Harnessing Machine Learning to Decode Plant Immunity: A New Era in Predicting Functional NLR Genes

Abstract

This article explores the transformative role of machine learning (ML) in predicting functional Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) genes, the cornerstone of plant intracellular immunity. Aimed at researchers and biotechnology professionals, it provides a comprehensive analysis spanning from the foundational biology of NLRs and the specific challenges in their identification to the latest ML methodologies, including AlphaFold2-Multimer for structure-based prediction and ensemble models for classifying NLR-effector interactions. We further address critical troubleshooting and optimization strategies for model training and data scarcity, and review robust validation frameworks and comparative performance of tools like PRGminer and NLRexpress. By synthesizing cutting-edge research, this guide serves as a roadmap for leveraging computational power to accelerate the discovery of disease-resistance genes, ultimately advancing crop protection and sustainable agriculture.

The NLR Landscape: Understanding the Targets of Machine Learning Prediction

NLRs as Key Executors of Plant Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI)

Plant immunity relies on a sophisticated innate immune system that deploys intracellular Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) receptors as key executors of Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI). These receptors detect pathogen effector proteins and initiate a robust immune response, often accompanied by programmed cell death known as the hypersensitive response (HR). NLR proteins function as molecular switches that transition from inactive to active states upon pathogen perception, triggering comprehensive defense signaling cascades [1].

The canonical NLR structure features a central Nucleotide-Binding (NB-ARC) domain that governs activation through ADP/ATP exchange, a C-terminal Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR) domain responsible for effector recognition and autoinhibition, and variable N-terminal domains that dictate signaling pathways. These N-terminal domains classify NLRs into major categories: Coiled-coil (CC)-NLs, Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor (TIR)-NLs, and RPW8-type CC (CCR)-NLs [1] [2]. NLRs have evolved tremendous diversity through gene duplication events, positive selection, and various genetic recombination mechanisms, enabling continuous adaptation to rapidly evolving pathogens [3] [1].

Current Applications and Engineering Strategies

Sentinel Endophyte-Mediated ETI Broadening

Background: A significant limitation of ETI is its dependence on specific NLR-effector recognition, which pathogens evade through effector variation or absence. To address this, researchers have developed a "Sentinel" strategy that genetically engineers plant endophytes to express recognized effectors upon pathogen detection [4] [5].

Protocol: Engineering Sentinel Endophytes

• Selection of Effector-NLR Pair: Identify a well-characterized effector (e.g., AvrRpt2, AvrRpm1) and its corresponding NLR receptor (e.g., RPS2, RPM1) from the host plant [5].
• Vector Construction: Clone the effector gene into an endophyte-expression vector under control of a pathogen-inducible promoter. The OxyR regulatory circuit, activated by pathogen-associated reactive oxygen species (ROS), has proven effective [4] [5].
• Endophyte Transformation: Introduce the constructed vector into compatible plant endophytic bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas fluorescens) using electroporation or conjugation [5].
• Plant Colonization: Inoculate sterile plants with transformed endophytes through root drenching or foliar spraying. Monitor colonization efficiency via selective antibiotic plates or fluorescence tagging [4].
• Efficacy Validation: Challenge inoculated plants with pathogens lacking the recognized effector. Assess ETI activation through HR visualization, ion leakage measurement, and pathogen growth quantification [4].

Applications: This approach has demonstrated success in activating ETI against diverse pathogens in Arabidopsis, tomato, and tobacco, including Pseudomonas syringae, Botrytis cinerea, and Golovinomyces cichoracearum, without significant impacts on plant growth or microbiota diversity [4] [5].

Protease-Activated NLR Engineering

Background: Innovative NLR engineering creates pathogen-responsive immune switches by exploiting conserved pathogen enzymes, such as viral proteases [6].

Protocol: Designing Protease-Activated NLRs

• Identify Target Protease: Select a conserved protease from pathogens of interest (e.g., potyviral NIa protease recognizing xxVxxQ↓A(G/S) motifs) [6].
• Engineer Autoactive NLR: Generate constitutively active NLR variants (aNLRs) through site-directed mutagenesis while maintaining N-terminal dependence for function [6].
• Add Protease-Cleavable Tag: Fuse a polypeptide containing the protease cleavage site to the N-terminus of the aNLR, which maintains the NLR in an inactive state until cleavage [6].
• Transgenic Plant Development: Transform plants with the engineered construct using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Select and propagate transgenic lines [6].
• Resistance Validation: Challenge T1+ transgenic plants with target pathogens. Evaluate resistance through symptom scoring, pathogen quantification, and cleavage confirmation via immunoblotting [6].

Applications: This strategy has conferred complete resistance to multiple potyviruses (PVY, TuMV, PepMoV, ChiVMV, PPV) in Nicotiana benthamiana and soybean mosaic virus (SMV) in soybean, demonstrating broad-spectrum potential [6].

Table 1: Quantitative Assessment of Engineering Strategies

Strategy	Pathogen Targets Tested	Resistance Spectrum	Plant Systems Validated	Key Advantages
Sentinel Endophytes	Pseudomonas syringae, Botrytis cinerea, Golovinomyces cichoracearum	Broad (pathogens without recognizable effectors)	Arabidopsis, tomato, tobacco	Maintains microbiota diversity, minimal growth penalty
Protease-Activated NLRs	Potato virus Y, Turnip mosaic virus, Pepper mottle virus, Soybean mosaic virus	Broad (multiple potyviruses)	Nicotiana benthamiana, soybean	Durable resistance, simple design, compatible with genome editing
NLR Transgenic Array	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, Puccinia triticina	Specific (stem rust, leaf rust)	Wheat	High-throughput functional screening

High-Throughput NLR Discovery Pipeline

Background: Traditional NLR identification is resource-intensive. Recent research leverages the discovery that functional NLRs often exhibit high expression in uninfected plants, enabling predictive screening [7].

Protocol: High-Throughput NLR Identification

• Transcriptome Analysis: Sequence transcriptomes from uninfected tissues of diverse plant genotypes and wild relatives. Identify NLRs with high steady-state expression levels [7].
• Candidate Selection: Prioritize NLRs within the top 15% of expression levels, as these are statistically enriched for functional immune receptors [7].
• Transgenic Array Construction: Clone candidate NLRs into binary vectors and transform receptive systems (e.g., wheat via high-efficiency transformation) to create a living NLR library [7].
• Large-Scale Phenotyping: Challenge transgenic lines with relevant pathogens in controlled environments. Assess disease resistance through symptom scoring and pathogen biomass quantification [7].
• Validation & Network Analysis: Confirm resistance specificity and investigate NLR interactions through protein-protein interaction studies and transcriptomic analysis [7].

Applications: This pipeline identified 31 new resistance NLRs (19 against wheat stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) from a transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grasses, dramatically accelerating functional NLR discovery [7].

Experimental Protocols for NLR Research

Genome-Wide NLR Identification and Analysis

Protocol: Comprehensive NLR Family Characterization

• Sequence Identification:
  • Perform BLASTp searches against target proteomes using known NLR sequences (e.g., from Arabidopsis TAIR database) [3].
  • Conduct HMMER searches with NLR domain profiles (PF00931, cd00204) using E-value cutoff of 1×10⁻⁵ [3].
• Domain Validation:
  • Verify identified candidates using NCBI CDD and Pfam batch search [3].
  • Annotate N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains [3].
• Phylogenetic Analysis:
  • Align NB-ARC domains or full-length sequences using Muscle v5 [3].
  • Construct Maximum Likelihood trees with IQ-TREE (1000 bootstrap replicates) using related species NLRs as outgroups [3].
• Evolutionary Analysis:
  • Identify gene duplication events (tandem, segmental) using MCScanX [3].
  • Analyze syntenic relationships with related species using Dual Synteny Plotter in TBtools [3].
• Expression Analysis:
  • Extract promoter regions (2kb upstream); identify cis-regulatory elements with PlantCARE [3].
  • Process RNA-seq data from infected tissues: map reads with Hisat2, calculate FPKM and differentially expressed genes with DESeq2 (|log₂FC| ≥1, FDR <0.05) [3].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example Sources/References
pBBR1MCS-2 Vector	Broad-host-range cloning for endophyte engineering	[5]
OxyR Regulatory Circuit	ROS-responsive effector expression in Sentinel endophytes	[4] [5]
NIa Protease Cleavage Sites (xxVxxQ↓A(G/S))	Engineering protease-activated NLRs for potyvirus resistance	[6]
Arabidopsis NLR Collection (e.g., SNC1, RPP4, ZAR1)	Reference sequences for phylogenetic and functional studies	[8] [7]
Agrobacterium tumefaciens GV3101	Plant transformation for transient assays and stable integration	[5]
PlantCARE Database	Identification of cis-regulatory elements in NLR promoters	[3]
STRING Database	Prediction of NLR protein-protein interaction networks	[3]

NLR Expression Analysis and Regulation Studies

Background: Proper NLR expression levels are critical for effective immunity without autoimmune penalties. Multiple regulatory layers control NLR transcription and translation [8] [2].

Protocol: NLR Expression Regulation Analysis

• Epigenetic Profiling:
  • Perform chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) for histone modifications (H3K4me3, H3K9me2, H3K36me2/3) at NLR loci [8].
  • Conduct bisulfite sequencing to analyze DNA methylation patterns in NLR promoters and gene bodies [8].
• Transcriptional Analysis:
  • Quantify NLR expression dynamics during pathogen infection using RT-qPCR and RNA-seq [3] [2].
  • Identify transcription factor binding sites in NLR promoters through yeast one-hybrid screening and EMSA [2].
• Post-transcriptional Assessment:
  • Analyze small RNA populations targeting NLR genes through sRNA sequencing [8].
  • Investigate alternative splicing patterns under different conditions using RT-PCR with variant-specific primers [2].

Integration with Machine Learning Prediction

Machine learning approaches are revolutionizing NLR functional prediction and resistance breeding. Recent studies demonstrate that ML models incorporating kinship data (RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K) achieve up to 95% accuracy in predicting disease resistance traits like rice blast, enabling rapid identification of functional NLRs without laborious phenotypic screening [9]. These computational methods leverage several NLR characteristics:

Key Predictors for ML Models:

• Expression Signatures: Functional NLRs frequently show high steady-state expression in uninfected tissues [7].
• Kinship Data: Population structure and evolutionary relationships significantly enhance prediction accuracy [9].
• Epigenetic Marks: Histone modifications and DNA methylation patterns correlate with NLR functionality [8].
• Sequence Features: Domain architectures, specific motifs, and evolutionary rates indicate functional potential [3] [1].

Implementation Pipeline:

• Feature Extraction: Compile genomic, transcriptomic, epigenomic, and population genetic data for NLR candidates.
• Model Training: Apply multiple algorithms (random forests, SVMs, neural networks) with kinship integration.
• Validation: Test predictions against known functional NLRs and experimental validation through high-throughput transformation [7] [9].

This integrated approach enables researchers to prioritize NLR candidates for functional studies, significantly accelerating the identification of resistance genes for crop improvement.

Schematic Representations

Schematic 1: Sentinel Endophyte-Mediated ETI Activation

Schematic 2: Protease-Activated NLR Engineering Strategy

Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) proteins constitute a critical family of intracellular receptors that form the core of the plant immune system, specifically mediating Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI). These proteins function as sophisticated molecular switches that detect pathogen-derived effector molecules and initiate robust defense signaling cascades. The canonical architecture of plant NLRs features three defining domains: an variable N-terminal domain (either Coiled-Coil/CC or Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor/TIR), a central Nucleotide-Binding Site (NBS) domain, and a C-terminal Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR) domain. This tripartite structure is highly conserved across plant species and enables NLRs to perform their essential functions in pathogen sensing and immune activation [10] [11].

The N-terminal domain determines downstream signaling pathways and classifies NLRs into major subgroups. TIR-NBS-LRR (TNL) proteins contain a Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domain that often engages in specific cell death signaling pathways, while CC-NBS-LRR (CNL) proteins feature a coiled-coil domain that typically activates alternative defense signaling routes. Some plant genomes also contain NLRs with N-terminal resistance to Powdery Mildew 8-like (RPW8) domains, though these are less common. The central NBS domain (also referred to as NB-ARC) serves as a molecular switch governed by nucleotide-dependent conformational changes, cycling between ADP-bound "off" and ATP-bound "on" states. The C-terminal LRR domain primarily functions in ligand sensing and autoinhibition, with its variable repeats conferring recognition specificity [10] [12] [11].

Understanding this domain architecture provides the foundation for studying NLR function, evolution, and engineering. The modular nature of these proteins enables both direct and indirect pathogen recognition strategies and facilitates the remarkable diversity required to counter rapidly evolving pathogens. Recent advances in machine learning and structural prediction have begun to unravel the precise molecular mechanisms governing NLR activation, opening new avenues for crop improvement through NLR engineering [10] [13].

Detailed Domain Architecture and Function

N-terminal Domains: CC and TIR

The N-terminal domains of NLR proteins dictate both protein-protein interactions and downstream signaling specificity. Coiled-Coil (CC) domains found in CNL proteins typically form α-helical bundles that facilitate homotypic interactions with signaling partners. These domains exhibit structural diversity, with some containing conserved EDVID motifs, while others may feature zinc finger or RPW8 domains. Upon activation, CC domains undergo conformational changes that enable their oligomerization and recruitment of downstream signaling components, ultimately leading to defense activation and often a hypersensitive response (HR) [10] [11].

TIR domains in TNL proteins share homology with Toll and interleukin-1 receptors and function as enzymes that catalyze the production of specific immune signaling molecules. Recent research has demonstrated that plant TIR domains possess NADase activity, cleaving NAD+ to generate cyclic ADP-ribose and other immune-activating molecules. These small molecules are thought to function as second messengers that amplify immune signals and potentially mediate cell non-autonomous immunity, where immune signaling extends beyond initially infected cells. TIR domains can also self-associate, forming signaling-active oligomers upon pathogen perception [14] [11].

The signaling divergence between CNLs and TNLs represents an evolutionary strategy to create layered immune networks with redundant yet distinct activation pathways. This diversification provides robustness against pathogen interference and enables more sophisticated regulation of defense responses, balancing effective immunity with the metabolic costs of defense activation [10] [14].

Central Nucleotide-Binding Site (NBS) Domain

The NBS domain (approximately 300 amino acids) constitutes the conserved engine of NLR proteins, functioning as a molecular switch regulated by nucleotide binding and hydrolysis. This domain contains several highly conserved motifs, including the phosphate-binding loop (P-loop), RNBS-A, -B, -C, and -D motifs, and the MHD motif, which collectively coordinate nucleotide-dependent conformational changes. In the resting state, the NBS domain binds ADP, maintaining the NLR in an autoinhibited conformation. Upon pathogen perception, ADP is exchanged for ATP, triggering significant structural rearrangements that activate "downstream" signaling [10] [11].

The NBS domain operates as an allosteric regulator that integrates signals from the LRR and N-terminal domains. The LRR domain typically maintains the NLR in an autoinhibited state by restraining the NBS domain, while the N-terminal domains often require nucleotide-dependent conformational changes for their proper exposure and function. This intricate regulation prevents accidental activation in the absence of pathogens while enabling rapid response upon effector detection. Mutations in key NBS motifs frequently abolish NLR function, underscoring their essential role in immune signaling [10].

C-terminal Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR) Domain

The LRR domain forms a flexible, solenoid-shaped structure that primarily determines recognition specificity in NLR proteins. Composed of multiple repeats of 20-30 amino acids each, LRR domains create a versatile surface for protein-protein interactions. The concave surface typically forms a parallel β-sheet that can directly bind pathogen effectors or monitor the status of host "guardee" proteins. The repetitive nature of LRR domains makes them particularly prone to duplication and diversification, enabling rapid evolution to recognize novel pathogen effectors [10] [13].

LRR domains function beyond mere recognition; they also play crucial roles in autoinhibition and activation dynamics. In the resting state, the LRR domain physically interacts with the NBS domain, maintaining the NLR in an inactive conformation. Pathogen perception relieves this inhibition, allowing nucleotide exchange and subsequent activation. The exceptional diversity of LRR domains, driven by positive selection, enables the plant immune system to keep pace with rapidly evolving pathogens through gene duplication, recombination, and diversifying selection [10] [13].

Table 1: Characteristics of Major NLR Domains

Domain	Key Features	Conserved Motifs	Primary Functions
CC	α-helical bundles, variable length	EDVID, MADA	Downstream signaling, homotypic interactions, oligomerization
TIR	α/β fold, enzymatic activity	—	NADase activity, immune signaling molecule production
NBS	NB-ARC region, nucleotide binding	P-loop, RNBS-A/B/C/D, MHD, GLPL	Molecular switch, ATP/GTP binding/hydrolysis, signal transduction
LRR	Solenoid structure, repeating units	LxxLxLxxN/CxL	Pathogen recognition, autoinhibition, protein-protein interactions

Experimental Protocols for NLR Gene Identification

Genomic Identification of NLR Genes

The identification of NLR genes in plant genomes relies on domain-based search strategies combined with manual curation to account for the diversity and fragmentation often present in this gene family. A standard protocol begins with Hidden Markov Model (HMM) searches using the Pfam NBS (NB-ARC) domain model (PF00931) against all predicted proteins in a genome. Initial hits with E-values below a specified threshold (typically < 1×10⁻²⁰) are selected for further analysis. A cassava-specific refinement involves building a custom HMM from high-confidence NBS domains and reapplying it to the proteome with a relaxed E-value cutoff (< 0.01) to capture more divergent sequences [11].

Domain annotation follows initial identification, using HMM searches against additional Pfam domains: TIR (PF01582), RPW8 (PF05659), and LRR (PF00560, PF07723, PF07725, PF12799). Coiled-coil domains require specialized prediction tools such as Paircoil2 with a P-score cutoff of 0.03. Manual curation is essential to remove false positives, particularly proteins with kinase domains that may contain similar subdomains. Validation against reference databases like UNIREF100 and comparison with known NLRs from related species further refine the gene set [11].

For partial NLR genes that may lack complete domains due to evolutionary processes, BLAST searches against a curated database of known NLR proteins can identify fragmented members. Additionally, genomic clustering analysis helps identify potential NLR genes that may have diverged significantly in their NBS domains but reside in characteristic NLR-rich regions. These clusters are typically defined as containing two or more NLR genes within a 200 kb genomic window [11].

Targeted Sequencing Using Nanopore Adaptive Sampling

Nanopore Adaptive Sampling (NAS) offers a powerful approach for enriching and sequencing NLR genomic regions without complex library preparation. The protocol begins with reference selection and target definition using a well-assembled genome from a related cultivar or species. NLR genes are identified in this reference using tools like NLGenomeSweeper, which detects conserved NBS domains. Regions of interest (ROIs) are defined by grouping NBS domains separated by less than 1 Mb, then expanded by adding 20 kb flanking regions to create initial target regions [15].

Repetitive element filtering is critical for NAS efficiency. Tools like CENSOR (using the Repbase database) identify repetitive elements >200 bp, which are excluded from target regions along with any sequences <500 bp between them, as NAS requires approximately 500 bp for decision-making. The final target regions in BED format and the reference genome in FASTA format are loaded into MinKNOW software for real-time read selection [15].

During sequencing, the initial ~500 bp of each DNA strand is mapped in real-time to the target regions. Strands matching the targets are fully sequenced, while others are ejected by reversing pore voltage. This enrichment method typically achieves fourfold enrichment of target regions, efficiently capturing complex NLR clusters with high accuracy, as validated by PCR and comparison with whole-genome assemblies [15].

Machine Learning Approaches for NLR Functional Prediction

Structure-Based Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

Cutting-edge approaches for predicting NLR-effector interactions combine structural modeling with machine learning. The protocol begins with protein complex prediction using AlphaFold2-Multimer to generate 3D models of potential NLR-effector complexes. These predicted structures are evaluated using AlphaFold confidence scores, with DockQ scores validating model quality against experimentally determined structures where available [13].

For binding characterization, the predicted structures are analyzed using multiple machine learning models (97 in the cited study) from Area-Affinity to calculate binding affinities (BA) and binding energies (BE). "True" NLR-effector interactions typically show BA values between -8.5 and -10.6 log(K) and BE between -11.8 and -14.4 kcal/mol⁻¹. This narrow range suggests specific thermodynamic requirements for NLR activation. Ensemble machine learning models trained on these physicochemical parameters can distinguish true interactions from non-functional "forced" pairs with up to 99% accuracy, enabling high-confidence prediction of novel NLR-effector interactions [13].

The NLR-Effector Interaction Classification (NEIC) resource provides a specialized tool for these predictions, significantly streamlining the identification of NLRs important for plant-pathogen resistance. This approach is particularly valuable for characterizing singleton NLRs that directly bind pathogen effectors, which display higher amino acid diversity in their LRR domains as measured by Shannon entropy scores [13].

Deep Learning Tools for NLR Gene Identification

Deep learning frameworks offer powerful alternatives to traditional homology-based methods for NLR identification and classification. PRGminer represents a state-of-the-art tool that implements a two-phase prediction approach. In Phase I, the tool classifies input protein sequences as R-genes or non-R-genes using dipeptide composition features, achieving 98.75% accuracy in k-fold testing and 95.72% on independent testing. Phase II further classifies predicted R-genes into eight categories (CNL, TNL, TIR, etc.) with 97.55% and 97.21% accuracy on respective validation sets [12].

The tool uses multiple sequence representations including dipeptide composition, which has shown superior performance over other encoding schemes. The deep learning architecture extracts both sequential and convolutional features from raw encoded protein sequences, enabling classification without relying on sequence alignment. This approach particularly benefits identification of novel NLRs in poorly characterized species where homology-based methods fail due to low sequence similarity [12].

For polyploid genomes, specialized tools like DaapNLRSeek (Diploidy-Assisted Annotation of Polyploid NLRs) address the challenges of complex genome structures. This pipeline accurately predicts NLR genes in polyploid species like sugarcane by leveraging diploid progenitor information, enabling identification of paired NLRs, TIR-only, and TPK genes that might be missed by conventional annotation methods [16].

Table 2: Computational Tools for NLR Analysis

Tool Name	Methodology	Primary Application	Key Features
PRGminer	Deep learning (dipeptide composition)	NLR identification and classification	98.75% accuracy, 8-class classification, webserver availability
AlphaFold2-Multimer + Area-Affinity	Structural prediction + machine learning	NLR-effector interaction prediction	Binding affinity/energy calculation, 99% prediction accuracy
DaapNLRSeek	Comparative genomics	NLR annotation in polyploids	Handles complex genomes, identifies paired NLRs
NLGenomeSweeper	Domain-based search	NLRome characterization	Identifies NBS domains, defines genomic clusters

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NLR Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
HMMER Suite	Domain-based NLR identification	Pfam models: NBS (PF00931), TIR (PF01582), LRR (PF00560)
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Protein complex structure prediction	Predicts NLR-effector 3D structures, requires high-performance computing
Nanopore Adaptive Sampling	Targeted NLR sequencing	Real-time enrichment, requires MinKNOW software and reference genome
PRGminer Webserver	Deep learning-based NLR prediction	https://kaabil.net/prgminer/, accepts protein sequences
String Database	Protein-protein interaction networks	Predicts NLR interactions, identifies signaling partners
EggNOG-mapper	Functional annotation	Annotates predicted NLR genes with functional terms
MEME Suite	Motif discovery	Identifies conserved motifs in NLR domains

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

NLR Research Workflow Integrating Genomic and Functional Approaches

NLR Activation Pathways and Immune Signaling

This application note details the critical role of tandem gene duplication in the evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens. For researchers investigating the Nucleotide-binding Leucine-Rich Repeat (NLR) gene family, the primary mediators of effector-triggered immunity, we present integrated experimental and computational protocols. These methodologies are designed to identify rapidly diversifying genomic regions, characterize NLR-effector interactions, and leverage machine learning to predict functional resistance genes, thereby accelerating crop improvement programs.

The co-evolutionary conflict between host plants and pathogens represents a powerful selective force, driving the diversification of host immune systems. A key genomic strategy in this arms race is the proliferation of immune receptors through tandem duplication. These duplication events create genetic redundancy, allowing one gene copy to maintain essential functions while others explore new mutational space, potentially generating novel pathogen recognition specificities [17].

Recent studies on cereal crops like barley confirm that natural selection favors lineages where pathogen defence genes are physically associated with duplication-inducing genomic elements, such as kilobase-scale tandem repeats. These Long Duplication-Prone Regions (LDPRs) are significantly enriched for arms-race genes and exhibit a history of repeated long-distance dispersal and local expansion [17]. The resulting birth-death dynamics lead to the formation of complex gene clusters, particularly for NLRs, which are often poorly annotated by standard pipelines due to their repetitive nature and low expression levels [12].

Understanding these dynamics is not merely an academic pursuit; it provides a roadmap for targeted crop improvement. By identifying and harnessing these natural diversity-generating mechanisms, researchers can develop plants with more durable and broad-spectrum resistance.

Quantitative Data on Tandem Duplication in Immune Gene Families

Table 1: Prevalence of Immune Gene Families in Duplication-Prone Regions

Gene Family	Function in Plant Immunity	Association with Duplication-Prone Regions	Key References
NBS-LRR (NLR)	Intracellular pathogen recognition; effector-triggered immunity	Strongly associated with self-duplicating DNA; forms large clusters	[17] [12]
Receptor-like Kinases (RLKs)	Surface-mediated immunity; pattern recognition	Independently identifiable by association with duplication-inducers	[17]
Pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins	Antimicrobial activity; defense signaling	Top-ranking terms in orthology descriptors of LDPR-associated clusters	[17]
Thionins	Cytotoxic peptides against pathogens	Found in gene clusters within LDPRs	[17]

Table 2: Machine Learning Tools for NLR Identification and Analysis

Tool Name	Primary Function	Methodology	Reported Accuracy
PRGminer	Predicts R-genes and classifies into 8 subclasses	Deep learning (Dipeptide composition)	Phase I Acc: 95.72% (independent test)	[12]
NLRexpress	Identifies CC/TIR/NBS/LRR motifs in large datasets	Bundle of 17 machine learning predictors	Minimizes compute time without accuracy loss	[18]
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Predicts 3D structures of NLR-Effector complexes	Deep learning structure prediction	Acceptable accuracy vs. experimental structures	[13]
Ensemble ML Model	Predicts novel NLR-Effector interactions	Machine learning on binding affinity/energy	99% classification accuracy	[13]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Identifying Tandem Duplication-Prone Genomic Regions

Objective: To map Long Duplication-Prone Regions (LDPRs) in a plant genome assembly and test for enrichment of pathogen-resistant genes.

Background: LDPRs are genomic intervals with elevated levels of locally duplicated sequences at the kilobase scale. Their identification provides a gene-agnostic starting point for finding rapidly evolving arms-race genes [17].

Materials:

• High-quality genome assembly (e.g., Hordeum vulgare L. cv. 'Morex' MorexV3)
• Genome annotation file (GFF3 format)
• High-performance computing cluster

Procedure:

• Genome Self-Alignment: Perform an all-vs-all alignment of the genome assembly using a tool like NUCMER or BLASTN to identify homologous sequences.
• LDPR Calling: Process the alignment file to identify intervals with a statistically elevated density of paralogous sequences above a defined length threshold (e.g., Kbp-scale). This defines candidate LDPRs [17].
• Gene Assignment: Map high-confidence annotated genes to the LDPRs using BEDTools.
• Gene Clustering: Cluster all annotated genes based on protein sequence similarity using OrthoFinder or a similar tool to define gene families.
• Statistical Enrichment Test: For each gene cluster, perform a Fisher's exact test to determine if its members are statistically over-represented in LDPRs compared to the genomic background.
• Functional Annotation: Analyze the list of LDPR-associated gene clusters for over-represented Gene Ontology terms and functional descriptors related to pathogen defense (e.g., "NBS-LRR," "receptor-like kinase," "pathogenesis-related") [17].

Protocol 2: In Silico Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

Objective: To predict whether a specific plant NLR directly interacts with a pathogen effector protein using protein structure modeling and machine learning.

Background: Direct recognition of effectors by NLRs simplifies the prediction of immune function. AlphaFold2-Multimer can predict the 3D structure of protein complexes, which can then be used to calculate interaction metrics that distinguish true binding partners [13].

Materials:

• Protein sequences of candidate NLRs (particularly the LRR domain) and pathogen effectors.
• Access to a high-performance GPU server for running AlphaFold2-Multimer.
• The Area-Affinity suite of machine learning models.

Procedure:

• Sequence Selection: Identify candidate singleton NLRs with direct-recognition potential, for instance, by calculating high Shannon entropy scores in the LRR domain [13].
• Complex Structure Prediction: Use AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict the 3D structure of the NLR (LRR domain) in complex with the pathogen effector protein.
• Model Quality Control: Retain models with an AlphaFold confidence score (pLDDT or ipTM) above a validated threshold that correlates with acceptable DockQ scores when benchmarked against known structures [13].
• Binding Analysis: Input the predicted complex structure into the 97 machine learning models from Area-Affinity to calculate the Binding Affinity (BA, in log(K)) and Binding Energy (BE, in kcal/mol).
• Interaction Prediction: Input the calculated BA and BE values into a pre-trained Ensemble machine learning model. A positive classification indicates a predicted "true" NLR-effector interaction with 99% reported accuracy [13].

Visualization of Workflows and Pathways

Tandem Duplication & NLR Discovery Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow from genomic analysis to functional NLR prediction:

NLR-Activated Immune Signaling Pathway

This diagram outlines the simplified signaling pathway triggered upon successful NLR-effector recognition:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Reagent/Tool	Function/Description	Application in Protocol
High-Quality Genome Assembly (e.g., Barley MorexV3)	A contiguous, accurate, and annotated reference genome.	Serves as the foundational dataset for identifying LDPRs and annotating NLR clusters. [17]
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Deep learning system for predicting 3D structures of protein complexes.	Predicts the physical structure of an NLR protein bound to a pathogen effector. [13]
PRGminer Webserver	Deep learning-based tool for predicting and classifying plant resistance genes.	Rapidly identifies and classifies NLRs and other R-genes from protein sequence data. [12]
NLRexpress	A bundle of 17 ML models for swift motif detection in NLRs.	Efficiently identifies CC, TIR, NBS, and LRR motifs in large genomic or proteomic datasets. [18]
Area-Affinity ML Models	Suite of models for predicting protein-protein binding affinities and energies.	Calculates key interaction metrics from AlphaFold2-predicted structures to evaluate NLR-effector binding. [13]

Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins serve as crucial intracellular immune receptors in plants, mediating effector-triggered immunity (ETI) upon pathogen recognition [3] [19]. The identification of functional NLR genes represents a critical pathway toward developing disease-resistant crops, yet researchers face substantial obstacles in accurately pinpointing genuine resistance genes amid complex genomic backgrounds. These challenges primarily stem from extraordinary NLR diversity, difficulties in detecting expression patterns, and the prevalence of non-functional pseudogenes that complicate annotation efforts [3] [19]. This application note synthesizes current methodologies and best practices for overcoming these hurdles, with particular emphasis on their relevance to developing machine learning frameworks for predicting functional NLR genes.

Major Technical Challenges and Solutions

Extraordinary Sequence and Structural Diversity

The NLR gene family exhibits remarkable diversity across plant species, with significant implications for identification and functional characterization.

Table 1: NLR Diversity Across Plant Species

Species	NLR Count	Genome Size	Key Features	Reference
Capsicum annuum (pepper)	288	~3.5 Gb	Tandem duplication-driven expansion, clustering near telomeres	[3]
Arabidopsis thaliana	~150	~135 Mb	Well-annotated reference, model for NLR studies	[19]
Oryza sativa (rice)	~500	~430 Mb	High diversity, pan-NLRome studies available	[19] [20]
Asparagus officinalis (garden asparagus)	27	~1.3 Gb	Domesticated variety showing NLR contraction	[21]
Asparagus setaceus (wild relative)	63	~1.3 Gb	Expanded NLR repertoire compared to domesticated relative	[21]
Utricularia gibba (bladderwort)	0.003% of all genes	~82 Mb	Extremely low NLR percentage	[19]
Malus domestica (apple)	2% of all genes	~742 Mb	High NLR percentage	[19]

The pepper NLR family demonstrates significant clustering, particularly near telomeric regions, with chromosome 09 harboring the highest density (63 NLRs) [3]. Evolutionary analysis has demonstrated that tandem duplication serves as the primary driver of NLR family expansion in pepper, accounting for 18.4% of NLR genes (53/288), predominantly on chromosomes 08 and 09 [3]. This pattern of localized amplification facilitates rapid generation of new resistance alleles through unequal crossing over and gene conversion [19].

In asparagus, comparative genomic analysis revealed a marked contraction of NLR genes from wild species to the domesticated A. officinalis, with gene counts of 63, 47, and 27 NLR genes identified in A. setaceus, A. kiusianus, and A. officinalis, respectively [21]. This reduction likely contributes to increased disease susceptibility in cultivated varieties and illustrates how artificial selection can inadvertently compromise immune gene networks.

Challenges in Expression Detection and Regulation

The traditional paradigm that NLRs require strict transcriptional repression due to their cytotoxic potential has been challenged by recent studies demonstrating that functional NLRs often exhibit substantial expression in uninfected tissues [7].

Table 2: Expression Characteristics of Functional NLRs

NLR Gene	Species	Pathogen Recognized	Expression Level	Functional Significance
Mla7	Barley	Blumeria hordei (powdery mildew)	Requires multiple copies for function	Higher copy number increases resistance threshold [7]
Mla3	Barley	Blumeria hordei (powdery mildew)	Copy-number dependent	Similar to Mla7 [7]
ZAR1	Arabidopsis thaliana	Multiple bacterial pathogens	Most highly expressed NLR in Col-0	Core signaling NLR [7]
Rpi-amr1	Solanum americanum	Phytophthora infestans	Highly expressed isoform is functional	Sensor NLR [7]
Mi-1	Tomato	Potato aphid, whitefly, root-knot nematode	High expression in leaves and roots	Tissue-specific expression pattern [7]
NRC helper NLRs	Solanaceae species	Multiple pathogens	Generally high expression	Signaling components for sensor NLRs [7]

Research has revealed that an unexpectedly large number of NLRs are expressed in uninfected plants, with known functional NLRs frequently present among highly expressed NLR transcripts [7]. In Arabidopsis thaliana, known functional NLRs are significantly enriched in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts compared with the lower 85% [7]. This expression signature provides a valuable filter for prioritizing candidate NLRs for functional validation.

Prevalence of Pseudogenes and Annotation Errors

The "arms race" between plants and their pathogens drives rapid NLR evolution, resulting in numerous non-functional alleles and pseudogenes that complicate genome annotation [3] [22]. Automated annotation pipelines frequently misannotate or miss NLR genes due to their atypical domain structures and sequence divergence.

The NLRSeek pipeline addresses these challenges by integrating de novo detection of NLR loci at the genome level with targeted genome reannotation, systematically reconciling these results with existing annotations to produce comprehensive NLR predictions [22]. Even in the well-annotated model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, NLRSeek identified a previously unannotated NLR gene whose expression and translation were confirmed by transcriptome and ribosome-profiling data [22]. In non-model species such as yam (Dioscorea species), NLRSeek identified 33.8%-127.5% more NLR genes than conventional methods, with 45.1% of the newly annotated NLRs exhibiting detectable expression [22].

Experimental Protocols for NLR Identification

Genome-Wide NLR Identification and Annotation

Protocol 1: Comprehensive NLR Identification Pipeline

Step 1: Initial Sequence Identification

• Perform HMMER searches (v3.3.2) against the whole proteome using core NLR domains (PF00931) with an E-value cutoff of 1×10^5 [3]
• Conduct parallel BLASTp analyses using reference NLR protein sequences from related species with stringent E-value cutoff of 1e-10 [21]
• Extract candidate sequences containing NB-ARC domains and remove redundancy manually [3]

Step 2: Domain Validation and Classification

• Validate remaining candidates via NCBI CDD (cd00204 for NB-ARC) and Pfam batch search [3]
• Check N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains for presence/completeness [3]
• Classify sequences based on complete domain architecture using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search [21]

Step 3: Complementary Identification Using NLRSeek

• Apply NLRSeek pipeline for reannotation-based NLR mining to recover missing NLRs [22]
• Integrate results from standard and NLRSeek pipelines while resolving conflicts
• Anounce non-canonical and truncated NLR variants (NL, CN, RN, TN) [21]

Step 4: Phylogenetic Reconstruction

• Align NB-ARC domain or full-length sequences using Muscle v5 or Clustal Omega [3] [21]
• Construct Maximum Likelihood trees in IQ-TREE with 1000 bootstrap replicates [3]
• Use related species NLRs as outgroup for evolutionary context [3]

Expression Profiling and Validation

Protocol 2: Expression-Based Functional NLR Screening

Step 1: Transcriptome Data Collection

• Obtain RNA-seq data from relevant tissues and infection time courses
• Include both resistant and susceptible genotypes for comparison [3]
• Ensure appropriate biological replicates (minimum n=3) and sequencing depth (>20 million reads per sample)

Step 2: Differential Expression Analysis

• Map clean reads to reference genome using HISAT2 or STAR aligners [3] [7]
• Calculate FPKM or TPM values and identify differentially expressed genes using DESeq2 or edgeR [7]
• Apply multiple testing correction (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR < 0.05) and fold-change threshold (|log2FC| ≥ 1) [3]

Step 3: Expression Signature Filtering

• Prioritize NLRs in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts in uninfected tissues [7]
• Identify NLRs showing significant induction upon pathogen infection [3]
• Validate tissue-specific expression patterns relevant to pathogen interaction [7]

Step 4: Experimental Validation

• Design RT-qPCR assays with reference genes for different plant species [3]
• Perform time-course experiments with pathogen inoculation
• Consider generating transgenic lines to test copy-number dependence for candidate NLRs [7]

Functional Validation via High-Throughput Transformation

Protocol 3: Transgenic Array for NLR Function Screening

Step 1: Candidate Selection and Vector Construction

• Select NLR candidates based on expression signature and evolutionary analysis
• Clone NLR genes into appropriate expression vectors (native or constitutive promoters)
• Consider multicopy strategies for NLRs requiring higher expression thresholds [7]

Step 2: High-Throughput Transformation

• Utilize established high-efficiency transformation protocols for target species [7]
• For wheat, apply transformation system achieving high efficiency [7]
• Generate minimum of 10 independent transgenic lines per NLR construct

Step 3: Large-Scale Phenotyping

• Challenge T1 transgenic lines with target pathogens under controlled conditions
• Include appropriate controls (empty vector, resistant and susceptible genotypes)
• Assess disease symptoms using standardized scoring systems at multiple time points

Step 4: Resistance Validation and Characterization

• Confirm transgene presence and expression in resistant lines
• Test race specificity against diverse pathogen isolates [7]
• Evaluate potential fitness costs associated with NLR expression [7]

Visualization of NLR Identification Workflow

Diagram Title: NLR Identification to ML Training

Diagram Title: NLR Immune Signaling Pathway

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NLR Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Sources/Protocols
NLRSeek Pipeline	Genome reannotation-based NLR identification	https://github.com/Wang-Mengda/NLRSeek [22]
NLGenomeSweeper	NLR region detection for targeted sequencing	v.1.2.1 for defining regions of interest [23]
Nanopore Adaptive Sampling	Targeted sequencing of complex NLR regions	PromethION flowcells with read rejection based on initial matches [23]
PlantCARE Database	Cis-regulatory element prediction in promoter regions	http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/ [3] [21]
String Database	Protein-protein interaction prediction	https://string-db.org/ (confidence >0.4) [3]
OrthoFinder	Orthogroup analysis for comparative genomics	v2.2.7 for clustering orthologous NLR genes [21]
High-Efficiency Wheat Transformation	Transgenic array generation for NLR screening	Protocol enabling testing of 995 NLRs [7]

Implications for Machine Learning Prediction

The empirical data and methodologies described herein provide critical foundation for developing machine learning frameworks to predict functional NLRs. Training datasets should incorporate the expression signatures (high steady-state levels), evolutionary features (positive selection signals), and genomic contexts (tandem duplicates) that characterize bona fide resistance genes. Future ML models would benefit from integrating multi-species pan-NLRome data to capture interspecific diversity while leveraging the experimental validation pipelines outlined to generate high-confidence training labels. The challenges of pseudogenes and annotation errors underscore the necessity of incorporating reannotation pipelines like NLRSeek in preprocessing genomic data for ML applications.

This application note details the exploitation of a conserved high steady-state mRNA expression signature for the rapid identification of functional nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) immune receptors in plants. For decades, NLR genes were presumed to require tight transcriptional repression to avoid autoimmunity and fitness costs. Recent evidence, however, demonstrates that known, functional NLRs are consistently enriched among the most highly expressed NLR transcripts in uninfected plants across diverse monocot and dicot species [7]. This discovery provides a powerful, simple filter for prioritizing candidate NLRs from the vast, complex gene families typical of plant genomes. When integrated with modern machine learning (ML) prediction tools and high-throughput functional validation platforms, this expression signature enables a streamlined pipeline for NLR discovery. This approach significantly accelerates the identification of new resistance genes for crop improvement, moving beyond resource-intensive traditional genetics.

NLR proteins are intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and activate robust disease resistance, often culminating in a hypersensitive response (HR) [24]. Their genes are among the most variable in plant genomes, with copy numbers ranging from hundreds in diploid species to over two thousand in polyploid crops like wheat [24] [25]. This diversity, while crucial for evolving pathogen recognition, makes the functional characterization of individual NLRs profoundly challenging.

A long-standing dogma in plant immunity held that NLR expression must be kept at low levels to prevent autoimmunity, which can cause spontaneous cell death, retarded growth, and severe fitness penalties [26] [7]. This view is now being revised. A growing body of evidence shows that the functional, often cloned NLRs are not transcriptionally repressed but are instead found among the most highly expressed NLR transcripts in their native contexts [7]. For instance, in Arabidopsis thaliana, the NLR gene ZAR1 is the most highly expressed NLR in the ecotype Col-0, and globally, known functional NLRs are significantly enriched in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts [7]. This correlation between high basal expression and function provides a new, accessible dimension for candidate gene prioritization within the massive NLR gene family.

Quantitative Data on NLR Expression and Function

The relationship between high expression and NLR function is supported by quantitative data from multiple plant species.

Table 1: Evidence of High Expression in Functionally Validated NLR Genes

NLR Gene	Species	Pathogen Specificity	Expression Evidence
ZAR1	Arabidopsis thaliana	Multiple	Most highly expressed NLR in ecotype Col-0 [7]
Mla7	Hordeum vulgare (Barley)	Blumeria hordei (Powdery Mildew)	Highly expressed transcript; requires multiple copies for full resistance [7]
Rpi-amr1	Solanum americanum	Phytophthora infestans	Highly expressed NLR; most highly expressed isoform is functional [7]
Mi-1	Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato)	Aphids, Whitefly, Nematodes	Highly expressed in leaves and roots of resistant cultivars [7]
Sr46, SrTA1662, Sr45	Aegilops tauschii	Puccinia graminis (Stem Rust)	Highly expressed NLR transcripts across accessions [7]
Helper NLRs (e.g., NRCs)	Solanaceae	Broad-spectrum signaling	Highly expressed, often with tissue specificity [7]

Table 2: Key Machine Learning Tools for NLR Identification and Validation

Tool Name	Primary Function	Utility in NLR Research
DaapNLRSeek [25]	Annotation of NLR genes in polyploid genomes	Accurately predicts and annotates NLRs from complex sugarcane genomes, providing the gene models essential for expression analysis.
AlphaFold2-Multimer [13]	Prediction of protein-protein complex structures	Predicts structures of NLR-effector complexes with acceptable accuracy, enabling in silico investigation of interactions.
Area-Affinity [13]	Prediction of binding affinities and energies	Uses machine learning (97 models) to calculate binding metrics from predicted structures, helping prioritize "true" NLR-effector pairs.
Enformer [27]	Gene expression prediction from DNA sequence	Uses deep learning to integrate long-range genomic interactions (up to 100 kb); can predict the impact of sequence variation on expression.

Integrated Experimental Protocol for Functional NLR Discovery

This protocol outlines a multi-stage process for identifying functional NLRs by leveraging their high expression signature, in silico tools, and high-throughput in planta validation.

Protocol 1: Identification of High-Expression NLR Candidates

Goal: To generate a curated list of high-priority NLR candidates from a target plant genome. Background: The initial filtering step uses transcriptomic data to focus resources on the NLRs most likely to be functional [7].

Materials & Reagents:

• High-Quality Genome Assembly & Annotation: For the target species. For polyploids (e.g., sugarcane, wheat), use specialized annotation pipelines like DaapNLRSeek [25].
• RNA-Seq Data: From uninfected leaf tissue (or other pathogen-relevant organs) of the resistant plant source. Multiple biological replicates are recommended.
• Computational Resources: Server with adequate RAM and CPU for bioinformatic analyses.

Procedure:

• NLRome Annotation: Identify the complete set of NLR genes in the target genome using an NLR-specific annotation tool.
  • For diploid species: Use NLR-Annotator or similar.
  • For polyploid species: Use the DaapNLRSeek pipeline, which leverages diploid relative annotations for superior accuracy in complex genomes [25].
• Expression Quantification: Map the RNA-Seq reads to the annotated genome. Calculate expression levels (e.g., Transcripts Per Million, TPM) for each NLR gene.
• Candidate Prioritization: Rank all NLR genes by their expression level. Select the top ~15% of highly expressed NLR transcripts for further analysis [7]. Cross-reference with existing literature to check if any selected candidates are already validated.

Protocol 2:In SilicoCharacterization and ML-Based Prediction

Goal: To computationally characterize prioritized NLRs and predict their potential interactors and functional impact. Background: Machine learning models can predict NLR-effector interactions and protein complex structures, providing mechanistic hypotheses [13].

Materials & Reagents:

• AlphaFold2-Multimer Software: For protein complex structure prediction [13].
• Area-Affinity Platform: For binding affinity and energy predictions [13].

Procedure:

• Structure Prediction: For candidate NLRs and known pathogen effectors, use AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict the 3D structure of potential complexes. Use the DockQ score to assess model quality [13].
• Interaction Prediction: Input the predicted structures into the Area-Affinity platform. Utilize its ensemble of 97 machine learning models to predict binding affinities and energies [13].
• Interpretation: "True" NLR-effector interactions typically show binding affinities in a narrow range (e.g., -8.5 to -10.6 log(K)) and binding energies between -11.8 and -14.4 kcal/mol [13]. Use these metrics to shortlist the most promising candidates for experimental testing.

Protocol 3: High-ThroughputIn PlantaValidation

Goal: To experimentally validate the disease resistance function of candidate NLRs. Background: High-efficiency transformation and large-scale phenotyping are critical for testing dozens of candidates in a scalable manner [7].

Materials & Reagents:

• High-Throughput Transformation System: Established protocol for the crop of interest (e.g., the high-efficiency wheat transformation system [7]).
• Pathogen Isolates: Characterized isolates with known Avr gene profiles.
• Phenotyping Facilities: Controlled environment growth chambers or greenhouses.

Procedure:

• Vector Construction: Clone the candidate NLR genes, including their native promoters and terminators, into a plant transformation vector.
• Transgenic Array Generation: Transform the constructs into a susceptible genotype of the crop plant. Aim to generate multiple independent transgenic lines for each candidate NLR to account for positional effects and ensure reproducible phenotypes.
• Large-Scale Phenotyping: Challenge the T0 or T1 transgenic plants with the target pathogen. A real-world example is the transgenic array of 995 grass NLRs in wheat, which identified 31 new resistance genes (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) [7].
• Copy Number & Expression Analysis: For resistant lines, confirm transgene insertion copy number and correlate it with the level of resistance. As demonstrated with Mla7, higher copy numbers can be necessary for full resistance [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Key Characteristics
DaapNLRSeek Pipeline [25]	Accurate NLR gene annotation in polyploid genomes	Diploidy-assisted; overcomes limitations of automatic annotation in complex genomes.
AlphaFold2-Multimer [13]	Prediction of NLR-effector protein complex structures	Provides structural models for investigating molecular interactions in silico.
Enformer Model [27]	Predicting gene expression from DNA sequence	Integrates long-range interactions (up to 100 kb); useful for predicting variant effects on NLR expression.
High-Efficiency Wheat Transformation [7]	High-throughput production of transgenic plants	Enables the creation of large-scale NLR candidate arrays for phenotyping.
NLR-Annotator	NLR identification in diploid genomes	Provides the foundational NLR gene models for subsequent expression analysis.

Workflow and Pathway Diagrams

Functional NLR Discovery Workflow

NLR Expression Regulation Network

The ML Toolkit: From Sequence to Structure for NLR-Effector Prediction

The identification of plant resistance genes (R-genes), particularly those encoding nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins, represents a fundamental challenge and opportunity in plant science. These genes form a crucial component of the plant immune system, enabling plants to detect pathogen effectors and activate robust defense responses [28]. Traditional methods for identifying NLR genes have relied on domain-based bioinformatics pipelines and experimental approaches that are often time-consuming, costly, and challenged by the complex genomic architecture of these genes [12] [25].

The emergence of deep learning has revolutionized this field, enabling the development of highly accurate predictive models that can rapidly identify and classify R-genes from protein sequence data. Among these tools, PRGminer stands out as a specialized deep learning-based framework designed specifically for high-throughput prediction of resistance genes involved in plant defense mechanisms [12]. This application note provides a comprehensive overview of PRGminer's architecture, performance, and practical implementation, contextualized within the broader scope of machine learning approaches for functional NLR gene research.

PRGminer Architecture and Classification System

PRGminer employs a sophisticated two-phase deep learning framework that systematically identifies and classifies plant resistance genes. The tool extracts sequential and convolutional features from raw encoded protein sequences, moving beyond traditional alignment-based methods to leverage the pattern recognition capabilities of deep neural networks [12].

Two-Phase Analytical Framework

The prediction workflow operates through two sequential phases that progressively refine the analysis:

• Phase I: R-gene Prediction - The input protein sequences are classified as either R-genes or non-R-genes. This initial filtering step ensures that only genuine resistance genes proceed to further analysis [12] [29].

• Phase II: R-gene Classification - The R-genes identified in Phase I are further classified into one of eight specific classes based on their domain architectures and functional characteristics [12] [29].

The following diagram illustrates the complete PRGminer workflow, from sequence input through final classification:

R-gene Classification Schema

PRGminer categorizes resistance genes into eight distinct classes based on their domain architecture and functional characteristics. The table below summarizes these classes and their defining features:

Table 1: PRGminer Resistance Gene Classification System

Class Code	Class Name	Domain Architecture	Functional Characteristics
CNL	Coiled-coil-NBS-LRR	CC, NB-ARC, LRR	Cytosolic receptors; CC domain facilitates protein-protein interactions [29]
TNL	TIR-NBS-LRR	TIR, NB-ARC, LRR	Cytosolic receptors; TIR domain mediates signaling specificity [29]
TIR	Toll-interleukin receptor	TIR only	Signaling components; lack LRR or NBS domains [29]
RLK	Receptor-like kinase	eLRR, Kinase domain	Membrane-bound receptors; extracellular LRR recognizes ligands, intracellular kinase triggers downstream signaling [29]
RLP	Receptor-like protein	eLRR, TM domain	Membrane-bound receptors; lack kinase domain; activate defense through partner proteins [29]
LECRK	Lectin receptor-like kinase	LECM, Kinase, TM	Lectin domain receptors; recognize carbohydrate patterns [29]
LYK	Lysin motif receptor kinase	LYSM, Kinase, TM	Recognize microbial cell wall components [29]
KIN	Kinase	Kinase domain	Various kinase domains involved in resistance signaling [29]

Performance Metrics and Comparative Analysis

PRGminer Accuracy Assessment

PRGminer has demonstrated exceptional performance in both phases of its analytical pipeline. During development and validation, the tool achieved the following performance metrics:

Table 2: PRGminer Performance Metrics

Phase	Evaluation Method	Accuracy	MCC	Additional Metrics
Phase I	k-fold training/testing	98.75%	0.98	Dipeptide composition representation [12]
Phase I	Independent testing	95.72%	0.91	Dipeptide composition representation [12]
Phase II	k-fold training/testing	97.55%	0.93	Multi-class classification [12]
Phase II	Independent testing	97.21%	0.92	Multi-class classification [12]

The dipeptide composition method of sequence representation yielded optimal performance in Phase I, achieving a Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.98 during training and 0.91 on independent testing, indicating robust predictive capability with minimal false positives [12].

Comparative Analysis with Alternative Methods

While several computational approaches exist for R-gene identification, PRGminer's deep learning framework offers distinct advantages. Traditional methods include:

• Alignment-based tools that use BLAST, InterProScan, HMMER3, and other similarity search algorithms but struggle with low-homology sequences [12]
• Traditional machine learning approaches that employ support vector machines (SVM) with manually extracted numerical features [12]
• Specialized pipelines for polyploid genomes such as DaapNLRSeek, which uses diploidy-assisted annotation but requires extensive manual curation [25]
• Structure-based prediction methods utilizing AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict NLR-effector interactions through binding affinity calculations [13]

PRGminer addresses key limitations of these approaches by leveraging deep learning to automatically extract relevant features from raw sequence data, enabling identification of novel R-genes even with low sequence homology to known resistance genes [12].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

PRGminer Web Server Implementation

For most research applications, the PRGminer web server provides the most accessible implementation. The step-by-step protocol includes:

Input Preparation

• Obtain protein sequences of interest in FASTA format through experimental methods or from public databases
• Sequences can be submitted via three methods: NCBI/UniProt accession IDs, FASTA file upload, or direct sequence pasting into the text area [30]

Submission and Analysis

• Access the PRGminer webserver at https://kaabil.net/prgminer/
• Select the appropriate input method and submit sequences using the "Run Prediction" button
• Typical processing time is approximately 2 minutes for standard datasets [29]

Results Interpretation

• Review the results table displaying Sequence ID, prediction outcome (R-gene or Non-R-gene), confidence scores, and detailed classification for R-genes
• Download complete results in CSV, JSON, or FASTA formats for further analysis
• Apply filters for specific R-gene classes or confidence thresholds as needed [30]

Standalone Installation for Large-Scale Analyses

For processing large datasets (>10,000 sequences) or integration with existing bioinformatics pipelines, local installation is recommended:

System Requirements

• Python 3.7 or higher with dependencies listed in requirements.txt
• Sufficient RAM for large datasets (capacity depends on dataset size)
• Optional GPU support for accelerated processing [30]

Installation Procedure

• Download the standalone tool from https://github.com/usubioinfo/PRGminer
• Install required dependencies using the provided requirements.txt file
• Configure the system path and verify installation using test datasets [30]

Complementary Research Technologies

The following research reagents and computational tools represent essential resources for comprehensive NLR gene analysis:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Gene Analysis

Resource	Type	Function	Application Context
Nanopore Adaptive Sampling	Sequencing Technology	Targeted enrichment of NLR genomic regions	Enables sequencing of complex NLR clusters without specialized library preparation [15]
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Computational Tool	Predicts 3D structures of protein complexes	Models NLR-effector interactions for functional validation [13]
DaapNLRSeek	Bioinformatics Pipeline	Diploidy-assisted annotation of polyploid NLRs	Specifically designed for complex polyploid genomes like sugarcane [25]
NLGenomeSweeper	Computational Tool	Identifies NLR genes based on conserved NBS domains	Useful for defining regions of interest for targeted sequencing [15]
NLR-Annotator	Computational Tool	Predicts NLR loci from genome sequences	Serves as benchmark for manual annotation pipelines [25]

Integration with Broader Research Objectives

Applications in Crop Improvement Programs

PRGminer's high-throughput capability enables rapid identification of potential R-genes for crop improvement programs. For example:

• Wild Relative Mining: The tool can efficiently screen wild rice relatives like Oryza rufipogon to identify novel NLR genes such as YPR1, which confers broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight [31]
• Polyploid Crop Analysis: When combined with specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek, PRGminer can contribute to annotation efforts in complex polyploid species such as sugarcane, where thousands of NLR genes require classification [25]
• Resistance Gene Stacking: The accurate classification of R-gene classes enables strategic pyramiding of multiple resistance mechanisms in elite cultivars

Future Directions and Development

The integration of PRGminer with emerging technologies presents promising research avenues:

• Structural Prediction Integration: Combining PRGminer's classification with AlphaFold2-Multimer binding affinity predictions could enable functional validation of NLR-effector interactions [13]
• Single-Cell Sequencing: Adaptive sampling technologies like Nanopore NAS could provide targeted NLR sequencing for multiple individuals in breeding populations [15]
• Cross-Species Generalization: Future versions could expand training datasets to enhance predictive accuracy across diverse plant families

PRGminer represents a significant advancement in computational approaches for plant resistance gene identification, offering researchers a highly accurate, efficient, and scalable solution for NLR gene discovery and classification. Its two-phase deep learning architecture achieves exceptional accuracy in both gene identification (>98% in training) and classification (>97% in training), substantially accelerating the process of R-gene characterization compared to traditional methods.

As the field of plant immunity continues to evolve, tools like PRGminer will play an increasingly crucial role in bridging genomic information with practical crop improvement strategies. By enabling rapid identification of resistance genes from diverse germplasm resources, this technology supports the development of durable disease resistance in major crops, contributing to global food security efforts.

The integration of PRGminer with complementary experimental and computational approaches creates a powerful framework for comprehensive NLR gene analysis, from initial discovery to functional characterization. This holistic approach will undoubtedly advance our understanding of plant immunity mechanisms and facilitate the development of next-generation crop varieties with enhanced resistance to evolving pathogens.

The machine learning (ML)-based prediction of functional nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes is a critical research area in plant immunity and disease resistance breeding. NLR genes constitute one of the largest and most diverse gene families in plants, encoding intracellular immune receptors that detect pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses [32]. The accurate identification and classification of these genes from genomic sequences provide fundamental insights into plant immune system evolution and function. However, the extraordinary sequence diversity of NLR genes, coupled with their complex domain architecture and frequent misannotation in automated gene predictions, presents significant computational challenges [22] [25]. This application note details a comprehensive bioinformatics workflow integrating dipeptide composition analysis with advanced motif detection using NLRexpress to address these challenges and facilitate ML-driven NLR gene discovery.

Technical Background

NLR Gene Architecture and Diversity

NLR proteins typically consist of a central nucleotide-binding (NB-ARC/NBS) domain acting as a molecular switch, a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain involved in effector recognition and protein-protein interactions, and a variable N-terminal domain that classifies NLRs into major subclasses: TNL (Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor), CNL (Coiled-Coil), and RNL (RPW8) [33] [32]. The NB-ARC domain is the most conserved region, containing seven key motifs (VG, P-loop, Walker B, RNBS-B, RNBS-C, GLPL, and MHD) that form the nucleotide-binding pocket and regulate activation [33]. In contrast, the LRR domain exhibits remarkable diversity with irregular repeats characterized by the LxxLxL pattern (where L is a hydrophobic residue, predominantly leucine, and x is any residue) [33].

Plant genomes harbor hundreds of NLR genes with substantial variation across species. For instance, comparative genomic analyses reveal approximately 95 NLR genes in Angelica sinensis, 183 in Coriandrum sativum, 153 in Apium graveolens, and 149 in Daucus carota [34]. This diversity results from rapid evolution driven by pathogen pressure, employing mechanisms such as gene duplication, recombination, and diversifying selection, particularly in LRR solvent-exposed residues [32]. This dynamic evolution necessitates sophisticated computational approaches for accurate gene identification and classification.

The Challenge of NLR Gene Annotation

Accurate NLR gene prediction remains challenging due to several factors. Standard automated annotation pipelines frequently misannotate NLR genes, failing to identify a significant proportion of genuine NLRs. For example, in the Erianthus rufipilus genome, automated annotation identified only 512 of 755 predicted NLR loci, with merely 297 being intact genes containing both NB-ARC and LRR domains [25]. This problem is exacerbated in polyploid species like sugarcane, where genome complexity confounds conventional prediction tools [25]. These annotation gaps limit the discovery of functional resistance genes and hinder comparative genomic studies, creating a pressing need for specialized tools and pipelines.

Featured Tool: NLRexpress

NLRexpress is a specialized bundle of 17 machine learning-based predictors designed for swift and precise detection of conserved motifs in plant NLR genes [33]. This tool significantly minimizes computing time without sacrificing accuracy, making it scalable for screening entire proteomes, transcriptomes, or genomes. Its primary application lies in identifying integral NLRs and discriminating them from incomplete sequences lacking key functional motifs, thereby addressing critical annotation challenges in NLR genomics.

The tool detects four primary domain types:

• CC/TIR/RPW8: Variable N-terminal domains that determine NLR classification.
• NBS/NB-ARC: The central conserved nucleotide-binding switch domain.
• LRR: The C-terminal leucine-rich repeat domain involved in recognition.

NLRexpress employs unsupervised ML techniques to analyze identified motifs, revealing structural correlations hidden beneath sequence variability and highlighting how structural invariance shapes NLR sequence diversity [33].

Performance and Advantages

NLRexpress demonstrates particular utility in processing large datasets where computational efficiency is paramount. By utilizing simple yet effective neural network models, it achieves significant reductions in processing time compared to more computationally intensive methods like LRRpredictor, which relies on consensus from eight classifiers including secondary structure predictions [33]. This efficiency makes NLRexpress particularly valuable for initial genome-wide scans where thousands of sequences must be processed.

Table 1: NLRexpress Domain Predictors and Characteristics

Domain Target	Key Detected Features	Conservation Level	Primary Function
NBS/NB-ARC	Seven conserved motifs (e.g., P-loop, Walker B, MHD)	High	Nucleotide binding; molecular switch for activation
LRR	LxxLxL repeats (L=Leucine/hydrophobic, x=any residue)	Low (highly variable)	Effector recognition; protein-protein interactions
CC Domain	EDVID motif (often in 3rd helical segment)	Variable (CNL class)	Signaling; potential CC-LRR interactions
TIR Domain	Rossman fold (ADP-binding βαβ fold)	High (TNL class)	Signaling; enzyme activity in immune activation

Dipeptide Composition Analysis

Theoretical Foundation

Dipeptide composition represents a simple yet powerful feature extraction method in protein sequence analysis. It calculates the occurrence frequencies of all 400 possible dipeptide pairs (20 standard amino acids × 20) within a protein sequence, providing a fixed-length feature vector of 400 dimensions regardless of sequence length. This representation captures local sequence order information and amino acid propensity patterns that are often characteristic of specific protein families and functional domains.

For NLR proteins, dipeptide composition can reveal subtle biases in amino acid pairing that reflect structural and functional constraints. For instance, the LRR domain's characteristic LxxLxL pattern creates distinctive dipeptide signatures involving hydrophobic residues. Similarly, the conserved motifs within the NB-ARC domain exhibit specific dipeptide preferences that can serve as discriminative features for ML classification.

Calculation Method

The dipeptide composition for a given protein sequence is calculated using the following formula:

Frequency(Dipeptide_i) = ^{Count(Dipeptide_i)}/_{(Sequence Length - 1)}

where Count(Dipeptide_i) represents the number of occurrences of a specific dipeptide pair in the sequence, and the denominator normalizes by the total number of possible dipeptides in the sequence (length - 1). This normalization ensures comparability across sequences of different lengths.

The resulting 400-dimensional feature vector can be directly used as input for various machine learning algorithms, including support vector machines, random forests, and neural networks, for NLR classification and functional prediction tasks.

Table 2: Example Dipeptide Composition Features in NLR Domains

Feature Category	Representative Dipeptides	Association with NLR Biology
LRR-associated	LL, Lx, xL (x=variable residue)	Reflects LxxLxL repeat structure; hydrophobic core formation
NBS-conserved	GP, PG, GD, DD	Common in P-loop (GxP) and Walker B motifs
TIR-associated	FG, GF, SF	Characteristic of TIR domain Rossman fold
CC-associated	EE, EK, KE, RR	Potential charged interactions in coiled-coil structures

Integrated Workflow for NLR Gene Analysis

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow combining dipeptide composition analysis and NLRexpress motif detection for enhanced NLR gene identification and characterization:

Experimental Protocol: NLR Gene Identification and Validation

Sequence Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

Materials:

• Genomic, transcriptomic, or proteomic sequences in FASTA format
• High-performance computing environment with ≥16GB RAM
• Python 3.7+ or R 4.0+ environment with necessary packages

Procedure:

• Data Retrieval: Obtain sequence data from relevant databases or sequencing projects. For genomic sequences, ensure assembly quality meets minimum contiguity standards (N50 > 50 kb preferred).
• Quality Filtering: Remove sequences with ambiguous residues (>5% N or X characters) and short sequences (<100 amino acids for proteins, <300 bp for DNA).
• Format Standardization: Convert all sequences to standardized FASTA format with consistent headers containing unique identifiers.
• Redundancy Reduction: Apply CD-HIT at 90% sequence identity threshold to reduce redundancy and computational load.
• Data Partitioning: Split sequences into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets for model development, ensuring representative distribution of sequence lengths and sources.

Feature Extraction Implementation

Materials:

• NLRexpress standalone version (available at https://github.com/eliza-m/NLRexpress.git)
• Custom Python/R scripts for dipeptide composition calculation
• Reference NLR sequence databases for validation

Procedure:

• Dipeptide Composition Calculation:
  • For each protein sequence, scan through all overlapping dipeptide pairs.
  • Count occurrences of each of the 400 possible dipeptides.
  • Normalize counts by sequence length (length - 1) to obtain frequencies.
  • Compile results into a feature matrix with sequences as rows and dipeptide frequencies as columns.

• NLRexpress Motif Detection:

  • Install NLRexpress following documentation guidelines.
  • Execute NLRexpress prediction using command: nlrexpress input.fasta -o output_directory
  • Extract motif presence/absence patterns and domain architecture information from output files.
  • Convert categorical motif data to numerical features using one-hot encoding where appropriate.

• Feature Integration:

  • Combine dipeptide composition features with NLRexpress motif features.
  • Apply feature scaling (z-score normalization) to ensure uniform feature magnitudes.
  • Perform dimensionality reduction (PCA or t-SNE) for visualization and noise reduction.

Machine Learning Model Development

Materials:

• Scikit-learn, TensorFlow, or PyTorch ML frameworks
• High-performance computing resources for model training

Procedure:

• Algorithm Selection: Implement multiple ML algorithms including Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machines, and Neural Networks for comparative performance assessment.
• Model Training: Train models using integrated features with 5-fold cross-validation to optimize hyperparameters and prevent overfitting.
• Model Validation: Evaluate model performance on held-out test set using metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under ROC curve.
• Feature Importance Analysis: Apply permutation importance or SHAP analysis to identify most discriminative features and validate biological relevance.
• Domain Architecture Reconstruction: Integrate NLRexpress motif predictions to infer complete domain architectures (CNL, TNL, RNL) for predicted NLR genes.

NLR Activation Pathway and Analysis Context

Understanding the biological context of NLR function enhances interpretation of computational predictions. The following diagram illustrates the canonical NLR activation pathway and relationship between domains:

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for NLR Gene Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function and Application	Availability
Motif Detection Tools	NLRexpress	ML-based detection of NLR conserved motifs in large datasets	https://nlrexpress.biochim.ro
	GLAM2	Discovery of gapped motifs with insertions/deletions	http://bioinformatics.org.au/glam2
Specialized Pipelines	NLRSeek	Genome reannotation-based pipeline for NLR identification	https://github.com/Wang-Mengda/NLRSeek
	DaapNLRSeek	Diploidy-assisted annotation of NLRs in polyploid genomes	Custom implementation
	NLR-Annotator	Automated annotation of NLR genes from genomic sequences	Publicly available
Reference Databases	NLRscape Atlas	Curated collection of >80,000 plant NLR sequences	Reference dataset
	PROSITE/ELM Databases	Repository of protein domains and functional motifs	Public databases
Validation Resources	Nicotiana benthamiana	Transient expression system for NLR functional validation	Biological model
	Ribosome Profiling Data	Experimental validation of gene expression and translation	Omics data

Applications in Disease Resistance Breeding

The integration of dipeptide composition and NLRexpress analysis enables several advanced applications in crop improvement:

• Resistance Gene Mining: Efficient identification of functional NLR genes from complex crop genomes accelerates the discovery of novel disease resistance sources. For example, DaapNLRSeek has identified 33.8%–127.5% more NLR genes in yam species compared to conventional methods [25].

• Marker Development: Sequence features identified through this workflow can inform the development of molecular markers for marker-assisted selection, enabling efficient introgression of resistance genes into elite cultivars.

• Evolutionary Studies: Comparative analysis of NLR gene features across species lineages reveals evolutionary patterns, including expansion/contraction dynamics and selective pressures. Studies in Apiaceae species show NLR genes derived from 183 ancestral lineages with extensive gene loss and gain events [34].

• Polyploid Crop Improvement: Specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek leverage diploid relatives to improve NLR annotation in polyploid crops like sugarcane, bridging genome assembly with functional genomics to accelerate resistance breeding [25].

The integration of dipeptide composition analysis with NLRexpress motif detection provides a powerful framework for machine learning-based prediction of functional NLR genes. This combined approach leverages both global sequence composition patterns and specific domain motifs to overcome the challenges posed by NLR sequence diversity and complex genome architectures. As genomic sequencing continues to expand across crop species and their wild relatives, this workflow will play an increasingly important role in mining the genetic basis of disease resistance and accelerating the development of durable resistant cultivars through molecular breeding.

Application Notes: AlphaFold3 for NLR Complex Modeling

The application of AlphaFold3 represents a transformative advancement for researchers studying nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins and their higher-order complexes. Unlike its predecessors, AlphaFold3 incorporates a diffusion-based model that enables the prediction of not only single protein structures but also complex biomolecular interactions, including protein-protein complexes critical for understanding NLR oligomerization and resistosome formation [35].

Key Capabilities for NLR Research

For scientists investigating plant immunity or mammalian inflammasomes, AlphaFold3 provides specific capabilities that address previous methodological constraints. The model demonstrates remarkable proficiency in predicting multi-chain protein assemblies and protein-protein interactions, areas where previous computational tools showed significant limitations [35]. This is particularly valuable for modeling NLR resistosomes – the active oligomeric complexes that initiate immune signaling cascades.

Recent structural studies of the tomato NLR protein SlNRC2 reveal that these proteins form dimers, tetramers, and higher-order oligomers at elevated concentrations, adopting autoinhibited conformations in these states [36]. AlphaFold3's enhanced capacity for modeling such complex oligomeric interfaces provides researchers with powerful tools to generate structural hypotheses for experimental validation.

Limitations and Integration with Experimental Methods

Despite these advancements, important limitations persist. AlphaFold3 faces challenges in predicting dynamic, flexible, and disordered regions within biomolecules, which are often critical for NLR function and activation [35]. Additionally, the model struggles with capturing alternative protein folds and multi-state conformations [35], which is relevant for NLR proteins that undergo significant conformational changes during activation.

Therefore, the most effective research approaches integrate AlphaFold3 predictions with experimental structural techniques and molecular dynamics simulations [35]. For instance, the structural mechanism of SlNRC2 autoinhibition was elucidated through cryo-electron microscopy combined with AlphaFold2 predictions [36], demonstrating the power of hybrid methodologies.

Table 1: AlphaFold3 Performance Characteristics for NLR-Relevant Predictions

Prediction Type	Key Improvement	Relevance to NLR Research
Protein-protein interactions	Surpasses traditional docking by accounting for conformational changes [35]	Modeling NLR oligomerization and helper/sensor NLR interactions
Multi-chain assemblies	Enhanced prediction of complex biomolecular systems [35]	Resistosome formation and structure prediction
Protein-ligand interactions	Predicts binding sites and affinities with remarkable precision [35]	Identifying NLR cofactors (e.g., inositol phosphates)
Dynamic regions	Limited ability to model disordered regions and alternative folds [35]	Challenge for predicting NLR conformational changes upon activation

Protocols for NLR Oligomer Modeling with AlphaFold3

Input Preparation and Complex Modeling

This protocol describes the systematic process for predicting NLR oligomeric structures using AlphaFold3, with particular emphasis on modeling the autoinhibitory complexes that precede resistosome formation.

Step 1: Sequence Compilation and Multiple Sequence Alignment

• Collect amino acid sequences for all NLR subunits of interest in FASTA format
• For NLR proteins, include both N-terminal (TIR, CC, or RPW8), central NBS, and C-terminal LRR domains
• Generate multiple sequence alignments using standard tools (e.g., HHblits, JackHMMER)
• Critical Consideration: Include diverse orthologs to capture evolutionary constraints on oligomerization interfaces

Step 2: Template Selection and Complex Definition

• Identify potential template structures from PDB for individual domains
• For NLR oligomers, reference recently solved resistosome structures (e.g., ZAR1, SlNRC4)
• Define the stoichiometry and chain relationships for the target complex
• Protocol Note: Experimental evidence suggests SlNRC2 forms 'head-to-head' dimers through interfaces involving the LRR and NBD domains [36]

Step 3: AlphaFold3 Execution and Model Generation

• Input prepared sequences and complex definitions into AlphaFold3
• Utilize the diffusion-based approach for complex structure prediction [35]
• Generate multiple models (recommended: 25) to assess prediction consistency
• Execute with default parameters initially, then optimize based on target complexity

Step 4: Model Selection and Validation

• Prioritize models with high per-residue confidence scores (pLDDT)
• Identify models with biologically plausible interfaces and symmetry
• Validate against known biochemical and mutagenesis data
• Validation Criterion: For SlNRC2, confirm dimeric interfaces involving SlNRC2A Lys532 and SlNRC2B Arg221 interactions [36]

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Structural Biology

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example in NLR Research
AlphaFold Protein Structure Database	Open access to over 200 million protein structure predictions [37]	Template identification and model validation
Cryo-EM with single-particle analysis	High-resolution structure determination of NLR oligomers [36]	Determining SlNRC2 dimer and tetramer structures
Molecular dynamics simulation software	Modeling conformational dynamics and activation states [35]	Simulating NLR transitions from inactive to active states
Inositol hexakisphosphate (IP6)	Cofactor for NLR stabilization and function [36]	Confirmed bound to SlNRC2 LRR domain in structural studies

Integration with Experimental Validation

Protocol: Integrating AlphaFold3 Predictions with Cryo-EM Validation

The following workflow provides a detailed methodology for experimental validation of AlphaFold3-predicted NLR oligomers, based on approaches used to characterize SlNRC2 autoinhibition [36].

Step 1: Protein Expression and Purification

• Express full-length NLR protein in insect cells or appropriate expression system
• Purify using affinity and size-exclusion chromatography
• Confirm protein purity and monodispersity
• Technical Note: For SlNRC2, gel filtration showed elution at 200-300 kDa, consistent with dimer formation [36]

Step 2: Initial Oligomeric State Characterization

• Perform analytical gel filtration at various protein concentrations
• Use multi-angle light scattering for molecular weight determination
• Conduct negative-stain EM for initial oligomer assessment
• Quality Control: SlNRC2 formed filaments and aggregates at high concentrations [36]

Step 3: Cryo-EM Structure Determination

• Prepare cryo-EM grids at optimal protein concentration
• Collect high-resolution cryo-EM datasets
• Process data through 2D classification, 3D classification, and refinement
• Data Processing: For SlNRC2, 611,661 particles yielded 2.84Å dimer structure [36]

Step 4: Model Building and Validation

• Use AlphaFold3 predictions as initial models for cryo-EM density
• Iteratively refine models against cryo-EM maps
• Validate models with biochemical and mutagenesis data
• Critical Finding: SlNRC2 structures revealed inositol phosphate cofactors bound to LRR domain [36]

Advanced Applications: From Structure to Function

Machine Learning Integration for NLR Inhibitor Discovery

Beyond structural prediction, machine learning approaches provide powerful complementary methods for NLR research. Recent studies demonstrate the successful integration of machine learning regression models with structural biology for inhibitor discovery.

For NLRP3 inflammasome research, researchers have trained multiple regression models (including LightGBM, Random Forest, and XGBoost) on chemical activity data to predict novel inhibitors [38]. These computational predictions were subsequently validated through molecular dynamics simulations and MMGBSA binding energy calculations [38].

Table 3: Machine Learning Models for NLR-Related Drug Discovery

Model Type	Performance (R²)	Application Context
LightGBM	0.774 [38]	Regression model for NLRP3 inhibitor activity prediction
Random Forest	0.755 [38]	Compound screening for inflammatory disease therapeutics
XGBoost	0.719 [38]	Virtual screening of chemical libraries for NLRP3 inhibition

Functional Analysis of NLR Oligomerization Interfaces

The integration of AlphaFold3 predictions with functional assays enables mechanistic insights into NLR regulation. The structural analysis of SlNRC2 revealed that oligomerization mediates autoinhibition through specific interfaces:

Functional Validation Protocol:

• Introduce point mutations at predicted oligomerization interfaces
• Test mutants for enhanced or reduced cell death activity
• For SlNRC2, mutations at dimeric interfaces enhanced pathogen-induced cell death [36]
• Assess cofactor requirements (e.g., inositol phosphates) for NLR function

Technical Application Note: The discovery that inositol hexakisphosphate (IP6) or pentakisphosphate (IP5) binds to the inner surface of the SlNRC2 C-terminal LRR domain [36] highlights the importance of small molecule cofactors in NLR function. AlphaFold3's improving capability to predict protein-ligand interactions suggests future applications in identifying novel NLR cofactors.

Within the framework of machine learning prediction of functional NLR genes, the precise identification of interactions between Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins and pathogen effectors represents a significant challenge. These interactions are the cornerstone of the plant immune response known as Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) [13]. Traditional experimental methods for validating these interactions, such as yeast two-hybrid systems, are technically demanding and low-throughput, creating a bottleneck in resistance gene discovery [13]. The advent of AlphaFold2-Multimer (AF2-multimer), a deep learning system capable of predicting protein complex structures with high accuracy, now provides a powerful in silico alternative [39]. This protocol details the application of AF2-multimer for predicting and analyzing the structures of NLR-effector complexes, enabling researchers to prioritize candidates for functional validation and accelerate the characterization of resistance genes.

Quantitative Benchmarks for NLR-Effector Predictions

Before initiating predictions, it is crucial to understand the expected performance metrics. The following table summarizes key quantitative benchmarks established for AF2-multimer when applied to NLR-effector complexes.

Table 1: Performance Benchmarks for AF2-multimer in NLR-Effector Structure Prediction

Metric	Reported Value / Range	Interpretation and Application
AF2 Confidence Score (pLDDT) Threshold	> 0.42 [40]	Predictions above this threshold are considered to have acceptable accuracy for analyzing NLR-effector interactions.
DockQ Score Correlation	R = 0.85 with AF confidence [13]	Indicates a strong correlation between the AF2 confidence score and the quality of the docked protein-protein interface.
Binding Affinity (log(K))	-8.5 to -10.6 [13] [40]	The narrow range observed for "true" biological interactions; useful for discriminating from non-functional pairs.
Binding Energy (kcal/mol)	-11.8 to -14.4 [13] [40]	The energy range associated with functional NLR-effector binding.
Machine Learning Prediction Accuracy	99% [13]	The accuracy achieved by an Ensemble machine learning model in identifying novel NLR-effector interactions.

These benchmarks serve as a reference for evaluating the reliability of your own predictions. Structures with confidence scores above the threshold and binding affinities/energies within the specified ranges are strong candidates for further experimental investigation.

Integrated Protocol for Predicting and Validating NLR-Effector Interactions

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step methodology for predicting NLR-effector complexes and computationally validating their interactions.

The entire process, from data preparation to final validation, is summarized in the diagram below.

Step 1: Data Preparation and Domain Delineation

Objective: To prepare high-quality protein sequences and identify key functional domains for analysis.

• Sequence Acquisition: Obtain the full-length amino acid sequences of the NLR immune receptor and the pathogen effector of interest from dedicated databases (e.g., NCBI, UniProt) or genomic/transcriptomic data.
• NLR Domain Identification: Precisely delineate the domains of the NLR protein. The leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain is often the primary effector recognition module and is the focus of complex prediction [13].
  • Tool Recommendation: Use NLRexpress, a bundle of machine learning motif predictors, to swiftly and accurately identify CC/TIR, NBS, and LRR domains from a proteome [18].
  • Input: NLR protein sequence.
  • Output: Annotated sequence with domain boundaries.
• Sequence File Preparation: Save the NLR (or its NLRLRR domain) and effector sequences in separate FASTA files.

Step 2: Structure Prediction with AlphaFold2-Multimer

Objective: To generate a 3D structural model of the NLR-effector protein complex.

• Environment Setup: Install AlphaFold2-Multimer on a local high-performance computing cluster or use a cloud-based implementation that supports the multimer version.
• Input Configuration: Prepare an input file (e.g., a CSV) listing the pair of sequences to be modeled as a complex.
• Execution: Run AlphaFold2-Multimer with the paired sequences.
  • Critical Parameter: Ensure the model is set to multimer mode.
  • Hardware Note: This step is computationally intensive and benefits from multiple GPUs.
• Output Retrieval: The run will generate multiple predicted models (PDB files) along with a JSON file containing per-residue and per-model confidence scores (pLDDT and interface scores).

Step 3: Model Quality Assessment

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of the predicted complex structure.

• Analyze Confidence Scores:
  • Examine the predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT) score. A complex-wide average pLDDT > 80 is generally considered high confidence [41]. For NLR-effector complexes, an AF2 confidence score > 0.42 has been shown to correlate with acceptable accuracy [40].
  • Check the interface prediction score (pDockQ/IPTM) specific to the multimer version, which assesses the quality of the protein-protein interface.
• Visual Inspection: Use molecular visualization software (e.g., PyMOL, UCSF Chimera) to inspect the topology of the complex. Ensure the interaction surface is physically plausible and that the LRR domain of the NLR is engaged with the effector protein.

Step 4: Binding Affinity and Energy Prediction

Objective: To computationally estimate the strength of the interaction, providing a quantitative measure to distinguish true interactions.

• Tool Selection: Utilize a machine learning-based binding affinity prediction tool. The cited research employed Area-Affinity using 97 different models [13] [40].
• Input: Use the predicted NLR-effector complex structure (PDB file from Step 2) as input.
• Output Interpretation: The tool will output a predicted binding affinity (in -log(K)) and binding energy (in kcal/mol). Compare these values to the established benchmarks (Table 1). "True" interactions typically fall within the narrow ranges of -8.5 to -10.6 log(K) for affinity and -11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol for energy [13] [40].

Step 5: Machine Learning-Based Interaction Classification

Objective: To leverage an ensemble machine learning model for a final, high-accuracy classification of the interaction.

• Feature Compilation: Compile a feature set for the predicted complex. This includes the structural confidence scores (pLDDT, interface score) from Step 3 and the binding affinity/energy estimates from Step 4.
• Model Application: Input these features into a pre-trained ensemble model, such as the NLR–Effector Interaction Classification (NEIC) resource described in the literature [13]. This model was trained on known true and "forced" (non-functional) complexes.
• Result: The model will classify the interaction as "functional" or "non-functional" with a reported accuracy of up to 99% [13]. This provides a powerful, integrated verdict on the likelihood of a true biological interaction.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The following table lists key computational and biological resources that are fundamental to research in this field.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NLR-Effector Interaction Studies

Tool / Resource	Type	Function and Application
AlphaFold2-Multimer [13] [39]	Software	Predicts 3D structures of protein complexes, such as NLR bound to an effector.
NLRexpress [18]	Web Server / Tool	A bundle of ML predictors for swift identification of CC, TIR, NBS, and LRR motifs in protein sequences.
Area-Affinity [13] [40]	Software Suite	A collection of ML models for predicting binding affinity and binding energy from a protein complex structure.
DaapNLRSeek [16]	Bioinformatic Pipeline	Accurately annotates and predicts NLR genes from complex polyploid plant genomes (e.g., sugarcane).
Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) System [13]	Experimental Assay	Used for experimental validation of direct protein-protein interactions.
Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) [13]	Experimental Assay	Used to confirm physical interactions between NLRs and effectors in a near-native cellular context.

The integration of AlphaFold2-Multimer with subsequent binding energy prediction and machine learning classification creates a robust in silico pipeline for identifying functional NLR-effector interactions. This protocol provides a standardized approach to leverage these tools, enabling researchers to transition from genomic sequences to high-confidence hypotheses about plant immune function. By streamlining the initial screening process, this method accelerates the characterization of NLR genes, directly contributing to the broader goal of predicting functional NLRs and engineering disease-resistant crops.

Within the broader scope of machine learning prediction of functional Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes, the precise screening of molecular interactions represents a critical bottleneck. NLR proteins are intracellular immune receptors that play a crucial role in effector recognition and activation of effector-triggered immunity (ETI) following pathogen infection in plants [13] [42]. Predicting which NLRs recognize specific pathogen effectors remains challenging due to the vast number of potential pairings and the specificity of recognition, which can be influenced by single-nucleotide mutations [13]. Ensemble Machine Learning (EML) models have emerged as a powerful solution for accurately predicting binding affinities (BA) and binding energies (BE), key thermodynamic parameters that govern whether an NLR protein will interact with a pathogen effector [13]. These in silico predictions provide a targeted approach for subsequent experimental validation, drastically accelerating the identification of functional NLR genes and advancing our understanding of plant immunity mechanisms [13] [12].

Quantitative Data on NLR–Effector Binding

Analysis of experimentally validated NLR–effector complexes reveals that "true" interactions occur within a specific thermodynamic window. The following table summarizes the binding affinities and energies for 58 known NLR–effector complexes, alongside the broader range observed for non-functional "forced" pairs, providing a benchmark for interaction screening.

Table 1: Experimentally Observed Binding Parameters for NLR–Effector Complexes

Complex Type	Number of Complexes	Binding Affinity (log(K))	Binding Energy (kcal/mol)	Key Characteristic
"True" Interactions	58	-8.5 to -10.6	-11.8 to -14.4	Narrow, specific range suggesting a required conformational change for NLR activation [13]
"Forced" Interactions	2427	Larger variability	Larger variability	Broader range of values, enabling ML models to distinguish novel interactions [13]

The narrow range for "true" interactions suggests a specific change in Gibbs free energy is required for NLR activation [13]. For screening purposes, an Ensemble machine learning model has been demonstrated to identify novel NLR–effector interactions with 99% accuracy by leveraging these differences [13].

Application Notes: An Integrated Workflow for Interaction Prediction

The prediction of NLR–effector interactions requires a multi-stage computational pipeline that integrates protein structure prediction with ensemble machine learning. The core workflow involves generating protein complex structures and then using multiple models to compute their binding thermodynamics.

Diagram 1: NLR-Effector Interaction Screening Workflow

Key Stages of the Workflow:

• Protein Complex Structure Prediction: Utilize AlphaFold2-Multimer to generate three-dimensional models of the NLR protein and pathogen effector complex. A high AlphaFold confidence score is critical, as it shows strong correlation with accuracy metrics like DockQ scores when compared to experimental structures (e.g., Sr35-AvrSr35) [13].
• Multi-Model Binding Calculation: Process the predicted structures with the Area-Affinity platform. This step employs a diverse set of 97 machine learning models to calculate a distribution of possible binding affinities and energies for each complex [13].
• Ensemble Classification: Feed the calculated BA and BE values, along with other relevant features, into a final Ensemble learning model. This model is trained to classify pairs as "true" (functional) or "forced" (non-functional) interactions based on the distinct thermodynamic signatures outlined in Table 1 [13].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Structure Prediction with AlphaFold2-Multimer

Objective: To generate a reliable 3D structural model of the NLR–effector protein complex.

• Input Preparation: Gather the amino acid sequences of the NLR protein and the pathogen effector in FASTA format.
• AlphaFold2-Multimer Execution:
  • Run the AlphaFold2-Multimer software on a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster or a compatible environment.
  • Input the paired sequences. The algorithm will generate multiple models.
• Model Selection and Validation:
  • Select the model with the highest predicted confidence score (pLDDT or interface score).
  • Validate the model by comparing its predicted confidence score against an established threshold, which has been shown to correlate well with experimental cryo-EM structures [13].
• Output: The highest-ranking predicted structure in PDB format, which will serve as the input for binding energy calculation.

Protocol 2: Binding Affinity and Energy Calculation via Area-Affinity

Objective: To compute the binding affinity and binding energy for a predicted NLR–effector complex.

• Input: The PDB file of the NLR–effector complex from Protocol 1.
• Area-Affinity Processing:
  • Submit the PDB file to the Area-Affinity platform or run its models locally.
  • The platform will execute its suite of 97 machine learning models on the structure.
• Data Extraction:
  • Extract the calculated binding affinity values (typically in units of -log(K)).
  • Extract the calculated binding energy values (in kcal/mol).
• Output: A dataset containing 97 estimates each for BA and BE, providing a statistical distribution for the complex. The range for true interactions is typically -8.5 to -10.6 log(K) for BA and -11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol for BE [13].

Protocol 3: Interaction Prediction with an Ensemble Model

Objective: To classify the NLR–effector pair as a likely true interaction based on its calculated binding parameters.

• Feature Compilation: For each NLR–effector pair, compile a feature vector including:
  • Mean and standard deviation of the BA estimates from Area-Affinity.
  • Mean and standard deviation of the BE estimates from Area-Affinity.
  • Additional sequence-based features (e.g., Shannon entropy scores of the NLRLRR domain, which are higher in direct-recognition NLRs) [13].
• Model Application: Input the feature vector into a pre-trained Ensemble model (e.g., a random forest or stacking classifier). This model is trained on known "true" and "forced" interactions.
• Interpretation: The model outputs a classification ("True" or "Forced") and/or a probability score. A prediction of "True" indicates a high-confidence, novel NLR–effector interaction worthy of experimental validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for NLR–Effector Screening

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Software Tool	Predicts the 3D structure of protein complexes from amino acid sequences [13].
Area-Affinity	Machine Learning Platform	Harnesses 97 ML models to calculate binding affinities and energies from protein structures [13].
PRGminer	Deep Learning Webserver	Predicts and classifies plant resistance genes (R-genes) from protein sequences, useful for initial NLR identification [12].
String Database	Protein Interaction Database	Predicts functional protein-protein interaction networks, providing context for identified NLRs [42].
PlantCARE	Database & Tool	Predicts cis-regulatory elements in promoter sequences, offering insights into NLR gene regulation [42].

The integration of ensemble machine learning models with structural bioinformatics creates a powerful, high-throughput pipeline for screening NLR–effector interactions. By leveraging the distinct thermodynamic signatures of functional binding events, this approach achieves high predictive accuracy. This methodology provides a targeted, efficient, and rational strategy for prioritizing candidate pairs for wet-lab experiments, ultimately accelerating the discovery of functional NLR genes and the development of disease-resistant crops.

Overcoming Data and Model Hurdles in NLR Bioinformatics

This document provides a structured framework for researchers employing machine learning (ML) to predict functional Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes, with a specific focus on overcoming the fundamental challenge of limited experimentally validated "true" NLR-effector interaction data. Scarcity of such data is a major bottleneck in developing accurate and generalizable models for plant immunity research. The strategies outlined herein—ranging from computational data augmentation to targeted experimental design—are presented as a consolidated protocol to advance the scale and efficiency of ML-driven NLR discovery.

A central hurdle in predicting functional NLR-effector interactions is the severe scarcity of high-quality, experimentally validated "true" positive pairs. This data scarcity complicates the training of robust machine learning models, as they require large amounts of data to learn complex patterns without overfitting [13]. The issue is compounded by data imbalance, where the number of known non-functional or "forced" pairs vastly outweighs the confirmed interactions [13] [43]. Furthermore, the low-homology and high specificity of NLR-effector recognition means that traditional alignment-based prediction tools often fail, necessitating more sophisticated, data-intensive approaches [12]. This application note details a multi-pronged strategy to navigate these constraints, enabling meaningful research even in data-poor environments.

Quantitative Landscape of NLR-Effector Data

The table below summarizes key quantitative insights from recent studies that highlight both the challenge of data scarcity and the performance of emerging solutions.

Table 1: Quantitative Benchmarks in NLR-Effector Interaction Research

Aspect	Reported Metric	Context / Model Performance	Source
Known Direct Interactions	67 NLRs recognizing 93 effectors	Represents a core set of "true" interactions not part of complex networks, highlighting data scarcity.	[13]
Predicted Binding Affinity	-8.5 to -10.6 log(K)-11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol	Range for 58 "true" NLR-effector complexes, providing a quantitative signature for true interactions.	[13]
ML Prediction Accuracy	99% accuracy	Achieved by an Ensemble machine learning model in distinguishing novel NLR-effector interactions.	[13]
Conserved Effector Recognition	60.87% (42/69 effectors)	Proportion of homologous effectors from multiple Phytophthora species recognized by Solanum NLRs, enabling data expansion.	[44]
Tool Performance (PRGminer)	95.72% accuracy (Phase I)97.21% accuracy (Phase II)	Independent testing accuracy for predicting R-genes and classifying them into subcategories.	[12]

Core Strategies and Detailed Protocols

Strategy 1: Leveraging Protein Structure Predictions and Machine Learning

This strategy uses AlphaFold2 to predict protein complex structures and then employs machine learning models to calculate binding metrics, creating a scalable, in-silico method for generating training data and evaluating novel pairs.

Experimental Protocol: Structure-Based Prediction of NLR-Effector Pairs

• Input Sequence Preparation

  • Obtain the amino acid sequences of the NLR protein (typically the leucine-rich repeat - LRR - domain) and the candidate pathogen effector.
  • Quality Control: Ensure sequences are complete and free of major errors. Confirm the presence of key NLR domains using tools like NLRexpress [33] or PRGminer [12].

• Protein Complex Structure Prediction

  • Tool: Use AlphaFold2-Multimer.
  • Procedure:
    • Input the paired sequences of the NLRLRR and the effector.
    • Run the prediction. A minimum number of recycles (e.g., 3) is recommended for balance of accuracy and time.
    • Generate multiple models (e.g., 5) to assess prediction consistency.
  • Validation: Use the predicted Aligned Error (PAE) and per-residue confidence score (pLDDT) to evaluate model quality. A DockQ score can be calculated if a reference structure exists for validation [13].

• Binding Affinity and Energy Calculation

  • Tool: Utilize a platform like Area-Affinity, which aggregates multiple machine learning models.
  • Procedure:
    • Submit the predicted protein complex structure (in PDB format) from Step 2.
    • Run the analysis across a suite of ML models (e.g., the 97 models mentioned in the source study) [13].
    • Extract the predicted binding affinity (in -log(K)) and binding energy (in kcal/mol).

• Data Analysis and Interpretation

  • Threshold Identification: Compare the calculated binding metrics for your candidate pair against established ranges for "true" interactions (e.g., binding affinity between -8.5 and -10.6 log(K)) [13].
  • Ensemble Modeling: Use an ensemble ML classifier trained on these structural and binding features to predict the likelihood of a functional interaction with high accuracy [13].

Diagram 1: Structure-based NLR-Effector Prediction Workflow

Strategy 2: Exploiting Evolutionary Conservation for Data Expansion

This protocol leverages the fact that effector families are often conserved across related pathogen species. An NLR known to recognize one effector can often recognize its orthologs in other species, effectively multiplying the number of known "true" interactions for model training [44].

Experimental Protocol: Testing NLR Recognition of Conserved Effector Homologs

• Identification of Conserved Effector Families

  • In-silico Analysis: Select a well-characterized avirulence effector (e.g., AVR3a from P. infestans). Perform a homology search (using BLAST) against the proteomes of other pathogen species of interest (e.g., P. capsici, P. sojae).
  • Phylogenetic Classification: Cluster identified homologs into families based on sequence and predicted structural similarity [44].

• Cloning of Homologous Effectors

  • Selection: Choose homologs representing a range of sequence similarities to the original effector.
  • Molecular Cloning: Clone the candidate effector genes into a plant expression vector (e.g., pEAQ-HT or a binary vector with a 35S promoter) for transient expression [44].

• Functional Validation via Transient Assays

  • System: Use Nicotiana benthamiana as a model system.
  • Co-expression: Co-infiltrate leaves with Agrobacterium strains carrying two plasmids:
    1. The NLR gene of interest (e.g., R3a) under a strong promoter.
    2. The cloned homologous effector gene from Step 2.
  • Positive Control: Co-express the NLR with its known cognate effector.
  • Negative Control: Express the effector homolog alone.
  • Phenotyping: Monitor plants for 2 to 6 days for the onset of a hypersensitive response (HR), a localized cell death indicating successful recognition [44].

• Data Integration

  • A positive HR confirms the functional recognition of the effector homolog, validating a new "true" NLR-effector pair.
  • These newly validated pairs can be added to the training dataset to improve ML model robustness and generalizability.

Strategy 3: Technical Solutions for Machine Learning with Scarce Data

When direct experimental expansion of data is not feasible, these computational techniques can maximize the utility of existing small datasets.

• Transfer Learning (TL): Start with a model pre-trained on a large, general protein-protein interaction (PPI) dataset or a model trained on NLRs from a data-rich species. Fine-tune the final layers of this model on your small set of "true" NLR-effector pairs. This allows the model to leverage general features learned from a large corpus before specializing [45] [46].
• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): Use GANs to generate synthetic "true" NLR-effector pair data. The generator creates new synthetic samples, while the discriminator learns to distinguish them from real ones. Through adversarial training, the generator produces increasingly realistic data, which can be used to augment the training set [43] [45].
• Self-Supervised Learning (SSL): Employ SSL to pre-train models on unlabeled protein sequences (abundantly available) using a pretext task, such as predicting masked amino acids. The model learns rich, general representations of protein sequences, which can then be fine-tuned for the specific NLR-effector prediction task with a small amount of labeled data [45].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for NLR-Effector Studies

Reagent / Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Reference / Source
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Software	Predicts 3D structures of protein complexes from amino acid sequences.	[13]
Area-Affinity	Software Platform	Aggregates multiple ML models to predict binding affinity and energy from protein structures.	[13]
NLRexpress	Web Server / Tool	A bundle of ML predictors for swift identification of CC, TIR, NBS, and LRR motifs in NLR proteins.	[33]
PRGminer	Web Server / Tool	A deep learning-based tool for predicting and classifying plant resistance genes from protein sequences.	[12]
pEAQ-HT Vector	Molecular Biology Reagent	Plant expression vector enabling high-level transient protein expression in N. benthamiana.	[44]
Nicotiana benthamiana	Model Organism	A workhorse for transient agrofiltration assays to test NLR-effector recognition via HR.	[44]
STRING Database	Biological Database	Resource of known and predicted PPIs; useful for transfer learning pre-training.	[46]

Concluding Remarks

The integration of computational structure prediction, evolutionary insights, and robust ML techniques for data-scarce scenarios provides a powerful, multi-faceted approach to NLR research. By adopting these strategies, researchers can systematically overcome the limitation of scarce "true" interaction data. This will significantly accelerate the reliable in-silico prediction of functional NLRs, ultimately contributing to the development of crops with durable and broad-spectrum disease resistance.

In the field of plant disease resistance breeding, accurately predicting functional Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) genes is crucial for developing resistant cultivars. Traditional methods for screening disease resistance phenotypes are both time-consuming and costly, creating a pressing need for more efficient computational approaches [9]. While machine learning (ML) has shown promise in genomic selection, its predictive accuracy for complex traits like disease resistance has remained limited. A transformative innovation addressing this limitation incorporates biological kinship information directly into ML models, creating "Plus-Kinship" (Plus-K) algorithms that significantly enhance prediction accuracy for disease resistance traits [9]. This approach is particularly valuable for NLR gene research, as these genes often exist in complex networks and clusters within plant genomes, making their prediction challenging with conventional methods [47]. By leveraging the genetic relatedness between individuals, Plus-K models capture polygenic background effects that traditional ML models miss, enabling more accurate identification of functional NLR genes and accelerating the development of disease-resistant crops.

Performance Advantages of Plus-K ML Models

Quantitative Accuracy Improvements

Extensive testing of Plus-K ML models has demonstrated substantial improvements in predicting disease resistance across multiple crop-pathogen systems. The integration of kinship information has proven particularly effective for enhancing the prediction of NLR-mediated resistance, which is often polygenic and influenced by complex genetic backgrounds [47].

Table 1: Prediction Accuracy of Plus-K Models for Rice Disease Resistance

Disease	Pathogen Type	Plus-K Model	Accuracy	Validation Population
Rice Blast (RB)	Fungus	RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K	Up to 95%	Rice Diversity Panel I
Rice Black-Streaked Dwarf Virus (RBSDV)	Virus	RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K	Up to 85%	Rice Diversity Panel I
Rice Sheath Blight (RSB)	Fungus	RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K	Up to 85%	Rice Diversity Panel I
Wheat Blast (WB)	Fungus	RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K	Up to 90%	Independent Validation
Wheat Stripe Rust (WSR)	Fungus	RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K	Up to 93%	Independent Validation

Perhaps most notably, when tested for generalizability on an independent population (Rice Diversity Panel II), Plus-K models maintained 91% accuracy for rice blast resistance prediction when compared with spray inoculation results, demonstrating robust performance beyond training datasets [9]. This cross-population validation is particularly significant for NLR gene prediction, as it suggests the approach can effectively identify conserved functional elements across diverse genetic backgrounds.

Comparative Performance Against Standard Methods

The advantage of Plus-K models becomes especially evident when compared to conventional machine learning approaches and other genomic selection methods. In comprehensive evaluations, Plus-K models consistently outperformed their non-kinship counterparts as well as other established methods:

Table 2: Performance Comparison of ML Approaches for Polygenic Trait Prediction

Method	Key Features	Average Power	Computational Efficiency	Key Advantages
Plus-K Models (RFCK, SVCK, lightGBM_K)	Integration of kinship matrix with ML algorithms	92.12%	High (3.30 hours for 18K rice dataset)	Superior detection of small-effect genes
3VmrMLM	Compressed variance component mixed model	97.00%	Moderate	Comprehensive polygenic background control
FarmCPU	Fixed and random model circulating probability unification	46.20%	High	Efficient for large datasets
EMMAX	Efficient mixed-model association expedited	36.00%	High	Rapid computation

The superior performance of kinship-enhanced methods is attributed to their ability to account for complex genetic architectures, including additive and dominant polygenic backgrounds that often characterize NLR gene networks [48]. This is particularly relevant for breeding programs aiming to pyramid multiple NLR genes for broad-spectrum resistance, as demonstrated in the Tetep rice cultivar which possesses numerous functional NLR genes contributing to its durable blast resistance [47].

Implementation Protocols

Kinship Matrix Construction and Integration

The foundation of Plus-K models lies in the accurate construction of kinship matrices that quantify genetic relatedness between individuals. The following protocol outlines the standardized procedure for kinship matrix development and integration into machine learning workflows:

Protocol 1: Kinship Matrix Construction and Integration

• Genotypic Data Preparation

  • Obtain high-density SNP markers covering the entire genome
  • Perform quality control: remove markers with >10% missing data, minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.05, and significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p < 1×10⁻⁶)
  • Impute missing genotypes using established algorithms (e.g., BEAGLE, FILLIN)

• Kinship Matrix Calculation

  • Standardize the SNP matrix X where xij = (gij - 2pj)/√(2pj(1-pj)), with gij ∈ {0,1,2} representing allele counts and pj the allele frequency
  • Compute the kinship matrix K using the relationship: K = (XXᵀ)/m, where m is the number of markers
  • Apply scaling to ensure diagonal elements approximate 1.0, representing self-relationship

• ML Model Integration

  • For tree-based methods (RFCK, lightGBMK): Append kinship coefficients as additional features alongside SNP markers
  • For kernel methods (SVC_K): Utilize the kinship matrix as a precomputed kernel or integrate via multi-kernel learning
  • Implement feature selection to prioritize informative kinship relationships

This approach effectively captures the polygenic background essential for accurate NLR gene prediction, as demonstrated by the superior performance in identifying functional resistance genes in complex genomic contexts [9].

Plus-K Model Training and Validation

The implementation of Plus-K models requires careful attention to training procedures and validation strategies to ensure robust performance and prevent overfitting.

Protocol 2: Plus-K Model Training and Validation

• Data Partitioning

  • Implement stratified cross-validation that maintains kinship structure within folds
  • Reserve independent validation populations (e.g., Rice Diversity Panel II) for final model assessment
  • Ensure proportional representation of family groups across training and testing sets

• Model Architecture and Training

  • RFC_K: Implement Random Forest Classifier with 500-1000 trees, with kinship features weighted based on feature importance
  • SVC_K: Utilize radial basis function kernel with kinship-informed similarity measures, optimizing C and γ parameters via grid search
  • lightGBMK: Leverage gradient boosting with kinship features, tuning learning rate (0.05-0.1), numleaves (31-127), and feature_fraction (0.7-0.9)
  • Incorporate regularization techniques (L1/L2 penalties) to prevent overfitting to kinship structure

• Performance Validation

  • Evaluate using multiple metrics: accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)
  • Assess generalizability through independent population validation
  • Compare with non-kinship models using statistical tests (e.g., DeLong test for AUC comparisons)

This protocol has demonstrated exceptional performance in predicting NLR-mediated resistance, achieving up to 95% accuracy for rice blast and maintaining 91% accuracy when validated on independent populations [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of Plus-K models for NLR gene prediction requires specific computational tools and biological resources. The following table outlines essential reagents and their applications in this research domain.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Plus-K NLR Prediction

Category	Reagent/Resource	Specifications	Application in Plus-K Research
Genomic Resources	High-quality reference genomes	PacBio/Nanopore long-read assembly, chromosome-scale scaffolding	NLR annotation and synteny analysis [47]
	SNP datasets	Minimum 10K high-quality SNPs, MAF > 0.05	Kinship matrix calculation and population structure analysis
Software Tools	PRGminer	Deep learning-based R-gene prediction [12]	Initial NLR identification and classification
	Fast3VmrMLM	Genome-wide scanning + ML framework [48]	Polygenic background control and key gene identification
	TBtools v2.360	Integrated toolkit for biological data analysis [42]	Phylogenetic analysis, synteny visualization, and CRE prediction
Experimental Validation	High-throughput transformation systems	Wheat transgenic array (e.g., 995 NLRs tested) [7]	Functional validation of predicted NLR candidates
	Pathogen strain collections	5-12 diversified strains per pathogen species [47]	Phenotypic assessment of resistance specificity

These resources collectively enable the end-to-end implementation of Plus-K models, from initial genomic data processing through experimental validation of predictions. The integration of computational prediction with high-throughput functional validation has proven particularly powerful for NLR gene discovery, as demonstrated by studies identifying 31 new resistance NLRs (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) through systematic screening [7].

Integration with NLR Research Workflows

The Plus-K framework integrates seamlessly with established NLR research methodologies, enhancing multiple aspects of the discovery pipeline. The kinship dimension adds valuable context for interpreting NLR evolution and function, particularly given the unique genomic characteristics of this gene family.

Key integration points include:

• Evolutionary Context: NLR genes exhibit rapid evolution and significant diversity among cultivars, with studies identifying 20-27% of NLRs in the Tetep rice cultivar lacking clear homologs in other sequenced genomes [47]. Plus-K models account for this diversity by incorporating kinship information that captures shared evolutionary history.

• Expression Signature Integration: Functional NLRs consistently show high expression signatures in uninfected plants [7] [49]. This characteristic can be incorporated as an additional feature in Plus-K models to further enhance prediction accuracy for functional NLR genes.

• Network Considerations: NLRs frequently function in complex networks, with over 20% forming interacting pairs in rice genomes [47]. Plus-K models help identify these networks by detecting coordinated inheritance patterns across kinship groups.

The integration of Plus-K models with these NLR-specific characteristics creates a powerful framework for predicting functional resistance genes, ultimately accelerating the development of disease-resistant crop varieties through more efficient identification and pyramiding of effective NLR genes.

Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs) constitute a critical component of the plant immune system, often functioning in genetically linked sensor-helper pairs. Accurately classifying NLRs into these functional categories is fundamental to understanding immune signaling. Traditional methods primarily rely on the presence of non-canonical domains in sensor NLRs, an approach that fails when such domains are absent. This application note details a novel methodology that leverages AlphaFold3, an artificial intelligence-based structure prediction system, to differentiate sensor and helper NLRs based on predicted structural characteristics and confidence metrics [50]. Framed within broader research on machine learning (ML) prediction of functional NLR genes, this protocol provides a reliable computational tool for classifying immune receptors, thereby accelerating research in plant immunity and informing drug development targeting immune pathways [35].

Background and Rationale

The emergence of AI in molecular biology has dramatically transformed the approach by which researchers forecast and comprehend protein structures and their interactions [35]. AlphaFold3, the latest iteration developed by Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs, represents a significant leap forward. Unlike its predecessor, AlphaFold2, which was highly effective for monomeric proteins but limited in modeling complexes, AlphaFold3 incorporates a diffusion-based model [35]. This allows it to predict not only single protein structures but also intricate biomolecular interactions—including protein-protein complexes—with remarkable accuracy [35].

This advanced capability is key to our method. Sensor and helper NLRs, though genetically paired, assume distinct structural roles and oligomeric states to initiate immune signaling. Specifically, helper NLRs often form funnel-shaped resistosome structures essential for activating immune responses [50]. We propose that AlphaFold3 can detect and quantify the intrinsic structural propensity of these proteins, classifying them based on the model's confidence in predicting these distinct functional configurations.

This classification method is predicated on the hypothesis that AlphaFold3 confidence scores and predicted structural features reflect the inherent functional differences between sensor and helper NLRs. Helper NLRs, which form more stable and conserved oligomeric structures, are predicted to exhibit higher model confidence in such configurations compared to the more variable sensor NLRs [50].

Key Discriminatory Features

The following features, derived from AlphaFold3 predictions, serve as the basis for classification:

• pLDDT (per-residue local distance difference test) Confidence Score: A per-residue estimate of the model's confidence on a scale from 0-100. Higher average scores indicate more reliable predictions.
• Predicted Oligomeric State Confidence: The model's overall confidence score when the protein is modeled in a multimeric (e.g., tetrameric) configuration.
• Presence of a Funnel-Shaped Structure: A key structural hallmark of activated helper NLRs, which can be visualized in the predicted 3D model.

The table below summarizes the typical differences in AlphaFold3 outputs between sensor and helper NLRs, as identified in validation studies [50].

Table 1: Differentiating Features of Sensor and Helper NLRs Predicted by AlphaFold3

Feature	Sensor NLRs	Helper NLRs
Average pLDDT in Oligomeric Model	Lower confidence scores	Higher confidence scores [50]
Oligomeric State Prediction Confidence	Lower confidence in multimeric forms	High confidence in multimeric forms [50]
Predicted Funnel-Shaped Structure	Not reliably predicted	Reliably predicted [50]
Dependence on Non-Canonical Domains	Classification often relies on their presence	Can be classified effectively even in their absence [50]

Application Notes and Protocols

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step protocol for applying this classification method to a set of paired NLR proteins.

Protocol 1: Input Preparation and AlphaFold3 Modeling

Objective: To prepare protein sequences and generate structural models for paired NLRs using AlphaFold3.

Materials and Reagents:

• Hardware: A computer with high-speed internet access. For large-scale analyses, access to high-performance computing (HPC) resources is recommended.
• Software: A modern web browser to access the AlphaFold3 server or local installation of the AlphaFold3 software package.
• Research Reagents: Protein sequences of the paired NLRs in FASTA format.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Input Preparation and Modeling

Item	Function/Description
Protein Sequence (FASTA Format)	The primary input; contains the amino acid sequence of the target NLR protein.
Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) Tool	Software (e.g., HHblits, JackHMMER) used to generate evolutionary data, often automated within AlphaFold3.
Structural Template Database	A database of known protein structures (e.g., PDB) used to inform the model, though AlphaFold3's template dependence is reduced.

Methodology:

• Sequence Acquisition: Obtain the amino acid sequences for both proteins in the NLR pair from a public database such as UniProt or NCBI. Ensure the sequences are complete and from a well-annotated genome.
• Input File Preparation: Save each sequence as a separate FASTA file. The file name should be descriptive (e.g., OsNLRP1_sensor.fasta).
• AlphaFold3 Job Submission: a. Access the AlphaFold3 server through the official interface. b. For each protein, upload the FASTA file. c. In the modeling parameters, select the option to model the protein in a homomultimeric state (e.g., as a tetramer, a common configuration for helper NLR resistosomes). d. Submit the job. Processing time can vary from minutes to hours depending on server load and protein length.
• Output Retrieval: Once completed, download all output files, which typically include:
  • The predicted 3D structure model (in .pdb format).
  • A JSON or pickle file containing per-residue pLDDT confidence scores.
  • An overall model confidence score.
  • Predicted aligned error (PAE) plots for assessing domain-level confidence.

Protocol 2: Feature Extraction and Analysis

Objective: To extract quantitative confidence metrics and perform structural analysis on the predicted models.

Methodology:

• Confidence Score Extraction: a. Parse the output data file to extract the per-residue pLDDT scores for each model. b. Calculate the average pLDDT for the entire model and for key functional domains (e.g., the NBD, ARC, and LRR domains).
• Structural Visualization and Validation: a. Open the predicted 3D structure (.pdb file) in molecular visualization software such as UCSF ChimeraX or PyMol. b. Visually inspect the model of the putative helper NLR for the formation of a funnel-shaped or wheel-like oligomeric structure, a known characteristic of activated helper NLR resistosomes. c. Color the structure by the pLDDT score to identify regions of low confidence, which often correspond to flexible or disordered loops.
• Comparative Analysis: a. Directly compare the average pLDDT scores and overall model confidence between the two paired NLR models. b. The protein with the significantly higher confidence score in its oligomeric form is the predicted helper NLR.

Protocol 3: Classification and Validation

Objective: To classify the NLRs and validate the predictions using biological knowledge.

Methodology:

• Classification Decision: Based on the analysis in Protocol 2, assign the functional roles.
  • Putative Helper NLR: Demonstrates higher oligomeric model confidence and a reliably predicted funnel-shaped structure.
  • Putative Sensor NLR: Demonstrates lower oligomeric model confidence and lacks a stable, funnel-shaped oligomeric prediction.
• In-silico Validation: a. Check for the presence of known helper or sensor-specific sequence motifs (e.g., MADA/VRx in some sensors) that may corroborate the structural prediction. b. If available, map known functional mutations (e.g., from literature or plant immune databases) onto the predicted model to see if they cluster in key interfacial regions.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the logical sequence of the entire classification pipeline.

Integration with Machine Learning Research

The methodology described herein is a specific application of a broader trend in computational biology: the use of deep learning models to predict protein function from sequence and structure [35] [51]. AlphaFold3 itself is a revolutionary deep learning model that has set new standards in computational biology [35]. Its ability to predict complex biomolecular interactions aligns with the trend of multimodal machine learning, where models integrate different types of data (e.g., sequence, predicted structure, evolutionary information) for a more holistic understanding [51].

Furthermore, the confidence scores generated by AlphaFold3 can be viewed as high-dimensional features for a downstream ML classifier. Future work in this area could involve:

• Training a random forest or support vector machine (SVM) classifier using pLDDT profiles, PAE matrices, and other predicted features from AlphaFold3 to automatically categorize NLRs.
• Applying explainable AI (XAI) techniques like SHAP to interpret which structural regions or confidence metrics most strongly influence the model's classification decision, thereby providing biological insights [51].

Discussion

The application of AlphaFold3 for classifying NLR proteins demonstrates how AI-driven structural prediction can overcome limitations of traditional sequence-based annotation methods. The core finding—that helper NLRs consistently show higher confidence scores in oligomeric models—suggests that the underlying AI model has learned the structural principles governing stable multimerization, a key functional trait [50]. This provides a powerful new approach to functional annotation, especially for non-model organisms or orphan NLR pairs where experimental data is scarce.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its promise, this method has limitations that align with known challenges of AlphaFold3 and other AI models in biology. A significant challenge is accurately modeling dynamic, flexible, and disordered regions within proteins, which may be functionally important [35]. Furthermore, while AlphaFold3 excels at predicting a single, stable conformation, it faces difficulties in capturing the diverse range of conformations that proteins may adopt, such as fold-switching behavior or alternative structural states [35]. Future iterations of this protocol could integrate AlphaFold3 predictions with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to better model conformational flexibility and protein dynamics [35]. As the field progresses, the integration of these computational predictions with high-throughput experimental validation will be crucial for refining our understanding of NLR function and for accelerating the development of novel plant protection strategies and immunomodulatory therapeutics.

Nucleotide-binding domain and leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins constitute a major class of intracellular immune receptors that enable plants to detect pathogen effectors and activate robust immune responses, including the hypersensitive cell death response [52] [7]. The accurate identification of functional NLR genes is fundamental to understanding plant immunity and advancing disease resistance breeding. However, NLR genes reside in complex genomic regions characterized by tandem duplications, presence-absence variations, and dense clusters of homologous sequences [12] [15]. This genomic architecture, combined with the proliferation of transposable elements and the existence of fragmented genes and pseudogenes, presents substantial challenges for automated genome annotation pipelines [12] [25] [53]. This Application Note details integrated computational and experimental protocols, framed within a machine learning research context, to precisely discriminate functional NLR genes from non-functional sequences in plant genomes.

Computational Tools for NLR Identification and Classification

Recent advances in bioinformatics have produced several specialized tools for NLR identification, leveraging both alignment-based and machine learning approaches. Table 1 summarizes the key features and performance metrics of leading tools.

Table 1: Comparison of NLR Identification and Classification Tools

Tool Name	Input Data	Core Methodology	Key Outputs	Reported Accuracy/Domains
PRGminer	Protein sequences	Deep Learning (Dipeptide composition)	R-gene vs. non-R-gene; Classification into 8 classes	Phase I Accuracy: 95.72% (independent testing); MCC: 0.91 [12]
Resistify	Protein sequences	HMMER + NLRexpress (Machine Learning)	NLR classification, NB-ARC sequence, motif positions	Easy-to-use, rapid, accurate; Identifies CC, TIR, RPW8, NB-ARC, C-JID, MADA [53]
DaapNLRSeek	Genomic (Polyploid)	Diploidy-assisted annotation, NLR-Annotator, GeMoMa, Augustus	Annotated NLR genes in polyploids	Accurately annotated >94% of NLR genes in polyploid sugarcane genomes [25]
NLGenomeSweeper	Genomic/Transcript	InterProScan, MUSCLE, TransDecoder, BLAST, HMMER	NLR classification, genome position, GFF annotation	Approximates NLR presence via conserved NBS domain [15] [53]
NLRtracker	Protein/Transcript	InterProScan, HMMER, MEME	NLR classification, NB-ARC sequence, domains, GFF annotation	Considered highly sensitive and accurate among available tools [53]

Machine Learning-Enhanced Classification with PRGminer and Resistify

PRGminer exemplifies a deep learning approach, implemented in two phases. Phase I distinguishes resistance genes from non-resistance genes using dipeptide composition representations of protein sequences, achieving high accuracy (95.72%) and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (0.91) on independent tests [12]. Phase II classifies predicted R-genes into eight distinct classes—CNL, TNL, KIN, RLP, LECRK, RLK, LYK, and TIR—with an overall accuracy of 97.21% [12].

Resistify combines Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) with machine learning classifiers from NLRexpress for motif detection. It efficiently identifies not only canonical domains (CC, TIR, RPW8, NB-ARC, LRR) but also recently characterized motifs like the C-terminal jelly-roll/Ig-like domain (C-JID) in TNLs and the N-terminal MADA motif in CNLs, which are crucial for resistosome formation and immune signaling [53].

Figure 1: Computational Workflow for NLR Identification. This diagram outlines the key steps for identifying and classifying NLR genes from genomic or proteomic input data.

Experimental Validation of Functional NLRs

Expression-Level Signature Screening

Functional NLRs often exhibit a signature of high steady-state expression in uninfected plants. A recent study analyzing six plant species found that known functional NLRs are significantly enriched among the top 15% of highly expressed NLR transcripts [7]. This expression signature provides a powerful filter for prioritizing functional candidates from computationally predicted NLR sets.

Protocol: Expression-Based Prioritization

• RNA Extraction: Isolate high-quality RNA from uninfected plant tissues relevant to the pathogen (e.g., leaves for foliar pathogens, roots for nematodes).
• RNA-Sequencing: Conduct RNA-seq on biological replicates. Use a minimum sequencing depth of 20-30 million reads per sample for robust transcript quantification.
• Transcriptome Assembly & Quantification: Assemble transcripts de novo or align reads to a reference genome. Calculate expression values (e.g., TPM, FPKM) for all genes.
• Candidate Filtering: Cross-reference computationally predicted NLRs with expression data. Prioritize candidates falling within the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts for downstream validation [7].

High-Throughput Transformation and Phenotyping

Large-scale transgenic complementation is a definitive method for validating NLR function. A proof-of-concept pipeline using this approach successfully identified 31 new resistance NLRs (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) from a transgenic array of 995 NLRs in wheat [7].

Protocol: High-Throughput Functional Validation

• Vector Construction: Clone candidate NLR open reading frames, including their native promoters and terminators, into binary T-DNA vectors.
• Plant Transformation: Use high-efficiency transformation systems (e.g., Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in wheat) to generate large numbers of independent transgenic lines [7].
• Controlled Pathogen Assay: Inoculate T1 transgenic plants with the target pathogen under controlled conditions. Include appropriate resistant and susceptible control lines.
• Phenotyping: Score for resistance symptoms (e.g., hypersensitive response, reduced pathogen sporulation) 7-14 days post-inoculation, depending on the pathogen.
• Genotyping: Correlate the resistance phenotype with the presence of the transgene using PCR or other molecular assays.

Specialized Techniques for Complex Genomes

NLR Enrichment in Polyploid Genomes with DaapNLRSeek

Polyploid genomes, such as sugarcane, present exceptional challenges due to their high copy number of homologous genes. The DaapNLRSeek pipeline addresses this by using manually curated NLR annotations from diploid relatives to train gene prediction tools for annotating polyploid genomes [25].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Genomics

Reagent / Tool Type	Specific Examples	Function in NLR Research
Genome Assembler	Canu, Flye, HiCanu, Verkko	Resolves complex, repetitive NLR regions using long-read sequencing data [15].
NLR Annotation Tool	Resistify, PRGminer, NLRtracker, DaapNLRSeek	Accurately identifies and classifies NLRs from sequence data; some are specialized for polyploids [12] [25] [53].
Gene Prediction Tool	GeMoMa, Augustus	Predicts gene models, improved using species-specific training sets for accurate NLR annotation [25].
Targeted Sequencing	Nanopore Adaptive Sampling (NAS)	Enriches sequencing coverage for predefined NLR genomic regions without complex library preparation [15].
Transformation System	High-throughput Wheat Transformation	Enables large-scale in planta validation of NLR candidate gene function [7].

Targeted Sequencing with Nanopore Adaptive Sampling

Nanopore Adaptive Sampling (NAS) selectively enriches for targeted genomic regions, such as NLR clusters, during sequencing. This method provides enhanced coverage of complex loci without the need for hybridization probes or complex library preparations [15].

Protocol: NLRome Enrichment via NAS

• Define Target Regions: Use a high-quality reference genome and a tool like NLGenomeSweeper to identify NLR-containing genomic regions (ROIs). Expand ROIs by adding 20 kb flanking sequences on each side.
• Filter Repetitive Elements: Annotate and exclude repetitive elements >200 bp within the target regions using the CENSOR tool and Repbase to prevent pore occupancy by uninformative reads [15].
• Sequencing Run: Prepare a standard Oxford Nanopore library (e.g., Ligation Sequencing Kit). Input the filtered target BED file and reference genome into MinKNOW to enable adaptive sampling. DNA strands whose initial ~500 bp match the target are sequenced fully; others are ejected.
• Assembly & Annotation: Perform de novo assembly of the enriched reads and annotate using a tool like Resistify to characterize the NLR complement.

Figure 2: Nanopore Adaptive Sampling for NLR Enrichment. Workflow for targeting and sequencing NLR gene clusters using Oxford Nanopore's adaptive sampling technology.

Integrated Workflow for Functional NLR Discovery

The most robust strategy for discovering functional NLRs combines multiple computational and experimental approaches into a single integrated workflow. This multi-tiered pipeline maximizes the probability of correctly discriminating functional genes from the complex genomic background.

• Comprehensive Computational Prediction: Initiate with a whole-genome NLR scan using a rapid, accurate tool like Resistify or PRGminer. For polyploid species, employ specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek [12] [25] [53].
• Transcriptomic Filtering: Integrate RNA-seq data from relevant tissues and conditions. Filter the computational predictions to retain only NLRs with high expression levels, a strong indicator of functionality [7].
• Structural Validation: Examine the domain architecture of high-priority candidates. Discard candidates that are clearly fragmented (e.g., lacking essential NB-ARC or LRR domains) or that are likely pseudogenes (e.g., containing premature stop codons or frameshift mutations) [12] [53].
• Experimental Functional Assay: Validate the shortlist of candidates using high-throughput transformation and phenotyping. This remains the gold standard for confirming NLR function [7].

This integrated protocol, leveraging the latest machine learning tools and experimental techniques, provides a robust roadmap for researchers to navigate the complexities of plant NLRomes and accelerate the discovery of valuable disease resistance genes.

The challenge of feeding a growing population amidst climate change and the spread of crop diseases necessitates the rapid development of disease-resistant crop varieties. A significant bottleneck in this process has been the identification and validation of functional plant immune receptors, known as Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) proteins [54]. These proteins are one of the two main classes of plant immune receptors, capable of recognizing pathogen "effector" proteins and triggering a strong immune response [54]. However, finding the right NLR receptor that recognizes the variation of effectors within and between pathogen species has been extremely challenging [54].

This application note details a synergistic industry partnership between 2Blades and Computomics that merges high-throughput biology with predictive artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate the discovery of functional disease-resistance genes. We focus on the integration of 2Blades' NLRseek gene discovery platform with Computomics' machine learning technology, xSeedScore, presenting the framework as a case study for high-throughput trait discovery [55] [56]. This collaborative approach demonstrates how the combination of large-scale experimental data and AI-driven prediction can overcome traditional limitations in functional genomics and resistance breeding.

NLRseek: High-Throughput Experimental Gene Discovery

The NLRseek platform is a proprietary gene discovery technology designed to rapidly identify functional NLR resistance genes from diverse sources, including wild relatives of crops [54]. Its core innovation lies in leveraging a key biological signature—the high expression level of functional NLRs in uninfected plants—as a predictive filter to select promising candidate genes from vast sequence datasets [57] [7].

The platform involves a multi-step experimental workflow:

• Gene Cloning: Nearly 1,000 new NLR genes were cloned from 18 grass species and wild relatives of wheat [54].
• High-Throughput Transformation: Using a highly efficient wheat transformation technology, a library of 5,177 independent transgenic lines was generated, expressing the cloned NLRs [54] [7].
• Large-Scale Phenotyping: This transgenic array is then systematically screened against major pathogens to validate resistance function [7].

A proof-of-concept study, published in Nature Plants, demonstrated the success of this pipeline by identifying 31 new resistance genes—19 against wheat stem rust and 12 against wheat leaf rust. This achievement effectively doubled the number of resistance genes cloned against these diseases over the past three decades [54] [7].

xSeedScore: Machine Learning for Predictive Breeding

xSeedScore is Computomics' proprietary machine learning-based technology designed to support and enhance plant breeding decisions. It functions as a predictive tool that analyzes complex datasets, including genotypic and phenotypic information, to forecast the performance of new crop varieties or hybrids under specific environmental conditions [58].

The application of xSeedScore typically follows a structured four-phase journey:

• Assess: A comprehensive review of the existing breeding data and program structure.
• Plan: Collaboration to define project goals and strategize on how to leverage available data.
• Predict: Model training and optimization, resulting in predictive scores for genetic candidates.
• Apply: Integration of the predictions into the breeder's decision-making process for selection [58].

When applied to disease resistance, xSeedScore models can be trained on data from platforms like NLRseek to predict the functionality of NLR genes in silico, potentially identifying the most promising candidates from a vast gene pool before resource-intensive experimental validation [55].

Integrated Workflow for AI-Augmented Gene Discovery

The collaboration between 2Blades and Computomics leverages the strengths of both platforms to create an optimized, closed-loop discovery engine. The integrated workflow, illustrated below, systematically combines large-scale biological data generation with AI-powered prediction and validation.

This integrated workflow creates a powerful feedback cycle. Validation data from NLRseek's large-scale phenotyping is fed back into the xSeedScore models, continuously refining their predictive accuracy and enhancing the efficiency of future discovery cycles [55].

Experimental Protocol & Key Findings

Detailed Protocol for Expression-Based NLR Discovery

The following protocol is adapted from the proof-of-concept study published in Nature Plants [7], which serves as the foundational validation for the NLRseek approach.

Objective: To identify and validate novel NLR genes conferring resistance to wheat stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) and leaf rust (Puccinia triticina).

Materials:

• Plant Material: 18 grass species and wild relatives of wheat.
• Pathogen Strains: Relevant isolates of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici and Puccinia triticina.
• Key Technology: High-efficiency wheat transformation system [54].

Methodology:

• Transcriptome Analysis:
  • Collect leaf tissue from uninfected plants of the donor species.
  • Perform RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to assemble transcriptomes.
  • Identify all NLR-encoding transcripts through sequence homology and domain analysis (NB-ARC and LRR domains).
  • Rank NLR transcripts based on their Fragments Per Kilobase Million (FPKM) values in uninfected tissue.

• Candidate Gene Selection:

  • Prioritize NLR genes that fall within the top ~15% of expressed NLR transcripts in their respective species. This expression level signature is a key predictor of functionality [7].

• Gene Cloning and Library Construction:

  • Clone the open reading frames (ORFs) of the prioritized NLR candidates.
  • Use high-throughput, high-efficiency transformation to generate a large library of transgenic wheat lines, each expressing a single NLR candidate gene. The published study created 5,177 independent transgenic lines for 995 NLRs [54] [7].

• Large-Scale Phenotypic Screening:

  • Challenge the T1 or T2 generation of transgenic wheat plants with the target rust pathogens.
  • Conduct disease assessments under controlled environmental conditions, scoring for resistance phenotypes (e.g., hypersensitive response, lack of pustule development).
  • Confirm resistance in subsequent generations to ensure stability.

• AI Integration (Pilot Phase):

  • The validated phenotypic data and corresponding NLR sequence/expression data are used as a training set for Computomics' xSeedScore machine learning models [55].
  • The trained models are used to predict the functionality of new, uncharacterized NLR genes in silico, further prioritizing candidates for the next cycle of experimental validation.

Key Quantitative Findings

The application of this protocol yielded a significant increase in the number of known rust resistance genes, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Summary of Resistance Genes Identified via the NLRseek Pipeline [54] [7]

Pathogen	Pathogen Scientific Name	Number of Newly Validated NLR Genes	Impact on Cloned Gene Repertoire
Stem Rust	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici	19	Effectively doubled the number of cloned resistance genes against these diseases over the past 30 years.
Leaf Rust	Puccinia triticina	12

This approach proved that high steady-state expression is a robust biomarker for NLR function. The study found that known functional NLRs from model species like Arabidopsis thaliana were significantly enriched in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts [7]. Furthermore, the transgenic array library, while initially screened for rust resistance, represents a reusable resource that can be screened against a wide range of other wheat diseases [54].

The NLR Immune Signaling Pathway

The discovered NLR genes function as intracellular immune receptors within a defined signaling pathway. The following diagram summarizes the key steps in NLR-mediated immunity, from pathogen recognition to the activation of defense responses.

NLR proteins act as sophisticated molecular switches. They directly or indirectly detect pathogen effector proteins ("Recognition") [54]. This detection causes the NLR to undergo a conformational change ("Activation"), often leading to the formation of a multi-protein complex called a resistosome. This complex then initiates strong immune signaling ("Signal Transduction"), which can involve helper NLRs and signaling hubs like the EDS1/PAD4 complex [7]. The signaling cascade culminates in the "Activation of Defense" responses, which include a localized programmed cell death known as the hypersensitive response (HR) and the expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes, collectively halting pathogen growth and conferring "Disease Resistance" [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The successful implementation of this high-throughput trait discovery pipeline relies on a suite of specialized reagents and platform technologies.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for High-Throughput NLR Discovery

Tool / Solution	Function / Description	Role in the Workflow
NLRseek Platform	A proprietary gene discovery technology that rapidly identifies functional NLR resistance genes from diverse plant species based on expression signature [54].	Core platform for gene identification, library generation, and initial validation.
xSeedScore AI Technology	A machine learning-based prediction tool that uses genotypic and phenotypic data to forecast the performance of genetic candidates [58] [55].	AI-driven prioritization of candidate genes, improving discovery efficiency.
High-Efficiency Wheat Transformation	A proprietary transformation system enabling the reliable generation of a large number of transgenic wheat lines [54] [7].	Critical enabling technology for creating the library of NLR-expressing wheat lines.
Transgenic Array Library	A characterized collection of 5,177 independent transgenic wheat lines, each expressing an NLR from a wild relative or grass species [54].	Reusable resource for phenotyping against multiple pathogens.
DaapNLRSeek Pipeline	A bioinformatics pipeline for the accurate prediction and annotation of NLR genes from complex polyploid genomes like sugarcane [25].	Expands the applicability of NLR discovery to crops with challenging genomes.

The case study of NLRseek and xSeedScore demonstrates a powerful paradigm for modern agricultural biotechnology. By integrating large-scale biological experimentation with predictive AI, this partnership addresses the critical bottleneck of functional gene validation in crop improvement. The proof-of-concept in wheat rust resistance, which dramatically expanded the repertoire of known functional NLRs, validates the use of high expression as a key biomarker for gene function.

This integrated approach offers a scalable and adaptable framework for discovering agronomically important traits beyond disease resistance. As the platform evolves with the incorporation of more data, the predictive power of the AI models will only increase, further accelerating the development of climate-resilient and sustainable crop varieties to ensure global food security.

Benchmarking Success: Validating ML Predictions and Comparing Tool Efficacy

Application Notes

The identification of functional nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes represents a critical pathway to developing disease-resistant crops. While machine learning (ML) and bioinformatics tools have dramatically accelerated the in silico prediction of resistance gene candidates, the ultimate confirmation of their efficacy requires in planta validation. This application note details a robust pipeline that integrates ML-guided discovery with large-scale phenotyping in transgenic arrays, creating a powerful feedback loop that confirms computational predictions and rapidly identifies new resistance genes for crop protection. This approach addresses the long-standing bottleneck in NLR characterization, where traditional methods for validating immune receptors are notoriously resource-intensive and low-throughput [7] [28].

Recent advances in high-efficiency transformation and automated phenotyping have now made it feasible to test hundreds of NLR candidates in parallel. A landmark study demonstrated this principle by creating a transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grass species in wheat, identifying 31 new resistance genes against major rust pathogens [7]. This pipeline effectively leverages a key biological insight: functional NLRs often display a signature of high steady-state expression in uninfected plants across both monocot and dicot species [7]. By exploiting this expression signature for candidate prioritization, researchers can significantly enrich their discovery pipelines for functional NLRs before committing to costly transgenic experiments.

ML-Guided Discovery: From Genomic Data to Candidate NLRs

The initial phase of the pipeline employs computational tools to mine NLR candidates from genomic and transcriptomic data. Machine learning approaches are particularly valuable for handling the complexity and diversity of the NLR gene family.

Key Computational Tools and Approaches:

• xSeedScore Technology: Computomics' proprietary ML technology is used for in silico analysis and characterization of resistance genes across crops and pathogens. This technology, when trained on proprietary resistance gene discovery platforms like NLRseek, enhances the prediction of functional resistance genes [55].
• DaapNLRSeek Pipeline: For complex polyploid genomes like sugarcane, specialized pipelines have been developed. DaapNLRSeek accurately predicts and annotates NLR genes by leveraging manually curated diploid relatives as references, overcoming challenges posed by autogenerated gene annotations in polyploid species [25].
• Expression-Based Filtering: A powerful predictive feature is the observation that known functional NLRs are significantly enriched among the most highly expressed NLR transcripts in uninfected plants. Screening transcriptomic data for this signature provides a robust filter for prioritizing candidates for functional validation [7].
• Network-Enabled Gene Discovery: Tools like the NEEDLE pipeline identify key transcriptional regulators by leveraging dynamic transcriptome datasets from non-model plants, establishing network hierarchy to pinpoint crucial genes [59].

Table 1: Key Bioinformatics Tools for NLR Discovery

Tool/Approach	Primary Function	Applicability
xSeedScore [55]	Machine learning-based characterization of resistance genes	Diverse crop species
DaapNLRSeek [25]	NLR prediction & annotation in polyploid genomes	Polyploid crops (e.g., sugarcane)
Expression Signature Filtering [7]	Prioritizes NLRs with high basal expression	Monocots and Dicots
NEEDLE Pipeline [59]	Identifies upstream transcriptional regulators	Non-model plant species
NLR-Annotator [25]	Identifies NLR loci in genomes	General application

High-Throughput Transformation: Building a Transgenic Array

Once candidates are selected, the pipeline shifts to the large-scale creation of transgenic plants. The development of high-efficiency transformation protocols for major crops is a critical enabler for this approach.

• Transgenic Array Construction: The core of this validation platform is the generation of a large collection of transgenic lines, each expressing a single candidate NLR gene. In the proof-of-concept study, researchers used high-efficiency wheat transformation to create an array of 995 transgenic wheat lines, each harboring a distinct NLR from diverse grass species [7].
• Controlled Experimental Design: To ensure accurate phenotyping, the transgenic lines are typically advanced to a specific generation (e.g., T1, T2) and grown under controlled conditions. For the wheat NLR array, the T2 progeny of the transgenic lines were used for pathogen assays [7]. Proper experimental design includes non-transgenic controls and, if possible, lines expressing known functional NLRs as positive controls.
• Genetic Stability Assessment: It is crucial to confirm the genetic stability of the transgenic lines. This can include verifying T-DNA insertion using PCR with primers for the selection marker (e.g., hygromycin resistance gene) and analyzing intergenic genomic locations of the T-DNA [60]. For lines where copy number is suspected to influence phenotype, developing single-copy transgenic lines under a native promoter may be necessary [7].

Large-Scale Phenotyping: Confirming Disease Resistance

The transgenic array is then subjected to systematic, large-scale phenotyping to identify lines exhibiting resistance to target pathogens.

• Pathogen Assays: Plants are challenged with the relevant pathogen under controlled conditions. In the wheat NLR array, plants were inoculated with stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) or leaf rust (Puccinia triticina) pathogens. Resistant lines were identified by the absence or significant reduction of disease symptoms compared to susceptible controls [7].
• Hypersensitive Response (HR) Validation: For some NLRs, a hypersensitive response—a rapid, localized cell death at the infection site—can be triggered when the pathogen is recognized. This can be validated in transient expression assays, such as in Nicotiana benthamiana, where the co-expression of paired NLRs from sugarcane induced a clear HR [25].
• Quantitative and Qualitative Phenotyping: Phenotyping should capture both quantitative data (e.g., lesion count, lesion size, pathogen biomass) and qualitative observations (e.g., presence of chlorosis, cell death) [61]. The use of standardized protocols ensures consistency across a large number of samples.

Table 2: Summary of Large-Scale Validation Results from a Wheat Transgenic Array

Category	Metric	Result
Scale of Experiment	Number of NLRs tested in transgenic array	995 [7]
New Resistances Identified	Resistance to stem rust (Pgt)	19 NLRs [7]
	Resistance to leaf rust (Pt)	12 NLRs [7]
Functional Validation	Paired NLRs from sugarcane inducing HR in N. benthamiana	2 NLR pairs [25]
Biological Insight	Mla7 NLR copies required for full resistance in barley	2-4 copies [7]

The successful identification of 31 new functional resistance genes from a single screen demonstrates the remarkable power of this combined approach. It not only validates the ML-guided predictions but also generates a wealth of biological data. For instance, the finding that multiple copies of the barley NLR Mla7 are required for full resistance challenges the traditional view that NLR expression must be kept low to avoid autoimmunity, providing a new dimension for consideration in transgene design [7].

Protocols

Protocol 1: A Workflow for ML-Guided NLR Discovery and Validation

This protocol outlines an integrated pipeline for discovering and validating functional NLR genes, from genomic data to confirmed resistance in plants.

Procedure:

• Genome-Wide NLR Identification:

  • For diploid species, use tools like NLR-Annotator to scan the genome or proteome for canonical NLR domains (NB-ARC, LRR, TIR, CC) [25].
  • For polyploid species (e.g., sugarcane), employ specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek, which uses manually annotated diploid relatives (e.g., Sorghum bicolor, Erianthus rufipilus) as training datasets for accurate prediction [25].

• Transcriptome Analysis:

  • Obtain RNA-seq data from uninfected plant tissues relevant to the pathogen of interest (e.g., leaf tissue for foliar pathogens).
  • Analyze expression levels of the identified NLR genes. Calculate FPKM/TPM values and compare expression across candidates.

• Candidate Prioritization:

  • Prioritize NLR candidates that show high steady-state expression levels, as this signature is enriched for functional receptors [7].
  • Optionally, use machine learning technologies like xSeedScore to further rank candidates based on learned features of functional resistance genes [55].

• Construct Generation:

  • Clone the coding sequences of the top-priority NLR candidates into plant transformation vectors. These vectors typically use a strong constitutive promoter (e.g., Ubiquitin) or the NLR's native promoter [7].

• Transgenic Array Production:

  • Use high-efficiency transformation protocols (e.g., for wheat) to generate a large number of independent transgenic lines, each containing a single NLR candidate [7].
  • Confirm T-DNA insertion via PCR on the selection marker gene (e.g., hygromycin resistance) and select lines with single-copy insertions for further analysis to avoid complications from gene silencing [60] [7].

• Large-Scale Phenotyping:

  • Grow T1 or T2 progeny of the transgenic lines under controlled conditions.
  • Inoculate plants with the target pathogen at a standardized growth stage and pathogen density. Include resistant and susceptible control lines in each experiment.
  • Monitor and score disease symptoms over time. Use quantitative measures where possible (e.g., lesion size, number of pustules, pathogen biomass quantification) [61].

• Resistance Confirmation and Data Analysis:

  • Identify resistant lines based on significantly reduced disease symptoms compared to susceptible controls.
  • Correlate resistance with the presence of the transgene. The confirmed resistant NLRs represent validated functional genes, and their performance feeds back into refining the ML prediction models.

Protocol 2: Transient HR Assay in N. benthamiana for NLR Validation

This protocol provides a rapid, preliminary validation for NLR function, particularly for paired NLRs, before committing to stable transformation.

Procedure:

• Clone into Expression Vector: Sub-clone the candidate NLR gene(s) into a binary vector suitable for transient expression in plants. For paired NLRs suspected to work together, clone each gene into a separate vector.
• Transform Agrobacterium: Introduce the constructed plasmids into an Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain (e.g., GV3101).
• Infiltrate N. benthamiana Leaves:
  • Grow N. benthamiana plants for 4-5 weeks under standard conditions.
  • For single NLRs, infiltrate cultures containing the candidate. For paired NLRs, mix cultures containing the two partners (e.g., sensor and helper NLR) in a 1:1 ratio before infiltration [25].
  • Include negative controls (e.g., empty vector) and positive controls if available.
• Monitor for Hypersensitive Response (HR): Observe the infiltration sites over 2 to 4 days for the development of a confluent hypersensitive response, characterized by tissue collapse and necrosis.
• Document and Score Cell Death: Photograph the leaves and score the intensity of the HR. A strong, confluent HR indicates that the NLR(s) are functional and can activate immune signaling. The absence of HR does not definitively rule out function, as some NLRs may require specific pathogen effectors for activation that are not present in N. benthamiana.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for ML-Guided NLR Discovery and Validation

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Notes
NLRseek Platform [55]	Proprietary platform for high-throughput identification of naturally occurring NLR resistance genes from diverse plants.	Dramatically reduces time and resources to find functional genes. Used in partnership with ML tools.
xSeedScore ML Technology [55]	Machine learning technology for in silico characterization and prioritization of resistance gene candidates.	Trained on experimental data to enhance prediction of functional NLRs.
DaapNLRSeek Pipeline [25]	Bioinformatics pipeline for accurate prediction and annotation of NLR genes in complex polyploid genomes.	Essential for crops like sugarcane; uses diploid relatives for training.
NLR-Annotator [25]	Computational tool for identifying NLR loci and domains in genome sequences.	A foundation for building a candidate list from genomic data.
High-Efficiency Transformation System [7]	Enables the large-scale production of transgenic plants for many NLR candidates in a crop species.	A critical enabling technology for building the transgenic array (e.g., used for wheat).
Agrobacterium tumefaciens [60] [25]	Used for both stable plant transformation and transient gene expression in N. benthamiana.	Strain GV3101 is commonly used for transient assays.
N. benthamiana Plant [25]	A model plant for transient expression assays to quickly test NLR function, especially for inducing HR.	Provides a rapid, preliminary validation system.
Pathogen Isolates [7]	Characterized strains of the target pathogen used for challenging transgenic arrays in phenotyping assays.	Must be maintained in a viable and virulent state. Examples: Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (stem rust), Phytophthora capsici.
Standardized Phenotyping Protocols [61]	Detailed procedures for consistent, quantitative assessment of disease symptoms or resistance across many plant lines.	Includes methods for visual scoring, imaging, and molecular quantification of pathogen load.

Application Note

This application note provides a structured framework for evaluating the performance of machine learning (ML) models in the prediction of functional nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes. Accurate assessment is critical for ensuring that predictive tools are not only accurate in controlled settings but also generalizable to diverse, independent populations, which is a cornerstone of robust plant immunity research and subsequent drug development initiatives.

Quantitative Performance Metrics in NLR Research

The evaluation of ML models for NLR gene prediction relies on a suite of quantitative metrics that provide a multi-faceted view of model performance. Accuracy measures the overall proportion of correct predictions, while the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) offers a more reliable statistic for binary classifications, especially when dealing with imbalanced datasets. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) is used to assess the model's ability to distinguish between classes across all classification thresholds.

Recent studies demonstrate the advanced capabilities of modern ML tools in this domain. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from recent ML-based NLR and resistance gene prediction studies:

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Recent ML Tools in NLR and Resistance Gene Prediction

Tool / Study	Primary Function	Key Performance Metrics	Model Type
PRGminer [12]	R-gene identification & classification	Phase I Accuracy: 98.75% (k-fold), 95.72% (independent testing); MCC: 0.98 (k-fold), 0.91 (independent testing). Phase II Accuracy: 97.55% (k-fold), 97.21% (independent testing); MCC: 0.93 (k-fold), 0.92 (independent testing).	Deep Learning
NLR-Effector Prediction [13]	Prediction of NLR-effector interactions	Novel NLR-effector interactions identified with 99% accuracy using an Ensemble machine learning model.	Ensemble Machine Learning
Wheat Leaf Rust Study [62]	Mining candidate genes for leaf rust resistance	XGBoost model achieved an AUC of 0.97 and an accuracy of 0.90.	Machine Learning (XGBoost)

The high MCC values reported for tools like PRGminer are particularly noteworthy. An MCC value of +1 represents a perfect prediction, 0 is no better than random, and -1 indicates total disagreement between prediction and observation. The reported MCCs above 0.9 indicate a strong positive correlation between the predicted and actual classes, a sign of a very robust model even when dealing with the complex and diverse NLR gene family [12].

Assessing Generalizability Across Independent Populations

A model's performance on its training data is often an optimistic estimate of its real-world utility. True validation comes from testing its generalizability on independent populations. Key strategies for this assessment include:

• Independent Testing Sets: Using genetically distinct data that was not involved in the model training process. For example, PRGminer maintained high accuracy and MCC on an independent test set, demonstrating its generalizability beyond its training data [12].
• External Validation Cohorts: In clinical and biological contexts, this involves applying the model to data from a different institution, population, or species. One study developed a deep learning model for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and validated it on an external cohort of 87 patients, confirming consistent performance across different patient groups [63]. This principle is directly applicable to validating NLR prediction models across different plant cultivars or species.
• Cross-Validation: Techniques like k-fold cross-validation, as used in the development of PRGminer, provide an initial, robust estimate of model performance by repeatedly training and testing on different subsets of the available data [12].

The consistency of performance metrics between internal validation (training/k-fold) and external validation (independent testing) is the ultimate test of a model's generalizability and readiness for application in real-world research settings.

Experimental Protocols

This section outlines detailed protocols for the key experiments and analyses cited in this note, providing a reproducible framework for performance assessment in NLR research.

Protocol: Performance Validation Using an Independent Test Set

This protocol mirrors the methodology used to validate the PRGminer tool, focusing on assessing model generalizability [12].

I. Purpose To objectively evaluate the trained ML model's accuracy and robustness on a genetically distinct population that was not used during the model's training phase.

II. Experimental Workflow

III. Procedures

• Dataset Curation:

  • Gather a comprehensive set of known NLR/R-genes and non-R-gene sequences from public databases such as Phytozome, Ensemble Plants, and NCBI [12].
  • Ensure sequences are correctly labeled and of high quality.

• Data Partitioning:

  • Randomly split the entire curated dataset into two subsets: a Training Set (e.g., 70-80%) and an Independent Test Set (e.g., 20-30%).
  • It is critical that the Independent Test Set is completely held out from the model training and hyperparameter tuning processes. No information from this set should influence the model building.

• Model Training:

  • Train the ML model (e.g., a deep neural network as in PRGminer) using only the Training Set.

• Model Prediction:

  • Use the finalized trained model to generate predictions for the sequences in the Independent Test Set.

• Performance Metric Calculation:

  • Compare the model's predictions against the true labels for the Independent Test Set.
  • Calculate key metrics:
    • Accuracy: (True Positives + True Negatives) / Total Predictions
    • MCC: See formula in Section 2.3.
    • AUC: Plot the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and calculate the area under it.

IV. Reporting Document all performance metrics achieved on the independent test set. A significant drop in performance (e.g., in Accuracy or MCC) compared to training/k-fold results indicates potential overfitting and poor generalizability.

Protocol: Ensemble Model for Predicting NLR-Effector Interactions

This protocol is based on a study that used an ensemble of machine learning models to predict novel NLR-effector interactions with high accuracy [13].

I. Purpose To leverage multiple machine learning models to improve the prediction accuracy and robustness of identifying specific interactions between NLR proteins and pathogen effectors.

II. Experimental Workflow

III. Procedures

• Input Data Preparation:

  • Use AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict the 3D protein complex structures for both known ("true") and hypothetical ("forced") NLR-effector pairs [13].

• Feature Generation:

  • For each predicted protein complex, use a suite of ML models (e.g., 97 models from Area-Affinity) to calculate features such as Binding Affinity (BA) and Binding Energy (BE) [13].

• Model Training and Prediction:

  • Train Base Models: Use the calculated BA and BE values from the multiple models as features to train an Ensemble model (e.g., using stacking or a meta-learner).
  • The Ensemble model learns to weigh the predictions of the individual base models to produce a final, more accurate prediction.

• Validation and Analysis:

  • Apply the trained Ensemble model to predict interactions for novel NLR-effector pairs.
  • Validate predictions by comparing the BA and BE value distributions between predicted "true" interactions and known non-functional "forced" complexes. Significant differences confirm the model's discriminative power [13].

Essential Calculations

Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC): The MCC is calculated as follows: [ MCC = \frac{(TP \times TN) - (FP \times FN)}{\sqrt{(TP+FP)(TP+FN)(TN+FP)(TN+FN)}} ] Where:

• (TP) = True Positives
• (TN) = True Negatives
• (FP) = False Positives
• (FN) = False Negatives

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ML-Based NLR Prediction

Reagent / Resource	Function in NLR Research	Example Use Case
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Predicts 3D structures of protein complexes.	Generating structural models of NLR-effector complexes for subsequent binding affinity calculation [13].
PRGminer Webserver	A deep learning-based tool for high-throughput prediction and classification of plant resistance genes.	Identifying and classifying NLRs and other R-genes in newly sequenced or poorly annotated plant genomes [12].
DaapNLRSeek Pipeline	A specialized bioinformatics pipeline for accurate annotation of NLR genes in complex polyploid genomes.	Predicting NLRs in challenging genomes like sugarcane, where high ploidy and repetitive sequences complicate annotation [16].
Area-Affinity Models	A collection of machine learning models used to predict protein-binding affinities and energies.	Featurizing predicted NLR-effector complexes by calculating binding affinity and energy for interaction prediction [13].
XGBoost Algorithm	A powerful, scalable machine learning algorithm based on decision trees.	Mining candidate NLR and resistance-related genes from transcriptomic data (e.g., under pathogen stress) [62].

The accurate prediction of Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) genes is a critical challenge in plant genomics with significant implications for understanding disease resistance and facilitating crop improvement [28]. NLRs constitute a major class of intracellular immune receptors that mediate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) in plants, playing a central role in defense against pathogens [42] [15]. Traditionally, the identification of these resistance (R) genes has relied on alignment-based bioinformatics tools that leverage sequence homology and domain architecture. However, the emergence of deep learning frameworks like PRGminer represents a paradigm shift in prediction methodologies [12] [28].

This comparative analysis examines the fundamental differences, performance characteristics, and practical applications of these contrasting approaches within the context of functional NLR gene prediction. We provide a structured evaluation to guide researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies for their specific research objectives in plant immunity and disease resistance breeding.

Fundamental Methodological Differences

Alignment-Based Approaches

Alignment-based methods represent the traditional foundation of sequence analysis in bioinformatics. These approaches position biological sequences to identify regions of similarity, assuming that similarity often implies functional, structural, or evolutionary relationships [64] [65].

• Core Principle: These methods identify residue-to-residue correspondence between sequences, producing alignments that highlight conserved regions through the insertion of gaps to maximize matches [64] [66].
• Key Tools and Algorithms: Common implementations use tools like BLAST, HMMER, and InterProScan to identify conserved structural motifs and domains characteristic of NLR genes, such as NBS (Nucleotide-Binding Site), LRR (Leucine-Rich Repeat), TIR (Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor), and CC (Coiled-Coil) domains [12] [28].
• Methodological Variants:
  • Global alignment (e.g., Needleman-Wunsch algorithm) attempts to align the entire length of sequences, assuming they are broadly similar and comparable in size [65] [66].
  • Local alignment (e.g., Smith-Waterman algorithm) identifies regions of local similarity within longer sequences, useful for finding conserved motifs in otherwise divergent sequences [65] [66].
  • Heuristic methods (e.g., FASTA, BLAST) provide computational efficiency for database searches by identifying short, identical words (k-tuples) as seeds for alignment extension [65].

Deep Learning Approaches (PRGminer)

PRGminer exemplifies the next generation of prediction tools that harness deep learning architectures to overcome limitations of homology-based methods [12].

• Core Principle: Instead of relying on explicit sequence alignment, PRGminer uses deep neural networks to automatically learn hierarchical feature representations directly from raw protein sequence data, extracting both sequential and convolutional patterns predictive of resistance gene function [12].
• Architecture: PRGminer operates through a two-phase prediction pipeline [12]:
  • Phase I: Classifies input protein sequences as R-genes or non-R-genes.
  • Phase II: Further classifies predicted R-genes into one of eight specific structural classes (CNL, KIN, RLP, LECRK, RLK, LYK, TIR, TNL).
• Feature Representation: The tool achieves optimal performance using dipeptide composition for sequence representation, transforming protein sequences into numerical vectors that capture local sequence patterns without requiring multiple sequence alignment [12].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Alignment-Based vs. Deep Learning Approaches

Characteristic	Alignment-Based Methods	Deep Learning (PRGminer)
Core Principle	Sequence homology and residue correspondence	Automated feature learning from raw sequences
Underlying Mechanism	Dynamic programming, heuristic word matching	Deep neural networks
Domain Knowledge Dependency	High (requires predefined domains/motifs)	Low (learns features automatically)
Sequence Representation	Alignment matrices with gaps	Dipeptide composition, numerical vectors
Key Tools	BLAST, HMMER, InterProScan	PRGminer webserver/standalone tool

Performance Comparison and Quantitative Assessment

Accuracy and Efficiency Metrics

Direct performance comparison reveals significant advantages in deep learning approaches for NLR gene prediction tasks. PRGminer demonstrates exceptional accuracy in both phases of its prediction pipeline [12]:

• Phase I (R-gene vs. non-R-gene): Achieved 98.75% accuracy in k-fold testing and 95.72% on independent testing with a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.91, indicating highly reliable binary classification [12].
• Phase II (R-gene classification): Maintained 97.55% accuracy in k-fold testing and 97.21% on independent testing with MCC values of 0.93 and 0.92 respectively, demonstrating robust multi-class discrimination capability [12].

Alignment-based methods face several inherent limitations that impact their prediction accuracy [67]:

• Performance deteriorates significantly in the "twilight zone" of sequence identity (20-35% for proteins), where remote homologs mix with random sequences
• Below 20% sequence identity ("midnight zone"), homology detection becomes unreliable even with advanced profiles and hidden Markov models
• These methods assume collinearity in sequence organization, which is frequently violated in NLR genes due to rearrangements, domain shuffling, and repetitive elements [67] [15]

Computational Requirements and Scalability

The computational characteristics of these approaches differ substantially, with implications for large-scale genomic analyses:

• Alignment-Based Methods: Scale quadratically with sequence length (O(n²) for pairwise alignment), becoming computationally prohibitive for whole-genome analyses and large sequence datasets [67]. Multiple sequence alignment represents an NP-hard problem, necessitating heuristic approximations that sacrifice accuracy for efficiency [67].
• Deep Learning Approaches: While model training is computationally intensive, the prediction phase (inference) scales linearly with sequence length (O(n)), enabling high-throughput analysis of large genomic datasets [12] [67]. PRGminer's webserver implementation provides accessible prediction capabilities without local computational burden [12].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of NLR Prediction Methods

Performance Metric	Alignment-Based Methods	PRGminer (Deep Learning)
Prediction Accuracy (R-gene identification)	Varies; decreases significantly with low homology	95.72-98.75%
Classification Accuracy (R-gene subtypes)	Domain-based classification possible but fragmented	97.21-97.55% across 8 classes
Matthews Correlation Coefficient	Not typically reported for overall pipeline	0.91-0.98
Low-Homology Performance	Poor (fails in "midnight zone")	Maintains high accuracy
Computational Scalability	Quadratic complexity limiting for large datasets	Linear complexity during prediction
Handling of Fragmented/Incomplete Genes	Challenging, often misclassified as pseudogenes	Robust prediction of functional fragments

Experimental Protocols for NLR Gene Identification

Protocol 1: Traditional Alignment-Based NLR Identification

This protocol outlines a standard domain-based approach for genome-wide NLR identification, commonly used in studies such as the identification of 288 NLR genes in Capsicum annuum [42].

Step 1: Sequence Database Preparation

• Obtain protein sequences from relevant databases (Phytozome, Ensemble Plants, NCBI) or predicted proteomes from your target species [12] [42].
• For plant species, the TAIR database provides well-annotated Arabidopsis NLR sequences useful as starting references [42].

Step 2: Homology-Based Candidate Identification

• Perform BLASTp search using known NLR protein sequences as queries against target proteomes [42].
• Use expectation value (E-value) cutoffs typically between 1e-5 to 1e-10 to balance sensitivity and specificity [42].
• Retain sequences with significant homology for further domain analysis.

Step 3: Domain Architecture Analysis

• Use HMMER v3.3.2 with Pfam domain models (e.g., PF00931 for NB-ARC domain) with E-value cutoff of 1×10⁻⁵ [42].
• Validate domain presence using NCBI Conserved Domain Database (CDD) and InterProScan [42].
• Identify specific N-terminal domains (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal LRR domains to classify NLR subtypes.

Step 4: Manual Curation and Validation

• Remove redundant sequences and verify domain completeness.
• Check for fragmented genes and pseudogenes through manual inspection.
• Predict physicochemical parameters (amino acid length, molecular weight, isoelectric point) using tools like TBtools [42].

Protocol 2: Deep Learning-Based Prediction with PRGminer

This protocol describes the utilization of PRGminer for high-throughput prediction of resistance genes, leveraging its demonstrated accuracy of 95.72-98.75% in independent testing [12].

Step 1: Input Sequence Preparation

• Compile protein sequences in FASTA format for analysis.
• Ensure sequences represent the complete coding regions without partial fragments for optimal prediction accuracy.
• The webserver accepts batch processing for multiple sequences, enabling high-throughput analysis.

Step 2: Phase I Prediction (R-gene vs. Non-R-gene)

• Submit sequences to the PRGminer webserver (https://kaabil.net/prgminer/) or standalone tool.
• The deep learning model automatically extracts features using dipeptide composition representation.
• Receive binary classification results indicating whether each sequence is predicted as a resistance gene or non-resistance gene.

Step 3: Phase II Classification (R-gene Subtyping)

• Sequences classified as R-genes in Phase I automatically proceed to Phase II.
• The model classifies each R-gene into one of eight structural classes: CNL, KIN, RLP, LECRK, RLK, LYK, TIR, and TNL [12].
• Review confidence scores associated with each classification.

Step 4: Result Interpretation and Validation

• Download comprehensive results including prediction probabilities and class assignments.
• For research purposes, consider experimental validation of novel predictions through molecular biology techniques.
• Integrate predictions with complementary genomic and transcriptomic data for functional insights.

Integration with Emerging Technologies and Applications

Complementary Experimental Approaches

Both computational approaches benefit from integration with emerging wet-lab technologies that enhance NLR gene discovery and characterization:

• Nanopore Adaptive Sampling (NAS): This targeted sequencing approach enriches NLR genomic regions, overcoming challenges posed by their clustered arrangement and repetitive nature [15]. NAS uses real-time mapping to reference sequences to accept or reject DNA strands for sequencing, providing cost-effective enrichment of specific genomic regions without complex library preparation [15].
• Protein Structure Prediction: AlphaFold2-Multimer enables prediction of NLR-effector protein complex structures, providing insights into molecular recognition mechanisms in plant immunity [13]. Binding affinity and energy calculations from predicted structures facilitate identification of novel NLR-effector interactions with reported 99% accuracy using ensemble machine learning models [13].
• Transcriptomic Validation: RNA-Seq analysis during pathogen infection provides experimental validation of computationally identified NLR genes, as demonstrated in Capsicum annuum studies where 44 NLR genes showed differential expression following Phytophthora capsici infection [42].

Application in Crop Improvement Programs

The integration of these computational prediction methods with molecular breeding approaches accelerates crop improvement:

• Gene Pyramiding: Computational prediction of effective NLR genes enables strategic combination of multiple R genes in elite cultivars for more durable resistance [28].
• Marker Development: Predicted NLR genes facilitate development of molecular markers for marker-assisted selection, particularly for challenging traits like disease resistance [42].
• Speed Breeding: In silico prediction of resistance genes reduces dependency on lengthy phenotypic screening, accelerating breeding cycles when combined with speed breeding technologies.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Gene Identification

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function and Application
Alignment-Based Tools	BLAST, HMMER, InterProScan	Identifies conserved domains and homologous sequences
Deep Learning Platforms	PRGminer webserver/standalone	High-accuracy R-gene prediction and classification
Reference Databases	Phytozome, Ensemble Plants, NCBI, TAIR	Source of reference sequences and annotations
Domain Databases	Pfam, CDD, InterPro	Provides domain models for NLR identification
Genomic Visualization	TBtools, Geneious Prime	Enables visualization and manual curation of results
Specialized NLR Resources	NLR-Annotator, NLGenomeSweeper	Domain-specific tools for NLR gene family analysis
Experimental Validation	RNA-Seq, RT-qPCR, Nanopore NAS	Provides wet-lab validation of computational predictions

This comparative analysis demonstrates that while alignment-based methods provide a foundational approach for NLR gene identification with strengths in well-characterized genomic contexts, deep learning approaches like PRGminer offer significant advantages in accuracy, scalability, and effectiveness for novel gene discovery. The integration of both methodologies, complemented by emerging experimental technologies such as Nanopore Adaptive Sampling and AlphaFold2 predictions, creates a powerful framework for advancing our understanding of plant immunity mechanisms. For researchers focused on functional NLR gene prediction, a hybrid strategy that leverages the interpretability of alignment-based methods with the predictive power of deep learning represents the most robust approach for comprehensive resistance gene characterization and utilization in crop improvement programs.

The identification of functional nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes represents a cornerstone of modern plant disease resistance breeding. Current research demonstrates that functional NLR immune receptors exhibit a signature of high expression in uninfected plants across both monocot and dicot species [7] [68]. This discovery provides a valuable filter for prioritizing candidate NLRs from the thousands typically present in plant genomes. The application of machine learning (ML) models to predict functional NLRs must be validated across diverse crop species to demonstrate true efficacy and generalizability. This Application Note provides a structured framework for validating ML-predicted NLR genes in three agronomically important species: rice (a monocot model), wheat (a complex polyploid crop), and pepper (a eudicot crop). We present comparative quantitative data, standardized experimental protocols, and pathway visualizations to support cross-species validation of NLR functionality.

Comparative Analysis of NLR Landscapes Across Species

Table 1: NLR Family Characteristics in Rice, Wheat, and Pepper

Characteristic	Rice (Oryza sativa)	Wheat (Triticum aestivum)	Pepper (Capsicum annuum)
Typical NLR Repertoire Size	~500 NLRs [42]	Thousands (complex polyploid) [25]	288 canonical NLRs [42]
Key Genomic Features	Paired NLRs common (e.g., RGA4/RGA5, Pikp-1/Pikp-2) [69]	Requires specialized pipelines for polyploid annotation (e.g., DaapNLRSeek) [25]	Significant clustering near telomeres; 18.4% from tandem duplication [42]
Expression Signature of Functional NLRs	High expression in uninfected tissue [7]	High expression signature present [7] [68]	82.6% of promoters contain SA/JA defense motifs [42]
Validated Functional NLR Examples	PigmR, XA1, XA14 [69]	Sr45, Sr46, SrTA1662, Lr10, Lr21 [7] [62]	Caz01g22900, Caz09g03820 (PPI hubs) [42]
Species-Specific Challenges	Engineering of paired NLR systems [69]	Genetic redundancy and genome complexity [25]	Pathogen-specific resistance (e.g., Phytophthora capsici) [42]

Table 2: Cross-Species Validation Outcomes for ML-Predicted NLRs

Validation Metric	Rice	Wheat	Pepper
Transformation Efficiency	High (standard protocol)	High-throughput achievable [7]	Moderate (Agrobacterium-mediated)
Typical Validation Pathogens	Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Blight), Magnaporthe oryzae (Blast) [69]	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (Stem rust), Puccinia triticina (Leaf rust) [7] [62]	Phytophthora capsici [42]
Proof-of-Concept Success Rate	Established for engineered NLR pairs [69]	31 new resistant NLRs identified from 995 tested (3.1% success) [7]	44 NLRs differentially expressed post-infection [42]
Key Phenotypic Readouts	Lesion length, hypersensitive response (HR) [69]	Infection type, pustule size/quantity [7]	Lesion diameter, sporulation, HR [42]

Experimental Protocols for Cross-Species Validation

Protocol 1: In Planta Transient Assay for Hypersensitive Response (HR)

Application: Initial functional screening of candidate NLRs across all three species.

• Principle: Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression (agroinfiltration) of candidate NLRs in leaves to detect a rapid, localized cell death response, indicative of NLR auto-activation or recognition of corresponding effectors.
• Materials:
  • Plant Material: 4-6 week-old plants of rice, pepper, or wheat.
  • Vectors: Binary expression vectors (e.g., pCAMBIA1300, pBIN19) with strong constitutive promoters (e.g., CaMV 35S, Ubiquitin).
  • Agrobacterium tumefaciens: Strain GV3101.
  • Solutions: Infiltration buffer (10 mM MES, 10 mM MgCl₂, 150 µM Acetosyringone, pH 5.6).
• Procedure:
  • Clone candidate NLR genes into binary vectors.
  • Transform constructs into Agrobacterium.
  • Grow bacterial cultures to OD₆₀₀ = 0.5-0.8. Pellet and resuspend in infiltration buffer to a final OD₆₀₀ = 0.4.
  • Infiltrate the bacterial suspension into the abaxial side of leaves using a needleless syringe.
  • Monitor infiltrated areas daily for 2-6 days for the development of confluent HR cell death.
  • Score HR intensity relative to positive and negative controls.

Protocol 2: Stable Transformation and Rust Fungal Bioassay

Application: Rigorous validation of wheat NLR efficacy against stem and leaf rust pathogens.

• Principle: High-throughput wheat transformation followed by controlled pathogen challenge to assess resistance conferred by stably integrated NLR transgenes [7].
• Materials:
  • Plant Material: Wheat cultivar 'Fielder' (highly transformable).
  • Pathogen Isolates: Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (Pgt) and Puccinia triticina (Pt) spores.
  • Equipment: Controlled environment growth chambers, inoculation tower.
• Procedure:
  • Generate transgenic wheat lines expressing candidate NLRs via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation [7].
  • Grow T0 or T1 transgenic plants and negative controls to the two-leaf stage.
  • Collect fresh urediniospores of the rust pathogen. Dust spores onto leaves using an inoculation tower at a density of ~2 mg spores per 100 plants.
  • Mist plants and place in a dark dew chamber at 18°C for 24 hours to promote spore germination.
  • Transfer plants to a controlled growth chamber (20°C, 16-h light/8-h dark cycle).
  • Assess infection phenotypes 12-14 days post-inoculation using a standardized scale (0-4 for infection type). A low infection type (0-2) indicates resistance.

Protocol 3: Differential Gene Expression Analysis Post-Pathogen Challenge

Application: Validation of NLR gene induction in pepper and other crops following pathogen infection.

• Principle: RNA-sequencing and RT-qPCR to measure the upregulation of endogenous or transgenically expressed NLR genes in resistant versus susceptible genotypes after pathogen inoculation [42].
• Materials:
  • Plant Material: Resistant (e.g., CM334) and susceptible (e.g., NMCA10399) pepper lines [42].
  • Pathogen: Phytophthora capsici zoospores.
  • Reagents: RNA extraction kit, cDNA synthesis kit, SYBR Green qPCR master mix.
• Procedure:
  • Inoculate roots or stems of 6-week-old pepper plants with P. capsici zoospores (e.g., 10⁵ zoospores/mL).
  • Harvest tissue from the infection site at multiple time points (e.g., 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 hours post-inoculation). Flash-freeze in liquid N₂.
  • Extract total RNA and synthesize cDNA.
  • Perform RT-qPCR with gene-specific primers for candidate NLRs.
  • Use reference genes (e.g., CaACTIN, CaUBI) for normalization.
  • Calculate relative expression using the 2^(-ΔΔCt) method. Significant upregulation in the resistant line post-infection supports NLR functionality.

Visualization of Signaling Pathways and Workflows

NLR-Mediated Immunity Signaling Pathway

NLR-Mediated Immunity Pathway

Cross-Species NLR Validation Workflow

Cross-Species NLR Validation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for NLR Validation

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Binary Vectors	Stable and transient plant transformation.	pCAMBIA series, pBIN19, Ubiquitin-promoter vectors for monocots, 35S-promoter vectors for dicots.
High-Efficiency Transformation Systems	Rapid in-planta validation of NLR function.	Agrobacterium strain GV3101; High-throughput wheat transformation protocol [7].
Specialized Bioinformatics Pipelines	Accurate NLR identification in complex genomes.	DaapNLRSeek for polyploid species [25]; NLR-Annotator, NLRtracker for diploids.
Reference Transcriptomes	Baseline for expression-level filtering of candidate NLRs.	Data from uninfected leaf/root tissue for multiple accessions [7] [68].
Pathogen Culture Collections	Standardized biological assays for resistance.	Virulent/avirulent isolates of P. graminis, P. triticina, X. oryzae, P. capsici with known effectors.
Protein Interaction Tools	Mapping NLR networks and identifying helpers/sensors.	Yeast-two-hybrid, Co-IP kits, STRING database for prediction [42].

Within the broader scope of machine learning (ML) prediction of functional NLR (Nucleotide-binding, Leucine-Rich Repeat) genes, a critical challenge lies in bridging the gap between computational predictions and biological reality. NLR proteins are intracellular immune receptors in plants that recognize pathogen effectors and activate robust defense responses, including Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) [13] [70]. While advanced ML and structural bioinformatics models can now predict interactions between NLRs and pathogen effectors in silico, the ultimate validation requires demonstrating that these predicted interactions translate to observable immune activation in vivo [13] [7]. This Application Note details established protocols for correlating predicted binding energy and affinity of NLR-effector complexes with experimental measures of immune activation, providing a framework for validating ML-based predictions of NLR function.

Quantitative Correlation of In Silico and In Vivo Data

The following table summarizes key quantitative measures from in silico predictions and their correlated experimental outcomes in model plants.

Table 1: Correlation of In Silico Predictions with Experimental Immune Readouts

In Silico Prediction (Metric)	Prediction Method	Correlated In Vivo Immune Readout	Experimental System	Observed Correlation
Binding Affinity (log(K))Range: -8.5 to -10.6 [13]	AlphaFold2-Multimer + Area-Affinity ML Models [13]	Hypersensitive Response (HR) cell death [7]	Nicotiana benthamiana transient expression	"True" interactions show narrow, specific range of binding energies [13]
Binding Energy (kcal/mol)Range: -11.8 to -14.4 [13]	AlphaFold2-Multimer + Area-Affinity ML Models [13]	Disease resistance phenotype [7]	Wheat transgenics challenged with Puccinia graminis (stem rust) [7]	NLRs with favorable predicted energy confer resistance in vivo [13] [7]
Protein-Protein Docking Score(e.g., from RF-Score, AEV-PLIG) [71] [72]	Machine Learning Scoring Functions (e.g., Random Forest, Graph Neural Networks) [71] [72]	Effector-triggered ROS burst	Arabidopsis or tomato protoplast assays	Under investigation; high-confidence poses suggest functional complexes [13] [73]
NLR Gene Expression Level(FPKM in uninfected plants) [7]	RNA-Sequencing Transcriptomics [7]	Successful complementation of resistance in susceptible genotypes [7]	Barley powdery mildew system [7]	Higher steady-state expression is a signature of functional NLRs [7]

Figure 1: Integrated workflow for correlating in silico predictions with in vivo immune activation. The pipeline begins with candidate selection, proceeds through computational and experimental modules, and culminates in data integration to validate functional NLRs.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: In Silico Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

This protocol describes the prediction of NLR-effector complex structures and binding parameters using AlphaFold2-Multimer and machine learning-based scoring.

• Input Sequence Preparation:

  • Obtain protein sequences for NLRs and candidate effectors in FASTA format.
  • For NLRs, ensure the sequence includes the nucleotide-binding (NB-ARC) and leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains. The LRR domain is critical for effector recognition [13] [42].

• Complex Structure Prediction:

  • Use AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict the 3D structure of the NLR-effector complex.
  • Run multiple (e.g., 5) independent predictions with different random seeds to assess model consistency.
  • Evaluate model quality using the predicted pLDDT (per-residue confidence score) and pTM (predicted Template Modeling Score). A DockQ score can be used for further validation against known structures if available [13].
  • Retain models with high confidence scores (pLDDT > 70, pTM > 0.7) for further analysis. The NLR LRR domain and the effector interface should be well-resolved [13].

• Binding Affinity and Energy Prediction:

  • Submit the top-ranked predicted complex structure to a machine learning-based scoring platform, such as Area-Affinity or RF-Score [13] [71].
  • These tools employ ensemble models trained on protein-protein interaction data.
  • Extract the predicted Binding Affinity (log(K)) and Binding Energy (ΔG, kcal/mol). "True" interactions typically fall within a specific range (e.g., -8.5 to -10.6 for log(K) and -11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol for ΔG, though this is system-dependent) [13].
  • For comparative analysis, generate and score "forced" non-functional complexes as negative controls.

Protocol 2: Experimental Validation of NLR Function via Transient Expression

This protocol uses transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana to rapidly test for HR cell death, a hallmark of NLR-mediated immune activation.

• Plasmid Construction:

  • Clone the candidate NLR gene and its corresponding effector gene into separate binary expression vectors (e.g., pEAQ-HT or pBIN61) under the control of a strong constitutive promoter (e.g., 35S CaMV promoter).
  • Include fluorescent protein tags (e.g., GFP, RFP) for easy visualization of protein expression, ensuring they do not interfere with NLR or effector function.

• Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Transformation (Agroinfiltration):

  • Transform the constructed plasmids into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101.
  • Grow single colonies in liquid LB medium with appropriate antibiotics overnight at 28°C.
  • Centrifuge the cultures and resuspend the pellets in infiltration buffer (10 mM MES, 10 mM MgCl₂, 150 μM acetosyringone, pH 5.6) to an optical density at 600 nm (OD₆₀₀) of 0.5 for each construct.
  • Co-infiltration: Mix the Agrobacterium suspensions containing the NLR and effector constructs in a 1:1 ratio. Include controls: NLR alone, effector alone, and a known NLR-effector pair as a positive control.
  • Using a needleless syringe, infiltrate the mixtures into the leaves of 4-5 week-old N. benthamiana plants.

• Phenotyping and Data Collection:

  • Monitor the infiltration sites daily for 2 to 6 days for the appearance of a Hypersensitive Response (HR), characterized by rapid, localized tissue collapse and browning.
  • Document the results photographically. The onset and strength of the HR can be quantified using methods like electrolyte leakage assays or trypan blue staining to visualize dead cells.
  • Correlate the HR phenotype with the in silico predictions. A strong HR upon co-expression, but not with either component alone, validates a functional NLR-effector interaction predicted by the models [13] [7].

Protocol 3: Stable Transformation and Disease Resistance Phenotyping

This protocol provides a definitive test of NLR function by generating stable transgenic plants and challenging them with pathogens.

• Plant Transformation:

  • For the target crop (e.g., wheat, tomato), clone the candidate NLR gene into a suitable binary vector for stable transformation.
  • Use the native NLR promoter or a strong constitutive promoter, noting that high expression levels are often required for full functionality [7].
  • Generate stable transgenic lines via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation or biolistics. Regenotype to confirm single-locus insertions.

• Pathogenicity Assays:

  • Grow T1 or T2 generation transgenic plants and wild-type controls under controlled conditions.
  • Inoculate plants with the relevant pathogen (e.g., Puccinia graminis for stem rust in wheat, Phytophthora capsici in pepper) [7] [42].
  • Use appropriate inoculation methods: spray inoculation for rusts, root drenching for oomycetes, etc.
  • Maintain high humidity post-inoculation to facilitate infection.

• Disease Scoring and Correlation:

  • Score disease symptoms after the incubation period (typically 7-14 days). Use standardized scales, such as:
    • Infection Type: For rusts, score on a 0-4 scale where 0=no visible infection and 4=large pustules without chlorosis or necrosis.
    • Lesion Size/Diameter: Measure the size of necrotic or chlorotic lesions.
  • A significant reduction in disease symptoms (e.g., lower infection type, smaller lesions) in transgenic lines compared to wild-type controls confirms the NLR confers resistance.
  • Correlate resistance with the predicted binding energy/affinity from Protocol 1. NLRs predicted to have strong, specific binding should confer robust resistance in vivo [13] [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for NLR Immune Activation Studies

Reagent / Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application in Workflow
In Silico Prediction Software	AlphaFold2-Multimer, RF-Score, AEV-PLIG, Area-Affinity [13] [71] [72]	Predicts 3D structure of NLR-effector complexes and calculates binding affinity/energy. Forms the computational foundation for candidate selection.
ML Scoring Function Benchmarks	PDBbind, CASF-2016, DUD-E, OOD Test [71] [72] [73]	Standardized datasets and benchmarks for validating and comparing the accuracy of different ML scoring functions.
Model Plant Systems	Nicotiana benthamiana, Arabidopsis thaliana [7]	Versatile and rapid in planta systems for transient assays (e.g., HR) and stable transformation to test NLR function.
Binary Expression Vectors	pEAQ-HT, pBIN61, pCAMBIA series	Plasmid vectors for cloning NLR and effector genes and expressing them in plants via Agrobacterium.
Agrobacterium Strains	GV3101, AGL1	Standard strains for delivering NLR/effector genes into plant cells through transient or stable transformation.
Pathogen Isolates	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (stem rust), Phytophthora capsici [7] [42]	Pathogens with known effectors for challenging transgenic plants and assessing the disease resistance conferred by candidate NLRs.

The integration of robust in silico prediction methods with standardized in vivo experimental protocols creates a powerful pipeline for validating ML-predicted functional NLR genes. By systematically correlating predicted binding energies with quantitative measures of immune activation—from HR in transient systems to disease resistance in stable crops—researchers can accelerate the identification and deployment of novel resistance genes. This approach narrows the gap between computational prediction and biological application, ultimately enhancing the development of disease-resistant crops.

Conclusion

The integration of machine learning into NLR research marks a paradigm shift, moving from labor-intensive, traditional gene discovery to a predictive, in-silico-driven science. Key takeaways confirm that ML models, particularly those utilizing structural prediction with AlphaFold and deep learning for classification, can now identify functional NLRs and their pathogen effectors with remarkable accuracy. These tools are successfully being deployed to distinguish sensor from helper NLRs, predict resistance against devastating pathogens like Phytophthora capsici and wheat rusts, and overcome historical challenges like genomic clutter and low expression. Looking forward, the field must prioritize the expansion of curated training datasets and the development of even more generalizable models. The ultimate implication is clear: the accelerated discovery pipeline for NLR genes will fundamentally enhance our ability to engineer durable disease resistance in crops, paving the way for a more secure and sustainable agricultural future.

References

• 1. NLR receptors in plant immunity: making sense of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10561179/]
• 2. The Ups and Downs of Plant NLR Expression During ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.921148/full]
• 3. Genome-Wide Identification and Functional Evolution of NLR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562843/]
• 4. Genetically engineered plant endophytes broaden effector- ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41125075/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=03U57xZNFqBns5ssN0Y3xyHC6jtLaQ6GKGz6zlUID6x&fc=None&ff=20251116121945&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 5. Genetically engineered plant endophytes broaden effector- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1931312825003920]
• 6. Expanding disease resistance: engineered NLRS for broad ... [https://molhort.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43897-025-00217-4]
• 7. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-025-02110-w]
• 8. Molecular mechanisms that limit the costs of NLR‐mediated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6638094/]
• 9. Development of Machine Learning Methods for Accurate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809924002431]
• 10. Plant NBS-LRR proteins in pathogen sensing and host defense [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1973153/]
• 11. Identification and distribution of the NBS-LRR gene family in ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-1554-9]
• 12. PRGminer: harnessing deep learning for the prediction of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1411525/full]
• 13. In silico prediction method for plant Nucleotide‐binding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042882/]
• 14. Functional diversity of Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domains ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526623001462]
• 15. Nanopore adaptive sampling to identify the NLR gene family ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11295-5]
• 16. DaapNLRSeek, prediction, and evolution of resistance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225011307]
• 17. Do duplication-inducing elements 'cooperate' with genes in ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-07328-6]
• 18. NLRexpress—A bundle of machine learning motif ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.975888/full]
• 19. Plant NLR diversity: the known unknowns of pan-NLRomes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8226294/]
• 20. A super pan-genomic landscape of rice | Cell Research [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-022-00685-z]
• 21. Comparative analysis of the NLR gene family in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1681919/full]
• 22. NLRSeek: A reannotation–based pipeline for mining ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2662173825002085]
• 23. Nuclear and organelle genome assemblies of 5 Cucumis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12239611/]
• 24. Regulation and Evolution of NLR Genes [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/6/1662]
• 25. DaapNLRSeek, prediction, and evolution of resistance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12226392/]
• 26. Transcript‐level expression control of plant NLR genes - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6638128/]
• 27. Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-021-01252-x]
• 28. Computational Strategies for Elucidating Plant Disease ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885576525003790]
• 29. PRGminer [https://kaabil.net/prgminer/]
• 30. PRGMiner Tutorial [https://kaabil.net/prgminer/tutorial]
• 31. Functional Analysis of the NLR Gene YPR1 from Common ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/16/11/1321]
• 32. Regulation and Evolution of NLR Genes - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6032283/]
• 33. NLRexpress—A bundle of machine learning motif predictors ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9519389/]
• 34. Comparative-genomic analysis reveals dynamic NLR gene ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1141194/full]
• 35. AlphaFold3: An Overview of Applications and Performance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12027460/]
• 36. Oligomerization-mediated autoinhibition and cofactor ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07668-7]
• 37. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/]
• 38. Discovery of novel NLRP3 inhibitors based on machine ... [https://bmcchem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13065-024-01323-y]
• 39. AlphaFold2-multimer guided high-accuracy prediction of ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001962]
• 40. What NLR you recognizing? Predicted binding affinities- ... [https://sciencecast.org/casts/ps1bnafvlgir]
• 41. Alphafold2 protein structure prediction : Implications for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7614146/]
• 42. Genome-Wide Identification and Functional Evolution of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/10/867]
• 43. Strategies for overcoming data scarcity, imbalance, and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59958-9]
• 44. Conserved effector families render Phytophthora species ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54452-2]
• 45. A survey on deep learning tools dealing with data scarcity [https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-023-00727-2]
• 46. Recent advances in deep learning for protein-protein interaction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12168265/]
• 47. Large-scale identification and functional analysis of NLR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6744916/]
• 48. Fast3VmrMLM: A fast algorithm that integrates genome-wide ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12281254/]
• 49. Rapid Discovery of Functional NLRs Using the Signature ... [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4446759]
• 50. Can AI modelling of protein structures… [https://www.tsl.ac.uk/publications/137494]
• 51. Top Machine Learning Technology Trends to Watch in 2025 [https://medium.com/@smith.emily2584/top-machine-learning-technology-trends-to-watch-in-2025-6f592879a746]
• 52. The NLR gene family: An official nomenclature - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2630772/]
• 53. Resistify: A Novel NLR Classifier That Reveals Helitron ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11752215/]
• 54. NLRseek™ Findings Published in Nature Plants [https://www.2blades.org/newsroom/nlrseek-program-highlighted-nature-plants]
• 55. 2Blades and Computomics Launch Pilot Project using ... [https://www.2blades.org/newsroom/2blades-computomics]
• 56. 2Blades and Computomics Launch Disease-Resistant ... [https://gm.agbioinvestor.com/news/2blades-and-computomics-launch-disease-resistant-gene-discovery-pilot]
• 57. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high- ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40987916/]
• 58. xSeedScore [https://www.computomics.com/solutions/xseedscore.html]
• 59. Article A network-enabled pipeline for gene discovery and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237524003539]
• 60. Identification and Validation of Genetic Variations in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8143544/]
• 61. Plant phenotyping protocol [https://prl.natsci.msu.edu/research-and-tech/mpg-cure/lab-protocols/plant-phenotyping-protocol.aspx]
• 62. Identification of Leaf Rust-Related Gene Signature in Wheat ... [https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12284-025-00839-8]
• 63. Development and validation of an AI-augmented deep ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12627317/]
• 64. Sequence alignment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_alignment]
• 65. Sequence Alignment- Definition, Types, Methods, Uses [https://microbenotes.com/local-global-multiple-sequence-alignment/]
• 66. Understanding Sequence Alignment [https://www.geneious.com/guides/understanding-sequence-alignment]
• 67. Alignment-free sequence comparison [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5627421/]
• 68. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12537499/]
• 69. Recent advances in innovative strategies for plant disease ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1586375/full]
• 70. The NLR gene family: from discovery to present day - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171412/]
• 71. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3524828/]
• 72. Narrowing the gap between machine learning scoring ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01428-y]
• 73. Accurate prediction of protein–ligand interactions by ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00912-2]