New Phytologist 233 (2022), 919–933. doi: 10.1111/nph.17835.
Since its publication, the authors of Ling et al. (2022) have brought to our attention two errors in their article. First, the legend text for Fig. 2(b,d,f) was inadvertently transposed. Second, the anti‐YFP blot pictures of the Input and IP groups in Fig. 5(a) featured the same images in error. The correct Figs 2 and 5, and their associated legends, are given below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions in the article are unaffected.
Fig. 2.
Sugarcane PLANT ELICITOR PEPTIDE RECEPTOR1 (ScPEPR1) interacts with the smut effector SsPE14. (a) ScPEPR1 interacts with SsPE14 in yeast. The activation domain (AD) and DNA‐binding domain (BD) plasmids containing the indicated genes were co‐transformed into yeast strain Y2HGold and screened on synthetic dextrose dropout (SD) media lacking Leu and Trp (SD/−Leu−Trp). The single colonies were serially diluted and spotted onto SD/−Leu−Trp and SD/−Leu−Trp−His−Ade to observe the yeast cell growth. Yeast co‐transformed with AD‐largeT + BD‐p53 or AD‐largeT + BD‐laminC served as a positive control and negative control, respectively. EV, empty vector. SsPE1/4/14/15, Sprisorium scitamineum putative effector1/4/14/15. (b) SsPE14 interacts with N‐terminal LRR domain of ScPEPR1 (ScPEPR1‐N), but not with the C‐terminal of ScPEPR1 (ScPEPR1‐C) in yeast. The experiment was performed according to the same procedure in (a). (c) Co‐immunoprecipitation (Co‐IP) analysis of interactions between ScPEPR1‐FLAG and SsPE14‐YFP in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. Proteins in total extracts (Input) and after IP with GFP‐trap beads (IP (YFP)) were detected on immunoblots using α‐FLAG or α‐GFP antibodies. GFP/YFP, green/yellow fluorescent protein. (d) Co‐IP analysis of interactions between SsPE14‐YFP and ScPEPR1‐N‐FLAG in N. benthamiana leaves. Proteins in total extracts (Input) and after IP with GFP‐trap beads (IP (YFP)) were detected on immunoblots using α‐FLAG or α‐GFP antibodies. (e) SsPE14 interacts with the ScPEPR1‐N, revealed using glutathione S‐transferase (GST) pull‐down assays. The recombinant ScPEPR1‐N‐his and SsPE14‐GST proteins purified from Escherichia coli BL21 strain were subjected to a GST pull‐down analysis. Proteins in input and pull‐down were detected on immunoblots using α‐his or α‐GST antibodies. (f) The interaction between ScPEPR1 and SsPE14 in N. benthamiana revealed by bimolecular fluorescence complementation assay (BiFC). The N. benthamiana leaves were co‐infiltrated with 35S:nYFP‐ScPEPR1 and 35S:SsPE14‐cYFP. Images were captured by a confocal microscope 2 d after Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation. Bars, 10 μm. These experiments were repeated at least three times with similar results.
Fig. 5.
Overexpression of smut effector gene SsPele1 in Arabidopsis suppresses peptide1 (AtPep1)‐induced immunity. (a) Co‐immunoprecipitation (co‐IP) analysis of the interactions between SsPele1‐YFP and AtPEPR1‐FLAG in Nicotiana benthamiana). Proteins in total extracts (Input) and after IP with GFP‐trap beads (IP (YFP)) were detected on immunoblots using anti‐FLAG or anti‐GFP antibodies (GFP/YFP, green/yellow fluorescent protein). (b) AtPep1‐induced phosphorylation of mitogen‐activated protein kinases (MAPKs) on ScPele1 transgenic line1/2 and empty‐vector (EV) transgenic line. Total protein extracts were prepared from leaves of 4‐wk‐old transgenic Arabidopsis lines expressing SsPele1 or an EV at the indicated time points after 1 μM AtPep1 treatment. The phosphorylation of MAPKs was detected on an immunoblot probed with anti‐p44/42 MAPK antibodies. Ponceau staining of the blot shows equal sample loading. (c) AtPep1‐induced H2O2 production was reduced in the SsPele1 transgenic lines. The results shown are representative of three independent experiments. Each data point consists of six to eight replicates. Values are means ± SD. Different letters indicate statistical significance (P < 0.01) determined by one‐way ANOVA followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference. These experiments were repeated three times with consistent results.
We apologize to our readers for these mistakes.
Corrected Figs 2 and 5, and their associated legends:
Authors for correspondence:
Youxiong Que
Email: queyouxiong@126.com
Haitao Cui
Email: cui@fafu.edu.cn
Reference
- Ling H, Fu X, Huang N, Zhong Z, Su W, Lin W, Cui H, Que Y. 2022. A sugarcane smut fungus effector simulates the host endogenous elicitor peptide to suppress plant immunity. New Phytologist 233: 919–933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]