Weiliang Zuo
Muye Xiao
Gunther Doehlemann- Institute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Interactions between plants and microbes that colonize them typically result in significant alterations of the host’s gene expression. Such transcriptional changes include modulation of immune responses, as well as orchestrating metabolic and developmental changes locally at sites of infection and systemically in the plant. Microbes colonizing diverse hosts have evolved cross-kingdom conserved mechanisms that utilize effectors to participate directly in host transcription process and actively rewrite its transcriptome for their own benefit. In this review, we highlight the mechanisms exploited by plant-colonizing microbes to manipulate the transcriptional machinery of their hosts, including interfering with and mimicking transcription factors and co-regulators. We provide a comprehensive overview of the functionalities of effectors beyond immune suppression and conclude that controlling the host transcriptome is crucial for establishing a favorable niche for microbial plant colonizers.
1 Introduction
The interaction between plants and microbes results in significant alterations to the host’s transcriptome. On the one hand, the perception of MAMPs (Microbe-Associated Molecular Patterns) and effectors from the microbes, or DAMPs (Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns) derived from plant itself can trigger PTI (Pattern-Triggered Immunity) and ETI (Effector-Triggered Immunity), and subsequent activation of the expression of immune related genes to limit microbial growth (Jones and Dangl, 2006; Bjornson et al., 2021; Ngou et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021). On the other hand, plant colonizing microbes actively modify the plants’ physiological processes by effectors to build a favorable niche for their proliferation (Gorshkov and Tsers, 2022). Therefore, in antagonistic interactions, i.e. plant-pathogen interactions, the outcome of the hosts’ transcriptome is the molecular tug-of-war of two competing processes. Conversely, in mutualistic interactions, plant gene expression needs to be balanced to allow successful establishment and to maintain symbiosis to the favor of both the host and its colonizer.
During host infection, microbes secrete so-called effectors that interact with host components to disarm the plant immune system and evade host recognition (Zhang et al., 2022), while also manipulating host metabolism and transcriptional programs for their benefit (Cai et al., 2023). The term “effector” is often used but not limited to proteins, since also non-proteinaceous molecules can perform “effector functions”, i.e. to modulate cellular functions that alter the biotic interaction.
The process of gene expression is initiated by the assembly of the core transcriptional machinery, which comprises RNA polymerase II and several general transcription factors (TFs) including TFIIA, TFIIB, TFIID, TFIIE, TFIIF and TFIIH, at the core promoter to form the preinitiation complex (Murakami et al., 2013). Gene-specific transcription factors bind to enhancers or other cis-regulatory elements and recruit transcriptional coregulators, including coactivators, corepressors, the Mediator complex, and the SAGA (Spt–Ada–Gcn5 acetyltransferase) complex. Together, these components determine tissue-, cell-, and stimulus-specific gene expression (De Mendoza and Sebé-Pedrós, 2019; Soffers and Workman, 2020; Chen et al., 2022; Blanc-Mathieu et al., 2024). Transcriptional coactivators and corepressors bind to the TFs and modulate their transcription activity. The mediator complex, on the other hand, bridges the gap between DNA-binding transcription factors and polymerase II (Pol II), as well as general TFs (Conaway and Conaway, 2011). The SAGA complex modifies and remodels the chromatin environment to facilitate transcription (Moraga and Aquea, 2015; Soffers and Workman, 2020). Subsequent to transcription, gene expression can be further fine-tuned through the activity of the RNA interference (RNAi) machinery, which is mediated by microRNAs (miRNAs) from endogenous non-coding RNA transcripts, or by small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) from double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs) synthesised by endogenous RNA-dependent RNA polymerases, viruses or pathogens (Weiberg et al., 2013; Rosa et al., 2018; He et al., 2023). In addition, the epigenetic modification on the chromosome affects the accessibility of the DNA sequence to the transcriptional machinery, thereby defining the “on” and “off” states of the genes.
It has been demonstrated that effectors are capable of manipulating every aspect of host gene transcription. Microbes can directly control the host gene expression by the delivery of effectors that function as TFs to activate or suppress gene transcription, or they indirectly interfere with the host transcription machinery including TFs and coregulators, to rewrite the transcriptome. In addition, effectors can also affect the pre-transcriptional step by modifying the epigenetic state of host genome (Zhang and Cao, 2019) or post-transcription processes by hijacking the host RNAi machinery to adjust the mRNA levels (Wang et al., 2015; Ye and Ma, 2016).
In this article, we focus on effectors that influence transcription by manipulating components of the host transcriptional machinery, and highlight current mechanistic insights into how these effectors interfere with host transcription.
2 Transcription factor like effectors
2.1 Transcription activator-like effectors
Effector proteins can translocate into the host nucleus and function as TFs by directly binding to promoters of host genes and thereby modulating their expression. These effectors often contain characterized DNA-binding domains (DBDs) and a nuclear localization signal. This enables them to translocate from microbes into the nucleus of the host cell, where they bind to the promoter of host genes in a sequence-specific manner, thereby activating or suppressing their expression. A major research breakthrough was the identification of the “transcription activator-like effectors” (TALEs) (Boch et al., 2009). TAL effectors are characterized by the presence of a N-terminal type III secreted signal peptide, a central repeat region that determines a DBD, two nuclear localization signals, and a transcriptional activation domain (Boch et al., 2009; Teper et al., 2023). They are translocated to the host cell via the bacterial type-III secretion system, where they can bind directly to the effector binding elements (EBEs) within the promoter of host susceptible genes, and activate their expressions (Boch et al., 2009; De Lange et al., 2013). The binding specificity of TAL effectors is determined by the DNA binding domain, which is composed of near-identical tandem repeat arrays consisting of 33–35 amino acids. The 12th and 13th amino acid in the repeats are called repeat-variable di-residues (RVDs), which collectively determine the binding specificity to one single DNA base. The TALE repeats employ four RVDs (NN, NI, HD and NG) to recognize guanine, adenine, cytosine and thymidine, respectively, with some binding degeneracy within the code (Boch et al., 2009). Ralstonia solanacearum also encodes TAL effectors (RipTALs) (Li et al., 2013; Schandry et al., 2016). However, they exhibit divergent preferences in the 5’ terminal of the EBE sequences. Ralstonia TAL effectors prefer the 5’ guanine while Xanthomonas TAL effector prefer the 5’ thymine (De Lange et al., 2013).
The first described TAL effector, AvrBs3, was identified in Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. AvrBs3 activates UPAs (up-regulated by AvrBs3) gene expression. In pepper, AvrBs3 induces the expression of the TF UPA20, resulting in an increase in the host cell size to form hypertrophic mesophyll cells (Kay et al., 2007). Another common TAL effector targets are SWEET (Sugar Will Eventually Be Exported Transporter) genes, which encode sugar transporter proteins (Yang et al., 2006; Antony et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2011; Cohn et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2024; Charleux et al., 2025; Khadgi et al., 2025). Xanthomonas species infecting different hosts process different TAL effectors to activate the expression of diverse SWEET genes, suggesting that this function is an evolutionary conserved mechanism adopted by Xanthomonas species. In addition, TAL effectors can activate the expression of non-SWEET gene including UPAs, TFs and splicing regulators (Kay et al., 2007, 2009; Sugio et al., 2007; Cai et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2024, 2025), and a Ralstonia TAL effector Brg11 activates the expression of arginine decarboxylase (ADC) genes (Gallas et al., 2024). Interestingly, truncated TAL effectors have been identified in the symbiotic bacterium Mycetohabitans (formerly Burkholderia) rhizoxinica, which infects the fungus Rhizopus microspores. The colonization of Mycetohabitans is a crucial factor for Rhizopus sporulation (Partida-Martinez et al., 2007; Richter et al., 2023). Despite the absence of type III secreted signal peptide, nuclear localization signal and activation domain, Mycetohabitans TAL effectors have been shown to translocate into the nucleus of the host cell via an as yet undetermined mechanism (Carter et al., 2020). Mycetohabitans TAL effectors have diverse functions. The deletion of Btl19–13 did not inhibit bacterium infection, however, the infected fungal cells show reduced tolerance to membrane stress (Carter et al., 2020). MTAL1–3 are Mycetohabitans factors important for the fungal host to control the sporulation (Carter et al., 2020), and MTAL1 protect bacterium from trapping and improve its survival within the fungal hyphae (Richter et al., 2023). In summary, TALEs are evolutionarily conserved at the structural and mechanistic level and can be found in diverse bacterial interactions, but their DNA-binding specificities are highly diversified and rapidly evolving (Figure 1A).
Figure 1. Effector strategies targeting host transcription in plant-colonizing microbes. (A) Nuclear-localized effectors from bacteria and fungi can function as transcription factors or transcription factor–like proteins that directly bind host DNA to activate or repress specific host genes. Examples include bacterial type III–secreted TAL (transcription activator–like) effectors from Xanthomonas and Ralstonia, HsvB and HsvG from Pantoea agglomerans, and MoSPAB1 from Magnaporthe oryzae, which activate host gene expression whereas MoHTR1 and 2 from M. oryzae, Mlp124478 from Melampsora larici-populina and GLAND4 from nematodes, which suppress host gene expression. (B) Effectors interfere with immune-related transcription by targeting transcriptional coactivators and upstream immune signaling components. During infection, the coactivators NPR1 (Nonexpressor of Pathogenesis-Related Genes 1) and EDS1 (Enhanced Disease Susceptibility 1) translocate to the nucleus to activate salicylic acid (SA)–responsive resistance genes. AvrPtoB, which is found in Pseudomonas syringae, mediates the degradation of NPR1. In contrast, RxLR48, which is found in Phytophthora capsici, prevents NPR1 degradation. PNPi from Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici competes with the transcription factor TGA2.2 for interaction with NPR1. Nib from the turnip mosaic virus inhibits the post-translational modification of NPR1. AvrRPS4 and HopA1 from P. syringae interact with EDS1, disrupting its interaction with the R proteins RPS4 and RPS6. In contrast, P. capsici PcAvh103 disrupts the interaction between EDS1 and PAD4. (C) Effectors reprogram phytohormone-responsive transcription by targeting transcriptional corepressors and hormone signaling pathways. JAZ (jasmonate ZIM-domain) proteins regulate jasmonic acid (JA)–dependent defense, while TOPLESS/TOPLESS-RELATED (TPL/TPR) corepressors control diverse phytohormone pathways, including auxin signaling. Coronatine (COR) is a phytotoxin that mimics JA-IIe (jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine), activating the host JAZ degradation pathway. HopX1 and HopZ1a, which are found inP. syringae function as a cysteine protease and an acetyltransferase, respectively, to facilitate JAZs degradation. Conversely, Avh94 from P, sojae MiSSP7 from Laccaria bicolor, MiISE23 from Meloidogyne incognita, the 2b protein from cucumber mosaic virus, and C2 proteins from geminiviruses stabilize JAZ proteins. The Melampsora laricipopulina effector MLP124017, the Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis effector HaRxL21 and 10 effectors from Ustilago maydis interact with TPL/TPR corepressors to modulate diverse hormone signaling pathways. By manipulating JAZs, TPL/TPRs, SCF complexes and associated transcription factors, the effectors can shift the expression of genes regulated by hormones to favour microbial colonisation. (D) Effectors can function as transcriptional coregulators that redirect host transcriptional machinery. The viral effector VP16 from Herpes simplex virus interacts with the host transcription factors Oct-1 and HCF-1 to activate viral immediate-early gene expression. The Ustilago maydis effector Sts2 acts as a transcriptional (co)activator (TAE). It interacts with the maize coactivator ZmNECAP1 and promoting expression of maize leaf developmental regulators. The figure is created via biorender.
2.2 Beyond TALEs: other transcription factor-like effectors
In addition to the well-studied TAL effectors, TF-like effectors with other DBDs have been discovered. The epiphyte and commensal bacterium Pantoea agglomerans has evolved the ability to induce gall formation on specific hosts. P. agglomerans pv. gypsophilae and P. agglomerans pv. betae cause galls on gypsophila, whereas only P. agglomerans pv. betae can do so on beets (Barash and Manulis-Sasson, 2009). The plasmid-encoded type III effector HsvG determines the host specificity of both pathovars on gypsophila, while its homolog HsvB determines the host specificity on beets (Barash and Manulis-Sasson, 2007). Interestingly, HsvG and HsvB contain two nuclear localization signals (Weinthal et al., 2011) and five helix-turn-helix (HTH) motifs that constitute a putative DBD and function as transcriptional activators (Nissan et al., 2006). HsvG binds directly to the promoter of HSVGT, a putative TF gene in Gypsophila paniculate, and activates its expression (Nissan et al., 2012). In contrast, the target of HsvB remains unknown.
The fungal rice blast pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae encodes several TF-like effectors. One example is the effector MoSPAB1, which functions as a transcription activator. During infection, MoSPAB1 is translocated to the host nucleus and competes with the host transcriptional repressor MYBS1 to bind to the promoter of Bsr-d1, a C2H2-type TF regulating the expression of peroxidase genes (Weinthal et al., 2011). MoSPAB1 activates its expression, which in turn leads to the degradation of H2O2 produced in the PTI response (Li et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2023). Also the homologs of MoSPAB1 in the anthracnose fungi Colletotrichum fructicola and Colletotrichum sublineola activate Bsr-d1 expression in kiwifruit and sorghum, respectively, indicating a conserved virulence mechanism exploited by fungal pathogens (Zhu et al., 2023). In addition, M. oryzae encodes two transcription repressor effectors, MoHTR1 and MoHTR2 (M. oryzae Host Transcription Reprogramming 1 and 2). Both effectors are secreted via the biotrophic interfacial complex (BIC) and translocate into host nuclei. MoHTR1 is SUMOylated to enhance its stability and interaction with rice importin α, facilitating its translocation (Kim et al., 2020). Both MoHTR1 and MoHTR2 directly bind to the EBEs (CAATCTTC for MoHTR1) and (CCACCTCC for MoHTR2) in the promoters of rice genes, thereby suppressing their expression, despite the absence of intrinsic repressor activity for these effectors (Kim et al., 2020). Similarly, the basidiomycete rust fungus Melampsora larici-populina encodes the effector Mlp124478, which contains a putative nuclear localization signal and DBD, and may associate with the TGA1a-binding sequence in host DNA (Ahmed et al., 2018). The plant-parasitic cyst nematodes Heterodera glycines and Heterodera. schachtii, which infect soybean and sugar beet, respectively, secrete the effector GLAND4 into the plant nucleus. GLAND4 functions as a transcriptional suppressor that inhibits the expression of two lipid transfer protein (LTP) genes, thereby increasing host susceptibility to Pseudomonas syringae (Barnes et al., 2018).
Thus, effector that function as transcription factors allow microbes to control the expression of host genes with EBEs in their promoters with just one effector protein. Although the impact may be limited to a small number of host genes, these genes are often critical for the microbes’ virulence and benefit.
3 Effectors interfering with transcription factors/cofactors
The transcriptional modulation of host cells can also be achieved by effector proteins that target components of the host transcription machinery. This impedes their activities during infection, thereby manipulating host gene expression. In a recent review, Xiang et al. (2025) highlighted the current knowledge on effectors that target host TFs to modulate their function. Here, we focus on effectors that interfere with transcriptional coregulators, which include transcriptional coactivators, transcriptional co-suppressors and mediators (Figures 1B, C). Transcriptional coactivators typically remain in an inactive state in the host cytoplasm under normal condition. During defense responses, they are activated and translocated to the nucleus, where they activate the expression of immune responsive genes (Khan et al., 2022). In contrast, transcriptional co-suppressors bind to host TFs to inhibit the activation of downstream genes. Under pathogen attack, transcriptional co-suppressors are degraded to release the TFs to activate their target genes. Mediator interacts with TFs and transcriptional coregulators to assemble the transcriptional machinery to initiate transcription (Moore et al., 2011).
3.1 Targeting the transcriptional coactivator networks: NPR1 & EDS1
A central regulator of plant immunity is the transcription coactivator NPR1 (Non-Expressor of Pathogenesis-Related Genes 1), which has been identified through genetic screens with Arabidopsis thaliana mutants that were defective in the induction of systemic acquired resistance in response to the defense-inducing phytohormone salicylic acid (SA) (Cao et al., 1994). NPR1 contains an N-terminal BTB/POZ (Broad-complex, Tramtrack, Bric-à-brac) domain, a central ankyrin-repeat domain, and a C-terminal transactivation domain. Importantly, NPR1 has been identified as a receptor for salicylic acid (SA) (Wu et al., 2017). In non-challenged cells, NPR1 is maintained in the cytoplasm as an inactive oligomer through redox-dependent disulfide bonds. Upon SA accumulation and a shift to a more reducing cellular redox state, NPR1 is reduced to monomers, which bind SA (Mou et al., 2003). The monomeric NPR1 then undergoes multiple post-translational modifications and translocates into the nucleus, where it interacts with TGA transcription factor dimers to form an enhanceosome that activates PR gene expression (Kumar et al., 2022).
Another transcriptional coactivator, which plays a central role in plant SA-dependent defense and TIR-NB-LRR (Toll-Interleukin-1 receptor-Nucleotide Binding-Leucine Rich Repeat) receptor-mediated disease resistance is EDS1 (Enhanced Disease Susceptibility1) (Falk et al., 1999; Lapin et al., 2020).
EDS1 and its two sequence-related interactors, PAD4 (phytoalexin deficient 4) and SAG101 (senescence-associated gene 101), belong to a plant-specific protein family characterized by an N-terminal α/β hydrolase (lipase-like) domain and a highly conserved C-terminal α-helical bundle, the EDS1–PAD4 (EP) domain (Lapin et al., 2020). Different EDS1 complexes lead to distinct modes of immune regulation (Wagner et al., 2013). The EDS1–PAD4 nucleocytoplasmic complex reinforces basal immunity, which is partly mediated by salicylic acid (SA) signaling (Feys et al., 2001), whereas the EDS1–SAG101 nuclear complex promotes effector-triggered immunity (ETI) downstream of TIR-NLR proteins (Feys et al., 2005). Later, EDS1 was shown to contain acidic transactivation domains and to reprogram the host transcriptome by interacting with CDK8 (cyclin-dependent kinase 8) as part of the Mediator complex. Furthermore, NPR1 and EDS1 cooperate during SA signaling. NPR1 recruits EDS1 to the PR1 promoter to enhance its expression, while NPR1 upregulates EDS1 transcription and EDS1 stabilizes NPR1 during the plant immune response (Chen et al., 2021).
Given the critical role of NPR1 in SA-mediated immunity, research has focused on identifying pathogen effectors that interact with NPR1 and subvert SA-dependent defense. AvrPtoB, a type III effector of Pseudomonas syringae, contains an N-terminal Pto-interacting domain (PID) and a C-terminal U-box type E3 ubiquitin ligase domain (Xiao et al., 2007). In the presence of SA, AvrPtoB strongly interacts with NPR1 and mediates its degradation via the host 26S proteasome, a process dependent on its E3 ligase activity (Chen et al., 2017). A yeast two-hybrid screen using wheat NPR1 as bait identified the effector PNPi (Puccinia NPR1 interactor) from Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici as a nuclear interactor of wheat NPR1. PNPi binds NPR1 through its C-terminal DPBB_1 (double-psi beta-barrel) domain and competes with the transcription factor TGA2.2 for NPR1 interaction (Wang et al., 2016). Similarly, the RxLR effector RxLR48 from the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora capsici was found to interact with NPR1. In contrast to P. syringae AvrPtoB, RxLR48 promotes NPR1 nuclear localization and accumulation, preventing its degradation via the 26S proteasome and thereby modulating NPR1 turnover to suppress plant immunity (Li et al., 2019). Also viruses can target NPR1 to facilitate infection. Turnip mosaic virus encodes an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, NIb (NUCLEAR INCLUSION B), which binds NPR1 at its SUMO-interacting motif 3 exclusively in the nucleus, preventing its sumoylation and phosphorylation and thereby disrupting NPR1-dependent immune responses (Liu et al., 2023).
Compared to NPR1, EDS1 is less frequently reported as an effector target. However, the P. syringae effectors AvrRPS4 and HopA1 interact with EDS1, disrupting the EDS1–RPS4 and EDS1–RPS6 complexes at the cytoplasmic membrane, respectively, thereby activating RPS4- and RPS6-mediated immunity to restrict bacterial growth (Bhattacharjee et al., 2011; Heidrich et al., 2011). Another effector targeting EDS1 comes from Phytophthora capsici: PcAvh103 is required for infection and binds the lipase domain of EDS1, disrupting its interaction with PAD4 and suppressing plant defense (Li et al., 2020). Together, NPR1 and EDS1 as central hubs of plant SA-mediated immunity are targeted by diverse pathogen effectors to modulate immune outcomes (Figure 1B).
3.2 Modulation of transcriptional repressors: JAZ
JAZ (jasmonate ZIM-domain) proteins are a class of transcriptional repressors that negatively regulate JA (jasmonic acid)-related defense and growth (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2024). JAZ proteins contain three distinct domains. The N-terminal NT domain interacts with DELLA protein to inhibit the JA signaling pathway (Hou et al., 2010). The central ZIM domain contains a 28 amino acids TIF [F/Y] XG sequence, which mediates the interaction with NINJA (Novel Interactor of JAZ) (Pauwels et al., 2010). The C-terminal Jas domain is characterized by the core SLX2FX2KRX2RX5PY sequence, which is essential for JAZs function by binding to different regulatory proteins (Melotto et al., 2008). In the absence of JA, JAZs interact and block the downstream transcription factor MYC3/4 from activating their target genes by recruiting the general corepressors TOPLESS (TPL) and TPL-Related proteins through an interaction with NINJA (Pauwels et al., 2010). While bioactive JA is perceived, JAZs are targeted by the COI1 (CORONATINE INSENSITIVE 1) protein, a part of the SCF (Skip/Cullin/F-box)-COI1 E3 ubiquitin ligase complex, for degradation, which releases the inhibited TFs and activates JA responsive genes (Thines et al., 2007; Pauwels and Goossens, 2011). Several plant pathogens were found to deploy effectors to manipulate JAZ proteins, thereby either activating or suppressing JA signaling. One classic example is the non-proteinaceous effector coronatine (COR) produced by P. syringae. COR is a phytotoxin mimic of JA-IIe (jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine, the active signal in the JA signaling pathway) and it is 1,000-fold more active than JA-IIA in promoting the interaction of JAZ and COI1 (Katsir et al., 2008). In addition, P. syringae encodes several type III effector proteins, which interfere JAZ proteins through similar mechanisms. HopX1 from P. syringae pv. tabaci (Pta) is a cysteine protease that interacts with and directly degrades the JAZ5 protein (Gimenez-Ibanez et al., 2014), whereas HopZ1a has acetyltransferase activity and acetylates JAZ proteins to promote their degradation (Jiang et al., 2013). Conversely, effectors can also interact with JAZ proteins to stabilize them. For example, the RXLR effector Avh94 from Phytophthora sojae interacts with soybean JAZ1/2 proteins (Zhao et al., 2022), and MiSSP7, secreted by the mycorrhiza fungus Laccaria bicolor, interacts with Populus JAZ6 (Plett et al., 2014); both effectors stabilize their respective JAZ targets. Similarly, MiISE23 from the plant-parasitic nematode Meloidogyne incognita competes with COI1 for binding to JAZ proteins, thereby preventing their degradation during JA response (Shi et al., 2025). Furthermore, 2b protein from cucumber mosaic virus, and C2 proteins from geminiviruses were also found to interact with and stabilize JAZ proteins to suppress JA-related repones (Wu et al., 2017; Rosas-Diaz et al., 2023). Thus, JAZ proteins as regulators of jasmonate signaling are targeted by diverse effectors to either activate or suppress JA-mediated defenses (Figure 1C).
3.3 TOPLESS proteins as effector target hubs
Another central hub that regulates plant gene expression is the TOPLESS/TOPLESS-RELATED (TPL/TPR) protein family, which belong to the Groucho (Gro)/Tup1 family. TPL proteins function as transcriptional corepressors that regulate a wide range of plant processes, including nearly all hormone signaling pathways, root and leaf development, reproduction, and responses to both abiotic and biotic stresses (Plant et al., 2021; Saini and Nandi, 2022). TPL proteins contain a N-terminal TPD (TOPLESS domain) domain, which consists of a Lissencephaly Homologue (LisH) domain, a C-terminal to LisH (CTLH), and a CT11-RanBPM (CRA) domain. The TPD interacts with transcription factors containing repression domain (RD) sequences, including the EAR domain—defined as (L/F)DLN(L/F)xP, encompassing LxLxL, DLNxP, and DLNxxP motifs, and also including FDLNI—as well as the (R/K)LFGV and TLxLF sequences (Causier et al., 2012). The C-terminus of TPL proteins contains WD40 repeats, which provide a scaffold for protein–protein interactions (Collins et al., 2019).
Recent work has shown that TPL proteins are common targets of microbial pathogens (Figure 1C). Typically, effector proteins targeting TPLs carry an EAR domain, which can interact with TPL/TPR proteins to modulate host hormone signaling during infection (Khan and Djamei, 2024). A screen of 20 effectors from the poplar leaf rust pathogen Melampsora laricipopulina in Nicotiana benthamiana for their subcellular localization and plant interactors revealed that MLP124017 interacts with the TPL protein NbTPR4 (Petre et al., 2015). HaRxL21, an RxLR effector that is conserved in multiple Hpa isolates, interacts with Arabidopsis TPL and TPL-related 1 proteins through its EAR motif, which is essential for the effector’s virulence function. Overexpression of HaRxL21 in plants can suppress plant immunity to both biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens (Harvey et al., 2020). Notably, in Ustilago maydis, a total of 10 effectors have been identified that interact with TPL/TPR proteins. The effector Jsi1 (jasmonate/ethylene signaling inducer 1) contains the DLNxxP motif, which interacts with the second WD40 domain of maize TPL1 and Arabidopsis TPL/TPR proteins. Although deletion of jsi1 does not affect U. maydis virulence, its overexpression in Arabidopsis activates the ethylene response factor (ERF) branch of the jasmonate/ethylene (JA/ET) signaling pathway (Darino et al., 2021). Nkd1 (Naked1) was first identified as a PTI inhibitor through a screen of U. maydis effectors for their ability to suppress PAMP-triggered ROS burst. Nkd1 binds to TPL via its EAR motif, thereby preventing the recruitment of ZmIAA5 to the TPL/TPR proteins to de-suppress the auxin and jasmonate signaling (Navarrete et al., 2022). In addition, five of the eight effectors located in the U. maydis effector gene cluster 6A region (Kämper et al., 2006) were shown to interact with TPL proteins. These effectors have been identified to activate auxin-responsive gene expression. Two of these effectors were found to compete with ZmIAA3 and ZmIAA8 for TPL interactions. However, only the deletion of the whole cluster resulted in reduced virulence, suggesting their functional redundancy (Bindics et al., 2022). A further screen of 297 U. maydis effector candidates discovered three additional effectors that interact with TPL, including the previously identified organ-specific effector Tip6 (Schilling et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2024). Tip6 interacts with the N-terminal of TPL protein with its two EAR motifs, altering its nuclear localization and thereby disrupting the regulation of AP2/ERF B1 subfamily transcription factors (Huang et al., 2024). Although all of these effectors interact with TPL proteins, not all produce detectable virulence phenotypes upon gene deletion, suggesting a complex, spatiotemporal network of TPL-interacting effectors and their host targets in U. maydis.
3.4 Mediator, the SAGA complex and more
While the above given examples of plant hubs in the regulation of immune-related gene expression have received considerable attention in recent literature, effector targets are clearly not limited to these cases. For instance, effectors have also been found to target the Mediator complex to disrupt host gene transcription. Mediator is a large multisubunit complex that bridges transcriptional regulators at enhancers or other cis-regulatory sequences with RNA polymerase II at the transcription start site (Conaway and Conaway, 2011; Chen et al., 2022). The oomycete Hpa translocates the effector HaRxL44 into the host nucleus, where it interacts with the Mediator subunit MED19a, leading to its degradation and thereby attenuating SA-responsive defense (Caillaud et al., 2013).
The SAGA complex generally functions as a transcriptional coactivator that modulates transcription. It consists of more than 20 subunits, which are grouped into four functionally independent modules: the deubiquitinating (DUB) module; the histone acetyltransferase (HAT) module; the core module; and the TBP-associated factor (TAF) module (Moraga and Aquea, 2015; Soffers and Workman, 2020). General Control Non-depressor 5 (GCN5) and Alteration/Deficiency in Activation 2 (ADA2) are two key subunits of the HAT module. The pathogen P. sojae produces the effector PsAvh23, which interacts with the host ADA2 protein, disrupting the formation of the ADA2-GCN5 sub complex and leading to reduced levels of H3K9 acetylation and repressed defense gene expression (Kong et al., 2017).
In summary, it is evident that transcriptional coregulators play a key role in immune responses associated with phytohormones. Plants depend on these coregulators to detect fluctuations in hormone levels, enabling them to respond rapidly to attacks from pathogens by shifting from a standby state to a state of immunity. Interfering with plant transcriptional coregulators therefore evolved as a widely conserved and effective strategy employed by microbes colonizing plants from different kingdoms to manipulate host gene expression for their own benefit (Figure 1C).
4 Effectors acting as transcriptional coregulators
As outlined above, effectors can function as transcription factor by directly binding to the promoter of host genes. More recent evidence shows that effectors can also act as transcriptional coregulators, to participate or hijack the host transcriptional machinery. An example found in a mammal virus is the VP16 protein from Herpes Simplex virus 1 (HSV-1). VP16 functions as transactivator to activate the expression of viral immediate-early genes (Fan et al., 2020). During infection, VP16 interacts with the host transcription factors Oct-1 (Octamer-binding protein 1) and HCF-1 (host cell factor 1), and recruits a series of transcriptional coregulators to activate transcription (Babb et al., 2001; Herrera and Triezenberg, 2004; Vojnic et al., 2011). In plant-microbe interactions, the U. maydis effector Sts2 (small tumor on seedlings 2) has been identified as a transcriptional activator effector (TAE) (Zuo et al., 2023). Sts2 is an organ-specific (Skibbe et al., 2010; Schilling et al., 2014) and cell type-specific effector (Matei et al., 2018), whose virulence function is involved in the hyperplasic tumor formation in maize leaves (Zuo et al., 2023). Sts2 orthologs from U. maydis and its close pathogenic relative Sporisorium reilianum are differentially regulated during infection and, moreover, the orthologous proteins have different virulent functions (Zuo et al., 2021). Sts2 translocates into the host nucleus during infection and functions as transcription (co)activator to activate the expression of leaf developmental regulators. Interestingly, U. maydis Sts2 interacts with maize NECAP1, a protein that is also a functional transcription activator (Zuo et al., 2023). However, so far it is unclear if and how the interaction with maize NECAP1 is required for Sts2 function.
While Sts2 contains an acidic transactivation domain, no typical nuclear localization signal or DBD can be identified, which implies that it might need to recruit a host TFs or DNA binding proteins, although further evidence is required (Zuo et al., 2023).
The discovery of effectors that function as transcriptional coregulators suggests a novel virulence mechanism, in which pathogens hijack host transcription factors or DNA-binding proteins to enhance expression of their target genes in support of pathogenesis (Figure 1D).
5 Conclusions and perspective
Plant colonizers from diverse kingdoms secrete effectors that can function as TFs or transcriptional coregulators, in addition to effectors that interfere with host TFs and coregulators. Collectively, these strategies enable pathogens to take control of host transcriptional programs. This reprogramming underlies diverse virulence strategies, including activation of susceptibility genes for nutrient acquisition (Chen et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2021), manipulation of host development to induce galls or tumors (Barash and Manulis-Sasson, 2007; Kay et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2023), and suppression of immune responses (Moore et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2022).
Complementary to a recently published review on effectors targeting host TFs (Xiang et al., 2025), we highlight the complex mechanisms by which plant colonizing microbes manipulate host gene transcription. Understanding the function of effectors not only provides insights of infection mechanisms, but also expands our mechanistic understanding of eukaryotic gene expression and transcriptional regulation. Decoding the “TAL code” facilitated the identification of susceptible genes in the host and provided new strategies of disease control for Xanthomonas sp. Promoters containing effector binding elements (EBEs) can be engineered to drive resistance gene expression, creating a “trap” whereby pathogen TAL effectors specifically activate host defense. This strategy has been developed as a novel and targeted approach for controlling plant diseases (Schornack et al., 2013; Zeng et al., 2015; Shantharaj et al., 2023). Understanding the “TAL code” enabled the engineering of so-called TALENs (Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases), DNA-binding proteins with customizable specificity that can be fused to different functional domains, such as nucleases or VP16 activation domains, to develop tools for genome editing or gene regulation (Tiley et al., 1992; Becker and Boch, 2021). A new functional group of transcriptional activator effectors is represented by Sts2. The further elucidation of the mechanism of Sts2 may lead to the finding of upstream TFs or DNA-binding protein controlling the expression of ZmSHR1, ZmGIF or ZmGRF, which are key regulators of maize leaf development (Zuo et al., 2023).
Effectors that function as transcription factors (TFs) or transcriptional co-regulators are particularly interesting because they actively manipulate host transcription. The identification of effectors that act as transcriptional activators raises several new questions: Are there additional transactivation effectors encoded by diverse microbes? What are their virulence functions, and how have they evolved and adapted during speciation? How can transcriptional activator effectors (TAEs) activate specific target genes despite lacking known DNA-binding domains? Is their specificity mediated through interactions with host proteins, or do they contain novel, as-yet-unidentified DNA-binding domains? First, previous effector candidates that exhibited autoactivation in yeast two-hybrid assays should be revisited, as they may represent potential TAEs that were previously overlooked. At present, TAE candidates can be predicted using a few publicly available bioinformatic tools, such as 9aaTAD (Piskacek et al., 2007) or TADA (Morffy et al., 2024), to identify potential transactivation domains (TADs). Nevertheless, these tools have limitations for the identification of fungal TAEs: 9aaTAD is based on experimentally characterized nine-amino-acid TADs from yeast and mammalian TFs (Piskacek et al., 2007), while TADA is trained on TADs identified from Arabidopsis TFs (Morffy et al., 2024). Both methods are limited for the prediction of many microbial effector proteins, which often lack known functional domains. Thus, a comprehensive experimental screen of TAEs from diverse pathogens, coupled with machine learning approaches to develop novel prediction tools, will be essential for advancing TAE research. In addition to TAEs, TF-like effectors may contain additional predicted DNA-binding domains. The application of AlphaFold to predict three-dimensional structures with potential novel DNA-binding capabilities will further expand our understanding of such effectors. Finally, it is likely that effectors can function as transcriptional co-repressors, inhibiting host gene transcription. However, the bioinformatics tools required to predict repression domains are not yet available. TPL/TPR-interacting effectors often contain an EAR motif. Identifying EAR motif-containing effectors and investigating whether they can function as transcriptional corepressors, interacting with certain transcription factors (TFs) and recruiting TPL/TPR to suppress the expression of their targets, would complement our knowledge of how pathogens manipulate host gene expression.
Author contributions
WZ: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft. MX: Visualization, Writing – original draft. GD: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. We acknowledge support from the Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS) funded under Germany’s Excellence Strategy—EXC 2048/1—project ID: 390686111. Our work on transactivating effectors is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through grant DO 1421/15-1. Muye Xiao is supported by the CSC scholarship council (grant number NO. 202406990013).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Not sure if it falls in the category: deepl write (https://www.deepl.com/de/write) was used for grammar and spell check.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ahmed, M. B., Santos, K.C.G.d., Sanchez, I. B., Petre, B., Lorrain, C., Plourde, M. B., et al. (2018). A rust fungal effector binds plant DNA and modulates transcription. Sci. Rep. 81 8, 1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32825-0
Antony, G., Zhou, J., Huang, S., Li, T., Liu, B., White, F., et al. (2010). Rice xa13 recessive resistance to bacterial blight is defeated by induction of the disease susceptibility gene os- 11N3. Plant Cell 22, 3864–3876. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.078964
Babb, R., Huang, C. C., Aufiero, D. J., and Herr, W. (2001). DNA recognition by the herpes simplex virus transactivator VP16: a novel DNA-binding structure. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 4700–4712. doi: 10.1128/MCB.21.14.4700-4712.2001
Barash, I. and Manulis-Sasson, S. (2007). Virulence mechanisms and host specificity of gall-forming Pantoea agglomerans. Trends Microbiol. 15, 538–545. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2007.10.009
Barash, I. and Manulis-Sasson, S. (2009). Recent evolution of bacterial pathogens: the gall-forming pantoea agglomerans case. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 47, 133–152. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081803
Barnes, S. N., Wram, C. L., Mitchum, M. G., and Baum, T. J. (2018). The plant-parasitic cyst nematode effector GLAND4 is a DNA-binding protein. Mol. Plant Pathol. 19, 2263–2276. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12697
Becker, S. and Boch, J. (2021). TALE and TALEN genome editing technologies. Gene Genome Editing 2, 100007. doi: 10.1016/j.ggedit.2021.100007
Bhattacharjee, S., Halane, M. K., Kim, S. H., and Gassmann, W. (2011). Pathogen Effectors Target Arabidopsis EDS1 and Alter Its Interactions with Immune Regulators. Science 334, 1405–1408. doi: 10.1126/science.1211592
Bindics, J., Khan, M., Uhse, S., Kogelmann, B., Baggely, L., Reumann, D., et al. (2022). Many ways to TOPLESS – manipulation of plant auxin signalling by a cluster of fungal effectors. New Phytol. 236, 1455–1470. doi: 10.1111/nph.18315
Bjornson, M., Pimprikar, P., Nürnberger, T., and Zipfel, C. (2021). The transcriptional landscape of Arabidopsis thaliana pattern-triggered immunity. Nat. Plants 7, 579–586. doi: 10.1038/s41477-021-00874-5
Blanc-Mathieu, R., Dumas, R., Turchi, L., Lucas, J., and Parcy, F. (2024). Plant-TFClass: a structural classification for plant transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci. 29, 40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.023
Boch, J., Scholze, H., Schornack, S., Landgraf, A., Hahn, S., Kay, S., et al. (2009). Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science 326, 1509–1512. doi: 10.1126/science.1178811
Cai, L., Cao, Y., Xu, Z., Ma, W., Zakria, M., Zou, L., et al. (2017). A Transcription Activator-Like Effector Tal7 of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola Activates Rice Gene Os09g29100 to Suppress Rice Immunity. Sci. Rep. 7, 5089. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04800-8
Cai, J., Jiang, Y., Ritchie, E. S., Macho, A. P., Yu, F., and Wu, D. (2023). Manipulation of plant metabolism by pathogen effectors: more than just food. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 47, fuad007. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuad007
Caillaud, M.-C., Asai, S., Rallapalli, G., Piquerez, S., Fabro, G., and Jones, J. D. G. (2013). A Downy Mildew Effector Attenuates Salicylic Acid–Triggered Immunity in Arabidopsis by Interacting with the Host Mediator Complex. PloS Biol. 11, e1001732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001732
Cao, H., Bowling, S. A., Gordon, A. S., and Dong, X. (1994). Characterization of an arabidopsis mutant that is nonresponsive to inducers of systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell 6, 1583–1592. doi: 10.1105/tpc.6.11.1583
Carter, M. E., Carpenter, S. C. D., Dubrow, Z. E., Sabol, M. R., Rinaldi, F. C., Lastovetsky, O. A., et al. (2020). A TAL effector-like protein of an endofungal bacterium increases the stress tolerance and alters the transcriptome of the host. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 17122–17129. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003857117
Causier, B., Ashworth, M., Guo, W., and Davies, B. (2012). The TOPLESS Interactome: A Framework for Gene Repression in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 158, 423–438. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.186999
Charleux, B., Gris, C., Carrère, S., Pérez-Quintero, A. L., Le Ru, A., Bellenot, C., et al. (2025). A Xanthomonas effector protein contributes quantitatively to virulence by inducing at least two minor Susceptibility genes. bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2025.07.31.667891
Chen, L.-Q., Hou, B.-H., Lalonde, S., Takanaga, H., Hartung, M. L., Qu, X.-Q., et al. (2010). Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468, 527–532. doi: 10.1038/nature09606
Chen, H., Chen, J., Li, M., Chang, M., Xu, K., Shang, Z., et al. (2017). A Bacterial Type III Effector Targets the Master Regulator of Salicylic Acid Signaling, NPR1, to Subvert Plant Immunity. Cell Host Microbe 22, 777–788.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2017.10.019
Chen, H., Li, M., Qi, G., Zhao, M., Liu, L., Zhang, J., et al. (2021). Two interacting transcriptional coactivators cooperatively control plant immune responses. Sci. Adv. 7, eabl7173. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abl7173
Chen, J., Yang, S., Fan, B., Zhu, C., and Chen, Z. (2022). The mediator complex: A central coordinator of plant adaptive responses to environmental stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 6170. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116170
Chen, X., Yao, X., Yan, F., Li, S., Wang, Z.-D., Yin, F.-Y., et al. (2025). Alternative splicing of OsNPR3 promoted by bacterial TAL effectors-targeted splicing regulator OsRBP11 antagonizes OsNPR1 function to enhance disease susceptibility in rice. Mol. Plant 18, 1505–1525. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2025.07.015
Chen, X., Zou, H., Zhuo, T., Rou, W., Wu, W., and Fan, X. (2024). Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri type III effector PthA4 directs the dynamical expression of a putative citrus carbohydrate-binding protein gene for canker formation. eLife 13, RP91684. doi: 10.7554/eLife.91684
Cohn, M., Bart, R. S., Shybut, M., Dahlbeck, D., Gomez, M., Morbitzer, R., et al. (2014). Xanthomonas axonopodis virulence is promoted by a transcription activator-like effector–mediated induction of a SWEET sugar transporter in cassava. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interactions® 27, 1186–1198. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-06-14-0161-R
Collins, J., O’Grady, K., Chen, S., and Gurley, W. (2019). The C-terminal WD40 repeats on the TOPLESS co-repressor function as a protein–protein interaction surface. Plant Mol. Biol. 100, 47–58. doi: 10.1007/s11103-019-00842-w
Conaway, R. C. and Conaway, J. W. (2011). Function and regulation of the Mediator complex. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 21, 225–230. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2011.01.013
Cox, K. L., Meng, F., Wilkins, K. E., Li, F., Wang, P., Booher, N. J., et al. (2017). TAL effector driven induction of a SWEET gene confers susceptibility to bacterial blight of cotton. Nat. Commun. 8, 15588. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15588
Darino, M., Chia, K. S., Marques, J., Aleksza, D., Soto-Jiménez, L. M., Saado, I., et al. (2021). Ustilago maydis effector Jsi1 interacts with Topless corepressor, hijacking plant jasmonate/ethylene signaling. New Phytol. 229, 3393–3407. doi: 10.1111/nph.17116
De Lange, O., Schreiber, T., Schandry, N., Radeck, J., Braun, K. H., Koszinowski, J., et al. (2013). Breaking the DNA -binding code of Ralstonia solanacearum TAL effectors provides new possibilities to generate plant resistance genes against bacterial wilt disease. New Phytol. 199, 773–786. doi: 10.1111/nph.12324
De Mendoza, A. and Sebé-Pedrós, A. (2019). Origin and evolution of eukaryotic transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 58–59, 25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2019.07.010
Falk, A., Feys, B. J., Frost, L. N., Jones, J. D. G., Daniels, M. J., and Parker, J. E. (1999). EDS1, an essential component of R gene-mediated disease resistance in Arabidopsis has homology to eukaryotic lipases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 3292–3297. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.6.3292
Fan, D., Wang, M., Cheng, A., Jia, R., Yang, Q., Wu, Y., et al. (2020). The role of VP16 in the life cycle of alphaherpesviruses. Front. Microbiol. 11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01910
Feys, B. J. (2001). Direct interaction between the Arabidopsis disease resistance signaling proteins, EDS1 and PAD4. EMBO J. 20, 5400–5411. doi: 10.1093/emboj/20.19.5400
Feys, B. J., Wiermer, M., Bhat, R. A., Moisan, L. J., Medina-Escobar, N., Neu, C., et al. (2005). Arabidopsis SENESCENCE-ASSOCIATED GENE101 Stabilizes and Signals within an ENHANCED DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY1 Complex in Plant Innate Immunity. Plant Cell 17, 2601–2613. doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.033910
Gallas, N., Li, X., Von Roepenack-Lahaye, E., Schandry, N., Jiang, Y., Wu, D., et al. (2024). An ancient cis -element targeted by Ralstonia solanacearum TALE-like effectors facilitates the development of a promoter trap that could confer broad-spectrum wilt resistance. Plant Biotechnol. J. 22, 602–616. doi: 10.1111/pbi.14208
Gimenez-Ibanez, S., Boter, M., Fernández-Barbero, G., Chini, A., Rathjen, J. P., and Solano, R. (2014). The bacterial effector hopX1 targets JAZ transcriptional repressors to activate jasmonate signaling and promote infection in arabidopsis. PloS Biol. 12, e1001792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001792
Gorshkov, V. and Tsers, I. (2022). Plant susceptible responses: the underestimated side of plant–pathogen interactions. Biol. Rev. 97, 45–66. doi: 10.1111/brv.12789
Gupta, P. K., Balyan, H. S., and Gautam, T. (2021). SWEET genes and TAL effectors for disease resistance in plants: Present status and future prospects. Mol. Plant Pathol. 22, 1014–1026. doi: 10.1111/mpp.13075
Harvey, S., Kumari, P., Lapin, D., Griebel, T., Hickman, R., Guo, W., et al. (2020). Downy Mildew effector HaRxL21 interacts with the transcriptional repressor TOPLESS to promote pathogen susceptibility. PloS Pathog. 16, e1008835. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008835
He, B., Wang, H., Liu, G., Chen, A., Calvo, A., Cai, Q., et al. (2023). Fungal small RNAs ride in extracellular vesicles to enter plant cells through clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Nat. Commun. 14, 4383. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40093-4
Heidrich, K., Wirthmueller, L., Tasset, C., Pouzet, C., Deslandes, L., and Parker, J. E. (2011). Arabidopsis EDS1 Connects Pathogen Effector Recognition to Cell Compartment–Specific Immune Responses. Science 334, 1401–1404. doi: 10.1126/science.1211641
Herrera, F. J. and Triezenberg, S. J. (2004). VP16-Dependent Association of Chromatin-Modifying Coactivators and Underrepresentation of Histones at Immediate-Early Gene Promoters during Herpes Simplex Virus Infection. J. Virol. 78, 9689–9696. doi: 10.1128/JVI.78.18.9689-9696.2004
Hou, X., Lee, L. Y. C., Xia, K., Yan, Y., and Yu, H. (2010). DELLAs modulate jasmonate signaling via competitive binding to JAZs. Dev. Cell 19, 884–894. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2010.10.024
Huang, L., Ökmen, B., Stolze, S. C., Kastl, M., Khan, M., Hilbig, D., et al. (2024). The fungal pathogen Ustilago maydis targets the maize corepressor RELK2 to modulate host transcription for tumorigenesis. New Phytol. 241, 1747–1762. doi: 10.1111/nph.19448
Jiang, S., Yao, J., Ma, K.-W., Zhou, H., Song, J., He, S. Y., et al. (2013). Bacterial effector activates jasmonate signaling by directly targeting JAZ transcriptional repressors. PloS Pathog. 9, e1003715. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003715
Jones, J. D. G. and Dangl, J. L. (2006). The plant immune system. Nature 444, 323–329. doi: 10.1038/nature05286
Kämper, J., Kahmann, R., Bölker, M., Ma, L. J., Brefort, T., Saville, B. J., et al. (2006). Insights from the genome of the biotrophic fungal plant pathogen Ustilago maydis. Nature 444, 97–101. doi: 10.1038/nature05248
Katsir, L., Schilmiller, A. L., Staswick, P. E., He, S. Y., and Howe, G. A. (2008). COI1 is a critical component of a receptor for jasmonate and the bacterial virulence factor coronatine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 7100–7105. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802332105
Kay, S., Hahn, S., Marois, E., Hause, G., and Bonas, U. (2007). A bacterial effector acts as a plant transcription factor and induces a cell size regulator. Science 318, 648–651. doi: 10.1126/science.1144956
Kay, S., Hahn, S., Marois, E., Wieduwild, R., and Bonas, U. (2009). Detailed analysis of the DNA recognition motifs of the Xanthomonas type III effectors AvrBs3 and AvrBs3Δrep16. Plant J. 59, 859–871. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03922.x
Khadgi, A., Zayed, O., Sagawa, C. H. D., Zhang, F., Seymour, D. K., and Irish, V. F. (2025). Mutations in the SWEET15 sugar transporter gene affect response of citrus to huanglongbing disease and citrus canker. Mol. Plant Pathol. 26, e70094. doi: 10.1111/mpp.70094
Khan, M. and Djamei, A. (2024). TOPLESS corepressors as an emerging hub of plant pathogen effectors. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interactions® 37, 190–195. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-10-23-0158-FI
Khan, M. S. S., Islam, F., Chen, H., Chang, M., Wang, D., Liu, F., et al. (2022). Transcriptional coactivators: driving force of plant immunity. Front. Plant Sci. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.823937
Khan, M., Uhse, S., Bindics, J., Kogelmann, B., Nagarajan, N., Tabassum, R., et al. (2024). Tip of the iceberg? Three novel TOPLESS-interacting effectors of the gall-inducing fungus Ustilago maydis. New Phytol. 244, 949–961. doi: 10.1111/nph.19967
Kim, S., Kim, C. Y., Park, S. Y., Kim, K. T., Jeon, J., Chung, H., et al. (2020). Two nuclear effectors of the rice blast fungus modulate host immunity via transcriptional reprogramming. Nat. Commun. 11, 5845. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19624-w
Kong, L., Qiu, X., Kang, J., Wang, Y., Chen, H., Huang, J., et al. (2017). A phytophthora effector manipulates host histone acetylation and reprograms defense gene expression to promote infection. Curr. Biol. 27, 981–991. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.044
Kumar, S., Zavaliev, R., Wu, Q., Zhou, Y., Cheng, J., Dillard, L., et al. (2022). Structural basis of NPR1 in activating plant immunity. Nature 605, 561–566. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04699-w
Lapin, D., Bhandari, D. D., and Parker, J. E. (2020). Origins and immunity networking functions of EDS1 family proteins. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 58, 253–276. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-010820-012840
Li, L., Atef, A., Piatek, A., Ali, Z., Piatek, M., Aouida, M., et al. (2013). Characterization and DNA-binding specificities of Ralstonia TAL-like effectors. Mol. Plant 6, 1318–1330. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst006
Li, W., Zhu, Z., Chern, M., Yin, J., Yang, C., Ran, L., et al. (2017). A natural allele of a transcription factor in rice confers broad-spectrum blast resistance. Cell 170, 114–126.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.008
Li, Q., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Zou, F., Jia, Y., Shen, D., et al. (2019). A Phytophthora capsici virulence effector associates with NPR1 and suppresses plant immune responses. Phytopathol. Res. 1, 6. doi: 10.1186/s42483-019-0013-y
Li, Q., Wang, J., Bai, T., Zhang, M., Jia, Y., Shen, D., et al. (2020). A Phytophthora capsici effector suppresses plant immunity via interaction with EDS1. Mol. Plant Pathol. 21, 502–511. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12912
Liu, B., Seong, K., Pang, S., Song, J., Gao, H., Wang, C., et al. (2021). Functional specificity, diversity, and redundancy of Arabidopsis JAZ family repressors in jasmonate and COI1-regulated growth, development, and defense. New Phytol. 231, 1525–1545. doi: 10.1111/nph.17477
Liu, J., Wu, X., Fang, Y., Liu, Y., Bello, E. O., Li, Y., et al. (2023). A plant RNA virus inhibits NPR1 sumoylation and subverts NPR1-mediated plant immunity. Nat. Commun. 14, 3580. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39254-2
Matei, A., Ernst, C., Günl, M., Thiele, B., Altmüller, J., Walbot, V., et al. (2018). How to make a tumour: cell type specific dissection of Ustilago maydis-induced tumour development in maize leaves. New Phytol. 217, 1681–1695. doi: 10.1111/nph.14960
Melotto, M., Mecey, C., Niu, Y., Chung, H. S., Katsir, L., Yao, J., et al. (2008). A critical role of two positively charged amino acids in the Jas motif of Arabidopsis JAZ proteins in mediating coronatine- and jasmonoyl isoleucine-dependent interactions with the COI1 F-box protein. Plant J. 55, 979–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03566.x
Moore, J. W., Loake, G. J., and Spoel, S. H. (2011). Transcription dynamics in plant immunity. Plant Cell 23, 2809–2820. doi: 10.1105/tpc.111.087346
Moraga, F. and Aquea, F. (2015). Composition of the SAGA complex in plants and its role in controlling gene expression in response to abiotic stresses. Front. Plant Sci. 6. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00865
Morffy, N., Van Den Broeck, L., Miller, C., Emenecker, R. J., Bryant, J. A., Lee, T. M., et al. (2024). Identification of plant transcriptional activation domains. Nature 632, 166–173. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07707-3
Mou, Z., Fan, W., and Dong, X. (2003). Inducers of Plant Systemic Acquired Resistance Regulate NPR1 Function through Redox Changes. Cell 113, 935–944. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00429-X
Murakami, K., Elmlund, H., Kalisman, N., Bushnell, D. A., Adams, C. M., Azubel, M., et al. (2013). Architecture of an RNA polymerase II transcription pre-initiation complex. Science 342, 1238724. doi: 10.1126/science.1238724
Navarrete, F., Gallei, M., Kornienko, A. E., Saado, I., Khan, M., Chia, K. S., et al. (2022). TOPLESS promotes plant immunity by repressing auxin signaling and is targeted by the fungal effector Naked1. Plant Commun. 3, 100269. doi: 10.1016/j.xplc.2021.100269
Ngou, B. P. M., Ahn, H.-K., Ding, P., and Jones, J. D. G. (2021). Mutual potentiation of plant immunity by cell-surface and intracellular receptors. Nature 592, 110–115. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03315-7
Nissan, G., Manulis-Sasson, S., Chalupowicz, L., Teper, D., Yeheskel, A., Pasmanik-Chor, M., et al. (2012). The type III effector hsvG of the gall-forming pantoea agglomerans mediates expression of the host gene HSVGT. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interactions® 25, 231–240. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-06-11-0173
Nissan, G., Manulis-Sasson, S., Weinthal, D., Mor, H., Sessa, G., and Barash, I. (2006). The type III effectors HsvG and HsvB of gall-forming Pantoea agglomerans determine host specificity and function as transcriptional activators. Mol. Microbiol. 61, 1118–1131. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05301.x
Partida-Martinez, L. P., Monajembashi, S., Greulich, K.-O., and Hertweck, C. (2007). Endosymbiont-dependent host reproduction maintains bacterial-fungal mutualism. Curr. Biol. 17, 773–777. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.039
Pauwels, L., Barbero, G. F., Geerinck, J., Tilleman, S., Grunewald, W., Pérez, A. C., et al. (2010). NINJA connects the co-repressor TOPLESS to jasmonate signalling. Nature 464, 788–791. doi: 10.1038/nature08854
Pauwels, L. and Goossens, A. (2011). The JAZ proteins: A crucial interface in the jasmonate signaling cascade. Plant Cell 23, 3089–3100. doi: 10.1105/tpc.111.089300
Petre, B., Saunders, D. G. O., Sklenar, J., Lorrain, C., Win, J., Duplessis, S., et al. (2015). Candidate effector proteins of the rust pathogen melampsora larici-populina target diverse plant cell compartments. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interactions® 28, 689–700. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-01-15-0003-R
Piskacek, S., Gregor, M., Nemethova, M., Grabner, M., Kovarik, P., and Piskacek, M. (2007). Nine-amino-acid transactivation domain: Establishment and prediction utilities. Genomics 89, 756–768. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2007.02.003
Plant, A. R., Larrieu, A., and Causier, B. (2021). Repressor for hire! The vital roles of TOPLESS-mediated transcriptional repression in plants. New Phytol. 231, 963–973. doi: 10.1111/nph.17428
Plett, J. M., Daguerre, Y., Wittulsky, S., Vayssières, A., Deveau, A., Melton, S. J., et al. (2014). Effector MiSSP7 of the mutualistic fungus Laccaria bicolor stabilizes the Populus JAZ6 protein and represses jasmonic acid (JA) responsive genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8299–8304. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322671111
Richter, I., Wein, P., Uzum, Z., Stanley, C. E., Krabbe, J., Molloy, E. M., et al. (2023). Transcription activator-like effector protects bacterial endosymbionts from entrapment within fungal hyphae. Curr. Biol. 33, 2646–2656.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2023.05.028
Rosa, C., Kuo, Y.-W., Wuriyanghan, H., and Falk, B. W. (2018). RNA interference mechanisms and applications in plant pathology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 56, 581–610. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-050044
Rosas-Diaz, T., Cana-Quijada, P., Wu, M., Hui, D., Fernandez-Barbero, G., Macho, A. P., et al. (2023). The transcriptional regulator JAZ8 interacts with the C2 protein from geminiviruses and limits the geminiviral infection in Arabidopsis. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 65, 1826–1840. doi: 10.1111/jipb.13482
Saini, R. and Nandi, A. K. (2022). TOPLESS in the regulation of plant immunity. Plant Mol. Biol. 109, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11103-022-01258-9
Schandry, N., De Lange, O., Prior, P., and Lahaye, T. (2016). TALE-like effectors are an ancestral feature of the ralstonia solanacearum species complex and converge in DNA targeting specificity. Front. Plant Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01225
Schilling, L., Matei, A., Redkar, A., Walbot, V., and Doehlemann, G. (2014). Virulence of the maize smut Ustilago maydis is shaped by organ-specific effectors. Mol. Plant Pathol. 15, 780–789. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12133
Schornack, S., Moscou, M. J., Ward, E. R., and Horvath, D. M. (2013). Engineering Plant Disease Resistance Based on TAL Effectors. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 51, 383–406. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102255
Shantharaj, D., Minsavage, G. V., Orbović, V., Moore, G. A., Holmes, D. R., Römer, P., et al. (2023). A promoter trap in transgenic citrus mediates recognition of a broad spectrum of Xanthomonas citri pv. citri TALEs , including in planta -evolved derivatives. Plant Biotechnol. J. 21, 2019–2032. doi: 10.1111/pbi.14109
Shi, Q., Liu, R., Jiang, L., Gao, S., Ma, J., Tian, X., et al. (2025). The nuclear effector miISE23 from meloidogyne incognita targets JAZ proteins and suppresses jasmonate signalling, increasing host susceptibility. Plant Cell Environ. 48, 4611–4624. doi: 10.1111/pce.15461
Skibbe, D. S., Doehlemann, G., Fernandes, J., and Walbot, V. (2010). Maize tumors caused by Ustilago maydis require organ-specific genes in host and pathogen. Science 328, 89–92. doi: 10.1126/science.1185775
Soffers, J. H. M. and Workman, J. L. (2020). The SAGA chromatin-modifying complex: the sum of its parts is greater than the whole. Genes Dev. 34, 1287–1303. doi: 10.1101/gad.341156.120
Sugio, A., Yang, B., Zhu, T., and White, F. F. (2007). Two type III effector genes of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae control the induction of the host genes OsTFIIA γ 1 and OsTFX1 during bacterial blight of rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 10720–10725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701742104
Teper, D., White, F. F., and Wang, N. (2023). The dynamic transcription activator-like effector family of xanthomonas. Phytopathology® 113, 651–666. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-10-22-0365-KD
Thines, B., Katsir, L., Melotto, M., Niu, Y., Mandaokar, A., Liu, G., et al. (2007). JAZ repressor proteins are targets of the SCFCOI1 complex during jasmonate signalling. Nature 448, 661–665. doi: 10.1038/nature05960
Tiley, L. S., Madore, S. J., Malim, M. H., and Cullen, B. R. (1992). The VP16 transcription activation domain is functional when targeted to a promoter-proximal RNA sequence. Genes Dev. 6, 2077–2087. doi: 10.1101/gad.6.11.2077
Vojnic, E., Mourão, A., Seizl, M., Simon, B., Wenzeck, L., Larivière, L., et al. (2011). Structure and VP16 binding of the Mediator Med25 activator interaction domain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 404–409. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1997
Wagner, S., Stuttmann, J., Rietz, S., Guerois, R., Brunstein, E., Bautor, J., et al. (2013). Structural Basis for Signaling by Exclusive EDS1 Heteromeric Complexes with SAG101 or PAD4 in Plant Innate Immunity. Cell Host Microbe 14, 619–630. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.11.006
Wang, M., Weiberg, A., and Jin, H. (2015). Pathogen small RNAs : a new class of effectors for pathogen attacks. Mol. Plant Pathol. 16, 219–223. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12233
Wang, X., Yang, B., Li, K., Kang, Z., Cantu, D., and Dubcovsky, J. (2016). A Conserved Puccinia striiformis Protein Interacts with Wheat NPR1 and Reduces Induction of Pathogenesis - Related Genes in Response to Pathogens. MPMI 29, 977–989. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-10-16-0207-R
Weiberg, A., Wang, M., Lin, F. M., Zhao, H., Zhang, Z., Kaloshian, I., et al. (2013). Fungal small RNAs suppress plant immunity by hijacking host RNA interference pathways. Science 342, 118–123. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.1239705/SUPPL_FILE/WEIBERG-SM.PDF
Weinthal, D. M., Barash, I., Tzfira, T., Gaba, V., Teper, D., Sessa, G., et al. (2011). Characterization of nuclear localization signals in the type III effectors HsvG and HsvB of the gall-forming bacterium Pantoea agglomerans. Microbiology 157, 1500–1508. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.047118-0
Wu, D., Qi, T., Li, W.-X., Tian, H., Gao, H., Wang, J., et al. (2017). Viral effector protein manipulates host hormone signaling to attract insect vectors. Cell Res. 27, 402–415. doi: 10.1038/cr.2017.2
Xiang, H., Stojilkovic, B., and Gheysen, G. (2025). Decoding plant–pathogen interactions: A comprehensive exploration of effector–plant transcription factor dynamics. Mol. Plant Pathol. 26, e70057. doi: 10.1111/mpp.70057
Xiao, F., He, P., Abramovitch, R. B., Dawson, J. E., Nicholson, L. K., Sheen, J., et al. (2007). The N-terminal region of Pseudomonas type III effector AvrPtoB elicits Pto-dependent immunity and has two distinct virulence determinants. Plant J. 52, 595–614. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03259.x
Xu, Z., Xu, X., Li, Y., Liu, L., Wang, Q., Wang, Y., et al. (2024). Tal6b/AvrXa27A, a hidden TALE targeting the susceptibility gene OsSWEET11a and the resistance gene Xa27 in rice. Plant Commun. 5, 100721. doi: 10.1016/j.xplc.2023.100721
Yang, B., Sugio, A., and White, F. F. (2006). Os8N3 is a host disease-susceptibility gene for bacterial blight of rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 10503–10508. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604088103
Ye, W. and Ma, W. (2016). Filamentous pathogen effectors interfering with small RNA silencing in plant hosts. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 32, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2016.04.003
Yu, Y., Streubel, J., Balzergue, S., Champion, A., Boch, J., Koebnik, R., et al. (2011). Colonization of Rice Leaf Blades by an African Strain of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Depends on a New TAL Effector That Induces the Rice Nodulin-3 Os11N3 Gene. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interactions® 24, 1102–1113. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-11-10-0254
Yuan, M., Jiang, Z., Bi, G., Nomura, K., Liu, M., Wang, Y., et al. (2021). Pattern-recognition receptors are required for NLR-mediated plant immunity. Nature 592, 105–109. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03316-6
Zeng, X., Tian, D., Gu, K., Zhou, Z., Yang, X., Luo, Y., et al. (2015). Genetic engineering of the Xa10 promoter for broad-spectrum and durable resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Plant Biotechnol. J. 13, 993–1001. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12342
Zhang, Q. and Cao, X. (2019). Epigenetic regulation of the innate immune response to infection. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 19, 417–432. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0151-6
Zhang, S., Li, C., Si, J., Han, Z., and Chen, D. (2022). Action mechanisms of effectors in plant-pathogen interaction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 6758. doi: 10.3390/IJMS23126758
Zhao, Y., Yang, B., Xu, H., Wu, J., Xu, Z., and Wang, Y. (2022). The Phytophthora effector Avh94 manipulates host jasmonic acid signaling to promote infection. JIPB 64, 2199–2210. doi: 10.1111/jipb.13358
Zhao, X., He, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., and Zhao, J. (2024). JAZ proteins: Key regulators of plant growth and stress response. Crop J. 12, 1505–1516. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2024.11.001
Zhou, J., Peng, Z., Long, J., Sosso, D., Liu, B., Eom, J., et al. (2015). Gene targeting by the TAL effector PthXo2 reveals cryptic resistance gene for bacterial blight of rice. Plant J. 82, 632–643. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12838
Zhu, Z., Xiong, J., Shi, H., Liu, Y., Yin, J., He, K., et al. (2023). Magnaporthe oryzae effector MoSPAB1 directly activates rice Bsr-d1 expression to facilitate pathogenesis. Nat. Commun. 14, 8399. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44197-9
Zuo, W., Depotter, J. R. L., Stolze, S. C., Nakagami, H., and Doehlemann, G. (2023). A transcriptional activator effector of Ustilago maydis regulates hyperplasia in maize during pathogen-induced tumor formation. Nat. Commun. 14, 6722. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42522-w
Keywords: effector, gene expression, microbial virulence, plant immunity, transcriptional regulation
Citation: Zuo W, Xiao M and Doehlemann G (2026) Take control of expression: effector-mediated modulation of the host transcriptional machinery. Front. Plant Sci. 17:1771671. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2026.1771671
Received: 19 December 2025; Accepted: 06 January 2026; Revised: 05 January 2026;
Published: 27 January 2026.
Edited by:
Haonan Wang, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, ChinaReviewed by:
Yachun Lin, Jiangxi Agricultural University, ChinaXufang Qiu, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China
Copyright © 2026 Zuo, Xiao and Doehlemann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Weiliang Zuo, d3p1b0B1bmkta29lbG4uZGU=; Gunther Doehlemann, Zy5kb2VobGVtYW5uQHVuaS1rb2Vsbi5kZQ==