Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Aquaporin 1-Inhibition on Vasculogenic Mimicry in Malignant Mesothelioma
Previous Article in Journal
The Emerging Role of the Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Which Plant Proteins Are Involved in Antiviral Defense? Review on In Vivo and In Vitro Activities of Selected Plant Proteins against Viruses

Oskar Musidlak
Robert Nawrot
Anna Goździcka-Józefiak
Department of Molecular Virology, Institute of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18(11), 2300;
Submission received: 26 September 2017 / Revised: 24 October 2017 / Accepted: 27 October 2017 / Published: 1 November 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Biochemistry)


Plants have evolved a variety of defense mechanisms to tackle virus attack. Endogenous plant proteins can function as virus suppressors. Different types of proteins mediate defense responses against plant viruses. Pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins are activated upon pathogen infections or in different stress situations and their production is one of many components in plant defense. Ribosome-inactivating proteins (RIPs) suppress translation by enzymatically damaging ribosomes and they have been found to have antiviral activity. RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) bind to target RNAs via specialized RNA-binding domain and can directly or indirectly function in plant defense system against RNA viruses. Proteins involved in silencing machinery, namely Dicer-like (DCL) proteins, Argonaute (AGO) proteins, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RDRs) confer innate antiviral defense in plants as they are able to degrade foreign RNA of viral origin. This review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of plant proteins participating in antiviral defense. As a result we discuss proteins conferring plant antiviral resistance and their potential future applications in different fields of life including agriculture and medicine.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Plants possess a wide spectrum of defenses to deal with virus infections. They have inducible defense systems which are activated upon virus attack. The reaction to virus infection, among other elements, usually involves the production of different plant proteins which prevent further spreading of the virus. Pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins are activated in plants under pathological or similar circumstances, such as pathogen attack, wounding or exposure to particular plant hormones, salinity, cold, drought, etc. The production of PR proteins in the uninfected parts of affected plants can cease further virus infection. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) were found to have antiviral activities in vitro and they are considered as potential antiviral agents with possible biotechnological applications. Other plant proteins were also found to have antiviral properties in vitro. Such activity is characteristic for ribosome-inactivating proteins (RIPs), RNA-binding proteins (RBPs), and some defense-related proteins. Another way to tackle virus attack is RNA silencing which functions as a basic antiviral immune system in plants. Proteins playing a central role in the antiviral RNA silencing pathway include Argonautes (AGOs), RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RDRs), and members of the plant Dicer-like (DCL) protein family. All these proteins are either presumed to be involved in defense responses of plants against viral infections or have been shown to possess antiviral activity in vitro which could be potentially utilized in agroeconomics. Nevertheless, mechanism of antiviral activity of plant proteins is still not fully understood. It is known that they can interact with viruses directly, occupy the virus infection site, inhibit the synthesis of virus protein and genome, or indirectly activate plant defense systems, thus enhancing resistance to viruses. In this review we have focused primarily on PR proteins, RIPs, RBPs, and proteins participating in RNA silencing as they are the main components of plant defense against viruses. The main premise behind writing this review was not only to summarize current knowledge regarding plant antiviral proteins but also to distinguish and discuss three classes of antiviral proteins—those which are a part of innate or induced defense response of plants to protect them against viral infection and those which are produced or cloned in other plants and exert antiviral effects against a wide range of plant and also animal viruses (Table 1). We distinguished three types of strategies commonly used for studying protein antiviral activity which are summarized in Figure 1. For some proteins antiviral activity was detected during in vivo studies involving gene knockout technology and mutant plants (Figure 1a). Another type of experiment used for antiviral in vivo activity assessment exploits transgenic plants or genetically modified plants overexpressing particular proteins (Figure 1b). The third case comprises proteins which were first isolated, and then their antiviral properties were studied using in vitro assays (Figure 1c).

2. Plant Defense-Related Proteins

2.1. Plant Basal Resistance

Plants have evolved diverse defense mechanisms against pathogen infections. Complexity of plant immune system and efficiency to suppress pathogen infections differ between plant species [1]. Innate immunity, which is also called basal resistance, could be triggered by different features, like plant cell-wall derived components, which are released after pathogen attack or molecules presented by pathogens on the external side of the host cell. The latter comprise bacterial flagellins and lipopolysaccharides as well as fungal chitins and glucans and are called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) [2,3]. Plants from different families possess mostly conserved receptors recognizing PAMPs, called pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). Their stimulation leads to so-called PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI) [4]. On the other hand, plant pathogens (fungi, bacteria, viruses) carry different effectors and deliver them during infection to plant cells. In plant-pathogen “arms race” plants have evolved resistance (R) proteins, which can detect these effector molecules and induce defense responses. Such detected effectors are termed avirulence (Avr) proteins and pathogens carrying them are referred to as avirulent pathogens. These pathogens trigger plant defense, unlike virulent pathogens, which cause diseases [5]. Majority of Avr proteins are viewed as virulence factors that are necessary for the colonization of the host plant. When Avr proteins are recognized by resistant host plants, they act as “specific elicitors” of plant defense [6,7,8]. Most of the cloned R-gene products have leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains coupled to a putative nucleotide binding site (NBS) domain. Recognition between corresponding plant R protein and pathogen Avr proteins induces effector-triggered immunity (ETI) (previously named gene-for-gene resistance) [1,5,7].
Defense responses induced by PTI or ETI are similar, however ETI is faster and accelerated and often leads to localized programmed cell death, which is referred to as hypersensitive response (HR) [1,2]. Within a few hours of HR, the plant starts to produce different PR proteins locally, at the infection site, and also systemically, throughout the whole plant [9]. Infection of the plant by many fungal, bacterial, and viral pathogens leads to systemic activation of a long-lasting and wide-ranging disease resistance termed systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [10]. SAR involves both local and systemic salicylic acid (SA) production and the activation of PR genes [11].
For plant viruses no conserved PAMP has been identified to date. The primary plant defense is based in this case mainly on RNA silencing [12]. However, PTI-based innate responses could contribute to antiviral plant defense as well. Recently plant antiviral immunity mechanism has been proposed as a global translation suppression caused by constitutive activation of NSP-interacting kinase 1 (NIK1) [13]. The protein is classified as PAMP recognition leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase (LRR-RLK) and was reported to be a virulence target of the Begomovirus (Geminiviridae) nuclear shuttle protein (NSP) [14]. It was shown, that constitutive activation of NIK1 leads to translocation of the downstream component RPL10 to the nucleus, where it interacts with LIMYB (L10-interacting MYB domain-containing protein), which results in translational suppression and enhanced tolerance to the virus [13]. This idea seems to be very interesting but needs further investigation to possibly extend it on broad plant–virus interactions.

2.2. Plant Pathogenesis-Related Proteins and Antimicrobial Peptides

Generally, the production of PR proteins and AMPs in plants in response to pathogen infections and to different stress situations is an important element of plant defense [15,16]. Accumulation of PR proteins in the remote uninfected plant parts induces SAR, preventing further development of the infection. PR proteins are encoded by the host plant and activated only in pathological or related circumstances [17]. PR genes are upregulated by different types of pathogens including viruses and also by the addition of chemical compounds that mimic the effect of pathogen infection or cause similar stress conditions. These substances can be plant hormones, including ethylene (ET), jasmonic acid (JA), and SA, as well as wound responses that activate the production of proteins, which also accumulate during infections [15,17]. PR proteins are organized into 17 families (numbered consecutively from PR-1–PR-17), mainly depending on their primary structure, but also serological and biological activities [18,19,20]. Several PR proteins are hydrolytic enzymes, e.g., chitinases and β-1,3-glucanases, which exhibit antimicrobial properties through the degradation of pathogen cell wall components. Some PR proteins appear to be antimicrobial agents because of their ability to bind to chitin, their structural similarity to osmotin or thionin, their proteinase-inhibiting activity and ribonuclease activity. Many of them have also direct or indirect antiviral properties (Table 1). Novel PR-9 protein possessing antiviral activity, was purified from Stellaria media. It was found that Stellarmedin A has a peroxidase activity and that it inhibits Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) replication in vitro [21]. Ribonucleolytic activity of CaPR10, a PR-10 protein from Capsicum annuum was observed towards Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) RNA, as well as against total pepper RNA or yeast tRNA (Table 1). It was shown that phosphorylation of this protein increases its ribonucleolytic activity to cleave viral RNAs [22]. Additionally, other PR proteins, namely PR2a and PR3 from Nicotiana tabacum were shown to have antiviral properties against TMV in vivo. [23].
PR-12 (defensins), PR-13 (thionins), and PR-14 (lipid transfer proteins) are also classified into the group of AMPs [20,21]. These are short sequence peptides which generally contain from 20 to 95 amino acid residues and are rich in cysteine [24,25]. Several families of AMPs have been described, including defensins, LTPs, hevein type peptides, knottin-type peptides as well as peptides isolated from the seeds of Impatiens balsamina (IB-AMPs). Some of them interact directly with the envelope of the virus, causing the permeation of the envelope and ultimately the lysis of the virus particle, while others can inhibit cell fusion or binding of the virus with human cells [24,26,27]. There are several purified plant AMPs with known antiviral activity against HIV in vitro [28,29] (Table 1). However, whether or not AMPs are truly involved in antiviral resistance in plants remains to be determined.

3. Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins

RIPs are proteins ubiquitous in plant kingdom which can suppress translation by enzymatically damaging ribosomes [72]. Apart from the RNA N-glycosidase activity toward ribosomes, RIPs also possess a broad spectrum of additional enzymatic activities such as polynucleotide: adenosine and guanosine glycosidase activity. They are also presumed to have RNase and DNase activities [73,74,75,76]. First described RIPs were ricin and abrin, which are powerful toxins isolated from the seeds of Ricinus communis and Abrus precatorius, respectively [77,78,79]. History of the research on plant RIPs has been well summarized recently thus it is not the main focus of this review [80]. Many RIPs have been found in various plant species including Pokeweed antiviral protein (PAP) in Phytolacca americana [81], Momordica anti-HIV protein 30 kDa (MAP30) in Momordica charantia, Gelonium anti-HIV protein 31 kDa (GAP31) in Gelonium multiflorum, Cochinin B in seeds of Momordica cochinchinensis or saporin in Saponaria officinalis [82,83,84,85]. RIPs are expressed at various levels in different plants and the expression of some of them is enhanced upon infections and other stress situations, such as salinity and cold, after treatment with jasmonic acid or abscisic acid, and mechanical wounding [86,87,88,89,90,91].

3.1. Classification of RIPs

RIPs are categorized based on their structural properties into two major types, designated simply as type 1 and type 2. Type 1 RIPs are strongly basic monomeric enzymes consisting of a single peptide chain (A-chain) with N-glycosidase (EC activity, and of approximately 30 kDa (Figure 2). Up-to-date the number of identified type 1 RIPs considerably exceeds type 2 RIPs [92,93]. Type 2 RIPs are composed of two peptide chains. The first chain, named A-chain, is similar to type 1 RIPs and it is linked to the second chain. The latter is referred to as B-chain of about 35 kDa and possesses lectin properties specific for sugars with galactose structure [94,95,96,97] (Figure 1). The B-chain interacts with galactosyl residues present on the surface of animal cells. Thereby it enables the A-chain to enter the cytoplasm, consequently leading to ribosome damage. This type of RIPs is much more toxic than type 1. Type 2 RIPs are heterodimeric (A–B) or tetrameric (A–B–B–A). The latter are four-chain proteins, composed of two dimers of the type (A–B) connected by a disulphide bridge.
Two proteins designated as b-32 and JIP60 isolated from maize and barley respectively, were found to be neither canonical type 1 nor type 2 RIPs what causes discrepancies regarding RIPs classification [98,99]. Some authors treat these proteins as completely different from the two other types and categorize them as type 3 RIPs. Type 3 comprises proteins consisting of a single A-chain with an additional peptide which must be removed for RIP’s activity [78,95,100]. Other authors classify only JIP60 as a type 3 RIP whilst b-32 is classified as type 1 [73,95]. However, to our best knowledge only two mentioned cases of such proteins have been described thus far. Therefore, it was suggested to consider these two proteins as special cases of type 1 RIPs (Figure 2) [93,101].

3.2. Antiviral Activity of RIPs

RIPs isolated from many different sources have been shown to efficiently inhibit both plant [60,102,103] and animal virus infections [104,105,106]. Several RIPs have been observed to inhibit viruses in vitro. Some others were found to confer plant immunity against viruses during in vivo studies.
Transformation experiments involving RIPs were conducted to enhance the resistance of plants to plant viruses. PAP was found to increase resistance of tobacco and potato plants to infection of different viruses transmitted by aphids and mechanical damage, such as Potato virus Y (PVY), Potato virus X (PVX), and Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) [60]. However, when PAP expression levels were high, toxic effect in tobacco and in bentgrass plants was observed [60,107]. Similarly, trichosanthin conferred resistance to transgenic tobacco against Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) [65]. Potato plants transformed with Phytolacca insularis antiviral protein (PIP) were resistant against infection of PVY, PVX, and Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) [63]. Nonetheless, because of their toxicity all these RIPs generated a severe phenotype in transgenic plants. This led to several attempts where RIPs with lower toxicity toward host plants were used, including PAP II, which is a low-toxic isoform of PAP isolated from leaves [61]. It was also observed that PAP-C, a PAP mutant with removed C-terminus did not induce a detrimental effect in transgenic tobacco plants, where rRNA depurination was not observed [62]. Furthermore, PAP-C transformed tobacco plants are protected against PVX infection [62]. Because the ribosome inactivation is not imperative for antiviral activity of PAP-C, healthy tobacco lines exhibiting virus resistance could be obtained [62]. The plants transformed with RIP genes or with enhanced endogenous RIP levels showed increased resistance to viruses. This suggests that RIPs are significant players in plant adaptation and defense against pathogens and environmental stress conditions.
Although, the evidence for antiviral activity of RIPs is compelling and the antiviral properties has been described for many type 1 and type 2 RIPs, the mechanism of antiviral activity has not been elucidated. Three ways of RIPs action have been suggested [73].
Some authors propose that thanks to the polynucleotide: adenosine glycosidase activity RIPs can act directly on virus particles and viral or virus-induced nucleic acids. This assumption came from the observation that RIPs depurinate nucleic acids [108]. However, it is presumed that RIPs do not directly affect intact viral particles, as treatment with PAP did not have any effect on TMV infectivity [109]. On the other hand, RIPs are typically localized in the intracellular space (e.g., saporins), in the protein bodies (e.g., ricin), in the cell wall matrix or in vacuoles (e.g., PAP), what segregates them from the cytosol where they could damage ribosomes and cease protein synthesis. In the so-called ‘local suicide’ model, when cells are damaged by virus vector (e.g., aphid) or by mechanical inoculation, and the integrity of the plasmalemma is disrupted, RIPs can enter the cytosol of infected cells where they can reach and inactivate protein synthesis machinery thus, killing infected cells, preventing viral replication and infection of neighboring cells [97]. Finally, it was proposed that RIPs can indirectly activate plant defense systems, thus inducing increased resistance to viruses.
However, experimental data often do not comply with the aforementioned potential ways of action. As outlined above, the ribosome inactivation is not necessary for PAP-C antiviral activity. Presumably, the antiviral activity of RIPs depends on an indirect activation of the plant defense system. Although evidence of such a mechanism has been obtained for recombinant RIPs expressed in transgenic tobacco, there is no data supporting this hypothesis in plants normally expressing RIPs [62].
Even though a specific biological function of RIPs still remains to be determined, it has been proposed that RIPs can be storage proteins, can participate in plant defense against pathogens and adaptation to environmental stress, and play a role in plant senescence [72,94,110].

4. RNA-Binding Proteins

Plants contain many RBPs, that are implied to interact with specific target mRNAs and change plant physiology. RBPs are diverse heterogenic proteins which participate in post-transcriptional regulation by direct association with RNA molecules. To bind target RNAs they utilize an RNA-binding domain (RBD) which can be sequence-specific or non-specific. These proteins play a critical role in cellular posttranscriptional gene regulation, polyadenylation, mRNA stability, RNA trafficking. They also participate in inhibition of RNA virus replication, movement, and translation. Therefore, RBPs may directly or indirectly participate in viral RNA-targeted defense system against RNA viruses at the transcriptional and translational level. For example, PR10 proteins including CaPR10, have RNase activity and are able to cleave viral RNA [58]. Other RBPs such as Arabidopsis Pumilio RNA-binding protein 5 (APUM5), associate directly with viral RNA and repress its translation disturbing viral replication and movement [58]. However, the molecular mechanisms of RBP-mediated defense against different pathogens are not fully understood. Some RBPs were reported to inhibit viral replication in vitro and several in vivo (Table 1).

4.1. Structure of RBPs

RBPs comprise diverse modular structures, containing numerous repeats of few conserved domains, organized in variety of ways [111]. To be classified as an RBP a protein must contain at least one RBD. RNA Recognition Motif (RRM) and K Homology domain (KH) are the most common domains present in plant RBPs [112]. Other popular RBP domains are zinc finger domain (ZnF) [112,113], DEAD/DEAH box [114], cold-shock domain, Pumilio/FBF (PUF) domain [115], and Piwi/Argonaute/Zwille (PAZ) domain [116]. One RBP can have multiple binding domains which are often surrounded by auxiliary motifs, such as glycine-rich, arginine-rich, serine–arginine (SR) or arginine–glycine (RGG) [113,114,115,117,118].

4.2. Plant RBPs—In Vitro and In Vivo Activity against Viruses

RBPs from plants participate in immune response against viruses by direct and indirect interactions with viral RNA. Some RBPs associate with host RNA at mRNA levels and govern signaling pathways in a defense response to pathogens. Others can directly bind viral RNA and effectively affect its replication and movement. Hereafter, several examples of RBPs with antiviral activity are described (Table 1).
APUM5 contains a conserved Pumilio homology domain (PHD) which is presumably responsible for the recognition and binding affinity of target RNAs [119]. PHD in APUM5 suppresses CMV replication by direct association with the “UGUA”-containing nucleotides in the 3’ UTR and with virus internal regions [58]. Furthermore, in one study, transgenic plants overexpressing APUM5 and wild-type plants were subjected to TuMV infection. At the initial stage, the transgenic plants displayed decreased RNA levels and marginally enhanced immunity in contrast to a wild-type plant [120]. Additionally, it is likely that APUM5 can govern unidentified host target RNAs in RNA sequence-specific manner [58].
Arabidopsis thaliana glycine-rich RNA-binding protein 7 (AtGRP7) participates in plant defense response against TMV and some bacterial pathogens [59]. In one study, after comparison of data from global transcript profiling between the wild-type plants and plants overexpressing AtGRP7, it was observed that AtGRP7 controlled about 300 transcripts, such as those responsible for circadian clock, ribosome function, RNA metabolism, and those participating in stress response [121].
As outlined above CaPR10 isolated from hot pepper (C. annuum) belongs to the pathogenesis-related protein family 10 (PR-10), which is characterized by ribonuclease-like activities. Because of its RNA-binding domain it is also classified as an RBP. CaPR10 is involved in plant defense by direct interaction and increased ribonucleolytic activity towards viral RNAs during viral infection [22]. Even though PR-10 proteins function as RBPs, their specific contribution to plant defense against RNA viruses remains to be determined since this protein family is involved in defense responses during various biotic and abiotic stress conditions [122,123]. The activities of the PR10 protein family are presumably non-specific, thus it was proposed that members of this family employ helper proteins to bind specifically to target RNAs of both viral and host origin.
Two proteins belonging to Arabidopsis dsRNA-binding protein family were also found to exhibit antiviral activity in vivo. dsRNA-binding protein 3 (DRB3) and dsRNA-binding protein 4 (DRB4) among other classes of proteins such as DCLs, AGOs, and RDRs form RNA silencing machinery which enhances innate antiviral defense. Arabidopsis dsRNA-binding protein 3 (DRB3) physically associates with the RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway components including Dicer-like 3 (DCL3) and Argonaute 4 (AGO4) in the nucleus. RdDM pathway is used in plants to methylate viral genome as an epigenetic defense mechanism against geminiviruses [45]. Methylation of chromatin suppresses virus replication and transcription, and methylation deficiency results in plant hypersensitivity to geminiviruses. It has been demonstrated that DRB3, together with DCL3 and AGO4, participate in methylation-mediated antiviral defense [45]. Experiments were performed using two distinct types of geminiviruses, namely Cabbage leaf curl virus (CaLCuV) and Beet curly top virus (BCTV). From a panel of Arabidopsis drb mutants (drb2, drb3, drb4, drb5), only drb3 mutants were hypersusceptible to geminivirus infection, which correlated with a defect in the methylation pathway [45].
Arabidopsis dsRNA-binding protein 4 (DRB4) is involved in plant defense against the infection of TYMV [53]. DRB4 interacts with dicer-like 4 protein (DCL4) and both proteins are required for the formation of TYMV-derived small RNAs [52]. During virus infection DRB4 changes subcellular localization moving from the nucleus to the cytoplasm where it specifically interacts with viral RNA to control the infection [53]. DRB4 is also implied to regulate HR against Turnip crinkle virus (TCV) [54]. Moreover, DRB4 associates with tRNA-like structure (TLS), which is important for the replication and translation of viral RNA. DRB4 presumably functions as a translational repressor of RNA viruses in plants since it inhibits viral RNA translation, but not degradation. Nonetheless, whether DRB4 controls target host RNA and viral RNA at RNA or protein level, remains to be verified [58].
Recent results of Barton and colleagues show co-localizations of DRB2, DRB3, and DRB5 proteins with viral replication complexes (VRCs) in virus-infected plants [124]. Fluorescently tagged DRB2, DRB3, and DRB5 fusion proteins formed discrete concentrations in VRCs in Arabidopsis cells infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), TuMV, CMV, TYMV. Such observation implied probable interaction between these proteins and viral elements. Similarly, when N. benthamiana plants transiently expressing Arabidopsis thaliana dsRNA-binding proteins (AtDRBs) were infected with TuMV and TMV, the same three proteins (AtDRB2, AtDRB3, AtDRB5) accumulated within VRCs. Furthermore, in N. benthamiana plants expressing PVX-CFP fusion protein, AtDRB2, AtDRB3, AtDRB5 relocated from nuclei to cytoplasm, to eventually localize within VRCs. In another experiment, transgenic Arabidopsis plants with inactive DRB3 or DRB4, and wild-type plants were challenged with TuMV. After three weeks the virus titers increased in DRB3- and DRB4-defective plants [124]. These results demonstrate that DRB3 and DRB4 inhibit viral replication.
Protein binding to ToMV RNA 1 (BTR1) from A. thaliana interacts with the 5’ terminal region of Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) and perturbs virus multiplication and local spreading [50]. The overexpression of BTR1 in A. thaliana leaves specifically inhibited ToMV infection, while the opposite effect was observed for BTR1 knockout plants [50]. The mechanism of BTR1 antiviral activity is not well understood. Presumably, BTR1 may contain specific binding domains for plant viral RNA, or it may be indirectly involved in host innate immunity.
In general, little is known about the RBPs-mediated defense and its mechanism of action. It has been proposed that during pathogen infections RBPs control defense signaling genes at post-transcriptional and post-translational levels [58]. The knowledge about the mechanism of the effective virus RNA suppression via RBPs can be potentially exploited in transgenic crops as a synthetic virus defense strategy.

5. Proteins Involved in Innate Antiviral Defense via RNA Silencing Pathway

Plant genomes encode multiple proteins which participate in endogenous and foreign RNA silencing thus contributing to antiviral defense. These proteins include DCLs, AGOs or AGO-containing RNA-induced silencing complexes (RISCs), and cellular RDRs [34] (Table 1). RNA silencing is a basic antiviral defense mechanism which reinforces plant immune system. It operates to decrease viral RNA levels in infected cells and to block further spreading of the virus. Hereafter, a few classes of proteins involved in innate antiviral silencing are described.

5.1. Dicer-Like Ribonucleases

RNA silencing is triggered by Dicer-like ribonucleases III, which specifically cleave dsRNA or hairpin dsRNA regions of single-stranded RNAs (ssRNAs). The effects of cleavage are 21-26-nucleotide small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) or 21-22-nucleotide microRNAs (miRNAs) depending on their biogenesis and precursor structure [34,125,126,127]. Thus, siRNA is derived from perfectly paired dsRNA precursors and miRNA originates from imperfectly base-paired hairpin loop structures of the transcript of miRNA genes produced by RNA polymerase II. In general, different forms of viral RNA exist, which can act as viral small RNA (sRNA) precursors. Such precursors comprise double-stranded viral replicative intermediate RNAs (vRI-dsRNAs) of RNA viruses, as well as highly structured hairpin regions in viral ssRNA, and also mRNA of RNA and DNA viruses after processing into viral sRNAs. All small RNAs have a typical terminal region containing a 5’-phosphate group and two-nucleotide overhang at the 3’ end and they participate in sequence-specific RNA degradation, translation, inhibition and/or heterochromatin formation.
RNA III ribonucleases are large multi-domain proteins which contain six types of domains: DEAD box (a conserved box in protein family of RNA helicases involved in ATPase activity), helicase C, DUF 283 (a conserved domain of unidentified function), PAZ (Piwi/Argonaute/Zwille), RNase III domain, and dsRBD (a conserved double stranded RNA binding domain) [128]. The PAZ, RNase III, and dsRBD domains participate in dsRNA binding and cleavage [129]. DCLs are essential elements in triggering antiviral response as they convert viral nucleic acids into siRNAs. Different classes of DCLs were described, like class I RNases, which have been identified in bacteria and yeast where they participate in the processing of cellular and viral RNA or classes 2 and 3, which play a key role in biogenesis of miRNA and/or siRNA in fungi, plants, invertebrate, and vertebrate. Additionally, the majority of class 3 Dicer RNases contain an N-terminal RNA helicase domain, which is closely related to RIG-like receptors (RLRs) and a PAZ domain, shared between Dicer and AGO proteins. The PAZ domain functions as RNA-binding domain which selectively recognizes the 2-nucleotide 3’-overhang of the siRNA duplex [130]. DCLs are ubiquitous in plants but their expression depends on various developmental stages as well as on biotic and abiotic stresses. Different DCLs participate in various ways in the biogenesis of distinct classes of endogenous small RNAs and in immunity [125]. As an example, four different DCLs have been identified in A. thaliana [51]. DCL1 from A. thaliana mainly participates in the production of miRNAs triggered by biotic and abiotic stresses. DCL2 produces siRNAs from natural cis-acting antisense transcripts and participates in viral resistance. DCL3 generates 24-nucleotide long repeat-associated siRNAs (rasiRNAs) that guide chromatin modification. DCL4 produces 21-nucleotide long siRNAs which act during post-transcriptional silencing [127]. Generally, plants attacked by DNA viruses of family Caulimoviridae and Geminiviridae generate 21, 22, and 24-nucleotide long virus-derived small interfering RNAs (vsiRNAs) which are produced by all four DCLs (DCL1, 2, 3, 4), while plants infected by RNA viruses accumulate vsiRNAs produced only by DCL4 and DCL2 [12]. DCL4 and DCL2 together with DCL4 were found to exert antiviral activity against various viruses infecting A. thaliana including PVX, TuMV, BMV, and TCV [30,33,34,51]. In Nicotiana benthamiana mutant plants DCL4 was shown to function against PVX [51].

5.2. RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerases

Apart from DCLs, siRNA synthesis in plants is additionally performed by RDRs. RDRs were the first RNA silencing elements to be discovered. They contain a conserved RNA-dependent RNA polymerase catalytic domain. RDRs were identified in RNA viruses, plants, fungi, Protista, in some animals but are absent in Drosophila, mice, and humans [131,132]. In plants, endogenous RDRs convert ssRNA into dsRNA, which is processed by Dicer-like nucleases into siRNA. RDRs can synthesize siRNA-producing dsRNA in a primer independent or primer dependent manner using a small RNA as a primer. These enzymes participate in siRNA biogenesis, in the production of vsiRNA, and in innate antiviral defense. In the genome of A. thaliana six RDR genes encoding six RDR proteins were identified. RDR1 is involved in the production of viral siRNAs from positive-strand RNA viruses, RDR2 participates in the synthesis of the DCL3-dependent 24-nucleotide rasiRNA and plays a role in sequence-specific heterochromatic silencing. RDR6 is responsible for the production of many classes of siRNAs such as these derived from transgene transcript [132,133,134]. Mainly RDR1 and RDR6 from A. thaliana were reported to have antiviral properties in vivo towards different plant viruses including TuMV, TCV, and BMV [30,34,54]. In another study transgenic tobacco (N. tabacum) plants with reduced numbers of RDR1 transcripts had highly increased levels of PVY and consequently were more susceptible to PVY infection [64]. Recently, the study comparing laboratory isolate, transgenic line, and five wild strains of N. benthamiana concluded that the plant antiviral defense was compromised by its early vigor, which originated from a mutation in RDR1 rendering it inactive. It was found that laboratory strain and one wild accession from South Australia contain a 72 nucleotide insertion in their RDR1 gene which provides survival advantage by enhancing plant early vigor. This mutation however, results in an impaired antiviral defense reflected in higher susceptibility to different families of viruses including Potyviridae, Bromoviridae, Virgaviridae, and Geminiviridae. These results confirm the vital role of RDR1 in antiviral defense [55].

5.3. Argonautes

siRNAs are incorporated into AGOs, which are a part of RISCs, to form the molecular platform for RNA silencing machinery. They play a vital role in plant defense mechanisms via post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) or transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) of pathogen and host genes. AGO proteins are critically important for antiviral defense against RNA and some DNA viruses. AGOs encompass a large family of proteins varying among plants in number: from 4 in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to 18 in Oryza sativa [135]. A. thaliana genome encodes 10 different AGOs which control the actions of different small RNAs. Several of them were observed to be involved in plant defense against different viruses including CMV, PVX, TuMV, TCV, BCTV and others (Table 1). AGOs consist of four domains: N-terminal domain, PAZ domain, MID domain, and C-terminal (PIWI) domain. It is commonly accepted that the active catalytic site of AGO proteins contains two Asp residues and one His residue (Asp–Asp–His) or three Asp residues (Asp–Asp–Asp). AGO proteins can bind virus-derived siRNA to facilitate base pairing with complementary target RNAs and the target ssRNA may be cleaved or sliced by the RNase H-like activity of AGO in the effector complexes. Therefore, AGO proteins can directly repress viral translation. Furthermore, they can indirectly affect virus replication and translation through regulation of defense genes expression. AGOs can also enhance silencing by the synthesis of cleaved RNA fragments which are substrates for RDRs. The antiviral activity of AGO proteins depends on many factors such as levels of expression, tissue and subcellular localization, AGO interacting partners, sRNA binding preferences [34]. Essential cofactors in RNA silencing reaction are proteins containing Gly-Trp (GW) dipeptides which associate with AGOs [136,137].

6. Conclusions

Plant antiviral defense is controlled by intricate interplay of biochemical, genetic, and cellular factors. In this review we described many different plant defense mechanisms involving proteins. However, it is difficult to describe every single mechanism of such kind thoroughly. We are aware that some other protein-dependent ways of plants to protect themselves against viruses also exist. For instance, antiviral responses could also be connected with RNA surveillance pathways. Nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) is a highly conserved mRNA quality control mechanism, that selectively eliminates aberrant transcripts. NMD recognizes mRNAs which prematurely terminate translation and then directs them for decay. Several viruses generate RNAs with unusual properties that are usually a consequence of their compact genome architecture. For instance, in many viruses several different proteins are encoded within a single polycistronic mRNA molecule. By recognizing viral RNAs and directing them for degradation, NMD neutralizes virus infection and functions as a basic viral restriction mechanism. In one experiment, a genetic screen in A. thaliana discovered that mutations in the UPF1 gene, which is a key NMD effector, enhance plant susceptibility to PVX infection [56]. It was also shown that NMD controls the expression of elements participating in plant defense including PRRs [138].
Another interesting form of plant antiviral strategy is natural recessive resistance which has been recently reviewed in great detail [139,140]. It develops when there is a mutation in a recessive gene encoding an important element for viral replication. Cellular translation initiation factors (eIF) 4E and 4G and their isoforms are examples of recessive viral resistance genes and they have been utilized in different crops against a wide range of plant viruses. Mutations in eIF4E, eIF4G and their isoforms result in loss-of-susceptibility to viruses from family Potyviridae and several other viruses. A. thaliana mutants lacking eIFiso4E, which is an isoform of eIF4E gene, were resistant to Tobacco etch virus (TEV) [141]. Similar eIF4E-dependent recessive resistance to potyviruses has been observed in lettuce, pepper, and wild tomato [142,143,144]. Analogous effect has been observed for other viruses including CMV, TCV in Arabidopsis, Melon necrotic spot virus (MNSV) in melon, Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) in barley, Rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) in rice, etc. [139]. Another protein involved in recessive resistance is Arabidopsis thaliana RNA helicase 8 (AtRH8), which has been shown to interact with viral genome-linked protein (VPg) of potyvirus and to be a key host factor for the virus infection. AtRH8-deficient mutant plants exhibited enhanced resistance to Plum pox virus (PPV) and TuMV with no apparent plant damage [145]. Recessive resistance mechanism relies on mutations in host disease-susceptibility genes what consequently prevents viruses from propagate in plant cells. Proteins participating in plant recessive resistance, when appropriately modified, may be potential candidates for further work on generating plants resistant to potyviruses. Genes involved in this mechanism are considered very promising targets for new antiviral approaches.
It is important to realize that antiviral activity of plant proteins observed with the use of different strategies is not always comparable, because each of these strategies answers different questions. As a good example serve proteins which were purified and then examined in different antiviral assays. It is confirmed that such proteins are antiviral in vitro but whether or not they act in a similar way and have similar properties in their natural state in plants remains unknown. However, in vitro experiments provide some additional insights into the potential application of plant antiviral proteins. On the other hand in vivo methods such as “gene knockout technology” give us clearer views on what the antiviral function of proteins in plants is and help to identify proteins contributing to plant innate or induced antiviral defense. Nonetheless, all types of experiments need to be performed to obtain a better picture of protein function and its possible applications. For example, from practical point of view RIPs can be used to enhance plant defense against viruses and potentially other parasites. In consequence, the use of properly mutated less toxic type 1 RIPs may be less severe to transformed plants, causing less damage. Transgenic plants expressing RIPs have been exploited in agriculture to boost immunity and protect crops from viruses while minimizing the application of potentially dangerous plant protection products [60,146]. When it comes to the expression of potentially toxic proteins in plants cultivated for human consumption, researchers need to take safety issues under consideration. To our best knowledge, to date no article was published concerning the effects of edible transgenic plants expressing RIPs on humans and other animals. However, it is worth noting that the majority of endogenous RIPs are non-toxic to humans when eaten. RIPs are present in a broad range of plant species used for human consumption, such as rice, barley, tomato, maize, pumpkin, asparagus, sugar beet and even in plants which are consumed raw, e.g., spinach [92]. Additionally, thermal, chemical, and mechanical food processing usually denatures proteins in GM crops generating a loss of toxic activity. Obviously, safety assessment needs to be undertaken especially when expressing RIPs which have been reported to be toxic to humans and mammals. Furthermore, in high concentrations even non-toxic RIPs can possibly exert toxic effects. For example, some non-toxic RIPs are naturally expressed at low levels in wild-type plants, but their toxicity may be unintendedly boosted in the course of genetic modification. Another risk which should be taken into account when producing RIPs in edible plants is their allergenic potential. Risk assessment of RIP-expressing edible GM plants should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because their potential detriment to human health is complex and depends on many factors. Scientists working on such cases may follow some science-based guidelines for the toxicological evaluation of proteins introduced into edible crops by means of agricultural biotechnology [147,148]. Similarly, RBPs can be used as antiviral agents against plant RNA viruses. Additionally toxic potential of RIPs have been exploited even in drugs against animal viruses. To make RIPs more cell selective, thus enhancing their activity, RIPs have been conjugated to antibodies, constructing immunotoxins. PAP-based immunotoxins were used in the treatment of AIDS patients and some of them (e.g., TXU (anti-CD7)-PAP) reached clinical trials where they reduced the viral burden in all HIV-1-infected adult patients without any adverse reactions. However, the dose was very low and did not suffice for sustained therapeutic levels [149]. In a dose-intensification study with GLQ223, which is a highly purified form of trichosanthin, elevated levels of CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes were observed in HIV-infected patients. Such effect sustained for at least 4 weeks after the last intravenous administration. The treatment was classified as safe and well tolerated by patients with mild side-effects [150]. The early phase clinical trials show the possible use of trichosanthin and PAP as possible anti-HIV agents. Phase II clinical trial involving HIV-positive patients to assess the efficacy, activity, and safety of GLQ223 have been completed []. Furthermore, the development of trichosanthin-based immunotoxins, such as the one by Wang and colleagues [151], may result in enhanced protein activity and specificity.
RNA silencing-mediated approach to fight virus infections has become a powerful tool in resistant crop production. Transgenization with long hairpin RNA (hpRNA) and with artificial miRNA have been reported to provide resistance against plant RNA viruses [152,153,154]. Thorough understanding of RNA-silencing mechanisms can aid in development of new antiviral systems in plants.
Continued research on plant antiviral proteins will undoubtedly provide novel insights into their mechanisms of action and can potentially facilitate the development of new biotechnological tools to improve general crop yield and quality in agriculture. It is essential to better understand the mechanism of action of antiviral proteins to take advantage of their properties in different areas of life. These proteins may be used to develop transgenic plants that could express antiviral proteins at high levels in the presence of the pathogen, what could possibly enhance plant resistance to virus infections, reducing the loss in crops, and also decreasing the need for pesticide application.


The authors thank Andrzej Pietrzak, a Polish–English translator at Adam Mickiewicz University Press in Poznań, Poland, for valuable linguistic help in the manuscript correction and Jakub Barylski for help with Figure 1 preparation. This work was supported by the National Science Centre Grant No. 2016/21/N/NZ6/00997 and AMU Faculty of Biology Dean’s Grant No. GDWB-04/2016 to Oskar Musidlak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Faculty of Biology, Poland), and by the National Science Centre Grant No. 2011/03/B/NZ9/01335 to Robert Nawrot (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Faculty of Biology, Poland).

Author Contributions

Oskar Musidlak developed the concept of the work, collected available literature and systematized it, prepared the Table 1 and Figure 2 and wrote and corrected the manuscript. Robert Nawrot participated in developing the concept of the work, developed the concept of Figure 1, wrote one section of the manuscript, corrected the manuscript. Anna Goździcka-Józefiak developed the concept of the work, wrote one section of the manuscript, and corrected the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


PRpathogenesis-related proteins
RBPRNA-binding protein
DCLDicer-like protein
RDRRNA-dependent RNA polymerase
sRNAsmall RNA
AGOArgonaute protein
RISCRNA-induced silencing complex
RIPribosome-inactivating protein
AMPantimicrobial peptide
BMVBrome mosaic virus
CaMVCauliflower mosaic virus
PLRVPotato leafroll virus
RDVRice dwarf virus
RSVRice stripe virus
TBSVTomato bushy stunt virus
TCPTomato crinkle virus
ToRSVTomato ringspot virus
TRVTobacco rattle virus
Rresistance protein
Avravirulence protein
LRRleucine-rich repeat
PRRpattern recognition receptor
PAMPpathogen-associated molecular pattern
HRhypersensitive response
SARsystemic acquired resistance
SAsalicylic acid
PAPpokeweed antiviral protein
HSVHuman simplex virus
TMVTobacco mosaic virus
HIVHuman immunodeficiency virus
PVYPotato virus Y
PVXPotato virus X
CMVCucumber mosaic virus
TuMVTurnip mosaic virus
RBDRNA-binding domain
RRMRNA-recognition motif
KHK homology domain
ZnFzinc finger domain
PUFPumilio/FBF domain
PAZPiwi/Argonaute/Zwille domain
APUM5Arabidopsis Pumilio RNA-binding protein 5
PHDPumilio homology domain
AtGRP7Arabidopsis thaliana glycine-rich protein 7
DRB4dsRNA-binding protein 4
TYMVTurnip yellow mosaic virus
TCVTurnip crinkle virus
TLStRNA-like structure
CaLCuVCabbage leaf curl virus
BCTVBeet curly top virus
ToMVTomato mosaic virus
siRNAsmall interfering RNA
rasiRNArepeat-associated siRNA


  1. Jones, J.D.G.; Dangl, J.L. The plant immune system. Nature 2006, 444, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gururani, M.A.; Venkatesh, J.; Upadhyaya, C.P.; Nookaraju, A.; Pandey, S.K.; Park, S.W. Plant disease resistance genes: Current status and future directions. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 78, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Muthamilarasan, M.; Prasad, M. Plant innate immunity: An updated insight into defense mechanism. J. Biosci. 2013, 38, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dodds, P.N.; Rathjen, J.P. Plant immunity: Towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions. Nat. Rev. Gen. 2010, 11, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Wu, L.; Chen, H.; Curtis, C.; Fu, Z.Q. Go in for the kill. Virulence 2014, 5, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cohn, J.; Sessa, G.; Martin, G.B. Innate immunity in plants. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2001, 13, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dangl, J.L.; Jones, J.D. Plant pathogens and integrated defence responses to infection. Nature 2001, 411, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nurnberger, T.; Brunner, F. Innate immunity in plants and animals: Emerging parallels between the recognition of general elicitors and pathogen-associated molecular patterns. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2002, 5, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maleck, K.; Dietrich, R.A. Defense on multiple fronts: How do plants cope with diverse enemies? Trends Plant Sci. 1999, 4, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vlot, A.C.; Klessig, D.F.; Park, S.W. Systemic acquired resistance: The elusive signal(s). Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2008, 11, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Grant, M.; Lamb, C. Systemic immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2006, 9, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zvereva, A.S.; Pooggin, M.M. Silencing and innate immunity in plant defense against viral and non-viral pathogens. Viruses 2012, 4, 2578–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zorzatto, C.; Machado, J.P.; Lopes, K.V.; Nascimento, K.J.; Pereira, W.A.; Brustolini, O.J.; Reis, P.A.; Calil, I.P.; Deguchi, M.; Sachetto-Martins, G.; et al. NIK1-mediated translation suppression functions as a plant antiviral immunity mechanism. Nature 2015, 520, 679–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santos, A.A.; Lopes, K.V.; Apfata, J.A.; Fontes, E.P. NSP-interacting kinase, NIK: A transducer of plant defence signalling. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 3839–3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sels, J.; Mathys, J.; de Coninck, B.M.; Cammue, B.P.; de Bolle, M.F. Plant pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins: A focus on PR peptides. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2008, 46, 941–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jiang, L.; Wu, J.; Fan, S.; Li, W.; Dong, L.; Cheng, Q.; Xu, P.; Zhang, S. Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Pathogenesis-Related Protein Gene (GmPRP) with Induced Expression in Soybean (Glycine max) during Infection with Phytophthora sojae. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Van Loon, L.C.; Van Strien, E.A. The families of pathogenesis-related proteins, their activities, and comparative analysis of PR-1 type proteins. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 1999, 55, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agarwal, P.; Agarwal, P.K. Pathogenesis related-10 proteins are small, structurally similar but with diverse role in stress signaling. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2014, 41, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Edreva, A. Pathogenesis-related proteins: Research progress in the last 15 years. Gen. Appl. Plant Physiol. 2005, 31, 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, J.-J.; Ekramoddoullah, A.K.M. The family 10 of plant pathogenesis-related proteins: Their structure, regulation, and function in response to biotic and abiotic stresses. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2006, 68, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shan, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Guan, F.; Zhou, J.; Zhao, H.; Xia, B.; Feng, X. Purification and characterization of a novel anti-HSV-2 protein with antiproliferative and peroxidase activities from Stellaria media. Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. 2013, 45, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Park, C.J.; Kim, K.J.; Shin, R.; Park, J.M.; Shin, Y.C.; Paek, K.H. Pathogenesis-related protein 10 isolated from hot pepper functions as a ribonuclease in an antiviral pathway. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2004, 37, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sindelarova, M.; Sindelar, L. Isolation of Pathogenesis-Related Proteins from TMV-Infected Tobacco and their Influence on Infectivity of TMV. Plant Prot. Sci. 2005, 41, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nawrot, R.; Barylski, J.; Nowicki, G.; Broniarczyk, J.; Buchwald, W.; Gozdzicka-Jozefiak, A. Plant antimicrobial peptides. Folia Microbiol. 2014, 59, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ng, T.B.; Cheung, R.C.; Wong, J.H.; Ye, X.J. Antimicrobial activity of defensins and defensin-like peptides with special emphasis on those from fungi and invertebrate animals. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2013, 14, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rivas, L.; Luque-Ortega, J.R.; Fernández-Reyes, M.; Andreu, D. Membrane-active peptides as anti-infectious agents. J. Appl. Biomed. 2010, 8, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yount, N.Y.; Yeaman, M.R. Peptide antimicrobials: Cell wall as a bacterial target. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1277, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Henriques, S.T.; Huang, Y.H.; Rosengren, K.J.; Franquelim, H.G.; Carvalho, F.A.; Johnson, A.; Sonza, S.; Tachedjian, G.; Castanho, M.A.; Daly, N.L.; et al. Decoding the membrane activity of the cyclotide kalata B1: The importance of phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipids and lipid organization on hemolytic and anti-HIV activities. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 24231–24241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wong, J.H.; Ng, T.B. Limenin, a defensin-like peptide with multiple exploitable activities from shelf beans. J. Pept. Sci. 2006, 12, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dzianott, A.; Sztuba-Solinska, J.; Bujarski, J.J. Mutations in the antiviral RNAi defense pathway modify Brome mosaic virus RNA recombinant profiles. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Morel, J.-B.; Godon, C.; Mourrain, P.; Béclin, C.; Boutet, S.; Feuerbach, F.; Proux, F.; Vaucheret, H. Fertile Hypomorphic ARGONAUTE (ago1) Mutants Impaired in Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing and Virus Resistance. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wang, X.B.; Jovel, J.; Udomporn, P.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Q.; Li, W.X.; Gasciolli, V.; Vaucheret, H.; Ding, S.W. The 21-nucleotide, but not 22-nucleotide, viral secondary small interfering RNAs direct potent antiviral defense by two cooperative argonautes in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 1625–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Qu, F.; Ye, X.; Morris, T.J. Arabidopsis DRB4, AGO1, AGO7, and RDR6 participate in a DCL4-initiated antiviral RNA silencing pathway negatively regulated by DCL1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 14732–14737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Garcia-Ruiz, H.; Takeda, A.; Chapman, E.J.; Sullivan, C.M.; Fahlgren, N.; Brempelis, K.J.; Carrington, J.C. Correction. Arabidopsis RNA-dependent RNA polymerases and dicer-like proteins in antiviral defense and small interfering RNA biogenesis during Turnip mosaic virus infection. Plant Cell 2015, 27, 944–945. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Ghoshal, B.; Sanfacon, H. Temperature-dependent symptom recovery in Nicotiana benthamiana plants infected with tomato ringspot virus is associated with reduced translation of viral RNA2 and requires ARGONAUTE 1. Virology 2014, 456–457, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wu, J.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Ye, R.; Ji, Y.; Zhao, S.; Ji, S.; Liu, R.; Xu, L.; et al. Viral-inducible Argonaute18 confers broad-spectrum virus resistance in rice by sequestering a host microRNA. eLife 2015, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Harvey, J.J.; Lewsey, M.G.; Patel, K.; Westwood, J.; Heimstadt, S.; Carr, J.P.; Baulcombe, D.C. An antiviral defense role of AGO2 in plants. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e14639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Singh, J.; Li, D.; Qu, F. Temperature-dependent survival of Turnip crinkle virus-infected arabidopsis plants relies on an RNA silencing-based defense that requires dcl2, AGO2, and HEN1. J. Virol. 2012, 86, 6847–6854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Jaubert, M.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Mello, A.F.S.; Perry, K.L.; Moffett, P. ARGONAUTE2 Mediates RNA-Silencing Antiviral Defenses against Potato virus X in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 1556–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Ma, X.; Nicole, M.C.; Meteignier, L.V.; Hong, N.; Wang, G.; Moffett, P. Different roles for RNA silencing and RNA processing components in virus recovery and virus-induced gene silencing in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 919–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Carbonell, A.; Fahlgren, N.; Garcia-Ruiz, H.; Gilbert, K.B.; Montgomery, T.A.; Nguyen, T.; Cuperus, J.T.; Carrington, J.C. Functional analysis of three Arabidopsis ARGONAUTES using slicer-defective mutants. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 3613–3629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Garcia-Ruiz, H.; Carbonell, A.; Hoyer, J.S.; Fahlgren, N.; Gilbert, K.B.; Takeda, A.; Giampetruzzi, A.; Garcia Ruiz, M.T.; McGinn, M.G.; Lowery, N.; et al. Roles and programming of Arabidopsis Argonaute proteins during Turnip mosaic virus infection. PLoS Pathog. 2015, 11, e1004755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Scholthof, H.B.; Alvarado, V.Y.; Vega-Arreguin, J.C.; Ciomperlik, J.; Odokonyero, D.; Brosseau, C.; Jaubert, M.; Zamora, A.; Moffett, P. Identification of an ARGONAUTE for Antiviral RNA Silencing in Nicotiana benthamiana. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 1548–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Raja, P.; Sanville, B.C.; Buchmann, R.C.; Bisaro, D.M. Viral genome methylation as an epigenetic defense against geminiviruses. J. Virol. 2008, 82, 8997–9007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Raja, P.; Jackel, J.N.; Li, S.; Heard, I.M.; Bisaro, D.M. Arabidopsis double-stranded RNA binding protein DRB3 participates in methylation-mediated defense against geminiviruses. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 2611–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hamera, S.; Song, X.; Su, L.; Chen, X.; Fang, R. Cucumber mosaic virus suppressor 2b binds to AGO4-related small RNAs and impairs AGO4 activities. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2012, 69, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hamera, S.; Yan, Y.; Song, X.; Chaudhary, S.U.; Murtaza, I.; Su, L.; Tariq, M.; Chen, X.; Fang, R. Expression of Cucumber mosaic virus suppressor 2b alters FWA methylation and its siRNA accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biol. Open 2016, 5, 1727–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Bhattacharjee, S.; Zamora, A.; Azhar, M.T.; Sacco, M.A.; Lambert, L.H.; Moffett, P. Virus resistance induced by NB-LRR proteins involves Argonaute4-dependent translational control. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2009, 58, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Brosseau, C.; Moffett, P. Functional and Genetic Analysis Identify a Role for Arabidopsis ARGONAUTE5 in Antiviral RNA Silencing. Plant Cell 2015, 27, 1742–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fujisaki, K.; Ishikawa, M. Identification of an Arabidopsis thaliana protein that binds to tomato mosaic virus genomic RNA and inhibits its multiplication. Virology 2008, 380, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Andika, I.B.; Maruyama, K.; Sun, L.; Kondo, H.; Tamada, T.; Suzuki, N. Different Dicer-like protein components required for intracellular and systemic antiviral silencing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015, 10, e1039214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Fukudome, A.; Kanaya, A.; Egami, M.; Nakazawa, Y.; Hiraguri, A.; Moriyama, H.; Fukuhara, T. Specific requirement of DRB4, a dsRNA-binding protein, for the in vitro dsRNA-cleaving activity of Arabidopsis Dicer-like 4. RNA 2011, 17, 750–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jakubiec, A.; Yang, S.W.; Chua, N.H. Arabidopsis DRB4 protein in antiviral defense against Turnip yellow mosaic virus infection. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2012, 69, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhu, S.; Jeong, R.-D.; Lim, G.-H.; Yu, K.; Wang, C.; Chandra-Shekara, A.C.; Navarre, D.; Klessig, D.F.; Kachroo, A.; Kachroo, P. Double-Stranded RNA-Binding Protein 4 Is Required for Resistance Signaling against Viral and Bacterial Pathogens. Cell Rep. 2013, 4, 1168–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bally, J.; Nakasugi, K.; Jia, F.; Jung, H.; Ho, S.Y.; Wong, M.; Paul, C.M.; Naim, F.; Wood, C.C.; Crowhurst, R.N.; et al. The extremophile Nicotiana benthamiana has traded viral defence for early vigour. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Garcia, D.; Garcia, S.; Voinnet, O. Nonsense-Mediated Decay Serves as a General Viral Restriction Mechanism in Plants. Cell Host Microbe 2014, 16, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Takeda, A.; Iwasaki, S.; Watanabe, T.; Utsumi, M.; Watanabe, Y. The mechanism selecting the guide strand from small RNA duplexes is different among Argonaute proteins. Plant Cell Physiol. 2008, 49, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Huh, S.U.; Paek, K.H. Plant RNA binding proteins for control of RNA virus infection. Front. Physiol. 2013, 4, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lee, H.J.; Kim, J.S.; Yoo, S.J.; Kang, E.Y.; Han, S.H.; Yang, K.Y.; Kim, Y.C.; McSpadden Gardener, B.; Kang, H. Different roles of glycine-rich RNA-binding protein7 in plant defense against Pectobacterium carotovorum, Botrytis cinerea, and tobacco mosaic viruses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 60, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lodge, J.K.; Kaniewski, W.K.; Tumer, N.E. Broad-spectrum virus resistance in transgenic plants expressing pokeweed antiviral protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90, 7089–7093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wang, P.; Zoubenko, O.; Tumer, N.E. Reduced toxicity and broad spectrum resistance to viral and fungal infection in transgenic plants expressing pokeweed antiviral protein II. Plant Mol. Biol. 1998, 38, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Tumer, N.E.; Hwang, D.J.; Bonness, M. C-terminal deletion mutant of pokeweed antiviral protein inhibits viral infection but does not depurinate host ribosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 3866–3871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Moon, Y.H.; Song, S.K.; Choi, K.W.; Lee, J.S. Expression of a cDNA encoding Phytolacca insularis antiviral protein confers virus resistance on transgenic potato plants. Mol. Cells 1997, 7, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Rakhshandehroo, F.; Takeshita, M.; Squires, J.; Palukaitis, P. The influence of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 on potato virus Y infection and on other antiviral response genes. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 1312–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lam, Y.-H.; Wong, Y.-S.; Wang, B.; Wong, R.N.S.; Yeung, H.-W.; Shaw, P.-C. Use of trichosanthin to reduce infection by turnip mosaic virus. Plant Sci. 1996, 114, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gustafson, K.R.; Sowder, R.C.; Henderson, L.E.; Parsons, I.C.; Kashman, Y.; Cardellina, J.H.; McMahon, J.B.; Buckheit, R.W.; Pannell, L.K.; Boyd, M.R. Circulins A and B. Novel human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-inhibitory macrocyclic peptides from the tropical tree Chassalia parvifolia. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 9337–9338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Daly, N.L.; Clark, R.J.; Plan, M.R.; Craik, D.J. Kalata B8, a novel antiviral circular protein, exhibits conformational flexibility in the cystine knot motif. Biochem. J. 2006, 393, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wong, J.H.; Ng, T.B. Lunatusin, a trypsin-stable antimicrobial peptide from lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus L.). Peptides 2005, 26, 2086–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ngai, P.H.K.; Ng, T.B. Phaseococcin, an antifungal protein with antiproliferative and anti-HIV-1 reverse transcriptase activities from small scarlet runner beans. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2005, 83, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wong, J.H.; Ng, T.B. Sesquin, a potent defensin-like antimicrobial peptide from ground beans with inhibitory activities toward tumor cells and HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Peptides 2005, 26, 1120–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Lin, P.; Wong, J.H.; Ng, T.B. A defensin with highly potent antipathogenic activities from the seeds of purple pole bean. Biosci. Rep. 2010, 30, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Stirpe, F. Ribosome-inactivating proteins: From toxins to useful proteins. Toxicon 2013, 67, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Peumans, W.J.; Hao, Q.; Van Damme, E.J. Ribosome-inactivating proteins from plants: More than RNA N-glycosidases? FASEB J. 2001, 15, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Choudhary, N.L.; Yadav, O.P.; Lodha, M.L. Ribonuclease, deoxyribonuclease, and antiviral activity of Escherichia coli-expressed Bougainvillea xbuttiana antiviral protein 1. Biochem. Biokhimiia 2008, 73, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. He, W.J.; Liu, W.Y. Both N- and C-terminal regions are essential for cinnamomin A-chain to deadenylate ribosomal RNA and supercoiled double-stranded DNA. Biochem. J. 2004, 377, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Iglesias, R.; Citores, L.; Di Maro, A.; Ferreras, J.M. Biological activities of the antiviral protein BE27 from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Planta 2015, 241, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Knight, B. Ricin—A potent homicidal poison. Br. Med. J. 1979, 1, 350–351. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  78. Nielsen, K.; Boston, R.S. Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins: A Plant Perspective. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 52, 785–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Olsnes, S.; Pihl, A. Isolation and properties of abrin: A toxic protein inhibiting protein synthesis. Evidence for different biological functions of its two constituent-peptide chains. Eur. J. Biochem. FEBS 1973, 35, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bolognesi, A.; Bortolotti, M.; Maiello, S.; Battelli, M.G.; Polito, L. Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins from Plants: A Historical Overview. Molecules 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Irvin, J.D. Pokeweed antiviral protein. Pharmacol. Ther. 1983, 21, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chuethong, J.; Oda, K.; Sakurai, H.; Saiki, I.; Leelamanit, W. Cochinin B, a novel ribosome-inactivating protein from the seeds of Momordica cochinchinensis. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2007, 30, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lee-Huang, S.; Huang, P.L.; Nara, P.L.; Chen, H.C.; Kung, H.F.; Huang, P.; Huang, H.I.; Huang, P.L. MAP 30: A new inhibitor of HIV-1 infection and replication. FEBS Lett. 1990, 272, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lee-Huang, S.; Kung, H.F.; Huang, P.L.; Huang, P.L.; Li, B.Q.; Huang, P.; Huang, H.I.; Chen, H.C. A new class of anti-HIV agents: GAP31, DAPs 30 and 32. FEBS Lett. 1991, 291, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stirpe, F.; Gasperi-Campani, A.; Barbieri, L.; Falasca, A.; Abbondanza, A.; Stevens, W.A. Ribosome-inactivating proteins from the seeds of Saponaria officinalis L. (soapwort), of Agrostemma githago L. (corn cockle) and of Asparagus officinalis L. (asparagus), and from the latex of Hura crepitans L. (sandbox tree). Biochem. J. 1983, 216, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Girbes, T.; de Torre, C.; Iglesias, R.; Miguel Ferreras, J.; Mendez, E. RIP for viruses. Nature 1996, 379, 777–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Iglesias, R.; Perez, Y.; Citores, L.; Ferreras, J.M.; Mendez, E.; Girbes, T. Elicitor-dependent expression of the ribosome-inactivating protein beetin is developmentally regulated. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1215–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Reinbothe, S.; Mollenhauer, B.; Reinbothe, C. JIPs and RIPs: The regulation of plant gene expression by jasmonates in response to environmental cues and pathogens. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 1197–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Rippmann, J.F.; Michalowski, C.B.; Nelson, D.E.; Bohnert, H.J. Induction of a ribosome-inactivating protein upon environmental stress. Plant Mol. Biol. 1997, 35, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Song, S.K.; Choi, Y.; Moon, Y.H.; Kim, S.G.; Choi, Y.D.; Lee, J.S. Systemic induction of a Phytolacca insularis antiviral protein gene by mechanical wounding, jasmonic acid, and abscisic acid. Plant Mol. Biol. 2000, 43, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Tartarini, A.; Pittaluga, E.; Marcozzi, G.; Testone, G.; Rodrigues-Pousada, R.A.; Giannino, D.; Spano, L. Differential expression of saporin genes upon wounding, ABA treatment and leaf development. Physiol. Plant. 2010, 140, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Barbieri, L.; Polito, L.; Bolognesi, A.; Ciani, M.; Pelosi, E.; Farini, V.; Jha, A.K.; Sharma, N.; Vivanco, J.M.; Chambery, A.; et al. Ribosome-inactivating proteins in edible plants and purification and characterization of a new ribosome-inactivating protein from Cucurbita moschata. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2006, 1760, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Stirpe, F. Ribosome-inactivating proteins. Toxicon 2004, 44, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Girbes, T.; Ferreras, J.M.; Arias, F.J.; Stirpe, F. Description, distribution, activity and phylogenetic relationship of ribosome-inactivating proteins in plants, fungi and bacteria. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2004, 4, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Puri, M.; Kaur, I.; Perugini, M.A.; Gupta, R.C. Ribosome-inactivating proteins: Current status and biomedical applications. Drug Discov. Today 2012, 17, 774–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Stirpe, F.; Battelli, M.G. Ribosome-inactivating proteins: Progress and problems. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2006, 63, 1850–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Van Damme, E.J.M.; Hao, Q.; Chen, Y.; Barre, A.; Vandenbussche, F.; Desmyter, S.; Rougé, P.; Peumans, W.J. Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins: A Family of Plant Proteins That Do More Than Inactivate Ribosomes. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2001, 20, 395–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Walsh, T.A.; Morgan, A.E.; Hey, T.D. Characterization and molecular cloning of a proenzyme form of a ribosome-inactivating protein from maize. Novel mechanism of proenzyme activation by proteolytic removal of a 2.8-kilodalton internal peptide segment. J. Biol. Chem. 1991, 266, 23422–23427. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  99. Chaudhry, B.; Muller-Uri, F.; Cameron-Mills, V.; Gough, S.; Simpson, D.; Skriver, K.; Mundy, J. The barley 60 kDa jasmonate-induced protein (JIP60) is a novel ribosome-inactivating protein. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 1994, 6, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. De Virgilio, M.; Lombardi, A.; Caliandro, R.; Fabbrini, M.S. Ribosome-inactivating proteins: From plant defense to tumor attack. Toxins 2010, 2, 2699–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wiley, R.G.; Lappi, D.A. Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins. In Molecular Neurosurgery with Targeted Toxins, 1st ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2005; p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  102. Stevens, W.A.; Spurdon, C.; Onyon, L.J.; Stirpe, F. Effect of inhibitors of protein synthesis from plants on tobacco mosaic virus infection. Experientia 1981, 37, 257–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Vivanco, J.M.; Tumer, N.E. Translation Inhibition of Capped and Uncapped Viral RNAs Mediated by Ribosome-Inactivating Proteins. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Foa-Tomasi, L.; Campadelli-Fiume, G.; Barbieri, L.; Stirpe, F. Effect of ribosome-inactivating proteins on virus-infected cells. Inhibition of virus multiplication and of protein synthesis. Arch. Virol. 1982, 71, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Aron, G.M.; Irvin, J.D. Inhibition of herpes simplex virus multiplication by the pokeweed antiviral protein. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1980, 17, 1032–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kaur, I.; Puri, M.; Ahmed, Z.; Blanchet, F.P.; Mangeat, B.; Piguet, V. Inhibition of HIV-1 replication by balsamin, a ribosome inactivating protein of Momordica balsamina. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e73780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Dai, W.D.; Bonos, S.; Guo, Z.; Meyer, W.A.; Day, P.R.; Belanger, F.C. Expression of pokeweed antiviral proteins in creeping bentgrass. Plant Cell Rep. 2003, 21, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Barbieri, L.; Valbonesi, P.; Bonora, E.; Gorini, P.; Bolognesi, A.; Stirpe, F. Polynucleotide: Adenosine glycosidase activity of ribosome-inactivating proteins: Effect on DNA, RNA and poly(A). Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 518–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Kumon, K.; Sasaki, J.; Sejima, M.; Takeuchi, Y.; Hayashi, Y. Interactions between tobacco mosaic virus, pokeweed antiviral proteins, and tobacco cell wall. Phytopathology 1990, 80, 636–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Stirpe, F.; Barbieri, L.; Gorini, P.; Valbonesi, P.; Bolognesi, A.; Polito, L. Activities associated with the presence of ribosome-inactivating proteins increase in senescent and stressed leaves. FEBS Lett. 1996, 382, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lunde, B.M.; Moore, C.; Varani, G. RNA-binding proteins: Modular design for efficient function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 8, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Lorkovic, Z.J.; Barta, A. Genome analysis: RNA recognition motif (RRM) and K homology (KH) domain RNA-binding proteins from the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 623–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Kim, J.Y.; Kim, W.Y.; Kwak, K.J.; Oh, S.H.; Han, Y.S.; Kang, H. Zinc finger-containing glycine-rich RNA-binding protein in Oryza sativa has an RNA chaperone activity under cold stress conditions. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Owttrim, G.W. RNA helicases and abiotic stress. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 3220–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Tam, P.P.; Barrette-Ng, I.H.; Simon, D.M.; Tam, M.W.; Ang, A.L.; Muench, D.G. The Puf family of RNA-binding proteins in plants: Phylogeny, structural modeling, activity and subcellular localization. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Song, J.J.; Liu, J.; Tolia, N.H.; Schneiderman, J.; Smith, S.K.; Martienssen, R.A.; Hannon, G.J.; Joshua-Tor, L. The crystal structure of the Argonaute2 PAZ domain reveals an RNA binding motif in RNAi effector complexes. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2003, 10, 1026–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Albà, M.M.; Pagès, M. Plant proteins containing the RNA-recognition motif. Trends Plant Sci. 1998, 3, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ambrosone, A.; Costa, A.; Leone, A.; Grillo, S. Beyond transcription: RNA-binding proteins as emerging regulators of plant response to environmental constraints. Plant Sci. 2012, 182, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Miller, M.A.; Olivas, W.M. Roles of Puf proteins in mRNA degradation and translation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 2011, 2, 471–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Huh, S.U.; Kim, M.J.; Paek, K.H. Arabidopsis Pumilio protein APUM5 suppresses Cucumber mosaic virus infection via direct binding of viral RNAs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 779–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Streitner, C.; Hennig, L.; Korneli, C.; Staiger, D. Global transcript profiling of transgenic plants constitutively overexpressing the RNA-binding protein AtGRP7. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Chen, Z.Y.; Brown, R.L.; Damann, K.E.; Cleveland, T.E. PR10 expression in maize and its effect on host resistance against Aspergillus flavus infection and aflatoxin production. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2010, 11, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Srivastava, S.; Fristensky, B.; Kav, N.N. Constitutive expression of a PR10 protein enhances the germination of Brassica napus under saline conditions. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004, 45, 1320–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Barton, D.A.; Roovers, E.F.; Gouil, Q.; da Fonseca, G.C.; Reis, R.S.; Jackson, C.; Overall, R.L.; Fusaro, A.F.; Waterhouse, P.M. Live Cell Imaging Reveals the Relocation of dsRNA Binding Proteins Upon Viral Infection. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2017, 30, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Aliyari, R.; Ding, S.W. RNA-based viral immunity initiated by the Dicer family of host immune receptors. Immunol. Rev. 2009, 227, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Katiyar-Agarwal, S.; Jin, H. Role of small RNAs in host-microbe interactions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2010, 48, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Vazquez, F.; Hohn, T. Biogenesis and Biological Activity of Secondary siRNAs in Plants. Scientifica 2013, 2013, 783253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Margis, R.; Fusaro, A.F.; Smith, N.A.; Curtin, S.J.; Watson, J.M.; Finnegan, E.J.; Waterhouse, P.M. The evolution and diversification of Dicers in plants. FEBS Lett. 2006, 580, 2442–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Krautz-Peterson, G.; Skelly, P.J. Schistosoma mansoni: The dicer gene and its expression. Exp. Parasitol. 2008, 118, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Gu, S.; Jin, L.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Kay, M.A. Slicing-independent RISC activation requires the argonaute PAZ domain. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, 1536–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Qu, F. Antiviral role of plant-encoded RNA-dependent RNA polymerases revisited with deep sequencing of small interfering RNAs of virus origin. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2010, 23, 1248–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Willmann, M.R.; Endres, M.W.; Cook, R.T.; Gregory, B.D. The Functions of RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerases in Arabidopsis. Arabidopsis Book Am. Soc. Plant Biol. 2011, 9, e0146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Aregger, M.; Borah, B.K.; Seguin, J.; Rajeswaran, R.; Gubaeva, E.G.; Zvereva, A.S.; Windels, D.; Vazquez, F.; Blevins, T.; Farinelli, L.; et al. Primary and secondary siRNAs in geminivirus-induced gene silencing. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Jiang, L.; Qian, D.; Zheng, H.; Meng, L.Y.; Chen, J.; Le, W.J.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, Y.J.; Wei, C.H.; Li, Y. RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 6 of rice (Oryza sativa) plays role in host defense against negative-strand RNA virus, Rice stripe virus. Virus Res. 2012, 163, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Singh, R.K.; Pandey, S.P. Evolution of structural and functional diversification among plant Argonautes. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015, 10, e1069455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. El-Shami, M.; Pontier, D.; Lahmy, S.; Braun, L.; Picart, C.; Vega, D.; Hakimi, M.A.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Cooke, R.; Lagrange, T. Reiterated WG/GW motifs form functionally and evolutionarily conserved ARGONAUTE-binding platforms in RNAi-related components. Genes Dev. 2007, 21, 2539–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Till, S.; Ladurner, A.G. RNA Pol IV plays catch with Argonaute 4. Cell 2007, 131, 643–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Rigby, R.E.; Rehwinkel, J. RNA degradation in antiviral immunity and autoimmunity. Trends Immunol. 2015, 36, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Sanfacon, H. Plant Translation Factors and Virus Resistance. Viruses 2015, 7, 3392–3419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Hashimoto, M.; Neriya, Y.; Yamaji, Y.; Namba, S. Recessive Resistance to Plant Viruses: Potential Resistance Genes Beyond Translation Initiation Factors. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Lellis, A.D.; Kasschau, K.D.; Whitham, S.A.; Carrington, J.C. Loss-of-susceptibility mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana reveal an essential role for eIF(iso)4E during potyvirus infection. Curr. Biol. 2002, 12, 1046–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Nicaise, V.; German-Retana, S.; Sanjuan, R.; Dubrana, M.P.; Mazier, M.; Maisonneuve, B.; Candresse, T.; Caranta, C.; LeGall, O. The eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E controls lettuce susceptibility to the Potyvirus Lettuce mosaic virus. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Ruffel, S.; Gallois, J.L.; Lesage, M.L.; Caranta, C. The recessive potyvirus resistance gene pot-1 is the tomato orthologue of the pepper pvr2-eIF4E gene. Mol. Gen. Genom. 2005, 274, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Ruffel, S.; Gallois, J.L.; Moury, B.; Robaglia, C.; Palloix, A.; Caranta, C. Simultaneous mutations in translation initiation factors eIF4E and eIF(iso)4E are required to prevent pepper veinal mottle virus infection of pepper. J. Gen. Virol. 2006, 87, 2089–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Huang, T.-S.; Wei, T.; Laliberté, J.-F.; Wang, A. A Host RNA Helicase-Like Protein, AtRH8, Interacts with the Potyviral Genome-Linked Protein, VPg, Associates with the Virus Accumulation Complex, and Is Essential for Infection. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Desmyter, S.; Vandenbussche, F.; Hao, Q.; Proost, P.; Peumans, W.J.; Van Damme, E.J. Type-1 ribosome-inactivating protein from iris bulbs: A useful agronomic tool to engineer virus resistance? Plant Mol. Biol. 2003, 51, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Delaney, B.; Astwood, J.D.; Cunny, H.; Conn, R.E.; Herouet-Guicheney, C.; Macintosh, S.; Meyer, L.S.; Privalle, L.; Gao, Y.; Mattsson, J.; et al. Evaluation of protein safety in the context of agricultural biotechnology. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46 (Suppl. S2), S71–S97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Hammond, B.; Kough, J.; Herouet-Guicheney, C.; Jez, J.M. Toxicological evaluation of proteins introduced into food crops. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2013, 43 (Suppl. S2), 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Uckun, F.M.; Bellomy, K.; O’Neill, K.; Messinger, Y.; Johnson, T.; Chen, C.L. Toxicity, biological activity, and pharmacokinetics of TXU (anti-CD7)-pokeweed antiviral protein in chimpanzees and adult patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1999, 291, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  150. Kahn, J.O.; Gorelick, K.J.; Gatti, G.; Arri, C.J.; Lifson, J.D.; Gambertoglio, J.G.; Bostrom, A.; Williams, R. Safety, activity, and pharmacokinetics of GLQ223 in patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1994, 38, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Wang, Q.C.; Ying, W.B.; Xie, H.; Zhang, Z.C.; Yang, Z.H.; Ling, L.Q. Trichosanthin-monoclonal antibody conjugate specifically cytotoxic to human hepatoma cells in vitro. Cancer Res. 1991, 51, 3353–3355. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  152. Qu, J.; Ye, J.; Fang, R. Artificial microRNA-mediated virus resistance in plants. J. Virol. 2007, 81, 6690–6699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Schwab, R.; Ossowski, S.; Riester, M.; Warthmann, N.; Weigel, D. Highly specific gene silencing by artificial microRNAs in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 1121–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Fusaro, A.F.; Matthew, L.; Smith, N.A.; Curtin, S.J.; Dedic-Hagan, J.; Ellacott, G.A.; Watson, J.M.; Wang, M.-B.; Brosnan, C.; Carroll, B.J.; et al. RNA interference-inducing hairpin RNAs in plants act through the viral defence pathway. EMBO Rep. 2006, 7, 1168–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Schematic depiction of different strategies for studying antiviral protein properties. (a) Gene knockout technology employing loss-of-function mutant plants generated by performing genetic manipulations inactivating appropriate gene of interest (GOI); (b) genetically modified (GM) plants produced by the means of genetic transformation overexpressing particular protein of interest. After several days post-inoculation plants from both section (a,b) were compared with appropriate controls and analyzed using different bioassays (e.g., enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), immunoblotting etc.); (c) isolation of a protein of interest using different fractionation and purification methods (e.g., ammonium sulfate precipitation, cation-exchange chromatography, etc.). Antiviral activity of isolated proteins was then assayed in vitro. In several studies more than one method for investigating protein antiviral activity was performed. The methods shown and described above are simplified for easier understanding of the main concept.
Figure 1. Schematic depiction of different strategies for studying antiviral protein properties. (a) Gene knockout technology employing loss-of-function mutant plants generated by performing genetic manipulations inactivating appropriate gene of interest (GOI); (b) genetically modified (GM) plants produced by the means of genetic transformation overexpressing particular protein of interest. After several days post-inoculation plants from both section (a,b) were compared with appropriate controls and analyzed using different bioassays (e.g., enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), immunoblotting etc.); (c) isolation of a protein of interest using different fractionation and purification methods (e.g., ammonium sulfate precipitation, cation-exchange chromatography, etc.). Antiviral activity of isolated proteins was then assayed in vitro. In several studies more than one method for investigating protein antiviral activity was performed. The methods shown and described above are simplified for easier understanding of the main concept.
Ijms 18 02300 g001aIjms 18 02300 g001b
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the molecular structure of type 1 and type 2 RIPs. Special cases of type 1 RIPs refer to b-32 and JIP60 from maize and barley, respectively [98,99]. b-32 is synthesized in the form of proenzyme which becomes active only after the removal of a short internal peptide segment, leaving two segments of 16.5 and 8.5 kDa. JIP60 contains an active chain similar to classical type 1 RIP, which is linked to another segment of similar size but unknown function. The schematic representation of type 2 RIPs relates to mature ricin.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the molecular structure of type 1 and type 2 RIPs. Special cases of type 1 RIPs refer to b-32 and JIP60 from maize and barley, respectively [98,99]. b-32 is synthesized in the form of proenzyme which becomes active only after the removal of a short internal peptide segment, leaving two segments of 16.5 and 8.5 kDa. JIP60 contains an active chain similar to classical type 1 RIP, which is linked to another segment of similar size but unknown function. The schematic representation of type 2 RIPs relates to mature ricin.
Ijms 18 02300 g002
Table 1. List of plant proteins with antiviral activity confirmed in different sets of experiments.
Table 1. List of plant proteins with antiviral activity confirmed in different sets of experiments.
ProteinFamilySource PlantTarget VirusReference
a. Proteins with antiviral properties observed in experiments involving mutant plants (Figure 1a)
AGO1AGOArabidopsis thalianaBMV[30]
Nicotiana benthamianaToRSV[35]
Oryza sativaRSV[36]
AGO2AGOArabidopsis thalianaTCV[37,38]
Nicotiana benthamianaTBSV[43]
AGO4AGOArabidopsis thalianaBCTV[44,45]
Nicotiana benthamianaPVX[48]
AGO5AGOArabidopsis thalianaPVX[49]
AGO7AGOArabidopsis thalianaTCV[33]
AGO10AGOArabidopsis thalianaTuMV[42]
AGO18AGOOryza sativaRDV, RSV[36]
BTR1RBPArabidopsis thalianaToMV[50]
DCL2 and DCL4 (together)DCLsArabidopsis thalianaPVX[51]
DCL4DCLArabidopsis thalianaPVX[51]
Nicotiana benthamianaPVX[51]
DRB3RBPArabidopsis thalianaCaLCuV, BCTV[45]
DRB4RBPArabidopsis thalianaTYMV[52,53]
RDR1RDRArabidopsis thalianaTuMV[34]
Nicotiana benthamianaTMV[55]
RDR6RDRArabidopsis thalianaTCV[54]
UPF1Helicase Arabidopsis thalianaPVX[56]
b. Proteins with antiviral properties observed in experiments using GM plants (Figure 1b)
AGO2AGOArabidopsis thalianaCMV[57]
AGO5AGOArabidopsis thalianaCMV[57]
APUM5RBPArabidopsis thalianaCMV, TuMV[58]
AtGRP7RBPArabidopsis thalianaTMV[59]
BTR1RBPArabidopsis thalianaToMV[50]
CaPR10PR-10Capsicum annuumTMV[22,58]
NIK1kinaseArabidopsis thalianaCaLCuV [13]
PAPRIPPhytolacca ameriacanaPVY, PVX, CMV[60]
PAP IIRIPPhytolacca americanaTMV, PVX[61]
PAP-CRIPPhytolacca americanaPVX[62]
PIPRIPPhytolacca insularisPVY, PVX, PLRV[63]
PR2aPR-2Nicotiana tabacumTMV[23]
PR3PR-3Nicotiana tabacumTMV[23]
RDR1RDRNicotiana tabacumPVY[64]
TrichosanthinRIPTrichosanthes kirilowiiTuMV[65]
c. Proteins exhibiting antiviral activity in vitro (Figure 1c)
CirAAMPChassalia parvifoliaHIV[66]
CirBAMPChassalia parvifoliaHIV[66]
Kalata B1AMPOldenlandia affinisHIV[28]
Kalata B8AMPOldenlandia affinisHIV[67]
LimeninAMPPhaseolus limensisHIV-1[29]
PhaseococcinAMPPhaseolus coccineus ‘Minor’HIV-1[69]
SesquinAMPVigna sesquipedalis cv.HIV-1[70]
Stellarmedin APR-9Stellaria mediaHSV-2[21]
unnamedAMPPhaseolus vulgaris cv.HIV-1[71]
Table 1 presents antiviral proteins for which antiviral activity was detected using different experimental approaches. Section (a) lists proteins for which antiviral activity was observed in experiments involving mutant plants and gene knockout technology. The gene of interest was inactivated and after virus inoculation the loss-of-function mutant plants were compared with controls. Several studies employing gene silencing are also presented in this section. Section (b) lists antiviral proteins which were analyzed using genetically modified (GM) plants—transgenic plants or plants overexpressing the gene of interest (GOI). Briefly, the GOI from one plant was introduced to the other plant usually using Agrobacterium-mediated infiltration. Such GM plants were compared with controls after virus inoculation. For some proteins experiments on both mutant plants and GM plants were conducted therefore they appear in both sections of the table. Section (c) lists antiviral proteins which were first isolated from plants and afterwards their properties were studied in different in vitro assays. Virus name abbreviations: BCTV—Beet curly top virus, BMV—Brome mosaic virus, CaLCuV—Cabbage leaf curl virus, CaMV—Cauliflower mosaic virus, CMV—Cucumber mosaic virus, HIV—Human immunodeficiency virus, PLRV—Potato leafroll virus, PVX—Potato virus X, PVY—Potato virus Y, RDV—Rice dwarf virus, RSV—Rice stripe virus, TBSV—Tomato bushy stunt virus, TCP—Tomato crinkle virus, TCV—Turnip crinkle virus, TMV—Tobacco mosaic virus, ToMV—Tomato mosaic virus, ToRSV—Tomato ringspot virus, TRV—Tobacco rattle virus, TuMV—Turnip mosaic virus.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Musidlak, O.; Nawrot, R.; Goździcka-Józefiak, A. Which Plant Proteins Are Involved in Antiviral Defense? Review on In Vivo and In Vitro Activities of Selected Plant Proteins against Viruses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2300.

AMA Style

Musidlak O, Nawrot R, Goździcka-Józefiak A. Which Plant Proteins Are Involved in Antiviral Defense? Review on In Vivo and In Vitro Activities of Selected Plant Proteins against Viruses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2017; 18(11):2300.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Musidlak, Oskar, Robert Nawrot, and Anna Goździcka-Józefiak. 2017. "Which Plant Proteins Are Involved in Antiviral Defense? Review on In Vivo and In Vitro Activities of Selected Plant Proteins against Viruses" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18, no. 11: 2300.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop