Predictive modeling of Pseudomonas syringae virulence on bean using gradient boosted decision trees.
Journal
PLoS pathogens
ISSN: 1553-7374
Titre abrégé: PLoS Pathog
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238921
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
06
01
2022
accepted:
30
06
2022
revised:
04
08
2022
pubmed:
26
7
2022
medline:
9
8
2022
entrez:
25
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pseudomonas syringae is a genetically diverse bacterial species complex responsible for numerous agronomically important crop diseases. Individual P. syringae isolates are assigned pathovar designations based on their host of isolation and the associated disease symptoms, and these pathovar designations are often assumed to reflect host specificity although this assumption has rarely been rigorously tested. Here we developed a rapid seed infection assay to measure the virulence of 121 diverse P. syringae isolates on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). This collection includes P. syringae phylogroup 2 (PG2) bean isolates (pathovar syringae) that cause bacterial spot disease and P. syringae phylogroup 3 (PG3) bean isolates (pathovar phaseolicola) that cause the more serious halo blight disease. We found that bean isolates in general were significantly more virulent on bean than non-bean isolates and observed no significant virulence difference between the PG2 and PG3 bean isolates. However, when we compared virulence within PGs we found that PG3 bean isolates were significantly more virulent than PG3 non-bean isolates, while there was no significant difference in virulence between PG2 bean and non-bean isolates. These results indicate that PG3 strains have a higher level of host specificity than PG2 strains. We then used gradient boosting machine learning to predict each strain's virulence on bean based on whole genome k-mers, type III secreted effector k-mers, and the presence/absence of type III effectors and phytotoxins. Our model performed best using whole genome data and was able to predict virulence with high accuracy (mean absolute error = 0.05). Finally, we functionally validated the model by predicting virulence for 16 strains and found that 15 (94%) had virulence levels within the bounds of estimated predictions. This study strengthens the hypothesis that P. syringae PG2 strains have evolved a different lifestyle than other P. syringae strains as reflected in their lower level of host specificity. It also acts as a proof-of-principle to demonstrate the power of machine learning for predicting host specific adaptation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35877772
doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010716
pii: PPATHOGENS-D-22-00018
pmc: PMC9352200
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1010716Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jun 1;35(6):1547-1549
pubmed: 29722887
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2019 Aug 25;57:63-90
pubmed: 31082307
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2000 Sep;64(3):624-53
pubmed: 10974129
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2013;51:85-104
pubmed: 23663005
Plant J. 2018 Feb;93(4):651-663
pubmed: 29160935
Gigascience. 2019 Oct 1;8(10):
pubmed: 31598686
New Phytol. 2018 Jul;219(2):672-696
pubmed: 29726587
Front Microbiol. 2020 Jan 30;10:3119
pubmed: 32082269
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999 Jun;63(2):266-92
pubmed: 10357851
Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2013 Jul;Chapter 1:Unit 1.25
pubmed: 23853078
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 2;102(31):11064-9
pubmed: 16043691
Phytopathology. 2003 Sep;93(9):1082-92
pubmed: 18944091
Front Genet. 2020 Apr 15;11:350
pubmed: 32351543
Trends Microbiol. 2006 Aug;14(8):353-5
pubmed: 16782339
EMBO J. 2000 Jul 3;19(13):3204-14
pubmed: 10880434
BMC Microbiol. 2012 Jul 16;12:141
pubmed: 22800299
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Apr 05;10:418
pubmed: 31024592
Mol Plant Pathol. 2017 Jan;18(1):152-168
pubmed: 27798954
Nat Microbiol. 2016 Apr 04;1:16041
pubmed: 27572646
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2021 Aug;62:102011
pubmed: 33677388
ISME J. 2008 Mar;2(3):321-34
pubmed: 18185595
Plant Pathol. 2018 Jun;67(5):1177-1193
pubmed: 29937581
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jul;41(12):e121
pubmed: 23598997
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D115-9
pubmed: 14681372
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2016 Nov 1;40(6):894-937
pubmed: 28201715
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Sep;71(9):5182-91
pubmed: 16151103
Environ Microbiol. 2005 Sep;7(9):1379-91
pubmed: 16104861
J Vis Exp. 2019 May 21;(147):
pubmed: 31180345
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Apr;70(4):1999-2012
pubmed: 15066790
Mol Plant Pathol. 2011 Sep;12(7):617-27
pubmed: 21726364
Genome Biol. 2019 Jan 3;20(1):3
pubmed: 30606234
BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Aug 19;5:113
pubmed: 15318951
Mol Plant Pathol. 2022 Jan;23(1):3-15
pubmed: 34463014
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2017 Jun;37:15-22
pubmed: 28437661
Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Jan;18(1):41-50
pubmed: 27840430
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2016 Apr;29(4):243-6
pubmed: 26883489
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 03;9(9):e105547
pubmed: 25184292
Elife. 2018 Aug 28;7:
pubmed: 30149837
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015 Jun;25:17-24
pubmed: 25835153
Nat Microbiol. 2016 Apr 26;1:16059
pubmed: 27572652
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018 May;16(5):316-328
pubmed: 29479077
Bioinformatics. 2014 Jul 15;30(14):2068-9
pubmed: 24642063
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 16;110(29):11923-7
pubmed: 23818615
Trends Microbiol. 2021 Jul;29(7):621-633
pubmed: 33455849
J Bacteriol. 2005 Sep;187(18):6488-98
pubmed: 16159782