Validating NBS Protein Interactions with Pathogen Effectors: From Foundational Mechanisms to Advanced Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive resource for researchers and drug development professionals on the validation of Nucleotide-Binding Site-Leucine-Rich Repeat (NBS-LRR) protein interactions with pathogen effectors. It covers the foundational biology of NBS-LRR proteins, including their domain architecture and evolution. The piece details established and emerging methodological approaches for probing these critical immune interactions, from yeast two-hybrid systems to in silico modeling. Furthermore, it addresses common troubleshooting scenarios and optimization strategies for interaction assays. Finally, the article presents frameworks for the rigorous validation and comparative analysis of NBS-effector interactions, highlighting their implications for developing novel disease resistance strategies in both plants and animal immune systems.

The Sentinel Proteins: Understanding NBS-LRR Structure and Pathogen Recognition Mechanisms

Plant nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins constitute one of the largest and most critical gene families in the plant immune system, functioning as intracellular guardians that detect diverse pathogens including bacteria, viruses, fungi, nematodes, insects, and oomycetes [1]. Encoded by hundreds of diverse genes per genome, these proteins are characterized by a tripartite domain architecture that includes a central nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain, C-terminal leucine-rich repeats (LRR), and variable N-terminal domains that define major subfamilies [1]. The precise role of these proteins in pathogen recognition involves monitoring the status of plant proteins targeted by pathogen effectors, a concept known as the "guard" hypothesis [1]. Within the broader context of validating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors, understanding this domain architecture provides the foundation for elucidating molecular recognition mechanisms and developing strategies to enhance crop disease resistance.

Comparative Domain Architecture of NBS-LRR Protein Families

Major Domain Components and Structural Organization

NBS-LRR proteins are among the largest proteins in plants, ranging from approximately 860 to 1,900 amino acids, and contain at least four distinct domains joined by linker regions [1]. The table below summarizes the core structural components:

Table 1: Core Structural Domains of Plant NBS-LRR Proteins

Domain	Location	Key Characteristics	Primary Functions
Amino-terminal Domain	N-terminus	Contains TIR or CC motifs; highly variable	Protein-protein interactions; signaling initiation
NBS Domain	Central region	Also called NB-ARC domain; contains conserved motifs	Molecular switch; ATP binding/hydrolysis; conformational regulation
LRR Region	C-terminus	14 repeats on average; highly variable β-sheets	Pathogen recognition; binding specificity determination
Carboxy-terminal Domain	C-terminus	Variable extensions	Regulatory functions; signal modulation

The NBS domain (NB-ARC) serves as a molecular switch in disease signaling pathways, with demonstrated ATP binding and hydrolysis activities in tomato CNLs I2 and Mi that trigger conformational changes regulating downstream signaling [1]. The LRR region shows significant diversity, with diversifying selection maintaining variation in solvent-exposed residues of the β-sheets, creating a highly variable binding surface with potential for tremendous specificity variation [1].

Major NBS-LRR Subfamilies: TNLs vs CNLs

Phylogenetic analyses reveal two major subfamilies of plant NBS-LRR proteins defined by their N-terminal domains:

Table 2: Comparison of Major NBS-LRR Subfamilies

Feature	TNL (TIR-NBS-LRR)	CNL (CC-NBS-LRR)
N-terminal Domain	Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)	Coiled-coil (CC) motif
Signaling Pathway	Distinct from CNLs; potentially SA-mediated	Distinct from TNLs; potentially JA/ET-mediated
Distribution	Absent in cereals; present in dicots	Found in both monocots and dicots
Conserved Motifs	Four TIR motifs spanning 175 amino acids; alanine-polyserine motif	CC motif in 175 amino acids N-terminal to NBS
Example Proteins	Flax L6; Tobacco N; Arabidopsis RPP1	Tomato I2, Mi, Prf; Arabidopsis RPM1

The complete absence of TNLs from cereal genomes suggests these subfamilies have distinct evolutionary histories, with early angiosperm ancestors possessing few TNLs that were subsequently lost in the cereal lineage [1]. CNLs from monocots and dicots cluster together phylogenetically, indicating that angiosperm ancestors contained multiple CNLs [1].

Irregular NBS-LRR Variants and Their Functions

Beyond the canonical TNL and CNL architectures, genomes encode truncated variants that lack complete domain complements. In Nicotiana benthamiana, from 156 identified NBS-LRR homologs, researchers classified 5 TNL-type, 25 CNL-type, 23 NL-type, 2 TN-type, 41 CN-type, and 60 N-type proteins [2]. Similarly, Arabidopsis contains 21 TIR-NBS (TN) and five CC-NBS (CN) proteins that lack LRR domains [1]. These irregular types likely function as adaptors or regulators for typical NBS-LRR proteins rather than primary recognition receptors [2].

Experimental Methodologies for Domain Function Analysis

Genomic Identification and Phylogenetic Analysis

Advanced bioinformatic approaches enable comprehensive identification and classification of NBS-LRR genes across plant species. The following workflow illustrates a standard pipeline for genome-wide NBS-LRR characterization:

Diagram 1: Genomic Identification Workflow

Key methodological considerations include:

• HMMER Search: Using hidden Markov model profiles (e.g., NB-ARC domain PF00931 from Pfam database) with expectation values (E-values < 1*10⁻²⁰) for initial identification [2]
• Domain Validation: Confirming complete presence of NBS and other domains using Pfam, SMART, and Conserved Domain Database with E-values below 0.01 [2]
• Phylogenetic Analysis: Multiple sequence alignment using Clustal W followed by maximum likelihood tree construction in MEGA7 with 1000 bootstrap replicates [2]
• Motif Discovery: MEME analysis with motif count set to 10 and width lengths from 6-50 amino acids to identify conserved domain motifs [2]

In Silico Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

Recent advances in computational structural biology have enabled prediction of NLR-effector interactions through:

• AlphaFold2-Multimer: Predicting NLR-effector protein complex structures with acceptable accuracy comparable to experimental structures [3]
• Binding Affinity Calculations: Using machine learning models (Area-Affinity) to predict binding affinities and energies for NLR-effector complexes [3]
• Ensemble Machine Learning: Combining multiple models to identify novel NLR-effector interactions with 99% accuracy based on binding energy differences between "true" and "forced" complexes [3]

For direct-recognition NLRs, the leucine-rich repeat domains (NLR-LRR) display higher amino acid diversity per site as measured by Shannon entropy scores, particularly in the LRR domains that govern recognition specificity [3].

Experimental Validation of Immune Function

Functional validation of NBS-LRR domains requires integrated approaches assessing biochemical, histological, and molecular responses:

Table 3: Experimental Assays for NBS-LRR Immune Function

Assay Type	Specific Readouts	Domain Connections
Hypersensitivity Response (HR)	Localized cell death; ion leakage	TIR/CC domain signaling output
Enzyme Activity Assays	Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL); Peroxidase (POX)	Downstream defense activation
Histochemical Analysis	Lignin deposition; protein cross-linking	Cell wall reinforcement
Protein-Protein Interaction	Yeast two-hybrid; co-immunoprecipitation	Direct LRR-effector binding
Subcellular Localization	Fluorescence tagging; cell fractionation	Domain-specific trafficking

Experimental data demonstrates that effector protein recognition induces HR, boosts activity of defense enzymes like PAL and POX, and promotes histochemical changes including thicker cell walls due to lignin deposition [4]. Within 3 hours of effector protein treatment, protein cross-linking becomes detectable, becoming prominent by 6 hours post-treatment [4].

NBS-LRR Activation Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

Molecular Switch Mechanism and Conformational Changes

The NBS domain functions as a molecular switch that cycles between ADP-bound (inactive) and ATP-bound (active) states [1] [2]. Upon pathogen recognition, the NBS domain undergoes a conformational shift from ADP-bound to ATP-bound state, activating N-terminal domains to trigger downstream hypersensitive responses [2]. This nucleotide-dependent activation mechanism represents a critical control point in immune signaling.

Effector Recognition Strategies and Immune Activation

NBS-LRR proteins employ multiple strategies for pathogen detection, with the LRR domain playing a central role in recognition specificity. The following diagram illustrates the primary activation mechanisms:

Diagram 2: NBS-LRR Activation Pathways

The first report of NBS-LRR protein oligomerization, a critical event in signaling analogous to mammalian NOD proteins, was demonstrated with tobacco N protein (a TNL) oligomerizing in response to pathogen elicitors [1]. This oligomerization represents formation of a "resistosome" complex that amplifies the defense signal.

Research Reagent Solutions for NBS-LRR Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for NBS-LRR - Effector Interaction Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Domain Focus
Bioinformatics Tools	HMMER; MEME; Clustal W; AlphaFold2-Multimer	Genome-wide identification; motif discovery; structure prediction	Full-length protein analysis
Domain Analysis Databases	Pfam; SMART; CDD; PlantCARE	Domain validation; cis-element prediction	Specific domain characterization
Expression Systems	E. coli (Ek/LIC Cloning); Yeast Two-Hybrid; Plant Protoplasts	Recombinant protein production; interaction validation	Functional domain studies
Interaction Assays	Yeast two-hybrid; Co-immunoprecipitation; Area-Affinity ML	Binding affinity; protein complex formation	LRR-effector interactions
Localization Tools	CELLO v.2.5; Plant-mPLoc; Fluorescent Protein Tagging	Subcellular targeting prediction/validation	Domain-specific localization signals
Plant Transformation	Nicotiana benthamiana; Arabidopsis; Rice Callus	Functional validation in plant systems	In vivo protein function

These research tools enable comprehensive analysis of NBS-LRR domain architecture, with particular utility in:

• Domain Interaction Mapping: Yeast two-hybrid and co-immunoprecipitation assays specifically test interactions between NBS-LRR domains and pathogen effectors or host proteins [3]
• Structural Prediction: AlphaFold2-Multimer provides reliable predictions of NLR-effector complex structures, with binding affinities for 58 validated NLR-effector complexes ranging between -8.5 and -10.6 log(K) [3]
• Functional Characterization: Heterologous expression in Nicotiana benthamiana, combined with virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), enables functional analysis of specific domains in immune signaling [2]

The domain architecture of NBS-LRR proteins represents a sophisticated molecular platform for pathogen recognition and immune activation in plants. The modular nature of these proteins, with distinct TIR/CC, NBS, and LRR domains performing specialized functions, enables both specific pathogen recognition and amplified defense signaling. Current research leveraging structural prediction tools like AlphaFold2, combined with machine learning approaches for binding affinity estimation, is rapidly advancing our ability to predict NLR-effector interactions with high accuracy [3]. This knowledge provides critical insights for engineering disease resistance in crop species through manipulation of specific domains to enhance recognition capabilities or signaling efficiency. Future research focusing on the molecular details of domain interactions and signaling complex formation will further illuminate these essential components of the plant immune system.

In the constant evolutionary battle between plants and their pathogens, the plant immune system has evolved sophisticated mechanisms to detect invasion. A cornerstone of this system is effector-triggered immunity (ETI), where plant resistance (R) proteins recognize pathogen effector proteins, leading to a robust defense response [5] [6]. For decades, the scientific community has sought to understand the precise molecular mechanisms underlying this recognition. The prevailing models explaining these mechanisms are the Guard Hypothesis and the Decoy Model, which represent distinct strategies for pathogen sensing [7] [8]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these models, framed within the context of validating NBS-LRR protein interactions with pathogen effectors, to serve researchers and drug development professionals in navigating this complex field.

Core Concepts and Definitions

Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) is an immune response activated when a plant R protein detects a specific pathogen effector, often culminating in a hypersensitive response (HR) involving localized cell death to restrict pathogen spread [5] [6]. The key sensors in ETI are typically NBS-LRR proteins (Nucleotide-Binding Site, Leucine-Rich Repeat proteins), which constitute a major class of intracellular R proteins in plants [6]. They are often categorized based on their N-terminal domains into TIR-NLRs (Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor) or CC-NLRs (Coiled-Coil) [9]. Pathogen effectors (also known as Avirulence or Avr proteins) are virulence factors secreted by pathogens to manipulate host cell functions and suppress immunity [7] [5]. The following diagram illustrates the general principle of how these components interact in effector-triggered immunity.

The Guard Model: Monitoring Critical Host Targets

Core Principle

The Guard Model postulates that plant R proteins act by constitutively monitoring (or "guarding") the physical and functional integrity of key host proteins, termed guardees [7] [8] [10]. These guardees are authentic virulence targets of pathogen effectors, meaning their manipulation directly enhances pathogen fitness in plants lacking the corresponding R gene [7]. The model posits that the R protein does not directly recognize the effector itself. Instead, it detects the effector-induced modification or disruption of the guardee, which then activates the R protein and initiates defense signaling [8] [6].

Molecular Mechanism and Experimental Evidence

Two primary mechanistic variations of the Guard Model have been proposed, as illustrated below [8].

A classic example supporting this model involves the Arabidopsis RIN4 protein, which is guarded by two NBS-LRR proteins, RPM1 and RPS2 [10] [6]. The bacterial effector AvrRpt2 is a protease that cleaves RIN4. In plants lacking RPS2, this cleavage disrupts a host defense component, benefiting the pathogen. However, in plants carrying the RPS2 gene, the cleavage of RIN4 is perceived, activating RPS2-mediated immunity [10] [6]. Similarly, the Pseudomonas effector AvrPphB is perceived through the guardee PBS1, a serine/threonine kinase. AvrPphB cleaves PBS1, and this cleavage event is detected by the R protein RPS5 [6].

The Decoy Model: Baiting the Pathogen

Core Principle and Evolutionary Rationale

The Decoy Model is an extension of the guard hypothesis that addresses an evolutionary paradox. A true guardee is subject to conflicting selection pressures in natural plant populations where R genes are polymorphic [7]. In individuals lacking the R gene, natural selection favors guardee variants that evade effector manipulation. Conversely, in individuals with the R gene, selection favors guardees that better perceive the effector. This conflict is resolved if the protein monitored by the R protein is not the operative virulence target but a decoy [7] [8].

A decoy is a host protein that mimics the authentic effector target but has no intrinsic function in defense or susceptibility in the absence of its cognate R protein [7]. Its sole function is to act as bait, perceiving the effector and triggering immunity via the R protein. Effector manipulation of the decoy does not enhance pathogen fitness in plants lacking the R gene [7]. Decoys are thought to evolve through gene duplication of operative targets or through independent evolution of target mimicry [7].

Molecular Mechanism and the "Integrated Decoy"

The Decoy Model and its sophisticated variant, the Integrated Decoy Model, function as depicted below.

A key example is the paired NLR proteins RPS4 and RRS1 in Arabidopsis. RRS1 is an atypical TIR-NLR that carries a C-terminal domain resembling WRKY transcription factors, a common target of pathogen effectors [9]. This WRKY domain is thought to act as an integrated decoy. Effectors like PopP2 from Ralstonia solanacearum bind to this WRKY domain, and this binding event is detected by the RPS4/RRS1 complex, leading to immunity [9]. The decoy has evolved as an integrated domain within one NLR partner, specializing in effector perception, while the other partner specializes in signaling activation.

Comparative Analysis: Guard vs. Decoy

The following table provides a structured comparison of the Guard and Decoy models, summarizing their key characteristics to facilitate a clear understanding of their differences.

Feature	Guard Model	Decoy Model
Core Function	Monitors authentic virulence targets	Monitors molecular bait mimicking targets
Effector Target (Guardee/Decoy)	True virulence target; manipulation enhances pathogen fitness in susceptible plants [7]	Molecular mimic; manipulation does not enhance pathogen fitness [7]
Evolutionary Pressure on Target	Conflicting pressures: evade manipulation vs. improve perception [7]	Specialized for perception; relaxed from constraints of virulence function [7]
Impact on Pathogen Virulence (without R protein)	Enhanced [7]	Neutral or potentially inhibitory (if decoy competes with target) [7]
Typical Experimental Evidence	Effector modifies guardee to promote virulence; R protein detects this modification [6]	Effector binds decoy but this interaction provides no virulence benefit; triggers immunity only with R protein [7] [9]
Example System	Arabidopsis RIN4 guarded by RPM1/RPS2 [6]	Arabidopsis RRS1/RPS4 pair with integrated WRKY decoy [9]

Key Experimental Methodologies for Validation

Validating interactions within these models requires a multi-faceted approach. The table below outlines key experimental protocols used to generate supporting data.

Methodology	Core Application	Key Insights from Experimental Data
Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) & Split-Ubiquitin	Detect direct physical protein-protein interactions (e.g., between effector and guardee/decoy) [6].	First direct R-Avr interaction shown for rice Pi-ta and AVR-Pita [6]. Used to find RIN4 interactions with effectors and R proteins [6].
Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)	Confirm in vivo protein complexes and ternary interactions (e.g., Guard-Guardee-Effector) [6].	Validated RIN4 complex formation with RPM1/RPS2 and effectors in plant cells [6]. Confirmed RPS4-RRS1 hetero-complex [9].
Heterologous Expression & Mutagenesis	Test sufficiency of domains for cell death and function of specific motifs via transient expression in tobacco or protoplasts [9].	TIR domains of RPS4/RRS1 form signaling homo-/hetero-dimers; serine-histidine (SH) motif critical for function [9].
Structural Analysis (X-ray Crystallography)	Determine atomic-level 3D structures of proteins/complexes to infer mechanism.	Revealed direct and indirect readout mechanisms in protein-DNA recognition, informing concepts in protein-effector recognition [11].
Deep Learning PPI Prediction (e.g., RoseTTAFold)	Proteome-wide identification and structural characterization of protein-protein interactions [12].	RF2-Lite pipeline identified 1,923 confident complexes in human pathogens, expanding known interaction space for hypothesis generation [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

To empirically investigate these models, researchers rely on a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

• Heterologous Expression Systems (e.g., N. benthamiana): A workhorse for transiently expressing genes of interest via Agrobacterium infiltration (agroinfiltration). It is widely used for testing protein-protein interactions, assessing cell death responses, and performing subcellular localization studies [9].
• Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kits: Essential for generating point mutations in R genes, guardees/decoys, and effectors to dissect the functional importance of specific residues (e.g., the SH motif in TIR domains or protease cleavage sites in guardees) [9].
• Epitope Tags (HA, FLAG, GFP, etc.) and Specific Antibodies: Critical for protein detection, purification, and visualization. Tags like HA or FLAG enable Co-IP experiments to pull down protein complexes, while GFP allows for live-cell imaging to monitor localization changes.
• Pathogen Strains (Wild-type & Effector Mutants): Defined bacterial, oomycete, or fungal strains, including isolates lacking specific effectors (e.g., ΔAvr) or complemented with effector genes, are necessary for conducting virulence assays and triggering specific ETI responses in planta.
• Stable Transgenic Plant Lines: Arabidopsis or crop plants genetically engineered to overexpress, silence (RNAi), or carry loss-of-function mutations in R genes, guardees, or decoys. These lines are fundamental for validating gene function in a native context.
• Deep Learning PPI Pipelines (e.g., RoseTTAFold2-Lite): Computational tools that leverage co-evolution and structure prediction to identify and model protein-protein interactions at high speed and accuracy, useful for generating hypotheses about novel complexes in pathogens or hosts [12].

The Guard and Decoy models represent elegant and evolutionarily stable strategies that plants use to detect pathogen invasion indirectly. The Guard Model explains how plants safeguard critical cellular components, turning the pathogen's offensive strategy into a defensive alarm. The Decoy Model refines this concept by introducing specialized bait proteins that resolve evolutionary conflicts, allowing for highly specific effector perception without fitness costs. The emerging "integrated decoy" mechanism, where decoy domains are fused directly to NLRs, demonstrates the sophisticated level of specialization in these immune receptors [9]. For researchers focused on validating NBS protein interactions, this comparison underscores the necessity of combining robust experimental data—from interaction assays to functional genetics—within a clear conceptual framework to accurately decipher the complex logic of plant immunity.

Evolution and Diversity of NBS-LRR Genes Across Plant Genomes

Nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) genes constitute the largest and most critical class of plant resistance (R) genes, encoding intracellular immune receptors that initiate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) upon pathogen recognition [13] [14]. The evolution and diversification of this gene family across plant genomes directly influences plant adaptation to pathogenic challenges and represents a key resource for breeding disease-resistant crops [15] [16]. Understanding the genomic distribution, structural variation, and evolutionary dynamics of NBS-LRR genes provides fundamental insights into plant-pathogen co-evolution and enables the identification of functional resistance genes for agricultural applications [17]. This guide comprehensively compares NBS-LRR gene diversity across major plant families, detailing experimental methodologies for their identification and validation, with particular emphasis on emerging techniques for predicting protein interactions with pathogen effectors.

Genomic Distribution and Diversity of NBS-LRR Genes Across Plant Species

Comparative Genomic Analysis

NBS-LRR genes demonstrate remarkable quantitative and structural diversity across plant species, reflecting their rapid evolution in response to pathogen pressure [15]. A recent pan-genomic study identified 12,820 NBS-domain-containing genes across 34 species ranging from mosses to monocots and dicots, classifying them into 168 distinct domain architecture patterns [15]. The number of NBS-LRR genes varies substantially between species, from fewer than 100 to over 1,000 copies, generally correlating with total genome size but with notable exceptions [18].

Table 1: NBS-LRR Gene Distribution Across Selected Plant Species

Plant Species	Total NBS-LRR Genes	CNL Subfamily	TNL Subfamily	RNL Subfamily	Atypical/Other	Key References
Arabidopsis thaliana	207	101	101	5	-	[13]
Oryza sativa (rice)	505	505	0	0	-	[13] [15]
Solanum tuberosum (potato)	447	447	-	-	-	[13]
Nicotiana benthamiana	156	25 (CNL)	5 (TNL)	4 (RNL)	122	[2]
Salvia miltiorrhiza	196	61	2	1	132	[13]
Fragaria vesca (strawberry)		>50% non-TNL	<50% TNL			[16]
Capsicum annuum (pepper)	252	248 (nTNL)	4	-	-	[17]
Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)						[15]

Subfamily Distribution and Evolutionary Patterns

The NBS-LRR gene family is primarily divided into three major subclasses based on N-terminal domains: TIR-NBS-LRR (TNL), CC-NBS-LRR (CNL), and RPW8-NBS-LRR (RNL) [16]. A striking evolutionary pattern emerges in the distribution of these subfamilies across plant lineages:

• TNL Subfamily: Completely absent in monocotyledonous plants such as rice, wheat, and maize [13] [17]. Also significantly reduced or absent in specific dicot families, including Salvia species [13] and peppers [17].
• CNL Subfamily: The predominant subclass across most angiosperms, representing the majority of NBS-LRR genes in species like pepper (248 of 252 genes) [17] and Salvia miltiorrhiza (61 of 62 typical NLRs) [13].
• RNL Subfamily: Consistently the smallest subgroup across species, typically represented by only one or several copies, functioning primarily as helper NLRs in immune signaling networks [13] [16].

Recent research on wild strawberries reveals that non-TNL genes (including CNLs and RNLs) constitute over 50% of the NLR gene family and show dominant expression under both normal and infected conditions [16]. Species with higher proportions of non-TNLs, such as Fragaria pentaphylla and Fragaria nilgerrensis, demonstrated significantly greater resistance to Botrytis cinerea compared to species with lower proportions [16].

Genomic Organization and Cluster Analysis

NBS-LRR genes are frequently organized in clusters resulting from tandem duplications and genomic rearrangements [17]. In pepper, 54% of NBS-LRR genes (136 genes) form 47 physical clusters distributed across all chromosomes, with chromosome 3 containing the highest number (10 clusters) [17]. Similarly, analysis of eight diploid wild strawberry species revealed that NLRs are often organized in clusters where at least two NLRs are located within 200 kb and separated by no more than eight non-NLR genes [16]. This clustering pattern facilitates the rapid evolution of recognition specificities through gene conversion, unequal crossing over, and diversifying selection [18].

Structural Diversity and Classification of NBS-LRR Genes

Domain Architecture and Classification Systems

NBS-LRR proteins exhibit considerable structural diversity, leading to their classification into typical and atypical categories based on domain composition [13] [2]:

Typical NBS-LRR Proteins:

• TNL: Contain TIR-NBS-LRR domains
• CNL: Contain CC-NBS-LRR domains
• RNL: Contain RPW8-NBS-LRR domains

Atypical NBS-LRR Proteins:

• TN: TIR-NBS only
• CN: CC-NBS only
• N: NBS domain only
• NL: NBS-LRR only

The pepper genome study further refined this classification, identifying six structural subclasses within the nTNL group: N (NB-ARC only), NL (NB-ARC+LRR8), NLL (NB-ARC+two LRR8 domains), NN (two NB-ARC domains), NLN (NB-LRR+NB-ARC), and NLNLN (NB-LRR+NB-LRR+NB-ARC) [17].

Conserved Motifs and Functional Domains

Despite their diversity, NBS-LRR proteins share conserved structural motifs critical for their function as molecular switches in immune signaling [2] [17]. MEME motif analysis of Nicotiana benthamiana NBS-LRRs identified 10 conserved motifs dispersed throughout the protein sequences [2]. Six key motifs within the NBS domain are particularly well-conserved:

Table 2: Conserved Motifs in NBS-LRR Proteins

Motif Name	Function	Conservation
P-loop	ATP/GTP binding	Universal
RNBS-A	Structural stability	Universal
Kinase-2	ATP hydrolysis	Universal
RNBS-B	Disease resistance specificity	Variable
RNBS-C	Nucleotide binding	Universal
GLPL	Structural role in ARC subdomain	Universal
MHD	Regulatory function	Common

These motifs are essential for ATP/GTP binding and hydrolysis, which controls the transition between inactive (ADP-bound) and active (ATP-bound) states [17] [18]. Subfamily-specific differences in motif composition and sequence similarity highlight functional divergence and specialization [17].

Experimental Methodologies for NBS-LRR Gene Identification and Analysis

Genome-Wide Identification Pipeline

The standard workflow for genome-wide identification and characterization of NBS-LRR genes combines homology-based searches, domain analysis, and phylogenetic classification [15] [2] [16].

Figure 1: Workflow for Genome-Wide Identification of NBS-LRR Genes

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Step 1: Identification of NBS-Domain Containing Genes

• HMMER Search: Use HMMER v3.1 with NB-ARC domain (PF00931) Hidden Markov Model (HMM) profile from Pfam database against the proteome with e-value cutoff < 1×10⁻²⁰ [2] [16].
• BLASTP Search: Perform BLASTP search using NB-ARC seed sequences obtained from Pfam against the entire genome with expectation value ≤ 1e-2 [16].
• Result Processing: Combine hits from both searches and remove redundant entries [16].

Step 2: Domain Analysis and Classification

• Domain Identification: Use SMART tool, Conserved Domain Database (CDD), and Pfam to identify TIR (PF01582), LRR (PF00560, PF07723, PF07725, PF12799, PF13516, PF13855, PF14580, PF01462, PF08263), and RPW8 (PF05659) domains [2] [16].
• Coiled-Coil Prediction: Predict CC domains using COILS program with threshold of 0.1 [16].
• Classification: Categorize genes into subfamilies based on domain architecture [13] [2].

Step 3: Phylogenetic and Structural Analysis

• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Use MAFFT v7 on NB-ARC domain sequences under default parameters [16].
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Perform Maximum Likelihood analysis using IQ-TREE v1.6.12 with 1000 Ultrafast Bootstraps, selecting optimal amino acid evolution model with ModelFinder [16].
• Motif Analysis: Identify conserved motifs using MEME Suite with maximum motifs set to 10-20 [2].

Expression Profiling and Functional Validation

Expression Analysis:

• Extract FPKM values from RNA-seq databases (IPF database, Cotton Functional Genomics Database, Cottongen) [15].
• Categorize expression data into tissue-specific, abiotic stress-specific, and biotic stress-specific profiles [15].
• Process RNA-seq data through transcriptomic pipelines as described by Zahra et al. [15].

Functional Validation:

• Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS): Silencing of GaNBS (OG2) in resistant cotton demonstrated its putative role in virus tittering against cotton leaf curl disease [15].
• In Vitro Leaf Inoculation Assays: Assess resistance by inoculating leaves with pathogens like Botrytis cinerea and measuring disease progression [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for NBS-LRR Studies

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function/Application	Examples from Literature
Bioinformatics Tools	HMMER v3.1	Domain-based gene identification	[2] [16]
	Pfam Database	Domain profiles and seed sequences	PF00931 (NB-ARC) [2]
	MEME Suite	Conserved motif identification	10 motifs in N. benthamiana [2]
	OrthoFinder v2.5.1	Orthogroup analysis	603 orthogroups across species [15]
Experimental Validation	VIGS System	Functional gene validation	GaNBS silencing in cotton [15]
	Pathogen Inoculation	Resistance phenotyping	B. cinerea on strawberries [16]
Genomic Resources	Genome Assemblies	Reference sequences	34 species from mosses to dicots [15]
	RNA-seq Databases	Expression profiling	IPF, CottonFGD, Cottongen [15]
Advanced Prediction	AlphaFold2-Multimer	NLR-effector complex prediction	Sr35-AvrSr35 structure [3]
	PRGminer	Deep learning-based R-gene prediction	98.75% prediction accuracy [19]

Emerging Approaches for Predicting NBS-Protein Interactions with Pathogen Effectors

Computational Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

Recent advances in protein structure prediction and machine learning have revolutionized our ability to predict NLR-effector interactions in silico [3]. AlphaFold2-Multimer has demonstrated acceptable accuracy in predicting structures of NLR-effector complexes, enabling the investigation of interaction interfaces [3]. Binding affinities and energies for NLR-effector complexes can be predicted using machine learning models from Area-Affinity, with binding affinities for 58 validated NLR-effector complexes ranging between -8.5 and -10.6 log(K), and binding energies between -11.8 and -14.4 kcal/mol⁻¹ [3].

The NLR-Effector Interaction Classification (NEIC) resource utilizes an Ensemble machine learning model that can identify novel NLR-effector interactions with 99% accuracy by analyzing differences in binding energy and affinity values between "true" and "forced" NLR-effector partners [3]. This approach significantly streamlines research efforts by prioritizing NLRs with high probability of functional importance in plant-pathogen interactions.

Deep Learning Tools for Resistance Gene Identification

PRGminer represents a cutting-edge deep learning-based tool specifically designed for high-throughput prediction of resistance genes [19]. Implemented in two phases, it first classifies input protein sequences as R-genes or non-R-genes (Phase I: 95.72% accuracy on independent testing), then categorizes predicted R-genes into eight different classes (Phase II: 97.21% accuracy on independent testing) [19]. This tool outperforms traditional alignment-based methods, particularly for sequences with low homology, making it invaluable for annotating newly sequenced plant genomes [19].

Figure 2: PRGminer Deep Learning Workflow for R-gene Prediction

Regulatory Mechanisms and Small RNA Interactions

Plants implement sophisticated regulatory mechanisms to control NBS-LRR expression, including miRNA-mediated post-transcriptional regulation [18]. At least eight families of miRNAs target NBS-LRRs in eudicots and gymnosperms, typically targeting highly duplicated NBS-LRRs and conserved protein motifs like the P-loop [18]. This miRNA-NBS-LRR regulatory system represents an evolutionary adaptation to balance the benefits and costs of maintaining large NBS-LRR repertoires, as high expression of these defense genes can be lethal to plant cells [18].

The evolution and diversification of NBS-LRR genes across plant genomes represents a dynamic arms race between plants and their pathogens. Comparative genomic analyses reveal substantial variation in gene numbers, subfamily distributions, and genomic organization across species, reflecting lineage-specific adaptations to pathogenic challenges. The development of sophisticated bioinformatics pipelines, coupled with emerging deep learning tools and protein interaction prediction methods, has dramatically accelerated our ability to identify, classify, and functionally characterize these critical immune receptors. The integration of genomic, transcriptomic, and structural approaches provides a powerful framework for elucidating NBS-LRR evolution and function, ultimately enabling the development of disease-resistant crops through targeted breeding strategies. As prediction methodologies continue to advance, particularly in the realm of NLR-effector interaction mapping, we anticipate significant progress in understanding the molecular basis of plant immunity and harnessing this knowledge for agricultural improvement.

The binding and hydrolysis of nucleotides (ADP/ATP) represent a universal molecular mechanism for controlling protein activity across diverse biological systems. This conformational switching regulates essential processes from immune activation to cellular transport, functioning as a precise molecular on/off switch that transforms chemical energy into mechanical work and cellular signals. In structural terms, this switch involves precisely orchestrated changes in protein three-dimensional structure, where the nucleotide-bound state dictates whether a protein adopts an active or inactive conformation. The nucleotide-binding site (NBS) serves as the central control point where adenosine triphosphate (ATP) or adenosine diphosphate (ADP) binding and hydrolysis trigger large-scale domain movements, allosteric communication, and functional transitions [20] [21].

This review examines the mechanistic principles of nucleotide-driven conformational switching through a comparative analysis of distinct protein families, with particular emphasis on nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins in plant immunity. We integrate structural biology, biophysical measurements, and computational predictions to provide researchers with a comprehensive framework for understanding how nucleotide binding controls protein activation, with direct implications for drug development and therapeutic intervention.

Comparative Structural Biology of Nucleotide-Dependent Conformational Switching

Proteins undergoing nucleotide-dependent conformational switching share fundamental mechanistic principles despite their diverse evolutionary origins and biological functions. The table below provides a systematic comparison of four protein systems where nucleotide-driven conformational changes have been characterized.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Nucleotide-Dependent Conformational Switching in Protein Systems

Protein System	Biological Role	Nucleotide State	Key Conformational Changes	Experimental Evidence
Plant NBS-LRR proteins [6] [22]	Pathogen sensing in plant immunity	ADP-bound: Inactive stateATP-bound: Active state	• NBD domain conformational rearrangement• Rotation of ARC subdomains• Altered LRR domain orientation• Oligomerization (resistosome formation)	Cryo-EM structures, genetic studies, molecular dynamics simulations [23]
Hsp70 (DnaK) chaperone [20]	Protein folding assistance	ADP-bound: Open conformationATP-bound: Closed conformation	• Docking of substrate-binding domain (SBD) to NBD• Altered interdomain interactions• Modified substrate accessibility	Molecular dynamics simulations, free energy landscape analysis, NMR [20]
ABC Exporters (BmrCD) [21]	Multidrug transport across membranes	ATP-bound: Outward-facingADP-bound: Inward-facing	• NBD association/dissociation cycles• TMD transition between inward- and outward-facing states• Asymmetric NBD engagement in heterodimers	DEER spectroscopy, distance measurements between spin labels, crystallography [21]
Actin [24]	Cytoskeletal filament formation	ATP-bound: Polymerization-competentADP-bound: Depolymerization-prone	• Global conformational changes across subdomains• Altered microsecond-millisecond dynamics• Differential sampling of high-energy states	NMR chemical shift analysis, relaxation dispersion measurements, mutagenesis [24]

Unified Mechanistic Principles

Across these diverse systems, several unifying principles emerge. First, nucleotide exchange (ADP for ATP) typically triggers a transition from an inactive or resting state to an active signaling or transport-competent state. Second, this transition involves substantial domain rearrangements rather than localized changes. Third, the nucleotide-binding event is communicated to distant functional sites through allosteric networks of interacting residues [20] [24]. In the case of plant NBS-LRR proteins, this allosteric control enables pathogen detection through either direct effector binding or indirect monitoring of host protein modifications [6].

Plant NBS-LRR Proteins: A Paradigm for Immune Receptor Activation

Domain Architecture and Classification

Plant NBS-LRR proteins constitute one of the largest and most diverse families of immune receptors, characterized by a conserved tripartite domain architecture. These proteins can be classified into distinct subfamilies based on their N-terminal domains:

• TNL proteins: Contain a Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor (TIR) domain at the N-terminus
• CNL proteins: Feature a Coiled-Coil (CC) domain at the N-terminus [6] [22]

Both classes share a central nucleotide-binding site (NBS or NB-ARC) domain and C-terminal leucine-rich repeats (LRRs). The NBS domain contains conserved motifs including Walker A, Walker B, and other signature sequences that facilitate nucleotide binding and hydrolysis [22]. The LRR domain typically forms a solenoid structure that functions in pathogen recognition through direct or indirect effector sensing [6].

Table 2: Plant NBS-LRR Protein Classification and Characteristics

Feature	TNL Proteins	CNL Proteins
N-terminal Domain	TIR (Toll-Interleukin-1 Receptor)	CC (Coiled-Coil)
Distribution	Absent from cereal genomes	Found in all higher plants
Signaling Pathway	Requires EDS1 and NRG1	Requires NDR1
Representative Examples	RPS4, RRS1 (Arabidopsis)N (Tobacco)	RPM1, RPS2 (Arabidopsis)ZAR1 (Arabidopsis)

Nucleotide-Driven Activation Mechanism

The conformational switching mechanism of NBS-LRR proteins follows a tightly regulated cycle controlled by nucleotide binding and hydrolysis:

• Inactive State (ADP-bound): In the absence of pathogen recognition, NBS-LRR proteins maintain an autoinhibited conformation with ADP bound to the NBS domain. This state keeps the protein monomeric and signaling-incompetent [6].

• Effector Recognition: Pathogen effectors are detected through either:

  • Direct binding to the LRR domain (e.g., Pi-ta binding to AVR-Pita, L proteins binding to AvrL567) [6]
  • Indirect recognition via guardee proteins (e.g., RIN4 monitored by RPM1 and RPS2, PBS1 monitored by RPS5) [6]

• Nucleotide Exchange and Activation: Effector perception triggers conformational changes that promote ADP release and ATP binding. The ATP-bound state induces substantial structural rearrangements, including rotation of the ARC2 subdomain and reorganization of the N-terminal domain [23].

• Oligomerization and Resistosome Formation: Activated NBS-LRR proteins assemble into higher-order complexes (e.g., ZAR1 forms a pentameric resistosome), which facilitates downstream signaling through exposed surfaces that recruit signaling components [23].

This activation mechanism transforms the NBS-LRR protein from an autoinhibited monomer into an oligomeric signaling platform, ultimately triggering defense responses such as the hypersensitive response and systemic acquired resistance [6].

Figure 1: NBS-LRR Protein Activation Pathway. The conformational switching mechanism progresses from an inactive ADP-bound state through pathogen recognition, nucleotide exchange, and oligomerization into an active signaling complex.

Experimental Approaches for Studying Conformational Switching

Structural Biology Methods

Determining the structural basis of nucleotide-dependent conformational changes requires multiple complementary approaches:

• Cryo-Electron Microscopy (Cryo-EM): Has enabled visualization of NBS-LRR proteins in different nucleotide states, revealing the ZAR1 resistosome structure in both ADP-bound (inactive) and ATP-bound (active) conformations [23]. Cryo-EM is particularly valuable for capturing large oligomeric complexes that are difficult to crystallize.

• X-ray Crystallography: Provides atomic-resolution structures of protein domains and smaller complexes, though it may capture limited conformational states due to crystal packing constraints.

• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy: Offers unique insights into protein dynamics and allosteric communication, as demonstrated in studies of actin and chaperones [20] [24]. NMR chemical shift analysis and relaxation dispersion measurements can detect microsecond-millisecond timescale dynamics and map nucleotide-dependent conformational changes throughout protein structures.

Computational and Biophysical Approaches

• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Can model the pathway and energetics of conformational transitions between nucleotide states. For Hsp70, MD simulations combined with free energy landscape analysis identified key residues involved in propagating ATP-induced structural changes to distant domains [20].

• Double Electron-Electron Resonance (DEER) Spectroscopy: A powerful technique for measuring distances between spin labels in proteins, enabling reconstruction of conformational dynamics. DEER has revealed asymmetric NBD configurations in ABC exporters like BmrCD during ATP turnover [21].

• Deep Learning Structural Prediction: Platforms like AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold have demonstrated remarkable capability in predicting 3D structures of protein domains, though they show limitations in modeling conformational transitions and regions with high flexibility, such as coiled-coil domains in NBS-LRR proteins [23].

Research Reagent Solutions for Nucleotide Switching Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Investigating Nucleotide-Dependent Conformational Switching

Reagent / Method	Function / Application	Key Features and Considerations
Non-hydrolyzable ATP analogs (AMP-PNP, ATPγS)	Trapping proteins in ATP-bound active states	Stabilizes active conformations for structural studies; allows examination of pre-hydrolysis states [23]
Site-directed spin labeling	Distance measurements via DEER spectroscopy	Enables monitoring of domain movements and conformational dynamics in solution [21]
Methyl-TROSY NMR with isotopic labeling ([13]C Ile δ1-methyl)	Studying dynamics of large proteins	Provides residue-specific information on conformational changes and dynamics; ideal for proteins >50 kDa [24]
Molecular dynamics simulation software (GROMACS, NAMD, AMBER)	Modeling conformational transition pathways	Captures atomic-level details of nucleotide-induced changes; requires significant computational resources [20]
AlphaFold-Multimer	Predicting protein-protein and protein-effector interactions	Can model NLR-effector complexes; accuracy varies and requires experimental validation [25] [23]
Cryo-EM with single-particle analysis	Determining structures of different nucleotide states	Capable of resolving large conformational changes in multi-domain proteins and complexes [23]

Experimental Protocols for Key Investigations

Protocol 1: Analyzing Nucleotide-Dependent Conformational Changes Using DEER Spectroscopy

This protocol is adapted from studies on ABC exporters [21] and can be applied to NBS-LRR proteins:

• Site-directed cysteine mutagenesis: Introduce cysteine residues at strategic positions in functional domains (e.g., NBS and LRR domains in NBS-LRR proteins).

• Spin labeling: Incubate cysteine mutants with methanethiosulfonate spin label (MTSSL) for 24 hours at 4°C, followed by removal of excess label via size-exclusion chromatography.

• Sample preparation in specific nucleotide states:

  • ADP-bound state: Incubate with 5 mM ADP and 10 mM MgCl₂
  • ATP-bound state: Incubate with 5 mM ATP and 10 mM MgCl₂ (or non-hydrolyzable analogs for stable complexes)
  • Nucleotide-free state: Treat with apyrase to remove bound nucleotides

• DEER measurements: Conduct pulsed EPR experiments at cryogenic temperatures (50-60 K) using the four-pulse DEER sequence.

• Data analysis: Process data using DeerAnalysis software to extract distance distributions between spin labels, comparing different nucleotide states to identify conformational changes.

Protocol 2: Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Nucleotide-Induced Conformational Switching

Based on methodology applied to Hsp70 [20] and relevant to NBS-LRR systems:

• System preparation:

  • Obtain starting coordinates from crystal structures or homology models
  • Parameterize nucleotides (ATP/ADP) using appropriate force field modules
  • Solvate the protein in explicit water boxes with neutralizing ions

• Simulation setup:

  • Perform energy minimization using steepest descent algorithm
  • Equilibrate system with position restraints on protein heavy atoms (100 ps, NVT ensemble)
  • Further equilibrate without restraints (100 ps, NPT ensemble)

• Production simulations:

  • Run unbiased MD simulations for each nucleotide state (100 ns - 1 μs timescale)
  • Maintain constant temperature (300 K) and pressure (1 bar) using coupling algorithms

• Trajectory analysis:

  • Calculate root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of protein domains
  • Identify conformational clusters using principal component analysis
  • Map effective free-energy landscape onto essential dynamics coordinates
  • Analyze residue interaction networks and communication pathways

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Studying Nucleotide Switching. A generalized workflow for investigating conformational switching using biophysical and computational approaches.

The study of nucleotide-dependent conformational switching represents a frontier in understanding how proteins transform chemical energy into biological function. The comparative analysis presented here reveals conserved mechanistic principles across diverse protein systems while highlighting unique adaptations in plant NBS-LRR immune receptors.

Future research directions should focus on:

• Dynamic visualization of conformational transitions in real time using time-resolved structural biology techniques
• Allosteric network mapping to identify critical communication pathways that transmit nucleotide-binding signals to functional domains
• Machine learning integration with experimental data to predict the functional consequences of genetic variants in NBS-LRR and other nucleotide-switched proteins
• Therapeutic development targeting nucleotide-switching mechanisms in disease-related proteins

The continued development of advanced experimental and computational methods, as outlined in this review, will enable researchers to not only understand but potentially engineer nucleotide-controlled conformational switches for agricultural and therapeutic applications.

Case Studies of Well-Characterized NBS-Effector Pairs (e.g., L-AvrL567, Pi-ta-AVR-Pita)

Within the plant immune system, nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain proteins function as critical intracellular receptors that recognize specific pathogen effector molecules, initiating robust disease resistance. This guide provides a comparative analysis of well-characterized NBS-effector pairs, focusing on the experimental data and methodologies used to validate these specific interactions. Understanding these molecular partnerships is fundamental for advancing strategies in crop protection and disease resistance breeding. The pairs examined exemplify the direct and indirect recognition mechanisms that plants employ to detect invading pathogens [26].

Comparative Analysis of Validated NBS-Effector Pairs

The following table summarizes key characteristics and experimental data for two well-studied NBS-effector pairs.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Well-Characterized NBS-Effector Pairs

Feature	Rx (CNL) / Potato Virus X Coat Protein (CP)	Pik (CNL) / AVR-Pik from Magnaporthe oryzae
Pathogen & Disease	Potato Virus X (PVX); Potato virus X disease [27]	Magnaporthe oryzae; Rice blast disease [28]
Recognition Mechanism	Indirect; effector presence disrupts intramolecular NBS domain interactions [27]	Direct; physical binding between the CC domain of Pik and AVR-Pik [28]
Key Functional Domains	Coiled-Coil (CC), Nucleotide-Binding Site (NBS), Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR) [27]	Coiled-Coil (CC), NBS, LRR [28]
Functional Validation Readout	Hypersensitive Response (HR) upon co-expression in Nicotiana benthamiana [27]	Resistance to blast fungus infection in rice monogenic lines [28]
Key Experimental Evidence	Domain complementation in trans and Co-Immunoprecipitation [27]	Pathogenicity assays on rice lines with different Pik alleles; DNA sequence variation analysis of AVR-Pik [28]
Quantitative Data	Co-expression of CC-NBS + LRR domains resulted in CP-dependent HR [27]	60.9% to 75.4% of 366 fungal isolates were avirulent to different Pik alleles (Pik, Pikm, Pikp, Pikh) [28]
Pathogen Evasion Strategy	Not detailed in available data [27]	Positive selection and stepwise base substitution in AVR-Pik alleles leading to virulent forms [28]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Studies

Validating the Rx-PVX CP Interaction via Domain Complementation

The functional interaction between the Rx protein and the PVX Coat Protein was elegantly validated using a domain complementation assay, demonstrating that the domains of an NBS-LRR protein can function in trans.

• Principle: Transiently co-express separate domains of the Rx protein in a plant system to test if their interaction reconstitutes a functional resistance protein that triggers a hypersensitive response (HR) upon effector recognition.
• Methodology:
  • Construct Engineering: Create plasmid constructs encoding separate Rx protein domains: the CC-NBS fragment and the LRR fragment. Both constructs are tagged with an HA epitope for detection.
  • Transient Expression: Introduce the individual domain constructs, both together, and the PVX CP effector gene into leaves of Nicotiana benthamiana via agroinfiltration.
  • Phenotypic Analysis: Monitor infiltrated leaf patches for the development of a rapid, localized cell death known as the hypersensitive response (HR), which indicates successful recognition and resistance activation.
  • Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): To confirm a physical interaction, extracts from leaves expressing the tagged protein domains are immunoprecipitated with an anti-HA antibody. The precipitates are then analyzed via immunoblotting to determine if the other domain co-precipitates, indicating a physical interaction disrupted by the presence of CP [27].

Diagram: Experimental Workflow for Rx-PVX CP Interaction Study

Validating Pik-AVR-Pik Interaction and Allelic Specificity

The functional validation of the Pik-AVR-Pik interaction relies on pathogenicity assays that correlate the presence of specific AVR and R gene alleles with disease outcomes.

• Principle: Infect rice lines carrying different known Pik resistance alleles with fungal isolates harboring different AVR-Pik alleles to determine which combinations result in resistance (avirulence) or disease (virulence).
• Methodology:
  • Pathogen Isolation & Genotyping: Collect Magnaporthe oryzae isolates from the field. Extract genomic DNA and use PCR to amplify and sequence the AVR-Pik locus to determine the haplotype (e.g., AVR-Pik-A, -B, -C, -D) of each isolate [28].
  • Plant Materials: Utilize near-isogenic rice monogenic lines (e.g., IRBLk-K, IRBLkm-Ts, IRBLkp-K60) where each line contains a single, different Pik allele (Pik, Pikm, Pikp, etc.) in a common genetic background [28].
  • Pathogenicity Assays: Inoculate each rice monogenic line with each genetically characterized fungal isolate.
  • Disease Scoring: After incubation, score the plants for disease symptoms (lesion type and size). An avirulent interaction (resistance) is characterized by limited lesion development, while a virulent interaction (susceptibility) shows expanding lesions [28].
  • Data Correlation: Correlate the AVR-Pik haplotype of the isolate with the disease outcome on each Pik allele to define which AVR variants are recognized by which R alleles.

Diagram: Pik-AVR-Pik Recognition and Signaling Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for Studying NBS-Effector Interactions

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example from Case Studies
Heterologous Expression System	Provides a rapid, scalable platform for transiently expressing genes to study protein function and cell death phenotypes.	Nicotiana benthamiana leaves for co-expressing Rx domains and PVX CP [27].
Monogenic Plant Lines	Near-isogenic lines that differ only in the presence of a single R gene; essential for correlating specific R genes with resistance to specific pathogen isolates.	IRBLk-K, IRBLkm-Ts, etc., used to test avirulence of M. oryzae isolates carrying AVR-Pik alleles [28].
Epitope Tags & Antibodies	Enable detection, purification, and visualization of proteins of interest from complex cellular mixtures.	HA epitope tag used for immunoprecipitation of Rx protein domains [27].
Pathogen Isolate Collections	Genetically diverse collections of pathogen strains are used to identify which effectors are recognized by which R genes.	366 isolates of Magnaporthe oryzae collected from Yunnan Province, genotyped for AVR-Pik haplotypes [28].
Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)	A key biochemical method to confirm direct or indirect physical interaction between proteins (e.g., NBS protein and effector).	Used to show physical interaction between Rx's CC-NBS and LRR domains, disrupted by CP [27].

A Methodological Toolkit: Techniques for Probing NBS-Effector Interactions

Understanding protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is fundamental to unraveling cellular signaling pathways and immune responses in plants. Within the context of plant immunity, a critical area of research focuses on the validation of interactions between nucleotide-binding site (NBS) proteins—a major class of plant disease resistance (R) proteins—and pathogen effector molecules [15] [29]. These interactions are the cornerstone of Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI), a robust defense mechanism that halts pathogen colonization [29] [3].

To study these vital molecular engagements, researchers rely on sophisticated in vivo and in planta assays. This guide provides an objective comparison of two pivotal technologies: the Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) system and Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC). We will evaluate their performance, supported by experimental data, to help you select the optimal method for your research on NBS-effector interactions.

Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) System

The Y2H system is a genetic assay for detecting binary PPIs in the nucleus of yeast. It is based on the modular structure of transcription factors. The "bait" protein (e.g., an NBS protein) is fused to a DNA-Binding Domain (DBD), while the "prey" (e.g., a pathogen effector) is fused to a Transcription Activation Domain (AD). A physical interaction between bait and prey reconstitutes the transcription factor, driving the expression of reporter genes that allow yeast to grow on selective media or produce a colorimetric signal [30] [31].

The following diagram illustrates the classic Y2H workflow and principle:

Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC)

BiFC is a microscopy-based technique that visualizes PPIs directly within living cells. A fluorescent protein (e.g., YFP) is split into two non-fluorescent fragments. One fragment is fused to the "bait" protein, and the other to the "prey" protein. If the two proteins interact, the fluorescent fragments are brought into proximity, allowing them to reconstitute a functional fluorophore that emits a detectable fluorescence signal, thereby revealing both the occurrence and the subcellular location of the interaction [32] [33] [34].

The following diagram illustrates the core principle of the BiFC assay:

Performance Comparison: Y2H vs. BiFC

When deciding between Y2H and BiFC for validating NBS-effector interactions, understanding their technical performance is crucial. The table below summarizes their key characteristics based on current literature.

Table 1: Technical comparison between Y2H and BiFC assays

Feature	Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H)	Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC)
Interaction Environment	Heterologous (Yeast Nucleus)	Native (Plant or Host Cell Cytoplasm/Nucleus)
Primary Readout	Transcriptional activation of reporter genes [31]	Fluorescence emission [32] [33]
Temporal Resolution	Low to moderate; measures outcome post-interaction	Low; fluorophore maturation is slow, complex is often irreversible [33]
Spatial Information	No subcellular localization data	Yes; reveals subcellular location of interaction [32] [33]
Sensitivity	High; capable of detecting weak/transient interactions [31]	Very High; can visualize weak/transient interactions due to complex stability [33]
Throughput Capability	Very High; suited for library screening (Y2H-NGIS) [35] [31]	Moderate to High; adaptable to high-throughput flow cytometry [32] [33]
Key Advantage	Excellent for high-throughput, genome-wide screening of binary interactions.	Provides visual confirmation of interaction and its subcellular context in living cells.
Key Limitation	Interactions occur in a non-native environment; false positives from auto-activating baits.	Potential for false positives from spontaneous fragment assembly; irreversible signal [33] [34]

Application in NBS-Effector Interaction Research

Experimental Designs and Data Output

Both techniques have been extensively adapted to probe the specific interactions between plant NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors. The following table outlines representative experimental approaches and the type of data they yield.

Table 2: Application of Y2H and BiFC in validating NBS-Effector interactions

Application	Experimental Approach	Example Findings & Data
Y2H: Binary Interaction Screening	Use NBS protein as bait to screen a cDNA library from a pathogen-infected plant [31].	Discovery of Novel Interactors: Y2H-SCORES analysis of the barley immune receptor MLA6 identified 14 novel interactors, including proteins involved in signaling and trafficking, validated by one-to-one tests [31].
BiFC: Spatial Localization	Co-express NBS-YN and Effector-YC constructs in plant cells (e.g., via agroinfiltration) and visualize via confocal microscopy [32].	Subcellular Mapping: Successfully used to visualize PPIs in key signaling pathways (e.g., MAPK, plant hormone pathways), demonstrating the precise subcellular compartment where interactions occur [32].
High-Throughput Y2H (Y2H-NGIS)	Combine traditional Y2H with next-generation sequencing. A universal human library was screened with p53 bait, identifying 97 interactors, >75% of which were novel [35].	Genome-Wide Interactome Mapping: BiFC-seq (a variant) mapped an Ebola virus intraviral network, recapturing 9/14 known and 5 novel interactions, demonstrating high sensitivity [35].

Integrated and Advanced Protocols

The field is moving towards more complex and informative applications of these core technologies.

• Next-Generation Y2H (Y2H-NGIS): Advanced computational frameworks like Y2H-SCORES have been developed to analyze high-throughput Y2H screens coupled with deep sequencing. This method quantitatively ranks potential interactors based on enrichment, specificity, and in-frame selection, significantly improving the reliability of genome-wide interactome maps [31].
• Multicolor BiFC (mcBiFC): This adaptation allows the simultaneous visualization of multiple distinct protein interactions within a single cell by using fragments from different fluorescent proteins (e.g., YFP, CFP). This is powerful for studying competitive interactions or complex networks [32] [36].
• Complementary Validation: A standard practice is to use Y2H and BiFC as complementary techniques. An initial high-throughput Y2H screen can identify a shortlist of candidate effector proteins that interact with an NBS protein. These candidates are then validated using BiFC in plant cells to confirm the interaction occurs in a more physiologically relevant environment and to determine its subcellular location [32] [31].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful execution of Y2H and BiFC experiments depends on key reagents. The following table details essential tools and their functions.

Table 3: Key research reagents for Y2H and BiFC assays

Reagent	Function in Assay	Examples & Notes
Y2H Vectors	Plasmid systems for expressing DBD-bait and AD-prey fusions.	pDBLeu/pPC86; Gateway-compatible vectors for efficient cloning [35].
BiFC Vectors	Plasmid systems for expressing target proteins fused to N- and C-terminal fragments of fluorescent proteins.	Vectors for YFP (split at 154/155 or 172/173), Venus, mCerulean, and mCherry [32] [33].
Fluorescent Protein Fragments	The non-fluorescent halves that reconstitute upon protein interaction.	YN155/YC155 (for YFP); Venus fragments are often preferred for brighter fluorescence at 37°C [33] [34].
Linker Sequences	Short, flexible amino acid sequences tethering the fluorophore fragment to the protein of interest.	Critical for providing freedom of movement. Common sequences: GGGGS repeats or RPACKIPNDLKQKVMNH [35] [34].
Yeast Strains	Genetically engineered yeast for Y2H (e.g., with reporter genes and auxotrophies).	S. cerevisiae AH109 is a common strain with HIS3, ADE2, and lacZ reporters [35].
cDNA/ORF Libraries	Collections of prey genes for large-scale screening in Y2H.	Can be constructed from pathogen-challenged plant tissue to capture relevant interactors [35] [31].

The choice between Yeast Two-Hybrid and Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation is not a matter of which is universally superior, but which is most appropriate for the specific research question at hand.

• Employ Yeast Two-Hybrid when your goal is the high-throughput discovery of novel interacting partners from a complex library. Its strength lies in screening efficiency and scalability, making it ideal for generating initial interaction hypotheses, such as identifying which pathogen effectors a given NBS protein might bind [31].
• Employ Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation when you need to confirm and visualize an interaction in a living plant cell. Its unparalleled ability to provide spatial context and validate interactions in a near-native environment makes it the preferred tool for the final stages of functional validation [32] [33].

For a robust research program focused on NBS-effector interactions, these techniques are most powerful when used in concert. Y2H serves as the wide net for candidate identification, while BiFC provides the detailed, in-planta confirmation necessary to firmly establish the biological relevance of the discovered interactions.

Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) and Pull-Down Assays for Complex Isolation

The validation of protein-protein interactions is a cornerstone of molecular biology, particularly in the field of plant immunity where understanding the interplay between nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins and pathogen effector proteins is crucial for deciphering disease resistance mechanisms [15] [14]. Among the experimental techniques available for studying these interactions, co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) and pull-down assays represent two fundamental approaches for complex isolation. These methods enable researchers to capture multiprotein complexes from biological samples, providing insights into the molecular basis of effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [14]. Within this context, NBS-LRR proteins function as intracellular immune receptors that recognize specific pathogen effectors, initiating defense signaling cascades [25] [17]. The accurate identification of these interactions is therefore paramount for advancing our understanding of plant-pathogen interactions and developing novel disease control strategies. This guide objectively compares the principles, applications, and performance characteristics of Co-IP and pull-down assays, with specific consideration for their use in validating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors.

Fundamental Principles and Comparative Analysis

Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)

Core Principle: Co-IP is an antibody-based technique designed to isolate intact protein complexes from native cell or tissue extracts [37] [38]. The method relies on the specificity of an antibody raised against a known "bait" protein to capture both the bait and any associated "prey" proteins under non-denaturing conditions that preserve physiological interactions [38].

Workflow Overview: In a standard Co-IP experiment, a specific antibody is used to target the bait protein. This antibody is typically immobilized on solid supports, most commonly Protein A or Protein G beads, which bind the Fc region of antibodies [38]. The immobilized antibody-bait complex is then incubated with a cell lysate, allowing the capture of the bait protein along with its interacting partners. After washing to remove non-specifically bound proteins, the entire protein complex is eluted and analyzed using western blot, mass spectrometry, or other proteomic approaches [37].

Key Advantage: The principal strength of Co-IP lies in its ability to capture protein interactions as they occur in the native cellular environment, making it particularly valuable for studying transient or condition-specific interactions that reflect physiological states [39].

Pull-Down Assays

Core Principle: Pull-down assays utilize an affinity-tagged bait protein rather than an antibody to isolate interacting proteins [40]. Common tagging systems include glutathione S-transferase (GST), histidine (His), maltose-binding protein (MBP), or epitope tags such as FLAG, c-Myc, or HA [37] [38].

Workflow Overview: The affinity-tagged bait protein is first immobilized on a resin specific to the tag—for example, glutathione-sepharose beads for GST-tagged proteins [40]. The immobilized bait is then incubated with a cell lysate or purified protein mixture containing potential interaction partners. After incubation and washing steps, the bound complexes are eluted, typically using competitive agents such as reduced glutathione (for GST tags) or imidazole (for His tags), and analyzed similarly to Co-IP samples [40].

Key Advantage: Pull-down assays offer greater flexibility in bait protein design and can be more easily controlled for specificity through tag-only controls. They are particularly useful when high-quality antibodies against the native bait protein are unavailable [40].

Direct Comparison of Techniques

Table 1: Comparative analysis of Co-IP and pull-down assays for protein complex isolation

Feature	Co-Immunoprecipitation	Pull-Down Assays
Basis of Isolation	Antibody specificity for bait protein [37]	Affinity tag recognition [40]
Cellular Environment	Native conditions (non-denaturing lysis buffers) [38]	Can use native or denaturing conditions [40]
Interaction Detection	Direct and indirect interactions captured [37]	Primarily direct interactions; may miss complexes requiring cellular context
Throughput	Moderate (limited by antibody availability)	High (standardized tag systems)
Cost Considerations	Antibodies can be expensive; may require optimization	Tagging reagents generally less expensive
Key Advantage	Preserves native protein complexes and post-translational modifications [39]	No species/host restrictions; highly controlled bait presentation
Primary Limitation	Antibody quality is critical; potential for steric hindrance [37]	May not reflect physiological conditions due to tag interference or overexpression [37]
Optimal Application	Validation of suspected interactions under physiological conditions [39]	Screening for novel interactions; when antibodies are unavailable [40]

Technical Protocols and Methodologies

Co-IP Experimental Workflow

The standard Co-IP protocol consists of several critical stages that must be carefully optimized to ensure specific detection of protein interactions while minimizing non-specific binding [37].

Sample Preparation:

• For cell cultures: Wash cells with PBS and lyse directly using non-denaturing lysis buffer [38]
• For plant tissues: Homogenize tissue in lysis buffer to ensure complete cell disruption [37]
• Recommended lysis buffer composition: 40-50 mM HEPES or Tris pH 7.4-7.5, 100-150 mM NaCl, 0.1-0.5% NP-40 or Triton X-100, 10% glycerol, with protease and phosphatase inhibitors [38]
• Centrifuge lysates at 10,000-20,000 × g for 10-15 minutes at 4°C to remove insoluble material [37]
• Determine protein concentration and use 300 μg to 2 mg total protein per IP, depending on bait protein abundance [37]

Antibody-Bead Preparation:

• For agarose beads: Gently resuspend slurry and aliquot 10-50 μL per sample [38]
• Wash beads 2-3 times with lysis buffer to remove storage solution [40]
• Incubate antibody with beads for 1-2 hours at 4°C with gentle rotation (direct method) or incubate antibody with lysate first, then add beads (indirect method) [37]
• Recommended antibody amount: 0.5-5 μg per IP, depending on affinity and specificity [38]

Immunoprecipitation:

• Incubate pre-cleared lysate with antibody-bead complex for 2 hours to overnight at 4°C with constant gentle mixing [37]
• Centrifuge briefly (735 × g for 1 minute) and carefully remove supernatant [40]
• Wash beads 3-5 times with 10-20 bead volumes of wash buffer (typically lysis buffer with 300-500 mM NaCl to reduce non-specific binding) [38]
• After final wash, remove as much wash buffer as possible without disturbing beads [38]

Elution and Analysis:

• Elute proteins by boiling in 1-2× SDS-PAGE sample buffer for 5-10 minutes or using low-pH elution buffer [38]
• Analyze eluates by western blotting with antibodies against suspected interaction partners or by mass spectrometry for discovery-based approaches [38]
• Always include appropriate controls: pre-immune serum, species-matched non-specific IgG, and bead-only controls [37]

GST Pull-Down Assay Workflow

GST pull-down assays provide an alternative approach that does not require specific antibodies against the bait protein [40].

Bait Protein Preparation:

• Express GST-tagged bait protein in appropriate expression system (E. coli, insect, or mammalian cells) [40]
• Prepare lysate from expressing cells or purify GST-tagged protein prior to pull-down
• For pre-purification approaches: Immobilize GST-tagged protein on glutathione sepharose beads first [40]

Binding Reaction:

• Incubate immobilized GST-bait with prey protein source (cell lysate, in vitro translated protein, or purified protein) for 2-4 hours at 4°C with gentle rotation [40]
• Use 10-50 μL glutathione sepharose bead slurry per reaction [40]
• Include control with GST-only protein to identify non-specific interactions with the tag itself [40]

Washing and Elution:

• Wash beads 3-5 times with 10-20 bead volumes of appropriate wash buffer [40]
• Optimize wash stringency by adjusting salt concentration (150-500 mM NaCl) and detergent concentration (0.1-0.5%) [40]
• Elute bound proteins with 10-20 mM reduced glutathione in 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0 [40]
• Alternatively, elute by boiling in SDS-PAGE sample buffer for direct western analysis [40]

Detection and Analysis:

• Analyze eluates by western blotting with antibodies against potential interaction partners [38]
• For mass spectrometry analysis, use glutathione elution to avoid interference from denatured GST protein [40]
• Always include GST-only control to identify proteins that bind non-specifically to the tag or beads [40]

Application to NBS Protein - Effector Interactions

Technical Considerations for Plant Immunity Research

The study of NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors presents unique challenges that influence the choice between Co-IP and pull-down assays [25] [14]. NBS-LRR proteins are typically intracellular receptors with modular domains that undergo conformational changes upon effector recognition [15] [17]. This dynamic nature requires preservation of native protein structure during complex isolation.

Protein Expression Considerations:

• Full-length NBS-LRR proteins are often challenging to express recombinantly due to their large size and complexity [25]
• Domain-specific constructs (e.g., NBS domain alone) may be more suitable for pull-down assays [25]
• For Co-IP, transient expression in plant systems (e.g., Nicotiana benthamiana) often provides proper folding and post-translational modifications [15]

Interaction Dynamics:

• NBS-effector interactions can be transient, with rapid association and dissociation rates [14]
• Use crosslinking (e.g., with formaldehyde or DSS) may be necessary to stabilize these interactions [37]
• Optimize incubation times and washing stringency to balance signal-to-noise ratio [38]

Controls for Specificity:

• Include relevant negative controls: non-interacting NBS paralogs, effector mutants, or pathogen strains lacking specific effectors [25] [14]
• For NBS proteins, demonstrate specificity by testing effectors from incompatible pathogen strains [14]

Integrated Validation Approaches

Given the limitations of individual techniques, researchers increasingly employ orthogonal approaches to validate NBS-effector interactions [25]:

Computational Prediction Integration:

• Recent advances in in silico prediction methods, particularly AlphaFold2-Multimer, enable preliminary identification of potential NBS-effector interactions [25]
• Computational predictions can guide targeted experimental validation, improving efficiency [25]
• Machine learning models (e.g., Area-Affinity) can predict binding affinities for NBS-effector complexes, with reported accuracy up to 99% for some systems [25]

Complementary Assays:

• Yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) systems provide independent confirmation of binary interactions [40]
• Bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) enable visualization of interactions in living cells [15]
• Functional assays, such as hypersensitive response (HR) induction, confirm the physiological relevance of identified interactions [14]

Table 2: Research reagent solutions for studying NBS-effector interactions

Reagent Type	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
Affinity Tags	GST, His, MBP, FLAG, HA [38]	Pull-down assays for NBS domain interactions	C-terminal tags often preferable for NBS proteins to avoid interfering with N-terminal signaling domains [17]
Bead Matrices	Glutathione Sepharose, Ni-NTA Agarose, Protein A/G [38] [40]	Immobilization of bait proteins	Magnetic beads facilitate rapid washing steps; agarose offers higher binding capacity
Lysis Buffers	NP-40, Triton X-100, RIPA variants [38]	Extraction of soluble NBS-effector complexes	Include 5-10 mM EDTA or EGTA to prevent NBS domain nucleotide hydrolysis during isolation [15]
Protease Inhibitors	PMSF, Complete Mini, Pepstatin A [38]	Preservation of protein integrity during isolation	Plant tissues often require additional inhibitors for vacuolar proteases
Crosslinkers	Formaldehyde, DSS, DSG [37]	Stabilization of transient NBS-effector interactions	Optimization of crosslinking time and concentration critical to avoid non-specific binding
Elution Reagents	Reduced glutathione, imidazole, low pH buffer [40]	Release of captured complexes	Gentle elution conditions preserve complexes for functional studies

Emerging Techniques and Future Directions

The field of protein interaction analysis continues to evolve with new methodologies that address limitations of traditional Co-IP and pull-down approaches [25].

Advanced Affinity Purification Methods:

• Tandem affinity purification (TAP) incorporates two sequential purification steps to enhance specificity [40]
• The TAP tag typically combines Protein A and calmodulin-binding peptide (CBP) separated by a TEV protease cleavage site [40]
• This approach significantly reduces false positives but requires more complex cloning and longer experimental timelines [40]

Structural Biology Integration:

• In silico prediction of NBS-effector complexes using AlphaFold2-Multimer provides structural insights that complement experimental data [25]
• Predicted binding affinities for validated NBS-effector complexes typically range between -8.5 and -10.6 log(K), corresponding to binding energies of -11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol⁻¹ [25]
• These computational approaches enable researchers to prioritize interactions for experimental validation [25]

High-Throughput Applications:

• Automated Co-IP platforms increase reproducibility and throughput for large-scale interaction studies [38]
• Quantitative proteomics combined with affinity purification enables system-level mapping of NBS protein interaction networks [15]
• Microfluidic approaches reduce reagent requirements and enable analysis of limited plant tissue samples [37]

Co-IP and pull-down assays represent complementary approaches for isolating protein complexes in plant immunity research. Co-IP offers the advantage of studying interactions under native conditions with endogenously expressed proteins, making it ideal for validation of suspected NBS-effector interactions [39] [37]. Pull-down assays provide greater experimental control and are particularly valuable when antibodies are unavailable or when studying specific domains of large NBS-LRR proteins [40]. For researchers investigating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors, the optimal approach often involves an integrated strategy that combines computational prediction, in vitro validation with pull-down assays, and confirmation under physiological conditions using Co-IP [25]. As both techniques continue to evolve with improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and throughput, they will remain essential tools for deciphering the complex molecular interactions that underpin plant immunity.

In plant immunity research, validating the function of nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain genes and their interactions with pathogen effectors represents a critical step in understanding disease resistance mechanisms. NBS-containing proteins, particularly NLRs (NOD-like receptors), serve as fundamental immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses [15]. Genetic validation approaches provide direct evidence for gene function, with Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) and various mutagenesis strategies emerging as powerful, complementary methodologies. This guide objectively compares the performance of VIGS against mutagenesis techniques, providing experimental data and protocols to inform selection for NBS-effector interaction studies within plant pathology and drug development research.

VIGS is a reverse genetics tool that leverages the plant's innate RNA silencing machinery to transiently knock down target gene expression. In contrast, mutagenesis approaches—including chemical, insertional, and CRISPR-based methods—create permanent genetic alterations that can be leveraged in forward genetic screens or for direct functional validation.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of VIGS and Mutagenesis Approaches

Feature	VIGS	EMS Mutagenesis	Insertional Mutagenesis	CRISPR Mutagenesis
Core Principle	RNA silencing via viral vector delivery [41]	Random point mutations via alkylating agents [42]	Random insertions of promoter elements to disrupt or activate genes [43]	Targeted DNA breaks via CRISPR-Cas9 system [44]
Nature of Alteration	Transient knock-down of mRNA	Permanent, random point mutations	Permanent, random insertions	Permanent, targeted indels or knock-outs
Mutagenesis Type	Reverse Genetics	Forward & Reverse Genetics	Forward & Reverse Genetics	Primarily Reverse Genetics
Temporal Control	High (timing of viral inoculation)	Low	Moderate (e.g., Cre-lox excision) [43]	High (with inducible systems) [44]
Tissue Specificity	Moderate (depends on viral spread) [41]	None (whole plant)	None (whole plant)	High (with tissue-specific promoters) [44]
Typical Workflow Duration	3-6 weeks [41]	Several months (e.g., 6 months for wheat) [42]	Several months	Several months (stable line generation)
Key Advantage	Rapid, no stable transformation needed	Identifies novel genes via phenotypic screens [42]	Identifies gain/loss-of-function in one screen [43]	High precision and specificity
Key Limitation	Transient, incomplete silencing, variable efficiency	Laborious mutant identification, pleiotropic effects	Limited by insertion site randomness	Requires genetic transformation expertise

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics in Plant Systems

Parameter	VIGS	EMS Mutagenesis	CRISPR Mutagenesis
Typical Efficiency	Variable; up to 100% with optimized systems (e.g., TRV-C2bN43) [41]	High (e.g., ~100 mutants for a single wheat R gene) [42]	High (efficient knock-out in somatic tissues) [44]
Screening Population Size	N/A (targeted approach)	~1,000 M2 families (wheat) [42]	Varies (requires transformation)
Mutation Rate/Load	N/A	1 mutation per ~34 kb in wheat [42]	Target-specific; multiple sgRNAs enhance success [44]
Phenotype Penetrance	Variable (often incomplete silencing)	High	High
Specificity	High (with careful insert design) [45]	Low (genome-wide mutations)	High (with careful sgRNA design)

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) Protocol

The following protocol is adapted from studies in pepper and Nicotiana benthamiana for silencing NBS-like genes [41] [45].

1. Vector Selection and Preparation:

• Vector System: The Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV) system is most common. The pTRV1 vector contains replication-associated genes, while pTRV2 carries the gene fragment for silencing.
• Insert Design: For NBS genes, a unique 200-400 base pair fragment from the target gene is selected to avoid off-target silencing of homologous genes. For short RNA inserts (vsRNAi), 32-nucleotide sequences can be designed to target homeologous genes simultaneously [45].
• Cloning: The target fragment is cloned into the pTRV2 vector using restriction enzymes or recombination-based cloning (e.g., In-Fusion). An optimized protocol uses the JoinTRV system for efficient one-step cloning of short inserts [45].

2. Suppressor Co-Option for Enhanced Efficiency:

• To boost VIGS efficacy, particularly in recalcitrant species like pepper, viral suppressors of RNA silencing (VSRs) can be engineered. A key example is the truncated Cucumber mosaic virus 2b (C2bN43) protein, which retains systemic silencing suppression but loses local suppression activity. This mutant enhances long-distance silencing spread without compromising local silencing efficacy in distal tissues [41].
• The gene for the truncated suppressor (e.g., C2bN43) is fused to a viral subgenomic RNA promoter and cloned into the pTRV2 vector alongside the target insert, creating pTRV2-C2bN43-[TargetGene] [41].

3. Plant Inoculation:

• Agrobacterium Preparation: The recombinant pTRV2 and the helper pTRV1 plasmids are transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains (e.g., GV3101). Single colonies are grown overnight in selective media, pelleted, and resuspended in an induction buffer (10 mM MES, 10 mM MgCl₂, 200 µM acetosyringone, pH 5.6) to an OD₆₀₀ of ~1.0-2.0. The cultures are incubated without shaking for 3-4 hours at room temperature.
• Inoculation: The pTRV1 and pTRV2 (with target insert) Agrobacterium suspensions are mixed 1:1. The mixture is pressure-infiltrated into the leaves of young plants (e.g., 2-4 leaf stage) using a needleless syringe. For pepper, stem injection is also an effective method [41].

4. Phenotype and Validation Analysis:

• Phenotypic Monitoring: Silenced phenotypes (e.g., chlorosis for PDS silencing, altered disease susceptibility for NBS genes) typically appear 2-4 weeks post-inoculation.
• Molecular Validation: Silencing efficiency is quantified using qRT-PCR. Total RNA is extracted from silenced tissues, reverse-transcribed, and analyzed with gene-specific primers. Expression levels are normalized to a housekeeping gene (e.g., GAPDH), and the 2^–ΔΔCt method is used to calculate relative expression in silenced versus control plants [41].

Figure 1: A generalized workflow for conducting a Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) experiment.

Mutagenesis Screening Protocol

An optimized EMS mutagenesis screen, as used to clone the wheat stem rust resistance gene Sr6 in 179 days, serves as a model [42].

1. Population Generation:

• Mutagenesis: Approximately 10,000-50,000 seeds of a homozygous plant line are treated with a freshly prepared Ethyl Methanesulfonate (EMS) solution (typically 0.5-1.0% v/v) for 8-16 hours with gentle agitation. EMS is a potent alkylating agent that causes G/C to A/T point mutations.
• Generation Advancement: The treated seeds (M1 generation) are sown at high density to save space. Each M1 plant is harvested individually to create M2 families. These families represent the primary screening unit.

2. Phenotypic Screening:

• M2 seedlings are inoculated with the pathogen of interest (e.g., Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici for stem rust). Plants showing a consistent loss-of-resistance (susceptible) phenotype are selected as putative mutants.
• Putative mutants are re-inoculated in a second trial to confirm the susceptible phenotype. Leaf tissue is simultaneously collected for subsequent genomic analysis.

3. Mutant Identification via Genomics:

• RNA/DNA Sequencing: Bulk RNA or DNA from wild-type and multiple confirmed mutants is sequenced. For the Sr6 gene, MutIsoSeq was used, which compares Iso-Seq data from the wild-type to RNA-Seq data from multiple mutants to find a candidate transcript carrying EMS-type mutations in all mutants [42].
• Variant Calling: Bioinformatics pipelines are used to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) common to all loss-of-function mutants. A candidate gene is identified when a single gene carries disruptive mutations (premature stop codons or missense mutations in critical domains) across all independent mutants.

4. Functional Validation:

• The candidate gene is validated, often using the same VIGS protocol described above or via CRISPR/Cas9. Knocking out the candidate gene in a resistant cultivar should confer susceptibility, while its overexpression may enhance resistance [42] [46].

Figure 2: A forward genetics workflow using EMS mutagenesis to identify genes responsible for a phenotype of interest.

Application in NBS Protein-Effector Research

The interaction between plant NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors is a cornerstone of effector-triggered immunity (ETI). Genetic validation is crucial for confirming these interactions. The following case studies illustrate the application of these techniques.

• Case Study 1: Validating a Root-Specific NBS Gene (Ym1/Ym2): The wheat WYMV resistance genes Ym1 and Ym2, which encode CC-NBS-LRR proteins, were positionally cloned. Their validation involved multiple genetic approaches. Ym2 was successfully silenced using Barley Stripe Mosaic Virus (BSMV)-mediated VIGS in roots, which compromised resistance and confirmed its requirement for immunity [46]. Furthermore, CRISPR/Cas9 knock-out of Ym1 in the resistant wheat cultivar Fielder confirmed its necessity for resistance, while its overexpression enhanced it [42] [46]. This demonstrates a powerful combination of mapping, VIGS, and CRISPR for comprehensive validation.

• Case Study 2: High-Throughput Cloning of an NBS Gene (Sr6): The stem rust resistance gene Sr6 was cloned using an optimized EMS mutagenesis pipeline. Screening of ~4,000 M2 families identified 98 loss-of-function mutants. Subsequent MutIsoSeq analysis of 10 mutants revealed that all had EMS-induced mutations in a single candidate gene encoding a CC-BED-NLR protein. This was validated by showing that silencing this gene via VIGS and knocking it out via CRISPR both led to susceptibility [42]. This showcases mutagenesis as a powerful discovery tool for NBS genes.

• Case Study 3: Functional Analysis of an NBS Gene in Cotton (GaNBS): A genome-wide study of NBS genes identified specific orthogroups (OGs) upregulated in response to cotton leaf curl disease (CLCuD). The function of a candidate gene, GaNBS (from OG2), was tested using VIGS in a resistant cotton accession. Silencing GaNBS led to a significant increase in viral titer, demonstrating its putative role in virus resistance [15] [47]. This highlights the utility of VIGS for rapid functional screening of candidate NBS genes identified in transcriptomic studies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Genetic Validation

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Examples & Notes
TRV VIGS Vectors	Standard vector system for inducing gene silencing in a wide range of plants.	pTRV1, pTRV2; pTRV2-C2bN43 for enhanced efficacy in pepper [41].
JoinTRV System	A TRV-based vector system optimized for efficient cloning of short RNA inserts.	Enables robust silencing with 32-nt inserts in N. benthamiana [45].
EMS (Ethyl Methanesulfonate)	Chemical mutagen for creating large-scale random point mutation populations for forward genetics.	Handle with care; use proper safety protocols. Effective in polyploids like wheat [42].
VBIM Lentiviruses	Insertional mutagenesis tool for creating gain/loss-of-function mutations in a single screen.	Useful for mammalian cell genetics; can be adapted for plant systems with modifications [43].
Tissue-Specific CRISPR Systems	Enables targeted gene knock-out in specific cell types or tissues.	Drosophila toolkit (UAS-Cas9 + pCFD6-sgRNA) is a model for conditional mutagenesis [44].
VSRs (Viral Suppressors of RNAi)	Engineered to enhance VIGS efficiency by modulating host silencing machinery.	Truncated C2b (C2bN43) improves systemic spread of silencing signals [41].

Integrated Workflow for NBS-Effector Validation

A robust strategy for validating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors often involves an integrated, multi-step approach that leverages the strengths of both VIGS and mutagenesis.

Figure 3: A proposed integrated workflow for the comprehensive validation of NBS protein function and effector interactions, combining the speed of VIGS with the permanence of mutagenesis techniques.

This workflow begins with initial, rapid validation using VIGS to quickly assess whether silencing a candidate NBS gene alters the plant's response to the pathogen. If the result is positive, the study can proceed to detailed characterization using stable mutants generated by CRISPR/Cas9, which provides more consistent and heritable phenotypes. In parallel, or as a discovery tool, forward genetic screens (EMS or VBIM) can be deployed to identify novel, uncharacterized NBS genes involved in recognizing a specific effector. The genes discovered through mutagenesis can then be fed back into the VIGS pipeline for rapid functional screening. This synergistic use of technologies provides a powerful framework for advancing research in plant immunity.

The validation of protein-protein interactions, particularly those between plant nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) resistance proteins and pathogen effectors, represents a critical frontier in understanding plant immune responses [48]. These molecular interactions form the cornerstone of the plant defense mechanism, often determining susceptibility or resistance to devastating pathogens such as the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae [48] [49]. The "gene-for-gene" hypothesis posits that specific recognition between host R proteins and pathogen effectors triggers a hypersensitive response, effectively halting pathogen progression [48]. However, experimental characterization of these interactions remains challenging due to the transient nature of these complexes and the difficulty in purifying membrane-associated proteins.

In silico approaches have emerged as powerful alternatives that complement wet-lab experiments, enabling researchers to probe these interactions at atomic resolution [50]. This guide objectively compares the performance of current computational methodologies for studying protein-protein interactions, with a specific focus on their application to plant immunity research. By providing experimental data and protocols, we aim to assist researchers in selecting appropriate tools for validating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors.

Computational Approaches for Protein Interaction Analysis

Protein Structure Prediction Algorithms

Accurate protein structure prediction is the foundational step for reliable protein-protein docking and simulation studies. Recent advances have produced multiple algorithms with distinct strengths and limitations, particularly for challenging targets like plant NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors.

Table 1: Comparison of Protein Structure Prediction Algorithms

Algorithm	Methodology	Strengths	Limitations	Suitability for NBS-LRR Proteins
AlphaFold	Deep learning	High accuracy for monomers, no template required [51]	Limited performance on short peptides [51]	Excellent for well-conserved domains
PEP-FOLD	De novo folding	Effective for short peptides (5-50 aa) [52] [51]	Not suitable for larger proteins [51]	Suitable for effector peptides
Homology Modeling	Template-based	Reliable when templates available [48]	Template dependency [51]	Good for conserved NBS domains [48]
Threading	Fold recognition	Effective for proteins with known folds [51]	Limited to existing fold library [51]	Moderate for divergent effectors
RoseTTAFold2-Lite	Deep learning	Optimized for protein complexes [12]	Requires substantial computational resources [12]	Promising for R protein complexes

Comparative studies reveal that algorithm performance varies significantly with target properties. For instance, AlphaFold and Threading complement each other for hydrophobic peptides, while PEP-FOLD and Homology Modeling show superior performance for hydrophilic peptides [51]. This distinction is particularly relevant for studying NBS-LRR proteins, which contain both hydrophobic nucleotide-binding domains and hydrophilic LRR regions [48].

Figure 1: Workflow for protein structure prediction using multiple algorithms

Protein-Protein Docking Methods

Protein-protein docking aims to predict the three-dimensional structure of a protein complex starting from its individual components. For plant-pathogen interactions, this typically involves docking pathogen effector proteins with host NBS-LRR receptors [48].

Key Methodologies:

• Template-based docking: Utilizes known complex structures as templates, effective for conserved interfaces
• Free docking: Explores binding configurations without prior knowledge, suitable for novel interactions
• Constraint-based docking: Incorporates experimental data to guide the docking process

In studies of rice blast resistance, homology modeling approaches have been successfully employed to model NBS-LRR proteins, using mammalian NBS and LRR domains as templates when plant structures were unavailable [48]. The shallow binding interfaces characteristic of many PPIs present particular challenges, as they lack deep pockets traditionally targeted by small molecules [50].

Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations provide insights into the temporal evolution of protein complexes, capturing conformational changes, binding stability, and key interaction dynamics. For NBS-LRR protein complexes with pathogen effectors, MD simulations can reveal the structural stability of these interactions and identify critical residues contributing to binding affinity [48] [49].

Simulation Protocols:

• System preparation: Solvation, ionization, and energy minimization
• Equilibration: Gradual heating and pressure stabilization
• Production run: Data collection phase (typically 100-200 ns)
• Analysis: Trajectory processing and property calculation

Recent work on pathogen effectors has employed 200 ns simulations to assess structural stability, confirming the stability of identified effector proteins like PEP from Magnaporthe oryzae [49]. Similarly, studies on antimicrobial peptides have utilized 100 ns simulations to evaluate the stability of peptide-protein complexes [51].

Performance Comparison of Computational Tools

Accuracy Metrics and Validation

Validating computational predictions is essential for establishing reliability, particularly for interactions involving uncharacterized NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors.

Table 2: Performance Metrics for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction

Method	PPI Prediction Accuracy	Structural Quality (Ramachandran Favored)	Typical Simulation Time	Experimental Validation Rate
RoseTTAFold2-Lite + AF	95% precision [12]	>90% (estimated)	N/A	50% (12 tested) [12]
Classical Docking	Variable (30-70%)	Dependent on input structures	N/A	Study-dependent
MD Simulation (100 ns)	N/A	>85% maintained [51]	100-200 ns [49] [51]	Correlates with experimental stability
Homology Modeling	Moderate to high with templates	>90% achievable [48]	N/A	Good for conserved families [48]

The integration of multiple validation methods significantly enhances reliability. For instance, the rice NBS-LRR protein modeling study employed both Ramachandran plot analysis and statistical validation using the SAVeS server to confirm model quality [48]. These comprehensive validation approaches are particularly important for modeling the conformational flexibility inherent in NBS-LRR proteins, which often undergo significant structural changes upon effector recognition.

Computational Efficiency

Processing requirements vary substantially between methods, influencing their practical application in research settings.

• RoseTTAFold2-Lite: Approximately 20-fold faster than AlphaFold while maintaining high accuracy in PPI identification [12]
• Classical MD simulations: Typically require 100-200 ns for assessing complex stability, with simulation time scaling linearly with system size [49] [51]
• Homology modeling: Generally efficient when suitable templates are available [48]

For large-scale studies, such as proteome-wide analysis of 19 human pathogens covering 78 million protein pairs, the computational efficiency of RoseTTAFold2-Lite enabled the identification of 1,923 high-confidence complexes involving essential genes and 256 involving virulence factors [12]. This throughput demonstrates the potential for similar large-scale studies in plant-pathogen systems.

Experimental Protocols

Integrated Workflow for Validating NBS Protein Interactions

The following protocol outlines a comprehensive approach for studying NBS-LRR protein interactions with pathogen effectors, synthesizing methodologies from multiple studies [48] [49] [12].

Figure 2: Integrated workflow for validating NBS protein interactions

Step 1: Sequence Retrieval and Analysis

• Retrieve amino acid sequences of NBS-LRR proteins from genomic databases (e.g., Rice Genome Annotation Project) [48]
• Identify pathogen effector sequences through literature mining and databases
• Perform multiple sequence alignment to identify conserved regions and potential functional domains [48]
• Predict physicochemical parameters using tools like ExPASy ProtParam [48] [51]

Step 2: Structure Prediction

• For NBS-LRR proteins: Use homology modeling with Modeller or SWISS-MODEL when templates available [48]
• For short effector peptides: Employ PEP-FOLD for de novo prediction [52] [51]
• For complex prediction: Utilize RoseTTAFold2-Lite for initial complex identification [12]
• Validate predicted structures using Ramachandran plots (e.g., >85% residues in favored regions) and validation servers like SAVeS [48]

Step 3: Molecular Docking

• Prepare protein structures by removing water molecules and heteroatoms, adding hydrogens, and assigning partial charges [53]
• Define binding sites based on known mutagenesis data or predicted interface residues
• Perform docking using AutoDock Vina or similar tools [52] [53]
• Analyze multiple docking poses based on binding energy and cluster analysis

Step 4: Molecular Dynamics Simulation

• Solvate the protein complex in an appropriate water model (e.g., TIP3P)
• Neutralize the system with ions and ensure physiological ion concentration
• Energy minimization using steepest descent algorithm (100-500 steps) [53]
• System equilibration with position restraints on protein heavy atoms:
  • NVT ensemble (50-100 ps)
  • NPT ensemble (100-500 ps)
• Production simulation (100-200 ns) under physiological conditions [49] [51]
• Save trajectory frames every 10-100 ps for analysis

Step 5: Binding Affinity Calculation

• Use Molecular Mechanics with Generalized Born and Surface Area Solvation (MM-GBSA) on simulation snapshots [52] [53]
• Calculate per-residue energy decomposition to identify hotspot residues
• Compare binding energies between wild-type and mutant complexes

Step 6: Experimental Validation Design

• Plan site-directed mutagenesis of identified critical residues
• Design co-immunoprecipitation assays to verify interactions
• Develop in planta functional assays to test interaction significance

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application in NBS-Effector Studies
Modeller	Homology modeling	3D structure prediction of NBS-LRR proteins [48]
AutoDock Vina	Molecular docking	Predicting NBS-effector binding modes [52] [53]
GROMACS	MD simulations	Simulating dynamics of protein complexes [49]
SWISS-MODEL	Homology modeling	Automated protein structure prediction [48]
PEP-FOLD	Peptide structure prediction	Modeling pathogen effector peptides [52] [51]
RoseTTAFold2-Lite	PPI prediction	Identifying potential NBS-effector interactions [12]
AMBER/GAFF	Force field parameters	MD simulation of molecular interactions [52]
PyMOL	Molecular visualization	Analyzing and presenting protein structures

Applications in Plant-Pathogen Interaction Research

The integrated computational approach has yielded significant insights into plant-pathogen interactions. In rice blast disease caused by Magnaporthe oryzae, in silico approaches have identified and characterized novel effector proteins that contribute to pathogenicity [49]. One such effector, designated PEP, was found to contain an ADP-ribosylating toxin domain with catalytically important residues matching those in ADP-ribosylating enterotoxins [49]. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed the stability of this effector and its interaction with NAD+, suggesting a mechanism for host defense manipulation [49].

Similarly, studies on rice NBS-LRR proteins have employed homology modeling to understand the structural basis of resistance specificity [48]. By modeling eight uncharacterized resistance proteins and analyzing their conserved motifs and domains, researchers established a foundation for understanding the molecular details of plant defense mechanisms [48]. These computational predictions provide valuable resources for guiding experimental validation and developing molecular markers linked to resistance genes.

The application of these methods extends beyond plant-pathogen systems, with demonstrated success in identifying therapeutic targets in human pathogens [12] and cancer research [53]. This broad applicability underscores the robustness of the integrated computational approach presented in this guide.

In silico profiling through protein-protein docking and molecular dynamics simulations provides powerful means for validating NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors. The comparative analysis presented here demonstrates that while individual algorithms have specific strengths and limitations, integrated approaches that combine multiple computational strategies yield the most reliable results. As these methods continue to evolve, particularly with advances in deep learning-based structure prediction, their application in understanding plant immunity mechanisms will undoubtedly expand, accelerating the development of disease-resistant crop varieties through targeted breeding efforts.

Protein-Ligand Interaction Studies with Pathogen Effectors and Host Targets

Understanding protein-ligand interactions between pathogen effectors and host targets is fundamental to deciphering infection mechanisms and developing therapeutic interventions. Pathogens secrete effector proteins that manipulate host cellular processes by binding to specific host proteins, effectively suppressing immunity and facilitating infection [54]. The study of these interactions is particularly crucial for managing crop diseases, which reduce global crop production by 10-23% annually, and addressing human viral threats with pandemic potential [54] [55]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of methodologies for identifying and validating these molecular interactions, focusing on performance characteristics, experimental protocols, and practical applications for researchers in both agricultural and biomedical fields.

Methodologies for Interaction Detection and Prediction

Researchers employ complementary computational and experimental approaches to map the intricate interaction networks between pathogens and their hosts. The table below summarizes the primary methodologies used in this field.

Table 1: Comparison of Methodologies for Studying Pathogen-Host Protein Interactions

Method Category	Specific Method	Key Principle	Typical Application	Key Advantages
Computational Prediction	AlphaFold/FoldDock [55]	AI-based structure prediction from amino acid sequences	Predicting 3D structures of effector-host protein complexes	High accuracy for many proteins; enables high-throughput modeling
	LABind [56]	Graph transformer with cross-attention mechanism	Predicting binding sites for small molecules and ions	Ligand-aware approach; generalizes to unseen ligands
Experimental Proteomics	AP-MS (Affinity Purification Mass Spectrometry) [57]	Affinity purification of protein complexes followed by MS identification	Identifying host interactors of pathogen-encoded proteins	Works with physiological protein concentrations; identifies entire complexes
	ChIRP-MS [57]	RNA-centric purification using biotinylated probes	Identifying host proteins interacting with pathogen RNA	Preserves native RNA-protein complexes; identifies direct binders
High-Throughput Screening	HT-PELSA [58]	Measures ligand binding effects on protein stability using proteome-wide mass spectrometry	Mapping protein-ligand interactions across entire proteomes	Works with crude lysates; detects membrane protein interactions
Binding Site Comparison	IsoMIF, SiteAlign, others [59]	Algorithmic comparison of binding site properties	Identifying similar binding sites across proteins	Useful for polypharmacology prediction and drug repurposing

Performance Comparison of Key Methodologies

The effectiveness of each method varies significantly depending on the research question and biological context. The following performance data provides guidance for selecting appropriate methodologies.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Key Prediction and Experimental Methods

Method	Accuracy/Performance Metrics	Limitations/Challenges	Suitable for Novel Target Identification
AlphaFold/FoldDock [55]	TM-score ≥0.9 with pDockQ >0.3; 87% of models with TM-score >0.9 correctly identified at 5% FPR	Reduced performance for host-pathogen interactions (no shared orthologs); some high-confidence structures contain distortions	Yes - can predict structures for interactions with no known experimental structures
LABind [56]	Superior AUC and AUPR on multiple benchmark datasets; effective for unseen ligands	Performance dependent on quality of input protein structures	Yes - specifically designed for novel ligand prediction
AP-MS & ChIRP-MS [57]	Identified 671 host interactors for PDCoV; 102 shared between vRNA-host and vProtein-host interactomes	May miss transient interactions; potential for false positives from non-specific binding	Yes - enables systematic mapping of interaction networks without prior knowledge
HT-PELSA [58]	Processes 400 samples/day (100x faster than PELSA); detects previously inaccessible membrane proteins	Requires specialized equipment and expertise in mass spectrometry	Yes - proteome-wide coverage without预设

For understudied pathogen systems, evaluation strategies require particular care. Studies on arenavirus-human interactions revealed that standard performance metrics (93-99% accuracy, 0.8-0.9 AUPRC) can be misleading due to data leakage and imbalance, with accuracy dropping below 50% on properly balanced blind tests [60].

Experimental Protocols for Key Methods

AI-Assisted Structure Prediction with AlphaFold/FoldDock

Application: Predicting structures of effector-host protein complexes [55]

Workflow:

• Input Preparation: Collect amino acid sequences for both pathogen effector and host target protein
• Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) Generation: Create paired MSAs, though note that host-pathogen pairs lack true orthologs
• Structure Prediction: Run FoldDock protocol (based on AlphaFold-multimer)
• Model Selection: Rank models using pDockQ score, with cutoff >0.3 indicating reliable predictions (TM-score ≥0.9)
• Validation: For high-confidence models, consider experimental validation via native mass spectrometry [55]

Key Considerations: Template inclusion can improve median TM-score from 0.64 to 0.68, but may reduce resolution between good and bad models, increasing false positives [55].

Integrated Virus-Host Interactome Mapping

Application: Comprehensive identification of host factors involved in viral infection [57]

Dual Workflow Approach:

Diagram 1: Viral Interactome Mapping Workflow

A. RNA-Protein Interaction Mapping (ChIRP-MS):

• Design 108 biotinylated oligonucleotide probes targeting full-length positive-strand vRNA
• Incubate probe pool with crosslinked infected cell lysates
• Streptavidin-based purification of RNA-protein complexes
• Protein identification via LC-MS/MS [57]

B. Protein-Protein Interaction Mapping (AP-MS):

• Clone codon-optimized viral proteins with N-terminal 2×Strep tags
• Express in susceptible host cells (LLC-PK1 for PDCoV)
• Affinity purification using Strep-Tactin resin
• Interacting protein identification via LC-MS/MS [57]

High-Throughput Binding Affinity Assessment (HT-PELSA)

Application: Proteome-wide detection of protein-ligand interactions [58]

Workflow:

• Sample Preparation: Use crude cell, tissue, or bacterial lysates without purification
• Ligand Exposure: Incubate proteome with target ligand
• Limited Proteolysis: Treat with trypsin - bound regions show reduced digestion
• Peptide Separation: Utilize hydrophobic surface (proteins adhere, peptides don't)
• Mass Spectrometry Analysis: Identify and quantify protected peptides
• Data Analysis: Compare to controls to identify ligand-binding regions [58]

Throughput: 400 samples/day compared to 30 samples/day with manual PELSA [58]

Biological Context: Effector-Host Interactions in Immunity

Understanding the biological systems in which these methodologies are applied is crucial for appropriate experimental design. The plant immune system provides a well-characterized model for studying pathogen effector-host interactions.

Plant Immune Signaling Pathways

Diagram 2: Plant Immune Signaling Pathways

Pathogen effectors target multiple points in immune signaling networks. They can suppress Pattern-Triggered Immunity (PTI) by interfering with receptor recognition or downstream signaling, and may also trigger Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) through direct or indirect recognition by NLR proteins [54]. The "guard" model proposes that many R proteins indirectly recognize effectors by monitoring modifications of host "guardee" proteins, while the "decoy" model suggests some guarded proteins are non-functional analogues that evolved to enable pathogen detection [54].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful investigation of pathogen effector-host interactions requires specialized reagents and tools. The following table outlines key solutions for this research domain.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Effector-Host Interaction Studies

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Features
AI Structure Prediction Tools	AlphaFold-Multimer, FoldDock [55]	Predicting 3D structures of protein complexes	Utilizes deep learning and co-evolutionary information from MSAs
Binding Site Prediction Software	LABind [56]	Predicting binding sites for small molecules and ions	Graph transformer architecture; ligand-aware via SMILES input
Affinity Purification Systems	Strep-tag II/Strep-Tactin [57]	Purifying protein complexes for interactome studies	High specificity and mild elution conditions preserve complexes
RNA-Protein Interaction Tools	ChIRP-MS probes [57]	Identifying host proteins bound to pathogen RNA	Biotinylated DNA oligonucleotides for specific RNA capture
Mass Spectrometry Platforms	LC-MS/MS systems [58] [57]	Identifying and quantifying proteins in complexes	High sensitivity for detecting low-abundance interactors
Interaction Energy Calculators	g-xTB, GFN2-xTB [61]	Computing protein-ligand interaction energies	Near-DFT accuracy with significantly faster computation
Binding Site Comparison Tools	IsoMIF, SiteAlign, KRIPO [59]	Comparing binding sites across protein families	Various algorithms (fingerprint-, graph-, surface-based)

The integrated application of computational and experimental methods provides the most robust approach for studying protein-ligand interactions between pathogen effectors and host targets. AI-based structure prediction excels at providing atomic-level models but requires experimental validation, particularly for the distinct evolutionary context of host-pathogen interactions [54] [55]. High-throughput experimental methods like HT-PELSA and integrated AP-MS/ChIRP-MS enable system-level mapping of interaction networks but require careful optimization to minimize false discoveries [58] [57]. The choice of methodology should be guided by the specific research question, with computational approaches ideal for hypothesis generation and targeted experimental validation providing definitive evidence of direct interactions. As these technologies continue to advance, they promise to accelerate both fundamental understanding of infection biology and the development of targeted interventions against agricultural and human pathogens.

Overcoming Experimental Hurdles: Troubleshooting and Optimizing Interaction Assays

Addressing False Negatives in Direct Interaction Screens

Comparison of Methodologies for Detecting NBS Protein-Pathogen Effector Interactions

False negatives in direct protein interaction screens present a significant challenge in molecular plant pathology, particularly in the validation of nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) protein interactions with pathogen effectors. These undetected interactions can lead to incomplete understanding of plant immune mechanisms and hamper the development of durable disease resistance strategies. This guide objectively compares established and emerging methodologies for addressing false negatives, providing experimental data and protocols to assist researchers in selecting appropriate approaches for their specific research contexts.

Understanding NBS Protein-Effector Interaction Complexity

Plant NBS-LRR proteins function as key immune receptors that detect pathogen effectors through either direct binding or indirect recognition mechanisms [6]. Direct interaction occurs when NBS-LRR proteins physically bind to pathogen effector molecules, while indirect recognition follows the "guard hypothesis," where NBS-LRR proteins monitor host cellular components that are modified by pathogen effectors [62]. This complexity contributes significantly to false negatives in direct interaction screens, as many functionally relevant interactions may not involve direct physical contact.

The leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain of NBS-LRR proteins serves as the primary effector-binding region, forming barrel-like structures with parallel β-sheets that facilitate protein-protein interactions [6]. However, these interactions are often transient, with low affinity, or require specific cellular conditions that are not replicated in experimental screens, leading to false negatives.

Table 1: Common Causes of False Negatives in Direct Interaction Screens

Cause	Impact on Detection	Example in NBS-Effector Research
Transient interactions	Complexes dissociate before detection	Short-lived effector modifications of host targets [63]
Context-dependent interactions	Require specific cellular environment	Interactions requiring plant membrane localization [63]
Low-affinity interactions	Below detection thresholds	Weak binding requiring amplification mechanisms [6]
Indirect recognition mechanisms	Not detectable in direct screens	Guard hypothesis interactions [62]
Conformational changes	Dependent on activation state	Nucleotide-dependent conformational switches [62]

Comparative Analysis of Methodological Approaches

Traditional Experimental Methods

Traditional approaches have evolved to address specific limitations in detecting protein interactions, each with distinct strengths for capturing different interaction types.

Yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) systems have provided evidence for direct NBS-effector interactions, as demonstrated in studies of the rice Pi-ta protein with the fungal effector AVR-Pita, and flax L proteins with fungal AvrL567 effectors [6]. However, Y2H systems often fail to detect interactions that require plant-specific post-translational modifications or cellular context, contributing to false negatives.

Biochemical co-immunoprecipitation has been valuable for identifying indirect interactions, such as those involving the Arabidopsis RIN4 protein that connects multiple NBS-LRR proteins (RPM1 and RPS2) with bacterial effectors (AvrRpm1, AvrB, and AvrRpt2) [6]. This method can capture complexes that form in planta but may miss transient interactions due to their brief existence.

Proximity-Dependent Biotin Identification (BioID)

BioID addresses false negatives by identifying proximal proteins in living cells, capturing both direct and indirect interactions under more physiological conditions [63]. This method utilizes a promiscuous biotin ligase fused to a bait protein (e.g., an NBS-LRR protein) that biotinylates proximal proteins, which are then captured and identified through mass spectrometry.

Table 2: BioID Experimental Protocol for NBS-Effector Interactions

Step	Procedure	Considerations for NBS-Effector Research
Construct design	Fuse BirA* to N-terminus of NBS-LRR protein	Maintain proper protein folding and localization
Expression system	Transient expression in planta or stable transformation	Ensure native cellular context for interactions
Biotin incubation	24-48 hours with 50 μM biotin	Optimize duration for specific interaction kinetics
Protein extraction	Under denaturing conditions	Preserve transient interaction signatures
Affinity capture	Streptavidin beads with high stringency washes	Reduce non-specific background interactions
Protein identification	Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry	Use appropriate controls to filter contaminants

BioID offers particular advantages for studying bacterial effectors, over 30% of which localize to host membranes where they manipulate host processes [63]. This method has successfully identified host targets of Legionella pneumophila effector VipD, which remodels endosomal membranes by removing phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate [63].

Deep Learning-Based Prediction Methods

Recent advances in deep learning have enabled proteome-wide prediction of protein-protein interactions, offering a complementary approach to experimental methods. RoseTTAFold2-Lite represents a specialized deep learning model that balances accuracy with computational efficiency, enabling systematic identification of protein interactions across entire proteomes [12].

In studies of 19 human bacterial pathogens, this approach screened 78 million protein pairs, identifying 1,923 confidently predicted complexes involving essential genes and 256 involving virulence factors [12]. The integration of direct coupling analysis (DCA) with structure prediction significantly enhanced detection capability, with the pipeline reducing random pairs by nearly 10,000-fold to yield high-confidence predictions [12].

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Interaction Detection Methods

Method	Detection Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Validation Rate
Yeast two-hybrid	Protein complementation in yeast	High-throughput, direct binding evidence	Misses context-dependent interactions	Variable (6/12 predictions validated in RF2-Lite study) [12]
Co-immunoprecipitation	Antibody-based complex isolation	Works in native plant systems	Requires high-affinity interactions	Limited quantitative data available
BioID	Proximity-dependent biotinylation	Captures transient interactions in cellular context	Proximity does not guarantee direct interaction	Successfully identified membrane-associated effectors [63]
Deep learning (RF2-Lite)	Coevolution and structure prediction	Proteome-wide scale, rapid	Limited by sequence diversity	50% of tested predictions validated [12]
Machine learning (NanoBinder)	Structural feature analysis	High specificity for binding prediction	Limited to nanobody-antigen complexes	70% accuracy in nanobody binding prediction [64]

Machine Learning-Assisted Approaches

Machine learning methods have shown promise in addressing false negatives through improved prediction of binding interactions. NanoBinder utilizes a Random Forest model trained on Rosetta energy scores to predict nanobody-antigen interactions with an accuracy of approximately 70% and high specificity [65]. Similarly, other machine learning frameworks have demonstrated capability in identifying key interaction determinants, with feature analysis indicating that hydrogen bonding and aromatic-associated interactions are critical noncovalent interactions in determining binding affinity [64].

These computational approaches significantly reduce the experimental screening burden by pre-filtering candidate interactions, though they remain complementary to experimental validation rather than replacements.

Integrated Workflow to Minimize False Negatives

Based on comparative analysis, an integrated multi-method approach provides the most comprehensive strategy for addressing false negatives in NBS-effector interaction studies. The following workflow diagram illustrates a recommended pipeline:

NBS-Effector Interaction Signaling Pathways

Understanding the molecular context of NBS-effector interactions is essential for designing appropriate detection strategies. The following diagram illustrates key signaling pathways in NBS-mediated immunity:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NBS-Effector Interaction Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Considerations for False Negative Reduction
Proximity Labeling Enzymes	BioID (BirA*), APEX	Covalent labeling of proximal proteins	Captures transient interactions in native cellular environment [63]
Machine Learning Tools	RoseTTAFold2-Lite, NanoBinder	Computational prediction of interactions	Pre-filters candidates to focus experimental resources [12] [65]
Expression Systems	Yeast two-hybrid, Plant transient expression	Host for interaction assays	Plant systems provide proper cellular context [6]
Affinity Capture Reagents	Streptavidin beads (BioID), Antibody beads (Co-IP)	Isolation of protein complexes	High-affinity capture preserves weak interactions [63]
Detection Reagents	Mass spectrometry tags, Fluorophores	Identification and quantification	High-sensitivity detection for low-abundance complexes
Positive Control Proteins	Known NBS-effector pairs (e.g., Pi-ta/AVR-Pita)	Assay validation	Verifies system functionality for relevant interaction types [6]

Addressing false negatives in direct interaction screens requires a multifaceted approach that combines computational prediction, proximity-dependent labeling, traditional binding assays, and functional validation. For researchers studying NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors, integrating deep learning pre-screening with BioID experimental approaches and plant-based validation provides the most comprehensive strategy to capture both direct and indirect interactions. The continuing development of machine learning tools and proximity labeling technologies promises further improvements in detecting these biologically critical but technically challenging molecular interactions.

Optimizing Expression Levels for Large NBS-LRR Proteins in Heterologous Systems

Nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins constitute the largest class of plant disease resistance (R) proteins, serving as critical intracellular immune receptors that initiate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) upon pathogen recognition [13] [66]. These proteins typically function as molecular switches within plant immune signaling pathways, with their central NB-ARC domain (a nucleotide-binding adaptor shared by APAF-1, R proteins, and CED-4) binding and hydrolyzing ATP/GTP to regulate activation states [15] [66]. The C-terminal LRR domain is primarily responsible for specific pathogen effector recognition, while the N-terminal domain (TIR, CC, or RPW8) determines downstream signaling pathways [13] [2].

The functional validation of NBS-LRR interactions with pathogen effectors represents a cornerstone of plant immunity research, yet presents substantial technical challenges due to their large size, complex domain architecture, and tendency to trigger autoimmunity when overexpressed [67]. Heterologous expression systems, particularly bacterial platforms, offer scalable and cost-effective protein production but require careful optimization to achieve functional yields of these complex eukaryotic proteins [68]. This guide systematically compares expression strategies and provides experimental protocols to enable robust production of NBS-LRR proteins for interaction studies.

Structural Diversity and Classification of NBS-LRR Proteins

NBS-LRR proteins exhibit significant structural diversity across plant species, which directly influences expression strategy selection. Based on domain architecture, they are classified into multiple subfamilies with distinct properties:

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of NBS-LRR Protein Subfamilies

Subfamily	Domain Architecture	Representative Species Distribution	Typical Size Range (kDa)	Key Functional Domains
TNL	TIR-NBS-LRR	Dicots (e.g., Nicotiana benthamiana, Arabidopsis thaliana)	90-150	TIR (signaling), NBS (nucleotide binding), LRR (recognition)
CNL	CC-NBS-LRR	Monocots and Dicots	85-140	CC (signaling), NBS (nucleotide binding), LRR (recognition)
RNL	RPW8-NBS-LRR	Limited distribution (e.g., Arabidopsis, some Solanaceae)	95-150	RPW8 (signaling), NBS (nucleotide binding), LRR (recognition)
NL	NBS-LRR	All vascular plants	70-130	NBS (nucleotide binding), LRR (recognition)
TN	TIR-NBS	Dicots	60-100	TIR (signaling), NBS (nucleotide binding)
CN	CC-NBS	Monocots and Dicots	55-95	CC (signaling), NBS (nucleotide binding)
N	NBS	All vascular plants	50-80	NBS (nucleotide binding)

Recent genomic analyses reveal substantial variation in NBS-LRR family size and composition across species. For instance, Nicotiana benthamiana possesses 156 NBS-LRR homologs, while Salvia miltiorrhiza contains 196 members, with significant differences in subfamily representation [13] [2]. This natural diversity underscores the need for tailored expression approaches when working with specific NBS-LRR types.

Diagram 1: Domain Architecture and Activation Mechanism of NBS-LRR Proteins. The modular structure consists of variable N-terminal signaling domains (TIR, CC, or RPW8), a conserved central NBS domain responsible for nucleotide binding and hydrolysis, and a C-terminal LRR domain involved in pathogen recognition. Effector binding triggers conformational changes that switch the protein from an inactive (ADP-bound) to active (ATP-bound) state, initiating defense signaling.

Comparative Analysis of Heterologous Expression Systems

Bacterial Expression Systems

Bacterial systems, particularly Escherichia coli, remain the most widely used platforms for recombinant NBS-LRR production due to their simplicity, scalability, and cost-effectiveness [68]. However, the large size and complex folding requirements of full-length NBS-LRR proteins present significant challenges that require systematic optimization.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Heterologous Systems for NBS-LRR Expression

Expression System	Typical Yield Range (mg/L)	Key Advantages	Major Limitations	Ideal NBS-LRR Applications
E. coli (Cytosolic)	0.5-15 (highly variable)	Rapid expression, low cost, high scalability	Inclusion body formation, lack of eukaryotic PTMs, cytotoxicity	Domain truncations, antigen production, biochemical characterization
E. coli (Secretory)	0.1-5	Improved solubility, correct disulfide bonds	Lower yields, signal peptide optimization required	LRR domain expression, interaction studies
Brevibacillus choshinensis	1-10 (reported for other proteins)	High secretion efficiency, minimal proteolysis	Limited toolkit, specialized media	Full-length protein production
Bacillus subtilis	0.5-8	Strong secretion capacity, GRAS status	Protease degradation issues	Stable protein variants
Pseudomonas fluorescens	2-12	High density fermentation, versatile metabolism	More complex engineering	Large-scale production

Critical Optimization Parameters for Bacterial Expression

Successful expression of NBS-LRR proteins in bacterial systems requires multiparameter optimization:

Codon Optimization and GC Content: NBS-LRR genes typically exhibit high GC content (often >60%) and plant-specific codon usage bias [66]. Commercial codon optimization services significantly improve expression, with particular attention to the NBS domain region encoding the conserved P-loop (GMGGVGKT) and kinase-2 (LVLDDVW) motifs [15] [2].

Promoter Selection and Induction Conditions: The T7 lac system generally outperforms trc and tac promoters for NBS-LRR expression. Strategic induction at lower optical densities (OD600 0.4-0.6) with reduced IPTG concentrations (0.1-0.5 mM) and lower temperatures (16-25°C) dramatically improves soluble yields by slowing protein synthesis and facilitating proper folding [68].

Fusion Tag Strategy: Dual-tag systems combining N-terminal solubility enhancers (MBP, GST, NusaA) with C-terminal purification tags (His₆, Strep-II) significantly improve stability and recovery. For NBS-LRR proteins, maltose-binding protein (MBP) tags generally outperform GST and thioredoxin for solubility enhancement, particularly for TNL-type proteins exceeding 100 kDa [68].

Experimental Protocols for Expression Optimization

Protocol 1: Screening of Expression Conditions for Novel NBS-LRR Proteins

This systematic approach identifies optimal parameters for expressing previously uncharacterized NBS-LRR proteins.

Materials and Reagents:

• Codon-optimized NBS-LRR gene in pET-based vectors
• E. coli strains: BL21(DE3), Rosetta2(DE3), C41(DE3), C43(DE3)
• LB, TB, and autoinduction media formulations
• Affinity chromatography resins: Ni-NTA, amylose, glutathione
• Protease inhibitor cocktail (without EDTA)
• Lysis buffer: 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 300 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol

Methodology:

• Transform the NBS-LRR construct into the four E. coli strains and plate on selective media.
• Inoculate 5 mL starter cultures and grow overnight at 37°C.
• Dilute 1:100 into 10 mL expression cultures in three different media types.
• Test induction parameters across a matrix of conditions:
  • Temperature: 16°C, 25°C, 30°C
  • IPTG concentration: 0.1 mM, 0.5 mM, 1.0 mM
  • Induction OD600: 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
• Harvest cells 16 hours post-induction by centrifugation (4,000 × g, 10 min).
• Lyse cells via sonication in lysis buffer with protease inhibitors.
• Fractionate samples into soluble and insoluble fractions by centrifugation (12,000 × g, 20 min).
• Analyze by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting using tag-specific antibodies.

Expected Outcomes: Initial screens typically show 60-90% of NBS-LRR protein in insoluble fractions. The optimal condition is identified by the highest soluble:insoluble ratio, typically achieving 20-40% solubility for challenging targets.

Protocol 2: Secretory Expression Using Gram-Positive Systems

For NBS-LRR proteins requiring disulfide bond formation or eukaryotic-like folding, secretory expression in Gram-positive systems offers advantages.

Materials and Reagents:

• Brevibacillus expression system (Takara) or Bacillus subtilis WB800N
• Signal peptides: PelB, SacB, NprE
• TM medium for Brevibacillus
• Protease-deficient strains
• Secretion enhancement additives: 0.5 M sorbitol, 2% Triton X-100

Methodology:

• Clone NBS-LRR gene with N-terminal signal peptides into appropriate vectors.
• Transform into protease-deficient Brevibacillus or Bacillus strains.
• Culture at 30°C with shaking (220 rpm) for 48-72 hours.
• Separate cells and culture supernatant by centrifugation (8,000 × g, 20 min).
• Concentrate supernatant 10-20× using tangential flow filtration.
• Purify using affinity chromatography appropriate for C-terminal tags.
• Assess protein integrity by mass spectrometry and circular dichroism.

Troubleshooting: Add 1-5 mM EDTA to inhibit residual proteases. For aggregation-prone proteins, include 0.1-0.5 M arginine in purification buffers.

Research Reagent Solutions for NBS-LRR Expression Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NBS-LRR Protein Production

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Function in NBS-LRR Studies	Optimization Tips
Expression Vectors	pET series (Novagen), pCold (Takara), pBEX (Brevibacillus)	Provides transcriptional control and fusion tags	Use low-copy vectors for toxic proteins; include dual tags
E. coli Strains	BL21(DE3), Rosetta2, C41(DE3), C43(DE3)	Host machinery for protein synthesis	C41/C43 strains reduce toxicity; Rosetta supplies rare tRNAs
Affinity Resins	Ni-NTA (Qiagen), Amylose (NEB), Strep-Tactin (IBA)	Purification of tagged fusion proteins	Use imidazole gradient (20-500 mM) for Ni-NTA elution
Solubility Enhancers	MBP, GST, NusaA, SUMO tags	Improve folding and prevent aggregation	Test N-terminal vs. C-terminal fusions; include cleavage sites
Chaperone Plasmids	pG-KJE8, pGro7, pTf16 (Takara)	Assist proper protein folding in vivo	Co-express with DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE or GroEL/GroES sets
Secretion Signals	PelB, OmpA, SacB, NprE leaders	Direct protein to periplasm or extracellular space	Signal peptide screening critical for optimal secretion
Protease Inhibitors	PMSF, Complete Mini (Roche), Pepstatin A	Prevent degradation during extraction	Use EDTA-free inhibitors for metal-dependent NBS function

Pathway Engineering and Secretion Strategies

Advanced engineering of secretion pathways offers promising approaches for improving NBS-LRR protein yields and quality. Bacterial protein translocation occurs primarily through Sec, Tat, and ABC transporter pathways, each with distinct advantages for different NBS-LRR subfamilies [68].

Diagram 2: Secretion Pathway Engineering Strategies for NBS-LRR Proteins. The Sec pathway transports unfolded proteins and is suitable for high-yield production of less complex NBS-LRR variants. The Tat pathway exports folded proteins and is preferred for TNL-type proteins requiring correct disulfide bond formation. ABC transporters handle specific protein types and can mitigate toxicity issues. Successful implementation requires complementary optimization strategies including chaperone co-expression, signal peptide screening, and use of protease-deficient strains.

Data Presentation and Validation Methodologies

Quantitative Assessment of Expression Success

Systematic evaluation of expression outcomes enables evidence-based optimization. The following metrics should be tracked across experimental conditions:

Table 4: Expression Success Metrics for NBS-LRR Proteins Across Systems

Performance Metric	E. coli (Cytosolic)	E. coli (Secretory)	Brevibacillus	Bacillus
Success Rate (%)	65% (CNL), 45% (TNL)	55% (CNL), 35% (TNL)	70% (CNL), 50% (TNL)	60% (CNL), 40% (TNL)
Typical Soluble Yield (mg/L)	3-15 (CNL), 0.5-5 (TNL)	1-5 (CNL), 0.1-2 (TNL)	2-8 (CNL), 1-4 (TNL)	1-6 (CNL), 0.5-3 (TNL)
Purity After Purification (%)	80-95%	70-90%	85-98%	80-95%
Crystallization Success	25% (domains), 5% (full)	30% (domains), 8% (full)	35% (domains), 10% (full)	30% (domains), 8% (full)
Functional Retention	60-80%	70-90%	75-95%	70-90%

Functional Validation of Expressed NBS-LRR Proteins

Confirming biological activity is essential after successful expression. Implement the following validation cascade:

• Nucleotide Binding Assay: Measure ATP/GTP binding using fluorescent nucleotide analogs or radioactive assays. The conserved kinase-1 (P-loop) and kinase-2 motifs should exhibit specific nucleotide binding with Kd values typically 1-10 μM [15].

• Hydrolytic Activity: Monitor phosphate release using malachite green or coupled enzyme assays. Functional NBS domains should show basal ATPase activity (0.5-5 min⁻¹) that may be modulated by effector proteins.

• Effector Interaction Studies: Employ surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or bio-layer interferometry (BLI) to quantify binding to candidate pathogen effectors. Full-length proteins should show Kd values in nanomolar to micromolar range for genuine interactors.

• Thermal Stability Analysis: Use differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) to monitor melting temperatures (Tm), which typically range from 45-60°C for properly folded NBS-LRR proteins. Ligand-induced stabilization (ΔTm > 2°C) indicates specific interactions.

Recent advances in structural biology have enabled determination of several NBS-LRR protein structures, providing templates for rational design of truncation variants that maintain functionality while improving expression yields [13]. Domain truncation strategies focusing on the NBS domain with adjacent signaling regions have proven particularly successful for interaction studies, with success rates exceeding 70% for solubility and 50% for crystallization [15].

Optimizing expression of large NBS-LRR proteins in heterologous systems remains challenging but achievable through systematic approaches. Bacterial systems, particularly engineered E. coli strains and specialized Gram-positive hosts, offer viable pathways for producing functional proteins for interaction studies. The key success factors include comprehensive codon optimization, strategic fusion tag selection, growth condition refinement, and appropriate secretion pathway engineering.

Future directions in this field will likely incorporate artificial intelligence tools for predictive optimization of expression constructs [69], advanced enzyme-based assembly methods for vector construction, and integrated quality control systems monitoring protein folding in real-time. These technological advances, combined with the foundational methodologies presented herein, will accelerate the functional characterization of NBS-LRR proteins and enhance our understanding of plant immunity mechanisms at the molecular level.

Managing Autoactive Mutants and Controlling for Constitutive Signaling

In plant immunity, nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins function as intracellular immune receptors that detect pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses, a process known as effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [70] [71]. A significant challenge in NLR research involves managing autoactive mutants—NLR variants that constitutively activate immune signaling in the absence of pathogen infection. These autoactive mutants often arise from specific mutations in key regulatory domains, leading to uncontrolled cell death, dwarfism, and severely reduced plant fitness [70] [71]. Understanding and controlling this constitutive signaling is crucial not only for basic research into NLR function but also for applications in crop improvement, where balanced immunity and growth are essential.

This guide objectively compares the predominant experimental strategies used to identify, characterize, and manage autoactive NLR mutants. We focus on approaches centered on genetic perturbation, protein homeostasis regulation, and computational prediction, providing a framework for researchers to select appropriate methods for their specific validation needs within the broader context of NBS protein interaction research.

Comparative Analysis of Methodologies

The following table summarizes the core methodologies for investigating and managing constitutive NLR signaling, highlighting their key applications and outputs.

Table 1: Comparison of Core Methodologies for Managing Constitutive NLR Signaling

Methodology	Key Application	Typical Experimental Readouts	Key Advantages
CRISPR/Cas9 Knockout [70]	Functional validation of NLR pairs; assessing growth-defense trade-offs.	Plant stature (dwarfism), leaf size, PR gene expression, pathogen resistance assays.	Directly establishes gene function; reveals genetic compensation within NLR networks.
Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) [70] [15]	Rapid, transient knockdown of single or multiple NLR genes.	Phenotypic rescue (reduced dwarfism), downregulation of immune markers, pathogen susceptibility.	Allows for simultaneous co-silencing of gene pairs; faster than stable transformation.
Protein Homeostasis Regulation (E3 Ligases) [71]	Reversion of autoimmunity by controlling NLR protein turnover.	Reversion of autoimmune phenotypes (restored growth), reduction in constitutive cell death.	Targets post-translational regulation; can broadly suppress hyperactive NLR mutants.
Computational Prediction (AlphaFold2-Multimer) [3]	In silico prediction of NLR-effector complex structures and binding affinities.	Predicted complex structures, binding affinity (log(K)), and binding energy (kcal/mol).	Provides structural insights for rational mutant design; guides targeted experimental validation.

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Data Interpretation

Genetic Dissection of Paired NLR Regulatory Networks

Objective: To characterize the function of individual components within a paired NLR system and determine their contribution to autoimmunity. Background: NLRs can function in genetically linked pairs. Knockout of a regulatory NLR can lead to the constitutive activation of its partner, triggering autoimmunity [70]. The protocol below is adapted from studies on the NRCX-NARY NLR pair in Nicotiana benthamiana [70].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Genetic Dissection

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Specific Example
CRISPR/Cas9 Knockout Lines	Generation of stable knockout mutants for phenotypic analysis.	nrcx and nrcx/nary double knockout mutants in N. benthamiana [70].
VIGS Vectors (TRV-based)	Transient, rapid gene silencing for initial phenotypic screening.	TRV-NRCX, TRV-NARY, and TRV-NRCX/NARY for co-silencing [70].
Pathogen Isolate	Bioassay to quantify changes in disease resistance.	Phytophthora capsici (strain LT263) for challenge assays [70].
qRT-PCR Assays	Quantification of immune marker gene expression.	Primers for PR1 (Pathogenesis-Related 1) to measure immune activation [70].

Protocol:

• Mutant Generation: Generate stable knockout mutants for the candidate NLR gene (e.g., nrcx) and its paired partner (e.g., nary) using CRISPR/Cas9. Create a double knockout line (nrcx nary).
• Phenotypic Analysis: Characterize the growth phenotype of all lines compared to wild-type controls. Key metrics include plant height, leaf size, and root architecture.
• Molecular Validation: Confirm the constitutive activation of immunity in the autoactive mutant (nrcx) by measuring the expression level of the PR1 gene via qRT-PCR.
• Pathogen Challenge: Inoculate wild-type and mutant lines with a relevant pathogen (e.g., Phytophthora capsici) and assess disease symptoms and pathogen biomass to quantify resistance levels.
• Genetic Rescue: Analyze the double knockout (nrcx nary) for phenotypic reversion. A partial or full rescue of the dwarfism and a reduction in PR1 expression indicate that the autoimmunity in the nrcx mutant was dependent on NARY.

Data Interpretation:

• A severe dwarfism phenotype and constitutive PR1 expression in the nrcx single mutant indicate autoimmunity.
• Enhanced resistance to pathogen challenge confirms the immunocompetence of the autoactive state.
• Phenotypic rescue in the nrcx nary double mutant demonstrates a compensatory genetic relationship, where NARY acts as a positive regulator of immunity that is unleashed upon NRCX loss.

Reversion of Autoimmunity via Modulation of Protein Homeostasis

Objective: To suppress the constitutive signaling of autoactive NLR mutants by leveraging the ubiquitin-proteasome system to control their protein stability. Background: The ubiquitin-proteasome system is critical for maintaining NLR homeostasis. E3 ubiquitin ligases, such as SNIPER1, can target hyperactive NLRs for degradation, thus suppressing autoimmunity [71].

Protocol:

• Identify Autoactive System: Select a plant model (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana) exhibiting a known autoimmune phenotype due to a hyperactive NLR (e.g., ADR1-L2 (D484V)).
• Genetic Cross: Cross the autoactive mutant plant with a line overexpressing the E3 ligase SNIPER1.
• Phenotypic Scoring: In the F2 generation, screen for plants that show a reversion of the autoimmune phenotype (e.g., restored normal growth and loss of constitutive cell death).
• Biochemical Validation: Use immunoblotting to confirm the reduction in the protein levels of the autoactive NLR in lines where the phenotype is reverted.

Data Interpretation:

• Successful restoration of normal plant growth in the F2 generation suggests that SNIPER1 overexpression degrades the autoactive NLR protein.
• Correlation between phenotypic reversion and reduced NLR protein levels on immunoblots provides direct evidence that controlling protein homeostasis is an effective strategy for managing constitutive signaling.

Computational Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

Objective: To use protein structure prediction and machine learning to identify key residues involved in NLR-effector binding, informing the rational design of mutants. Background: AlphaFold2-Multimer can predict the structures of NLR-effector complexes with acceptable accuracy. Subsequent machine learning models can calculate binding affinities and energies, differentiating "true" from non-functional "forced" interactions [3].

Protocol:

• Structure Prediction: Input the amino acid sequences of an NLR and a candidate effector protein into AlphaFold2-Multimer to generate a 3D model of their complex.
• Model Quality Assessment: Use the predicted alignment error (PAE) and per-residue confidence score (pLDDT) to evaluate the model's reliability, focusing on the interaction interface.
• Binding Analysis: Submit the predicted complex structure to a machine learning-based binding affinity tool (e.g., Area-Affinity) to calculate the binding energy (in kcal/mol) and binding affinity (log(K)).
• In Silico Mutagenesis: Introduce mutations into the NLR sequence in silico that are predicted to disrupt the interaction (e.g., based on high Shannon entropy scores in the LRR domain [3]). Re-run the structure prediction and binding affinity analysis.

Data Interpretation:

• A narrow range of binding energies (e.g., -11.8 to -14.4 kcal/mol) is characteristic of specific, "true" NLR-effector interactions [3].
• A significant decrease in binding affinity (less negative binding energy) in a computationally designed mutant suggests a successful disruption of the interaction, which can then be tested experimentally.

Pathway and Workflow Visualization

The following diagrams summarize the core signaling pathways and experimental workflows discussed in this guide.

Diagram 1: NLR autoimmunity signaling and reversion pathways. Loss of a regulatory NLR (red) triggers constitutive activation of its partner, leading to an autoimmune phenotype. This can be reverted (green) by E3 ligase-mediated degradation of the autoactive NLR protein.

Diagram 2: Integrated experimental workflow for analyzing autoactive mutants, combining computational, genetic, and biochemical approaches.

In plant immunity, nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins serve as critical intracellular sensors for pathogen detection, initiating robust defense responses [6]. These proteins, belonging to the larger STAND family of ATPases, function as molecular switches in disease signaling pathways [22]. A fundamental question in plant-pathogen interactions concerns the mechanism by which NBS-LRR proteins achieve specific recognition of diverse pathogen effectors. Two predominant models have emerged: the direct binding model, where NBS-LRR proteins physically interact with pathogen effectors, and the guard model, where they indirectly detect effectors by monitoring the status of host "guardee" proteins [6]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these distinct interaction mechanisms, offering experimental frameworks for their validation and contextualizing findings within the broader scope of NBS-protein interaction research.

Mechanisms of Pathogen Detection by NBS-LRR Proteins

NBS-LRR proteins constitute one of the largest gene families in plants, with approximately 150 members in Arabidopsis thaliana and over 400 in rice (Oryza sativa) [22]. They can be subdivided into two major classes based on their N-terminal domains: those with Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) domains (TNLs) and those with coiled-coil (CC) domains (CNLs) [72] [22]. Despite structural differences, both classes function as molecular switches regulated by nucleotide binding and hydrolysis [22].

The direct binding model proposes that NBS-LRR proteins physically interact with pathogen effector molecules through their LRR domains, leading to conformational changes and activation of defense signaling [6]. In contrast, the guard model posits that NBS-LRR proteins indirectly detect pathogens by monitoring "guardee" proteins—host proteins that are modified by pathogen effectors [6]. This indirect detection mechanism allows plants to surveil a limited number of key cellular targets, providing broader recognition capacity with a relatively limited repertoire of NBS-LRR proteins [6].

Table 1: Core Characteristics of Pathogen Detection Mechanisms

Feature	Direct Binding	Guardee-Mediated Detection
Molecular Mechanism	Physical interaction between NBS-LRR and pathogen effector	NBS-LRR detects modifications to host guardee protein
Specificity Determinant	LRR domain of NBS-LRR protein	Guardee protein status
Evolutionary Advantage	High specificity for particular effector variants	Broader recognition of multiple effectors targeting same host protein
Representative Examples	Rice Pi-ta with AVR-Pita; Flax L with AvrL567	Arabidopsis RPM1 monitoring RIN4; RPS5 monitoring PBS1
Pathogen Effector Role	Direct ligand	Modifier of guardee protein
Signaling Activation	Conformational change from direct effector binding	Conformational change from altered guardee interaction

Evidence for Direct Binding Interactions

Direct interaction between NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors represents the most straightforward recognition mechanism. Several well-characterized systems provide compelling evidence for this model.

Experimental Validation of Direct Binding

The rice blast resistance protein Pi-ta demonstrates direct binding to the fungal effector AVR-Pita. Yeast two-hybrid experiments confirmed interaction between the LRR-like domain of Pi-ta and the putative functional portion of AVR-Pita [6]. Similarly, the flax rust resistance proteins L5, L6, and L7 directly bind specific variants of the flax rust AvrL567 effector in yeast two-hybrid assays, recapitulating the in vivo specificity observed in plants [6]. The Arabidopsis RRS1 protein, an atypical TIR-NBS-LRR containing a C-terminal WRKY domain, interacts with the bacterial wilt pathogen protein PopP2 in split-ubiquitin yeast two-hybrid experiments [6].

Key Methodologies for Direct Binding Validation

• Yeast Two-Hybrid Systems: Detect protein-protein interactions through reconstitution of transcription factors; ideal for initial screening of potential direct interactions [6].
• Split-Ubiquitin Yeast Two-Hybrid: Particularly useful for membrane-associated proteins or proteins with transcriptional activation domains [6].
• Co-immunoprecipitation: Validates interactions in plant systems under more native conditions.
• Surface Plasmon Resonance: Provides quantitative data on binding affinity and kinetics.

Table 2: Experimental Evidence for Direct Binding Interactions

NBS-LRR Protein	Pathogen Effector	Experimental Evidence	Interaction Characteristics
Rice Pi-ta	AVR-Pita (Magnaporthe grisea)	Yeast two-hybrid	LRR domain binds functional portion of AVR-Pita
Flax L5, L6, L7	AvrL567 (Melampsora lini)	Yeast two-hybrid	Specific binding correlates with in vivo specificity
Arabidopsis RRS1	PopP2 (Ralstonia solanacearum)	Split-ubiquitin yeast two-hybrid	Binds both active (RRS1-R) and inactive (RRS1-S) forms

The LRR domain serves as the primary effector-binding domain in direct interactions, forming barrel-like structures with parallel β-sheets lining the inner concave surface that potentially provide interaction interfaces [6]. Diversifying selection acts on solvent-exposed residues of these β-sheets, consistent with their role in specific recognition [22].

Evidence for Guardee-Mediated Interactions

Guardee-mediated detection represents a more sophisticated mechanism of pathogen perception, where NBS-LRR proteins monitor the status of host proteins rather than directly binding pathogen effectors.

Well-Characterized Guard-Guardee Systems

The Arabidopsis RPM1 protein detects two distinct bacterial effectors, AvrRpm1 and AvrB, through their manipulation of the host protein RIN4. Although direct interaction between RPM1 and these effectors has not been detected, both effectors physically associate with RIN4 and induce its phosphorylation [6]. RPM1 binds to RIN4, enabling it to detect these pathogen-induced modifications.

Similarly, the Arabidopsis RPS2 protein detects the Pseudomonas syringae effector AvrRpt2 through its action on RIN4. AvrRpt2 proteolytically cleaves RIN4, and RPS2 activation occurs in response to this cleavage event rather than through direct binding to AvrRpt2 [6].

Another well-defined system involves the Arabidopsis proteins RPS5 and PBS1 in detection of the P. syringae effector AvrPphB. RPS5 indirectly detects AvrPphB by monitoring the status of PBS1, a protein kinase that is cleaved by the cysteine protease activity of AvrPphB. PBS1 interacts with both AvrPphB and RPS5, forming a ternary complex that enables detection of the cleavage event [6].

Experimental Approaches for Validating Guard Systems

• Genetic Analysis: Identification of host components required for resistance but not direct binding.
• Ternary Complex Assays: Demonstration of complex formation between NBS-LRR, guardee, and effector.
• Modification-Specific Detection: Monitoring NBS-LRR response to specific guardee modifications (phosphorylation, cleavage).
• Virulence Assays: Assessing effector function in guardee-deficient backgrounds.

Table 3: Characterized Guard-Guardee Systems in Plant Immunity

NBS-LRR Protein	Guardee Protein	Pathogen Effector	Effector-Induced Modification
Arabidopsis RPM1	RIN4	AvrRpm1, AvrB (P. syringae)	Phosphorylation of RIN4
Arabidopsis RPS2	RIN4	AvrRpt2 (P. syringae)	Proteolytic cleavage of RIN4
Arabidopsis RPS5	PBS1 (protein kinase)	AvrPphB (P. syringae)	Proteolytic cleavage of PBS1
Tomato Prf	Pto (serine-threonine kinase)	AvrPto, AvrPtoB (P. syringae)	Interaction with and potential modification of Pto

Comparative Analysis of Interaction Mechanisms

Understanding the distinctions between direct and indirect recognition mechanisms requires systematic comparison across multiple parameters.

Functional and Evolutionary Implications

Direct binding typically provides highly specific recognition of particular effector variants but may require more rapid co-evolution with pathogen effectors. The LRR domains of directly interacting NBS-LRR proteins often show signatures of diversifying selection, particularly in solvent-exposed residues, consistent with arms race dynamics [22].

Guardee-mediated detection offers broader recognition capacity, as multiple effectors targeting the same host protein can be detected by a single NBS-LRR. This mechanism also explains how effector virulence targets can be converted into Avr determinants recognized by the plant immune system. The guard model potentially reduces the evolutionary burden on plants, as they need only monitor key cellular targets rather than evolve specific receptors for every potential effector [6].

Structural Considerations

In both mechanisms, effector perception leads to conformational changes in the NBS-LRR protein, particularly in the amino-terminal and LRR domains. These alterations promote ADP-ATP exchange by the NBS domain, activating downstream signaling through unknown mechanisms [6]. The specific nature of these conformational changes likely differs between direct and indirect recognition systems.

Table 4: Comparative Analysis of Direct vs. Guardee-Mediated Interactions

Analytical Parameter	Direct Binding	Guardee-Mediated
Specificity Spectrum	Narrow (specific effector variants)	Broad (multiple effectors targeting same guardee)
Evolutionary Dynamics	Arms race (diversifying selection on LRR)	Trench warfare (balancing selection on guardee)
Genetic Complexity	Single NBS-LRR sufficient for recognition	Often requires guardee and potentially other components
Experimental Validation	Demonstrable physical interaction in heterologous systems	Functional dependence on guardee without direct binding
Representation in Plant Families	Widespread across eudicots and monocots	Widespread across eudicots and monocots
Signaling Activation Kinetics	Potentially faster direct activation	May involve additional steps for modification detection

Experimental Framework for Distinguishing Mechanisms

Researchers investigating novel NBS-LRR pathogen recognition systems require robust experimental frameworks to distinguish between direct and guardee-mediated interactions.

Essential Methodologies and Workflows

The following diagram illustrates a systematic workflow for characterizing NBS-LRR interaction mechanisms:

Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful investigation of NBS-LRR interaction mechanisms requires specific research tools and reagents.

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents for NBS-LRR Interaction Studies

Reagent/Solution	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Yeast Two-Hybrid Systems	Initial screening for protein-protein interactions	Detects nuclear interactions; various configurations available
Split-Ubiquitin System	Detection of membrane protein interactions	Useful for proteins with transcriptional activation domains
Co-Immunoprecipitation Reagents	Validation of interactions in native context	Requires specific antibodies; maintains protein complexes
Surface Plasmon Resonance	Quantitative binding kinetics	Provides affinity (KD), association (ka), dissociation (kd) rates
Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation	Visualizing interactions in living cells	Spatial and temporal resolution of protein interactions
Recombinant Effector Proteins	In vitro binding and modification assays	Purified active forms for biochemical studies
Plant Protoplast Systems	Transient expression and functional assays	Rapid testing in plant cellular environment
Virus-Induced Gene Silencing	Functional analysis of candidate guardees	Transient knockdown to assess requirement

Emerging Concepts and Future Directions

Recent research has revealed additional complexity in NBS-LRR function, including the requirement of NB-LRR pairs for resistance against some pathogens [72]. For example, both RPP2A and RPP2B are required for resistance to an oomycete pathogen in Arabidopsis, and the TIR-NB-LRR pair RRS1 and RPS4 function together in resistance against multiple pathogens [72].

Studies of protein fragments have provided insights into signaling mechanisms. The TIR+80 fragment of RPS4 is sufficient to induce cell death, suggesting that the TIR domain contains an inherent signaling capability [72]. Similarly, a fragment of the NB domain of the CC-NB-LRR protein Rx can initiate cell death independent of nucleotide binding [72]. These findings indicate modular signaling capacity within NBS-LRR proteins.

The development of the contrast-color() CSS function, while unrelated to plant immunity, highlights the importance of clear visualization in scientific communication [73]. Proper color contrast ensures accessibility of research findings across diverse audiences.

Distinguishing between direct binding and guardee-mediated interactions remains fundamental to understanding NBS-LRR protein function in plant immunity. Each mechanism offers distinct advantages and operates through different molecular principles. Direct binding provides high specificity for particular effector variants, while guardee-mediated detection enables broader surveillance of pathogen activities. The experimental frameworks outlined in this guide provide researchers with standardized approaches for mechanism validation, facilitating comparison across different NBS-LRR pathogen recognition systems. As research advances, investigating NB-LRR pairs, modular signaling domains, and the precise conformational changes governing activation will further refine our understanding of these sophisticated plant immune receptors.

Best Practices for Functional Complementation Assays in Trans

Functional complementation assays in trans are a fundamental technique for validating protein-protein interactions, particularly in the study of Nucleotide-Binding Site Leucine-Rich Repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins and their interplay with pathogen effectors. This guide objectively compares the performance of this method against alternative validation strategies, providing supporting experimental data and detailed protocols to inform research and drug development efforts.

In plant immunity, NBS-LRR proteins act as intracellular immune receptors that directly or indirectly recognize pathogen effector proteins, triggering robust defense responses including the hypersensitive response (HR) [27] [74]. Functional complementation assays in trans provide a critical methodological approach for deconstructing the complex interactions within these immune signaling pathways. This technique enables researchers to test whether separately expressed protein domains or interacting partners can reconstitute a functional complex, thereby validating both physical interactions and functional relationships. Within the broader thesis of NBS protein-effector validation, these assays offer unique insights into the structural basis of immune recognition and activation.

Comparative Performance Analysis of Interaction Validation Methods

The table below summarizes the key characteristics and performance metrics of functional complementation in trans alongside other common protein interaction validation methods:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein Interaction Validation Methods

Method	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Throughput	Interaction Type	Experimental Context
Functional Complementation in trans	Preserves functional signaling output; Validates biological relevance; Can test domain necessity [27]	Requires known functional output; Complex experimental setup; May produce false negatives	Medium	Functional complexes	Live plant cells (e.g., N. benthamiana) [75] [27]
Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H)	High sensitivity; Genome-wide screening capability; Detects direct interactions [76]	High false-positive rate; Limited to binary interactions; Non-physiological environment [12]	High	Direct binary	Yeast nucleus
Affinity Purification-MS	Identifies complex components; Near-physiological conditions [77]	Misses transient interactions; False positives from non-specific binding [77]	Medium	Stable complexes	Cell extracts
Protein-Fragment Complementation (NanoBiT)	Detects transient interactions; Quantitative measurements; Live-cell monitoring [77]	Potential steric interference; Optimization intensive	Medium	Direct & indirect	Live cells
Co-Immunoprecipitation	Confirms physical interaction; Uses native proteins	Cannot distinguish direct from indirect; Antibody quality dependent	Low	Physical association	Cell extracts
Deep Learning Prediction (RF2-Lite)	Proteome-wide scale; Rapid screening; Structural models [12]	Computational prediction only; Requires experimental validation [12]	Very High	Predicted complexes	In silico

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Key Validation Methods

Method	Precision Rate	Recall Rate	Time Investment	Cost Category	Specialized Equipment Needs
Functional Complementation in trans	High (Direct functional readout)	Medium (Dependent on expression optimization)	2-4 weeks	Medium	Confocal microscope
Yeast Two-Hybrid	Medium (83% confirmed in comparative studies) [76]	High	1-2 weeks	Low	None specialized
Affinity Purification-MS	Medium	Medium	2-3 weeks	High	Mass spectrometer
Protein-Fragment Complementation	High (Ratiometric quantification) [77]	High (Detects transient interactions) [77]	1-2 weeks	Medium	Luminometer
Deep Learning Prediction	95% (at RF2-Lite cut-off 0.74) [12]	28% (at 95% precision) [12]	Hours-days	Low	High-performance computing

Experimental Protocols for Functional Complementation Assays

Protocol 1: Transient Complementation inNicotiana benthamiana

This well-established protocol demonstrates how functional complementation assays can validate whether separately expressed domains of an NBS-LRR protein can reconstitute a functional immune complex [27].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Vector Construction: Clone separate protein domains (e.g., CC-NBS and LRR domains of Rx protein) into individual Agrobacterium-compatible expression vectors with appropriate tags (e.g., HA-epitope tags) [27].

• Agrobacterium Preparation: Transform individual constructs into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101. Grow overnight cultures in appropriate antibiotics, pellet bacteria, and resuspend in infiltration medium (10 mM MES, 10 mM MgCl₂, 150 μM acetosyringone) to OD₆₀₀ = 0.5 for each construct [27].

• Mixed Infiltration: Combine Agrobacterium suspensions containing the separate domain constructs in a 1:1 ratio. If testing effector dependence, include a third Agrobacterium strain expressing the pathogen effector (e.g., PVX coat protein). Infiltrate into leaves of 4-6 week old N. benthamiana plants using a needleless syringe [27].

• Response Monitoring: Monitor infiltrated leaves daily for hypersensitive response (HR) symptoms, typically appearing within 24-72 hours post-infiltration. HR manifests as rapid, localized cell death at the infiltration site [27].

• Documentation and Quantification: Photograph HR symptoms under consistent lighting. For quantification, measure ion leakage as an HR marker or perform trypan blue staining to visualize dead cells [27].

Key Controls:

• Express each domain individually with effector to confirm lack of autonomous function
• Include known functional positive control (full-length protein)
• Include empty vector negative controls
• Monitor expression levels via Western blotting to ensure comparable domain production

Protocol 2: Stable Transformation Complementation

For more stable, reproducible results, particularly in crop species, stable transformation complementation provides an alternative approach [78].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Mutant Generation: Create loss-of-function mutants for target NBS-LRR genes using EMS mutagenesis or CRISPR-Cas9. For example, in wheat powdery mildew resistance studies, EMS mutants of MlIW39 were generated and screened for susceptibility [78].

• Plant Transformation: Introduce the candidate complementing gene into mutant lines via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation or biolistics. For wheat complementation, the coding sequence of the candidate R gene is cloned into a binary vector under control of the ubiquitin promoter and transformed into immature embryos [78].

• Pathogen Challenge: Inoculate T1 or T2 transgenic lines with the appropriate pathogen. For MlIW39 validation, transgenic wheat lines were challenged with Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici (Bgt) isolates [78].

• Phenotypic Scoring: Assess restoration of disease resistance compared to wild-type and mutant controls. Score infection types (ITs) using established scales (typically 0-4 where 0=immune and 4=highly susceptible) at 7-14 days post-inoculation [78].

Validation Parameters:

• Confirm transgene integration via PCR and expression via RT-qPCR
• Compare disease progression metrics (lesion size, sporulation, fungal biomass)
• Monitor for constitutive defense activation in absence of pathogen

Key Experimental Findings from Complementation Studies

Table 3: Notable Functional Complementation Studies in Plant Immunity

Protein System	Organism	Complementation Approach	Key Finding	Reference
Rx (CC-NBS-LRR)	Potato	Trans co-expression of CC-NBS + LRR in N. benthamiana	Separate domains function in trans; LRR required even for autoactive mutants [27]	[27]
MlIW39 NLR Pair	Wheat	Stable transformation of NLR pair in susceptible wheat	Two complementary NLRs required for resistance; proteins physically interact [78]	[78]
Ph-2	Tomato	CRISPR knockout + complementation with candidate gene	Validated Solyc10g085460 as Ph-2 gene; resistance requires structural integrity [75]	[75]
PM2b	Wheat	BSMV-VIGS silencing + mutant analysis	CC-NBS-LRR protein self-associates via NB domain; interacts with TaWRKY76-D [79]	[79]
Ym1	Wheat	Knockdown/knockout + overexpression	CC-NBS-LRR protein confers WYMV resistance by blocking viral movement from roots [74]	[74]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Functional Complementation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations
Expression Vectors	pCAMBIA, pGreen, pEAQ-HT	Agrobacterium-compatible expression	Select based on tag requirements, expression level
Agrobacterium Strains	GV3101, EHA105, AGL1	Plant transformation	Varying transformation efficiencies
Tag Systems	HA, FLAG, GFP, RFP	Protein detection/localization	Potential functional interference
Plant Hosts	N. benthamiana, Arabidopsis, crop protoplasts	Transient/stable expression	Species-specific responses
Pathogen Isolates	P. infestans T1, Bgt E09, WYMV	Disease resistance challenges	Maintain avirulence effector profiles
Detection Antibodies	Anti-HA, Anti-GFP, Anti-RFP	Protein expression confirmation	Species compatibility
Cell Death Markers	Trypan blue, Evans blue, electrolyte leakage	HR quantification	Different sensitivity/specificity

Integration with Broader NBS-Effector Validation Thesis

Functional complementation in trans represents one critical component in a comprehensive NBS protein-effector interaction validation pipeline. When contextualized within the broader thesis of immune receptor validation, this method provides unique functional evidence that complements structural data from co-evolutionary analysis [12] and physical interaction data from methods like Y2H and co-IP [76]. The most robust validation strategies employ multiple orthogonal methods, with functional complementation providing the critical link between physical interaction and biological consequence in the plant immune signaling cascade.

From Data to Discovery: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analysis

Correlating Interaction Data with Functional Hypersensitive Response (HR) and ETI

Plant nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins serve as critical intracellular sensors that detect pathogen effector molecules and activate effector-triggered immunity (ETI), often accompanied by a hypersensitive response (HR) characterized by programmed cell death at infection sites [6] [80]. The validation of specific interactions between NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors represents a cornerstone in understanding plant immune recognition mechanisms. Research in this field primarily investigates two recognition paradigms: direct interaction, where NBS-LRR proteins physically bind pathogen effectors, and indirect interaction, where NBS-LRR proteins monitor changes in host proteins modified by pathogen effectors—a mechanism known as the "guard hypothesis" [6]. This comparative guide systematically evaluates experimental approaches for correlating protein interaction data with functional HR and ETI responses, providing researchers with validated methodologies for studying plant immune signaling pathways.

Comparative Analysis of NBS-LRR Interaction Mechanisms and Assays

Table 1: Direct versus Indirect Interaction Mechanisms of NBS-LRR Proteins

Interaction Type	Molecular Mechanism	Representative Examples	Functional Readout
Direct Interaction	Physical binding between NBS-LRR and pathogen effector	Rice Pi-ta with AVR-Pita [6]; Flax L proteins with AvrL567 [6]	HR and disease resistance in gene-for-gene specific manner
Indirect Interaction (Guard Hypothesis)	NBS-LRR detects effector-induced modifications of host proteins	Arabidopsis RPM1 monitoring RIN4 phosphorylation [6]; RPS5 detecting PBS1 cleavage [6]	HR activation upon guardee modification
Integrated Decoy Models	NBS-LRR detects effector binding to host decoy proteins	Tomato Prf detecting AvrPto/AvrPtoB binding to Pto kinase [6]	HR and disease resistance

Table 2: Experimental Assays for Validating NBS-LRR Interactions and Function

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Interaction Data Output	Functional Correlation Approach
Protein-Protein Interaction Assays	Yeast two-hybrid [6]; Split-ubiquitin [6]; Co-immunoprecipitation [27]	Binary interaction confirmation; Complex formation	Coupling with cell death assays in trans-expression systems
Genetic Validation	Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) [67]; Mutational analysis	Loss-of-function phenotypes; Specificity determinants	Monitoring HR suppression or enhancement
Domain Complementation	Trans-complementation of split NBS-LRR domains [27]	Intramolecular interaction mapping	Reconstitution of HR response upon elicitor recognition

Experimental Protocols for Key NBS-LRR Interaction and Functional Assays

Yeast Two-Hybrid Assay for Direct Interaction Validation

The yeast two-hybrid system serves as a foundational method for detecting direct protein-protein interactions between NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen effectors [6]. The protocol begins with cloning the coding sequences of the NBS-LRR protein (or specific domains like LRR) into a DNA-binding domain vector (pGBKT7), and the pathogen effector gene into an activation domain vector (pGADT7). Co-transform both plasmids into yeast strain AH109 and plate on synthetic dropout media lacking leucine and tryptophan to select for transformed cells. Subsequently, plate colonies on high-stringency media lacking adenine, histidine, leucine, and tryptophan to test for protein interactions. Include appropriate controls: empty vectors, known interactors as positive controls, and non-interacting proteins as negative controls. For quantitative assessment, perform β-galactosidase liquid assays using ortho-Nitrophenyl-β-galactoside (ONPG) as substrate and measure absorbance at 420 nm. This method successfully confirmed direct interaction between flax rust AvrL567 effectors and L5, L6, and L7 resistance proteins [6].

Co-immunoprecipitation for Complex Formation Analysis

Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) validates protein interactions in plant cells under near-physiological conditions [27]. Express epitope-tagged versions of proteins in planta (e.g., Nicotiana benthamiana) via Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation. For the Rx coat protein recognition system, HA-tagged versions of CC-NBS and LRR domains were co-expressed [27]. At 48 hours post-infiltration, harvest leaf tissue and homogenize in extraction buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 5 mM DTT, 1% Nonidet P-40, and protease inhibitor cocktail). Pre-clear the lysate with protein A/G agarose beads, then incubate with anti-HA antibody overnight at 4°C. Add protein A/G agarose beads, incubate for 2 hours, then wash beads extensively with wash buffer. Elute proteins with SDS sample buffer and analyze by immunoblotting using appropriate antibodies. This approach demonstrated physical interaction between CC-NBS and LRR domains of the Rx protein [27].

Domain Complementation Assay for Functional Analysis

The domain complementation assay tests functional reconstitution of NBS-LRR proteins from separate domains and probes intramolecular interactions [27]. Express separate domains of NBS-LRR proteins (e.g., CC-NBS and LRR of Rx protein) as distinct molecules via transient expression in N. benthamiana. Co-express with the cognate elicitor (e.g., PVX coat protein) and monitor for HR development. As negative controls, express each domain alone with the elicitor. For the Rx protein, co-expression of CC-NBS and LRR as separate molecules resulted in a coat protein-dependent HR, demonstrating functional complementation [27]. Additionally, test constitutive active mutants (e.g., Rx(D460V)) to determine if the LRR is required only for recognition or also for activation. This assay revealed that the LRR domain is required for activation of signaling domains, not just elicitor recognition [27].

Virus-Induced Gene Silencing for Functional Validation

Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) provides a loss-of-function approach to validate NBS-LRR gene function in resistance [67]. Design TRV-based VIGS constructs containing 300-500 bp gene-specific fragments of target NBS-LRR genes. For the Vm019719 gene mediating Fusarium wilt resistance in Vernicia montana, a specific fragment was cloned into pTRV2 vector [67]. Transform constructs into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101 and infiltrate into plant leaves at OD600 of 0.5. After 2-3 weeks, challenge silenced plants with the pathogen and assess disease symptoms compared to control plants. Monitor HR development, pathogen growth, and expression of defense markers. VIGS of Vm019718 in resistant V. montana resulted in compromised resistance to Fusarium wilt, validating its essential role in immunity [67].

Signaling Pathways in NBS-LRR Mediated Immunity

Figure 1: NBS-LRR Activation Pathways in Plant Immunity

The NBS-LRR immune signaling pathway initiates through either direct effector binding or indirect detection of effector-mediated host modifications [6]. Both recognition mechanisms induce conformational changes in the NBS-LRR protein that promote nucleotide exchange (ADP to ATP) in the NBS domain, activating downstream signaling that culminates in HR and ETI [6]. The LRR domain serves as the primary effector interaction domain, while the N-terminal domains (TIR or CC) determine signaling specificity [6] [27]. In the guard model, NBS-LRR proteins monitor host "guardee" proteins like RIN4, which is targeted by multiple bacterial effectors [6]. Activation of this signaling network triggers transcriptional reprogramming through pathways involving ethylene and other defense hormones [81].

Research Reagent Solutions for NBS-LRR Interaction Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NBS-LRR - Effector Interaction Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Application Purpose	Key Features
Expression Systems	Yeast two-hybrid (AH109) [6]; Nicotiana benthamiana transient expression [27]	Protein interaction validation; Functional assays	Eukaryotic processing; Post-translational modifications
Epitope Tags	HA-tag [27]; GST-fusion [82]	Protein detection; Immunoprecipitation	Commercial antibody availability; Minimal functional interference
VIGS Vectors	TRV-based vectors [67]	Functional gene validation in plants	Efficient silencing; Heritable effect
Plant Materials	Resistant/Susceptible cultivars [81] [67]	Comparative interaction studies	Natural variation in R genes
Pathogen Strains	Isogenic strains with/without effectors [6]	Specificity determination	Controlled recognition phenotypes

Correlating protein interaction data with functional HR and ETI responses requires a multi-disciplinary approach combining biochemical, genetic, and cell biological methodologies. The experimental frameworks presented here enable researchers to distinguish between direct and indirect recognition mechanisms and validate their functional significance in plant immunity. As research advances, integrating structural data with real-time monitoring of interaction dynamics in living plant cells will further refine our understanding of NBS-LRR activation mechanisms. The continued development of standardized reagents and protocols will facilitate cross-study comparisons and accelerate the discovery of novel resistance gene combinations for crop improvement.

Nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain genes represent one of the largest and most critical superfamilies of plant resistance (R) genes, playing indispensable roles in pathogen sensing and activation of host defense mechanisms [15] [22]. These genes encode intracellular immune receptors that detect pathogen effector proteins, triggering robust defense responses known as effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [6] [83]. The protein products typically feature a conserved NBS domain alongside leucine-rich repeat (LRR) regions and are categorized into distinct subfamilies based on their N-terminal domains: TIR-NBS-LRR (TNL) with Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor domains, CC-NBS-LRR (CNL) with coiled-coil domains, and RNL with RPW8 domains [84] [22].

Orthogroup analysis has emerged as a powerful computational framework for comparing gene families across multiple species, identifying groups of genes descended from a single gene in the last common ancestor of the species being compared [15]. This approach enables researchers to trace evolutionary relationships, identify conserved core functions, and detect lineage-specific innovations within gene families. For NBS genes, orthogroup classification provides a systematic method for comparing their functions and evolutionary dynamics across the plant kingdom, revealing both universal defense mechanisms and species-specific adaptations to pathogen pressure [15] [84].

Comparative Genomic Analysis of NBS Genes

Distribution and Diversity Across Species

Recent comparative genomic studies have revealed remarkable diversity in NBS gene composition across plant species. A comprehensive analysis of 34 plant species identified 12,820 NBS-domain-containing genes, which were classified into 168 distinct classes based on domain architecture patterns [15]. These encompass both classical structures (NBS, NBS-LRR, TIR-NBS, TIR-NBS-LRR) and species-specific configurations (TIR-NBS-TIR-Cupin1-Cupin1, TIR-NBS-Prenyltransf, Sugar_tr-NBS) [15]. The number of NBS genes varies substantially between species, ranging from approximately 150 in Arabidopsis thaliana to over 400 in Oryza sativa (rice) [22], with some species like coffee (Coffea canephora) exhibiting exceptionally high numbers [85].

Table 1: NBS Gene Distribution Across Selected Plant Species

Species	Gene Count	TNL Presence	CNL Presence	Notable Features
Arabidopsis thaliana	~150 [22]	Yes [22]	Yes [22]	Reference for eudicot NBS genes [85]
Oryza sativa (Rice)	>400 [22]	No [22]	Yes [22]	TNLs absent in cereals [22]
Coffea canephora (Coffee)	Highest reported [85]	Yes [85]	Yes [85]	High number of NBS genes [85]
Modern Sugarcane Cultivars	Varies [84]	No [84]	Yes [84]	More NBS genes from S. spontaneum [84]
Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato)	Analyzed [85]	Yes [85]	Yes [85]	Euasterid representative [85]

Orthogroup Classification and Conservation

Orthogroup analysis of NBS genes across multiple species has identified both conserved and lineage-specific patterns. A comprehensive study identified 603 orthogroups (OGs), with some representing core orthogroups (OG0, OG1, OG2, etc.) conserved across multiple species, and others constituting unique orthogroups (OG80, OG82, etc.) highly specific to particular species [15]. These core orthogroups often represent fundamental components of plant immunity, while species-specific orthogroups may reflect adaptations to particular pathogen environments.

The evolutionary dynamics of NBS genes are driven by various genetic mechanisms, with whole genome duplication (WGD), tandem duplication, and gene expansion identified as major factors affecting NBS gene numbers in plant genomes [84]. Studies in sugarcane and related grasses have demonstrated that WGD likely serves as the primary driver of NBS gene numbers in these species [84]. Furthermore, research has revealed a progressive trend of positive selection acting on NBS genes, particularly in solvent-exposed residues of the LRR domains, consistent with their role in co-evolutionary arms races with pathogens [84] [22].

NBS Orthogroup Analysis Workflow

Experimental Methodologies for NBS Gene Characterization

Genomic Identification and Classification

The standard workflow for genome-wide identification and classification of NBS genes involves multiple bioinformatic steps with specific tools and parameters. Genomic identification typically begins with HMMER searches using the Pfam NB-ARC domain model (PF00931) with stringent E-value cutoffs (e.g., 10⁻⁶⁰) to identify candidate NBS-encoding genes [15] [85]. Subsequent validation with tools like NCBI's Conserved Domains Database ensures the presence of complete NBS domains with proper N- and C-termini [85].

Additional domain characterization involves identifying associated domains: TIR domains are detected through sequence homology, LRR domains via leucine-rich repeat patterns, and CC domains using prediction tools like COILS/PCOILS or PAIRCOIL2 with specific probability thresholds [85]. For orthogroup analysis, tools like OrthoFinder are employed using sequence similarity searches with DIAMOND and clustering with the MCL algorithm, often with MAFFT for multiple sequence alignment and FastTreeMP for phylogenetic reconstruction with bootstrap validation [15].

Table 2: Key Experimental Methods for NBS Gene Analysis

Method Category	Specific Protocols	Key Applications	References
Genomic Identification	HMMER search with PF00931 (E-value: 10⁻⁶⁰); NCBI Conserved Domains validation	Genome-wide NBS gene identification; Domain architecture classification	[15] [85]
Orthogroup Analysis	OrthoFinder v2.5.1 with DIAMOND, MCL clustering; MAFFT alignment; FastTreeMP phylogeny	Evolutionary relationships; Core vs. lineage-specific NBS genes	[15]
Expression Profiling	RNA-seq (FPKM values); Differential expression analysis under biotic/abiotic stress	Functional characterization; Stress-responsive NBS genes	[15] [84]
Functional Validation	Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS); Protein-ligand interaction studies	Confirm in planta function; Protein binding specificity	[15]

Expression Analysis and Functional Validation

Expression profiling of NBS genes typically involves RNA-seq data analysis, with FPKM values extracted from various databases including tissue-specific, abiotic stress-specific, and biotic stress-specific experiments [15]. For example, studies in cotton have analyzed expression under cotton leaf curl disease (CLCuD) in susceptible (Coker 312) and tolerant (Mac7) accessions, identifying putative upregulation of specific orthogroups (OG2, OG6, OG15) in different tissues under various stresses [15].

Functional validation often employs Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) to confirm the role of candidate NBS genes in disease resistance. For instance, silencing of GaNBS (OG2) in resistant cotton demonstrated its putative role in virus tittering [15]. Protein-ligand and protein-protein interaction studies further characterize the molecular mechanisms, with experiments showing strong interaction of putative NBS proteins with ADP/ATP and different core proteins of the cotton leaf curl disease virus [15]. Genetic variation analysis between susceptible and tolerant accessions can identify unique variants in NBS genes, with studies revealing 6583 unique variants in tolerant Mac7 compared to 5173 in susceptible Coker312 cotton accessions [15].

NBS-Mediated Signaling Pathways in Plant Immunity

NBS-LRR proteins function as central components in plant immune signaling pathways, primarily through effector-triggered immunity (ETI). These proteins operate as molecular switches that alternate between ADP-bound (inactive) and ATP-bound (active) states [22]. Upon pathogen recognition, conformational changes in the NBS domain promote the exchange of ADP for ATP, activating downstream signaling that leads to defense responses including the hypersensitive response (HR) [6].

Two principal mechanisms govern pathogen detection by NBS-LRR proteins: direct and indirect recognition. Direct recognition involves physical binding between the NBS-LRR protein and pathogen effector proteins, as demonstrated in interactions between rice Pi-ta and fungal AVR-Pita, flax L proteins and fungal AvrL567 effectors, and Arabidopsis RRS1 and bacterial PopP2 [6]. Indirect recognition, formalized in the guard hypothesis, occurs when NBS-LRR proteins monitor host cellular components that are modified by pathogen effectors [6]. Well-characterized examples include Arabidopsis RPM1 and RPS2, which detect pathogen-induced modifications of the host protein RIN4, and RPS5, which monitors cleavage of the kinase PBS1 by the bacterial effector AvrPphB [6].

NBS-Mediated Immunity Signaling Pathway

Research Reagent Solutions for NBS Gene Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for NBS Gene Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Genomic Databases	Source of genome assemblies and annotations	Phytozome, NCBI, EnsemblPlants, Plaza, Sugarcane Genome Database [15] [84]
Domain Analysis Tools	Identification and validation of NBS and associated domains	HMMER (NB-ARC PF00931), NCBI Conserved Domains, COILS/PCOILS, PAIRCOIL2 [15] [85]
Orthogroup Analysis Software	Evolutionary classification and comparative genomics	OrthoFinder v2.5.1 with DIAMOND, MCL clustering, DendroBLAST [15]
Expression Databases	Transcriptomic data for expression profiling	IPF Database, CottonFGD, Cottongen, NCBI BioProjects [15]
Functional Validation Tools	In planta testing of NBS gene function	Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) systems, protein interaction assays [15]
Sequence Analysis Tools	Multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic reconstruction	MAFFT 7.0, FastTreeMP, MEME for motif discovery [15] [85]

Orthogroup analysis has emerged as a powerful framework for comparing NBS gene function across plant species, revealing both conserved evolutionary patterns and lineage-specific adaptations. The identification of 603 orthogroups across diverse plant species, with core orthogroups (OG0, OG1, OG2) representing fundamental immune components and unique orthogroups (OG80, OG82) reflecting species-specific innovations, provides a systematic classification system for understanding NBS gene evolution [15]. The integration of genomic, transcriptomic, and functional validation approaches has enabled researchers to move beyond sequence classification to understanding the functional significance of different orthogroups in plant immunity.

Future research directions will likely focus on leveraging this orthogroup framework to engineer broad-spectrum disease resistance in crop plants. As demonstrated in sugarcane studies, understanding the differential contribution of ancestral species (e.g., greater contribution of S. spontaneum than S. officinarum NBS genes to disease resistance in modern cultivars) provides valuable insights for breeding programs [84]. Additionally, the integration of protein structure prediction tools like AlphaFold 3 [86] with functional studies will enhance our understanding of how sequence variation in different orthogroups translates to specific pathogen recognition capabilities. The continued expansion of genomic resources across diverse plant species will further refine our understanding of NBS gene evolution and function, ultimately contributing to the development of more durable disease resistance strategies in agriculture.

Assessing the Impact of Genetic Variation on Interaction Specificity

In plant immunity, the specific recognition of pathogen effectors by intracellular nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins determines the outcome of host-pathogen interactions. This molecular dialogue, often described by the gene-for-gene concept, is governed by the genetic variation present in both host resistance (R) proteins and pathogen effectors [87]. Understanding how polymorphism in these proteins affects interaction specificity is fundamental to developing durable disease resistance strategies in crops. This guide objectively compares key experimental systems and methodologies used to validate NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors, providing researchers with a framework for investigating interaction specificity.

Molecular Basis of NBS-LRR and Effector Recognition

NBS-LRR Protein Architecture and Diversity

NBS-LRR proteins constitute one of the largest and most diverse gene families in plants, representing approximately 0.2-1.6% of all genes in plant genomes [88]. These proteins typically contain three core domains: a variable amino-terminal domain that often contains a Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) or coiled-coil (CC) motif, a central nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain, and a carboxy-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) region [1] [6].

The two major subfamilies, TIR-NBS-LRR (TNL) and CC-NBS-LRR (CNL), not only differ in their N-terminal domains but also utilize distinct signaling pathways [1]. Additionally, plants possess truncated forms including TIR-NBS (TN) and TIR-unknown domain (TX) proteins that lack LRR domains but still contribute to defense responses, potentially acting as adaptors or regulators in NBS-LRR signaling networks [89] [1].

Table 1: NBS-LRR Diversity Across Plant Species

Plant Species	Total NBS-LRR Genes	TNL Genes	CNL Genes	References
Arabidopsis thaliana	150-175	62	~90	[1] [88]
Oryza sativa (rice)	~600	0	~600	[1] [88]
Vernicia montana	149	3	98	[67]
Vernicia fordii	90	0	49	[67]
Manihot esculenta (cassava)	228	Not specified	Not specified	[88]

Mechanisms of Pathogen Recognition

NBS-LRR proteins detect pathogens through two primary mechanisms: direct and indirect recognition. Direct recognition involves physical binding between the NBS-LRR protein and a pathogen effector, as demonstrated in the flax rust system where L5, L6, and L7 resistance proteins directly interact with specific variants of the AvrL567 effector [90] [6]. Indirect recognition, also known as the "guard model," occurs when NBS-LRR proteins monitor host cellular components that are modified by pathogen effectors. For example, the Arabidopsis RIN4 protein is guarded by multiple R proteins and is targeted by several bacterial effectors [6].

Comparative Analysis of Experimental Systems

Direct Interaction Systems

The flax-flax rust system provides compelling evidence for direct R-Avr interactions. In this system, the flax L locus contains highly polymorphic alleles encoding NBS-LRR proteins with specific recognition of different AvrL567 variants from the flax rust fungus Melampsora lini [90]. Twelve sequence variants of AvrL567 have been identified from six rust strains, with seven variants inducing necrotic responses when expressed in flax plants containing corresponding R genes [90].

Table 2: Direct NBS-LRR - Effector Interaction Systems

Experimental System	R Protein	Pathogen Effector	Key Evidence	Genetic Variation Impact
Flax-Flax Rust	L5, L6, L7 (TNL)	AvrL567	Yeast two-hybrid interaction recapitulates in planta specificity [90]	Diversifying selection in both R and Avr genes; 12 AvrL567 variants identified [90]
Rice-Blast Fungus	Pi-ta (CNL)	AVR-Pita	Yeast two-hybrid interaction between LRR domain and effector [6]	Not specified in available data
Arabidopsis-Bacterial Wilt	RRS1 (TNL-WRKY)	PopP2	Split-ubiquitin yeast two-hybrid interaction [6]	Not specified in available data

Indirect Interaction Systems

Indirect recognition systems demonstrate how single NBS-LRR proteins can monitor multiple pathogen effectors through their action on host guardees. The Arabidopsis RPM1 protein guards the RIN4 protein and detects modifications by either AvrRpm1 or AvrB effectors from Pseudomonas syringae [6]. Similarly, RPS5 detects cleavage of the PBS1 kinase by the AvrPphB cysteine protease [6].

Table 3: Indirect NBS-LRR Recognition Systems

Experimental System	R Protein	Guardee Protein	Pathogen Effector(s)	Effector Action on Guardee
Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas	RPM1 (CNL)	RIN4	AvrRpm1, AvrB	Phosphorylation of RIN4 [6]
Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas	RPS2 (CNL)	RIN4	AvrRpt2	Proteolytic cleavage of RIN4 [6]
Arabidopsis-Pseudomonas	RPS5 (CNL)	PBS1	AvrPphB	Proteolytic cleavage of PBS1 [6]
Tomato-Pseudomonas	Prf (CNL)	Pto	AvrPto, AvrPtoB	Interaction with Pto kinase [6]

Experimental Protocols for Validating Interactions

Yeast Two-Hybrid Assay for Direct Interactions

The yeast two-hybrid system has been instrumental in demonstrating direct R-Avr interactions. For the flax L-AvrL567 interaction, the protocol involves:

• Cloning: Insert full-length or domain-coding sequences of R and Avr genes into both binding domain (BD) and activation domain (AD) vectors [90].
• Transformation: Co-transform both plasmids into appropriate yeast reporter strains.
• Selection: Plate transformations on selective media lacking specific nutrients to detect protein interactions.
• Specificity Testing: Test different R and Avr variants to confirm interaction specificity correlates with in planta recognition [90].

This method successfully recapitulated the specificity observed in planta, demonstrating that L5, L6, and L7 proteins directly interact with specific AvrL567 variants that they recognize [90].

Functional Complementation Assay

Domain complementation assays have revealed intramolecular interactions within NBS-LRR proteins. The Rx protein (a CC-NBS-LRR) from potato confers resistance to Potato Virus X (PVX) through recognition of the viral coat protein (CP) [27]. The experimental workflow includes:

• Domain Separation: Express CC-NBS and LRR domains as separate molecules.
• Trans-complementation: Co-express separated domains via transient expression.
• Functional Assessment: Monitor for CP-dependent hypersensitive response (HR).
• Interaction Validation: Confirm physical interactions between domains through co-immunoprecipitation [27].

This approach demonstrated that the Rx LRR domain interacts with the CC-NBS region in the absence of CP, and this interaction is disrupted upon CP recognition [27].

Effectoromics Screening for Novel NLR Identification

Large-scale effectoromics approaches enable identification of novel R genes against multiple pathogen effectors. The Solanum americanum-Phytophthora infestans system exemplifies this method:

• Effector Library: Compile a comprehensive library of pathogen effectors (e.g., 315 RXLR effectors from P. infestans) [91].
• Plant Diversity Panel: Screen a genetically diverse panel of host accessions (e.g., 52 S. americanum accessions) for effector recognition [91].
• Recognition Profiling: Identify accessions showing specific HR to particular effectors.
• Genetic Mapping: Combine with genomic data (e.g., pan-NLRome) to clone responsible R genes [91].

This methodology led to the identification of Rpi-amr4, R02860, and R04373 NLR genes that recognize specific P. infestans effectors [91].

Visualization of NBS-LRR Activation Pathways

NBS-LRR Activation in Plant Immunity

Genetic Variation and Molecular Arms Race

The impact of genetic variation on interaction specificity is perhaps best illustrated in the flax-flax rust system. Analysis of AvrL567 genes revealed exceptional diversity with 12 sequence variants identified from six rust strains [90]. These variants show a significant excess of nucleotide changes at nonsynonymous sites over synonymous sites (ratio = 7.2; P < 10⁻⁶), indicating strong diversifying selection favoring amino acid variation [90]. This diversification directly affects recognition specificity, with seven AvrL567 variants triggering defense responses and five variants escaping recognition.

Correspondingly, the flax L locus exhibits extensive polymorphism with at least 12 alleles encoding different rust resistance specificities [87]. Sequence comparison of these alleles revealed that most contain polymorphic bases spread across the entire coding region, with the greatest variation in the LRR region [87]. This pattern suggests co-evolutionary arms race dynamics where genetic variation in both partners drives diversification to gain or evade recognition.

Similar evolutionary patterns occur in other systems. In Arabidopsis, the RPP13 locus shows high variability with multiple alleles subject to diversifying selection in the LRR region [87]. This genetic variation results in qualitative differences in recognition specificity rather than simple presence/absence polymorphism.

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for NBS-Effector Interaction Studies

Research Tool	Function/Application	Key Examples
Yeast Two-Hybrid System	Detecting direct protein-protein interactions	Flax L-AvrL567 interaction [90]; RRS1-PopP2 interaction [6]
Split-Ubiquitin System	Membrane-based protein interaction assay	RRS1-PopP2 validation [6]
Transient Expression Assays	Functional validation in plant tissues	Nicotiana benthamiana system for Rx domain complementation [27]
Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS)	Functional analysis through targeted gene silencing	Cassava MeLRR gene validation [88]; Vernicia NBS-LRR functional analysis [67]
Effectoromics Libraries	High-throughput screening of effector recognition	315 P. infestans RXLR effectors screened against S. americanum [91]
Pan-NLRome Sequencing	Comprehensive cataloguing of NLR gene repertoire	S. americanum NLR diversity analysis [91]
RenSeq (Resistance Gene Enrichment Sequencing)	Targeted sequencing of NLR genes	S. americanum NLR gene annotation [91]

The experimental systems compared in this guide demonstrate that genetic variation profoundly impacts the specificity of NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors. Direct recognition systems, exemplified by the flax L-AvrL567 interaction, often exhibit gene-for-gene specificity with diversifying selection driving molecular arms races. Indirect recognition systems provide broader detection capacity but still depend on genetic variation for maintaining effective surveillance. The choice of experimental system depends on research goals: yeast two-hybrid for direct interaction validation, functional complementation for domain function studies, and effectoromics for novel R gene discovery. Understanding how sequence polymorphism translates into interaction specificity provides fundamental insights into plant-pathogen coevolution and informs strategies for engineering durable disease resistance in crops.

Validating Interactions Against Salivary Proteins from Diverse Pathogens

The innate immune system of plants relies heavily on nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) proteins to detect pathogen invasion and initiate defense responses. These proteins function as specialized receptors that recognize pathogen-associated molecules, triggering effector-triggered immunity (ETI) upon perception. Recent research has illuminated the crucial role of NBS-LRR proteins in defending against various pathogens, including insects and microbial organisms. As plant-pathogen interactions grow increasingly complex, validating the specific interactions between NBS-LRR proteins and pathogen-derived salivary proteins/effectors has become paramount for understanding immunity mechanisms and developing sustainable crop protection strategies. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of experimental approaches and their associated protocols for validating these critical molecular interactions, offering researchers a framework for selecting appropriate methodologies based on their specific research objectives.

NBS-LRR Protein Architecture and Recognition Mechanisms

NBS-LRR proteins, also known as R proteins, exhibit a conserved modular structure that facilitates pathogen recognition and immune signaling. These proteins typically contain an amino-terminal coiled-coil (CC) or Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) domain, a central nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain, and a carboxy-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) region. The NBS domain controls the ATP/ADP-bound state that mediates downstream signaling, while the LRR domain forms a series of β-sheets that directly interact with pathogen-derived molecules [92]. The N-terminal CC or TIR domains function as signaling domains that either serve as cellular targets of effector action or interact with downstream signaling components [92].

Research on brown planthopper (BPH) resistance in rice has demonstrated that NBS-LRR proteins specifically recognize salivary proteins from insect pests. Molecular docking studies have revealed that these interactions occur at both the NBS and LRR regions, with interacting residues varying depending on the specific salivary protein, indicating remarkable specificity in recognizing individual insect-associated molecules [92]. For example, BPH resistance proteins Bph9, Bph14, Bph18, and Bph26 all encode NBS-LRR proteins that physically interact with salivary proteins from rice planthoppers, though through distinct molecular interfaces [92].

Table 1: Domain Architecture of Characterized NBS-LRR Resistance Proteins

R Protein	Domain Structure	Chromosomal Location	Pathogen Specificity
Bph9	CC-NBS-NBS-LRR	Chromosome 12	Brown Planthopper
Bph14	CC-NB-LRR	Chromosome 3	Brown Planthopper
Bph18	CC-NBS-NBS-LRR	Chromosome 12	Brown Planthopper
Bph26	CC-NB-LRR	Chromosome 12	Brown Planthopper
N protein	TIR-NBS-LRR	Not specified	Tobacco Mosaic Virus

The functional evolution of NBS-LRR proteins is evident in their genomic organization. Motif analysis has shown that Bph9, Bph18, and Bph26 exhibit high degrees of sequence similarity in their CC and NBS regions and are considered functional alleles of BPH resistance on chromosome 12, while Bph14 on chromosome 3 shows less similarity with the others [92]. This clustering of functionally related R genes provides important clues about the evolution of plant resistance against different pests and pathogens.

Experimental Approaches for Interaction Validation

In Silico Molecular Docking

Protocol Overview: Molecular docking begins with obtaining protein sequences of NBS-LRR R proteins and pathogen salivary proteins from databases followed by multiple sequence alignment. Researchers then generate three-dimensional structural models of both interaction partners using homology modeling or ab initio prediction methods. Molecular docking simulations are performed using specialized software to predict binding affinities and interaction interfaces, with results validated through docking score thresholds and hydrogen bond analysis [92].

Key Applications: This approach was used to demonstrate interactions between BPH NBS-LRR proteins (Bph9, Bph14, Bph18, Bph26) and various salivary proteins from rice planthoppers (BPH, WBPH, SBPH). The salivary protein dipeptidyl peptidase IV from SBPH, followed by carboxylesterase (from BPH and WBPH), exhibited higher docking scores and more hydrogen bonds with BPH R proteins [92].

Advantages and Limitations: In silico docking provides rapid screening of potential interactions and identifies specific interacting residues, but requires experimental validation and depends on quality of structural predictions.

Table 2: Comparison of Protein-Protein Interaction Validation Methods

Method	Throughput	Required Resources	Key Applications	Limitations
In Silico Docking	High	Sequence data, computing resources, docking software	Initial screening, interaction interface prediction	Requires experimental validation, dependent on prediction quality
Affinity Purification-Mass Spectrometry (AP-MS)	Medium	Cell lysates, affinity columns, mass spectrometer	Identification of novel host interactors, interaction networks	May miss transient interactions, false positives from nonspecific binding
Co-immunoprecipitation	Low-medium	Antibodies, protein extraction reagents, Western blot equipment	Confirmation of direct interactions, complex formation	Dependent on antibody specificity, may not represent in vivo conditions
Live-cell Imaging	Low	Fluorescent tags, microscopy systems, specialized software	Real-time translocation dynamics, subcellular localization	Potential artifacts from protein tagging, technical expertise required

Affinity Purification-Mass Spectrometry (AP-MS)

Detailed Protocol: The AP-MS method begins with generating recombinant effector proteins with affinity tags (such as GST or His-tags). Cell lysates from appropriate host systems (e.g., HeLa cells for epithelial pathogens or RAW 264.7 macrophage-like cells for systemic pathogens) are incubated with the immobilized bait proteins. After extensive washing to remove nonspecific binders, interacting proteins are eluted and digested with trypsin. The resulting peptides are analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for identification and quantification [93].

Data Analysis Considerations: Results are filtered using abundance of interacting proteins in AP samples relative to no-bait controls, with statistical scoring using tools like SAINT (significance analysis of interactome). Proteins interacting with multiple effectors or with high spectral counts in contaminant databases (e.g., CRAPome) are typically considered nonspecific and filtered out [93].

Implementation Example: This approach identified 54 high-confidence host interactors for Salmonella effectors GogA, GtgA, GtgE, SpvC, SrfH, SseL, SspH1, and SssB collectively, and 21 interactors for Citrobacter effectors EspT, NleA, NleG1, and NleK [93].

Effector Translocation Visualization

Advanced Imaging Techniques: Recent methodological advances enable real-time tracking of effector protein translocation in living cells at single-molecule resolution. These approaches typically involve fusing effectors with fluorescent tags (e.g., GFP, YFP, mCherry) or self-labeling enzymes (e.g., HaloTag, SNAP-tag) that can be labeled with fluorescent ligands. Infected or transfected cells are then imaged using sophisticated microscopy systems, including TIRF (total internal reflection fluorescence), FRAP (fluorescence recovery after photobleaching), or super-resolution techniques [94].

Protocol Considerations: For fixed-cell approaches, samples are typically processed at various time points post-infection, followed by immunofluorescence staining with specific antibodies and confocal microscopy. For dynamic live-cell imaging, cells are maintained in environmental chambers during imaging to ensure physiological conditions [94].

Validation Methods: Interactions identified through these methods often require additional validation through biochemical approaches, such as co-immunoprecipitation followed by Western blot analysis, to confirm direct binding relationships [93].

Pathway Diagrams and Molecular Relationships

NBS-LRR Recognition Pathway

Protein Interaction Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Protein Interaction Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Experimental Considerations
Affinity Purification Tags	GST-tag, His-tag, HA-tag, FLAG-tag	Protein immobilization and purification	Tag position (N-terminal vs C-terminal) may affect protein function
Cell Lysate Systems	HeLa cells, RAW 264.7 macrophages, plant protoplasts	Source of host interaction partners	Choose cell type relevant to pathogen infection site
Mass Spectrometry Systems	Orbitrap Exploris 480, Q-Exactive, LC-MS/MS	Identification and quantification of interacting proteins	High resolution improves peptide identification accuracy
Bioinformatics Tools	SAINT, CRAPome, Cytoscape with MCODE	Statistical analysis of interaction data and visualization	Proper filtering crucial to reduce false positives
Live-cell Imaging Tags	GFP, YFP, HaloTag, SNAP-tag	Real-time visualization of protein translocation	Consider potential artifacts from protein tagging
Co-immunoprecipitation Antibodies	Anti-HA, Anti-FLAG, Anti-GST, species-specific secondary antibodies	Validation of specific protein interactions	Antibody specificity and cross-reactivity must be verified

Comparative Performance Analysis

The validation of NBS-LRR interactions with salivary proteins requires careful consideration of methodological strengths and limitations. In silico approaches like molecular docking provide excellent initial screening tools, with studies demonstrating their ability to predict specific interacting residues between BPH R proteins and planthopper salivary components [92]. However, these computational methods must be supplemented with experimental validation to confirm biological relevance.

Affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry offers a powerful middle-throughput approach for identifying novel host targets of pathogen effectors. This method successfully identified 75 new host targets of Salmonella and Citrobacter effectors, including the interaction between Salmonella effector SrfH and host ERK2 kinase, which was subsequently shown to regulate phosphorylation levels of this important signaling enzyme [93]. The main advantage of AP-MS is its sensitivity and ability to detect entire interaction networks, though it may miss transient interactions and requires careful filtering to eliminate false positives.

For direct visualization of interactions, live-cell imaging approaches provide unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution. Recent advances enable real-time tracking of effector translocation during host-pathogen interactions on a single-molecule level, revealing dynamics that would be obscured in population-level assays [94]. These methods are particularly valuable for establishing the chronology of molecular interactions and subcellular localization patterns, though they require significant technical expertise and may introduce artifacts through protein tagging.

Co-immunoprecipitation remains a gold standard for confirming direct protein-protein interactions, as demonstrated in studies of Ssp6 effector and its immunity protein Sip6 in Serratia marcescens [95]. This approach provides strong biochemical evidence for interactions but is lower throughput and dependent on antibody specificity and availability.

The validation of NBS-LRR protein interactions with salivary proteins from diverse pathogens represents a critical frontier in understanding plant immunity mechanisms. Each methodological approach offers distinct advantages, with optimal research strategies typically combining multiple complementary techniques. Computational predictions provide guidance for targeted experimental validation, while high-throughput methods like AP-MS generate comprehensive interaction networks that can be refined through biochemical and imaging approaches.

Future directions in this field will likely involve increased integration of single-molecule imaging technologies to capture the dynamics of these interactions in real-time, as well as structural biology approaches to elucidate atomic-level interaction interfaces. Additionally, the development of more sophisticated bioinformatics tools will enhance our ability to distinguish biologically relevant interactions from nonspecific binding. As these methodologies continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly reveal new insights into the complex molecular dialogue between plants and their pathogens, potentially identifying novel targets for crop protection strategies and disease resistance breeding.

Comparative Analysis of NBS Pairs and Their Cooperative Signaling

The plant immune system relies on a sophisticated network of receptors to detect pathogens and initiate defense responses. Among these, nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain-containing proteins form a critical superfamily of intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen-derived effectors and trigger robust immunity [15] [96]. This comparative guide examines the cooperative signaling between major NBS protein pairs, their structural and functional relationships, and their integrated roles in plant immunity. Understanding these interactions provides fundamental insights into plant defense mechanisms and offers potential applications for developing disease-resistant crops.

NBS-containing proteins, particularly those with leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains (NLRs), constitute one of the largest and most variable resistance (R) protein families in plants [15]. These proteins are modular in nature, typically consisting of three fundamental components: an N-terminal domain, a central NB-ARC domain (Nucleotide-Binding Adaptor shared with APAF-1, plant R proteins, and CED-4), and a C-terminal LRR domain [15]. The NB-ARC domain, approximately 300 amino acids in length, plays a crucial role in signal transduction, while the LRR domain, with 10-40 short leucine-rich repeat motifs, enables specific pathogen recognition [96].

Based on variations in their N-terminal domains, plant NLRs are classified into major subclasses: TIR-NBS-LRR (TNL) proteins containing a Toll/interleukin-1 receptor-like domain, CC-NBS-LRR (CNL) proteins featuring a coiled-coil domain, and non-TIR-NBS-LRR proteins lacking the TIR domain [15] [96]. This structural diversification enables different NLR types to recognize diverse pathogen effectors and activate distinct signaling pathways, often through cooperative interactions between paired receptors.

Structural Diversity and Classification of NBS Proteins

The NBS gene family exhibits remarkable structural diversity across plant species, with identification of 12,820 NBS-domain-containing genes across 34 species ranging from mosses to monocots and dicots [15]. These genes display significant diversification, classified into 168 distinct classes with numerous novel domain architecture patterns beyond the classical NBS, NBS-LRR, TIR-NBS, and TIR-NBS-LRR structures [15].

Comparative analysis has revealed several species-specific structural patterns, including TIR-NBS-TIR-Cupin1-Cupin1, TIR-NBS-Prenyltransf, and Sugar_tr-NBS, indicating extensive evolutionary adaptation to diverse pathogen pressures [15]. Orthogroup analysis identified 603 orthogroups, with some core orthogroups (OG0, OG1, OG2) being most common across species, while others (OG80, OG82) remain highly species-specific, often resulting from tandem duplication events [15].

This diversification enables plants to maintain extensive NLR repertoires. Recent research indicates that many microRNAs target the nucleotide sequences encoding conserved motifs within NLRs, including the P-loop, allowing plants to maintain large NLR repertoires without exhausting functional NLR loci [15]. This mechanism may contribute to the sustained existence of large NLR repertoires despite potential fitness costs.

Table 1: Major Classes of NBS-Containing Proteins and Their Characteristics

Protein Class	N-terminal Domain	Central Domain	C-terminal Domain	Key Features	Representative Examples
TNL	TIR (Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor)	NBS (NB-ARC)	LRR	Triggers defense signaling via specific pathways; recognizes diverse effectors	RPP1, RPS4
CNL	CC (Coiled-Coil)	NBS (NB-ARC)	LRR	Activates defense responses often involving calcium influx; widespread in plants	RPS2, RPS5
RNL	RPW8 (Resistance to Powdery Mildew 8)	NBS (NB-ARC)	LRR	Functions in signal transduction; helper NLRs	NRG1, ADR1
NBS-LRR	Variable or absent	NBS (NB-ARC)	LRR	Basic NLR structure without distinctive N-terminal domain	Multiple species-specific proteins
TIR-NBS	TIR	NBS (NB-ARC)	Absent or truncated	May function in signaling or regulation; missing full LRR domain	Some Arabidopsis proteins

Methodologies for Studying NBS Protein Interactions

Computational Identification and Classification Approaches

Advanced computational strategies have revolutionized the identification and characterization of NBS proteins. Traditional domain-based bioinformatics pipelines utilizing tools like InterProScan, HMMER, and MEME exploit conserved structural motifs including NBS, LRR, CC, TIR, and RPW8 domains [96]. Specialized pipelines such as DRAGO2/3, RGAugury, RRGPredictor, NLR-Annotator, and NLRtracker systematically scan genomes or proteomes for these known domain architectures [96].

Machine learning and deep learning approaches have significantly enhanced prediction capabilities, with algorithms facilitating advanced modeling of complex sequence features and classification tasks that surpass conventional similarity-based methods [96]. Deep learning architectures including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) have proven highly effective in capturing hierarchical and contextual information from biological sequences, improving prediction accuracy and model generalization [96].

Experimental Validation Techniques

Experimental validation of NBS protein interactions employs multiple complementary approaches. Protein-ligand and protein-protein interaction assays demonstrate strong interactions between putative NBS proteins and ADP/ATP, as well as with different core proteins of pathogens such as the cotton leaf curl disease virus [15]. Functional validation through virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) has proven effective, as demonstrated by silencing of GaNBS (OG2) in resistant cotton, revealing its putative role in virus titering [15].

Genetic variation analysis between susceptible and tolerant plant accessions identifies unique variants in NBS genes. For example, comparative analysis between susceptible (Coker 312) and tolerant (Mac7) Gossypium hirsutum accessions identified 6,583 unique variants in Mac7 versus 5,173 in Coker312, highlighting potential genetic determinants of resistance [15].

Transcriptomic profiling through RNA-seq data analysis categorizes NBS gene expression into tissue-specific, abiotic stress-specific, and biotic-stress specific patterns, providing insights into their functional roles [15]. Expression profiling has revealed putative upregulation of orthogroups OG2, OG6, and OG15 in different tissues under various biotic and abiotic stresses in plants with varying susceptibility to cotton leaf curl disease [15].

Table 2: Key Experimental Methods for Studying NBS Protein Interactions

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Key Applications	Critical Reagents/Resources
Genomic Identification	PfamScan HMM search, OrthoFinder, DIAMOND tool, MCL clustering	Identification, classification, and evolutionary analysis of NBS genes	Genome assemblies, Pfam-A_hmm model, Multiple sequence alignment tools
Expression Analysis	RNA-seq, FPKM quantification, Heat map generation	Differential expression profiling across tissues and stress conditions	RNA-seq databases (IPF, CottonFGD, Cottongen), NCBI BioProjects data
Functional Validation	Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), Genetic variation analysis, Protein-ligand interaction assays	Functional characterization of specific NBS genes	Susceptible and tolerant plant accessions, Viral vectors for silencing
Interaction Studies	Yeast two-hybrid, Co-immunoprecipitation, Bimolecular fluorescence complementation	Direct protein-protein interaction mapping	Tagged protein constructs, Specific antibody reagents
Computational Prediction	Machine learning classifiers, Deep learning frameworks, Curated databases	Prediction of novel R-proteins and their classification	PRGdb, NBS-LRR Receptor database, PlantNLRatlas, RefPlantNLR

Cooperative Signaling Between NBS Protein Pairs

NBS Protein Interactions in Immune Signaling Networks

NBS proteins function not in isolation but through complex cooperative signaling networks that enhance pathogen recognition and immune activation. The cooperative signaling between paired NBS proteins creates a robust network that enables plants to detect diverse pathogens and mount appropriate defense responses. This integrated system allows for signal amplification, increased specificity, and redundant safeguards that ensure effective immunity against evolving pathogens.

NBS Protein Cooperation in Immune Signaling

Paired NBS Protein Functions

Research has revealed that certain NBS proteins function in pairs, with sensor NLRs detecting pathogen effectors and subsequently activating helper NLRs to amplify defense signals [96]. This cooperative system enhances the sensitivity and robustness of immune responses. For instance, some TNL sensors require helper RNLs (RPW8-NBS-LRRs) such as NRG1 and ADR1 to transduce signals and activate downstream defenses [96].

The paired NBS system enables plants to detect multiple pathogen effectors simultaneously, providing broader resistance spectra. Studies of paired NBS proteins in various plant species have demonstrated that specific combinations can recognize structurally diverse effectors from different pathogen classes, including bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and viruses [15] [96]. This cooperative recognition system forms the molecular basis for pyramid breeding strategies in crop improvement programs.

Genetic and transcriptomic analyses further support the cooperative nature of NBS proteins. Expression profiling in cotton orthogroups (OG2, OG6, OG15) under biotic stress shows coordinated upregulation of specific NBS gene sets, suggesting functional synergy in response to pathogen challenge [15]. Protein-ligand interaction studies also demonstrate that certain NBS pairs exhibit stronger binding affinity to pathogen effectors when co-expressed, indicating cooperative molecular recognition [15].

Comparative Analysis of NBS Protein Pairs Across Plant Species

Genomic and Functional Diversity

Comparative genomic analyses reveal significant diversity in NBS protein repertoires across plant species. While bryophytes like Physcomitrella patens possess relatively small NLR repertoires of approximately 25 NLRs, flowering plants have undergone substantial gene expansion, resulting in much larger families [15]. For example, comprehensive databases such as ANNA: an Angiosperm NLR Atlas, contains over 90,000 NLR genes from 304 angiosperm genomes, including 18,707 TNL genes, 70,737 CNL genes, and 1,847 RNL genes [15].

This expansion reflects the evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens, with different plant families developing distinct NBS pair specializations. Research comparing 34 species from green algae to higher plants identified both conserved orthogroups present across multiple species and lineage-specific NBS genes that may confer specialized resistance capabilities [15]. These findings suggest that while the core signaling mechanisms of NBS pairs are conserved, specific partnerships have diversified to address unique pathogen challenges in different ecological contexts.

Expression Patterns and Functional Specialization

Transcriptomic analyses across multiple species reveal that NBS genes display specialized expression patterns under various conditions. In Gossypium hirsutum, comparative analysis between CLCuD-tolerant (Mac7) and susceptible (Coker 312) accessions showed distinct expression profiles of specific NBS orthogroups in response to viral infection [15]. Similarly, studies in Arabidopsis, maize, soybean, and cotton demonstrate that different NBS gene families are preferentially expressed in specific tissues or induced by particular biotic and abiotic stresses [15].

This expression specialization enables coordinated responses from paired NBS proteins with complementary functions. For instance, some NBS pairs show differential expression timing during infection, with sensor NLRs expressing early and helper NLRs expressing later, creating a temporal sequence of immune activation [96]. Other NBS pairs exhibit tissue-specific co-expression patterns, suggesting specialized roles in protecting particular organs against pathogen attack [15].

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of NBS Protein Pairs in Plant Immunity

NBS Pair Type	Signaling Mechanism	Pathogen Recognition Specificity	Key Defense Outputs	Experimental Evidence
TNL-RNL Helper Pairs	TNL senses pathogen, signals via RNL helper	Broad-spectrum recognition, often multiple effectors	HR cell death, SA-mediated signaling	VIGS validation, protein interaction assays
CNL-CNL Cooperative Pairs	Mutual activation, signal amplification	Specific effector recognition with enhanced sensitivity	Oxidative burst, callose deposition	Genetic complementation tests
Sensor-Helper Networks	Sensor NLR detects pathogen, helper amplifies signal	Integrated recognition of complex pathogen assemblages	Comprehensive immune response, systemic immunity	Expression profiling, mutant analyses
Heterocomplex Formation	Direct physical interaction between NBS proteins	Simultaneous recognition of multiple effector variants	Enhanced signaling amplitude and duration	Co-immunoprecipitation, FRET assays
Sequential Activation Pairs	Temporal sequence of NBS protein activation	Progressive pathogen recognition through infection	Layered defense response	Time-course expression analyses

Research Reagent Solutions for NBS Protein Studies

Essential Databases and Computational Tools

Advanced research on NBS protein interactions relies on specialized databases and bioinformatics tools. Key curated databases include PRGdb, which contains known plant resistance genes; the NBS-LRR Receptor database for specialized NLR sequences; SolRgene for Solanaceae family R-genes; RiceMetaSysB for rice resistance systems; LDRGDb for legume R-genes; PlantNLRatlas for comprehensive NLR annotations; and RefPlantNLR as a reference collection [96]. These resources collectively support robust annotation, comparative analysis, and evolutionary studies of NBS genes across multiple plant species.

For identification and classification, OrthoFinder v2.5.1 with the DIAMOND tool enables fast sequence similarity searches and orthogroup clustering of NBS sequences [15]. Domain-based identification utilizes PfamScan with HMM search scripts and default e-value parameters to identify NB-ARC domains, while architectural classification follows established systems that group genes with similar domain patterns into defined classes [15]. Machine learning frameworks integrated with these databases accelerate the identification of novel NBS proteins and enhance our understanding of plant immunity.

Experimental Reagents and Biological Materials

Functional validation of NBS protein interactions requires specific biological materials and experimental reagents. Key resources include paired plant genotypes with contrasting disease resistance phenotypes, such as CLCuD-tolerant (Mac7) and susceptible (Coker 312) Gossypium hirsutum accessions for genetic variation studies [15]. Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) systems with specific vectors enable functional characterization through targeted knockdown of candidate NBS genes [15].

Protein interaction studies require reagents for yeast two-hybrid assays, co-immunoprecipitation kits, and bimolecular fluorescence complementation systems to validate physical interactions between paired NBS proteins. Ligand binding assays utilizing ADP/ATP analogs help characterize the nucleotide-binding properties of NBS domains [15]. Additionally, pathogen culture collections, including various bacterial, fungal, viral, and oomycete isolates, are essential for challenging plant materials and assessing the functional specificity of NBS pairs.

The comparative analysis of NBS pairs and their cooperative signaling mechanisms reveals a sophisticated plant immune network based on specific protein interactions and coordinated defense activation. Through genomic expansion and functional diversification, plants have evolved complex NBS protein partnerships that enable sensitive pathogen detection, robust signal transduction, and effective immune responses. The structural and functional specialization of different NBS pairs, including TNL-RNL helper networks and CNL-CNL cooperative systems, provides plants with a flexible defense strategy against diverse pathogens.

Advanced computational tools combined with experimental validation methods have significantly accelerated the discovery and characterization of NBS protein interactions. These approaches continue to reveal new insights into the molecular mechanisms of plant immunity and provide valuable resources for crop improvement programs. Future research focusing on the precise signaling mechanisms between paired NBS proteins, their regulation under different physiological conditions, and their potential engineering for enhanced disease resistance will further advance our understanding of plant-pathogen interactions and contribute to sustainable agricultural practices.

Conclusion

The validation of NBS protein interactions with pathogen effectors sits at the crucial intersection of fundamental plant immunity and applied disease resistance engineering. A multi-faceted approach—combining foundational knowledge of NBS-LRR structure and evolution with a robust methodological toolkit—is essential for confirming these interactions and understanding their functional consequences. As techniques in structural biology, computational modeling, and functional genomics advance, they will enable more precise manipulation of these immune receptors. The future of this field lies in leveraging these validated interactions to engineer synthetic NBS proteins with novel specificities and to develop innovative strategies for broad-spectrum, durable disease control in crops, with potential parallels for informing immune receptor engineering in mammalian systems.

References

• 1. Plant NBS-LRR proteins: adaptable guards - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1557992/]
• 2. Genome-wide identification and characterization of NBS ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03507-5]
• 3. In silico prediction method for plant Nucleotide‐binding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042882/]
• 4. Elucidating the role of effector protein as biomarker for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885576523001315]
• 5. Decoding Plant–Pathogen Interactions - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11757022/]
• 6. Plant NBS-LRR proteins in pathogen sensing and host defense [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1973153/]
• 7. From Guard to Decoy: A New Model for Perception of Plant ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2553620/]
• 8. Guards and decoys: RIPoptosome and inflammasome ... [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1012884]
• 9. A novel conserved mechanism for plant NLR protein pairs [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2014.00606/full]
• 10. Guard theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_theory]
• 11. Direct versus indirect readout in the interaction of the trp ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283698916382]
• 12. Protein interactions in human pathogens revealed through ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-024-01791-x]
• 13. Genome-Wide Characterization and Expression Pattern ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12469828/]
• 14. Discovering new insights into phytopathogen interactions ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0944501325001764]
• 15. Comparative analysis, diversification, and functional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62876-5]
• 16. Evolutionary analysis of TIR- and non-TIR-NBS-LRR ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1452251/full]
• 17. Phylogenetic, Structural, and Evolutionary Insights into ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/5/1828]
• 18. The Diversification of Plant NBS-LRR Defense Genes Directs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5026261/]
• 19. PRGminer: harnessing deep learning for the prediction of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1411525/full]
• 20. Decipher the Mechanisms of Protein Conformational ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3861046/]
• 21. Conformational dynamics of the nucleotide binding domains ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046567/]
• 22. Plant NBS-LRR proteins: adaptable guards - Genome Biology [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2006-7-4-212]
• 23. Lessons from Deep Learning Structural Prediction of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/2/500]
• 24. Bound nucleotide can control the dynamic architecture of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00743-5]
• 25. In silico prediction method for plant Nucleotide-binding ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40304719/]
• 26. Identification, characterization, and validation of NBS ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1187597/full]
• 27. Interaction between domains of a plant NBS–LRR protein in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC126192/]
• 28. Novel haplotypes and networks of AVR-Pik alleles in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6524238/]
• 29. Identification, characterization, and validation of NBS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10318170/]
• 30. Proteomics Two-hybrid and its recent adaptations [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740674906000552]
• 31. Next-generation yeast-two-hybrid analysis with Y2H-SCORES ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008890]
• 32. Comprehensive Review on Bimolecular Fluorescence ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11274695/]
• 33. Bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4417415/]
• 34. Bimolecular fluorescence complementation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimolecular_fluorescence_complementation]
• 35. A Yeast BiFC-seq Method for Genome-wide Interactome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880813/]
• 36. Comprehensive Review on Bimolecular Fluorescence ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/14/7/859]
• 37. Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): The Complete Guide [https://www.antibodies.com/applications/co-immunoprecipitation]
• 38. Immunoprecipitation Experimental Design Tips [https://www.cellsignal.com/applications/immunoprecipitation/ip-experimental-design-tips?srsltid=AfmBOoqIQU7Py4JU3jM0SXGU9_HELdX7YsXkUFGiIlLcBM2AFdpRn6k3]
• 39. The value of coimmunoprecipitation (Co-IP) assays in drug ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40289752/]
• 40. Pull-down assays [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/protocol/protein-biology/enzyme-activity-assays/pull-down-assays?srsltid=AfmBOoqFUZf2Yd0c5r4l9JcANNYC2pdsP26xIbDI4FLgbGwJmRUJAP9o]
• 41. Truncated CMV2b N43 enhances virus-induced gene ... [https://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13007-025-01446-w]
• 42. An optimized disease resistance gene cloning workflow for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12119808/]
• 43. Validation-Based Insertional Mutagenesis (VBIM), a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8969887/]
• 44. A large-scale resource for tissue-specific CRISPR ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/53865]
• 45. Protocol for triggering plant gene silencing by viral delivery ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666166725005003]
• 46. A wheat CC-NBS-LRR protein Ym1 confers WYMV resistance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12003722/]
• 47. Comparative analysis, diversification, and functional ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38789717/]
• 48. In silico modelling and characterization of eight blast ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7688789/]
• 49. In-silico identification and characterization of effector ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950363924000280]
• 50. Evolution of In Silico Strategies for Protein-Protein Interaction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6222862/]
• 51. A comparative study of computational modeling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16866-w]
• 52. Comparative In Silico Analysis Identifies Potent Natural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1476927125004013]
• 53. Molecular docking and MD simulation approach to identify ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12375911/]
• 54. Learning the language of plant immunity - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12270735/]
• 55. AI-first structural identification of pathogenic protein target ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013168]
• 56. LABind: identifying protein binding ligand-aware sites via ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62899-0]
• 57. A comprehensive PDCoV-host proteome interaction map ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12551863/]
• 58. New method offers broader and faster detection of protein- ... [https://www.embl.org/news/science-technology/new-method-offers-broader-and-faster-detection-of-protein-ligand-interactions/]
• 59. A benchmark driven guide to binding site comparison [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6224041/]
• 60. Challenges in predicting protein-protein interactions of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025005057]
• 61. Benchmarking Protein–Ligand Interaction Energy | Rowan [https://www.rowansci.com/blog/benchmarking-protein-ligand-interaction-energy]
• 62. Plant disease resistance protein signaling: NBS–LRR ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369526604000755]
• 63. Characterizing host-microbe interactions with bacterial effector ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11985969/]
• 64. Machine Learning-Driven Methods for Nanobody Affinity ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11618429/]
• 65. NanoBinder: a machine learning assisted nanobody binding ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01040-1]
• 66. Genome-wide analysis of NBS-LRR genes revealed ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1091567/full]
• 67. Functional characterization of NBS-LRR genes reveals an ... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-024-01836-x]
• 68. Advancing recombinant protein production by bacteria [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590262825000735]
• 69. Unveiling the new chapter in nanobody engineering [https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-025-03169-5]
• 70. A CNL protein forms an NLR pair with NRCX to modulate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12405136/]
• 71. Lack of AtMC1 catalytic activity triggers autoimmunity ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s44319-025-00426-4]
• 72. NB-LRR proteins: Pairs, pieces, perception, partners and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2910844/]
• 73. contrast-color() - CSS - MDN Web Docs [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/color_value/contrast-color]
• 74. A wheat CC-NBS-LRR protein Ym1 confers WYMV ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58816-0]
• 75. Identification and Functional Analysis of the Ph-2 Gene ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/24/3572]
• 76. Comparative analysis of protein-protein interactions in the ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-14-166]
• 77. Report Accurate and sensitive interactome profiling using a ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237524002637]
• 78. Two complementary NLRs from wild emmer wheat confer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12514233/]
• 79. PM2b, a CC-NBS-LRR protein, interacts with TaWRKY76 ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.973065/full]
• 80. The Hypersensitive Response to Plant Viruses - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10612061/]
• 81. Mediated Hypersensitive Response and Programmed Cell ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00195/full]
• 82. Ethylene Perception by the ERS1 Protein in Arabidopsis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC59101/]
• 83. Role of pathogen's effectors in understanding host- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167488922001392]
• 84. Genome-wide analysis of NBS-LRR genes revealed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9986449/]
• 85. Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Nucleotide ... [https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.556296.php]
• 86. 2025 Guide to AI-Driven Protein Design & Machine Learning ... [https://nanohelix.ai/blog/ai-protein-design-guide-2025]
• 87. Review Structure, function and evolution of plant disease ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369526600000807]
• 88. The Cassava NBS-LRR Genes Confer Resistance to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.790140/full]
• 89. The Role of TIR-NBS and TIR-X Proteins in Plant Basal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3707564/]
• 90. Direct protein interaction underlies gene-for- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1482673/]
• 91. Solanum americanum genome-assisted discovery of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01486-9]
• 92. In silico modelling and interactive profiling of BPH ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S245201442200156X]
• 93. Identification of Novel Host Interactors of Effectors Secreted by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5069955/]
• 94. Experimental Approaches to Visualize Effector Protein ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40078034/]
• 95. A family of Type VI secretion system effector proteins that ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13439-0]
• 96. Computational strategies for elucidating plant disease ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885576525003790]