Comment on "Evolutionary transitions between beneficial and phytopathogenic Rhodococcus challenge disease management"

Propagation of an Epigenetic Age-Related Disorder in Almond Is Governed by Vegetative Bud Ontogeny Rather Than Chimera-Type Cell Lineage

Almond (Prunus dulcis [Mill.] D.A. Webb) represents a model system for the study of epigenetic age-related disorders in perennial plants because the economically important noninfectious bud-failure disorder is well characterized and shown to be associated with the clonal-age of the propagation source. Epigenetic changes regulating disorders such as changes in methylation or telomere-length shortening would be expected to occur in shoot apical meristem initial cells since subsequent daughter cells including those in ensuing shoot axillary meristems show an irreversible advance in epigenetic aging. Because multiple initial cells are involved in meristem development and growth, such ‘mutations’ would be expected to occur in some initial cells but not others, resulting in mericlinal or sectorial chimeras during subsequent shoot development that, in turn, would differentially affect vegetative buds present in the leaf axils of the shoot. To test this developmental pattern, 2180 trees propagated from axillary buds of known position within asymptomatic noninfectious bud-failure budstick sources were evaluated for the disorder. Results demonstrate that relative bud position was not a determinant of successful trait propagation, but rather all axillary buds within individual shoots showed very similar degrees of noninfectious bud-failure. Control is thus more analogous to tissue-wide imprinting rather than being restricted to discrete cell lineages as would be predicted by standard meristem cell fate-mapping.

Functional Genomics Insights Into the Pathogenicity, Habitat Fitness, and Mechanisms Modifying Plant Development of Rhodococcus sp. PBTS1 and PBTS2

Pistachio Bushy Top Syndrome (PBTS) is a recently emerged disease that has strongly impacted the pistachio industry in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The disease is caused by two bacteria, designated PBTS1 that is related to Rhodococcus corynebacterioides and PBTS2 that belongs to the species R. fascians. Here, we assessed the pathogenic character of the causative agents and examined their chromosomal sequences to predict the presence of particular functions that might contribute to the observed co-occurrence and their effect on plant hosts. In diverse assays, we confirmed the pathogenicity of the strains on "UCB-1" pistachio rootstock and showed that they can also impact the development of tobacco species, but concurrently inconsistencies in the ability to induce symptoms were revealed. We additionally evidence that fas genes are present only in a subpopulation of pure PBTS1 and PBTS2 cultures after growth on synthetic media, that these genes are easily lost upon cultivation in rich media, and that they are enriched for in an in planta environment. Analysis of the chromosomal sequences indicated that PBTS1 and PBTS2 might have complementary activities that would support niche partitioning. Growth experiments showed that the nutrient utilization pattern of both PBTS bacteria was not identical, thus avoiding co-inhabitant competition. PBTS2 appeared to have the potential to positively affect the habitat fitness of PBTS1 by improving its resistance against increased concentrations of copper and penicillins. Finally, mining the chromosomes of PBTS1 and PBTS2 suggested that the bacteria could produce cytokinins, auxins, and plant growth-stimulating volatiles and that PBTS2 might interfere with ethylene levels, in support of their impact on plant development. Subsequent experimentation supported these in silico predictions. Altogether, our data provide an explanation for the observed pathogenic behavior and unveil part of the strategies used by PBTS1 and PBTS2 to interact with plants.

Response to comments on "Evolutionary transitions between beneficial and phytopathogenic Rhodococcus challenge disease management"

Randall et al., 2018 and Vereecke, 2018 have raised concerns about a paper we published (Savory et al., 2017). Here, we respond to those concerns.