Background
Cotton leafroll dwarf virus (CLRDV) is the causal agent of an economically important cotton (
Gossypium hirsutum) disease called cotton blue disease (CBD) [
1].
Aphis gossypii-transmitted CBD has been observed in several cotton-producing areas of Central Africa, Asia and South America [
2]. CBD symptoms are characterized by stunting, leaf rolling, vein yellowing, dark-green leaves and small bolls, leading therefore to severe yield losses when aphid populations are not properly controlled. In Brazil, CBD is present in almost all cotton growing fields and the disease was also partially controlled by the application of insecticides to decrease aphid populations and by the use of CBD-resistant cotton cultivars. Since 2006, several resistance breaking CLRDV isolates have been observed throughout the country, producing CBD-like symptoms in formerly resistance cotton lines [
3]. Apart from typical CBD symptoms, resistant or susceptible cotton varieties infected with CLRDV resistance-breaking isolates may also display reddish and withered leaves. Resistance breaking isolates are now widely distributed in Brazilian cotton growing areas, making the use of insecticide for aphid control compulsory.
The CLRDV genome resembles a typical member of the genus
Polerovirus, family
Luteoviridae and contains six open reading frames (ORF0 to ORF5) [
4]. The genome is divided into two gene-containing portions, separated by an approximately 200 nucleotides intergenic region. Three open reading frames (ORF3, ORF4 and ORF5) are located in the 3’-end portion of the genome encoding for the structural proteins (capsid, movement and aphid-transmission proteins, respectively), while the 5’-end region of the genome encodes replication-related proteins (ORF1 and ORF2) and also a gene (ORF0) encoding the RNA silencing suppression protein P0. In general, the genome sequences of resistance breaking CLRDV isolates are very similar to CLRDV isolates from susceptible plants [
3]. For example, the degree of sequence identity in all proteins encoded by ORFs 1 to 5 is greater than 93 % between two resistance breaking CLRDV isolates (Ima2 and Acr3) and two non-resistance breaking ones (PV1 and ARG) in cotton plants. However, when the identities among P0 proteins are compared, the diversity is consistently higher, with identity numbers ranging from 85.8 to 86.6 % among the four isolates [
3].
The P0 protein from several members of the genera
Polerovirus and
Enamovirus, family
Luteoviridae, are known to be involved in the suppression of plant’s anti-viral defense mechanisms at variable degrees, depending on the species and isolates [
5‐
11]. P0’s silencing suppression activity is mediated by promoting the destabilization of ARGONAUTE (AGO) proteins, key players in RNA silencing mechanisms [
8,
12‐
15]. In plants, the RNA silencing pathway is triggered by double stranded RNAs (dsRNAs), which are processed by Dicer-like enzymes into small RNAs ranging from 20 to 24 nucleotides [
16]. Viral-derived small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) produced during infections are readily recruited by AGO-containing RNA-induced silencing complexes (RISC) and used by the machinery to degrade viral genomic and sub-genomic sequences, being therefore an efficient anti-viral defense mechanism [
17]. AGO is an important component of the machinery, since it directly binds to siRNAs and guide RISC to target RNAs. Viral RNA degradation may take place either at locally infected cells or at distal tissues, by the systemic movement of silencing signals [
18]. A plethora of evolutionary unrelated viral proteins has evolved to cope with the anti-viral RNA silencing process. The P19 proteins from tombusviruses are one of the best characterized suppressors. P19 proteins are able to bind to sRNAs, preventing their loading into RISC [
19]. Similarly, by degrading AGO proteins, P0 proteins are able to suppress the plant’s anti-viral defense, allowing the infection to proceed. P0 proteins probably exert their activity through an F-box-dependent interaction with homologs of the S-phase kinase-related protein 1 (SKP1) ASK1 and ASK2 [
20]. SKP1 is a core component of the SKP1/Cullin1/F-box (SCF) family of E3 ubiquitin ligases that mediate the ubiquitination of diverse regulatory and signaling proteins [
21]. Point mutations in P0’s F-box motif may abolish its interaction with SKP1 and consequentially decreasing AGO destabilization and viral pathogenesis [
8,
9,
11,
20]. However, P0’s activity is insensitive to proteasome inhibitors and the viral protein probably operates by hitchhiking cellular autophagy pathways endogenously used to modulate AGO homeostasis [
13‐
15]. This model is supported by the increased accumulation of AGO proteins in the presence of autophagy inhibitors and by its co-localization with autophagic vesicles [
14].
Recently, the P0 protein from an Argentinian isolate of CLRDV (P0
CL-ARG) has been characterized as a RNA silencing suppression protein [
10]. The level of both local and systemic silencing suppression observed in P0
CL-ARG seems to be low when compared to other members of the group. Almost no suppression of systemic silencing is observed for P0
CL-ARG, in line with what has been previously found for the P0 proteins from other members of the family [
5,
10,
22]. However, it’s known that P0 silencing suppression activity can vary even among closely related viruses. For example, European isolates of beet mild yellowing virus vary greatly in their ability to suppress local silencing [
7]. Here, the local and systemic silencing suppression activities of P0 proteins from CLRDV isolates collected in different parts of Brazil, including CBD resistant and susceptible cotton varieties, were assessed and compared to P0
CL-ARG. Results indicate that silencing suppression capabilities are strain-specific and that strength of local and systemic silencing suppression is not correlated in CLRDV P0 proteins.
Conclusions
Our results indicated a high diversity among P0 proteins from Brazilian and Argentinian isolates of CLRDV, a virus associated with CBD. All CLRDV P0 proteins analyzed were able to mediate AtAGO1 decay, however, variable silencing suppression activities were observed, probably reflecting their sequence diversity. P0
CL-ARG was a moderate silencing suppressor of both local and systemic silencing in our experiments, when compared to the positive control constructs used in the assays (Figs.
3, 4 and Additional file
1: Figure S1). Three proteins (P0
CL-PV1, P0
CL-Pal3 and P0
CL-Pm1) were also moderate suppressors of local silencing, but strong suppressors of systemic silencing. Four other proteins behaved as weak suppressors of local silencing. Contrasting to control constructs (P19 and P0
PL-AU) and to other CLRDV P0s, those four proteins (P0
CL-Acr9, P0
CL-Ima2, P0
CL-Hol1 and P0
CL-Ipa4) could not support GFP suppression for long periods when assayed in the mGFP5-expressing
N. benthamiana 16c line (Fig.
3) or in wild type plants (Additional file
1: Figure S1). GFP levels clearly started to fade in the presence of those proteins from 6 dpi onwards (Fig.
3 and Additional file
1: Figure S1). However, two of the weak local silencing suppressor proteins (P0
CL-Hol1 and P0
CL-Ipa4) were able to almost completely block the spread of systemic silencing signals when assayed in 16c transgenic lines. Despite of their weak local silencing, P0
CL-Hol1 and P0
CL-Ipa4 are as strong as the control P0
PL-AU protein in suppressing systemic silencing. It’s tempting to speculate therefore that the strength of local and systemic silencing suppression activity might be genetically unlinked in P0 proteins. Furthermore, these data indicate that the silencing suppression capabilities of the distinct CLRDV P0 proteins are not directly linked to their genetic diversity.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
RSC, GSM, MFSV and RLC conceived and designed the experiments. RSC, ILGA and TFS performed the experiments. MFSV and TFS contributed with plant material. GSM, MFSV and RLC contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. RSC and RLC wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.