Cargando…
Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors
The steadily increasing number of sequenced fungal and oomycete genomes has enabled detailed studies of how these eukaryotic microbes infect plants and cause devastating losses in food crops. During infection, fungal and oomycete pathogens secrete effector molecules which manipulate host plant cell...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4688413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26779196 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01168 |
_version_ | 1782406733509951488 |
---|---|
author | Sperschneider, Jana Williams, Angela H. Hane, James K. Singh, Karam B. Taylor, Jennifer M. |
author_facet | Sperschneider, Jana Williams, Angela H. Hane, James K. Singh, Karam B. Taylor, Jennifer M. |
author_sort | Sperschneider, Jana |
collection | PubMed |
description | The steadily increasing number of sequenced fungal and oomycete genomes has enabled detailed studies of how these eukaryotic microbes infect plants and cause devastating losses in food crops. During infection, fungal and oomycete pathogens secrete effector molecules which manipulate host plant cell processes to the pathogen's advantage. Proteinaceous effectors are synthesized intracellularly and must be externalized to interact with host cells. Computational prediction of secreted proteins from genomic sequences is an important technique to narrow down the candidate effector repertoire for subsequent experimental validation. In this study, we benchmark secretion prediction tools on experimentally validated fungal and oomycete effectors. We observe that for a set of fungal SwissProt protein sequences, SignalP 4 and the neural network predictors of SignalP 3 (D-score) and SignalP 2 perform best. For effector prediction in particular, the use of a sensitive method can be desirable to obtain the most complete candidate effector set. We show that the neural network predictors of SignalP 2 and 3, as well as TargetP were the most sensitive tools for fungal effector secretion prediction, whereas the hidden Markov model predictors of SignalP 2 and 3 were the most sensitive tools for oomycete effectors. Thus, previous versions of SignalP retain value for oomycete effector prediction, as the current version, SignalP 4, was unable to reliably predict the signal peptide of the oomycete Crinkler effectors in the test set. Our assessment of subcellular localization predictors shows that cytoplasmic effectors are often predicted as not extracellular. This limits the reliability of secretion predictions that depend on these tools. We present our assessment with a view to informing future pathogenomics studies and suggest revised pipelines for secretion prediction to obtain optimal effector predictions in fungi and oomycetes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4688413 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46884132016-01-15 Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors Sperschneider, Jana Williams, Angela H. Hane, James K. Singh, Karam B. Taylor, Jennifer M. Front Plant Sci Plant Science The steadily increasing number of sequenced fungal and oomycete genomes has enabled detailed studies of how these eukaryotic microbes infect plants and cause devastating losses in food crops. During infection, fungal and oomycete pathogens secrete effector molecules which manipulate host plant cell processes to the pathogen's advantage. Proteinaceous effectors are synthesized intracellularly and must be externalized to interact with host cells. Computational prediction of secreted proteins from genomic sequences is an important technique to narrow down the candidate effector repertoire for subsequent experimental validation. In this study, we benchmark secretion prediction tools on experimentally validated fungal and oomycete effectors. We observe that for a set of fungal SwissProt protein sequences, SignalP 4 and the neural network predictors of SignalP 3 (D-score) and SignalP 2 perform best. For effector prediction in particular, the use of a sensitive method can be desirable to obtain the most complete candidate effector set. We show that the neural network predictors of SignalP 2 and 3, as well as TargetP were the most sensitive tools for fungal effector secretion prediction, whereas the hidden Markov model predictors of SignalP 2 and 3 were the most sensitive tools for oomycete effectors. Thus, previous versions of SignalP retain value for oomycete effector prediction, as the current version, SignalP 4, was unable to reliably predict the signal peptide of the oomycete Crinkler effectors in the test set. Our assessment of subcellular localization predictors shows that cytoplasmic effectors are often predicted as not extracellular. This limits the reliability of secretion predictions that depend on these tools. We present our assessment with a view to informing future pathogenomics studies and suggest revised pipelines for secretion prediction to obtain optimal effector predictions in fungi and oomycetes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4688413/ /pubmed/26779196 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01168 Text en Copyright © 2015 Sperschneider, Williams, Hane, Singh and Taylor. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Plant Science Sperschneider, Jana Williams, Angela H. Hane, James K. Singh, Karam B. Taylor, Jennifer M. Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title | Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title_full | Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title_short | Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors |
title_sort | evaluation of secretion prediction highlights differing approaches needed for oomycete and fungal effectors |
topic | Plant Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4688413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26779196 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01168 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sperschneiderjana evaluationofsecretionpredictionhighlightsdifferingapproachesneededforoomyceteandfungaleffectors AT williamsangelah evaluationofsecretionpredictionhighlightsdifferingapproachesneededforoomyceteandfungaleffectors AT hanejamesk evaluationofsecretionpredictionhighlightsdifferingapproachesneededforoomyceteandfungaleffectors AT singhkaramb evaluationofsecretionpredictionhighlightsdifferingapproachesneededforoomyceteandfungaleffectors AT taylorjenniferm evaluationofsecretionpredictionhighlightsdifferingapproachesneededforoomyceteandfungaleffectors |