PatentDe  


Dokumentenidentifikation EP0871354 02.03.2006
EP-Veröffentlichungsnummer 0000871354
Titel INDUZIERTE WIDERSTANDSFÄHIGKEIT GEGEN ÜBEREMPFINDLICHKEITSREAKTIONEN BEI PFLANZEN
Anmelder Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., Ithaca, N.Y., US
Erfinder WEI, Zhong-Min, Ithaca, US;
BEER, V., Steven, Ithaca, US
Vertreter derzeit kein Vertreter bestellt
DE-Aktenzeichen 69635307
Vertragsstaaten CH, DE, DK, ES, FR, GB, LI, NL, SE
Sprache des Dokument EN
EP-Anmeldetag 05.06.1996
EP-Aktenzeichen 969171529
WO-Anmeldetag 05.06.1996
PCT-Aktenzeichen PCT/US96/08819
WO-Veröffentlichungsnummer 0096039802
WO-Veröffentlichungsdatum 19.12.1996
EP-Offenlegungsdatum 21.10.1998
EP date of grant 19.10.2005
Veröffentlichungstag im Patentblatt 02.03.2006
IPC-Hauptklasse A01G 13/00(2006.01)A, F, I, ,  ,  ,   
IPC-Nebenklasse A61K 35/66(2006.01)A, L, I, ,  ,  ,      C12N 1/20(2006.01)A, L, I, ,  ,  ,      C12N 9/00(2006.01)A, L, I, ,  ,  ,      C12R 1/18(2006.01)A, L, I, ,  ,  ,      

Beschreibung[en]

This invention was made with support from the U.S. Government under USDA NRI Competitive Research Grant No. 91-37303-6430.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to imparting hypersensitive response induced resistance to plants.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Living organisms have evolved a complex array of biochemical pathways that enable them to recognize and respond to signals from the environment. These pathways include receptor organs, hormones, second messengers, and enzymatic modifications. At present, little is known about the signal transduction pathways that are activated during a plant's response to attack by a pathogen, although this knowledge is central to an understanding of disease susceptibility and resistance. A common form of plant resistance is the restriction of pathogen proliferation to a small zone surrounding the site of infection. In many cases, this restriction is accompanied by localized death (i.e., necrosis) of host tissues. Together, pathogen restriction and local tissue necrosis characterize the hypersensitive response. In addition to local defense responses, many plants respond to infection by activating defenses in uninfected parts of the plant. As a result, the entire plant is more resistant to a secondary infection. This systemic acquired resistance can persist for several weeks or more (R.E.F. Matthews, Plant Virology (Academic Press, New York, ed. 2, 1981)) and often confers cross-resistance to unrelated pathogens (J. Kuc, in Innovative Approaches to Plant Disease Control, I. Chet, Ed. (Wiley, New York, 1987), pp. 255-274.

Expression of systemic acquired resistance is associated with the failure of normally virulent pathogens to ingress the immunized tissue (Kuc, J., "Induced Immunity to Plant Disease," Bioscience, 32:854-856 (1982)). Establishment of systemic acquired resistance is correlated with systemic increases in cell wall hydroxyproline levels and peroxidase activity (Smith, J.A., et al., "Comparative Study of Acidic Peroxidases Associated with Induced Resistance in Cucumber, Muskmelon and Watermelon," Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 14:329-338 (1988)) and with the expression of a set of nine families of so-called systemic acquired resistance gene (Ward, E.R., et al., "Coordinate Gene Activity in Response to Agents that Induce Systemic Acquired Resistance," Plant Cell 3:49-59 (1991)). Five of these defense gene families encode pathogenesis-related proteins whose physiological functions have not been established. However, some of these proteins have antifungal activity in vitro (Bol, J.F., et al., "Plant Pathogenesis-Related Proteins Induced by Virus Infection," Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 28:113-38 (1990)) and the constitutive expression of a bean chitinase gene in transgenic tobacco protects against infection by the fungus Rhizoctonia solani (Broglie, K., et al., "Transgenic Plants with Enhanced Resistance to the Fungal Pathogen Rhizoctonia Solani," Science 254:1194-1197 (1991)), suggesting that these systemic acquired resistance proteins may contribute to the immunized state (Uknes, S., et al., "Acquired Resistance in Arabidopsis,"Plant Cell 4:645-656 (1992)).

Salicylic acid appears to play a signal function in the induction of systemic acquired resistance since endogenous levels increase after immunization (Malamy, J., et al., "Salicylic Acid: A Likely Endogenous Signal in the Resistance Response of Tobacco to Viral Infection," Science 250:1002-1004 (1990)) and exogenous salicylate induces systemic acquired resistance genes (Yalpani, N., et al., "Salicylic Acid is a Systemic Signal and an Inducer of Pathogenesis-Related Proteins in Virus-Infected Tobacco," Plant Cell 3:809-818 (1991)), and acquired resistance (Uknes, S., et al., "Acquired Resistance inArabidopsis," Plant Cell 4:645-656 (1992)). Moreover, transgenic tobacco plants in which salicylate is destroyed by the action of a bacterial transgene encoding salicylate hydroxylase do not exhibit systemic acquired resistance (Gaffney, T., et al., "Requirement of Salicylic Acid for the Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance," Science 261:754-296 (1993)). However, this effect may reflect inhibition of a local rather than a systemic signal function, and detailed kinetic analysis of signal transmission in cucumber suggests that salicylate may not be essential for long-distance signaling (Rasmussen, J.B., et al., "Systemic Induction of Salicylic Acid Accumulation in Cucumber after Inoculation with Pseudomonas Syringae pv.Syringae," Plant Physiol. 97:1342-1347) (1991)).

Immunization using biotic agents has been extensively studied. Green beans were systemically immunized against disease caused by cultivar-pathogenic races of Colletotrichum lindemuthianum by prior infection with either cultivar-nonpathogenic races (Rahe, J.E., "Induced Resistance in Phaseolus Vulgaris to Bean Anthracnose," Phytopathology 59:1641-5 (1969); Elliston, J., et al., "Induced Resistance to Anthracnose at a Distance from the Site of the Inducing Interaction,"Phytopathology 61:1110-12 (1971); Skipp, R., et al., "Studies on Cross Protection in the Anthracnose Disease of Bean," Physiological Plant Pathology 3:299-313 (1973)), cultivar-pathogenic races attenuated by heat in host tissue prior to symptom appearance (Rahe, J.E., et al., "Metabolic Nature of the Infection-Limiting Effect of Heat on Bean Anthracnose," Phytopathology 60:1005-9 (1970)) or nonpathogens of bean. The anthracnose pathogen of cucumber, Colletotrichum lagenarium, was equally effective as non-pathogenic races as an inducer of systemic protection against all races of bean anthracnose. Protection was induced by C. lagenarium in cultivars resistant to one or more races of C. lindemuthianum as well as in cultivars susceptible to all reported races of the fungus and which accordingly had been referred to as 'lacking genetic resistance' to the pathogen (Elliston, J., et al., "Protection of Bean Against Anthracnose by Colletotrichum Species Nonpathogenic on Bean," Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 86:117-26 (1976); Elliston, J., et al., "A Comparative Study on the Development of Compatible, Incompatible and Induced Incompatible Interactions Between Collectotrichum Species and Phaseolus Vulgaris," Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 87:289-303 (1976)). These results suggest that the same mechanisms may be induced in cultivars reported as 'possessing' or 'lacking' resistance genes (Elliston, J., et al., "Relation of Phytoalexin Accumulation to Local and Systemic Protection of Bean Against Anthracnose," Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 88:114-30 (1977)). It also is apparent that cultivars susceptible to all races of C. lindemuthianum do not lack genes for resistance mechanisms against the pathogen.

Kuc, J., et al., "Protection of Cucumber Against Collectotrichum Lagenarium by Colletotrichum Lagenarium," Physiological Plant Pathology 7:195-9 (1975)), showed that cucumber plants could be systemically protected against disease caused by Colletotrichum lagenarium by prior inoculation of the cotyledons or the first true leaf with the same fungus. Subsequently, cucumbers have been systemically protected against fungal, bacterial, and viral diseases by prior localized infection with either fungi, bacteria, or viruses (Hammerschmidt, R., et al., "Protection of Cucumbers Against Colletotrichum Lagenarium and Cladosporium Cucumerinum," Phytopathology 66:790-3 (1976); Jenns, A. E., et al., "Localized Infection with Tobacco Necrosis Virus Protects Cucumber Against Colletotrichum Lagenarium," Physiological Plant Pathology 11:207-12 (1977); Caruso, F.L., et al. "Induced Resistance of Cucumber to Anthracnose and Angular Leaf Spot byPseudomonas Lachrymans and Colletotrichum Lagenarium,"Physiological Plant Pathology 14:191-201 (1979); Staub, T., et al., "Systemic Protection of Cucumber Plants Against Disease Caused by Cladosporium Cucumerinum andColletotrichum Lagenarium by Prior Localized Infection with Either Fungus," Physiological Plant Pathology, 17:389-93 (1980); Bergstrom, G.C., et al., "Effects of Local Infection of Cucumber by Colletotrichum Lagenarium, Pseudomonas Lachrymans or Tobacco Necrosis Virus on Systemic Resistance to Cucumber Mosaic Virus,"Phytopathology 72:922-6 (1982); Gessler, C., et al., "Induction of Resistance to Fusarium Wilt in Cucumber by Root and Foliar Pathogens," Phytopathology 72:1439-41 (1982); Basham, B., et al., "Tobacco Necrosis Virus Induces Systemic Resistance in Cucumbers AgainstSphaerotheca Fuliginea," Physiological Plant Pathology 23:137-44 (1983)). Non-specific protection induced by infection with C. lagenarium or tobacco necrosis virus was effective against at least 13 pathogens, including obligatory and facultative parasitic fungi, local lesion and systemic viruses, wilt fungi, and bacteria. Similarly, protection was induced by and was also effective against root pathogens. Other curcurbits, including watermelon and muskmelon have been systemically protected against C. lagenarium (Caruso, F.L., et al., "Protection of Watermelon and Muskmelon AgainstColletotrichum Lagenarium by Colletotrichum Lagenarium,"Phytopathology 67:1285-9 (1977)).

Systemic protection in tobacco has also been induced against a wide variety of diseases (Kuc, J., et al., "Immunization for Disease Resistance in Tobacco,"Recent Advances in Tobacco Science 9:179-213 (1983)). Necrotic lesions caused by tobacco mosaic virus enhanced resistance in the upper leaves to disease caused by the virus (Ross, A.F., et al., "Systemic Acquired Resistance Induced by Localized Virus Infections in Plants,"Virology 14:340-58 (1961); Ross, A.F., et al., "Systemic Effects of Local Lesion Formation," In: Viruses of Plants pp. 127-50 (1966)).Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotianae, P. tabacina and Pseudomonas tabaci and reduced reproduction of the aphid Myzus persicae (McIntyre, J.L., et al., "Induction of Localized and Systemic Protection AgainstPhytophthora Parasitica var. nicotianae by Tobacco Mosaic Virus Infection of Tobacco Hypersensitive to the Virus,"Physiological Plant Pathology 15:321-30 (1979); McIntyre, J.L., et al., "Effects of Localized Infections ofNicotiana Tabacum by Tobacco Mosaic Virus on Systemic Resistance Against Diverse Pathogens and an Insect,"Phytopathology 71:297-301 (1981)). Infiltration of heat-killedP. tabaci (Lovrekovich, L., et al., "Induced Reaction Against Wildfire Disease in Tobacco Leaves Treated with Heat-Killed Bacteria," Nature 205:823-4 (1965)), and Pseudomonas solanacearum (Sequeira, L, et al., "Interaction of Bacteria and Host Cell Walls: Its Relation to Mechanisms of Induced Resistance," Physiological Plant Pathology 10:43-50 (1977)), into tobacco leaves induced resistance against the same bacteria used for infiltration. Tobacco plants were also protected by the nematode Pratylenchus penetrans against P. parasitica var. nicotiana (McIntyre, J.L., et al. "Protection of Tobacco Against Phytophthora Parasitica Var. Nicotianae by Cultivar-Nonpathogenic Races, Cell-Free Sonicates and Pratylenchus Penetrans,"Phytopathology 68:235-9 (1978)).

Cruikshank, I.A.M., et al., "The Effect of Stem Infestation of Tobacco with Peronospora Tabacina Adam on Foliage Reaction to Blue Mould," Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 26:369-72 (1960), were the first to report immunization of tobacco foliage against blue mould (i.e., P. tabacina) by stem injection with the fungus, which also involved dwarfing and premature senescence. It was recently discovered that injection external to the xylem not only alleviated stunting but also promoted growth and development. Immunized tobacco plants, in both glasshouse and field experiments, were approximately 40% taller, had a 40% increase in dry weight, 30% increase in fresh weight, and 4-6 more leaves than control plants (Tuzun, S., et al., "The Effect of Stem Injections with Peronospora Tabacina and Metalaxyl Treatment on Growth of Tobacco and Protection Against Blue Mould in the Field,"Phytopathology 74:804 (1984)). These plants flowered approximately 2-3 weeks earlier than control plants (Tuzun, S., et al., "Movement of a Factor in Tobacco Infected with Peronospora Tabacina Adam which Systemically Protects Against Blue Mould," Physiological Plant Pathology 26:321-30 (1985)).

Systemic protection does not confer absolute immunity against infection, but reduces the severity of the disease and delays symptom development. Lesion number, lesion size, and extent of sporulation of fungal pathogens are all decreased. The diseased area may be reduced by more than 90%.

When cucumbers were given a 'booster' inoculation 3-6 weeks after the initial inoculation, immunization induced by C. lagenarium lasted through flowering and fruiting (Kuc, J., et al., "Aspects of the Protection of Cucumber Against Colletotrichum Lagenarium by Colletotrichum Lagenarium," Phytopathology 67:533-6 (1977)). Protection could not be induced once plants had set fruit. Tobacco plants were immunized for the growing season by stem injection with sporangia of P. tabacina. However, to prevent systemic blue mould development, this technique was only effective when the plants were above 20 cm in height.

Removal of the inducer leaf from immunized cucumber plants did not reduce the level of immunization of pre-existing expanded leaves. However, leaves which subsequently emerged from the apical bud were progressively less protected than their predecessors (Dean, R.A., et al., "Induced Systemic Protection in Cucumber: Time of Production and Movement of the 'Signal'," Phytopathology 76:966-70 (1986)). Similar results were reported by Ross, A.F., "Systemic Effects of Local Lesion Formation," In: Viruses of Plaats pp. 127-50 (1966), with tobacco (local lesion host) immunized against tobacco mosaic virus by prior infection with tobacco mosaic virus. In contrast, new leaves which emerged from scions excised from tobacco plants immunized by stem-injection with P. tabacina were highly protected (Tuzun, S., et al., "Transfer of Induced Resistance in Tobacco to Blue Mould (Peronospora Tabacina Adam.) Via Callus," Phytopathology 75:1304 (1985)). Plants regenerated via tissue culture from leaves of immunized plants showed a significant reduction in blue mould compared to plants regenerated from leaves of non-immunized parents. Young regenerants only showed reduced sporulation. As plants aged, both lesion development and sporulation were reduced. Other investigators, however, did not reach the same conclusion, although a significant reduction in sporulation in one experiment was reported (Lucas, J.A., et al., "Nontransmissibility to Regenerants from Protected Tobacco Explants of Induced Resistance toPeronospora Hyoscyami," Phytopathology 75:1222-5 (1985)).

Protection of cucumber and watermelon is effective in the glasshouse and in the field (Caruso, F.L., et al., "Field Protection of Cucumber AgainstColletotrichum Lagenarium by C. Lagenarium,"Phytopathology 67:1290-2 (1977)). In one trial, the total lesion area of C. lagenarium on protected cucumber was less than 2% of the lesion areas on unprotected control plants. Similarly, only 1 of 66 protected, challenged plants died, whereas 47 of 69 unprotected, challenged watermelons died. In extensive field trials in Kentucky and Puerto Rico, stem injection of tobacco with sporangia of P. tabacina was at least as effective in controlling blue mould as the best fungicide, metalaxyl. Plants were protected 95-99%, based on the necrotic area and degree of sporulation, leading to a yield increase of 10-25% in cured tobacco.

Induced resistance against bacteria and viruses appears to be expressed as suppression of disease symptoms or pathogen multiplication or both (Caruso, F.L., et al., "Induced Resistance of Cucumber to Anthracnose and Angular Leaf Spot by Pseudomonas Lachrymans and Colletotrichum Lagenarium," Physiological Plant Pathology 14:191-201 (1979); Doss, M., et al., "Systemic Acquired Resistance of Cucumber to Pseudomonas Lachrymans as Expressed in Suppression of Symptoms, but not in Multiplication of Bacteria," Acta Phytopathologia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16: (3-4), 269-72 (1981); Jenns, A.E., et al., "Non-Specific Resistance to Pathogens Induced Systemically by Local Infection of Cucumber with Tobacco Necrosis Virus, Colletotrichum Lagenarium or Pseudomonas Lachrymans," Phytopathologia Mediterranea 18:129-34 (1979)).

As described above, research concerning systemic acquired resistance involves infecting plants with infectious pathogens. Although studies in this area are useful in understanding how systemic acquired resistance works, eliciting such resistance with infectious agents is not commercially useful, because such plant-pathogen contact can weaken or kill plants. The present invention is directed to overcoming this deficiency.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method of imparting pathogen resistance to plants. This method involves applying an isolated hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein or bacteria that do not cause disease and are transformed with a gene encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor to a plant under conditions where the polypeptide or protein contacts cells of the plant.

Also shown are pathogen-resistant plants with cells in contact with non-infectious hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein.

The present invention may involve a composition for imparting pathogen resistance to plants. The composition includes a non-infectious, hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein and a carrier.

The present invention has the potential to: treat plant diseases which were previously untreatable; treat diseases systemically that one would not want to treat separately due to cost; and avoid the use of infectious agents to treat diseases. The present invention can impart resistance without using agents pathogenic to the plants being treated or to plants situated nearby those treated. Since the present invention involves use of a natural product that is fully biodegradable, the environment would not be contaminated.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

  • Figure 1 shows the genetic organization of the gene cluster encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein for Erwinia amylovora (i.e. hrpN). The top line shows the restriction enzyme map of plasmid vector pCPP430, where E=Eco RI, B=Bam HI, and H-Hind III. The rectangles represent transcriptional units, and the arrows under the rectangles indicate the directions of transcription. The bigger arrow indicates the region necessary for ultimate translation of the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein. pCPP430 hrpN is the derivative of pCPP430 in which hrpN is mutated by the insertion of transposor TnStac.
  • Figure 2 is a map of plasmid vector pCPP9 Significant features are the mobilization (mob) site for conjugation; the cohesive site of λ (cos); and the partition region (par) for stable inheritance of the plasmid. B, BamHI; E, EcorRI; H, HindIII; P, PstI; S, SaII; Sm, SmaI; oriV, origin of replication; Spr, spectinomycin resistance; Smr, streptomycin resistance.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method of imparting pathogen resistance to plants. This method involves applying an isolated hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein or bacteria that do not cause disease and are transformed with a gene encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor to all or part of a plant under conditions where the polypeptide or protein contacts all or part of the cells of the plant.

Also shown are pathogen-resistant plants with cells in contact with a non-infectious hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein.

The present invention may involve a composition for imparting pathogen resistance to plants. The composition includes a non-infectious hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein and a carrier.

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein utilized in the present invention can correspond to hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptides or proteins derived from a wide variety of pathogens. Such polypeptides or proteins are able to elicit local necrosis in plant tissue contacted by the elicitor. Preferred pathogens includeErwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solancearum, Xanthomonas campestris, or mixtures thereof.

In one embodiment of the present invention, the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptides or proteins can be isolated from their corresponding organisms and applied to plants. Such isolation procedures are well known, as described in Arlat, M., F. Van Gijsegem, J. C. Huet, J. C. Pemollet, and C. A. Boucher, "PopA1, a Protein which Induces a Hypersensitive-like Response in Specific Petunia Genotypes is Secreted via the Hrp Pathway of Pseudomonas solanacearum,"EMBO J. 13:543 - 553 (1994); He, S. Y., H. C. Huang, and A. Collmer, "Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae HarpinPss: a Protein that is Secreted via the Hrp Pathway and Elicits the Hypersensitive Response in Plants," Cell 73:1255-1266 (1993); and Wei, Z. -M., R. J. Laby, C. H. Zumoff, D. W. Bauer, S. -Y. He, A. Collmer, and S. V. Beer, "Harpin Elicitor of the Hypersensitive Response produced by the Plant Pathogen Erwinia amylovora, Science 257:85-88 (1992). See also pending U.S. Patent Application Serial Nos. 08/200,024 and 08/062,024. Preferably, however, the isolated hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptides or proteins used in the present invention are produced recombinantly and purified as described below.

In other embodiments of the present invention, the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein of the present invention can be applied to plants by applying bacteria containing genes encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein. Such bacteria must be capable of secreting or exporting the polypeptide or protein so that the elicitor can contact plant cells. In these embodiments, the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein is produced by the bacteria in planta or just prior to introduction of the bacteria to the plants.

In one embodiment of the bacterial application mode of the present invention, the bacteria do not cause the disease and have been transformed (e.g., recombinantly) with genes encoding a hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein. For example, E. coli, which do not elicit a hypersensitive response in plants, can be transformed with genes encoding a hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein and then applied to plants. Bacterial species (other than E. coli) can also be used in this embodiment of the present invention.

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein from Erwinia chrysanthemi has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 1 as follows:

This hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of 34 kDa, is heat stable, has a glycine content of greater than 16%, and contains substantially no cysteine. The Erwinia chrysanthemi hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein is encoded by a DNA molecule having a nucleotide sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 2 as follows:

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein derived from Erwinia amylovora has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 3 as follows:

This hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of about 37 kDa, it has a pI of approximately 4.3, and is heat stable at 100°C for at least 10 minutes. This hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has substantially no cysteine. The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein derived from Erwinia amylovora is more fully described in Wei, Z.-M., R. J. Laby, C. H. Zumoff, D. W. Bauer, S.-Y. He, A. Collmer, and S. V. Beer, "Harpin, Elicitor of the Hypersensitive Response Produced by the Plant PathogenErwinia amylovora," Science 257:85-88 (1992). The DNA molecule encoding this polypeptide or protein has a nucleotide sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 4 as follows:

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein derived from Pseudomonas syringae has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 5 as follows:

This hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of 34-35 kDa. It is rich in glycine (about 13.5%) and lacks cysteine and tyrosine. Further information about the hypersensitive response elicitor derived from Pseudomonas syringae is found in He, S. Y., H. C. Huang, and A. Collmer, "Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae HarpinPss: a Protein that is Secreted via the Hrp Pathway and Elicits the Hypersensitive Response in Plants," Cell 73:1255-1266 (1993). The DNA molecule encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor from Pseudomonas syringae has a nucleotide sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 6 as follows:

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein derived from Pseudomonas solanacearum has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 7 as follows:

It is encoded by a DNA molecule having a nucleotide sequence corresponding SEQ. ID. No. 8 as follows:
Further information regarding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein derived from Pseudomonas solanacearum is set forth in Arlat, M., F. Van Gijsegem, J. C. Huet, J. C. Pemollet, and C. A. Boucher, "PopA1, a Protein which Induces a Hypersensitive-like Response in Specific Petunia Genotypes, is Secreted via the Hrp Pathway of Pseudomonas solanacearum," EMBO J. 13:543-533 (1994).

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein from Xanthomonas campestris pv. glycines has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 9 as follows:

This sequence is an amino terminal sequence having 26 residues only from the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein of Xanthomonas campestris pv. glycines. It matches with fimbrial subunit proteins determined in other tanthomouas campestris pathovars.

The above elicitors are exemplary. Other elicitors can be identified by growing bacteria that elicit a hypersensitive response under which genes encoding an elicitor are expressed. Cell-free preparations from culture supernatants can be tested for elicitor activity (i.e. local necrosis) by using them to infiltrate appropriate plant tissues.

It is also possible to use fragments of the above hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptides or proteins as well as fragments of full length elicitors from other pathogens, in the method of the present invention.

Suitable fragments can be produced by several means. In the first, subclones of the gene encoding a known elicitor protein are produced by conventional molecular genetic manipulation by subcloning gene fragments. The subclones then are expressed in vitro or in vivo in bacterial cells to yield a smaller protein or a peptide that can be tested for elicitor activity according to the procedure described below.

As an alternative, fragments of an elicitor protein can be produced by digestion of a full-length elicitor protein with proteolytic enzymes like chymotrypsin or Staphylococcus proteinase A, or trypsin. Different proteolytic enzymes are likely to cleave elicitor proteins at different sites based on the amino acid sequence of the elicitor protein. Some of the fragments that result from proteolysis may be active elicitors of resistance.

In another approach, based on knowledge of the primary structure of the protein, fragments of the elicitor protein gene may be synthesized by using the PCR technique together with specific sets of primers chosen to represent particular portions of the protein. These then would be cloned into an appropriate vector for increase and expression of a truncated peptide or protein.

Variants may also (or alternatively) be modified by, for example, the deletion or addition of amino acids that have minimal influence on the properties, secondary structure and hydropathic nature of the polypeptide. For example, a polypeptide may be conjugated to a signal (or leader) sequence at the N-terminal end of the protein which co-translationally or post-translationally directs transfer of the protein. The polypeptide may also be conjugated to a linker or other sequence for ease of synthesis, purification or identification of the polypeptide.

The protein or polypeptide used in the present invention is preferably produced in purified form (preferably at least about 80%, more preferably 90%, pure) by conventional techniques. Typically, the protein or polypeptide used in the present invention is secreted into the growth medium of recombinant E. coli. To isolate the protein, the E. coli host cell carrying a recombinant plasmid is propagated, homogenized, and the homogenate is centrifuged to remove bacterial debris. The supernatant is then subjected to sequential ammonium sulfate precipitation The fraction containing the polypeptide or protein used in the present invention is subjected to gel filtration in an appropriately sized dextran or polyacrylamide column to separate the proteins. If necessary, the protein fraction may be further purified by HPLC.

The DNA molecule encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein can be incorporated in cells using conventional recombinant DNA technology. Generally, this involves inserting the DNA molecule into an expression system to which the DNA molecule is heterologous (i.e. not normally present). The heterologous DNA molecule is inserted into the expression system or vector in proper sense orientation and correct reading frame. The vector contains the necessary elements for the transcription and translation of the inserted protein-coding sequences.

U.S. Patent No. 4,237,224 to Cohen and Boyer describes the production of expression systems in the form of recombinant plasmids using restriction enzyme cleavage and ligation with DNA ligase. These recombinant plasmids are then introduced by means of transformation and replicated in unicellular cultures including procaryotic organisms and eucaryotic cells grown in tissue culture.

Recombinant genes may also be introduced into viruses, such as vaccina virus. Recombinant viruses can be generated by transection of plasmids into cells infected with virus.

Suitable vectors include, but are not limited to, the following viral vectors such as lambda vector system gt11, gt WES.tB, Charon 4, and plasmid vectors such as pBR322, pBR325, pACYC177, pACYC184, pUC8, pUC9, pUC18, pUC19, pLG339, pR290, pKC37, pKC101, SV 40, pBluescript II SK +/- or KS +/- (see "Stratagene Cloning Systems" Catalog (1993) from Stratagene, La Jolla, Calif), pQE, pIH821, pGEX, pET series (see F.W. Studier et. al., "Use of T7 RNA Polymerase to Direct Expression of Cloned Genes,"Gene Expression Technology vol. 185 (1990)), and any derivatives thereof. Recombinant molecules can be introduced into cells via transformation, particularly transduction, conjugation, mobilization, or electroporation. The DNA sequences are cloned into the vector using standard cloning procedures in the art, as described by Maniatis et al., Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Springs Laboratory, Cold Springs Harbor, New York (1982).

A variety of host-vector systems may be utilized to express the protein-encoding sequence(s). Primarily, the vector system must be compatible with the host cell used. Host-vector systems include but are not limited to the following: bacteria transformed with bacteriophage DNA, plasmid DNA, or cosmid DNA; microorganisms such as yeast containing yeast vectors; mammalian cell systems infected with virus (e.g., vaccinia virus, adenovirus, etc.); insect cell systems infected with virus (e.g., baculovirus); and plant cells infected by bacteria. The expression elements of these vectors vary in their strength and specificities. Depending upon the host-vector system utilized, any one of a number of suitable transcription and translation elements can be used.

Different genetic signals and processing events control many levels of gene expression (e.g., DNA transcription and messenger RNA (mRNA) translation).

Transcription of DNA is dependent upon the presence of a promotor which is a DNA sequence that directs the binding of RNA polymerase and thereby promotes mRNA synthesis. The DNA sequences of eucaryotic promotors differ from those of procaryotic promotors. Furthermore, eucaryotic promotors and accompanying genetic signals may not be recognized in or may not function in a procaryotic system, and, further, procaryotic promotors are not recognized and do not function in eucaryotic cells.

Similarly, translation of mRNA in procaryotes depends upon the presence of the proper procaryotic signals which differ from those of eucaryotes. Efficient translation of mRNA in procaryotes requires a ribosome binding site called the Shine-Dalgarno ("SD") sequence on the mRNA. This sequence is a short nucleotide sequence of mRNA that is located before the start codon, usually AUG, which encodes the amino-terminal methionine of the protein. The SD sequences are complementary to the 3'-end of the 16S rRNA (ribosomal RNA) and probably promote binding of mRNA to ribosomes by duplexing with the rRNA to allow correct positioning of the ribosome. For a review on maximizing gene expression, see Roberts and Lauer, Methods in Enzymology, 68:473 (1979).

Promotors vary in their "strength" (i.e. their ability to promote transcription). For the purposes of expressing a cloned gene, it is desirable to use strong promotors in order to obtain a high level of transcription and, hence, expression of the gene. Depending upon the host cell system utilized, any one of a number of suitable promotors may be used. For instance, when cloning in E. coli, its bacteriophages, or plasmids, promotors such as the T7 phage promoter, lac promotor, trp promotor, recA promotor, ribosomal RNA promotor, the PR and PL promotors of coliphage lambda and others, including but not limited, to lacUV5, ompF, bla,lpp, and the like, may be used to direct high levels of transcription of adjacent DNA segments. Additionally, a hybrid trp-lacUV5 (tac) promotor or other E. coli promotors produced by recombinant DNA or other synthetic DNA techniques may be used to provide for transcription of the inserted gene.

Bacterial host cell strains and expression vectors may be chosen which inhibit the action of the promotor unless specifically induced. In certain operations, the addition of specific inducers is necessary for efficient transcription of the inserted DNA. For example, the lac operon is induced by the addition of lactose or IPTG (isopropylthio-beta-D-galactoside). A variety of other operons, such as trp,pro, etc., are under different controls.

Specific initiation signals are also required for efficient gene transcription and translation in procaryotic cells. These transcription and translation initiation signals may vary in "strength" as measured by the quantity of gene specific messenger RNA and protein synthesized, respectively. The DNA expression vector, which contains a promotor, may also contain any combination of various "strong" transcription and/or translation initiation signals. For instance, efficient translation in E. coli requires a Shine-Dalgarno (SD) sequence about 7-9 bases 5' to the initiation codon (ATG) to provide a ribosome binding site. Thus, any SD-ATG combination that can be utilized by host cell ribosomes may be employed. Such combinations include but are not limited to the SD-ATG combination from the cro gene or the N gene of coliphage lambda, or from the E. coli tryptophan E, D, C, B or A genes. Additionally, any SD-ATG combination produced by recombinant DNA or other techniques involving incorporation of synthetic nucleotides may be used.

Once the isolated DNA molecule encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has been cloned into an expression system, it is ready to be incorporated into a host cell. Such incorporation can be carried out by the various forms of transformation noted above, depending upon the vector/host cell system. Suitable host cells include, but are not limited to, bacteria, virus, yeast, mammalian cells, insect, plant, and the like.

The method of the present invention can be utilized to treat a wide variety of plants to impart pathogen resistance. Suitable plants include dicots and monocots. More particularly, useful crop plants can include: rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sunflower, peanut, corn, potato, sweet potato, bean, pea, chicory, lettuce, endive, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, turnip, radish, spinach, onion, garlic, eggplant, pepper, celery, carrot, squash, pumpkin, zucchini, cucumber, apple, pear, melon, strawberry, grape, raspberry, pineapple, soybean, tobacco, tomato, sorghum, and sugarcane. Examples of suitable ornamental plants are: Arabidopsis thaliana,Saintpaulia, petunia, pelargonium, poinsettia, chrysanthemum, carnation, and zinnia.

The method of imparting pathogen resistance to plants in accordance with the present invention is useful in imparting resistance to a wide variety of pathogens including viruses, bacteria, and fungi.

Resistance, inter alia, to the following viruses can be achieved by the method of the present invention: Tobacco mosaic virus and tomato mosaic virus.

Resistance, inter alia, to the following bacteria can also be imparted to plants in accordance with the present invention: Pseudomonas solancearum, Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci, and Xanthamonas campestris pv. pelargonii.

Plants can be made resistant, inter alia, to the following fungi by use of the method of the present invention: Fusarium oxysporum and Phytophthora infestans.

The method of the present invention can be carried out through a variety of procedures for applying the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein to all or part of the plant being treated. This may (but need not) involve infiltration of the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein into the plant. Suitable application methods include high or low pressure spraying, injection, and leaf abrasion proximate to when elicitor application takes place. Other suitable application procedures can be envisioned by those skilled in the art provided they are able to effect contact of the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein with cells of the plant.

The hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein can be applied to plants in accordance with the present invention alone or in a mixture with other materials.

The present invention may involve a composition for imparting pathogen resistance to plants containing a hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein in a carrier. Suitable carriers include water or aqueous solutions. In this embodiment, the composition contains greater than 500 nM hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein.

Although not required, this composition may contain additional additives including fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide, and mixtures thereof. Suitable fertilizers include (NH4)2NO3. An example of a suitable insecticide is Malathion. Useful fungicides include Captan.

Other suitable additives include buffering agents,wetting agents, and abrading agents. These materials can be used to facilitate the process of the present invention.

EXAMPLES Example 1 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Tomato Against The Southern Bacterial Wilt Disease (Pseudomonas solanacearum)

Two-week-old tomato seedlings, grown in 8 x 15 cm flats in the greenhouse were treated as follows: 20 plants were used for each of the six treatments, which were designated A through F, and are described as follows:

  • (A) About 100 µl of a 200 µg/ml crude harpin (i.e. hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein) preparation (Z-M. Wei, "Harpin, Elicitor of the Hypersensitive Response Produced by the Plant PathogenErwinia amylovoxa," Science 257:85-88 (1992)) was infiltrated into the lowest true leaf of each of the seedlings.
  • (B) The same harpin preparation as used in (A) was sprayed with 400-mesh carborundum onto the leaf surface of the seedlings and then gently rubbed in with the thumb.
  • (C) E. coli DHS(pCPP430)(See Figure 1 for map of plasmid vector pCPP430) was grown in LB medium to OD620=0.7. The culture was centrifuged and then resuspended in 5 mM of potassium phosphate buffer pH 6.5. About 100 µl of cell suspension was infiltrated into each leaf of the seedlings.
  • (D) E. coli DH5(pCPP430::hrpN-) (See Figure 1 for map of plasmid vector pCPP430::hrpN-) was used as in (C). The cells were grown, and the suspension and the amount of inoculum used were the same as described in (C).
  • (E) For E. coli DH5(pCPP9) (See Figure 2), the cells were grown and the suspension and the amount of inoculum used were the same as described in (C).
  • (F) Infiltration of leaves with 5mM potassium phosphate buffer was as described in (C).

The challenge pathogenic bacterium, Pseudomonas solanacearum strain K60, was grown in King's medium B to OD620=0.7 (about 108 cfu/ml). The culture was centrifuged and resuspended in 100 volume of 5 mM potassium phosphate buffer to a final concentration of about 1x106 cfu/ml.

Three days after the tomato seedlings were treated with harpin or bacteria, they were pulled up and about one cm of roots were cut off with scissors. The seedlings were then dipped into the suspension of P. solanacearum K60 for 3 min. The inoculated plants were replanted into the same pots. The plants were left in a greenhouse, and the disease incidence was recorded 7 days after inoculation.

A. Effect of treatment with harpin

After 24 hours, only those leaf portions that had been infiltrated with harpin or E. coli DHS(pCPP430) had collapsed. Leaves sprayed with harpin and carborundum showed only spotty necrosis.

B. Effect of treatment with harpin on the development of Southern Bacterial Wilt.

None of the 20 harpin-infiltrated plants showed any symptoms one week after inoculation with P. solanacearum K60 (Table 1). One out of the 20 plants showed stunting symptoms. However, 7 of the 20 buffer-infiltrated plants showed stunting symptoms. Treatment with E. coli DH5 (pCPP430-) (a transposon-induced mutant unable to elicit the hypersensitive collapse) or E. coli DHS(pCPP9) did not show significant difference compared to the plants treated with buffer. These results suggest that harpin or E. coli DH5(pCPP430), which produces harpin, induced resistance in the tomato plants to southern bacterial wilt caused by P. solanacearum K60. Disease incidence of tomato seedlings 7 and 14 days after inoculation with <i>P. solanacearum</i> K60. Number of Plants Day 7 Day 14 Treatment Stunted Healthy Stunted Healthy A. Harpin infiltration 0 20 2 18 B. Harpin spray 1 19 3 17 C. E. coli DH5(pCPP430) 2 18 3 17 D. E. coli DH5(pCPP430-) 4 16 7 13 E. E. coli DH5(pCPP9) 5 15 6+1 wilted 13 F. Buffer 7 13 8+1 wilted 11 No pathogen 0 20 0 20

Four weeks after inoculation, plants treated with the harpin or E. coli DH5(pcPP430) were taller and broader as compared to those treated with buffer. The average heights of 10 plants that had been infiltrated with harpin or buffer are given in Table 2. Heights (cm) of tomato plants four weeks after inoculation with <i>Pseudomonas solanacearum</i> K60, following treatment with harpin or buffer. Infiltrated with Buffer

Not inoculated
Infiltrated with Harpin

Inoculated with K60
Infiltrated with Buffer

Inoculated with K60
36 32 11 41 29 21 35 38 33 34 35 12 39 37 15 35 33 32 36 22 25 35 35 15 41 40 37 37 29 38 Average 36.9 33 23.9

Example 2 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Tomato against Southern Bacterial Wilt Disease Pseudomonas solanacearum

All the methods used for infiltration and inoculation were the same as described in Example 1, except that the concentration of P. solanacearum K60 was about 5x104 cfu/ml.

The buffer-infiltrated plants showed symptoms 15 days after inoculation with P. solanacearum K60. Six out of 20 plants showed stunting symptoms after 15 days; 2 plants were wilted after 21 days. The wilted plants eventually died. However, none of the 20 harpin-treated plants showed stunting symptoms. Three weeks after inoculation, 3 of the 20 harpin-treated plants showed stunting symptoms. It is possible that after three weeks, the plants may have lost their induced resistance. As in the first experiment, the overall girth and heights of the harpin-treated plants were greater than those treated with buffer.

Example 3 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Tomato against Southern Bacterial Wilt Disease Pseudomonas solanacearum

This experiment was similar to Example 1, except that additional inoculum of Pseudomonas solanacearum K60 was added to the pots containing the treated tomato plants.

Harpin was infiltrated into two-week-old tomato seedlings. Two panels of each plant were infiltrated with about 200 µl harpin suspended in 5 mM of potassium phosphate buffer at the concentration about 200 µg/ml. A total of 20 tomato seedlings were infiltrated. The same number of tomato seedlings were infiltrated with buffer. After two days, the plants were inoculated withPseudomonas solanacearum K60 by root-dipping. The harpin- or buffer-infiltrated plants were pulled from the soil mix and small amounts of roots were cut off with scissors and then the remaining roots were dipped into a suspension of P. solanacearum K60 for three minutes. The concentration of the bacterial cell suspension was about 5x108 cfu/ml. The seedlings were replanted into the same pot. An additional 3 ml of bacterial suspension was added to the soil of each individual 4-inch diameter pot. Disease incidence was scored after one week. All the experiments were done in the greenhouse with limited temperature control.

After three weeks, 11 of the 20 buffer-infiltrated tomato plants had died and 2 plants that had wilted recovered, but remained severely stunted. Only 4 plants grew normally compared with non-inoculated tomatoes. However, 15 of the harpited plants appeared healthy; three plants were stunted and two plants were wilted 3 weeks after inoculation. These results are summarized below in Table 3. Harpin-induced resistance of tomato against bacterial wilt disease caused by <i>P. solanacearum</i> Weeks After Inoculation Treatment 1 2 3 Harpin Healthy 20 17 15 Wilted 0 1 2 Stunted 0 2 3 Buffer Healthy 8 5 4 Wilted 8 12 13 Stunted 4 3 3

Example 4 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Tobacco to Tobacco Mosaic Virus

One panel of a lower leaf of four-week old tobacco seedlings (cultivar, Xanthi, with N gene) were infiltrated with E. amylovora harpin at the concentration of 200 µg/ml. After three days, the plants were challenged with tobacco mosaic virus ("TMV"). Two concentrations of the virus (5 µg and 100 µg/ml) were used. About 50 µl of the virus suspension was deposited on one upper tobacco leaf. The leaf was dusted with 400-mesh carborundum and the leaves gently rubbed. Each concentration was tested on three plants. Necrotic lesions were counted 4 days after inoculation and on two subsequent days and the mean number on three leaves is reported (Table 4). It was difficult to distinguish the individual lesions by Day 10 because some of the necrotic lesions had merged together. Therefore, the number of lesions recorded seemed less than those recorded on Day 7. The size of the necrotic lesions in buffer-treated leaves was much larger than the harpin-treated leaves. Harpin-induced resistance of tobacco against TMV from inoculation with 5 µg/ml of virus Mean Number of Lesions/Leaf Treatment Day 4 Day 7 Day 10 Harpin 21 32 35 Buffer 67 102 76

There was no significant difference in the number of local lesions that developed on the harpin-treated and buffer-treated tobacco when the tobacco mosaic virus inoculum concentration was 100 µg/ml.

Example 5 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Tomato to Fusarium Wilt Disease

Six-week-old tomato plants were treated with harpin as described for Example 3. The fungal pathogen,Fusarium oxysporum, was grown on Lima Bean Agar medium for 5 days at 27°C. Two entire agar plates with mycelia were blended for 2 minutes in 20 ml of 5 mM potassium phosphate buffer. The roots of harpin- or buffer-treated tomato plants were wounded by plunging a wooden stake into the soil of the pots. Then, 3 ml of the fungal suspension was poured into the soil of each 4-inch pot. The inoculated plants remained in a controlled environment chamber at 24°C with 16 hours of light per day. Disease incidence was recorded 7 days after inoculation. Each treatment was applied to 10 plants. The results are shown below in Table 5. Effect of harpin or buffer treatment on Fusarium wilt disease of tomato Number of plants (of 10) showing wilt symptoms at the indicated time post-inoculation Treatment Day 7 Day 10 Day 15 Day 20 Harpin 1 2 4 4 (1 dead) Buffer 3 6 7 7 (4 dead)

Example 6 - Harpin-Induced Resistance of Tobacco Against Wildfire Disease (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci).

Harpin was infiltrated into single panels of the lower leaves of 4-week-old tobacco plants (20 cm high). After three days, suspensions of Pseudomonas syringe pv. tabaci were infiltrated into single panels of upper leaves. Four days later, disease incidence was recorded, as set forth in Table 6. Symptoms of infection by Wildfire disease in tobacco leaves inoculated with <i>Pseudomonas syringe</i> pv. <i>tabaci</i> following treatment of lower leaves with harpin. Concentration of P.s. tabaci Treated with Harpin Not treated with Harpin 104cfu/ml no symptoms necrosis and water-soaking 105cfu/ml no symptoms necrosis and water-soaking 106cfu/ml no symptoms necrosis and water-soaking 107cfu/ml no symptoms necrosis and water-soaking 108cfu/ml necrosis necrosis and water-soaking

Example 7 - Harpin-induced Resistance of Geranium (Pelargonium hortorum) Against Bacterial Leaf Spot (Xanthamonas campestris pv. pelargonii)

This experiment was done with rooted cuttings of geranium growing in individual 4" or 6" pots in an artificial soil mix in a greenhouse. Two lower leaves on each plant were infiltrated with either 0.05 M potassium phosphate buffer, pH 6.5 (control), or harpin or a suspension of Escherichia coli DH5(pCPP430) (the entire cloned hrp gene cluster of E. amylovora). Two to seven days following infiltration, all the plants were inoculated with a pure culture of the bacterial leaf spot pathogen, Xanthamonas campestris pv. pelargonii. A suspension of the bacteria (5 x 106 cfu/ml) was atomized over both upper and lower leaf surfaces of the plants at low pressure. Each treatment was applied to two plants (designated "A" and "B" in Table 7). The plants were maintained in a closed chamber for 48 hours with supplemental misting supplied by cool-mist foggers. Then, the plants were maintained on the greenhouse bench subject to ambient humidity and temperature of 23°C to 32°C for 10 days before disease development was assessed. Effect of harpin and the hrp gene cluster of <i>Erwinia amylovora</i> on the development of bacterial leaf spot of geranium. Time between treatment and inoculation with Xanthomonas campestris pv. pelargonii Treatment 7 Days 5 Days 4 Days 3 Days 2 days Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant A B A B A B A B A B Buffer 3* 5 5 4 3 2 4 3 4 5 Harpin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 DH5 (pCPP430) 0 0 NT NT 0 0 0 1 1 0
* Numbers in table are the number of leaves showing disease symptoms (pronounced necrosis, chlorosis, or wilting) 10 days following' inoculation.

Example 8 - Activity of several harpins in inducing resistance to Wildfire Disease caused byPseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci

Tobacco plants (Nicotiana tabacum var. Xanthi) were grown in the greenhouse. At 4 weeks of age, harpin preparations were infiltrated into a single panel of two lower leaves of each plant. Twelve plants were treated with each harpin preparation, and three were treated with the same potassium phosphate buffer that was used to prepare the harpins. The hypersensitive necrosis developed within 24 hours in the panels of the leaves infiltrated with the harpin preparations, but not with buffer.

At 7, 10, 11, and 12 days after harpin treatment, all plants were inoculated with suspensions of 104 to 106 cells/ml of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci by infiltrating panels on upper leaves. Plants were incubated in the greenhouse for 7 days before disease development was evaluated. The results are tabulated as follows in Table 8: Harpin source Days between treatment and inoculation 12 11 10 7 log [Inoc.] 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 None (buffer) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + P. syringae - - + - - + - - + - - + E . chrysanthemi - - + - - + - - + - - + E. amylovora - - + - - - - - + - - +
- = No symptoms,

+ = Necrosis with yellow halo, typical of wildfire disease

+ + = Severe necrosis with yellow halo, typical of wildfire disease

The results indicate that the harpin preparations from the three bacteria are effective in inducing resistance to the wildfire pathogen. Plants treated with either harpin exhibited no symptoms with the two lower inoculum concentrations used. At the higher concentration, symptoms were more severe on buffer-treated plants than harpin-treated plants.

Example 9 - Harpin induced resistance against the Late Blight disease caused by Phytophthora infestans.

The late blight pathogen affects potatoes and tomatoes primarily. It was responsible for the infamous Irish potato famine. The activity of harpin in inducing resistance to this pathogen was tested on tomato seedlings grown in the greenhouse. Three-week old seedlings (cultivar 'Mama Mia', about 6 to 8 inches high) were treated with harpin and subsequently inoculated withPhythophthora infestans. Two panels of a lower leaf of each plant were infiltrated with a solution of harpin, a suspension of Escherichia coli DH5(pCPP430), which produces and secretes harpin, or potassium phosphate buffer.

Two, three, or four days following infiltration, the plants were inoculated with a mycelial suspension of Phytophthora infestans. The strain U.S. 7 was used, which is highly virulent to tomato. The mycelial suspension was made by blending gently the contents of two barley-meal agar plates on and in which the fungus had grown for 2 weeks at 21°C. The suspension was brushed onto the top and undersides of one leaf per treated plant with an artist's broad paint brush.

The treated and inoculated plants were incubated in a specially constructed mist chamber designed to maintain a temperature of 20-23°C in the greenhouse, while maintaining high relative humidity. The moisture was provided by several cool-mist foggers operating at maximum rate on purified water. Disease incidence was evaluated 13 days following inoculation with Phytophthora infestans, and the results are tabulated in Table 9. Each treatment was applied to four individual plants. Numbers of lesion of late blight that were present on tomato leaves 13 days after inoculation. Treatment Days between treatment and inoculation 4 3 2 Plant A B C D A B C D A B C D Buffer 3 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 4 1 Harpin 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 DHS(pCPP430) 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0

Treatment with harpin reduced the number of lesions that developed on plants at all intervals between treatment and inoculation. The number of late blight lesions that developed also was reduced by prior treatment with DH5(pCPP430), which produces and secretes harpin.

SEQUENCE LISTING

  • (1) GENERAL INFORMATION:
    • (i) APPLICANT: Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
    • (ii) TITLE OF INVENTION: HYPERSENSITIVE RESPONSE INDUCED RESISTANCE IN PLANTS
    • (iii) NUMBER OF SEQUENCES: 9
    • (iv) CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
      • (A) ADDRESSEE: Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP
      • (B) STREET: Clinton Square, P.O. Box 1051
      • (C) CITY: Rochester
      • (D) STATE: New York
      • (E) COUNTRY: U.S.A.
      • (F) ZIP: 14603
    • (v) COMPUTER READABLE FORM:
      • (A) MEDIUM TYPE: Floppy disk
      • (B) COMPUTER: IBM PC compatible
      • (C) OPERATING SYSTEM: PC-DOS/MS-DOS
      • (D) SOFTWARE: PatentIn Release #1.0, Version #1.30
    • (vi) CURRENT APPLICATION DATA:
      • (A) APPLICATION NUMBER:
      • (B) FILING DATE:
      • (C) CLASSIFICATION:
    • (vii) PRIOR APPLICATION DATA:
      • (A) APPLICATION NUMBER: US 08/475,775
      • (B) FILING DATE: 07-JUN-1995
    • (viii) ATTORNEY/AGENT INFORMATION:
      • (A) NAME: Goldman, Michael L.
      • (B) REGISTRATION NUMBER: 30,727
      • (C) REFERENCE/DOCKET NUMBER: 19603/10051
    • (ix) TELECOMMUNICATION INFORMATION:
      • (A) TELEPHONE: (716) 263-1304
      • (B) TELEFAX: (716) 263-1600
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:1:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 338 amino acids
      • (B) TYPE: amino acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS:
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: protein
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:1:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:2:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 2141 base pairs
      • (B) TYPE: nucleic acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS: single
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: DNA (genomic)
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:2:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:3:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 385 amino acids
      • (B) TYPE: amino acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS:
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: protein
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:3:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:4:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 1158 base pairs
      • (B) TYPE: nucleic acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS: single
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: DNA (genomic)
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:4:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:5:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 341 amino acids
      • (B) TYPE: amino acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS:
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: protein
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:5:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:6:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 1026 base pairs
      • (B) TYPE: nucleic acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS: single
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: DNA (genomic)
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:6:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:7:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 344 amino acids
      • (B) TYPE: amino acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS:
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: protein
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:7:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:8:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 1035 base pairs
      • (B) TYPE: nucleic acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS: single
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: DNA (genomic)
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:8:
  • (2) INFORMATION FOR SEQ ID NO:9:
    • (i) SEQUENCE CHARACTERISTICS:
      • (A) LENGTH: 26 amino acids
      • (B) TYPE: amino acid
      • (C) STRANDEDNESS:
      • (D) TOPOLOGY: linear
    • (ii) MOLECULE TYPE: peptide
    • (xi) SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION: SEQ ID NO:9:


Anspruch[de]
  1. Ein Verfahren, das Pflanzen Resistenz gegenüber Pathogenen verleiht, welches umfasst:
    • Anwendung an der Pflanze entweder eines/r isolierten hyperempfindlichen reaktionsauslösenden Polypeptids, Proteins oder Bakteriums, die keine Krankheit auslösen und mit einem Gen transformiert sind, welches das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein kodiert, wobei diese Anwendung unter Bedingungen durchgeführt wird, bei denen das Polypeptid oder das Protein die Zellen der Pflanze berührt.
  2. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das von einen Pathogen stammt, das aus der Gruppe ausgewählt wurde, bestehend aus:Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solanacearum, Xanthomonas campestris und Mischungen davon.
  3. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 2, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonErwinia chrysanthemi stammt.
  4. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 3, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Aminosäuresequenz besitzt, die SEQ.ID Nr. 1 entspricht.
  5. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 3, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Molmasse von 34 kDa besitzt.
  6. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 2, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonErwinia amylovora stammt.
  7. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 6, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Aminosäuresequenz besitzt, die SEQ.ID Nr. 3 entspricht.
  8. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 6, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Molmasse von 37 kDa besitzt.
  9. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 2, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonPseudomonas syringae stammt.
  10. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 9, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Aminosäuresequenz besitzt, die SEQ.ID Nr. 5 entspricht.
  11. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 9, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Molmasse von 34-35 kDa besitzt.
  12. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 2, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonPseudomonas solanacearum stammt.
  13. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 12, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Aminosäuresequenz besitzt, die SEQ.ID Nr. 7 entspricht.
  14. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 2, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonXanthomonas campestris stammt.
  15. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 14, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein eine Aminosäuresequenz besitzt, die SEQ.ID Nr. 9 entspricht.
  16. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei die Pflanze aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, die aus zweikeimblättrigen und einkeimblättrigen Pflanzen besteht.
  17. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 16, wobei die Pflanze aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, bestehend aus Reis, Weizen, Gerste, Roggen, Baumwolle, Sonnenblume, Erdnuss, Getreide, Kartoffel, Süßkartoffel, Bohne, Erbse, Chicorée, Kopfsalat, Endiviensalat, Kohl, Blumenkohl, Broccoli, Rübe, Rettich/Radieschen, Spinat, Zwiebel, Knoblauch, Aubergine, Pfeffer, Sellerie, Karotte, Kürbis, Gartenkürbis, Zucchini, Gurke, Apfel, Birne, Melone, Erdbeere, Weintraube, Himbeere, Ananas, Sojabohne, Tabak, Tomate, Sorgum und Zuckerrohr.
  18. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 16, wobei die Pflanze aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, bestehend aus Arabidopsis thaliana, Saintpaulia, Petunie, Pelargonie, Poinsettia, Chrysantheme, Nelke und Zinnie.
  19. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei das Pathogen, gegenüber dem die Pflanze resistent ist, aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, die aus Viren, Bakterien, Pilzen und deren Kombinationen besteht.
  20. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei genannte Anwendung durch Spritzen, Einspritzen oder Blattabschabung zeitnah zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem die Anwendung stattfindet, durchgeführt wird.
  21. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein als eine Zusammensetzung, die ferner einen Träger umfasst, an den Pflanzen angewendet wird.
  22. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 21, wobei der Träger aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, die aus Wasser und einer wässerigen Lösung besteht.
  23. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 21, wobei die Zusammensetzung mehr als 500 nM des hyperempfindlichen reaktionsauslösenden Polypeptids oder Proteins umfasst.
  24. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 21, wobei die Zusammensetzung ferner Additive enthält, die von einer Gruppe ausgewählt sind, die aus einem Dünger, einem Insektizid, einem Fungizid und Mischungen davon besteht.
  25. Ein Verfahren nach Anspruch 1, wobei die genannte Anwendung eine Infiltration des Polypeptids oder des Proteins in die Pflanze verursacht.
  26. Verwendung entweder eines/r isolierten hyperempfindlichen reaktionsauslösenden Polypeptids, Proteins oder Bakteriums, die keine Krankheit auslösen und mit einem Gen transformiert sind, welches das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein kodiert, um Pflanzen Resistenz gegenüber Pathogenen zu verleihen.
  27. Verwendung nach Anspruch 26, die die Anwendung des hyperempfindlichen reaktionsauslösenden Polypeptids oder Proteins an der Pflanze in einer nicht-infektiösen Form einschließt, unter Bedingungen, bei denen das Polypeptid oder das Protein die Zellen der Pflanze berührt.
  28. Verwendung nach Anspruch 27, wobei genannte Anwendung durch Spritzen, Einspritzen oder Blattabschabung zeitnah zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem die Anwendung stattfindet, durchgeführt wird.
  29. Verwendung nach Anspruch 27, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein als eine Zusammensetzung, die ferner einen Träger umfasst, an den Pflanzen angewendet wird.
  30. Verwendung nach Anspruch 26, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das von einen Pathogen stammt, das aus der Gruppe ausgewählt wurde, bestehend aus:Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonassolanacearum, Xanthomonas campestris und Mischungen davon.
  31. Verwendung nach Anspruch 30, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonErwinia chrysanthemi stammt.
  32. Verwendung nach Anspruch 30, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonErwinia amylovora stammt.
  33. Verwendung nach Anspruch 30, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonPseudomonas syringae stammt.
  34. Verwendung nach Anspruch 30, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonPseudomonas solanacearum stammt.
  35. Verwendung nach Anspruch 30, wobei das hyperempfindliche reaktionsauslösende Polypeptid oder Protein demjenigen entspricht, das vonXanthomonas campestris stammt.
  36. Verwendung nach Anspruch 29, wobei der Träger aus einer Gruppe ausgewählt ist, die aus Wasser und einer wässerigen Lösung besteht.
  37. Verwendung nach Anspruch 29, wobei die Zusammensetzung mehr als 500 nM des hyperempfindlichen reaktionsauslösenden Polypeptids oder Proteins umfasst.
  38. Verwendung nach Anspruch 29, wobei die Zusammensetzung ferner Additive enthält, die von einer Gruppe ausgewählt sind, die aus einem Dünger, einem Insektizid, einem Fungizid und Mischungen davon besteht.
Anspruch[en]
  1. A method of imparting pathogen resistance to plants comprising:
    • applying to a plant either an isolated hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein or bacteria that do not cause disease and are transformed with a gene encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein, with said applying being carried out under conditions where the polypeptide or protein contacts cells of the plant.
  2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from a pathogen selected from the group consisting of Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solancearum, Xanthomonas campestris, and mixtures thereof.
  3. A method according to claim 2, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi.
  4. A method according to claim 3, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ.ID. No. 1.
  5. A method according to claim 3, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of 34 kDa.
  6. A method according to claim 2, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Erwinia amylovora.
  7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 3.
  8. A method according to claim 6, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of 37 kDa.
  9. A method according to claim 2, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived fromPseudomonas syringae.
  10. A method according to claim 9, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 5.
  11. A method according to claim 9, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has a molecular weight of 34-35 kDa.
  12. A method according to claim 2, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived fromPseudomonas solanacearum.
  13. A method according to claim 12, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has an amino acid sewence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 7.
  14. A method according to claim 2, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Xanthomonas campestris.
  15. A method according to claim 14, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein has an amino acid sequence corresponding to SEQ. ID. No. 9.
  16. A method according to claim 1, wherein the plant is selected from the group consisting of dicots and monocots.
  17. A method according to claim 16, wherein the plant is selected from the group consisting of rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sunflower, peanut, com, potato, sweet potato, bean, pea, chicory, lettuce, endive, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, turnip, radish, spinach, onion, garlic, eggplant, pepper, celery, carrot, squash, pumpkin, zucchini, cucumber, apple, pear, melon, strawberry, grape, raspberry, pineapple, soybean, tobacco, tomato, sorghum, and sugarcane.
  18. A method according to claim 16, wherein the plant is selected from the group consisting of Arabidopsis thaliana, Saintpaulia, petunia, pelargonium, poinsettia, chrysanthemum, carnation, and zinnia.
  19. A method according to claim 1, wherein the pathogen to which the plant is resistant is selected from the group consisting of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and combinations thereof.
  20. A method according to claim 1, wherein said applying is carried out by spraying, injection, or leaf abrasion at a time proximate to when said applying takes place.
  21. A method according to claim 1, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein is applied to plants as a composition further comprising a carrier.
  22. A method according to claim 21, wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of water and aqueous solutions.
  23. A method according to claim 21, wherein the composition contains greater than 500 nM of the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein.
  24. A method according to claim 21, wherein the composition further contains additives selected from the group consisting of fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide, and mixtures thereof.
  25. A method according to claim 1, wherein said applying causes infiltration of the polypeptide or protein into the plant.
  26. Use of either an isolated hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein, or bacteria that do not cause disease and are transformed with a gene encoding the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein, to impart pathogen resistance to plants.
  27. Use according to claim 26, which involves applying the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein in non-infectious form to the plant under conditions where the polypeptide or protein contacts cells of the plant.
  28. Use according to claim 27, wherein said applying is carried out by spraying, injection, or leaf abrasion at a time proximate to when said applying takes place.
  29. Use according to claim 27, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein is applied to the plant as a composition further comprising a carrier.
  30. Use according to claim 26, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from a pathogen selected from the group consisting of Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solancearum, Xanthomonas campestris, and mixtures thereof.
  31. Use according to claim 30, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Erwinia chrysanthemi.
  32. Use according to claim 30, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Erwinia amylovora.
  33. Use according to claim 30, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived fromPseudomonas syringae.
  34. Use according to claim 30, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived fromPseudomonas solancearum.
  35. Use according to claim 30, wherein the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein corresponds to that derived from Xanthomonas campestris.
  36. Use according to claim 29, wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of water and aqueous solutions.
  37. Use according to claim 29, wherein the composition contains greater than 500 nM of the hypersensitive response elicitor polypeptide or protein.
  38. Use according to claim 29, wherein the composition further contains additives selected from the group consisting of fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide, and mixtures thereof.
Anspruch[fr]
  1. Une méthode pour développer la résistance des plantes aux pathogènes consistant à :
    • Appliquer à une plante un polypeptide, une protéine ou bien une bactérie agissant comme un éliciteur de réponse hypersensible isolée qui ne provoque pas de maladie et qui soit transformé avec un gène codant le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible, ladite application étant menée à bien dans des conditions où le polypeptide ou la protéine entrent en contact avec les cellules de la plante.
  2. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée d'un pathogène sélectionné dans le groupe constitué par l'Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solancearum, Xanthomonas campestris, et leurs mélanges.
  3. Une méthode selon la revendication 2, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de l'Erwinia chrysanthemi.
  4. Une méthode selon la revendication 3, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède une séquence d'acides aminés correspondant à SEQ.ID.N°1.
  5. Une méthode selon la revendication 3, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède un poids moléculaire de 34 kDa.
  6. Une méthode selon la revendication 2, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de l'Erwinia amylovora.
  7. Une méthode selon la revendication 6, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède une séquence d'acides aminés correspondant à SEQ.ID.N°3.
  8. Une méthode selon la revendication 6, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède un poids moléculaire de 37 kDa.
  9. Une méthode selon la revendication 2, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laPseudomonas syringae.
  10. Une méthode selon la revendication 9, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède une séquence d'acides aminés correspondant à SEQ.ID.N°5.
  11. Une méthode selon la revendication 9, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède un poids moléculaire situé entre 34 et 35 kDa.
  12. Une méthode selon la revendication 2, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laPseudomonas solanacearum
  13. Une méthode selon la revendication 12, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède une séquence d'acides aminés correspondant à SEQ.ID.N°7.
  14. Une méthode selon la revendication 2, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laXanthomonas campestris.
  15. Une méthode selon la revendication 14, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible possède une séquence d'acides aminés correspondant à SEQ.ID.N°9.
  16. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle la plante est sélectionnée par le groupe constitué par les dicotylédones et les monocotylédones.
  17. Une méthode selon la revendication 16, dans laquelle la plante est sélectionnée parmi le groupe constitué par le riz, le blé, l'orge, le seigle, le coton, le tournesol, la graine d'arachide, le maïs, la pomme de terre, la pomme de terre douce, le haricot, le pois, la chicorée, la laitue, la scarole, le choux, le choux-fleur, le brocoli, la rave, le radis, les épinards, l'oignon, l'ail, l'aubergine, le poivre, le céleri, la carotte, la courge, la citrouille, la courgette, le concombre, la pomme, la poire, le melon, la fraise, le raisin, la framboise, l'ananas, la graine de soja, le tabac, la tomate, le sorgho et la canne à sucre.
  18. Une méthode selon la revendication 16, dans laquelle la plante est sélectionnée parmi le groupe constitué par l'Arabidopsis thaliana, Saintpaulia, petunia, pelargonium, poinsettia, chrysanthemum, oeillet, et zinnia.
  19. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle le pathogène auquel la plante est résistante est sélectionné parmi le groupe constitué par les virus, les bactéries, les champignons et leurs mélanges.
  20. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle ladite application est menée à bien par vaporisation, injection ou abrasion de feuille à peu près au moment de ladite application.
  21. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible est appliqué à des plantes par le biais d'une composition comprenant en outre un transporteur.
  22. Une méthode selon la revendication 21, dans laquelle le transporteur est sélectionné parmi le groupe constitué par l'eau et les solutions aqueuses.
  23. Une méthode selon la revendication 21, dans laquelle la composition contient une quantité supérieure à 500 nM de polypeptide ou protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible.
  24. Une méthode selon la revendication 21, dans laquelle la composition contient en outre des additifs sélectionnés dans le groupe constitué par les engrais, insecticides, fongicides et leurs mélanges.
  25. Une méthode selon la revendication 1, dans laquelle ladite application provoque l'infiltration du polypeptide ou de la protéine à l'intérieur de la plante.
  26. Utilisation d'un polypeptide, une protéine ou bien une bactérie agissant comme un éliciteur de réponse hypersensible isolée qui ne provoque pas de maladie et qui soit transformé avec un gène codant le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible, afin de développer la résistance des plantes aux pathogènes.
  27. Utilisation selon la revendication 26, impliquant l'application du polypeptide ou protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible, sous forme non infectieuse, à la plante dans des conditions où le polypeptide ou la protéine entrent en contact avec les cellules de la plante.
  28. Utilisation selon la revendication 27, dans laquelle ladite application est menée à bien par infiltration, injection ou abrasion de feuille à peu près au moment de ladite application.
  29. Utilisation selon la revendication 27, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible est appliqué à la plante sous forme de composition comprenant en outre un transporteur.
  30. Utilisation selon la revendication 26, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée d'un pathogène sélectionné dans le groupe constitué par l'Erwinia amylovora, Erwinia chrysanthemi, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas solancearum, Xanthomonas campestris, et leurs mélanges.
  31. Utilisation selon la revendication 30, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de l'Erwinia chrysanthemi.
  32. Utilisation selon la revendication 30, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de l'Erwinia amylovora.
  33. Utilisation selon la revendication 30, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laPseudomonas syringae.
  34. Utilisation selon la revendication 30, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laPseudomonas solancearum
  35. Utilisation selon la revendication 30, dans laquelle le polypeptide ou la protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible correspond à celle dérivée de laXanthomonas campestris.
  36. Utilisation selon la revendication 29, dans laquelle le transporteur est sélectionné parmi le groupe constitué par l'eau et les solutions aqueuses.
  37. Utilisation selon la revendication 29, dans laquelle la composition contient une quantité supérieure à 500 nM de polypeptide ou protéine éliciteur de réponse hypersensible.
  38. Utilisation selon la revendication 29, dans laquelle la composition contient en outre des additifs sélectionnés dans le groupe constitué par les engrais, insecticides, fongicides et leurs mélanges.






IPC
A Täglicher Lebensbedarf
B Arbeitsverfahren; Transportieren
C Chemie; Hüttenwesen
D Textilien; Papier
E Bauwesen; Erdbohren; Bergbau
F Maschinenbau; Beleuchtung; Heizung; Waffen; Sprengen
G Physik
H Elektrotechnik

Anmelder
Datum

Patentrecherche

Patent Zeichnungen (PDF)

Copyright © 2008 Patent-De Alle Rechte vorbehalten. eMail: info@patent-de.com