. MR and MdS were supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW). The University of Amsterdam supported HvdB and HD. Manipulation of susceptibility to achieve disease resistance (NWO‐STW).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

TA generated the gene‐edited tomato lines and performed the grafting and all Fo, Pst and Vd disease assays. FG executed the pull‐down assay. MdS did BiFC and yeast two‐hybrid analysis. TA, FT and HvdB wrote the manuscript with input from the other co‐authors. HvdB, MR and FT supervised the research project.

Supporting information

Figure S1 Expression of TPL1 and TPL2 is relatively high in tomato root tissues.

Figure S2 Accumulation of the proteins TPL1 to TPL5, SIX8 and SIX3 in the BiFC analyses following transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves.

Figure S3 Accumulation of the tomato proteins TPL1 to TPL5 in the yeast two‐hybrid assays.

Figure S4 Tomato tpl1;tpl2 mutants have larger flowers.

Figure S5 Tomato fruits of tomato tpl mutants.

Figure S6 Fruit and seed yield of tomato tpl1, tpl2 and tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S7 Susceptibility to Verticillium dahliae isolate Dvd‐S26 is unaffected in tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S8 Susceptibility to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 is not altered in tomato tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S9 Susceptible tomato scions grafted on tpl1;tpl2 rootstocks show a reduction of vasculature colonization by Fol029.

Figure S10 Accumulation of Arabidopsis TPL and TPR1 to TPR4 in yeast two‐hybrid assays.

Table S1 F. oxysporum f. sp. containing SIX8 homologue(s) and their corresponding hosts.

Table S2 Genotypes of tomato tpl mutants used in this study.

Table S3 Plasmids used in this study.

Table S4 Primers used in this study.

Table S5 Guide RNAs used for gene‐editing tomato TPL1 and TPL2.

Data S1 Peptide hits of the SIX8‐pulldown in the NbDE proteome database.

Data S2 ImageJ script for BiFC analysis.

PBI-22-248-s001.zip (22.8MB, zip)

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Ludek Tikovsky and Harold Lemereis for taking care of our plants. We thank Twan Hofland for the help with the grafting assays; Clemens J. Heilmann for help with preparation of the MS samples; Daniel Voytas and Tomas Cermak for sharing the CRISPR‐Cas9 plasmid: pDIRECT_22C (Addgene #91135); George Kudla for sharing the BiFC plasmids and Lingxue Cao for her help during the BiFC experiments.

References

  1. Acevedo‐Garcia, J. , Kusch, S. and Panstruga, R. (2014) Magical mystery tour: MLO proteins in plant immunity and beyond. New Phytol. 204, 273–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayukawa, Y. , Asai, S. , Gan, P. , Tsushima, A. , Ichihashi, Y. , Shibata, A. , Komatsu, K. et al. (2021) A pair of effectors encoded on a conditionally dispensable chromosome of Fusarium oxysporum suppress host‐specific immunity. Commun. Biol. 4, 707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey‐Serres, J. , Parker, J.E. , Ainsworth, E.A. , Oldroyd, G.E.D. and Schroeder, J.I. (2019) Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 575, 109–118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bindics, J. , Khan, M. , Uhse, S. , Kogelmann, B. , Baggely, L. , Reumann, D. , Ingole, K.D. et al. (2022) Many ways to TOPLESS ‐ manipulation of plant auxin signalling by a cluster of fungal effectors. New Phytol. 236, 1455–1470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blekemolen, M.C. , Liu, Z. , Stegman, M. , Zipfel, C. , Shan, L. , Takken, F.L. (2023) The PTI‐supressing Avr2 effector from Fusarium oxysporum suppresses mono‐ubiquitination and plasma membrane dissociation of BIK1. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 24, 1273–1286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cao, L. , Blekemolen, M.C. , Tintor, N. , Cornelissen, B.J.C. and Takken, F.L.W. (2018) The Fusarium oxysporum Avr2‐Six5 effector pair alters plasmodesmatal exclusion selectivity to facilitate cell‐to‐cell movement of Avr2. Mol. Plant 11, 691–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Causier, B. , Ashworth, M. , Guo, W. and Davies, B. (2012) The TOPLESS interactome: a framework for gene repression in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 158, 423–438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cermak, T. , Curtin, S.J. , Gil‐Humanes, J. , Cegan, R. , Kono, T.J.Y. , Konecna, E. , Belanto, J.J. et al. (2017) A multipurpose toolkit to enable advanced genome engineering in plants. Plant Cell 29, 1196–1217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaloner, T.M. , Gurr, S.J. and Bebber, D.P. (2021) Plant pathogen infection risk tracks global crop yields under climate change. Nat. Climate Change 11, 710–715. [Google Scholar]
  10. Charron, C. , Nicolaï, M. , Gallois, J.L. , Robaglia, C. , Moury, B. , Palloix, A. and Caranta, C. (2008) Natural variation and functional analyses provide evidence for co‐evolution between plant eIF4E and potyviral VPg. Plant J. 54, 56–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins, J. , O'Grady, K. , Chen, S. and Gurley, W. (2019) The C‐terminal WD40 repeats on the TOPLESS co‐repressor function as a protein‐protein interaction surface. Plant Mol. Biol. 100, 47–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Constantin, M.E. , Fokkens, L. , De Sain, M. , Takken, F.L.W. and Rep, M. (2021) Number of candidate effector genes in accessory genomes differentiates pathogenic from endophytic Fusarium oxysporum strains. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 761740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cortina, C. and Culiañez‐Macia, F.A. (2004) Tomato transformation and transgenic plant production. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 76, 269–275. [Google Scholar]
  14. van Dam, P. , Fokkens, L. , Schmidt, S.M. , Linmans, J.H. , Kistler, H.C. , Ma, L.J. and Rep, M. (2016) Effector profiles distinguish formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum . Environ. Microbiol. 18, 4087–4102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dangl, J.L. , Horvath, D.M. and Staskawicz, B.J. (2013) Pivoting the plant immune system from dissection to deployment. Science 341, 746–751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Darino, M. , Chia, K.S. , Marques, J. , Aleksza, D. , Soto‐Jimenez, L.M. , Saado, I. , Uhse, S. et al. (2020) Ustilago maydis effector Jsi1 interacts with Topless corepressor, hijacking plant jasmonate/ethylene signaling. New Phytol. 229, 3393–3407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Di, X. , Takken, F.L.W. and Tintor, N. (2016) How phytohormones shape interactions between plants and the soil‐borne fungus Fusarium oxysporum . Front. Plant Sci. 7, 170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Di, X. , Cao, L. , Hughes, R.K. , Tintor, N. , Banfield, M.J. and Takken, F.L.W. (2017a) Structure‐function analysis of the Fusarium oxysporum Avr2 effector allows uncoupling of its immune‐suppressing activity from recognition. New Phytol. 216, 897–914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Di, X. , Gomila, J. and Takken, F.L. (2017b) Involvement of salicylic acid, ethylene and jasmonic acid signalling pathways in the susceptibility of tomato to Fusarium oxysporum . Mol. Plant Pathol. 18, 1024–1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Diener, A.C. and Ausubel, F.M. (2005) RESISTANCE TO FUSARIUM OXYSPORUM 1, a dominant Arabidopsis disease‐resistance gene, is not race specific. Genetics 171, 305–321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dita, M. , Barquero, M. , Heck, D. , Mizubuti, E.S.G. and Staver, C.P. (2018) Fusarium wilt of banana: current knowledge on epidemiology and research needs toward sustainable disease management. Front. Plant Sci. 19, 1468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. van der Does, H.C. , Fokkens, L. , Yang, A. , Schmidt, S.M. , Langereis, L. , Lukasiewicz, J.M. , Hughes, T.R. et al. (2016) Transcription factors encoded on core and accessory chromosomes of Fusarium oxysporum induce expression of effector genes. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Edel‐Hermann, V. and Lecomte, C. (2019) Current status of Fusarium oxysporum formae speciales and races. Phytopathology 109, 512–530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fradin, E.F. , Zhang, Z. , Ayala, J.C.J. , Castroverde, C.D.M. , Nazar, R.N. , Robb, J. , Liu, C.M. et al. (2009) Genetic dissection of verticillium wilt resistance mediated by tomato Ve1. Plant Physiol. 150, 320–332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Freisleben, R. and Lein, A. (1942) Über die Auffindung einer mehltauresistenten Mutante nach Röntgenbestrahlung einer anfälligen reinen Linie von Sommergerste. Naturwissenschaften 30, 608. [Google Scholar]
  26. García‐Bastidas, F.A. , Quintero‐Vargas, J.C. , Ayala‐Vasquez, M. , Schermer, T. , Seidl, M.F. , Santos‐Paiva, M. , Noguera, A.M. et al. (2020) First report of Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 in cavendish bananas caused by Fusarium odoratissimum in Colombia. Plant Dis. 104, 994. [Google Scholar]
  27. Garcia‐Ruiz, H. (2018) Susceptibility genes to plant viruses. Viruses 10, 484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia‐Ruiz, H. , Szurek, B. and Van den Ackerveken, G. (2021) Stop helping pathogens: engineering plant susceptibility genes for durable resistance. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 70, 187–195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gawehns, F. , Cornelissen, B.J.C. and Takken, F.L.W. (2013) The potential of effector‐target genes in breeding for plant innate immunity. J. Microbial. Biotechnol. 6, 223–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gawehns, F. , Houterman, P.M. , Ichou, F.A. , Michielse, C.B. , Hijdra, M. , Cornelissen, B.J.C. , Rep, M. et al. (2014) The Fusarium oxysporum effector Six6 contributes to virulence and suppresses I‐2‐mediated cell death. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 27, 336–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gehl, C. , Waadt, R. , Kudla, J. , Mendel, R.‐R. and Hänsch, R. (2009) New GATEWAY vectors for high throughput analyses of protein–protein interactions by bimolecular fluorescence complementation. Mol. Plant 2, 1051–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gietz, R.D. and Woods, R.A. (2002) Transformation of yeast by lithium acetate/single‐stranded carrier DNA/polyethylene glycol method. Methods Enzymol. 350, 87–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gordon, T.R. (2017) Fusarium oxysporum and the Fusarium wilt syndrome. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 23–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hao, Y. , Wang, X. , Li, X. , Bassa, C. , Mila, I. , Audran, C. , Maza, E. et al. (2014) Genome‐wide identification, phylogenetic analysis, expression profiling, and protein‐protein interaction properties of TOPLESS gene family members in tomato. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 1013–1023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Harvey, S. , Kumari, P. , Lapin, D. , Griebel, T. , Hickman, R. , Guo, W. , Zhang, R. et al. (2020) Downy Mildew effector HaRxL21 interacts with the transcriptional repressor TOPLESS to promote pathogen susceptibility. PLoS Path. 16, e1008835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hassan, J. , Chau‐Ly, I. and Lewis, J. (2020) High‐throughput identification of resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in tomato using seedling flood assay. J. Vis. Exp. 157, 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. He, M. , Song, S. , Zhu, X. , Lin, Y. , Pan, Z. , Chen, L. , Chen, D. et al. (2021) SlTPL1 silencing induces facultative parthenocarpy in tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Heilmann, C.J. , Sorgo, A.G. , Siliakus, A.R. , Dekker, H.L. , Brul, S. , de Koster, C.G. , de Koning, L.J. et al. (2011) Hyphal induction in the human fungal pathogen Candida albicans reveals a characteristic wall protein profile. Microbiology 157, 2297–2307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Houterman, P.M. , Ma, L. , Van Ooijen, G. , De Vroomen, M.J. , Cornelissen, B.J. , Takken, F.L. and Rep, M. (2009) The effector protein Avr2 of the xylem‐colonizing fungus Fusarium oxysporum activates the tomato resistance protein I‐2 intracellularly. Plant J. 58, 970–978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hsiau, T. , Maures, T. , Waite, K. , Yang, J. , Kelso, R. , Holden, K. and Stoner, R. (2018) Inference of CRISPR edits from Sanger trace data. BioRxiv . [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. James, P. , Halladay, J. and Craig, E.A. (1996) Genomic libraries and a host strain designed for highly efficient two‐hybrid selection in yeast. Genetics 144, 1425–1436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ke, J. , Ma, H. , Gu, X. , Thelen, A. , Brunzelle, J.S. , Li, J. , Xu, H.E. et al. (2015) Structural basis for recognition of diverse transcriptional repressors by the TOPLESS family of corepressors. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kourelis, J. and van der Hoorn, R.A.L. (2018) Defended to the nines: 25 years of resistance gene cloning identifies nine mechanisms for R protein function. Plant Cell 30, 285–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kourelis, J. , Kaschani, F. , Grosse‐Holz, F.M. , Homma, F. , Kaiser, M. and van der Hoorn, R.A. (2019) A homology‐guided, genome‐based proteome for improved proteomics in the alloploid Nicotiana benthamiana . BMC Genomics 20, 1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Krogan, N.T. , Hogan, K. and Long, J.A. (2012) APETALA2 negatively regulates multiple floral organ identity genes in Arabidopsis by recruiting the co‐repressor TOPLESS and the histone deacetylase HDA19. Development 139, 4180–4190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kusch, S. and Panstruga, R. (2017) mlo‐Based resistance: an apparently universal “Weapon” to defeat powdery mildew disease. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 30, 179–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. De La Fuente, D. , Bentem van, S. , Vossen, J.H. , de Vries, K.J. , van Wees, S. , Tameling, W.I.L. , Dekker, H.L. et al. (2005) Heat shock protein 90 and its co‐chaperone protein phosphatase 5 interact with distinct regions of the tomato I‐2 disease resistance protein. Plant J. 43, 284–298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Leydon, A.R. , Wang, W. , Gala, H.P. , Gilmour, S. , Juarez‐Solis, S. , Zahler, M.L. , Zemke, J.E. et al. (2021) Repression by the Arabidopsis TOPLESS corepressor requires association with the core MEDIATOR complex. Elife 10, e66739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu, Z. and Karmarkar, V. (2008) Groucho/Tup1 family co‐repressors in plant development. Trends Plant Sci. 13, 137–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Long, J.A. , Woody, S. , Poethig, S. , Meyerowitz, E.M. and Barton, K. (2002) Transformation of shoots into roots in Arabidopsis embryos mutant at the TOPLESS locus. Development 129, 2797–2806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ma, L. , Lukasik, E. , Gawehns, F. and Takken, F.L. (2012) The use of agroinfiltration for transient expression of plant resistance and fungal effector proteins in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. Methods Mol. Biol. 835, 61–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ma, L. , Cornelissen, B.J.C. and Takken, F.L.W. (2013) A nuclear localization for Avr2 from Fusarium oxysporum is required to activate the tomato resistance protein I‐2. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Navarrete, F. , Gallei, M. , Kornienko, A.E. , Saado, I. , Khan, M. , Chia, K.S. , Darino, M.A. et al. (2022) TOPLESS promotes plant immunity by repressing auxin signaling and is targeted by the fungal effector Naked1. Plant Commun. 3, 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Pavan, S. , Jacobsen, E. , Visser, R.G.F. and Bai, Y. (2010) Loss of susceptibility as a novel breeding strategy for durable and broad‐spectrum resistance. Mol. Breed. 25, 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Petre, B. , Saunders, D.G. , Sklenar, J. , Lorrain, C. , Win, J. , Duplessis, S. and Kamoun, S. (2015) Candidate effector proteins of the rust pathogen Melampsora larici‐populina target diverse plant cell compartments. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 28, 689–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Plant, A.R. , Larrieu, A. and Causier, B. (2021) Repressor for hire! The vital roles of TOPLESS‐mediated transcriptional repression in plants. New Phytol. 231, 963–973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Rep, M. , Van Der Does, H.C. , Meijer, M. , Van Wijk, R. , Houterman, P.M. , Dekker, H.L. , De Koster, C.G. et al. (2004) A small, cysteine‐rich protein secreted by Fusarium oxysporum during colonization of xylem vessels is required for I‐3‐mediated resistance in tomato. Mol. Microbiol. 53, 1373–1383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rep, M. , Meijer, M. , Houterman, P.M. , van der Does, H.C. and Cornelissen, B.J. (2005) Fusarium oxysporum evades I‐3‐mediated resistance without altering the matching avirulence gene. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 18, 15–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. van Schie, C.C.N. and Takken, F.L.W. (2014) Susceptibility genes 101: how to be a good host. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 52, 551–581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sonenberg, N. , Morgan, M.A. , Merrick, W.C. and Shatkin, A.J. (1978) A polypeptide in eukaryotic initiation factors that crosslinks specifically to the 5′‐terminal cap in mRNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75, 4843–4847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sun, X.Z. , Fang, X.L. , Wang, D.M. , Jones, D.A. and Ma, L.S. (2022) Transcriptome analysis of Fusarium‐tomato interaction based on an updated genome annotation of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici identifies novel effector candidates that suppress or induce cell death in Nicotiana benthamiana . J. Fungi 8, 672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Szemenyei, H. , Hannon, M. and Long, J.A. (2008) TOPLESS mediates auxin‐dependent transcriptional repression during Arabidopsis embryogenesis. Science 319, 1384–1386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Takken, F. and Rep, M. (2010) The arms race between tomato and Fusarium oxysporum . Mol. Plant Pathol. 11, 309–314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tameling, W.I.L. , Nooijen, C. , Ludwig, N. , Boter, M. , Slootweg, E. , Goverse, A. , Shirasu, K. et al. (2010) RanGAP2 mediates nucleocytoplasmic partitioning of the NB‐LRR immune receptor Rx in the Solanaceae, thereby dictating Rx function. Plant Cell 22, 4176–4194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Thatcher, L.F. , Manners, J.M. and Kazan, K. (2009) Fusarium oxysporum hijacks COI1‐mediated jasmonate signaling to promote disease development in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 58, 927–939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Thies, J.A. (2021) Grafting for managing vegetable crop pests. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 4825–4835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Tintor, N. , Paauw, M. , Rep, M. and Takken, F.L.W. (2020) The root‐invading pathogen Fusarium oxysporum targets pattern‐triggered immunity using both cytoplasmic and apoplastic effectors. New Phytol. 227, 1479–1492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. de Toledo Thomazella, D.P. , Seong, K. , Mackelprang, R. , Dahlbeck, D. , Geng, Y. , Gill, U.S. , Qi, T. et al. (2021) Loss of function of a DMR6 ortholog in tomato confers broad‐spectrum disease resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2026152118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Tunc‐Ozdemir, M. , Fu, Y. and Jones, A.M. (2016) Cautions in measuring in vivo interactions using FRET and BiFC in Nicotiana benthamiana . Methods Mol. Biol. 1363, 155–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wang, A. and Krishnaswamy, S. (2012) Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E‐mediated recessive resistance to plant viruses and its utility in crop improvement. Mol. Plant Pathol. 13, 795–803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zaidi, S.S. , Mukhtar, M.S. and Mansoor, S. (2018) Genome editing: targeting susceptibility genes for plant disease resistance. Trends Biotechnol. 36, 898–906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhu, Z. , Xu, F. , Zhang, Y. , Cheng, Y.T. , Wiermer, M. , Li, X. and Zhang, Y. (2010) Arabidopsis resistance protein SNC1 activates immune responses through association with a transcriptional corepressor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 13960–13965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1 Expression of TPL1 and TPL2 is relatively high in tomato root tissues.

Figure S2 Accumulation of the proteins TPL1 to TPL5, SIX8 and SIX3 in the BiFC analyses following transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves.

Figure S3 Accumulation of the tomato proteins TPL1 to TPL5 in the yeast two‐hybrid assays.

Figure S4 Tomato tpl1;tpl2 mutants have larger flowers.

Figure S5 Tomato fruits of tomato tpl mutants.

Figure S6 Fruit and seed yield of tomato tpl1, tpl2 and tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S7 Susceptibility to Verticillium dahliae isolate Dvd‐S26 is unaffected in tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S8 Susceptibility to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 is not altered in tomato tpl1;tpl2 mutants.

Figure S9 Susceptible tomato scions grafted on tpl1;tpl2 rootstocks show a reduction of vasculature colonization by Fol029.

Figure S10 Accumulation of Arabidopsis TPL and TPR1 to TPR4 in yeast two‐hybrid assays.

Table S1 F. oxysporum f. sp. containing SIX8 homologue(s) and their corresponding hosts.

Table S2 Genotypes of tomato tpl mutants used in this study.

Table S3 Plasmids used in this study.

Table S4 Primers used in this study.

Table S5 Guide RNAs used for gene‐editing tomato TPL1 and TPL2.

Data S1 Peptide hits of the SIX8‐pulldown in the NbDE proteome database.

Data S2 ImageJ script for BiFC analysis.

PBI-22-248-s001.zip (22.8MB, zip)

Articles from Plant Biotechnology Journal are provided here courtesy of Society for Experimental Biology (SEB) and the Association of Applied Biologists (AAB) and John Wiley and Sons, Ltd

RESOURCES