Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0250064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250064

Galactofuranose (Galf)-containing sugar chain contributes to the hyphal growth, conidiation and virulence of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum

Hui Zhou 1, Yueqiang Xu 1,2, Frank Ebel 3, Cheng Jin 1,2,4,*
Editor: Zonghua Wang5
PMCID: PMC8323920  PMID: 34329342

Abstract

The ascomycete fungus Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum causes vascular wilt diseases in cucumber. However, few genes related to morphogenesis and pathogenicity of this fungal pathogen have been functionally characterized. BLASTp searches of the Aspergillus fumigatus UgmA and galatofuranosyltransferases (Galf-transferases) sequences in the F. oxysporum genome identified two genes encoding putative UDP-galactopyranose mutase (UGM), ugmA and ugmB, and six genes encoding putative Galf-transferase homologs. In this study, the single and double mutants of the ugmA, ugmB and gfsB were obtained. The roles of UGMs and GfsB were investigated by analyzing the phenotypes of the mutants. Our results showed that deletion of the ugmA gene led to a reduced production of galactofuranose-containing sugar chains, reduced growth and impaired conidiation of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum. Most importantly, the ugmA deletion mutant lost the pathogenicity in cucumber plantlets. Although deletion of the ugmB gene did not cause any visible phenotype, deletion of both ugmA and ugmB genes caused more severe phenotypes as compared with the ΔugmA, suggesting that UgmA and UgmB are redundant and they can both contribute to synthesis of UDP-Galf. Furthermore, the ΔgfsB exhibited an attenuated virulence although no other phenotype was observed. Our results demonstrate that the galactofuranose (Galf) synthesis contributes to the cell wall integrity, germination, hyphal growth, conidiation and virulence in Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum and an ideal target for the development of new anti-Fusarium agents.

Introduction

Galactofuranose (Galf) is a component of several polysaccharides and glycoconjugates comprising major portions of the cell surface in fungi, bacteria, trypanosomatids and nematodes. In bacteria, Galf constitutes a key part of the mycobacterial cell wall and occurs in lipopolysaccharide (LPS) O-antigen domains, extracellular capsules, and polysaccharides [1]. In certain filamentous fungi, Galf is a major component of the cell wall and structural glycoproteins [27]. In pathogenic protozoa, Galf residues are key components of surface glycosylphosphoinositol (GPI)-anchored glycoconjugates in Leishmania and Trypanosoma cruzi [810]. In nematode such as Caenorhabditis elegans Galf residues are key components of surface coat [11]. In contrast, higher animals including humans and plants have no Galf-containing sugar chains. Therefore, inhibition of the biosynthetic pathway of Galf-containing sugar chains is an attractive target for the development of medicines and agricultural chemicals inhibiting pathogenic fungi, bacteria and parasites without any side effects.

All Galf-containing sugar chains are synthesized using UDP-Galf as a sugar donor. The biosynthesis of UDP-Galf begins with the conversion of UDP-glucose to UDP-Galp by UDP-glucose 4-epimerase (UGE), then UDP-Galp is converted to UDP-Galf by UDP-galactopyranose mutase (UGM), and eventually Galf is transfered from UDP-Galf to Galf–containing sugar chains by galactofuranosyl(Galf)-transferases. In fungi, the site of Galf-containing sugar chains biosynthesis is the internal lumen of the Golgi apparatus. Therefore, a UDP-Galf transporter is necessary to transport the synthesized UDP-Galf from the cytosol to the inner lumen of the Golgi apparatus [12].

The genes responsible for the Galf biosynthesis have been identified in Aspergillus fumigatus, A. nidulans and A. niger, which include a similar gene sets of UDP-glucose 4-epimerases (UgeA), UDP-galactomutases (UgmA), UDP-Galf- transporters (UgtA and UgtB), and Galf-transferases [1324]. In A. nidulans, deletion of the ugeA, the gene encoding UDP-glucose 4-epimerase, leads to highly branched hyphae and reduced conidiation [15]. The A. niger ΔugmA strain is highly sensitive to the chitin binding agent calcofluor white, suggesting that synthesis of a Galf-containing sugar chain is involved in the biosynthesis of cell wall components [22]. Deletion of the gene encoding UGM (glfA), the UDP-Galactofuranose transporter (glfB), or the Galf-transferase GfsA in A. fumigatus, leads to the absence of the galactofuran side chains of galactomannan and is associated with increased susceptibility to antifungals, attenuated virulence, and reduced growth [16,19,20,24]. More recently, three putative Galf-transferases, GfsA, GfsB and GfsC, were identified in A. niger. Analysis of the single, double and triple mutants revealed that GfsA together with GfsC are most important for the biosynthesis of Galf-containing sugars and multiple gfs gene deletions caused a severe cell wall stress response [24]. These reports reveal that a lack of Galf-containing sugar chains affects normal hyphal growth, cell wall structure and conidiation in filamentous fungi.

Fusarium oxysporum is a relevant plant pathogen causing Fusarium wilt syndrome in more than 120 different hosts and have been ranked in the top 10 plant fungal pathogens [25]. Although β1-6-linked Galf residues have been identified in the cell wall of Fusarium [26], the significance of Galf sugar residues in F. oxysporum remained to be unknown. Therefore, it is of important to evaluate the significance of Galf biosynthesis in growth and pathogenicity of this species.

In this study, BLASTp searches identified two putative UGM genes, ugmA (EGU88002.1) and ugmB (EGU83790), and seven putative Galf-transferase genes, EGU86692, EGU81169, EGU76406, EGU88219, EGU80311 and EGU82964 in the genome of F. oxysporum. The single and double mutant strains of the UGM genes, as well as the single mutant of the gfsB (EGU86692) were obtained in F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum, a strain infecting cucumber and resulting in serious vascular disease worldwide [27]. By analyzing these mutants, the functions of Galf-containing sugars in growth, conidiation and pathogenicity of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum were examined.

Materials and methods

Strains, plasmids, and culture conditions

F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum (CGMCC3.2830, China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center) was used as the wild-type strain (WT) in this work. F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum strains were cultured at 28°C in potato dextrose agar (PDA) or in potato dextrose broth (PDB) with shaking at 200 rpm for production of fungal spores and mycelia. Conidia were washed with ddH2O from 7-days culture on plates and counted in a haemocytometer. Mycelia were harvested by filtering the 2-days cultures with two layers of slow qualitative filter paper. The pSCN44 vector harboring a hygromycin gene was used for mutant construction and the pKN vector carrying a neomycin gene was used for generating the double-mutant and the complemented strains. All vectors and plasmids were propagated in Escherichia coli DH5α.

Transformation, selection and characterization of stable transformants

The protoplasts were prepared according to Sarrocco et al. [28] with some modification. One milliliter of 109 ml-1 freshly harvested conidia of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum was inoculated in 100 ml of YPD medium and incubated at 28°C, 200 rpm for 5–7 hours. The germinated conidia were collected by centrifugation at 3,000 rpm and washed three times with 0.7 M NaCl, then resuspended by gentle vortexing in an enzyme mixture containing lysing enzyme (10 mg ml-1), cellulase (15 mg ml-1), and driselase (10 mg ml-1) (Sigma-Aldrich) in 0.7 M NaCl and incubated at 30°C, 100 rpm for about 1 hour. The protoplasts were counted by a hemocytometer and resuspended in STC buffer (1.2 M sorbitol, 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH8, 50 mM CaCl2) in a final concentration of 108 CFU ml-1. For the transformation, an aliquot of 200 μl protoplast suspension was gently mixed with 5 μg DNA and 50 μl of 30% PEG solution (30% PEG 8000, 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH8, 50 mM CaCl2) and incubated at room temperature for 20 minutes, then 2 ml of 30% PEG solution were added, mixed carefully and incubated at room temperature for 5 minutes. Finally, 4 ml of STC buffer were added and mixed thoroughly. The transformants were screened using 50 μg ml-1 hygromycin B (Sigma-Aldrich) and screened again with 150 μg ml-1 hygromycin B. To obtain the double-deletion mutant, G418 was used to screen the mutant strains. For the complemented strains of the double mutants, 100 μg/ml phleomycin was used as the selection marker.

Targeted gene replacement and complementation

For the ΔugmA and ΔugmB mutant, the 1500-bp fragments of the upstream and downstream flanking sequences of the ugm genes were obtained by PCR amplification from wild-type genomic DNA using the primer pairs of ugmu1/ugmd1 and ugmu1/ugmd2 (S1 Table), respectively, and the hygromycin resistance gene (hyg) was amplified from the pCSN44 plasmid with the primer pair Hyg1/Hyg2. Then, the inserted cassette was generated by fusing the upstream and downstream flanking regions to the two ends of the hyg gene by overlapping-PCR. Finally, the cassette fragments were transformed into the protoplast of the wild-type strain. A double mutant was obtained by deletion of ugmA in the ΔugmB mutant. Complementation of the ΔugmA mutant was achieved by introducing pKN-ugmA, which was obtained by DNA amplification using primer pair ugmA C-F/ugmA C-R (S1 Table). For the completement of the double mutant, 100 μg/ml of phleomycin was used to screen the transformants. In all cases, HygR, G418R, or PhleoR resistant transformants were obtained and the homologous recombination or complementation events were confirmed by PCR and Southern blotting. The primers and probes used in this study are listed in S1 Table. KOD FX DNA polymerase (TOYOBO) was used in all PCR experiments. Plasmid DNA was extracted using the Plasmid Miniprep Kit (Axygen, China). Fungal genomic DNA was extracted using the method described previously [29]. Using the same method, the ΔgfsB mutant and its complemented strain was constructed using the primers shown in S1 Table. All mutants were confirmed by Southern Blotting.

Phenotypic analysis of the mutants

A droplet of 1×105 freshly harvested conidia was inoculated at the centre of a plate and cultured at 28°C. The growth of the colonies was evaluated after 7 days. The conidia production of the strains were quantified in static cultures grown in continuous dark as described previously [30].

To test the sensitivities of the mutants to anti-fungal reagents, a serial dilution of conidia of 1×105−1×102 were grown at 28°C on PDA or MM (1 g/L KH2PO4, 2 g/L NaNO3, 0.5 g/L KCl, 0.5 g/L MgSO4 heptahydrate, 30 g/L sucrose) [31] agar plates supplemented with 100 μg/ml Congo red, 50 μg/ml calcofluor white or 1.2 M sorbitol.

Germination analysis was carried out by inoculating 1×105/ml or 1×106/ml of freshly harvested conidia onto a glass slide with double concave in 50 μl PDB liquid medium. After incubation at 28°C for specific times, the slides were taken out and observed [32].

Expression of the ugm genes in the WT and mutant strains

The freshly harvested conidia were cultured in PDB medium for 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. The hyphae were harvested by filtration through Whatman filter paper, washed with sterile water, and then ground under liquid nitrogen using a mortar and pestle. Total RNAs were isolated from ground conidia and mycelia using Trizol reagent (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Complementary DNA synthesis was generated with 2 μg of RNA using the RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (ThermoScientific). The primers (ugmA5’/ugmA3’ and ugmB5’/ugmB3’) used are listed in S1 Table. Whenever possible, the primers spanned an intron. Gene expression was analyzed with 300 nM primers in 20 μl reaction buffer by using EvaGreen qPCR Mastermix (ABM Company) and an iCycler apparatus (Bio-Rad). Cycle conditions were 10 min at 90°C and 40 cycles of 15 s at 95°C and 1 min at 60°C. Single PCR products were confirmed with the heat dissociation protocol at the end of the PCR cycles. For each primer pair, the amplification efficiency was determined by serial dilution experiments, and the resulting efficiency coefficient was used for the quantification of the products. All reactions were performed in triplicate. The relative mRNA expressions were calculated according to 2-ΔΔCt with the transcription elongation factor gene (EF) as the reference.

Detection of Galf with antibody

The anti-Galf monoclonal antibody AB135-8, which was identified and cloned from a pool of hybridoma cells obtained after immunization of Balb/c mice with killed A. fumigatus germ tubes [33]. Resting conidia were incubated in PDB liquid medium for 8 h and fixed with 2.5% p-formaldehyde (PFA) overnight at 4°C. After fixation, cells were washed with 0.2 M glycine in PBS for 5 min, then sealed with 5% BSA in PBS for 1 h. Cells were incubated with the hybridoma culture supernatant containing AB135-8 at 1:10 dilution in 5% BSA in PBS for 1 h at room temperature. After washing with 1% BSA in PBS, cells were incubated with a goat Dylight 549-conjugated antibody directed against mouse IgG (H+L) diluted 1:2000 in BSA/PBS. After washing with PBS, cells were visualized with an inverted fluorescence light microscope.

Virulence

The cucumber seeds (Chinese cultivar “Zhong Nong 16”) were processed for accelerating germination as described by Li et al. [34], and the germinated seeds were grown in plastic pots filled with sterilized soil composed of vermiculite and turf. The pots were placed in the greenhouse at approximately 28°C for a 16 h photoperiod until the two-true leaves stage. For virulence test of ΔugmA, ΔugmB and double mutant, the seedling roots were slightly wounded and the cucumber plants were cultured in 1 g/L Murashigeand Skoog medium (MS) with vitamin supplements containing 2×105 freshly harvested conidia. The pots were placed in green house with the same condition as described above. Twelve plants were used for each treatment. For virulence test of ΔgfsB, the slightly wounded seedling roots were immersed in conidia suspension of 5×106/ml for 30 minutes. Subsequently, the infected seedlings were transplanted to plastic pots and placed in green house. Disease severity index (DSI) was calculated as previously described [35] from 2 weeks of inoculation up to 45 days. The plant infection experiments were repeated for three times. DSI was calculated as: DSI = [Σ (Class×Number of plants in that class)/(4×Total number of assessed plants)] ×100.

To examine the invasion of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum in plant vascular bundles, the root cross sections of infected plants were observed with a M205A stereoscopic microscope (Leica Microsystems).

To quantify the relative mycelial biomass of the fungal strains in cucumber roots, DNA samples were extracted from the cucumber roots cultured for 30 days after infection and subjected to quantitative PCR (qPCR) using primers EF1a-1/-2 for the transcription elongation factor gene of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum. The amounts of DNA templates were normalized using the cucumber actin 1 gene (primers: ACT1F/ACT1R). Three simultaneous replicated amplifications were carried out for each DNA sample, using 20-μL aliquots from a 60-μL mixture, and Bright Green qPCR Mastermix kit (ABM Company). qPCRs were performed in an iCycler apparatus (Bio-Rad) using the following cycling protocol: an initial step of denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 15 s at 95°C, 60 s at 60°C. After amplification, a melting curve program was run for which measurements were made for 5 min within a range of 65–95°C. The DNA concentration of each sample was extrapolated from standard curves, which were developed by plotting the logarithm of known concentrations (10-fold dilution series from 100 ng to 1 ng/20 μL reaction) of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum genomic DNA against the Ct values. The relative DNA amounts of the indicated strains were calculated by comparative ΔCt from the mean of two different determinations of the threshold cycle. Each PCR reaction was followed by a melting curve, to assure that there was only one product amplified. All primers used in this assy are listed in S1 Table.

Results

Construction of the single and double mutants

BLASTp searches of the A. fumigatus UDP-galactopyranose mutase GlfA/Ugm1 (AFU_3G12690) and Galf-transferases in the genome of F. oxysporum 5176 identified two putative UDP-galactopyranose mutase genes, ugmA (EGU88002.1), ugmB (EGU83790) and six putative Galf-transferase genes, gfsB (EGU86692), gfsC (EGU81169), gfsE (EGU80311), gfsF (EGU88219), gfsG (EGU76406) and gfsH (EGU82964) (Table 1). The ugmA encodes a predicted protein (519 amino acids) sharing 80% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA, while the ugmB encodes a protein (507 amino acids) sharing 71% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA. RT-PCR analysis revealed that both ugmA and ugmB were expressed in F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum (S1 Fig). As only GfsB and GfsC, which are belong to GT31-A family together with GfsA [6], were found in the genome of F. oxysporum 5176, the gfsB gene (EGU86692) was chosen to be further investigated in this study. The gfsB gene encodes a predicted protein (494 amino acids) sharing 35% of identity with A. fumigatus GfsB (Table 1).

Table 1. Identification of Galf-tansferases in F. oxysporum.

A. fumigatus F. oxysporum identity
gfsA - -
gfsB EGU86692 35%
gfsC EGU81169 25%
gfsD EGU82964 28%
gfsE EGU80311 30%
gfsF EGU88219 24%
gfsG EGU76406 27%
gfsH EGU82964 36%

BLASTp searches of the A. fumigatus galactofuranosyltransferases A-H in the genome of F. oxysporum 5176 (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). No GfsA homolog was found in the genome of EGU82964. EGU82964 encodes a homolog protein of GfsD (28% identity) and GfsH (36% identity).

The ugmA, ugmB and gfsB single mutants were constructed as described in Materials and methods. Using hygromycin resistance as a selective marker, transformants of the ΔugmA, ΔugmB and ΔgfsB were screened. The complemented strains of ΔugmA were obtained with G418 sulfate screening. At the same time, the double mutant ΔugmAΔugmB was also constructed. The complemented strains ReumgA and ReumgB were obtained by re-introducing ugmA and ugmB into the double mutant. All mutant strains were verified by PCR and Southern blotting (S2 Fig).

Phenotypes of the mutants

As compared with the WT or complemented strains grown on PDA, the ΔugmA mutant showed a slightly reduced growth and the ΔugmB did not exhibit any difference, while the double mutant exhibited a severely retarded growth (Fig 1A). In contrast, the ΔgfsB mutant did not show any growth phenotype on PDA or MM (Fig 1B). After cultivation on PDA at 28°C for 7 days, the ΔugmA mutant produced less conidia than the WT, while the double mutant produced only very few conidia (Fig 2A and 2B). The number of conidia produced by the ΔgfsB mutant was reduced by 28% (Fig 2C). The germination of the ΔugmA and the double mutant was delayed for 2 h and 4 h, respectively (Fig 3A), while the germination of the ΔgfsB mutant was similar to that of the WT (Fig 3B). Theoretically, the phenotypes of the DM-ReugmB strain should be similar with the ΔugmA strain. However, in our study we found that complementation of the double mutant strain with the ugmB gene did not restore the growth and conidiation to the levels similar to the ΔugmA strain (Figs 1A and 2), which might be due to a lower activity of the plasmid we used for complementation of the double mutant.

Fig 1. Growth of the mutant strains.

Fig 1

Serial dilutions of conidia of 105−102 from the wild-type (WT), mutants and complemented strains were grown on PDA (A) or MM (A and B) plates at 28°C for 7 days. DM, double-deletion mutant; DM-ReugmB, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB; DM-ReugmA, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmA.

Fig 2. Conidiation of the mutants.

Fig 2

1×105 of freshly conidia were inoculated at the central of plate, growth of the colonies were evaluated after 7-days culture at 28°C. The conidia produced by the strains were quantified in static cultures grown in continuous dark (×104/0.5 cm2). The experiment was repeated for three times. Results are presented as mean ± SD (P ≤ 0.05). DM, double mutant; DM-ReugmB, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB; DM-ReugmA, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmA.

Fig 3. Germination of the mutants.

Fig 3

1×105/ml of freshly harvested conidia were inoculated onto the glass slide with double concave in 50 μl PDB liquid medium and incubated at 28°C, the slides were taken out at the indicated time points and observed with a microscope (400×). DM, double-deletion mutant. DM, double mutant; DM-ReugmB, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB; DM-ReugmA, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmA.

On PDA medium supplemented with calcofluor white or Congo red, both ΔugmA and the double mutant showed increased sensitivities. The double mutant was more sensitive to calcofluor white and Congo red than the ΔugmA, while the sensitivity of the ΔugmB mutant was similar to that of the WT (Fig 4A). When the ugm mutants were incubated on MM medium, both ΔugmA and double mutant were hypersensitive to calcofluor white and Congo red. The sensitivity of the ΔugmA to calcofluor white and Congo red was able to be rescued by the addition of 1.2 M sorbitol, while the double mutant not. These results suggest that the cell wall defect of the double mutant is more severe than that of the ΔugmA. In contrast, the ΔgfsB mutant did not show any increased sensitivity to calcofluor white or Congo red (S3 Fig).

Fig 4. Sensitivities of the mutants to cell wall stressors.

Fig 4

A serial dilution of conidia of 1×105−1×102 of the WT, the mutants and complemented strains were inoculated on PDA (A) or MM (B) agar plates supplemented with 50 μg/ml Congo red or 50 μg/ml calcofluor white. Strains were cultured at 28°C. DM, double mutant; DM-ReugmB, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB; DM-ReugmA, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmA.

These results suggest that the ugmA contibutes to the cell wall integrity, hyphal growth and conidiation, whereas the gfsB is not required.

Synthesis of Galf-containing sugar chains in the mutants

As the ΔugmB mutant did not showed any phenotypic changes and the ΔugmA mutant exhibited defects in growth, cell wall integrity and conidiation as compared with the WT, it is likely that the ugmA can compensate for the loss of the ugmB gene. To testify this hypothesis, we analyzed the expression of the ugmA and ugmB genes in the WT and mutant strains. RT-PCR analysis revealed that the ugmA was expressed during hyphal growth (6–24 h) and highest expression occurred at log-phase (12 h), while the ugmB was expressed during conidiation (after 24 h) in the WT (Fig 5A), which suggests that UgmA contributes to the hyphal growth whereas UgmB contributes to the formation of conidiospores. In the ΔugmB mutant the expression of the ugmA was increased during hyphal growth and conidiation with the highest expression level at 24 h (Fig 5B), while the expression of the ugmB was remarkably increased (0.2–10 folds) in the ΔugmA mutant (Fig 5C). As the ΔugmB mutant did not show any phenotype, it is reasonable to conclude that UgmA can completely compensate for the loss of UgmB, while UgmB could only partially complement the function of UgmA. Our results indicate that UgmA is more important for Galf-containing sugar synthesis during vegetative growth of F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum.

Fig 5. Expression of the ugm genes in the WT and mutant strains.

Fig 5

Freshly harvested conidia were cultured in the PDB medium for 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. The hyphae were harvested and ground under liquid nitrogen. RT-PCR analysis was performed as described in Materials and methods. In A, expression level of the ugmA and ugmB in the WT strain; in B, expression level of the ugmA in the ΔugmB mutant; and in C, expression level of the ugmB in the ΔugmA mutant. All reactions were performed in triplicate. The relative mRNA expressions were calculated according to 2-ΔΔCt with the transcription elongation factor gene (EF) as the reference.

As shown in Fig 6, when the mutants were detected with the galactomannan-specific antibody AB135-8 that specifically recognizes galactofuranose [33], weak signals were detected with the ΔugmA and blurry signals were detected with the double mutant, while the ΔgfsB mutant was similar to the WT. The results reveal that both UgmA and UgmB are required for the synthesis of Galf-containing sugars in F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum, but GfsA does not.

Fig 6. Detection of the galactomannan in the mutants with antibody AB135-8.

Fig 6

Resting conidia were germinated for 8 h in PDB liquid medium and fixed with 2.5% pformaldehyde (PFA) overnight at 4°C. After fixation, cells were washed with 0.2 M glycine in PBS for 5 min, then blocked with 5% BSA in PBS for 1 h. Cells were incubated with the anti-galactomannan monoclonal antibody at 1:10 dilution in 5% BSA in PBS for 1 h at room temperature. After washing with PBS-BSA 1%, cells were incubated with a goat Dylight 549-conjugated antibody directed against mouse IgG (H+L) diluted 1:2000 in BSA/PBS. After washing in PBS, cells were visualized with an inverted fluorescence light microscope. DM, double mutant; DM-ReugmB, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB; DM-ReugmA, double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmA.

Virulence of the mutants

To evaluate the significance of the ugmA, ugmB and gfsB genes for the virulence of F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum, 2×105 conidia/ml of each strain were inoculated to the cucumber seedling roots as described in Materials and methods. The infected seedlings were cultured at 28°C in green house. Apparently, as shown in Fig 7A, the cucumber seedlings infected by the ΔugmA and double-deletion mutant showed a slight wilt syndrome, indicating that the virulence of these two mutants was greatly attenuated. Calculation of the disease severity index (DSI) [35] also revealed that the DSI of both ΔugmA and double mutant were 25% as compared with 70.8% for the WT and 18.7% for mock infected plants, while the virulence of the ΔugmB mutant was similar to the WT (Fig 7E). These results indicated that the ugmA has a direct function in virulence of F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum.

Fig 7. Virulence of the mutant strains.

Fig 7

In A and B, the germinated cucumber seeds in plastic pots were grown in the greenhouse at approximately 28°C for a 16 h photoperiod until the two-true leaves stage. The infected seedlings were analyzed after 45 days. Twelve plants were used for each treatment. In C, the root cross sections of infected plants were observed with M205A stereoscopic microscope (Leica Microsystems) (×20). In D, to quantify the relative mycelial biomass of the fungal strains in cucumber roots, DNAs were extracted from the cucumber roots cultured for 30 days after infection and subjected to quantitative PCR (qPCR) using primers EF1a-1/-2 for the transcription elongation factor gene of F. oxysporum as described in Materials and methods. In E, disease severity index (DSI) was calculated as previously described from 2 weeks of inoculation up to 45 days. The plant infection experiments were repeated for three times.

F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum infects the plants through the roots. As shown in Fig 7B, the main roots from the plants infected by the WT strain and ΔugmB strains showed brown color, a rotten appearance and fewer lateral roots, while the main roots infected by the ΔugmA and double mutants suffered much less than those of the WT. Examination of root sections under a stereoscopic microscope (Fig 7C) and qPCR analysis (Fig 7D) revealed that the vascular bundles of roots that were infected with the ΔugmA or the double mutant were comparable to mock infected roots, while those infected by the WT and the ΔugmB strain were severely brown stained in their cortex and vascular bundles. These results demonstrate that ugmA was required for the virulence of F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum in cucumber. Interestingly, the ΔgfsB mutant also exhibit a reduced virulence although no visible phenotypes were detected in the other assays (Fig 7A–7C and 7E).

Discussion

Fusarium species are common plant pathogens [25], but some species are also pathogenic for humans, particularly F. solani, F. oxysporum, and F. moniliforme, causing superficial infections in immnocompetent individuals, and severe and disseminated disease in immunocompromised hosts [36,37]. F. oxysporum Galf-containing sugar chain consists of a main chain containing β1,6-linked Galf residues with side chains containing α1,2-linked Glcp, β1,2-linked Manp and β-Manp terminal nonreducing end units, which is different from that of A. fumigatus and important for the activation of macrophage mechanisms [26]. As Galf is not found in mammalian and plant cells [12], inhibition of the biosynthetic pathway of Galf-containing sugar chains is an ideal target for the development of medicines and agricultural chemicals, which can specifically inhibit F. oxysporum without any side effects.

The genes encoding the UDP-Galp mutase have recently been identified in several fungal species such as Cryptococcus neoformans, A. fumigatus, A. nidulans and A. niger [10,14,21]. In A. fumigatus, abrogation of Galf-synthesis causes attenuated virulence and reduced growth [16,19,20,23], indicating that a lack of Galf-containing sugar chains affects normal hyphal growth, cell wall structure and conidiation in filamentous fungi.

In this report, we used F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum as a model species to evaluate the biologial functions of Galf-containing sugar chain in F. oxysporum. Two UGM genes (ugmA and ugmB) were identified in the genome of F. oxysporum. Phentypes of the single and double mutant of the UGM genes were investigated. Based our results, UgmA was required for vegetative growth and UgmB contributed to conidiation in F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum. Although the ugmB was highly expressed in the ΔugmA, only a weak signal was detected by antibody AB135-8 on the cell wall of the ΔugmA mutant (Figs 5C and 6), suggesting that the residual Galf-containing sugars were not enough for maintaining the mycelial cell wall integrity. On the other hand, the elevated expression of the ugmA could compensate for the loss of the ugmB (Fig 5B). These results suggest that UgmA is able to complement the function of UgmB during conidiation, whereas UgmB is not able to function as UgmA during vegetaive growth stage. Although the mechanism remains unclear, it is likely that UgmA and UgmB differ in their activities. Further investigation should be carried out to characterize these two enzymes.

We found that both ΔugmA and double mutant showed an attenuated virulence, suggesting UGMs, especially UgmA, play an important role in virulence. Therefore, UgmA represents an attractive target for the development of new drugs.

In A. fumigatus, the cell wall galactomannan (GM) is composed of a main α1,2/α1,6-mannan chain and a number of side chains of β1,5/β1,6-linked Galf residues in its cell wall [3]. Eight putative gfs genes are identified in the genome of A. fumigatus, including gfsA (Afu6g02120), gfsB (Afu4g13710), gfsC (Afu4g10170), gfsD (Afu6g00520), gfsE (Afu3g07220), gfsF (Afu3g00170), gfsG (Afu2g17320) and gfsH (Afu8g07260). All eight Gfs proteins can be phylogenetically classified into two groups: GT31-A and GT31-B [6]. Recently, GfsA is biochemically characterized as the enzyme responsible for the transfer of β1,5-linked Galf to the side chain of GM [20]. As GfsA, GfsB and GfsC are belonged to GT31-A family, GfsB and GfsC are also predicted as β1,5-galactofuranosyltransferases similar to GfsA [20]. GfsA, GfsB and GfsC are also identified in the genome of A. niger and A. nidulans [19,24]. In contrast to A. fumigatus, A. niger and A. nidulans, no GfsA homolog was found in the genome of F. oxysporum (Fig 8), suggesting that the linkage of cell wall Galf residues are different in F. oxysporum. Indeed, it has been reported that Fusarium produces cell wall β1-6-linked Galf residues [26]. Therefore, it is not surprised that we were unbable to find GfsA homolog in F. oxysporum. We only found two GT31-A family members in F. oxysporum, GfsB (EGU86692) and GfsC (EGU81169), which share 35% and 25% of identity with A. fumigatus GfsB and GfsC, respectively (Table 1 and Fig 8). In this study, the significance of the gfsB gene was evaluated. Deletion of the gfsB gene did not show any visible phenotype, however, the ΔgfsB mutant displayed a reduced virulence. Although its substrate specificity needs to be characterized, it is no doubt that GfsB is also an ideal drug target for the development of novel drugs against F. oxysporum.

Fig 8. Phylogenetic tree of putative galactofuranosyltransferase from A. nidulans and A. fumigatus.

Fig 8

Protein sequences were retrieved from AspGD (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=Aspergillus+fumigatus) and DNAman2.0 was used to make the homology tree. % of homology between the proteins is indicated.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Alignment of UDP-galactopyranose mutases.

BLASTp searches of the A. fumigatus UDP-galactopyranose mutase GlfA/Ugm1 (AFU_3G12690) in the genome of F. oxysporum 5176 identified three homologous genes, ugmA (EGU88002.1) and ugmB (EGU83790). The ugmA encodes a predicted protein (519 amino acids) sharing 80% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA, while the ugmB encodes a protein (507 amino acids) sharing 71% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Souhtern blotting of the single and double mutant of the ugmA and ugmB genes.

Southern blotting was carried by detecting HindIII-digested fragments with a probe in the upstream non-coding region of the ugmA or ugmB gene.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Sensitivities of the mutant to cell wall stressors.

A serial dilution of conidia of 1×104−1×101 of the WT, the mutant and complemented strain were inoculated on PDA agar plates supplemented with 40 μg/ml calcofluor white or 40 μg/ml Congo red. Strains were cultured at 28°C.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Prof. Huishan Guo and Prof. Zhaosheng Kong, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for their help in virulence test.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (31630016 and 31320103901) and partially supported by Bagui Scholar Program Fund (2016A24) of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region to CJ. the funders play no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tam PH, Lowary TL. Recent advances in mycobacterial cell wall glycan biosynthesis. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2009; 13: 618–625. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.James PG, Cherniak R. Galactoxylomannans of Cryptococcus neoformans. Infect Immun. 1992; 60: 1084–1088. doi: 10.1128/iai.60.3.1084-1088.1992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Latgé JP. Galactofuranose containing molecules in Aspergillus fumigatus. Med Mycol. 2009; 47: S104–S109. doi: 10.1080/13693780802258832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gow NAR, Latgé JP, Munro CA. The fungal cell wall: structure, biosynthesis, and function. Microbiol Spectr. 2017; 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tefsen B, Ram AF, van Die I, Routier FH. Galactofuranose in eukaryotes: aspects of biosynthesis and functional impact. Glycobiology. 2012; 22: 456–469. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwr144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oka T, Goto M. Biosynthesis of galactofuranosecontaining glycans in filamentous fungi. Trends Glycosci Glycotech. 2016; 28: E39–E45. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Goto M. Protein O-glycosylation in fungi: diverse structures and multiple functions. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007; 71: 1415–1427. doi: 10.1271/bbb.70080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de Lederkremer RM, Colli W. Galactofuranose containing glycoconjugates in trypanosomatids. Glycobiology. 1995; 5: 547–552. doi: 10.1093/glycob/5.6.547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Previato JO, Wait R, Jones C, DosReis GA, Todeschini AR, Heise N, et al. Glycoinositolphospholipid from Trypanosoma cruzi: structure, biosynthesis and immunobiology. Adv Parasitol. 2004; 56: 1–41. doi: 10.1016/s0065-308x(03)56001-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Beverley SM, Owens KL, Showalter M, Griffith CL, Doering TL, Jones VC, et al. Eukaryotic UDP-galactopyranose mutase (GLF Gene) in microbial and metazoal pathogens. Eukaryot Cell. 2005; 4: 1147–1154. doi: 10.1128/EC.4.6.1147-1154.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Novelli JF, Chaudhary K, Canovas J, Benner JS, Madinger CL, Kelly P, et al. Characterization of the Caenorhabditis elegans UDP-galactopyranose mutase homolog glf-1 reveals an essential role for galactofuranose metabolism in nematode surface coat synthesis. Dev Biol. 2009; 335: 340–355. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Oka T. Biosynthesis of galactomannans found in filamentous fungi belonging to Pezizomycotina, Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 2018; 82(2): 183–191. doi: 10.1080/09168451.2017.1422383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee MJ, Gravelat FN, Cerone RP, Baptista SD, Campoli PV, Choe SI, et al. Overlapping and distinct roles of Aspergillus fumigatus UDP-glucose 4-epimerases in galactose metabolism and the synthesis of galactose-containing cell wall polysaccharides. J Biol Chem. 2014; 289(3): 1243–56. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.522516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.El-Ganiny AM, Sanders DA, Kaminskyj SGW. Aspergillus nidulans UDP-galactopyranose mutase, encoded by ugmA plays key roles in colony growth, hyphal morphogenesis, and conidiation. Fungal Genet Biol. 2008; 45(12):1533–42. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2008.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.El-Ganiny AM, Sheoran I, Sanders DA, Kaminskyj SGW. Aspergillus nidulans UDP-glucose-4-epimerase UgeA has multiple roles in wall architecture, hyphal morphogenesis, and asexual development. Fungal Genet Biol. 2010; 47: 629–635. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2010.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schmalhorst PS, Krappmann S, Vervecken W, Rodhe M, Müller M, Braus GH, et al. Contribution of galactofuranose to the virulence of the opportunistic pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus. Eukaryot Cell. 2008; 7: 1268–1277. doi: 10.1128/EC.00109-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Engel J, Schmalhorst PS, Dörk-Bousset T, Ferrières V, Routier FH. A single UDP-galactofuranose transporter is required for galactofuranosylation in Aspergillus fumigatus. J Biol Chem. 2009; 284(49): 33859–68. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.070219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Afroz S, El-Ganiny AM, Sanders DA, Kaminskyj SG. Roles of the Aspergillus nidulans UDP-galactofuranose transporter, UgtA in hyphal morphogenesis, cell wall architecture, conidiation, and drug sensitivity. Fungal Genet Biol. 2011; 48(9): 896–903. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2011.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Komachi Y, Hatakeyama S, Motomatsu H, Futagami T, Kizjakina K, Sobrado P, et al. GfsA encodes a novel galactofuranosyltransferase involved in biosynthesis of galactofuranose antigen of O-glycan in Aspergillus nidulans and Aspergillus fumigatus. Mol Microbiol. 2013; 90(5): 1054–1073. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Katafuchi Y, Li Q, Tanaka Y, Shinozuka S, Kawamitsu Y, Izumi M, et al. GfsA is a beta1,5-galactofuranosyltransferase involved in the biosynthesis of the galactofuran side chain of fungal-type galactomannan in Aspergillus fumigatus. Glycobiology. 2017; 27(6): 568–581. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwx028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Park J, Tefsen B, Arentshorst M, Lagendijk E, van den Hondel CAMJJ, van Die I, et al. Identification of the UDP-glucose-4-epimerase required for galactofuranose biosynthesis and galactose metabolism in A. niger. Fungal Biology and Biotechnology. 2014; 1:6. doi: 10.1186/s40694-014-0006-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Damveld RA, Franken A, Arentshorst M, Punt PJ, Klis FM, van den Hondel CAMJJ, et al. A novel screening method for cell wall mutants in Aspergillus niger identifies UDP-galactopyranose mutase as an important protein in fungal cell wall biosynthesis. Genetics. 2008; 178: 873–881. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.073148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Engel J, Schmalhorst PS, Routier FH. Biosynthesis of the fungal cell wall polysaccharide galactomannan requires intraluminal GDP-mannose. J Biol Chem. 2012; 287: 44418–44424. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.398321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Arentshorst M, de Lange D, Park J, Lagendijk EL, Alazi E, van den Hondel CAMJJ, et al. Functional analysis of three putative galactofuranosyltransferases with redundant functions in galactofuranosylation in Aspergillus niger. Arch Microbiol. 2020; 202(1): 197–203. doi: 10.1007/s00203-019-01709-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dean R, Van Kan JA, Pretorius ZA, Hammond-Kosack KE, Di Pietro A, Spanu PD, et al. The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Mol Plant Pathol. 2012; 13(4): 414–430. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00783.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.de Oliveira NF, Santos GRC, Xisto MIDS, dos Santos GMP, Nucci M, Haido RMT, et al. β–1,6-linked Galactofuranose-rich peptidogalactomannan of Fusarium oxysporum is important in the activation of macrophage mechanisms and as a potential diagnostic antigen. Medical Mycology. 2019; 57: 234–245. doi: 10.1093/mmy/myx167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lievens B, Claes L, Vakalounakis DJ, Vanachter AC, Thomma BP. A robust identification and detection assay to discriminate the cucumber pathogens Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. Cucumerinum and f.sp. Radicis-cucumerinum. Environ Microbiol. 2007; 9(9): 2145–2161. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01329.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sarrocco S, Falaschi N, Vergara M, Nicoletti F, Vannacci G. Use of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp Dianthi transformed with marker genes to follow colonization of carnation roots. Journal of Plant Pathology. 2007; 89(1): 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu S, Lu J, Zhu R, Dai F. A rapid and simple extraction method for plant pathogenic fungi. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica. 2005; 4: 362–365. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li MH, Xie XL, Lin XF, Shi JX, Ding ZJ, Ling JF, et al. Functional characterization of the gene FoOCH1 encoding a putative α-1,6-mannosyltransferase in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Fungal Genet Biol. 2014; 65:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2014.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lopez-Fernandez L, Roncero MI, Prieto A, Ruiz-Roldan C. Comparative proteomic analyses reveal that Gnt2-mediated N-glycosylation affects cell wall glycans and protein content in Fusarium oxysporum. J Proteomics. 2015; 128: 189–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.07.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fang W, Ding W, Wang B, Zhou H, Ouyang H, Ming J, et al. Reduced expression of the O-mannosyltransferase 2 (AfPmt2) leads to deficient cell wall and abnormal polarity in Aspergillus fumigatus. Glycobiology. 2010; 20 (5): 542–552. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwp206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wiedemann A, Kakoschke TK, Speth C, Rambach G, Ensinger C, Jensen HE, et al. Distinct galactofuranose antigens in the cell wall and culture supernatants as a means to differentiate Fusarium from Aspergillus species. Int J Med Microbiol. 2016; 306(6): 381–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2016.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li P, Pu X, Feng B, Yang Q, Shen H, Zhang J, et al. FocVel1 influences asexual production, filamentous growth, biofilm formation, and virulence in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum. Front Plant Sci. 2015; 6: 312. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pu X, Xie B, Li P, Mao Z, Ling J, Shen H, et al. Analysis of the defence-related mechanism in cucumber seedlings in relation to root colonization by nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum CS-20. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014; 355 (2): 142–151. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Guarro J, Gené J. Opportunistic fusarial infections in humans. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995; 14: 741–754. doi: 10.1007/BF01690988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nucci M, Anaissie E. Fusarium infections in immunocompromised patients. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007; 20: 695–704. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00014-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zonghua Wang

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-02191

Galactofuranose (Galf)-containing sugar chain is essential for the growth, conidiation and virulence of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zonghua Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 18.

4.We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09168451.2017.1422383

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01352.x

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Edtor,

The paper by Zhou et al. describes the role of cell wall related galactofuranose containing sugar chain in Fusarium oxysporum. To address the role of Galf residues, the author have made targeted deletion of two UDP-galactopyranose mutases (ugmA and ugmB) and a single galactofuranose transferase (gfsA). The analysis of gfsA is somewhat premature especially since in other studies the redundancy of gfs genes has been shown.

The main contribution of the paper is that it shows the impact on no galf on the virulence but the weak point is that the growth of the double mutant is severely affected and reduced which questions whether the lack of virulence can be directly related to the absence of galF or this reduced growth. This has not been addressed sufficiently in the paper.

In the title and throughout the paper the author state that Galf-containing sugar chain are essential for growth….(titel) or essential for cell wall integrity (line 31) etc. Clearly, Galf is not essential for growth (de mutant lacking Galf is viable) so please do not use the word essential (throughout the manuscript). Use for example … Galf biosynthesis contributes ….

Line 28/29 Rephrase. …. suggesting that UgmA and UgmB are redundant and that they can both contribute to synthesis of UDP-Galf.

Line 72 and further. Include and cite also the work in Aspergillus niger.

It is not clear if the Fusarium gfsA gene is most homologous to the A fumigatus gfsA gene and why this gfs gene was choosen for further analysis. E.g. Expression analysis (as being done for ugmA and ugmB) might be a reason and it is not clear why the expression of gfsA has not been taken along. Include also a phylogenic analysis of the six gfs genes. Are they all grouping together and are likely to encode Galf transferases?

The term revertant for complemented strains is misleading. Please use the word complemented strain. Revertant suggest a spontaneous mutation occurring that reverts the phenotype. Also adjust in Figures.

Line 130 please include some statistical analysis on the data. “the number of conidia was slightly reduced” can not be included. Give a number here and indicate if this is relevant (Student TTest or equivalent)

Fig 5. Check labeling and figure legend. Expression level (fold) is not clear. Label figure A, B and C and explain clearly what we see.

Is it true that the strain start to sporulate in liquid cultures after 24 hours of growth? The authors should explain why we see still a red signal in de double mutant. In other species is has been shown that deletion of ugmA and B abolish galf biosynthesis.

Line 286: A. fumigatus also contains three gfs genes (see ne.g. Arentshorst et al., 2019). Adjust the discussion and include discussion related to the phylogenetic analysis.

Reviewer #2: Comments:

In this work,Zhou et al. investigated three uncharacterized genes from a plant pathogenic fungus, F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum, which putatively encode enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of Galactofuranose (Galf). Two of these enzymes are the homologs of Aspergillus fumigatus UgmA named as UgmA and UgmB, while the third one shears the sequence similarity with Aspergillus fumigatus GfsA named as GfsA. Authors found that deletion of ugm genes, especially the ugmA, led to a reduced production of Galf-containing sugar chains, resulting growth defect and impaired conidiation phenotypes in F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum. Most importantly, the ugmA deletion mutant as well as the ΔgfsA strain lost their pathogenicity in cucumber plantlets. Thus, authors claimed that these two genes can be the targets for the development of new anti-Fusarium agents. Results and the conclusion seem reasonable, and show certain importance on the research filed of pathogenic fungi. However, there are several mistakes and inappropriate presentations in the manuscript, especially in the result part. These may simply be considered as careless miss, but this reviewer believes that some of them will critically influence the conclusion of this work. If the manuscript would be published in the journal, revision is necessary in regards to the following points.

Major points:

1) In Figure 4:

As described in the figure legend, the DM-ReugmA represents the double mutant (ΔugmAΔugmB) with a copy of re-introduced ugmA; and DM-ReugmB is the double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB. If these are true, then the DM-ReugmA strain should has the similar growth phenotype with the ΔugmB strain, and the DM-ReugmB stain should grow similar with the ΔugmA strain. However, in the Figure 4A and 4B, DM-ReugmB strain clearly show a better growth phenotype than the DM-ReugmA, while the growth of the ΔugmA strain is more sensitive to calcofluor white and Congo red than ΔugmB strain. How can explain these different phenotypes?

2) In Figure 5:

This figure is very hard to follow. Three panels have been presented here. As reviewer’s understanding, the upper panel of the left side represents the expression levels of ugmA and ugmB genes in the wild type (WT) strain. Here, the empty bar indicates the expression level of ugmA gene and the solid bar shows that of ugmB. This panel is clear and easy to understand because the Y-axis is labelled as “expression level”. On the other hand, the lower panel should represent the expression level of ugmA gene in both WT and ΔugmB strains. In this panel, the empty bar indicates the WT strain and the solid bar represents the ΔugmB strain. However, its Y-axis still be labelled as “expression level”. It is confusing to the readers that same empty or solid bar indicates the different things in a same figure. These two panels should be separated into Figure 5A and 5B, and each of it should be given a different subtitle to describe their difference. Same with the panel of right side, it should be presented as Figure 5C, and has its own subtitle indicating the ugmB expression in WT and ΔugmA strain.

3) In Figure 7D:

Same with in Figure 4, The EFs of DM-ReugmA and DM-ReugmB strains are not consistent with those of ΔugmB and ΔugmA strains.

Minor points:

1) In the introduction: Line 75-76 of page 4 describes “In A. nidulans, deletion of the ugeA, the gene encoding UGM, leads to highly branched hyphae and reduced conidiation”. The ugeA should be the gene encoding a UGE (UDP-glucose 4-epimerase), not the UGM (UDP-galactopyranose mutase)?

2) In Figure 1A and 2: Different levels of growth and conidiation can be clearly observed between the DM-ReugmB and ΔugmA strains. These results should be indicated, and the biological reasons should be discussed.

3) The galactomannan-specific antibody AB135-8 was used in Figure 6 to staining the cell wall. Dose this antibody specifically recognize the Galf-containing structure? It should be indicated or emphasized in the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Arthur F.J. Ram

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0250064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250064.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Feb 2021

Response to Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Dear Edtor,

The paper by Zhou et al. describes the role of cell wall related galactofuranose containing sugar chain in Fusarium oxysporum. To address the role of Galf residues, the author have made targeted deletion of two UDP-galactopyranose mutases (ugmA and ugmB) and a single galactofuranose transferase (gfsA). The analysis of gfsA is somewhat premature especially since in other studies the redundancy of gfs genes has been shown.

The main contribution of the paper is that it shows the impact on no galf on the virulence but the weak point is that the growth of the double mutant is severely affected and reduced which questions whether the lack of virulence can be directly related to the absence of galF or this reduced growth. This has not been addressed sufficiently in the paper.

In the title and throughout the paper the author state that Galf-containing sugar chain are essential for growth….(titel) or essential for cell wall integrity (line 31) etc. Clearly, Galf is not essential for growth (de mutant lacking Galf is viable) so please do not use the word essential (throughout the manuscript). Use for example … Galf biosynthesis contributes ….

It’s good suggestion. We have changed the title and the text by taking the reviewer’s suggestion.

Line 28/29 Rephrase. …. suggesting that UgmA and UgmB are redundant and that they can both contribute to synthesis of UDP-Galf.

It has been rephrased.

Line 72 and further. Include and cite also the work in Aspergillus niger.

Yes, we have added A. niger work.

It is not clear if the Fusarium gfsA gene is most homologous to the A fumigatus gfsA gene and why this gfs gene was choosen for further analysis. E.g. Expression analysis (as being done for ugmA and ugmB) might be a reason and it is not clear why the expression of gfsA has not been taken along. Include also a phylogenic analysis of the six gfs genes. Are they all grouping together and are likely to encode Galf transferases?

This is a good comment. Indeed, we initiated this work about 5-6 years ago. At that time, we serached the genome sequence with gfs, only one gene was identified. So we named this gene as gfsA. Later we found 6 gfs genes in F. oxysporum, but we did not change the name of gfsA. This reviewer gave a good suggestion. So we went back to check the phylogenic tree. It turns out that it would more accurate to name this gene as gfsB. To clear describe this, we added Table 1 and Fig 8 in our manuscript. Also, we added the description in the results and discussion. Please check them out.

The term revertant for complemented strains is misleading. Please use the word complemented strain. Revertant suggest a spontaneous mutation occurring that reverts the phenotype. Also adjust in Figures.

All revertant used in this manuscript has been changed into complemented strain.

Line 130 please include some statistical analysis on the data. “the number of conidia was slightly reduced” can not be included. Give a number here and indicate if this is relevant (Student TTest or equivalent)

It has been added.

Fig 5. Check labeling and figure legend. Expression level (fold) is not clear. Label figure A, B and C and explain clearly what we see.

We have re-made this figure and re-written the figure legend.

Is it true that the strain start to sporulate in liquid cultures after 24 hours of growth? The authors should explain why we see still a red signal in de double mutant. In other species is has been shown that deletion of ugmA and B abolish galf biosynthesis.

Yes, regularly the strain will reach conidiation stage after 24 h under our experiment condition. The red signal still can be obserbved in double mutant, but this signal is weak and not continuously distributed on cell wall, which might be due to non-specific binding of antibody.

Line 286: A. fumigatus also contains three gfs genes (see ne.g. Arentshorst et al., 2019). Adjust the discussion and include discussion related to the phylogenetic analysis.

Yes, we have adjusted the discussion.

Reviewer #2: Comments:

In this work,Zhou et al. investigated three uncharacterized genes from a plant pathogenic fungus, F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum, which putatively encode enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of Galactofuranose (Galf). Two of these enzymes are the homologs of Aspergillus fumigatus UgmA named as UgmA and UgmB, while the third one shears the sequence similarity with Aspergillus fumigatus GfsA named as GfsA. Authors found that deletion of ugm genes, especially the ugmA, led to a reduced production of Galf-containing sugar chains, resulting growth defect and impaired conidiation phenotypes in F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum. Most importantly, the ugmA deletion mutant as well as the ΔgfsA strain lost their pathogenicity in cucumber plantlets. Thus, authors claimed that these two genes can be the targets for the development of new anti-Fusarium agents. Results and the conclusion seem reasonable, and show certain importance on the research filed of pathogenic fungi. However, there are several mistakes and inappropriate presentations in the manuscript, especially in the result part. These may simply be considered as careless miss, but this reviewer believes that some of them will critically influence the conclusion of this work. If the manuscript would be published in the journal, revision is necessary in regards to the following points.

Major points:

1) In Figure 4:

As described in the figure legend, the DM-ReugmA represents the double mutant (ΔugmAΔugmB) with a copy of re-introduced ugmA; and DM-ReugmB is the double mutant with a copy of re-introduced ugmB. If these are true, then the DM-ReugmA strain should has the similar growth phenotype with the ΔugmB strain, and the DM-ReugmB stain should grow similar with the ΔugmA strain. However, in the Figure 4A and 4B, DM-ReugmB strain clearly show a better growth phenotype than the DM-ReugmA, while the growth of the ΔugmA strain is more sensitive to calcofluor white and Congo red than ΔugmB strain. How can explain these different phenotypes?

Sorry, we have mis-labeled the DM-ReugmB and DM-ReugmA. Now it has been revised in Fig 4.

2) In Figure 5:

This figure is very hard to follow. Three panels have been presented here. As reviewer’s understanding, the upper panel of the left side represents the expression levels of ugmA and ugmB genes in the wild type (WT) strain. Here, the empty bar indicates the expression level of ugmA gene and the solid bar shows that of ugmB. This panel is clear and easy to understand because the Y-axis is labelled as “expression level”. On the other hand, the lower panel should represent the expression level of ugmA gene in both WT and ΔugmB strains. In this panel, the empty bar indicates the WT strain and the solid bar represents the ΔugmB strain. However, its Y-axis still be labelled as “expression level”. It is confusing to the readers that same empty or solid bar indicates the different things in a same figure. These two panels should be separated into Figure 5A and 5B, and each of it should be given a different subtitle to describe their difference. Same with the panel of right side, it should be presented as Figure 5C, and has its own subtitle indicating the ugmB expression in WT and ΔugmA strain.

We have made a new figure and re-written the legend. We hope this new figure will be eay to understand.

3) In Figure 7D:

Same with in Figure 4, The EFs of DM-ReugmA and DM-ReugmB strains are not consistent with those of ΔugmB and ΔugmA strains.

Yes, this was also mis-labeled. We have revised.

Minor points:

1) In the introduction: Line 75-76 of page 4 describes “In A. nidulans, deletion of the ugeA, the gene encoding UGM, leads to highly branched hyphae and reduced conidiation”. The ugeA should be the gene encoding a UGE (UDP-glucose 4-epimerase), not the UGM (UDP-galactopyranose mutase)?

It has been revised.

2) In Figure 1A and 2: Different levels of growth and conidiation can be clearly observed between the DM-ReugmB and ΔugmA strains. These results should be indicated, and the biological reasons should be discussed.

Well, it happens sometimes since we used different plasmids and selective marker to generate the complemented strain as descibed in Material and method. We have added a short discussion in the results.

3) The galactomannan-specific antibody AB135-8 was used in Figure 6 to staining the cell wall. Dose this antibody specifically recognize the Galf-containing structure? It should be indicated or emphasized in the manuscript.

This antibody specifically binds to Galf alone. We have changed the description in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Zonghua Wang

31 Mar 2021

Galactofuranose (Galf)-containing sugar chain contributes to the hyphal growth, conidiation and virulence of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum

PONE-D-21-02191R1

Dear Dr. Jin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zonghua Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors have answered all my questions, and made corrections in the revised version. This reviewer has no further request,

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: GAO, XIAO-DONG

Acceptance letter

Zonghua Wang

16 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-02191R1

Galactofuranose (Galf)-containing sugar chain contributes to the hyphal growth, conidiation and virulence of F. oxysporum f.sp. cucumerinum

Dear Dr. Jin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Zonghua Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Alignment of UDP-galactopyranose mutases.

    BLASTp searches of the A. fumigatus UDP-galactopyranose mutase GlfA/Ugm1 (AFU_3G12690) in the genome of F. oxysporum 5176 identified three homologous genes, ugmA (EGU88002.1) and ugmB (EGU83790). The ugmA encodes a predicted protein (519 amino acids) sharing 80% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA, while the ugmB encodes a protein (507 amino acids) sharing 71% of identity with A. fumigatus GlfA.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Souhtern blotting of the single and double mutant of the ugmA and ugmB genes.

    Southern blotting was carried by detecting HindIII-digested fragments with a probe in the upstream non-coding region of the ugmA or ugmB gene.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Sensitivities of the mutant to cell wall stressors.

    A serial dilution of conidia of 1×104−1×101 of the WT, the mutant and complemented strain were inoculated on PDA agar plates supplemented with 40 μg/ml calcofluor white or 40 μg/ml Congo red. Strains were cultured at 28°C.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES